TABLE OF CONTENTS
Missing equity discussion
66 Matching Annotations
- Jul 2023
-
planhillsborough.org planhillsborough.org
-
-
Example 2: Establishing a Neighborhood Node
Great example of stacking bonuses
-
If a development qualifies for the graywater bonus, that bonus should be applied before the affordable housing orefficient and resilient bonuses due to its statutory nature
This undercuts affordable housing bonuses
-
Table 14 | Bonus ceiling by FLU category
These ceilings are not high enough. Affordable housing should be exempt from this limit.
-
o create this balance, each FLU category has a bonus ceiling, whichspecifies a maximum amount of density bonus that can be granted to any development within that category.
This doesn't really make sense when some of the bonuses are specifically there because there is infrastructure. It changes the requirement from just having infrastructure to needing infrastructure and FLU updates
This also perpetuates historical inequities between neighborhoods.
-
creating atransit-supportive environment.
important language to be using
-
Efficient and Resilient (E&R) buildings – environmentally sustainable building construction and design
Add a separate one for urban tree canopy
-
Incorporating public parking on-site
remove this
-
equitable distribution of outcomes
articulate role of planning districts in "equity"
-
Planning districts are too large and internally diverse to make sweeping policies apply to entire planningdistricts.
Agree
-
Consider eliminating Urban Villages and creating policies for CRA areas only.
What should designate a polycentric "center" in these neighborhoods if not "urban village" designation?
-
find another strategy foraddressing compatibility concerns
AKA, less PD, more "these are good things, all projects should have them"
-
LDC should require master plans for development of large sites in TOD areas
Who is responsible for approval?
-
Targeted Bonuses within FLU Categories
I don't understand this section
-
Parking reductions would be another appropriate incentive to include for affordable housing, as lower-incomehouseholds have lower rates of car ownership than similar-sized wealthier households
Ignore this--the market reflects this automatically.
-
affordable at 80% - 120% AMI
What about <80%?
-
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES
It should be an objective to use FLU changes to decrease land costs for development
-
Remove the requirement for the primary residence to be owner-occupied, in line with the Affordable HousingAdvisory Team’s recommendation.
Yes.
-
Recommendations
Is parking a use? I've heard that before.
-
Have policies that allow neighborhoods and centers to be generally inclusive of a diverse range of housing typesthat can increase supply and create naturally occurring affordable housing.
This policy is not discussed at length in the affordable housing discussion earlier in the document, but is extremely important. This is the biggest impact that we can make, and increases the impact on improving access to subsidized affordable housing because it provides a wider range of options across the cost spectrum.
-
Limit, lower, or eliminate density/intensity bonuses for properties adjacent to lower-density neighborhoods forthe purpose of transitioning density
This is inequitable and will push of housing costs in those neighborhoods
-
Environmental concerns – climate change/sea level rise, renewable energy, protecting waterways.
Tree canopy also
-
South Tampa
Have to wonder if the over-representation across this chart and the previous chart is a result of general over-representation from ST
-
Table 7: Most requested new zoning
A good policy objective/success criteria might be to have a high rate of PD -> Normal category rezonings in the future
-
Figure 10: Growth and residential capacity, policy-based and land constrained
This is an incredible chart for showing that we are choosing to not have housing abundance
-
o assess this another way, the LRTP forecast estimates that thepopulation of Tampa will grow by about 159,000 people between 2020 and 2045. The unconstrained estimate ofcapacity (as shown in Table 2) would allow for a population growth of over 1 million people, assuming a 50-50 splitof residential and commercial in mixed use areas and an average household size of 2.26 people. In other words, thefuture land use regulations do not prevent this level of residential development
Okay this analysis is good. We should lean on this when talking about maximizing existing FLU.
-
It is estimated that about 93 million sf of residential development are required.
This is the absolute floor
-
1,000 sf per multi-family unit
Current apartment stock is biased towards single/non-family housing. It should be a policy objective to increase sqft of apartments. Where is this number coming from?
-
3,600 units per year
Tampa bay had 150 people move here every day for the last decade. That is 54k per year. A 3.6k goal here is shameful, even if you account for shared living (20k new units w/ > 2 per unit), that means <20% of people moving here will be to Tampa.
-
1,600 sf per single-family unit
most single family unattached are closer to 3k...
-
density minimums
We ❤️ density minimums on transit corridors!!!
-
The Hillsborough TPO forecasts show significant residential growth through 2045.
THIS IS NOT BASED ON POLICY THAT IS INTENDED TO INCREASE THIS NUMBER eg, to fight climate change, improve walkability, increase economic growth, or other benefits to more dense communities
-
Long Range Transportation Plan forecasts for 2045 population, dwelling units, and employment were used toestimate the need for residential
"Forecast ... need"--This is separate from deliberate policy for intended outcomes that are intended to change historical trajectory. This is a key problem with the trajectories
-
added
Is this net?
-
Figure 7: Heat map of residential development clusters, 2010-2022
This chart is misleading because it doesn't account for 1-to-1 SFH replacement (McMansionization) and destruction of old multi-family housing
-
Location of Non-Residential Development
Would be good to understand if there were just a few specific projects that really made a difference
-
The planning districts provide a useful division of Tampa into parts of town with differentcharacteristics
This needs more explanation
-
2010
We basically stopped building housing from 2007-2013...
-
Pros
Bonuses that more than make up for cost of affordable units means more supply overall AND more likelyhood of leveraging the bonuses for the subsidized units
-
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEST PRACTICES – LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICYALTERNATIVES
There is a fixation on subsidized affordable housing (which we need!) but not an overarching plan to increase supply to affect the non-subsidized market
-
Allowable densities must be lower than market demand in order for participation to remain high
This discourages housing affordability for most people, ie, "the market".
-
The voluntary nature requires good market conditions to function including local conditions and positionwithin the housing market business cycle
How do market conditions affect how likely they are to leverage bonuses? If rents are declining, more bonus is required because there is less opportunity for the market units to subsidize the non-market units?
-
Housing Affordability
This section does not address the significance of non-subsidized affordable housing.
-
Voluntary Inclusionary Zoning (Miami)
Why no commentary on impact? We need be clear that this policy doesn't go far enough.
-
At least 30% of units are affordable at 140% or less of AMI
In other words, "30% more units if all of those units are below market"--why would a developer choose to do that?
-
highlights a benefit of designating zones for IZ development
Is this saying IZ zones should be in areas of high amenities & access?
-
a total of 362 affordable units have been developed over 16 developments
This is nothing.
-
Thedensity of mixed use developments is regulated by FAR for the entire development and a maximum density ofdwelling units
Why regulate with both? Maybe okay if "maximum of", where the same one isn't always the max threshold
-
Lack of clarity in City staff's role in interpreting the Plan.
City Council usually just ignores staff
-
Support for more housing and more affordable housing.
This shouldn't be a "secondary issue"
-
Plan promotes growth in Urban Village but some are designated historic districts.
Historically compatible missing middle--more form based code.
-
Mismatch between Plan and certain market forces.
South Tampa demand is high, but permitted growth is limited. Areas where we want a lot of growth don't have as much market demand
-
Plan does not showcase its value to community.
"Housing For All" moniker, like Largo's, would be nice
-
TU 24 prohibition policies have limited the persistence and creation of incompatible uses.
What's this?
-
PLANNING CONTEXT
This needs to include the climate action plan
-
In the course of completing the assessment, the teamhas also identified areas of potential policy coordination between the Comprehensive Plan and the City of TampaLand Development Code
We need to be pushing for LDC changes alongside the comprehensive plan update.
-
Therecommendations of the assessment are advisor
This is NOT what is up for a vote or anything like that
-
Protect the character of historic districts while allowing them to grow by aligning Plan policies with communityand revitalization plans and initiative.
We should talk about the role of missing middle in historical districts!
-
Clarify the policies for growth areas
Today, entire "South Tampa" is in its own planning district where growth is discouraged. This bullet point speaks to how we could remove that broad language and allow development on roads like Dale Mabry and Kennedy Blvd
-
Improve Plan policy guidance on the conversion of land from non-residential to residential uses.
Form based zoning would be a great approach here, though I don't think staff are open to doing this broadly with their current resources.
-
detailed description of the proposed structure for granting density bonuses for affordable housing,efficient and resilient building design, and other public benefits
This statement is an important theme of this entire document's recommendations
-
This trend isexpected to continue as long as regulations do not constrain multifamily construction
Acknowledgment that regulations are inhibiting housing supply
-
Figure 1: Historic and projected future growth of dwelling units
This is a chart for dwelling units, NOT population. It's not how many are moving here, it's how many we're building new housing for.
That we are increasing above the historical line means we are trying to push rapid increase in development in the short run.
There's no reason to believe that the long term growth should flatten. That is a pessimistic view on growth.
-
parking maximums
Explicitly calls out parking MAXIMUMS
-
Place types can be a more holistic and potentially less limiting way to envision future land uses comparedto density-based categories
De-emphasizing density as the focus of regulation and focusing on "good places" can be an important part of messaging
-
To identify best practices and innovations in other cities that could be applied to Tampa,
We should also look to our history, including pre-zoning.
-