Alachua County Planning Commission - Mar 11, 2026

the proceedings to order are you you ready yep mr chair um it's your show for the i don't know about that but um ben chumley principal planner with the alachua county growth management department this is a continuation of your february 25th public hearing on the evaluation and appraisal based amendments to the alachua county comprehensive plan i don't have a formal presentation for you tonight however i do uh briefly want to remind the commission about the process and just a very quick recap of what was discussed at the last meeting um at your last meeting i went through a presentation of the proposed amendments to various elements of the plan those amendments are included in your backup documents with the proposed changes shown in strike through an underlined format there was also a summary document of the changes by element that would be included with this batch of amendments and so the requested action by the planning commission is to recommend transmittal of the proposed evaluation and appraisal based comprehensive plan amendments to the state land planning agency for review and comment once the planning commission has taken its action these proposed amendments will be brought to the board of county commissioners for its consideration any recommendations by the planning commission are being documented we have provided a summary up on the dais of the comments that were provided by the planning commission at the last meeting and those plus whatever you discussed tonight will be provided to the county commission as part of their uh as part of their agenda back up when you when they consider these amendments um just a note uh if just last time we talked a little bit about the timeline um if the planning commission's recommendations are uh technical or editorial in nature then staff can most likely go ahead and just include those in the package that goes to the county commission if your recommendations are more uh policy oriented then staff will also highlight those in the package that we give to the board so that they can consider those as part of their deliberations um just really quick to go over the state requirements again um at least once every seven years every local government in the state must evaluate its comprehensive plan to determine if amendments are necessary to reflect the minimum planning period of 10 years and to reflect any changes in statutory requirements local governments are also required to evaluate and if necessary update the plan to reflect changes in local conditions so the county notified the state on march 31st of 2025 that it had reviewed its comprehensive plan and that updates were necessary for consistency with the statutes and per statute the amendments to the plan must be transmitted for state agency review by march 31st of this year we know that we are not going to quite make that deadline but we also want to uh get these uh to the state as as early as as possible um as i mentioned the planning commission did uh provide a few comments on the amendments at the last meeting and i'll just very quickly um go through those uh the first was uh conservation and open space element policy 5.3.7 that's the uh policy on dark sky uh lighting also conservation and open space element policy 2.2.2 there were questions about the language encouraging behavior change regarding county education programs concerning natural resources protection energy element policy 6.1.2 there was discussion about whether the county has ever considered a property assessed clean energy or pace program for commercial solid waste element policy 1.5.2 and energy element policies 7.1 and 7.1 there was comments to consider establishing a alachua county specific goal for recycling for community health element in the goal and objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.9 it was commented that social determinants of health should be defined also in community health policies 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 uh there was a comment that aging in place should be defined and then also under the community health element to consider policies that focus on incentivizing the development of grocery stores to provide fresh and healthy food focusing on underserved areas and there was also a general comment uh for staff to review senate bill 266 from 2023 uh regarding language on environmental justice and equity so in addition to those verbal comments that we received at the last meeting uh commissioner hayes santos uh handed out uh several written comments and those are uh listed here and i think you all have a copy of uh what was passed out at the last meeting um those comments were uh consider eliminating minimum parking requirements for development prohibiting gated communities within the urban cluster uh establishing greater mixed use flexibility density right sizing to support transit reevaluating the uh 10 percent open space requirement for development in the urban cluster and uh considering a policy uh about urban cluster annexation and intergovernmental coordination through the use of excuse me interlocal service boundary agreements um so mr chair that's uh my recap um i'm happy to uh answer questions and uh hear what the commission has to say i'd like to clarify something from the last meeting certainly um a question about encouraging programs it wasn't really tailored to that specific program it was just kind of understanding why the language throughout the comp plan use encourage in in certain areas the answer number two so i was not questioning the education program at all i was just trying to understand um the the teeth behind the word encourage and the reason for using the courage and i said last time to get around sb 180 and what i mean was um to address issues while staying within sb 180 so just want to clarify that for the commission thank you chair i just wanted to um on those items that i brought for last time also included a separate document um that i passed out today that had kind of red lettering in it and i was just able to uh get into the specific uh language and um and kind of sections of those might uh changes be made just to make kind of a little easier and the other document kind of goes into the reasons why i don't know when you want to go through things but i'm happy to walk through those things as well or how our discussion if there's any questions on on those changes that might be easier as well i believe that people would like to talk about it and discuss it and so we ought to take it in some deep depth would you yeah i guess i'm kind of looking to you like do you want to make it more of a detailed presentation sure i i kind of go through it yeah i can if that's uh easier uh thank you chair um the first one is uh on gated communities uh currently gated communities are not allowed in the city of gainesville and this would make a change to really i think not allowing that urban cluster those areas going to be annexed into the city uh the language that is there is is directly i don't know if it's the best language but it's directly taken from the city of gainesville's comp plan so that's where that language comes from um is that for that's for the city and we're just extrapolating it out to the county that's what i would like for us to do i'm sorry are you saying that the the red is actually taken directly from the gainesville uh correct yeah the black text is um if you see an underline that's added text we see a line crossed out that's um uh being removed and that's correct the red text is i took that directly from the well gainesville's comp plan i agree it's not the best not the most well worded uh um language i just wanted to have something to put out there that is at least based on something else yeah it just doesn't make sense shall be prohibited to keep all parts of the key accessible by all citizens i don't know what that means i think it's giving i think i know what it means yeah but that's not what it says so i'm happy to amend really any of these i'll just how that came about was from the city of gainesville's uh comprehensive plan um i have a can i yeah of course yeah i have a problem problem with um having everything exactly absolute and there are areas in the city and the urban cluster that there are no ways to have connections and so there are times that that could be done without it without interfering with interconnectivity and this is just a one size fits all and it doesn't have analysis or criteria for it and i know that interconnection um cuts down traffic um main roads i understand that but some of this doesn't doesn't work and it's to me it's too absolute and it needs whereas it's not about as a good i understand we're going to run out of ability to pay for the roads and and we're going to have to do other connectivity but this is um needs a little bit more finesse and i don't know how to do that without slowing anything down and i'm trying not to do that and so i'm looking for a balance and some suggestions that might be there um mr chair if it's the will of the planning commission to move something like that language forward um you can make that motion and refer it to staff to try to come up with a more um i guess nuanced way of writing that i will say though um as the language up there shows i mean we currently essentially do prohibit gated subdivisions if the roads are public and you can't gate a public street there you you do have the ability to gate a private road i believe um but under the county's uh land development regulations i believe the county has the ability to put um restrictions on that gating like out for the hours of gating uh perhaps to to limit that make sure their the gates are open for um you know during normal excuse me normal daylight hours so if you had a community that was currently gated and it was in the county under this process we would be telling them we would be telling the citizens of that community no i'm probing yeah i'm trying to find out what we're doing and trying to identify it so go go ahead if you have it i would let there's not interpretation but the city gains will they don't get rid of them unless mr chair i mean my interpretation of that policy is that it would apply to new development mr chair yes all i say so not to agree with um commissioner sam the language in this is kind of confusing to me too so i would like to see you know more clear network i could better understand what you're trying to say i would say that i think we don't have to adopt the language as written it's kind of the idea behind it and i'm i'm supportive of it um for a number of reasons beyond connectivity mr chair let me say it again it's unclear to me how it's written so um i think i think um mr santos agreed too maybe it's much clearer and that way you could be on better understanding of what we're really voting for because the language again is confusing to me too and policy one two one point two point one point one one the read yes yes i guess to um i would be i mean something i think more to to your point and i think um to some other members as well um the overall goal in my opinion is to not allow gated communities that's that's the goal however that's written i'm i'm not i'm not set on any language i wrote here i just that that is the goal i wrote down the language just to try to make it a little easier that's okay that's the overall goal your essence would be boiled down to you you're trying to suggest that we not have more gated communities in the urban core correct and i think for a variety of i think there's transportation reasons i think there's um like economic reasons that when you start getting places off you it creates separation between communities i think it's a there's a lot of i think different reasons why and why gated communities were put in in the first place as well so i think it's helpful to remove those from the policy the existing gates would stay in in my opinion that would be my intent of the of it to for the any ones that are currently there or even if they want to change it and if they already have a gate they can have a gate and it would only be but i would be up to the county and how they interpret it but that would be my opinion is um if you have a current gate you can fix it you could change it just not new developments that come through the approval process when they go through approval process they would be able to add a gate i guess a community couldn't add a new gate if they didn't have one do you agree with that i don't know how it could be written mr chair i mean we we can find a way to to perhaps write that better um yeah i think there's probably also some legal issues with um trying to ask existing subdivisions to remove their gates if they have them and i assume am i correcting my assumption that if we if not pause the process but pause on that particular section to rewrite it a little bit better that it would require another meeting mr chair i don't think that would require another meeting um if if you if the planning commission wants to make that motion to include something like this language um we can uh write that and include it in what goes to the county commission mr chair could we clarify the purpose of the meeting tonight and that since that aren't we just um or are we limited to exact um language well this is um very no quick review of the comp plan so are we for example gated residential developments take that idea and put it in refer it further is that work i'm assuming and i'm going to ask legal that under this process we should have the time if we need it to to to modify it so that it makes sense to the members of the you know if we're going to vote on it we should have it work through some no i don't think we have the time to refer to staff and ask staff to bring back exact language and vote on that exact language i think it would be a good idea to stay within we're making a list of ideas to transfer to the county commission for example take it in this specific example um prohibit gated residential development period and um have that in the list of things that we would like to suggest to the county commission to look into and develop mr chair yes um i think i heard steph say that he could look at this and make it fit my understanding right you go yeah i think you already said that mr chair yes we we could do that but i mean i think um we can also do as you're suggesting and just forward to the county commission a list of these um proposed policy ideas uh for their direction um this is not something that necessarily has to move forward in this particular package of amendments um and recognizing that we are on a bit of a tight deadline with this um but it may be something that um we could actually bring back to the planning commission uh at a at a later meeting independent of this process uh for more discussion but we would forward whatever your motion is to the county commission when this goes to them i appreciate it and i understand the so i'm trying to take the uh pulse of everybody yes sir um and my idea i think we have exact wording we agree on it we send it if there's an idea general idea and we agree on it we send that um if we don't have agreement then we don't send that i don't think like for this one i think if there is general consensus that or there's a majority yes it says we don't want to have communities we just tell that to the county commission and then have staff they can draft language to that effect to bring to the county commission whenever they i think that we would have to give the staff the better direction to or if this is can this work um given some of the writing uh mr chair one um other issue i just thought of too um if we were to include language like this it would likely fall under senate bill 180 as being more restrictive or burdensome so it would likely get kicked back to us right now under the current senate bill 180 environment so it may be preferable to hold it until senate bill 180 resolves itself however that may happen mr chair yes um i think it's important to keep in mind tonight that what we're here asking the planning commission to do is to make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners on amendments related to our evaluation and appraisal you're not limited to only making those suggestions that staff has brought for you tonight i think especially to the extent that you have a specific implementation something that we can put into policy and can be clearly and concisely worded in emotion that staff is willing to take those and work them into whatever we bring to the board with an indication that this is the planning commission's recommendation um that that's our that's our small group probably i think there is also the opportunity here for the planning commission to ask um staff and and the board to consider these additional planning areas some of the things that are um suggested in comments from the planning commission may require or implicate more things than a simple um policy solution in other words it may look like you could just change the words of one policy but there may be further reaching implications to those and so i i think for some other things it may be best if the planning commission can um uh enumerate what those sort of additional planning considerations might be that can potentially work out as direction from the board to staff as follow-on kinds of amendments so i think there are those two categories or three really there's the bulk of the recommendations that staff has brought in the backup documents for you the backup amendments for you there's any of those sort of more concrete and specific finite if you will um policy suggestions that can be um sort of quantified in a simple motion and then there may be um additional areas that are maybe less concrete or require more analysis that the planning commission would like the board to consider not necessarily for adoption with the evaluation and appraisal amendments but as follow-on amendments during the rest of the during other times i think we could do something with the two at the same time this goes forward to send a message to the commission that we are looking we were working on this we're having discussions and we are working at trying to make it more refined and that may not be the right word but something to to not to stop it but to see if we can make it good enough to to to fit uh mr chair going back to my point at the beginning yes um with sb 180 language could be modified where it's not outright prohibited but something in the uldc could move the direction of not gated community so if this is just the central idea that i want to encourage um there might be ways to do that through the development approval process or something like that so i think we should still keep the idea of restricting gated communities but because of sb 180 not put it in the cop plan exactly as written so i don't think we should limit ourselves to this won't be allowed by sb 180 because we can um maybe with that central idea so i can evaluate it and figure out other ways to implement it or to to move away from one thing or move toward another okay so do we have a motion internally that we would want to gel on so that we can deal with this and move on chair i think it might be better if we have just which ones we can have a long motion that has all of them maybe that might be easier and then that's okay i mean if there's consensus on and then we get it's on gated communities and having a recommendation to the county mission to look at not allowing that is that a consensus with the i am not perfectly on board okay but i am generally on board to what you're trying to do and this all fits into what the other transportation and the and the to me it's it's still a working process but i for sure would want to not stop it but to see if we can make it to where it works does that make sense yeah yeah okay and so from legal or would you you know what do we want to do what would you suggest the vessel be and how to do it well i don't think we have to do that tonight okay i want to hear i thought we needed to do it tonight because we're already are we talking about this one policy this is one policy oh we don't so mr chair i'm i'm not certain if i understand the extent of the question but i think um that's why i'm asking you what at the very least you're going to need a motion um to to recommend amendments the the evaluation and appraisal based recommendation or amendments to the board as i said i think if you have very specific policy recommendations that kind of fit within what's already been proposed by staff that you can make those suggestions in that same motion so you know it could be consider amendments you know transmit the amendments and consider strengthening uh policies related to gated communities in policy 1.2.111 and whatever additional ones fall into that category and then i think the planning commission can can consider a second motion um that includes some of those other i'm going to just call them broader sort of planning areas where there might be additional analysis that aren't necessarily already included within the evaluation and appraisal um packet that's provided i'm not sure i got the first part of that sure i'm not trying to make you do that no that's okay so so staff is provided in the backup um a list of proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan yes um those are considered our evaluation and appraisal amendments right so i think where a planning commissioner has a specific proposal that the entire planning commission can get behind a specific proposal on one of those policies that proposing to transmit those to the board with these specific changes is appropriate and then where there are additional areas that the planning commission would want the board to consider action that those could be considered in a second motion i have something i'm going to ask first i think i agree with the yeah you want to do a motion i think we maybe at the very end of my question my question is does if we if we take that path does that does that mean that there will be no more gated communities even if they are going into dead ends i mean this is this would be our recommendation to the county commission they can add it or not add it based on what they want to do and how they really want to implement it um mr chair i mean if you did make that recommendation we would then have to draft that bring it back to you as a separate amendment to the comprehensive plan for your consideration um separately from the evaluation and appraisal based amendments if i had my druthers and i you know where i'm going i'm going to get out voted so it's okay but it's um there are some things there are some matters to be thought through that i'm not ready to go yes on but i'm not trying to stop what i'm trying to do is i'm trying to get better and better is good but within the system we don't have that time so you know is there um something to be said that we i mean we're close in what we're doing and where my thinking is and the others and it may just take another 10 minutes of conversation to be done but i'm trying not though i'm not trying to make this an all-nighter yeah mr chair i don't think we're trying to limit the planning commission's discussion on these items especially to the point where where you get to something that you can all agree on in a motion i think um that that's healthy conversation for the planning commission to have i think what we're just suggesting is that we we won't necessarily be able to explicitly wordsmith every policy that's in you know our our amendments tonight so i think the board needs to kind of or the commission needs to kind of focus on where those specific implementation items are that we can sort of drop in on where you guys can can get that specificity down for us that we can take it to the commission in language or or not as the case may be or or with um you know potential changes but also that there are those items where there where we there may not be agreement from the board on what the specific outcome is but there's an area that we want to investigate if that makes sense i want to i want to investigate that area i mean that's that's a great thing to do okay the exact particulars of that um and when we transmit it we won't be driving that bus we will be you know i think unless it comes back unless we ask it to come back to us for further or admit then that probably screws up the transmission so you we're going to be sending it you know on to other people just this one's that's we can't do it i i've written one commission or commission about board every 180 so i mean i think this is one that's more of a general one we don't have to work spent because we can't pass it we can't restrict them right now because that's be 180. what we're really what we're really saying is that this is an area that we have lots of interest in there's lots of common ground and it needs to be worked out that's the essence of it so what do you do with that uh mr chair we we have that it's noted we're documenting that i mean we we would like the planning commission to make that motion um and and agree on it and uh we will start looking into the how we would do that as part of the comprehensive plan would somebody like to make that motion sure i'll move that we um request that as a part of our recommendation that we send uh to the county commission that they look into um finding ways to disincentivize uh gated residential developments second discussion we got enough we're ready all in favor aye aye all opposed aye two two well there's mr chair there's five of you so you can't be two two that's why i have not voted yet okay but i i need to be this is tough because this is something that i'm not all together on the same board but i want but it should be it should be investigated and from my viewpoint rather than killing it i'd table it but that doesn't do very much good either so mr chair again this is where i was suggesting that there there may be a group of um areas policy areas that um maybe a majority of the planning commissioners agree that there's some value in going down the road of looking at it even if we don't know specifically what it is um and those amendments we would bring back those would likely come back to the planning commission they're probably not things that we're gonna hack out the policy language of in the next few weeks to get to the the board of county commissioners so where you have that opportunity maybe it's appropriate to sort of identify those areas that you want to have come back to you in specific policy language and staff can certainly take a look at at going down that route so i i think the the main thing mr chair and i i mean i think where we have again we have a packet of of our evaluation and appraisal based amendments if there are specific changes to those things that are in that packet that we can implement easily those are the kinds of recommendations we'd want in one motion and then maybe even just a list of these sort of additional policy areas that the planning commission is interested in having more discussion um where staff has the opportunity to provide some additional language and background i ask that we pull the commission on the motion miss vincent your vote um we already voted um i'm doing roll call yeah i know but i mean we don't yeah so i'm just clarifying we've already voted for this but for saying what our individual vote was the reason the reason i did what i did was on purpose not it was 2-2 to leave it alone and to because we're voting on something that is not necessarily ready to be voted yeah um and i think it's unfair to the i to the makers of the motion and that's kind of where i was if i had to vote for it i'd vote no but i want to i was trying to keep it keep it alive and that's why i did not vote so mr chair just um so yeah we can vote it down and if there's consensus to the to the um staff's recommendation there's a list of ones that we want to discuss further um we can add that to that list so i i don't don't feel bad about voting no we can keep moving and going and and then there's ones where there's not full consensus we can just add that to the list to come back i am i'm going to vote no and then i'm going but i'm still open to the discussion that's fine that's what that's why i feel okay so we're good we just we just voted it down but we're going to continue to work on it okay mr chair if i may i would like to see something uh as in three the staff comes back to the planning commission within 90 days with recommendations and discussions concerning gated communities and then that would allow us to have a more vibrant um um discussion at a later date and we're not holding up the uh transmission the comprehensive plan i very much agree i agree and maybe we could go to our next we're good issue okay okay so i just to make it iso move that the staff comes back to the planning commission within 90 days with recommendations and discussions concerning gated communities in alachua county i second that motion aye nothing to it uh chair the next item was on parking minimums and kind of went through uh if you look on the other page kind of why minimums are are not good something that communities around the country have been removing and it allows um it reduces the cost of uh development um by allowing uh and cost of housing in turn uh and also the amount of impervious service to parking lots created a huge amount of impervious service um this would allow the the this would kind of push that the county would remove their minimum parking requirements and it would just have um and it would just allow development to figure out what they need if they need two spaces to work they can do it if they only need zero spaces they can do with that there's just it's not the county telling them exactly how much uh parking is needed i have a question what is the current policy on the minimum parking county mr chair the um the comprehensive plan really only addresses parking generally um essentially saying that it it should be provided in developments the land development code addresses parking in more detail there is a schedule of numbers of spaces that are required for different land uses they're not characterized as minimums or maximums they're just numbers of spaces and i believe the development can deviate from those standards by 10 percent in either direction um i have this overall i have this overall feeling that what you're trying to do is a you know it's important to look at it but i i'm afraid to take one piece at a time and do it because i don't know what implications one one will implicate another it needs to be it needs to be a system what you're trying to do is you're trying to get more vehicles off the road you're trying to get foot density a more you know i'm that's what's been going on for the last 20 years you know in the core of the of this community and you're and it needs is the city going to want to have some input on this you know theoretically they're within us um it would just be with the county urban boundary correct so it's outside the urban service boundary it would not be implemented in municipalities in the county just inside county land use areas that would be how i would interpret it mr chair the the comprehensive plan applies to unincorporated alachua county not within the municipalities that makes sense mr chair maybe i'm not following i like what the staff just said he just defined it so commissioner what's the difference versus what he just said to make me understand this rationale here so what the my understanding of um staff at the land development code is that there is four different uses there is a certain amount of parking spaces that are listed development can go 10 percent lower or 10 percent higher than that number um what this would do is actually doesn't really do anything it would tell if the commission does decide county commission does that move forward with it then staff would then have to make changes to land development code in the future should not have that as a minimum they could go they could either do that number plus 10 percent or they could go all the way down to zero parking spaces depending on what that development needs for example like affordable housing areas usually have a lot of extra parking and they don't get a lot of people just don't have cars but the cost to build that parking space is included in the housing so it's a major kind of housing cost rider as well but that's what it would that be in your interpretation you'd be allowed to do that number and then you could also do below that because isn't that 10 percent minimum below that correct i i'm not sure i understand the question i don't think i don't think that's what i'm sorry mr hay santos i don't i i don't understand what you're saying because when you say that you eliminate minimum parking requirements for all land land use uses that's really an ldr issue and not a comprehensive plan it can be in the comprehensive plan but uh if it were in the comprehensive plan then you could not uh if you were doing a commercial uh use well like my office complex um my complex uh was required to have x number of parking spaces because we had 12 offices um at times well we never filled the place we never filled it up and it was just because of the type of uh offices we rented to it's different for uh for instance for a physician's office than it is for an attorney's office or an insurance office um some people don't generate uh additional requirements for uh parking at all but it's really and and i believe it's really questioned to be answered by the investor or the builder the investor because they need to provide the number of parking spaces for what they're building whether it be residential or commercial or industrial so um and i'll tell you it's something very difficult to uh to wrestle with as the planning staff to come up with what is uh what can be permitted a lot of times you go out and you say well boulder's doing this and san diego's doing this williamsburg's here and gainesville's here right in the middle with them it's it's very difficult and i think that this really doesn't belong in the comprehensive plan i understand what you're doing uh if you and i don't know i don't know if it's more dangerous than it is to do what we what you'd like to do and let me give you an example i live on 29th street 29th street in university we have a house that was just torn down and we're going to have on a quarter acre lot something like well three units and uh 24 bedrooms where you're going to put all where you're going to put 24 uh automobiles to park where there's only a hundred or there's only 75 feet or 100 feet of uh parking area along the uh along the street because i don't think there's going to be any on the on the lot this needs to be looked at i don't think that it should be just it should be discussed very cursory in a cursory uh fashion but i think it would it would be better uh if you want to discuss this that we do it in the future i think in this particular case the women's club is going to get yeah the parking yeah yeah which is a whole nother problem yes ma'am so the idea about parking minimums is is market driven if the office um complex um wants to have more parking there's nothing that um says they can't be honest within beyond the 10 or whatever increase upon a certain number that is in the development code um so this doesn't require no parking or or low parking or a reduction in parking this just um opens up um to to no minimums um and parking like commissioner hay santos said is a significant part of building um both homes and businesses it's i mean ten thousand dollars or more per parking spot and if you add in a hundred spots for a um working you know middle um family housing complex that adds on to the rent and so forth so by requiring minimum for having a standard for minimum parking spaces that just allows that building to reduce their costs of building and pass it on to the renters for example so this is not um there is a lot of market driven space in this um and it's a very it is something that's been repeated over and over again i believe the count or the city did away with the early 2000s and or maybe even earlier um of the minimum parking requirements and it's been a good model for the city i mean if there's not support moving forward i mean it doesn't sound like there is i'm i'm fine with having as one of the ones we can just uh come back later i don't i don't know if we have to vote on each one but i can i can hear where i can see the nods and i'll just put that on a list of them to put on motion for us to discuss the future i think that's i think that's generous of you yes and and thank you and we'll see if we can't get through this one but i think that we are looking at questions that need to be faced and they're not going to go away and we have to deal with them and you know and we we should come up with better answers if we can and not everything is within our control but with what we can we can you know we can work out and try and give the commissioner something that's workable that sounds good uh i'll move to the next one this was uh the mixed-use land uses when we had that rezoning and land use change on archer road i think there was consensus on the commission to do a mixed-use zoning there is not mixed-use zoning category in the county's zoning or land use as well you have to add you a t and d or tod so this would just be a request for us to discuss this at a future meeting on what that might look at uh discussing with that with staff i thought this might be too much to put into um the current uh iteration of the of the comp plan the current basket seems to be full yeah to some degree yes if that's okay i'll just add that to the list of ones we come back to steps later yes okay uh the next one is on um density and density in our uh or this is density in the urban cluster uh where these future land uses are um density is very very low um in our um urban cluster and we're running out of land in the urban cluster so by allowing more density urban cluster it not only helps allow transit to be effective allows people to walk more it also helps reduce the need the future need for the urban boundary to be um expanded because once there's not any room i think that the state mandates we have to expand those areas out to allow for something so um listed here and this are the ones that uh i kind of think just to kind of give some thought like the low density um in the city you can go up to 12 units an acre um and just kind of filling these in kind of what the medium density that's kind of like town host town home development would be that of 20 units an acre um 40 units an acre is kind of more of a apartment complex kind of three four stories and then the high density going up to 75 units an acre um is uh we have some of those engaged uh just behind the university on the other side of university avenue like two or three blocks in is u5 zoning which allows up to 75 units an acre and what you see on those is one story of for example one story of uh parking on the first floor and then three stories of of uh of apartments is it's 75 units so a four-story building um could be that so those are the thoughts i i think we should recommend if these may not be i think we should at least recommend to the county commission that they um increase their densities in some fashion these are what i think i don't know that's where this commission is but i think it's something they should adjust them somewhat um and then i don't want to get on the tnd and the tods ones but those are the same kind of things with increasing the densities in those areas um the one of the main goals of the of our um comp plan is to have transit work and just our densities don't really support transit um so these would help um allow these neighborhoods to be more effective and allow more people live in the southern cluster and allow transit to be able to work so that's five four five six of my thoughts on this without being facetious or trying to be funny um on transit does trans how do we if we're trying to make transit more affordable which is a good thing it also can do very much with um a standard of living is it really feasible to have a break-even transit system so maybe i misspoke when i said maybe transit affordable but i mean by the transportation being able to so the the county uh the lateral county has a um their transportation mobility element uh they have a goal of 15 minute transit headways um throughout kind of our area uh four units an acre which is i think that's 60 percent of our urban cluster is four units an acre maximum density um that's not feasible i mean you really kind of need probably around 20 units an acre for 15-minute headways to actually be kind of feasible where it's worthwhile for the government entity to be able to um invest in the transit line there the real problem is that we can't get people around without having more transit and you need density and you know i understand that but i just didn't want to leave the impression that this is the way that we yeah that this is the way that we can fund it is the way that would we would have to grow yes sorry yes that's this is our way of trying to go through this and clear the decks okay so we've got so we basically are putting the these items into a study a study session of some sort or some open i don't know what the right name is right now but to have us to have this dedicated into one of our meetings so that we can talk more about it soon four five six i would like us to recommend to the if we don't do if we don't want to give specific densities i think we should give a recommendation to the county commission that they should look at increasing densities in the urban cluster and in these areas they can then decide if they want to spend more time on that or not um but and we can work on it as well if they decide not to oh we want to leave it out but that way i think i think it could be captured in the current one right how are the other members uh mr chadis got a quick question for um commissioner so santos again the numbers you got um for the density um did you get it from the city or just how did you from 8 to 20 and and from um 8 um the 40 from the medium 8 to 20 and then you had um the high density from um less than 14 and you head to 24 then you put 75 where do those numbers come came from maybe they came from the city numbers or so coming from looking at densities and city of the county kind of other words um professional urban planner as well so kind of just looking at just kind of on what can work a lot of things with with densities it's just kind of a number that's thrown out there and if that's what the community feels is right but like for example like low density that first one moving up from to 10 units an acre uh the city of gainesville has 12 units an acre so it's a little it's kind of a step down um and this is kind of looking at kind of city of gainesville tendencies as well and kind of looking at at step downs from those um but our area outside the city is pretty urban i mean celebration points in these areas they're they're urban places so that's kind of where they came from there they're not they're not specific places they're kind of just what i think might work and might make things more feasible and and also be politically feasible other comments so what we have is the you had the request to take was it four five six which were the three ones you wanted to talk about if the commission is okay with these densities i would recommend that we submit these exact densities if the commission would rather just request to the county commission look at increasing densities and keep it broader for them to um uh to decide they can look at this they can look at some other stuff and they can talk with staff and decide if they want to or not um i'm okay with that either i'd rather do the first one but if there's not votes for that the second one's fine as well mr chair yes i'd like the um for staff to look and see what's feasible i think it'd be great for them to see what's feasible and bring it back to us but not to the county commission or the staff yes that would give it a normal cadence yeah they know although it was fair the bad news is it may not go forward at this at this meeting the good news it may be more sustainable i would like the commission to hear um the list that we're coming up with though um not necessarily those have to be our recommendations but staff can present these are the items that the planning commission has requested for future changes so that they know our intentions yes i think that some people here might say besides me that this is our starting point and we and we have just started our discussions but this is what we're looking at and and that would that seems to me to be the right step otherwise we're just going to let's go punt and that doesn't seem like the right state we should go through and spend it's a worthy cause i'm not so sure i'm good with the numbers but i'm i'm sure i'm good with the conversation and and trying to work it through is is there a motion mr chair i maybe we don't need motion maybe it's just a consensus that it's going on a list for staff to bring back i think yeah that's good enough yes i think okay yeah i think we're good okay um the last one is uh kind of much more in the one um interlocal service boundary agreements are uh kind of goes into another one but these are agreements that are made between the county and the municipalities um to uh really try to make annexation better and work better and for both the county city for the residents everyone there a lot of times annexations aren't like like how does this thing happen here or how does the service change this really spells all that out of how this will work and then makes the annexations um cleaner um this is something that other communities do around the state um it's something that they would be adding this language to the to the um to the intergovernmental element and to it it would in essence asset county they should start working on this with other municipalities to uh to figure out interlocal service boundary agreement with each one i don't know if staff has an opinion on on this or mr chair interlocal service boundary agreements are something that the county has attempted a couple of times um over the years i think both with the city of gainesville and with the city of alachua um neither of those efforts ended up um going to the end of the process um but uh i mean i think if this is something that the planning commission is interested in um this is one where we could probably add a policy um similar to what's um written here into the plan i know this is something that as staff we've uh kind of been given direction to uh talk to our municipalities about uh to try to address annexation issues uh a little better than uh we do now under just the general annexation law um so sorry um yeah so if this is one you would like us to include um we can do that put that in the basket well i think he's saying just just putting it submitting it directly to the county as part of the recommendation not part of it okay i think i think staff is already like i don't want to speak to staff but i think that staff is already thinking that's something they want to pursue anyway so i don't think that's what it sounds like with it so i think mr chair the the county is already having just initial discussions with municipalities on interlocal service boundary agreements um because it's something that the county can avail itself to under the statute um but if if you do want to include that language in the comprehensive plan saying something to the effect that the county will consider these agreements to help address annexation issues i think that's something we can probably go ahead and put in now if that's what the planning commission would like to do i think that there are multiple ways to go forward the county commission has picked a direction uh is what i'm taking we've we've been given that direction from the manager to at least talk to municipalities about these agreements i think and what would be an appropriate time now to put something into our transmission or just to wait mr chair i would say on this one it would be appropriate to add it now if that's what the planning commission would like to do okay what's comments people reading i mean whenever we put forward the recommendation i would like to have that that says recommend all other amendments yes we add that as one does that have a negative in that this is already happening and as part of their plan i would think that it might be better to put it ahead but i didn't want under i'm not trying to undermine your what your you know your goal but i'm trying to wonder if they're on this on the same track sure i think this just puts it um there's nothing binding about this other than the county shall pursue it but it puts it in the comp plan which means it prioritizes the county acting on it i don't think it prevents what's happening now or changes what's happening now but it codifies that this is an important thing to have because it is in the comp plan okay anybody want to make a motion so i i'll chair once i move that uh when we submit the recommendation to the county commission that we add um number seven to the list of um items for the county commission to consider second may i ask would that be the uh the seven that you have in this handout from today or in the item six urban cluster annexation and intergovernmental coordination that you uh proposed mr hayes-santos on february 25th because i think that uh item number six from the february 25th is is much more well it tells tells it would tell the uh county commission what we'd like to see yes yes i think that's um yeah so i guess i will amend the motion to to really ask staff to add language and to let the commission know for an inter-service down to agreement that we want the county to that respect so including both six and seven six and old documents seven and the new one thank you okay the comments ready ready to vote all in favor aye opposed mr chair do you have something more i don't um there's a few things that i'd like to delve into i'm realizing that we are unlikely to come up with discreet recommendations to the county commission at this point um so i have some things i just want to clarify in the changes and then i have some things i want to add but i don't believe those will go through tonight but they maybe go through for um future discussion so i want to go back to the um adus the changes in the adus is there a way to bring up that where it's um i don't have a policy basically i just want to include the rural clusters um in the um not having to be homesteaded but probably not having to be homesteaded to allow adu in the in the rural cluster sorry so the why i say this is um there's we have um the municipalities we have the um urban services boundary line we have an unincorporated alachia county and the county also has rural clusters like evanston melrose and two other places that kind of act as many cities but aren't incorporated so um i'd like to if i'm understanding the proposal correctly right now the rural cluster if you live in the rural cluster and one at adu you have to have that party homesteaded is that correct correct um within all of the rural areas and the rural clusters they would still have to provide proof of homestead um yes so um my proposal is that we exclude the rural clusters from acquiring homestead in a homestead to build an adu yes thank you chair yeah i would be very supportive of that i mean i think we should remove that restriction uh for any adu um yeah i mean that is uh standard practice now in terms of what is a good planning to not have that um restriction um so i would more broadly support it um than just have it remove that restriction in total um i was going a step wise but full thing would be great mr chairman yes i will tell you that uh having a restriction on adus so that it goes with someone who uh is the homeowner and living there uh is very important to the people in my neighborhood and the people in most neighborhoods that i speak to we are for instance i live in black acres and it is fast becoming and it's been over 50 years but it's even more rapid uh change over to university housing we have uh at one end of my street we have multiple vehicles in front of every uh dwelling and two three uh in the parking uh lot area um or the the driveway uh thank you uh and then you go down to the one that is uh the area that's uh all uh homeowners uh that live there and we don't have that problem um i will tell you that very the people in my neighborhood are very upset about what's going on at the corner of northwest 29th street and university avenue um the i do not think that um the idea of building an adu on any on any lot is a good idea for instance i live on a third acre and it's probably one of the largest lots in the area i could probably get two adus one on either side of my house um and it would become a uh an apartment type uh community because we'd have three units on what one what had been one dwelling unit uh i don't think that's a good idea the adus were thought of to provide um places uh to bring in members of the family as they were aging it could have also been used for people who were going young people who were going to university from the family and giving them some additional level of independence within the community i don't think that it's being used that way today it's being used by people not from the community who are taking advantage of the uh the adu regulations in the city of gainesville and i don't i'm i'm not familiar with the ones for uh alachua county other than i know you can have them um it is in the literature the planning literature people think that this is something that is good in planning but when you get down to the level of the neighborhood the neighbors who are impacted by it do not like it we are trying to prepare a comprehensive plan that will be adopted by the representatives of the majority of people within the city who and county who have voted for them and i don't think that decreasing the requirements for an adu in alachua county to uh only allowing the homestead and and that's what i understand that uh it requires now doesn't it mr chair the the current requirement is that in order to build an adu um the property owner has to have a homestead exemption for the property and be a permanent resident of the property okay that's what i thought but let me tell you as soon as it's it's as soon as it is uh built there's no restriction on the conveyance of the property to anybody and their and their brother mr chair yes ma'am um we have housing crisis in in this affordability housing crisis in the city of this county state this nation and it's not going to be solved on one front we it's a scattershot um solution and infill missing middle workforce housing adus these are types of of housing options that we're lacking and will solve some of the issues that we have with accessible housing i i would actually want to see more than one adu on properties within inside the urban boundary and and outside the municipality um we need infill so that we can protect our green and rural areas i pull out the um rural cluster specifically i see all the time that people want to live um you know close to micanope so evanston they want to live close to hawthorne so i think island grove or something might be a rural cluster or and melrose is practically its own city on four boundaries of four different counties so um we're gonna have a lot of people moving into florida continually we're gonna have a lot of people from south florida moving to latch county we need more housing more dense housing more options of housing and if it's not on a homesteaded property it can be a rental property so there's two rental properties on a lot instead of a single rental property on a lot so it it meets the needs of more people in a very more compact space i'm all about compact development um and so i under i completely understand there's been a lot of discussion with especially within the city of gainesville how um adus um might not fit with the ideas of some people's neighborhoods and that's a valid claim um but this is one adu relying 180 you on one lot in rural areas is is a very very small density increase and we should always go for density increases so that's why i'm suggesting this comments mr chumlee what miss young said is that correct that because i saw you your eyes sort of shift when she mentioned that if you have rentals you're going to have two units um i'm not sure i understand i mean if i didn't understand it either yeah if if the restriction for homestead and permanent residency is removed then um then i suppose that they could be rentals i don't know if that that was my intention that if a non-homestead property right now means someone who's has not homesteaded their property that includes people who rent out their properties and so if an adu is allowed on a non-homesteaded property that can also be rented out so there's two rental properties that is one scenario among many of uses of the non-homesteaded property but that is one valid use of a adu on a non-homesteaded property question what are the restrictions on renting a room in a house um i don't know i'm not sure i can answer that question i don't know the answer in alachua county i think the city did it away with the those restrictions they did it was something old on the books yeah yeah well that's that is your first level of a rental house within the house and some of that that i'm just pointing out that that is not necessarily controlled and it is it's there and for some people who are having trouble maintaining the ownership of the house that they've been in i mean i've built a number of homes in black acres and it's a way for them to keep the home and you would see it and they're probably not driving very much so that would be good for both sides there are there's some process there mr chair yes ma'am i support um commissioning young uh rationale um may i ask if you if there's a um big temperature of the board is it because i would not limit it to rural clusters if if the majority of the board would support um within the county um i support the county what i support i'm just thinking about it you know it's something that that i i had been working on all sorts of other stuff for today for which i think we're not going to go anywhere with it at the point so we're going to um don't get don't get concerned yet so you've got um i think that we're going to need to let's just put on this on the list of things to yeah to make a long mission about all all right all right but i but i'm really pretty i'm thinking about the you know senior people who that's the way to keep the house because taxes are going up nicely thank you that's that's a way although i wasn't real warm to it at the beginning it's i'm thinking about it okay so and so we're getting a bigger list to think about um i also want to ask um about um prioritization and or moving things from um toward administrative review and that not having to go through certain processes and i'm thinking tnds perhaps go ahead no okay in tnds there's um i think if you meet the the density requirement um you can cluster things and you don't have to go through you know kind of gets rezoning but any kind of um process is there a way to eliminate in order to um progress the goals of indefill is there a way to prioritize the building of indefill and missing middle housing by by somehow um doing the way with any um procedural requirements our review and next and and all the levels so mr chair um right now we are um reviewing our land development regulations related to the review of development plans um the majority of the things that we bring to the planning commission like a zoning action or a comprehensive plan those are state mandated processes so we can't really reduce those we've moved a lot of things sort of away from needing rezonings or comprehensive plan amendments so they just go through a development review process and we're currently evaluating whether we have those thresholds correct so we have some items that go to the board for approval some items that go to the drc for approval and we do have some administrative approvals and we have an ongoing current assignment from the board to evaluate those levels of review we call them or the thresholds where we take them to different boards i'm not sure that there's a great way in a policy in the comprehensive plan uh to call that out but i i would say we're aware of that and we're we're certainly trying to do that it kind of goes back and forth from board to board about how much or little input they want in those processes but i will say that we're we currently have that um as an ongoing uh job for the commission yes so i um won't move anything toward including in the comp plan but i will also say other than um allowing um get to go ahead with the ministry approval or without review of words um some sort of priority so that if you are providing missing middle or a greater percentage of um low-income housing and development that maybe you get priority and that you don't have to wait as long to go through any approval process but i don't think that's something for the comp plan i just wanted to throw that out i would say that there's across the country there's more awareness of the missing middle and it used to be that the issue of missing middle and nobody understood it and now and now it's changing um i was just in san francisco this weekend with my son and grandson and there is a um there's there's single there's single almost attached but not quite attached houses that some of the walls are common and there's also a very nice what has been added recently is a very nice low affordable um multi-family multi-story i mean you've got one and two-story buildings and then you got like a six and it and they've worked it in very nicely and it's it's it's it was a lot of care and um it was good it's definitely something we need for a variety of um income levels so i will just um go on from there that's um okay um this is a more general um statement and i we're not going to be able to get the changes we need or come up with language on the fly but i do think that clustering development needs to be worked through the comp plan through different elements of the comp plan um not so much a larger plan scale but on a on a development scale um to consider incentives or encourage all the words that are allowed with sb-180 restrictions um so in your clustering development you're reducing permeable surfaces you're allowing the retention of green space and trees um and i know that's a goal that is within you know multiple parts of the comp plan but i think it should explicitly be stated as well and no vote on that because it's we're not going to felt that um and i do have one more concrete thing um to discuss and that is um with the strategies uh let me find it on my list well one thing before that um i do think that if um and again we're not going to put in the comp plan tonight but it might be something that we can bring forth later is that some of the things that are allowed within tnds but um just outright maybe should be considered as some development in other areas um of development but what i'd like to um is the strategies i don't know what page of the comp plan that's on um are you referring to the um uh like the general strategy one land you sell them and i think it's on page one actually um to use okay so um i one of the my guiding lights for this commission is um and my goals in other boards is to put growth where growth is and make um density so that we're not encroaching on our role in wild lands and so i'd like to incorporate that in as a general strategy and make it outright stated in the comp plan and some suggested language would be the county recognizes that accommodating residential growth through compact and mixed use development patterns within the urban cluster cluster can reduce pressure to convert rural and conservation lands outside the urban cluster and i can repeat that if needed what's that policy number it's in the general strategy um it's just to add to the general strategy list and um oh you told me what page it was on yeah it's actually on uh i think page one of your document under future land use under future land use i'd like to are you if you're done i'd like to follow up and by the way the multi-story in san francisco was a habitat which was which was interesting which made it even better um the second one one is i was on the first um um ear and in that ear um after about four or five hours for the discussion and lots of pizza we um we were able to come to a conclusion and the principle was always that there would be some extension of the of the developable area and i think that one of the things that has happened now is that the expansion of newberry and some other cities have compensated a little bit for that but we're now we're getting a different kind of sprawl that we didn't expect and it's it's a little bit different but it was always meant to be that there could be tweaks in it as you go forward and that it wasn't in concrete but i think that my personal vision would be that we would have higher density we would be redoing some things and there would be some opportunities to move the boundaries and somehow that seems real and it's going to kind of come up anyhow with as far as the new barrier is on one side and anything goes out to the um county line on the west side so those those are things that i've been thinking about i think it's not a single not a single thing but it's a combination that's and i think putting it as a strategy um does not say it outright we have to outright do these things but that we're focused on um putting development where development should be i do think that the density of that one building that's going to go up in the corner is going to be well i want to say they got a bus stop right there that's good it's going to be it's going to be interesting but of course life is interesting and we are going to do our best to maximize it and do it well so that's what we're here for um so should we add this suggestion to our list to come back to the end because i got a few more things and the other question that i'd like you to add to your list is you know you're talking about not having any further boundary extensions maybe that ought to be in there should there be something um so no i'm not i'm i don't want to really um yeah make a hard line on that one i'm not trying to but i'm trying to get that i'm trying to get some balance in the two things okay um it'll get finessed out okay and then um i have a couple of things about trees um so something that i've observed is that um is that when a tree um is removed um that there has to be a requirement for planting a number of trees or and um or um but i'm when i'm driving and i know that that has been done if i'm walking around driving around biking around i see that those trees abide and so um and just in general i think that we encourage a healthy and robust canopy but we don't measure that so i'm going to suggest that the monitoring monitoring and report on that and it's um the county shall monitor or report on tree canopy trends within the urban cluster and shall use such information to inform future planning capital improvements redevelopment strategies incentive programs into this work contact development urban shade now that's we can just take an idea from that not that language but um but i i'm also um taking classes in um national areas management and so i think this is a strategy taken from that is is that um if you're if you're implementing things but not measuring them and monitoring them how do you know where you need to progress to um and so that is why i'm proposing a um something when the comp plan to monitor and it doesn't require anything else it is it and it is a county thing that would happen it's not put on um private landowners so i don't think that would be in conflict conflict with sb 180 i was thinking that a house that i built in monterey that is more than 40 years old and i had a live oak again within five six feet of which is not supposed to work and it was already more than a 12 inch trunk and we had the forester with us and we had a course on how to do it and i last year i went back and i checked it out and it the live books doing fine thank you very much it's supposed to be dead but it's but it's but it's but it's very much alive and healthy and it's been trimmed back some but there's uh there's more of it than there was when i built the house are we i think we probably need to pick up some progress if we are getting to the point of yeah i've got one last thing that i'd like to add and this i do have language but it's just we can also just do a general idea is that um that we do have a tree planting program and these things are built into the tree planting program but i'd like to codify them that we prioritize prioritize street um tree planting shade canopy um and uh landscaping around um facilities trails sidewalks transit stops in order to um um for heat mitigation for shade as where as our climate's changing to focus not just on um the beauty um but also the ecosystem services that street canopy or that tree canopy provides mostly heat mitigation so um that can just be an idea instead of adopting a language we have to you know move through this meeting but you're going to have a i believe that you're going to have a balance question between the as you increase the number of units or the adus or whatever it is you're going to run out of room to compensate as much as you would like and so the more success you have on one side the less success you'll have on trees it just you know it's just a question of a math mathematics absolutely and that's why i wanted to prioritize clustering previously but this is only um for public lands for right-of-ways um for public trails um in order to um not require anything from from private landowners okay well i didn't catch that in there okay and so that way it could be implemented based on restrictions of sb 180 okay mr chair yes i agree with commissioner young all her suggestions thank you i appreciate it i appreciate the time good mr chair yes as it relates to the two items related to the trees i did just want to um let the planning commission know that there will be an item i don't remember the date now in may early may um when our tree i'm sorry may 5th where our we're going to celebrate uh it's a uh board special meeting so it'd be discussion um topics um and that will have all of our tree planting professionals at it with um probably a bunch of ideas related sort of that have just been building up um tree planting program the um canopy measuring monitoring those are all topics that are likely to be on that meeting so not that we shouldn't um do something with this language as well um but just know that that is something that is already out there too if you're interested absolutely i'm so happy i'm fantastic i'm glad to hear that and i hope to be at the meeting um i do think that um it might not be the time to um it might be time to wait until after this transmittal but i do think we should the county commission should hear that that should be a priority that is within the comp plan so that it guides future um commission decisions i agree with that i appreciate it okay so now that we are have been weaving our way through the agenda taking some zigzags but have been productive then we're going back to the process of trying to approve and get through the um comp plan so that when people go home they can say that yes we got something we got it done and so let's see if we can move forward and we have that list off to the side i'm not trying to put it down absolutely i don't think we would be able to go page by page on the comp plan this evening so um so what do you think we should do keep going okay i'm sorry i i'm missing are you asking for a motion to move forward on the recommendations i'm ready to place one on there that's the case i'm i think that what we want to do is is there anything that we want we can either put a motion on or we can go through and ask for questions or is there anything what on your on your program were you going to do anything else or are you saying are we ready to approve what mr chair i i don't have anything else for you as far as the president okay thank you very much then we could have a motion on the floor okay there's no other discussion i'm up in a motion on the floor uh so i have a multi-port motion to try to cover everything we've talked about today oh good uh so move uh staff's recommendation for the alachua county comprehensive plan proposed valuation and appraisal based amendment to the county commission with a couple of um added amendments um one of them that we is interlocal service boundary agreement so the language is on seven and six we discussed that we would recommend that to the county commission to add that um the second one that we would um recommend that we remove the residency restrictions on adus and the unincorporated adu yeah homestead and residency restrictions for um adus in the unincorporated area they would remove that restriction uh third the strategy that um commissioner young spoke about i don't know if you want to read that one again or i can if the board would like it or i can um email it to madam clerk i suggest you email i can find it to keep going um mr hey santos can you there were a couple of items so if you can just enumerate which one specifically you're speaking about the it was the one on um on strategy inside the urban area um i think the other ones were so those would be the three amendments other other ones where i think we're more we have to flesh out some more i think right or so and i'm going to want to go through each of these individually again okay and then the second part of the motion is that we would uh discuss at a future meeting um the gated communities parking minimums mixed use land uses density in the urban cluster density and tnds and tods that we would also discuss uh urban tree canopy and how we would kind of address that and then also tree planting i think that covers everything that we discussed and then we would also let the county commission know that we discussed these items can we get this written up on the can we get this written up can we need a second i'll second i don't think that would be a problem okay we got a first motion and a second yes i can read the strategies can we get it up on the screen or is it we're not set up for that okay we're not set up for it so let's go through it slowly okay and so that we have a better idea of consensus for this but let's let's let's do it and let's go a little slower and we're going to make this work we're going to we're going to go low tech what i have is not enough which is why i'm asking for the other yes we would we would uh i'm sure that the motion was to do you want me to pull out my computer and and write it up as we go mr chair i have it written now you have it written out you want to read off the motions i'm sure i can do that yes commissioner santa has moved tax recommendation on the evaluation and appraisal um amendments um and also including the isba policy that's the interlocal service boundary agreements those are the items that commissioner hayes santos discussed in two of his policy positions number six and seven those were um discussed already and the board the commission had agreed on those um with the removal of homestead and residency restrictions for adus in the unincorporated area um the idea of growth where growth is um i think that's what you called it mr young do you want me to read that yeah that'd be great um and i can email it um the county recognizes that accommodating residential growth through compact and mixed use development patterns within the urban cluster can reduce pressure to convert rural and conservation lands outside the urban cluster so those three items two three items would be included with staff's specific recommendation on the evaluation and appraisal amendments and then the second part of the motion was to discuss at a future meeting um gated subdivisions parking minimums and maximums uh the idea of a mixed use land one or more mixed use land use categories um density allowances or requirements within the urban cluster tnds and tods ideas related to urban tree canopy and then tree planting program and that you would also we would let the commission know that you have um looked at these items and we'll be considering them in the future okay that's great that you caught on that okay so one other question that i don't think we noticed at all would be the possible graduation of the the enlargement of our of our boundaries that we consider to be um part of the urban service and at some point there should be some study whether it happens or not whether they go yay or nay but maybe there should be something in there um to permit that to be considered i don't know if that's necessary or if that's appropriate mr chair i can probably address that um so as part of your backup for this item there was an analysis of the available land within the urban cluster um and there and essentially the analysis showed that we have enough land for the next 20 years to accommodate our population growth that's expected there's also in the comprehensive plan now a policy i believe it's 7.1.3 of the future land use element that it lays out the conditions uh under which the urban cluster could potentially be expanded um so in other words it says how the how the analysis of the urban cluster is to be performed um and if there is there has to be a demonstration that there's a need to expand the urban cluster and then if that need exists um you know what what steps need to be taken in order to expand the urban cluster so we do have a policy on that already i as working in that environment it is going to be you are going to be increasing the cost of the increasing the cost of the of the developed land and it's going to i'm not going to get anywhere with this one but you can look this back up five years from now and it's going to cost more and it's going to um unless we have a major recession which i don't want or wish on anybody to stop the war and i think i think that there is a i'm trying to do this very um respectfully but i i think that it's going to limit the amount or we're going to be shifting our development to other cities and that's probably what's going to happen and then we're going to have more traffic between places which is what i'm trying not to have so you know there's not much i'm going to do about it but you know you can just write that down in about five years we'll have a drink and see what's up you ready for the count vote okay thank you are we are we ready well i just want to let you know that i'm not going to be able to vote uh for this because i very vehemently degree uh disagree with the requirement uh or of removing the requirement for a homestead exemption in order to apply for an adu in the in the camp that should go i would agree that that could be discussed later but i don't want it to be recommended or it's been a discussion on it seconder of the motion i'd be supportive of of splitting the vote on these two we can do that i'm sorry i didn't hear what miss young said i would be supportive of um voting singularly on the adu policy and then um on the group's um suggestion separately okay that so let's let's move forward mr chair the um before you vote you would need to ask for public comment on the motion of course we do is there public i'm just looking at all of that is there any public comment please i almost made up the little things a public comment any any public comment okay we crossed that box okay so we need a so mr chair you have a motion and the only thing that you would need to do is chair call those items that were going to be separately separate so you can do that as you as you see fit mr chair i think the only thing that was requested to be pulled out was the policy on removing homestead and residency restrictions on adus in the unincorporated area okay so we are gonna have a separate vote on removing the homestead exemption homestead exemption and i'm doing this wrong homestead exemption and residency requirement thank you sure i knew that for adus in the unincorporated in the rural areas of the unincorporated area so the motion is that we're going to i can't read my own damn writing um we're going to have the policy to exempt for homestead um so mr chair this this part of the motion would remove the requirement for homestead and residency restrictions for adus in the rural area rural part of the unincorporated area all in favor of of that say aye aye opposed passes and then mr chair you would have the remainder of the motion now um and i can read that again go for it mr chair this way we will be correct so the remainder of the motion mr chair computer just decided to stop the remainder of the motion mr chair um is uh the the approval of the staff recommendation on the evaluation and appraisal amendments with the addition of the isba policy items number six and seven from commissioner hayes-santos um the growth where growth is amendment from commissioner young and then the second part which would be to discuss at a future meeting um gated subdivisions parking minimums and maximums uh the idea of mixed use future land use designations uh density in the urban cluster tnds and tods um urban tree canopy policies and the tree planting uh priorities and also to let the commission know that you are planning to look at these items that are those are all the items that would be in this part of the motion mr chair and that would be the motion that we would have on the table yes okay any more comments we're good all in favor aye opposed making progress mr chair if that's all that the planning commission has on um the evaluation and appraisal the next item on your agenda would be public comments for any item not on the agenda as we're continuing the agenda from the previous meeting since we are continuing just as i said since we're continuing the uh comments from the previous is there anybody who has comments that would like to address address us we're good public comments good okay mr chair the next item would be any planning commissioner comments i'm gonna just um get my word in now and let you know that the um march 25th planning commission meeting is canceled um the item that we had intended to have on there for you wasn't quite ready to bring so um meeting next week which we've already said but there will also be no meeting on march 25th so your next um meeting is on april 15th mr chair what a good day mr chair had the comment as well yes please um um this uh the process that we went through was a bit nebulous um in structure um and what we should be doing and when and so i'm looking forward to the next commission i be on that commission in seven years we'll be going through this so i i would um encourage a um a strategy that would be clearer and um when and how we evaluate the the um those changes and provide our feedback i i'd almost like to have part of a meeting that would just be it'd be public and so that we would be appropriate but to have a discussion um some of these topics and how we move forward and it would be it could be a little iffy but i think it could also be very productive of the rules and regulations on how to go to process but if we um we have to be all careful because you're going to be on a televised discussion so we need to be on good behavior but we also need to be good for the community and i think this by the way in case anybody thinks not i think we've been very good this evening i think so too and i think it's been very appropriate but i'm trying to see if we can't carve out on the next one um that we can that we that we have some possibilities to come up with better i have found that when we talk long enough we normally will get consensus not exactly the way it might have been otherwise but we do move towards a consensus and i think that's healthy and we need the discussion so maybe we can block that out do that and that would be april 15th on taxes and too bad too bad we can't have alcohol on that day okay sorry april 15th i thought i heard april 16th we would know before we get there april 15th is the wednesday okay okay we doubt myself i won't be here on the 16th i'll be here on the 15th any other comments we're ready to close no mr chair then we're adjourned oh i'm no no you're good less than less than two hours