PDD-23-0089

Every appearance1 of 3 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. 98% of 48 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 2 of the 3 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1. 1Nov 17, 2022
   Planning CommissionPC5Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   An Ordinance Amending The Appeal (Continuance) - Lowman Links, Inc. - Appeal of the Planning and Development Department (PDD) Director’s Determination of October 8, 2021 that Tree Farm, Timber Use, and/or Other Agricultural Activities are Not Principal Permitted Uses in the Beacon Woods MPUD/DRI, nor in the R-4 High Density Residential District - Northwest Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 15) From RES-6 (Residential-6 Du/Ga) And RES-9 (Residential-9 Du/Ga) To RES-9 (Residential-9 Du/Ga) On Approximately 12.63 Acres (M.O.L.) Of Real Property Located Off Clinton - Generally located on the North Side of Hudson Avenue Approximately A Quarter Of A Mile West Of U.S. Highway 301; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date at Morning View Drive

   Open this item →No recording
2. 2Jan 19, 2023
   Planning CommissionP6Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan; Plan Amendment (Regular) - CPAS22(18) Clinton Townhomes - Providing For A for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And and Sheet 15) From from RES-6 (Residential-6 Du/Ga) And RES-9 (Residential-9 Du/Ga) To PC Addendum Agenda du/ga) portion to RES-9 (Residential-9 Du/Ga) On du/ga) on Approximately 12.63 Acres (M.O.L.) Of of Real Property Located Off off Clinton Avenue Approximately A approximately a Quarter Of A of a Mile West Of U.S. west of US Highway 301; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date 301.

   Open this item →No recording
3. 3Feb 21, 2023
   Board of County CommissionersP54Public hearingAdopted

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 9:04
   ▶ 9:046m

   Jack MarianoChair

   9:04All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? By gloss script. Mm-hmm. Next item, P54.

   Kathryn Starkey

   9:13Yes, sir.

   Jack MarianoChair

   9:15Um

   Kathryn Starkey

   9:15You want publication?

   Jack MarianoChair

   9:17Yes.

   Kathryn Starkey

   9:18All right, P fifty four is published in the Tampa Bay Times January fourth, twenty twenty three.

   Denise

   9:24P uh P 54 is P D D 230089. On this item, this is the adoption. We're asking you to approve the item by roll call vote, accept public comment, of course. This is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map two-fifteen and sheet 15 from res six, residential six dwelling units per gross acre, and res nine residential nine. Dwelling units per gross acre to res nine residential nine dwelling units per gross acre on approximately 12.63 acres

   9:55more or less of real property located off Clinton Avenue, approximately a quarter mile. West of U.S. Highway 301, providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for a repealer, severability, and an effective date. This item comes to you with a recommendation that you adopt by roll call vote. It was presented to a local planning agency on January 19, 2023, who found the ordinance consistent with the Uh comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners.

   Jack MarianoChair

   10:25Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff?

   Denise

   10:27Yes.

   Jack MarianoChair

   10:28Mr. Starkey.

   Kathryn Starkey

   10:29Um is this on the north or the south side? This is on the north side. So this is the area where we have an issue with The missing multi-use trail?

   10:42Mm.

   Denise

   10:43Is the person um that is responsible for this item here today.

   10:51Doreen I think it's Doreen Roy's item.

   Doreen

   10:58Bye, Andrew. Good afternoon, Doreen Roy, Planning and Development. Uh yes, there is a trail uh on Clinton Avenue. And I d I'm not sure if it's running on the south side or the north side. And that's a problem?

   Kathryn Starkey

   11:12No offense? Um this is one of the major major multi-use trails in the county and once again the Planning Commission's not picking this up. Planners aren't picking this up. So this is where we made a mistake and we put a sidewalk in instead of the multi-use path. And as we talked to D O T when we were out at the ribbon cutting They're gonna find a way to get it back on here. And so I'm not okay with us not realizing

   11:43this. I'm not. I mean we need six more feet. What?

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   11:49This is not the part that's in construction.

   Kathryn Starkey

   11:52This didn't get widened?

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   11:53Clinton Avenue closer to 301.

   Kathryn Starkey

   11:55Doesn't Clinton Avenue go all the way to 301? The widening?

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   11:58Yeah, I understand.

   Kathryn Starkey

   12:04From Prospect to 301. Um It's missing and they figured out the part and I think I showed it to you, Commissioner, when we were out there where they're gonna be able to Build the multi use trailer. Uh on the near the sidewalk, but once they get Uh somewhere uh to the east of that and I don't remember where the definitor was Uh Yeah. We have to bring back we have to get the land.

   Mike Carballa

   12:33So if I'm not mistaken, yeah, this is this would be part of that countywide solution that we're working with F D O T on uh versus necessarily this particular project. Yeah.

   Kathryn Starkey

   12:45So what what are you saying?

   Mike Carballa

   12:47Well what I'm saying is is we recognize there was a miss, right, with with the fifty-two extension. Um and as part of that we are working with F Dot and we we had that conversation um at at the ribbon cutting. Uh on finding a way to get an extended trail through there. I don't think that this development necessarily, even looking at the very minimal frontage it has, is is really gonna be a major player and part of this.

   Kathryn Starkey

   13:09Well, I'll tell you what we need, and what I'm gonna need to vote for it is we need six feet from the front.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   13:13That's a comprehensive plan amendment.

   Kathryn Starkey

   13:16Okay, but I wanna see if that is the applicant here and are they I mean it's to their advantage to have this go in front of their property. But we need six feet.

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   13:28Uh Mr. Chairman Mariano Speethos Planning and Development Um I believe that when this project does come through with its zoning They'll they'll dedicate the necessary right-of-way as outlined in the right-of-way preservation tables to accommodate the necessary um infrastructure that's gonna be within that right-of-way.

   Kathryn Starkey

   13:45Okay. I just want to be sure, Terry, that every one of your staff know that I mean I think we need to put some red flags on certain properties that we need an additional six feet. That's what DOT told me. When we were out there. Um maybe you need to talk to them or Tina or someone, but We don't want to We don't want to um mess up um the opportunity. So just

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   14:11Understood and w we're aware of the the fifty two trail issue.

   Kathryn Starkey

   14:15Okay.

   Jack MarianoChair

   14:18Okay. Any other comments for staff?

   14:24Terry is here. Is the applicant here? Terry? Terry, is the applicant here?

   Denise

   14:31It yeah, there's Sh sh Shelley May Johnson.

   What

   14:38Thank you, Shelley Johnson, [address removed]. Um yeah, I did hear the conversation. They have to come back in for site plan approval, but obviously that should be triggered at that time. I don't think it's gonna be an issue, so But thank you for consideration today. Thanks.

   Jack MarianoChair

   14:52Thank you. Okay, there's a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to speak on this item? Mm-hmm.

   Kathryn Starkey

   15:01I do not have anyone signed up. Any

   Jack MarianoChair

   15:03on WebEx?

   Kathryn Starkey

   15:04No.

   Jack MarianoChair

   15:04Okay. So we should approval?

   Kathryn Starkey

   15:06Second.

   Jack MarianoChair

   15:08Uh roll call vote?

   Kathryn Starkey

   15:09Okay. District one, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District two, Commissioner Weightman.

   Jack MarianoChair

   15:14Yes.

   Kathryn Starkey

   15:15District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford. District five, Chairman Mariano.