Joint Workshop with City Commission and Planning Board - 21 Oct 2024

Joint Workshop with City Commission and Planning Board - 21 Oct 2024. Location: City Hall - Commission Chambers. Time: 05:30 PM. Agenda: Joint Workshop with City Commission and Planning Board - 21 Oct 2024 - Agenda - Html Meeting of the City Commission Agenda - Regular Session City Hall - Commission Chambers Monday, October 21, 2024, 5:30 PM PROUD Heritage | PROMISING Future CITY COMMISSION Scott Black, Mayor Normita L. Woodard, Mayor Pro-Tem Kristin Church, Commissioner Ann E. Cosentino, Commissioner James D. Shive, Commissioner PLANNING BOARD Chair Jere Ferguson Vice Chair Jordon Frier Board Member Davis Henley Board Member Keeley Karatinos Board Member Lisa Simon Board Member Kim Barker School Board Member Chris Williams CITY OFFICIALS Marieke vanErven, Acting City Manager Angelia Guy, City Clerk Patrick Brackins, City Attorney Peter Altman, Finance Officer PLANNING STAFF Evis Bushi, Interim Community and Development Director Isaiah Hollinshead, Planner II Craig Hanson, Planner I Patrick Brackins, City Attorney Page A. MEETING PROCEDURES Republished to correct city officials. The City Commission will be meeting in person. As an alternate option, the public may attend virtually. The virtual meeting will be in “watch/listen mode” only; no public comments will be taken virtually. To join the Zoom Meeting by computer or smart device: To join by phone, dial: 1 929 205 6099 https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81175618320?pwd=75oxLrj7WgGJyKmYCYkWZj4BLpn6Bc.1 Meeting ID: 811 7561 8320 Passcode: 012286 Public Comment: If you are present in the Commission Chambers, you will be limited to three minutes to make your comments as is the usual rule of procedure for City Commission meetings, except for matters heard in a quasi-judicial capacity. Public comments will not be taken virtually. Submission of Presentations: For security purposes, the City cannot accept jump drives or other USB devices. Please contact the City Clerk for more information. B. CALL TO ORDER B.1. Roll Call B.2. Changes or Modification to the Agenda B.3. Disclosure of any known conflicts of interest regarding an agenda item. C. PRESENTATIONS C.1. 2024 Update to the Comprehensive Plan - Discussion and Information Session CLICK Here to view additional information MEMO WORKSHOP_Oct 21 Joint Workshop-10_21_Draft Elements 4 - 69 D. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED) E. ADJOURNMENT FOOTER TEXT CHAMBER RULES: The Dade City Commission welcomes comments from the public regarding non-agenda items during the Public Comment portions of the meeting and agenda items as scheduled. Any person desiring to address the Commission shall secure the permission of the Presiding Officer to do so. Each person addressing the city commission shall do so from the podium, shall remain at the podium at all times during their remarks and shall give their name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record prior to beginning their remarks. Any person wishing to approach the dais from the podium to submit materials to the commission must first seek and receive permission from the presiding officer before approaching the dais. Unless further time is requested and granted by the city commission, each person addressing the city commission shall limit their address to three minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the city commission as a body and not to any individual member of the city commission, city officer or city employee. No person other than the city commission and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the city commission, without permission from the providing officer. No question shall be asked of an individual city commissioner, or city official or city employee except through the presiding officer. Any person making obscene, impertinent, slanderous, vulgar, or abusive remarks or who shall become violent, belligerent, or boisterous while addressing the city commission shall be instructed by the presiding officer to cease making such remarks or engaging in such conduct. If the person fails to comply with the presiding officer’s instruction(s), then they may be removed from the Commission Chambers upon the presiding officer’s directive, unless permission to continue is granted by a majority of the city commission. Public Comment shall be governed by Florida law if the matter is quasi-judicial (variances, rezoning, etc.) Please silence your cellphones during all meetings. APPEALS: Any person desiring to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at any meeting or hearing will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon with the appeal is based. DISABILITY : If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled at no cost to you to the provision of certain assistance within two (2) working days of your receipt of this notice. Please contact the Dade City Clerk’s office, P.O. Box 1355, Dade City, FL 33526-1355; (352) 523-5052 for further assistance and information . Document: Joint Workshop with City Commission and Planning Board - 21 Oct 2024 - Minutes - Html Meeting of the City Commission Minutes - City Commission City Hall - Commission Chambers Monday, October 21, 2024, 5:30 PM PROUD Heritage | PROMISING Future Members Present Scott Black, Mayor Normita Woodard, Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Church, Commissioner Ann Cosentino, Commissioner James Shive, Commissioner Staff Present Marieke vanErven, Acting City Manager & Executive Assistant Angelia Guy, City Clerk Patrick Brackins, City Attorney James Walters, Chief Peter Altman, Finance Officer Evis Bushi, City Planner Troy Sweat, Interim Public Works Director Kendon Daniels, Utilities Director Members Absent/Regrets A. MEETING PROCEDURES Republished to correct city officials. The City Commission will be meeting in person. As an alternate option, the public may attend virtually. The virtual meeting will be in “watch/listen mode” only; no public comments will be taken virtually. To join the Zoom Meeting by computer or smart device: To join by phone, dial: 1 929 205 6099 https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81175618320?pwd=75oxLrj7WgGJyKmYCYkWZj4BLpn6Bc.1 Meeting ID: 811 7561 8320 Passcode: 012286 Public Comment: If you are present in the Commission Chambers, you will be limited to three minutes to make your comments as is the usual rule of procedure for City Commission meetings, except for matters heard in a quasi-judicial capacity. Public comments will not be taken virtually. Submission of Presentations: For security purposes, the City cannot accept jump drives or other USB devices. Please contact the City Clerk for more information. B. CALL TO ORDER B.1. Roll Call Mayor Scott Black called the meeting to order at 5:40 PM. B.2. Changes or Modification to the Agenda B.3. Disclosure of any known conflicts of interest regarding an agenda item. There were no other comments on other items, modifications to the agenda or disclosed conflicts of interest. C. PRESENTATIONS C.1. 2024 Update to the Comprehensive Plan - Discussion and Information Session CLICK Here to view additional information Consultant Tara Salmieri introduced four key elements for discussion and recapped the previous updates to the Comprehensive Plan, explaining the state requirements and the purpose of these meetings. City Attorney Patrick Brackins added that while updating the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission would have the opportunity to make additional changes later. This process gives the City the authority and flexibility to modify the Land Development Regulations further after the Comp Plan. Tara Salmieri concurred, emphasizing that modifying the Comprehensive Plan first allows for greater discretion when updating the code. Mayor Scott Black asked if there were any questions on the materials discussed. Planning Board Member Keeley Karatinos inquired about an example involving displaced individuals and wondered if it referred to a takings clause. Tara Salmieri clarified that this language referred to existing state statutes. City Attorney Patrick Brackins provided an example of a scenario where the government might take land, explaining that in such cases, the law mandates the use of federal funds to relocate tenants. Planning Board Member Keeley Karatinos further questioned whether the language could pertain to property takings. This led to a discussion on statutory requirements, the Comprehensive Plan’s language, and its objective of eliminating substandard dwellings. Tara Salmieri offered to provide relevant statutes related to community development, to which Planning Board Member Karatinos responded positively. She noted that the statutory intent is often found in the history of legislative drafts and appreciated that the language was written with sufficient flexibility for the City to adapt. The discussion also included a recap of HOA policies in section 2.1.3, which ensures Dade City makes information services available to all residents. After further discussions with Tara Salmieri, she emphasized that certain language is required by statute, and if the City does not include it in the transmittal, the state might impose it. She offered to review the existing policies, their implementation, and the requirements in detail. Planning Board Member Karatinos acknowledged the timeline of this process, and Tara Salmieri noted that the state review would take time, allowing for adjustments before the City adopts the transmittal at the second reading and finalizes the Comprehensive Plan next year. Planning Board Chair Jere Ferguson inquired about the general role of the Planning Board if the Comprehensive Plan will not be finalized until next August or September. Consultant Tara Salmieri clarified that the Planning Board does not have to wait to make changes until next year. Those dates represent the time available to adjust plans based on state comments. She explained that while the Comprehensive Plan changes cannot increase density standards, the City can proceed with other aspects and does not need to delay decisions, except those related to density, intensity, and development rights. Mayor Pro Tem Normita Woodard asked about group homes and assisted living facilities. Tara Salmieri outlined that such facilities are permissible within the City and emphasized that the new additions to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with state requirements. She noted that some jurisdictions have previously prohibited foster homes or group homes in residential areas, but the state allows these types of living arrangements. Mayor Scott Black discussed language in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) documents, noting that the MPO might soon change to include Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties. He expressed the City's desire to avoid outdated language. The consultant agreed, noting that this adjustment would be straightforward. Mayor Scott Black also mentioned a County initiative regarding the transportation element of the Orange Belt Trail, commemorating Roy and Martha Hardy, who were long-time residents and contributors to the community. Tara Salmieri asked if the Hardy Trail was part of the Orange Belt Trail. Mayor Scott Black clarified that while it is not, the City hopes to establish a connection. He explained that the Orange Belt Trail is a County project, while the Hardy Trail runs north to south through Dade City. Further discussion noted that the Orange Belt Trail is from the west, whereas the Hardy Trail serves a different alignment. Commissioner Ann Cosentino discussed the ROS6 element concerning the parks map and the acreage table from the original binder, noting that the Hardy Trail is not included in the current totals. She mentioned that adding the Hardy Trail would increase the total acreage of city parks. Consultant Tara Salmieri asked if the City wanted to include a separate policy for the Hardy Trail. Commissioner Scott Black suggested that the policy language should not be striken. Tara Salmieri proposed clarifying the policy to emphasize opportunities for connecting to and from the Hardy Trail. Mayor Pro Tem Normita Woodard asked about park service requirements and population levels per 1,000 permanent residents. Tara Salmieri explained that the metric now focuses on permanent residents rather than visitors, which benefits the City. Commissioner Woodard mentioned the consultant's statement that the City currently has enough parks, based on survey results, and asked for elaboration. Tara Salmieri clarified that the recommended levels serve as a benchmark. For example, while tennis courts have declined in popularity, pickleball has become more in demand. She noted that the survey would remain open until the end of the month, adding that while the overall survey suggests adequate park availability, new developments without parks could shift public perception toward a need for more park space. Commissioner James Shive asked if planned developments include requirements for parks. Tara Salmieri explained that current planned development standards do not always require amenities like parks. Commissioner Ann Cosentino highlighted that developers often meet open space requirements with small playgrounds combined with a large retention ponds. Tara Salmieri mentioned that the survey evaluation was conducted at a high level, and the consensus indicated that the level of park services might not be adequate. There was further discussion about the definition of a park, with Commissioner Shive emphasizing that parks are a requirement. Mayor Scott Black then asked if there were any more questions on parks and open space requirements. The meeting took a brief break at 6:50 PM, and the recording resumed at 7:01 PM. City Attorney Patrick Brackins recommended to go through the rest of the policies before discussion of implementation of gross and net density requirements. Planning Board School Board Member Chris Williams suggested adding schools to the objective, and Tara Salmieri agreed, encouraging participants to freely offer comments throughout the discussion. Commissioner Ann Cosentino noted that the City does not have an active Main Street program. Mayor Scott Black provided background, explaining that the City has participated in a Main Street program before, depending on available funding. Tara Salmieri acknowledged this and said she would remove the reference, as it came from an outdated policy. Mayor Scott Black inquired whether certain annexations would be considered involuntary. City Attorney Patrick Brackins explained that updates to the Comprehensive Plan would address this, ensuring alignment with statutory requirements. Mayor Scott Black also mentioned the possibility of a referendum on voluntary annexation, describing a scenario that could occur at the city's boundary. City Attorney Brackins confirmed he would collaborate with the consultant on this matter and follow up. Commissioner Ann Cosentino raised a question regarding the text in Policy 3.1, which encourages infill development while discouraging urban sprawl. She asked how this applies in practice when developable land is on the outskirts of city limits, but the developer doesn’t own property in the infill area. Mayor Scott Black acknowledged that infill is occurring as lots in the city are being purchased, emphasizing the need for coordinated efforts among developers and city planning. Tara Salmieri remarked that she understood the board's concerns about guiding property owners with acreage. Commissioner Ann Cosentino said if it is better to develop in areas with higher density, she asked how the policy encouraging infill could help make sound decisions for the City. Tara Salmieri clarified that the objectives of infill development and revitalizing the downtown are separate. She responded to the Commissioner's hypothetical example, stating that if someone owned ten acres, they would not necessarily be directed to focus on downtown development. Instead, she highlighted that the issue often lies with smaller lot sizes, recommending that the City focus on aligning land use and zoning policies to address these challenges rather than relying solely on infill policies, which are meant to support reinvestment in existing structures. City Attorney Patrick Brackins explained that when a developer is interested in redeveloping an old or vacant parcel, it often involves simultaneous Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments. He noted that while developers aren’t required to reveal their plans immediately, and outlined a proposal aimed to increase density, such as stacking houses. He emphasized the policies discouraging urban sprawl are more suited to redevelopment rather than large-scale development changes. Commissioner Ann Cosentino remarked that infill development seems less common. Commissioner James Shive raised concerns about developments in agricultural areas, questioning whether policies could restrict developments where 6 homes per acre would be incompatible with the surrounding rural character. He mentioned issues with recent high-density developments at the town's edge. City Attorney Patrick Brackins clarified that even if a developer is theoretically entitled to build 6 units per acre based on future land use, approval isn’t automatic. Decisions must also consider the zoning of the parcels and the character of surrounding areas. Tara Salmieri reminded the board that developers have the right to request rezoning, and it is staff’s role to evaluate these requests and prepare reports. She continued discussing the elements of land use. Mayor Scott Black inquired whether the policies under discussion would restrict the City's ability to establish new historic districts. Tara Salmieri responded that the City could keep the language broad or incorporate specific provisions into the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Scott Black agreed, highlighting the significance of the existing Church Street Historic District. Mayor Scott Black also noted that Dade City and Zephyrhills have merged into the East Pasco Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner James Shive added the importance of including the Dade City Merchants Association, to which the consultant agreed. Commissioner James Shive initiated a conversation about the topic of smaller lots. Mayor Scott Black made a comment about preserving open space and using setbacks to maintain view sheds, emphasizing the importance of preserving scenic views from roadways. He noted that most residents in the city seem opposed to cluster-style developments. Commissioner James Shive added that when he envisions suburban density, he doesn’t think of small lots. Commissioner Ann Cosentino suggested that the board might need to define terms such as small lots, open space, and common space for neighborhoods. This led to further discussion among the board members about density standards. Tara Salmieri mentioned that the board has the option to create policies that allow for larger lot sizes within subdivisions, such as one-acre or half-acre lots. She explained that, over time, property owners might choose to develop their remaining land as the surrounding area grows. However, a conservation subdivision provides a way to preserve open spaces permanently because the preserved area becomes part of the property’s entitlement, ensuring it cannot be developed later. Planning Board Member Keeley Karatinos clarified that the entitlements associated with such properties would remain with the land, to which Tara Salmieri agreed. They discussed concerns about gross density versus net density, particularly when a significant portion of a property is unbuildable. Commissioner Ann Cosentino added to the example involving a ten-acre site where only five acres are buildable, questioning whether the remaining area would be considered conservation land or if a developer could later request to build on those conservation areas to meet their original allotment. City Attorney Patrick Brackins suggested that these scenarios could be addressed by including specific terms, such as deed restrictions, in development agreements. Tara Salmieri mentioned that the City could require such agreements within a Planned Development, where a single owner is responsible, and the restrictions are recorded as part of the code. The board continued to discuss the potential benefits and details of conservation subdivisions. Tara Salmieri suggested that adding a Planned Development Conservation Subdivision (PD-CS) to the City’s zoning code would be straightforward and could be included in the upcoming draft of the comprehensive plan update. She noted that it could be removed later if needed. Mayor Scott Black supported the idea, emphasizing that having this option would be valuable for the City. Commissioner James Shive expressed a desire for more one-acre lots, similar to those in San Antonio, and raised concerns about the high density of some recent planned developments. He stressed the importance of establishing policies to limit density, especially as the City continues to grow and annex new areas. Tara Salmieri noted that one-acre lots are not very common, and there was a discussion on the types of developments seen in San Antonio. She pointed out that many low-density residential projects have been approved in recent years, placing the responsibility for these approvals on elected officials and Commissioners. She highlighted the need for guidance on the types of zoning classifications the Commission would like to approve, which would help her finalize the draft for the required comprehensive plan updates and transmittal to state agencies. Commissioner Ann Cosentino reiterated Mayor Scott Black’s viewpoint that a conservation subdivision is a useful tool that offers the City more flexibility and options. She emphasized the City’s goal of providing a diverse mix of housing. Commissioner James Shive continued the discussion by focusing on zoning categories and their impact on development. Mayor Pro Tem Normita Woodard clarified that while smaller lots could be allowed through a vote, the City Commission, as a decision-making body, had previously decided against allowing 40-foot-wide lots. She pointed out that the Commission has the authority to determine these aspects of housing policy. Commissioner Kristin Church expressed concern that small lots with houses piled on top of each other do not align with the vision the City Commission has for future development. She highlighted the need for compatibility in lot sizes with what the City envisions. There was further discussion among the Commissioners regarding lot sizes and the types of developments the Commission has the authority to approve. Commissioner James Shive provided examples of developments that he finds problematic, citing recent projects in areas like Happy Hill and St. Joe. He voiced frustration that certain subdivisions, after being annexed into the City, have destroyed the natural hillside, specifically criticizing 50-foot lots that have disrupted the hillside. City Attorney Patrick Brackins clarified that Consultant Tara Salmieri is proposing the consideration of a new zoning district, emphasizing that this suggestion is about exploring the possibility rather than adopting specific standards immediately. He noted that this zoning category would be compatible with the City's development goals, and the majority of the Commission showed interest in considering the option, without a commitment to adopting it. Tara Salmieri sought further direction on whether the board wanted to remove the Planned Development Residential (PDR) zoning from the future land use class of Suburban Density Residential. She presented maps and figures showing the current Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) areas for consideration. Planning Board Member Keeley Karatinos raised questions about the distinction between net density and gross density in the discussion. She pointed out the difference in plot sizes versus actual house placements in the town's core. Tara Salmieri responded, explaining that after reviewing many individual plots in her study, she does not recommend changing the density calculations to net density from gross density. City Attorney Patrick Brackins supported this stance, explaining that changing from gross to net density could create confusion for staff, complicate code interpretation, and potentially lead to discrepancies between different sets of regulations. He suggested that the City focus on addressing specific issues with how planned developments are executed rather than altering the density calculation method. Planning Board Member Keeley Karatinos inquired whether the density standards for planned developments could be calculated using net density rather than gross density. Consultant Tara Salmieri confirmed that this approach is possible and recommended a broader overhaul of the planned development standards to avoid consistently granting developers maximum entitlements. Mayor Pro Tem Normita Woodard highlighted that many of the existing developments were already approved before the current City Commission took office, which limited their ability to influence those projects. She stressed the need to establish new standards now to prevent repeating this pattern in the future, regardless of who holds office. She sought specific guidance from the consultant on how the City Commission could rewrite the planned development standards, particularly regarding net versus gross density, and asked for a strategic path forward. Commissioner James Shive suggested implementing sunset clauses in future development agreements to ensure that projects do not remain indefinitely without progress. Tara Salmieri agreed that updating the City's planned development standards would go a long way. She mentioned that while the city has newer codes in place, they may not be entirely aligned with the community’s vision, emphasizing that these types of decisions always carry some risk and require active leadership from elected officials. Mayor Pro Tem Normita Woodard expressed a desire for the City Commission to be proactive in preserving the city's heritage while planning for smart growth. She highlighted the current Commission's commitment to protecting what remains of the city’s character and ensuring that future growth is carefully managed. She noted that the Commission has a unique opportunity to set standards that will dictate the future shape of development. Mayor Scott Black mentioned that the consultant could include Planned Development (PD) options for future consideration, and Consultant Tara Salmieri recommended moving forward with transmitting the current updates without halting any land development code changes. She clarified that this approach does not require a full code overhaul but allows the City to continue improving the standards incrementally. City Attorney Patrick Brackins further explained that while the City is looking at revamping PD standards moving forward, it won’t affect existing agreements or already approved projects individually. Commissioner Ann Cosentino raised concerns about the current standards for recreational open space, noting that there is no specific size requirement, which can lead to developers counting a pond as a park. Tara Salmieri suggested that revising the planned development standards could help address such loopholes, ensuring more appropriate designations for open space. Planning Board Member Keeley Karatinos questioned whether the City had considered adding a new future land use category comparable to agricultural, which could align better with certain areas. Mayor Scott Black responded by questioning whether that would be in the City’s best interest, particularly when considering the feasibility of providing utilities like water and sewer to low-density areas. He suggested that it might make more sense for such properties to remain under county jurisdiction rather than being annexed into the City. Planning Board Chair Jere Ferguson pointed out that the City’s existing agricultural zoning standard does not align with the County’s, which has led to situations where properties zoned as agricultural get developed at a density of six units per acre. He questioned how the City might make such lower-density options more viable. City Attorney Patrick Brackins clarified that the request seemed to be for a new zoning category that aligns more closely with the County’s agricultural zoning, potentially allowing for a smoother transition when properties are annexed into the City. Mayor Scott Black continued to express doubts about whether such low-density zoning aligns with the City’s goals, citing concerns about infrastructure demands for servicing properties with large lot sizes. Commissioner James Shive highlighted the recent annexation of West Hill Estates as a positive development and expressed a desire to see more one-acre property options within the City, suggesting that projects like Larkin Ranch could fit into this vision. Planning Board Member Keeley Karatinos likened zoning to a "Snapchat filter" applied to land use, emphasizing that zoning gives a distinct character or shape to the broader land use designations. Mayor Pro Tem Normita Woodard added that the City does not have to approve every annexation proposal, suggesting that the City Commission has the authority to decline when a proposal doesn’t align with their vision. Planning Board Chair Jere Ferguson raised concerns about rural properties that come before the board, questioning if there are viable options for such properties. Keeley Karatinos noted that often, the City Commission does not fully consider the Planning Board’s specific objections to certain proposals. She pointed out instances where the Planning Board might effectively dislike a project and effectively get boxed into unanimously approving, which is all that is seen by the City Commission, leading to frustration over decision-making transparency. Consultant Tara Salmieri discussed the Open Use Agricultural (OUA) zoning district as an option and provided further insights on land use and zoning distinctions. There was further discussion where properties are assigned a specific land use but are limited in the zoning categories that can be applied to them. Tara Salmieri explained that while a builder might be constrained by the assigned land use category (low or medium density), the City has the ability to ensure the zoning permits the lowest intensity options for that land use. Board members expressed their frustrations with certain land use and zoning assignments, particularly with situations where Suburban Density Residential (SDR) was not even brought up as an option, and how Low Density Residential (LDR) could have been more effective if paired with better-planned developments that include more open space, sidewalks, and diverse housing types. Tara Salimieri highlighted that many of the existing planned developments (PDs)—which appeared as blue areas on a visual map she shared—could have been designed better. She pointed out that past planning staff might have made missteps, leading to PDs that were not well-connected to the city and had other planning flaws. She emphasized that focusing solely on density is not the solution and that elements like lot width, relationship to the street, and quality of design are crucial for better outcomes. Despite some issues, she believed that the current future land use designations within the City are appropriate. Commissioner James Shive brought up the fact that the City’s water lines already extend south into surrounding county areas, servicing places like Hickory Hills, Pasadena Hills, and Orange Valley, which feature larger lot sizes. He questioned why the City couldn’t continue to service similar developments with larger lots, implying that it could support more rural character development while expanding infrastructure. Commissioner Ann Cosentino expressed gratitude for the consultant’s dedication to the project, emphasizing the importance of updating the standards for planned development. Tara Salmieri recommended that the City consider working with a consultant for the necessary changes to PD standards. Commissioner Cosentino reiterated the goal of ensuring the City is well-positioned for these updates. Mayor Scott Black closed the discussion by inquiring about the future timetable for these updates. Tara Salmieri explained the steps for the transmittal process, outlining the forthcoming actions the City would take in updating its comprehensive plan and development standards. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED) Rita Barrett, a resident of 14938 Puckett Road off River Road, expressed concerns about flooding and developments. She inquired about the possibility of limiting housing to one acre per home, referencing the property annexed into the city in 2006. Mayor Scott Black clarified the project's location off River Road, while City Attorney Patrick Brackins noted that specific project details couldn't be discussed at this time, the public hearing will be continued at a later date. Nancy Hazlewood, residing at 34110 A Nice Place, voiced her opposition to conservation subdivisions. She cited concerns that this designation is gradually chipping away at the Northeast Rural Protected Area and highlighted the risks of future development within open spaces. Nancy Hazlewood also worried about officials potentially violating agreements, such as the establishment of a solar field in agricultural areas north of Dade City. Mary McKnight from 36210 St. Joe Road raised several concerns regarding the platted 50-foot lots, advocating for larger lot sizes. She suggested the city should create new zoning districts and revise future land use classifications. Mary McKnight expressed frustration over the confusion surrounding displaced persons, public takings, just compensation, city traffic engineering, and the integration of stormwater management into recreational open spaces. She maintained that low-density residential detached homes are problematic and noted that the city always used to designate medium-density residential for townhomes. She emphasized that while future land use provides a maximum density, zoning limits actual development. Mary McKnight openly criticized the Low Density Residential future land use designation of six units per acre, arguing that it does not adequately restrict growth in open areas, and she suggested that developers should not automatically assume they are entitled to future land use. Mayor Scott Black responded on low-density options available in the county if the city is considering annexation. Mary McKnight responded that the city is already encroaching into rural areas. Mayor Scott Black remarked on the additional taxes and services associated with city living, stating that if developers want to annex and pay the taxes, they can do so. Mary McKnight discussed the appeal of annexation and suggesting that it would make more sense to focus on infill development. She proposed using incentives to encourage voluntary annexation, which could support city growth and incentivize infill growth. Commissioner James Shive supported the idea of having options for 2-3 acre lots within the city, initiating further discussion about community desires and property taxes. Michelle Serdynski of 40337 River Road recommended that the city adopt the RR designation from Pinellas County, as it would facilitate larger lot sizes, increase tax revenue, and enhance quality of life. E. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Scott Black adjourned the meeting at 9:05 PM. FOOTER TEXT