Skip to main content
Pasco Countymeeting record

PDD-21-0284

Published agenda

2 appearances between Apr 7, 2021 and May 4, 2021.

OutcomeApproved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 4, 2021
Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda.

Official title

An Ordinance By The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending The Pasco County Land Development Code; Chapter 500 Zoning; Section 526 C-2 General Commercial District; Subsection 526.3 Conditional Uses; Removing Multiple Family Dwellings As Conditional Uses; And Other Sections, As Necessary, For Internal Consistency; Providing For Applicability; Repealer; Providing For Severability; Inclusion Into The Land Development Code; And An Effective Date.

On a calendar

Apr 7, 2021 → May 4, 2021 · click a mark to jump to that appearance

Every appearance2 of 2 are in a recording

Each appearance carries the official title above. Where the county’s wording changed, the change is marked: added and removed. Steps with no marks were worded identically.

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 93% of 83 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

  1. 1
    Board of County CommissionersP48Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes
    Open this item →
    under a minute
    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Item P forty eight was published in the Dem Bay Times on February twenty first, twenty twenty.

    Denise

    I P forty eight is P D twenty one zero two eight four. Right, so it's also

    Jack Mariano

    Move to continue time certain?

    Ron OakleyChair

    Yeah, got a motion and a second to continue. Um all those in favor say aye. Opposed like saying? Motion pass 5-0.

  2. 2
    Board of County CommissionersP44Public hearingApproved

    An Ordinance By The … General Commercial District; Subsection 526.3 526.3.O Conditional Uses; Removing Uses - Multiple Family Dwellings As Conditional Uses; Dwellings; And Other Sections, As … And An Effective Date.

    Approved minutes

    Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda.

    Open this item →
    13m
    Ron OakleyChair

    Commission meeting of May 4th, 2021. A reminder to everyone Present, please silence your electronic devices and mute your microphones. Now we will proceed with public hearing agenda, starting with item P forty four. Uh Madam Clerk, do we have proof of this item?

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Yes, Mr. Chair. Um item P forty four was published in the Tampa Bay Times on April fourth, twenty twenty one.

    Denise

    Good afternoon, Commissioner. Denise Hernandez, Planning and Development. Item P for 44 is PDD 21 0284. This is the adoption. hearing on this item. So today we're asking that you accept public comment and adopt the proposed ordinance amendments by roll call vote. So this is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, Chapter 500. Zoning, section five twenty six, C two General Commercial District, Subsection five twenty six point three point zero, conditional uses, multiple family dwellings, and other sections as necessary for internal

    consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability, inclusion into land development code and an effective date.

    And as you know, this went to the local planning agency, found uh consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners on 4-1 of 2021. The first reading with a full presentation was done to the Board of County Commissioners on 420, 2021. So today we're asking that you accept public comment and adopt the ordinance amendments by roll call vote.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Okay.

    Uh we have anyone sign up on WebEx.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    One on WebEx and no one on email for P44.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Okay. Is anyone at the kiocks on um P forty four?

    The what? Anybody?

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    There's no one at the kiosk.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Okay, thank you. No move for approval? Second. Wait.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Is there

    yeah. So are are there any emails for this? No, no.

    Ron OakleyChair

    P forty four, no emails. Okay. No emails, nobody on WebEx, and there was no one at KeyPac.

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    Can we discuss?

    Can we discuss This

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    you got a motion you got a a a mo motion and a second, so discussion. Okay. Discussion.

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    Um, I know when I originally put in the motion to remove Multi use. Uh from conditional C two zoning, but it seems like we still have The e f um we have three exceptions to the rule, and I agree the exception two vertical integrated mixed use, ground floor office or other non residential use, because that is a true mixed use. But I didn't realize why Mentions his staff. I

    was questioning the affordable housing as defined in section four two zero point zero zero four.

    Mike Moore

    Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yeah, sure. I I think that was something that came through the Planning Commission and that was um an exception that they made. I think they discussed it at last meeting. That was an exception made at the Planning Commission, which was added to the ordinance. I'm not in grass agreement. If you want to pull that out, I'd I'd be in favor.

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    I would like to pull that out because that was not part of the original motion. And I did speak to staff prior to this meeting.

    Mike Moore

    I'll end my motion to to um remove the affordable housing portion out of it. Okay with the second.

    Okay.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Uh discussion. Because I'm not I'm not in favor of that. I think Um, we need to be able to still find places to put uh workforce housing. Yeah. Um That would be real problem for the county.

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    I agree with affordable housing, but not in the C two use, in the commercial zone.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    It you know, I think each site is I mean think there may be sites that are certainly appropriate like on US nineteen. Um so um I think I think that's I think that's a dangerous road to go

    Ron OakleyChair

    down if

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    we take

    Ron OakleyChair

    uh That pretty much changed it 'cause that wasn't that same motion or wasn't that before us before when we talked about this? Or is this coming back to us with this?

    Denise

    No, so basically the history of this is it was brought to the Planning Commission um on in March and the Planning Commission said that they had concerns with excluding um the uh the uh uh allowance of uh multiple family dwellings as a conditional use in C2 that there would be unintended consequences. Um some of the things that were talked about at that meeting was affordable housing um the West Market area. And I know the board during

    their discussion separate from the Planning Commission, obviously, the board talked about that vertical integration was very, very important to the board having the multiple family and the allowance of the integration of commercial uses or office uses or non-residential uses. So um so that was brought back to the Planning Commission on April 1st and the Planning Commission felt comfortable that that would satisfy the concerns that they had with the unintended consequences. And then that was then brought to the Board of County Commissioners

    for the first reading. There was some um some discussion at the at the board, and then you know, we're here today for the adoption.

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    After Chairman Mariano. Um after the April first meeting I did reach out to staff and I was questioning because I know what my original motion was and this wasn't the intent and if they're developers, I would like them to come in and look for a multifamily one, two, or three, not a multifamily one, two, three or commercial use.

    And that was the whole purpose of the original motion. Right. But now we're adding apartments back in. The only true apartment in this exception would be the vertical integrated use with the commercial floor and apartments above.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Well, I think I think the concern was the reason they added that back in, the concern was for affordable housing and workforce housing that you need in some areas. they still may fit on that circumstance and we didn't want anything to hold us back from doing that 'cause forty percent of the citizens of Pasco County need housing. And so when you eliminate that Crossboard you eliminate a lot of uh workforce housing in some of those areas where you really need it. So I'm

    concerned about changing emotion to that. Uh really was before the motion before that, but uh I'm very concerned about that added in or take that out. So

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    do we Do we have a map that shows Where the Multifamilies one, two, and three are and compared to the commercial?

    Denise

    I I don't have that map available for for this particular for the following, which is the moratorium, there's gonna be research and that information will be brought to the Board of County Commissioners.

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    Because I'm not saying take away affordable housing on the other aspects of it, just the commercial.

    Or C two.

    Denise

    So they're just gonna go MF one, but then we wouldn't of course at that point we wouldn't know whether it's affordable house you know, they that's not something that they have to disclose. So you could just apply for an M F one, M F two, or M Free? zoning um and

    Jack Mariano

    Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yeah sure. So someone could if we approve it just the way it's written right now. Someone would if they wanted to change and use the conditional use, they're still gonna come before the board for the approval. Right. So we could look at it with still doing what your intent is on ninety percent of it, but that other ten percent you give them the flexibility to come in, they still gotta come before the board on a public hearing to go forward with it. But frankly they it it it may it may work out where we The board at the time where it may be may say, you know what? Much as we didn't want to take away commercial, we

    think it's still gonna be it's appropriate at the time. So I'm gonna withdraw my support for the motion the way it was modified.

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    So then are we just taking a w There's still gonna be multifamily use. So we're just taking away basically class A apartments.

    Denise

    So you're you're based on the motion as I understood it, you're striking out affordable housing as defined in section four twenty point zero zero zero four Florida statutes. That's that's how I understood the motion.

    Ron OakleyChair

    See the reason they the reason they put that in put that back in was the fact that it was gonna for affordable housing or workforce housing as we were gonna do. It had to come back in instead of trying to be a conditional use now you're telling them they have to rezone it. And it costs more and more. expense and doing that rezon for affordable housing. And I think that was part of the reason That's that's accurate.

    Denise

    A rezoning application is more expensive than a conditional use application. That's an that's accurate. Right. Yeah.

    Mike Moore

    Mr. Chairman Mariano. Now Commissioner Fishback, I I support your original idea by far. I'm I'm with ya. Um I have no like I I I'm with you about removing the affordable housing portion out, but it just sounds to me now that you've got a three two we have a three two where we may may lose that. So might have to go ahead and mean be amenable to get make this pass to go back to the original. Um

    Ron OakleyChair

    I think every project this world, I can tell you every project we've seen in the past, and I'm sure those in the future, we've all been pretty much on the same page. We've all uh discussed the items very well. And I think we're smart enough to understand if it fits for affordable housing, wherever that project might be, I think we can make the right decision to put it there. So I don't think we need to leave this out. I think we need

    Less cost of a project. for th for those people. We need like I say, forty percent of our people need the debt citizens in a Pasco County.

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    I agree with affordable housing. I just

    Ron OakleyChair

    okay and I'm sure you do. So But I think taking it out of this sh just really changes it for me.

    Christina Fitzpatrick

    Yeah, I wouldn't want to change and make it more costly. So

    Mike Moore

    but I have

    Ron OakleyChair

    a motion.

    Mike Moore

    Okay, so it sounds like what I need to do is go back to amend my motion to my original motion as recommended by staff. Same page? Second, yes. Okay.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Okay. So I've got a motion to second by roll call vote.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    District two, Commissioner More. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Fitzpatrick. Aye. District five, Commissioner Mariano.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Aye.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    District one, Chairman Oakley.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Aye. Motion pass five zero.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Um question.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Just in case I wanna We call that vote. Is it possible here to add the landscaping language that is sorely missing from our land development code that they have to have trees in the front?

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    No.

    This is only amending the condition the the conditional use section. for multifamily.

    I understand understand what you're saying. I'm sure Ms. Hernandez can put

    Ron OakleyChair

    it in a glitch. I think we're working on the county. That's important because I'm on board with you on that. Uh I've seen some of that without landscape and it does not look good and we don't need it in this

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    county. And a qua a a queen palm is not landscaping.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Yeah. Okay. And

    Mike Moore

    I hate to do this, Mr. Chairman. Not just going on since we're having a little bit of discussion on this, it and I think it'd be hoove the team to maybe bring something back what Commissioner um Starkey was mentioning a second ago because I didn't bring up today, I was gonna wait till the next meeting, but I wanted to talk more about that tree mitigation fund because I'm noticing some um some um commercial um this retail s establishments that are not following have not followed the code, but maybe they don't look like they're doing that good. So maybe we can step in and use some of those those funds for the tree mitigation. If you look on

    the um West Chicha Boulevard slash seventy five fifty four exit, um Long story. Long story, but I'll go make it short. We work very closely with F Dot to go that landscaping. So if you've gone there in the last like two to three weeks, it's amazing, isn't it? It's beautiful. But we have a couple of situations that surround that that have nothing. So it kind of takes away from it, right? So If we could bring that back, just kind of following on with Commissioner Starkey on that issue.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Yeah, well I'll I'll save my comments when we bring it back. Okay,

    Ron OakleyChair

    cool.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    I

    like

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    I

    Ron OakleyChair

    is the next uh item we're removed to makes

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    a difference.