PDD-24-0223

Every appearance1 of 1 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 60% of 457 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Feb 8, 2024
   Planning CommissionPC9Consent agendaAdopted

   Approved minutes

   Approved the item to include the reduction in retail parking by 20 percent from the current minimum, change multifamily parking to 1.9 spaces per unit, amend 907 to include the single family and townhome parking as presented in this Ordinance, that we adopt Staff’s recommendation of the changes to section 525.4 and the definition of fuel station, and the minimum parallel parking space on a street

   Open this item →▶ Play from 2:28:51
   ▶ 2:28:511h 24m

   Denise

   2:28:51Mr. Chairman the following item is item PC nine. I believe uh Nectarios Pitos will be presenting that item or perhaps Amir Jamali or a combination thereof.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:29:05Okay.

   2:29:07Good afternoon. This is Amir Jamali with Planning and Development Department. This item is a Land Development Code amendment, section 907.1, parking requirements. As you might remember, this item was heard by Planning Commission in October and it got continued to an uncertain date. The original proposal was to change the Parking requirement for non residential users from minimum settings to maximum. And I

   2:29:37believe the main concern with planning commissioners was that this will allow the developments with zero parking or non sufficient parking spaces. And we also met with planning commissioners during November individually to discuss their concerns in more details and to They we are we uh we are here with a new proposal and Ms. M Ivan and Ms. Kathryn Hartley Vicpenish, uh County's consultant is here for presentation of the

   2:30:07new proposal. Thank

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:30:09you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:30:09Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:30:14Good afternoon. It's nice to see you all again. I'm Kathryn Hartley, I'm a senior project manager with Benish. I'm here to answer any questions, but I do have some corrections that I need to read into the record that are in the table. Okay. Um if you'll indulge me for just a moment. On page ten, on the in the minimum and maximum table for model home. There should be a two space minimum. Under the minimum on site requirement. Two space minimum and then four spaces is the maximum.

   2:30:47On page eleven, I'm recommending that boarding house be stricken in its entirety from the table. You don't have a definition for it. And traditionally boarding houses have typically been a single family home that the rooms are rented out, think like the Golden Girls kind of situation. And that is covered under the single family minimums, not maximums, in the table above this one. So I think I think you're covered there. On page

   2:31:2013 under home improvement uh stores, lumber yards, and nurseries. Your table in Munico did not have a um a minimum there at all, and this just kind of got missed in all the drafts. So in looking at the ITE 5th edition code for this, I'm recommending that there be a two-space per thousand minimum and a four-space per thousand maximum. Maximum.

   2:31:46And then also on this page, uh for self-storage facilities.

   2:31:53Um in order to be consistent with uh section eleven oh five with the additional standards, there needs to be a five-space minimum. And then we can set the maximum at uh one per two units, storage units. Sorry, which one was it? That is self-storage facilities. Same page, uh thirteen.

   Moody

   2:32:14Okay. And I I apologize because I get a little confused. The home improvement stores and lumberyards. Yes sir. Is it that you're just reading the table wrong because right underneath it it talks about them being whether they're less than or greater than the other thing?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:32:27Oh you're right. I was just reading the the printed version and I was wondering why that was you're right.

   2:32:35I had a panic when I was going through the print version before I got up here. Okay, scratch that. Under self-storage. Uh back to that. So to be consistent with section eleven oh five. Five spaces have to be the minimum. Minimum of five spaces.

   Connected City

   2:32:52Do you need to fix that language so it says per unit? Because it just says one space and five spaces. It doesn't say per what? Per unit.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:32:59No five spaces total.

   Connected City

   2:33:02Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:33:03For the maximum. One space for the maximum per unit for the maximum.

   Connected City

   2:33:08But what I'm saying is they'd have the per unit

   Moody

   2:33:10parting here. Five spaces minimum?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:33:12Five spaces for the minimum.

   Moody

   2:33:15And one space per unit maximum.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:33:17Maximum, correct.

   Moody

   2:33:18Yes. No, it doesn't make sense.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:33:24Sorry, I'm not reading much from scratch. One space per two units, yes.

   Connected City

   2:33:30Mera.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:33:31Minimum maximum. One space per two unit maximum. Five spaces total minimum.

   Connected City

   2:33:40Yeah. Five spaces total, gotcha.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:33:42Yeah.

   Connected City

   2:33:43Yeah it makes sense.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:33:44That's that makes it consistent with the additional standards in Section eleven oh five. And then the same goes for the freestanding recreational vehicle boat storage. Five spaces as the absolute minimum for section eleven oh five. And then you can also do a ones for this one a one space per five spaces. Because if it's just storage you don't need a whole lot of parking needs. So pull your boat in, leave it and

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:34:09go.

   2:34:13But for a freestanding boat and RV storage lot, which is a fence around a a open parking, they've got to have five dedicated not rented parking spaces for

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:34:24what's how Section eleven oh five reads yes, sir. So if that's too many, you could also process a concurrent or do a subsequent amendment to that section of the code if you felt that was necessary.

   Moody

   2:34:43Um can we check that?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:34:45Yeah, hold on, I've got it open actually on my computer.

   2:34:50Did you process an amendment to that recently? Maybe it's not codified yet online?

   Denise

   2:34:54That's section um which is eleven oh five um G, freestanding recreational vehicle boat storage. Um section six says one parking space is required.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:35:05That's what I'm talking about. Self storage.

   Denise

   2:35:12With this under the freestanding, which is sat which is a separate section.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:35:16Oh I must okay, I understand I was looking at maybe the wrong section. Okay, so it's one six. I was right to it in my thing.

   Denise

   2:35:24And that's eleven oh five point five point G point six.

   Connected City

   2:35:33And then the max is one space per five storage spaces in Hollywood.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:35:44I think that was the last little thing I caught.

   2:35:48Okay.

   Chris Williams

   2:35:52Yes. There was there was one typo in the agenda memo.

   2:36:01Uh page 303, second bullet. For parking requirements for public schools. That should be section four fifty-three.10.2.8. It's correct on the references in the ordinance. What the agenda memo was. Oh the agenda minimum. Yeah. Page three. Page three of the agenda minimum.

   Christopher Poole

   2:36:27Yeah, also one other observation on the agenda memo is that there's reference to in the definitions to gas stations versus fuel stations. Um that's in the agenda memo it refu refers to them as gas stations, but I think the correct um term is fuel. Fuel right the stations.

   Moody

   2:36:52And then I have a question about the agenda memo. There's a section in here that says 9071E Allows all multifamily and non-residential and they provide up to 50% of parking spaces as compact parking. I didn't find that. I found where it's a had they could have 25% compact parking. And then there's another one that says it adds a setback of at least five feet from the front facade of the structure for attached garages and townhouses. I didn't find that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:37:20Those were in the original ordinance that you heard last fall and they were stricken from this version. So just the memo I think needs to be.

   GreyChair

   2:37:28We changed it to twenty five, didn't we, here? My environment. Correct.

   2:37:36I think we are something we are. Yeah, we said fifty was too much.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:37:40We went back to your original ratio that was already in the code.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:37:44I think that's what the minutes that we just approved at the beginning of this meeting said.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:37:47Right.

   Connected City

   2:37:53Just so happens to be those minutes, yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:37:59Do you have any questions?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:38:01Just and again, I know a lot of work's gone into this and I think the addition of the minimums is is a is a good addition to the ordinance to to prohibit some of the the the bad guys out there. But on on the ordinance and I'm I'm going off the red line so maybe the pages might not line up, but I'm on page three under section three where it talks about minimum parking. It talks about parallel parking spaces, stall width of nine feet. And then if you go back to the

   2:38:30um single family it allows eight foot wide parallel spaces. Is that on purpose?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:38:55Are you talking about under number four where it says of which eight feet must be stabilized?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:39:02No if you if you you have the parking the the stall length and aisle width standards, that's on page three.

   Denise

   2:39:08Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:39:09And then if you go back to the actual table where it it calls for the single family um parking requirements under the notes additional standards at the end there it says the minimum width of on street spaces is eight feet. And should not be bright I so I I guess maybe that's just the width of the of the standard spaces that's not parallel spaces.

   2:39:31I I was it may be right. I just wanted clarification, that's all.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:39:34I want three spaces easy.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:39:37I think of on street parking in single family as parallel spaces or on

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:39:43I've got

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:39:43it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:39:45So that'd be on page eight. Yeah, page eight, I'm sorry.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:39:52Okay, that's my fault. I'll correct that.

   Moody

   2:39:54Is it so it's supposed to be nine?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:39:56So there was some discussion about a residential area just that you have a mountable curve area that could be somewhat included in that space to try and reduce the overall width of pavement and impact. So we could leave it at eight um and still park functionally. Or we can move to nine to have it consistent. We can do either one, whatever you guys would like to do.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:40:21Well, i if we're gonna allow the minimal curve to be in that width, that's fine. Do we need to just add something to the language there? I don't I mean it. I don't really see the need to add the additional foot of pavement width. I mean if you're gonna allow the

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:40:34way whichever you guys prefer.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:40:36That makes sense.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:40:39So while we're on the topic of width and length, um I do remember making a comment last time this game about electric vehicle infrastructure and is there a way that they can get some automatic relief from the minimum length and widths. Is that possible? I don't see that in here.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:41:03The EV standard that I added was that E V spaces would not be counted towards the minimum or the maximum. So I may have misunderstood what you were asking.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:41:12Well it was really both things. I mean you you just part of it. I agree that it shouldn't count towards minimums or maximums, but I think it's also an issue of length and width.

   Christina Nelson

   2:41:23Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:41:24'Cause I could see a possibility where somebody puts in the electric charging infrastructure and now they've got potentially not meeting the required widths or lengths because they I don't want somebody to have to get an old standard to put in from width or length either just to put in electric charging infrastructure.

   2:41:48Well yeah, I don't care if there's some maximum amount of deviation allowed, I guess I mean but um

   2:41:57It seems like there should be some ha automatic relief. To allow for. I don't know what the bare minimum is you need, but

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:42:06I think the relief would probably come from something else, uh if it's up against a buffer or something. Um because the uh the size of the car is gonna be the same, whether it's an electric vehicle or a gas vehicle, so the space technically needs to have that same minimum. And then the the equipment would likely be outside the physical space itself. Um

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:42:25it's really a landscaping buffer routine.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:42:28Or a sidewalk.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:42:30I remember we did we did do something we did add language in the landscape last week the landscape code that maybe it covers it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:42:38Yeah, I I think I think it would be and again if it even if it didn't, we do have the means to discuss and make some decisions based on that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:42:46And then I didn't see I I'm maybe I just don't see your EV language. Where is the EV language because I'm Please.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:44:08It's faster for me to search the PDF than to dig through the pages.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:44:12Yeah, I was looking at the redlining and I'm not I didn't see it but I again I may not I may have missed it somehow.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:44:19I always like something that could just even count towards the very

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:44:24language. Where's that?

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:44:25Well Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:44:53Well, I believe you, I just couldn't find it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:44:56It may not uh we had a last minute draft that was going back and forth between me and the staff and it might have accidentally might not have made it in the hearing.

   Denise

   2:45:05What are we looking for, David?

   Moody

   2:45:07The language that

   Denise

   2:45:08allows

   Moody

   2:45:09that the E V parking doesn't count against either the minimum or the maximum. I know it's there because I read it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:45:48Maybe it was just a

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:46:08on page four seventeen on that one.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:46:10Yeah, almost seventeen. Thank you very much.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:46:18Maybe? Hope they've got my real line.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:46:28So I'm not seeing it on that page, Brad, unless it's in the

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:46:31Yeah, it's not the right line. Not the right

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:46:58the beginning, not in the table.

   2:47:26We can make sure that

   2:47:27we're going to be able to do that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:47:35Okay, well Let's assume it goes back in there. I was I actually that wasn't my question, but I Go ahead with your question. I was gonna start by trying to find that language to see if to address a different issue. But um The other question I have for you was and I think I may have brought this up at the last meeting, and I realize I don't see the many 'em in Florida, but i in out west I see a lot of solar car ports. Um And I don't I'd wanna make sure that if somebody wants to put a solar carport in, it's

   2:48:06not counted towards their

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   2:48:10So wastewater.

   Moody

   2:48:13There was a section in here that allowed that parking could be within garages or carports for

   2:48:23single family, so

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:48:24Well, it's a different issue. So so so yeah, so typically when you see these out west, they're putting them in after the fact. Like they're they're not building them with the original parking area. They're afterwards saying, Hey, I wanna put a solar carport in and it they may lose some spaces when they do that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:48:42To accommodate the width of the structure.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:48:44Right. So I don't want if somebody that seems to be a good thing if somebody's putting a solar car port. I would hate to see them get penalized on a minimum Solely for putting that in.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:48:57And and that i that would also be one of the things that we can address.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:49:00So that's what I was gonna say. If we were gonna already say the E B spaces didn't count towards minimums if you said the footers or solar carports don't I mean something similar, I don't wanna come up with the language here, but I again He says I've seen them a lot on West. I think it's just a matter of time before we start seeing them in Florida too. I think 'cause they they make sense. They provide shade and solar energy. And so I would wouldn't want to see somebody penalized if they wanted to do that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:49:28Yeah, we can we can literally add solar carports to that sense.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:49:33Okay. That's what I was gonna try to do, but I couldn't find the sentence. No,

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:49:36it's totally totally fine. I can read it from

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:49:50It's okay. I you don't I don't wanna delay this whole proceeding while you try to find it. Just as long as you get those two concepts in the next draft, I'm good.

   Unidentified speaker

   2:49:58Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:49:58So I don't wanna make you delay everything here.

   2:50:05I'm sure others have comments, so I'll let everybody else What if you're not going to be able to

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:50:13I just have a couple more real quick and I think these are if you go page nineteen under miniature golf.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:50:20Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:50:21I think there's a typo in the maximum.

   2:50:26Maybe that's supposed to be three spaces per hole.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:50:29This is purple, yep.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:50:31And then just for clarification, under the bicycle parking requirements.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:50:37Yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:50:38Um

   2:50:41I had to read this carefully because it I mean it's the note at the top, one space is two bikes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:50:47Accommodates

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:50:48two bicycles.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:50:49Yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:50:49So if we say we have a ten bike bike rack I get it. That's I gotcha. Um You start talking about and I know all codes can't be written to catch everything, but when you see places like like churches, which I'm assuming is gonna fall under an assembly category. Um Do other places have like maximums and I'll I'll use my example. I I recently did a a church retrofit in a shopping center and they had thirteen hundred seats in their church. Okay. If I run the numbers per this code, they've

   2:51:19gotta provide fifty two bike spaces. I I personally am not sure I ever saw one bike at a church.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:51:26Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:51:26But fifty two just seems like it it starts to get excessive when you start talking about bigger uses like that. So I don't know if there's a maximum that can be put in there.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:51:33We can.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:51:37And then um the other question on bicycle parking under um I guess if I t think about boat R V storage, self storage, some of those users I I think the way the categories are written If I look back to the way the parking is, like Boatin R V Star, Self Storage, those all fun fall under commercial office. So if I use this table, if I had a hundred thousand square foot self-storage place building user, they would be required to provide ten bicycle

   2:52:08parking spaces, is that right?

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:52:09Right. 'Cause you'll bring all your stuff that you're gonna

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:52:12store on your bicycle.

   2:52:16I again I know those are probably extreme cases and we probably fall back to you know all of a sudden provide justification and I think there's relief language earlier in the in the ordinance but

   2:52:29I just wanted to get make sure I was interpreting or reading this right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:52:37So yeah, I I I think Jamie's concern is in in his example of the fifty bike.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:52:44For cases we may require for assembly for a church.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:52:48And that's probably the successive. So

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:52:51So if your attendance is thirteen hundred people, what's two percent of thirteen hundred?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:52:57Twenty-six. Twenty-six.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:52:59So it's twenty six so high.

   2:53:03We should make it up to say the first ten or twenty thousand square feet or something like that. So

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:53:09it does doesn't get sober and I again. You start talking about assembly recreation. I mean you could be talking big users, so in that case You know with these huge bike requirements. I mean I think the the example I gave we recently did one and I think under the current code even we're required to put like twenty seven bicycle parking spaces and even that seemed excessive but that's what the code says that's we had to do. Um

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:53:31And again we have the ability to deviate from that. Right. Uh we would need to let's all process it and set up it. So we could do that in our easy.

   Connected City

   2:53:41But if we

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:53:41were dressing it now, it might

   2:53:42be

   2:53:42right-of-part it might not be right. Yeah. Sure. We could we can have to do that on each

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:53:49way I said if there's a maximum that can be put there or something like that, I think that's

   2:53:56That was Hold on ahead.

   GreyChair

   2:53:59That's it.

   2:54:02Jan Chris.

   Christopher Poole

   2:54:04See what John's listed? We're all waiting for John to make comments. Okay.

   Connected City

   2:54:12The problem child. Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:54:21Where we drive cars in our suburban county.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:54:25I did use the suburban ITE codes. Good.

   Moody

   2:54:28Mr. So let's talk about those first.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:54:30Would you like the codes

   Moody

   2:54:31that I use?

   2:54:34Memo says That the minimums are for the ITE fifth generation parking manual. Sorry, went and got a copy. And I brought a few examples with me.

   2:54:52So here's a fast food restaurant with drive-thru window from the fifth edition. I I got these

   Liam Devine

   2:54:57are the ones that I use.

   Moody

   2:54:58Well okay, but this I got look, fifth edition. I got the fifth edition. I'm not lying.

   2:55:07So let's go to fast food restaurant with drive-thru window. I think it says one space per thousand square feet gross floor area.

   2:55:20Anybody know what the gross floor area of McDonald's is?

   2:55:25I got their real estate stuff today too. It's 4,500 square feet.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:55:29I was gonna say 5,000. So

   Moody

   2:55:31five spaces. So the ITE minimum for general urban suburban on a weekday is eight point six six. That's not one.

   2:55:46On a Friday, it's 12.41.

   2:55:52On a Saturday it's 9.818. And on a Sunday it's 10.47. So it's not one per thousand square feet. I'm trying to think how many people would work in a McDonald's. Because I'm busy. Probably think it's more than maybe four. So where's the customer car?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:56:13Commissioner, I looked at the ranges, not just the average, because for each use they vary.

   Moody

   2:56:22Yep. Then on Friday it goes it's the bottom end is six point five eight. And the bottom end on Saturday is 2.96. And the bottom end on Sundays 9.14. So these not even in the range.

   2:56:42Then we get the High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant. That's the restaurant without a drive-thru window.

   2:56:52Here, one space per thousand square feet. Well you wanna know what the area of an Outback Steakhouse is. Longhorn steakhouse. About five thousand square feet. Mm-hmm. So you'd need five parking spaces.

   Connected City

   2:57:05And that counts kitchen and everything, right?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:57:08That's a space for the lettuce and the produce and the meat.

   Moody

   2:57:13Yeah. I understand, but this says per GFA, that's gross floor area, right?

   GreyChair

   2:57:17Mm-hmm.

   Moody

   2:57:18So according to ITE On a weekday it's 9.44.

   2:57:26On a Friday it's 11.33, surprise the title on the weekend. And on a Saturday it's twelve point two eight. That's usually when I go out to eat. And on a Sunday it's eleven point two five. So that's not a Anywhere near one.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:57:45Keep in mo folks, keep them

   Moody

   2:57:46up. Hold on, I'm not done. So I went to The website for Longhorn Steakhouse to look at what their criteria is for real estate development. Sorry, what did I do if it's buried in all my stuff down here?

   2:58:04So Longhorn, their typical building square footage is 5,710 square feet. They have 184 seats. So this would require five spaces for 184 suits. That's why you have to have. And you know how many parking spaces they ask for in their lease? Hundred and twenty-seven.

   2:58:32McDonald's didn't say how many they asked for, but they do provide a prototype and I don't know you want to count them, but it looks like more than five to me.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:58:42Trust two, yes.

   Moody

   2:58:43Yeah, that's way more than five. I'll pass that down.

   2:58:48Here's Wendy's, they need at least 20 spaces, and they only have a 2,000 square foot restaurant.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:58:57C Commissioner, we can we can actually go through this all day long with those specific examples like that. Uh the intent was to create the range that the typical market will drive. So the the market is driving the range. It's not driving the market's not saying do five spaces. The market's

   Moody

   2:59:15I underst I understand that. But the problem that we talked about before and I trust me, I'm not worried about McDonalds coming in here and building a restaurant with five spaces. They're not that stupid. But I have clients. that are that stupid, that will do that. And you know what if we go back to the top of this ordinance and talks about it. Change of use. So today over on the corner of Happy Hill Road. And fifty two we recommended

   2:59:46approval of changing the land use on what's an existing duplex into an office. Alright. So I don't know how many parking spaces are down there. Now we're gonna turn it into an office and under this ordinance they wouldn't have to provide and none of this minimums would even apply. So just because we're changing the use of a building, what if I took that house and changed it into a bar? In fact, it was burnt chocolate. I'm

   3:00:16thinking about Skinny's up on US Month. Okay. Anybody ever been to Skinny's on the weekend? Where are they parking? All over the right-of-way. Anybody ever been to the Fish and Ridge Shack in Arapeka? Where do they bark? All over the right-of-way.

   3:00:36And that's the danger that we get by making the minimum so low. And I guess where I was a little disappointed when I read the ordinance. We came in as Amir alluded we had meetings. I came in in November and I met with Amir and I m met with Kathryn and I met with Brad. And what you where you guys told me you were going was that you were gonna try to establish minimums and that the minimums would be twenty five percent of the current minimums. But

   3:01:06then I go through the chart and I see some of these are even less than 10% of the current minimums. They're not 25%. I don't personally support 25%. I think that's way too low. But they're not. And I can s I've got a whole bunch, we can do this all day, of examples where this it's our memo says that the minimums are established by the ITE minimums. They're not close. You should look at hospitals. Yeah. Okay. The ITE is four spaces per bit. This

   3:01:37is one space per four bits. Has anybody ever been to Bayonet Point Hospital in Directory Parton Space?

   GreyChair

   3:01:44Yeah. Possible.

   Moody

   3:01:45Can.

   3:01:49I just think this is a very dangerous precedent. And I don't think that this is what the commissioners have asked for. A couple of county commission meetings ago, I heard Commissioner Star I I saw Mr. Petos get up during the public hearing sections and announce what public hearing They were going to have, and on the continuance list was this ordinance. And Commissioner Starkey asked him what's the holdup? Whether

   3:02:19when are we going to bring this? And he said we were working with the Planning Commission to address some issues. So I heard that and I reached out to Commissioner Starkey and I told her, Listen, I was quite vocally against this during the first Planning Commission hearing, so maybe you and I should talk. and let me try to understand what it is you want. And what it is that they want It's a pretty simple thing. Every time we do an MPUD request and they have multifamily in here, they routinely ask

   3:02:49for an alt standard for 1.9 parking spaces per multi-family unit. And we have to routinely grant that alternative standard. They'd like that fixed in the code, so you don't have to keep asking for an alternative standard in the same thing. And the multifamily parking in this ordinance doesn't get anywhere near. They're basing it on bedrooms. Well, how does somebody at the MPUD stage even know what the mix of bedrooms is going to be when we're at the zoning and land use stage of something? Even

   3:03:19if I'm coming sometimes we do site plans and we don't have exact building plan designs, right? We've got a footprint area and we go get a site plan. We don't know what all the bedrooms are. How would we ever know that? So it just seems that's a simple thing to fix. The other thing that she was concerned about, and I agree with her about this. is we get and maybe Mr. Gray can invite us a little bit since he's a commercial real estate broker. You build a brand new shopping center. And the one she

   3:03:50sees is the one down there at the corner of Mitchell and fifty four that has the target in it. And then that thing was built brand new twenty years ago? Man, it was the place to go, right? Parking lot was full. Target's still there, but now a lot of the other junior anchor tenants have turned over in there in their second and third and fourth generation of spaces and we've all started shopping at Amazon and we order stuff at our house and we don't go out and use that

   3:04:20center like we used to. So there's excess parking. And that excess parking could be used as an out parcel for a McDonald's or an outback steakhouse or whatever. And they're trying to find a way to facilitate that.

   3:04:40And I'm not sure that

   3:04:43Establishing minimums that we know are going to cause parking problems, yeah, that might facilitate the creation of an outparcel. But it can also create problems.

   3:04:56for other other uses.

   3:05:00So it seems to me we should have a process by where there's an alternative standard. that where we can do a parking study and look at a shopping center like that, hey I'm in my fifth generation of space. I'm thinking one near my neighborhood which is at 52 and Little. And that shopping center that's at the southwest corner, it's being slowly revitalized, but it still has way in excess of parking that they'll ever use. And they ought to be able to come in and say, hey, I'm in my fifth generation of space. This

   3:05:31is no longer the Win Dixie that this thing was with all of the local retail spaces and we've only got 40% occupancy on average for the last five years. We should be able to reduce the parking requirement, sell some outpads out front, generate some extra tax revenue. That seems to me to be reasonable. That exists. But if you okay, so

   3:05:57We we come in here and now we're establishing maximums. And I'm Long Horn Steakhouse. I'm going to have to apply for an alt standard and do a parking study just to get the minimum parking I need for my use. We're going to create a situation Where All of the national retailers and the national restaurateurs are going to have to come in and try to justify their parking. And I frankly don't even

   3:06:27understand why that should be an issue. It's their land. They have all the other code requirements they have to meet. Alright, they have to provide the landscape the interior landscaping, all the buffering around the perimeter. They have to provide all the stormwater facilities for that. Why should we care whether they want to build More than you think they need. And I asked the question when I met with Amir and Brad. Yeah. So I said, Well what

   3:06:57prompted the Max? And what I got told was, will somebody come into planning and development? And they were proposing to build parking far in excess of the code minimums. And staff didn't feel like that was a good use of the land. But that's not the staff's job. The job is if they meet the code and they provide all the requirements of the code, then it's your job to give them

   3:07:27the permit. Not to decide whether you think it's a good use of the land or a poor use of the land. It's their land and their right to use that land under our zone. We don't have things that prohibit them from using that land. That's their choice to do. And they may decide that later in the future they don't need all that parking and they want to build another McDonald's or away. But who are we to stop?

   Connected City

   3:07:53That's why I was kind of opposed to the maximums originally because th that's something the market should drive. I they're not gonna build more parking than they need. Right, because they can use that land for other purposes that to sell out our park out parcel.

   Moody

   3:08:11easily cut out to create a new building in the future or another use. This isn't like we've built uh all kinds of underground infrastructure and subway tunnels and skyscrapers on top. You cut the asphalt out, you build a building pad, run some utilities over it, and voila. It's not that hard to convert.

   Chris Williams

   3:08:35It's a lot harder to go the other way.

   Moody

   3:08:37So that's where I'm at. And I I just don't I don't think the Maybe there's some miscommunication, but I can tell you that with the commissioners I've discussed this with, and it's more than one. They're not looking to cap the people's party. They're looking to make sure that when we've got a shopping center that's third, second, third, fourth generation space, that we don't have to force those people to keep all that parking, that we can use this, adapt

   3:09:07that, and reuse that for something that's more productive and generates tax revenue. And I agree with them on that. And I would personally support some reduction in the retail parking from what we have today, because I think we can all acknowledge I'm just as guilty of buying stuff from Amazon and Walmart online as anybody else is. In fact I like it. So and I know and I'm a I'm a guy who did a lot of engineering for a lot of retail over my career. And I know that retail

   3:09:37trends have changed. They've clearly changed. And we have a code that was requ set the forth the minimum parking requirements for retail back in the 1990s. That was the glory days of shopping centers and power centers and freestanding drugstores on every corner and boy if you want to go look and see how many Walgreens my seal is on, there's a lot of them. Same with every checkers drive in restaurant in the Tampa Bay area. So I know a little something about drive throughs when we get

   3:10:07to that subject, but Um I just don't feel like this ordinance does what the commissioners are looking for. I think we're setting dangerously low minimums, and I don't feel like we have any right to tell anybody that they can't build. more parking if that's what they feel they have to jump through hoops to do it. Without having to jump through hoops and do it. So I think I've made my point. I'm not going to belabor

   3:10:38it. I'll leave it to everybody else to discuss.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:10:41May I make one comment?

   GreyChair

   3:10:44Sure.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:10:44This is a policy decision. No one's ever gonna get parking counts right. ITE is used as the Bible and probably erroneously, because it's based on observed places and a handful of things around the country dating back to the nineteen seventies. And it says that in the book. Use this with caution, right? Because these are a handful of observances. It's not predicting a future, it's not looking at current trends. If you

   3:11:15really think about it, why would we why would we allow a restaurant that serves alcohol to have any parking for its customers? We want them to take a ride share, right? If we were really thinking about health, safety, welfare. This is a policy choice for you. It doesn't matter to me which way you go in, we just need the direction. It it you know, what I have said to other clients is not to have a minimum or a maximum. However, I understand your concerns about someone getting off and not providing any parking. I think Mr. Moody you said that at one of the previous meetings. I

   3:11:45understand that. So you can you can turn this around and just lower the minimums

   3:11:51You can do nothing, which would I would recommend, have not no no minimum or maximum let the market decide because everybody's different. A national retailer is not the same as a local mom and pop shop. They're just not the same. It's up to you. It's it's literally a policy decision. about the future of your county. What do you want to look like? Do you want more of the same? Or do you want something different? It's It's entirely up to you.

   Connected City

   3:12:17Well we can agree some of the issues were caused back in the day when the minimums were too high for these retail s you know, or arguably they were they've become too high. But back when these buildings were built, they were required to provide X number of parking spots per square footage of retail space and um that created, you know, the minimum at that point. point might have been a little bit too high. that might be the solution is to reduce some of the minimums um and

   Moody

   3:12:46so

   Connected City

   3:12:47eliminate maximums.

   Moody

   3:12:49I think in retail, we can all agree people's retail shopping habits have changed, okay? We order a lot of stuff from online sales and have it delivered right to our house that we probably don't need as many parking spaces in front of retail stores that we may have in the nineties. I don't think that's a problem.

   3:13:14But when we go out to dinner That ain't any different. Okay, and when we have a popular restaurant or a popular bar, we drive our cars here.

   Connected City

   3:13:27And we are there. Ever try to get parking at Bonefish on fifty four.

   3:13:33I

   Moody

   3:13:33think they required a hundred and twenty five or a hundred and twenty seven, and then they were very similar to long or or outback

   Connected City

   3:13:40over there on Ducks

   Moody

   3:13:41Lake.

   3:13:45Those places are big parking generators. And you know, I understand the ITE may not be the Bible, but the memo says that the minimums are per the ITE, and the minimums I think I've demonstrated, and I can go on for a long time today if we want to do that, because I got the ITE manual with me. I don't think that's needed, John. I don't think that's not the minimums. I'll just say they're not the minimums. And even the one she read into the correction earlier. She read into

   3:14:16the correction for the lumber yards and home improvement and said, well we need to use the minimum ITE at two spaces and then right under when I corrected her, it says one space. That's 50% of that part.

   3:14:30I was at La Walmart on this past Sunday. When I would tell you what my when I went to Walmart and it was one thirty in the afternoon when I went there, so this is about time church is left now. 75 to 80% of that parking lot was full. The farther you got away from the store and the farther out away from the store, those couple of rows were empty, but those ones in front of the store were generally filled from front of the store to back of the parking lot.

   3:15:03So No, they don't Walmart doesn't need all that parking and we could probably reduce some of that, but they sure used a good chunk of it.

   Connected City

   3:15:14Well and you're not ordering Home Depot two by fours online and having it shipped to your hand to see it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:15:19That is correct. So that that's correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:15:23So I have uh a couple comments I'd like to to add. There I know you were discussing Longhorn and Bonefish and the parking situation there and that they their marketing requires them to actually have more spaces than what our maximum cap will be. That is not an issue with what we have here. Yes, it's over the maximum, but we have a very simple means built in here. It's not a formal alt standard process. It's very simple means for those types of places that can justify their need like a

   Moody

   3:15:49I

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:15:49get

   Moody

   3:15:49it. I understand that. I read it. And what I'm saying is every one of them that comes in here is going to have to provide that justification. We should have somebody that has to provide a justification, and there's probably a lot of good justifications to provide less than a minimum.

   Connected City

   3:16:07Correct.

   Moody

   3:16:08But not somebody that wants to have a justification to build more than the minimum. It's their land. And

   Connected City

   3:16:14they're not

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:16:15your land, it's their land. And that that is a that's I think believe the policy decision that that Kathryn was talking about is to what extent this code helps the county to be good stewards, um to provide a framework uh for what people that come in that might abuse the system would, so they have to actually have a discussion about it and why it may or may not be a good idea. You may have a mom and pop that wants to pave their entire site. um but they don't understand some of the implications of that and other things. So I I think this sets a framework for that. We we we want to address things that I think we

   3:16:45did in this as far as being able to deviate from the minimum, from the maximum, deviate uh for uh places doing redevelopment to be able to assist in redevelopment has we have had a number of people that come in that want a change of use that that then invokes the new parking standards and a business ends up not ever coming to that location because they can't do the parking standard. So this would address those. So they should

   Moody

   3:17:05be able to provide if they can justify that they need less than our then there should be a process for them to justify if they can do a parking study. That's but to tell them but to tell them these parking minimums don't apply to you because it's a change of use, I could go take Mm. I'm thinking about Little Road. So on Little Road, this is an interesting, it used to be that used to all be through Golden Acres, and now there's some houses that

   3:17:36front Little Road. And of course those are probably miserable places to live on Little Road. and I want to turn it into a bar. What's this code require of me

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:17:48to park? So that I I would like to speak to that specifically actually that was going to be my second comment is that that creates a huge unintended consequence in that we have to park every single site for its highest and best use for the zone. And that that could be a ridiculous amount of parking.

   Moody

   3:18:07Well, I know this. I go buy skinnies on Friday night. It ain't like they're parked on the right of way. It ain't like they're parked on the right-of-way a few cars in front of the place. They're parked on the right-of-way for a half a mile or two a mile to the north and a half a mile to the mile to the south.

   3:18:30Security.

   Christopher Poole

   3:18:36At least they have the alternative parking over there, so

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:18:40How would you like us to change this?

   GreyChair

   3:18:44So what what you're saying it I think i is the flavor of this is that we like to to um control the minimums but not the maximums. Is that what you're saying, John?

   Moody

   3:18:56Yeah, I don't think we have any business controlling maximums so long as they meet all the other requirements of the land development code, right? Our our code would require them to provide a certain amount of interior landscaping and green space, irrigation for all of that, stormwater management treatment systems for all of that. Why should we care? But they want to do that. And it's not like they're building something that can't be redeveloped and it's a parking lot. You want to redevelop a parking lot? Just scrape off the asphalt.

   3:19:27It's not a hard thing to do.

   Connected City

   3:19:29I'm big employees.

   Moody

   3:19:30There was a Waffle House there right on US nineteen was north of Main Street. They straight up the parking lot and built the Waffle House.

   GreyChair

   3:19:39Yeah. Just a gas station with worth the parking lot.

   3:19:47But I think you meant you that's what you were saying, basically it was a way to convert excess parking into a an alternative use. Am I am I right? Yeah. So um You know, I think we're I think we're on the right track. I think it's just a the number of I think the minimum number is a is a question, right?

   Moody

   3:20:09So

   3:20:12I'll throw this out there.

   3:20:16Because the commissioner would like to be able to deal with the problem that she sees. At least when I met with Commissioner Starkey I've spoken with Commissioner Mariano about this.

   3:20:31If I were to make a proposal, we can talk about it. What I would propose is to leave the ordinance as is, but let's make the majority of the ordinance as is.

   3:20:44But we'll make a couple tweaks. One, change the multifamily parking to 1.9 units per, or 1.9 spaces per unit, so that they don't have to continually ask for an alt standard every time they come in here for an MPUD zoning. And David, when we discuss this, then I'll ask about Live Local since they decided to preempt our parking in the Live Local too. That might not be a smart idea what I'm proposing. Um And

   3:21:14then the other tweak would be that We clearly indicate that in second and thirds beyond first generation retail space that you can come in with a parking study to justify a reduction in parking to allow additional development of

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:21:33outparcels and the like on the property so that we don't have an excess seat of parking.

   Moody

   3:21:40I might need some graphic language from it if if that gets to the form of a motion, but um

   Connected City

   3:21:47Any any other reduction minimums anywhere else? In retail or Your proposal?

   Moody

   3:21:52Well so I thought about that. So based on my experience of Walmart was past Sunday, I might think that a twenty or twenty five percent reduction in retail parking might be appropriate. All that being said, that was me going to one Walmart on one Sunday. I'd I'd like to hear what some of your other some of your experiences are about that before we just arbitrarily What it looks like

   Connected City

   3:22:15during the holiday season.

   Moody

   3:22:17The other thing I'll leave you with food for thought. I left this with Commissioner Starkey.

   3:22:22is if we want to reduce some minimums, reduce the minimums.

   3:22:31Let's reduce them a little bit at a time because we can always reduce them more. But if we reduce them too much and we create a parking problem, we have no way to ever fix that problem. It's a permanent problem. We can always give them more reduction later.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:22:51So I think that uh we we kind of have a little bit of a situation here. What I'm what I'm hearing is that Some of the ideas of the Planning Commission that that you're offering are really sticking with our standard code. uh which we've identified as bad it's bad planning, flat out. So it's it's produced what the what the folks do not want to see on the ground out there. So moving forward, whatever recommendation you'll make here with whatever changes you would like to make, we'll move forward with a split recommendation to the board with

   3:23:21the planning and yours. I mean that's and they can decide they can decide how they want to do that. Um I will state also that you know when when We're you were mentioning the multifamily, moving it to one point nine. Um most of the multifamily right now is requesting one point five or one point seven. We're saying no, that's too low. So um but ITE is a good thing. Yeah, ITE is like one point one point one. I think yeah, it's ridiculous it's it's there. So uh the idea was to get rid of those those kind of all standard processes. If we stick with the minimums, we're gonna need to have an alt standard

   3:23:51process still, whether it's an all-standard standard from two point two five or an alt standard from one point nine. There's going to be an alt standard.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:23:59I think there's I think there's just and and I think what I'm hearing is is that there's a l a lot of unintended consequences out of what's being proposed here on both sides. You're gonna have sites that have nothing but I mean does does the board and it's a at the end of the day it's a decision for the board to make. Do they want sites where literally uh parking up and down the side of the street and and where people just don't provide any parking and then you've got I think you are you guys are creating, I know we're we're creating a code and and modifying a code so you don't have all these alternative

   3:24:30standards come in to request to lower parking But I think you're gonna get a bunch. of alternative standards on the other side where a ton of users, probably more than the than than not, that want to exceed the maximums. And

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:24:46there

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:24:46is no there is no

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:24:47alternative standard for that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:24:48Well it's not an alternative standard, but it's still process. It still creates a process. And again, I still and I know I've mentioned this before to you directly, I still have concerns with that because

   3:25:01I I d I guess there's always i i under this code, what is that process? I know it it's for you to decide or somebody in the department, the reviewer to decide, but what's the appeal process? Because if that guy decides whoever and it might not be you. Ten years down the road the way the code's written, uh we don't want to give it to you we don't think it's right. I mean, so all of a sudden you're gonna you're essentially driving all those users out of Pasco County. I mean the Longhorns, the Alpacs, the any of those people that are gonna want to exceed the maximum requirements. I mean any

   3:25:31medical. I mean I I I don't know. I haven't talked to a doctor that wants to move into parking a space with parking less than six per thousand. But that's not allowed under the current code. They have to come and ask permission.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:25:41And and they and just to provide another example here, our current code says that any parking to provide above a hundred per ten percent needs to be pervious. And we see these places that are coming in having a lot of people. Right. How much how how much pervious parking are you seeing in these these places you're talking about, these places that are using these long roads? In

   Moody

   3:25:58my personal opinion and I'm speaking in as an engineer and I've got sites. One under construction right now. It uses pervious pavement. And I said this before on the record. I'm going to say this before, and it even came up in the discussion today. We talked about the guy in his auto repair shop parking on gravel and what happens. Well fluids leaking the ground. I'm gonna tell you right now. I've been up if you go to the shopping center up at Spring Hill Drive in US 19, they got a lot of pervious concrete pavement in there. And that's where my I became enlightened about

   3:26:28pervious pavement. is when I pulled onto a pervious parking space. and when I came out of the store the car that was next to me was gone, and their car had been leaking oil. Well, where'd all that oil go? Went right through that pervious pavement right into the ground. Is that what we want? So yeah, I understand it provides some stormwater benefits, but there's a whole nother side of pervious pavement that they don't tell you about, and that's one of them. So and I'm not here to try to ban pervious pavement. That's

   3:26:58not our discussion today. I don't even think requiring a certain amount of pervious pavement is a smart idea in our code either. I can tell you I did a lot of work for now it's advanced auto parts where there's discount auto parts in the day. If you go to O'Reilly and Discount Auto Parts, you will never see an asphalt parking lot. You know why? Yeah. Because everybody's car leaks oil. That's why they're going there. They're going there to buy the oil and they constantly have to repair the pavement because of all the oil that's dripped on there. That's why they

   3:27:28all use concrete for it.

   Connected City

   3:27:30Brad, you mentioned um so you're talking about the current code and you said it's kind of a mess and um and that's why We're seeing all the problems we're seeing. So we know one of the problems was excessive retail parking. What other parts ex

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:27:41excessive every everything parking, really? If if you look in the code, pretty much our code minimum parking currently is the maximum parking in IT. Uh so we're we're going way beyond it. What you see on the ground today is the history of that. That's what's out there, that's what it creates.

   Connected City

   3:27:57Maybe that's the way we solve this whole thing, is just reducing the minimums that we have.

   3:28:03We leave them there for the bad actors, but we produce them from where we have to. I had suggested

   Moody

   3:28:07the last time that we use the minimums per ITE, and that's what the memo says the minimums are based on, but that's not what they're based on because I checked them. I will say this that the ITE does not have every category of possible parking. They've done what they're doing. studied over the years and there's always going to be something that's on the outside. But back to Jamie's point about the alt standard. I know you're saying it's not an alt standard, but the language in this ordinance. does not set forth

   3:28:39What the criteria for approval is to exceed it says you can submit this. So then who's the judge? Who's the jury? The county administrator.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:28:51The county the county administrator doesn't need to make a decision and any decision that is made can be appealed based on that. So I I mean uh w we have we have means to to handle those situations. Um and to go back to your your comment about not matching the ITE, the ITE and our land use codes and and other things, our uses, uh there's a lot of difference there. We ultimately have to implement this in the end. When somebody comes in and asks for something and it's it's a it's a label different than something that's in the the

   3:29:21ITE where We're trying to make this a a simplified process for review as well, um to try and you know find that range and if you're within that range then then you're good. Um so the the IT codes were used as a basis, but they were not taking it exactly. as a quotient element.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:29:41I'm not personally seeing where they're even close, but

   Chris Williams

   3:29:50The only other example I think of is that new gym in Skybrook. Um

   3:29:59Over in the Odessa area, it's called EOS. That parking lot's slammed all the time. That parking lot slammed all the time. Yeah,

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:30:07I

   Chris Williams

   3:30:07went by that the

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:30:08other day and they were parked in the right-way right

   Chris Williams

   3:30:10on the side of 54. Yes. I mean, and I'm not saying maybe that gym's particularly popular right now. Maybe that but but you know that's again, they start parking in the street. It affects the neighbors who live there because we're building a School there, so those neighbors were complaining to us about even before our schools there, they're complaining to us about the gym parking being full all the time.

   Moody

   3:30:31And I think we all know that if we go out to Wiregrass, do you have to circle the parking lot for a parking space? I went to Walmart at 54 and Little Road the Saturday before Christmas. I'm gonna tell you something. One, I had to circle the parking lot twice before I got in a parking space. And then the person who was with me when we left the store literally got in a physical altercation with somebody

   3:31:02over a parking space. Now mind you, this is the Saturday before Christmas. I'm glad everybody had the ulitied cheer, but I mean it these parking spaces do get used. Yeah. The and the retailers know what they need. The big the big the big the big new. I I understand.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:31:26So John I I guess Terry, Brad, uh th they were tasked with coming up with some revision by the board. Okay, w if I'm correct. We're just here to provide a recommendation of what the board directed them to do or what they think the board directed them to do. Well is the is the biggest concern that I mean I maybe it's not just directly John, but I mean is the biggest concern that the maximums are too low and we don't think there should be mac I mean the Minimums are too low and we don't think there should be maximums. I mean is that a good summary?

   Moody

   3:31:56Well first off, I spoke to the commissioner, a commissioner, and the commissioner's assistant, and was told that board direction comes from the dates.

   3:32:09and no board direction was ever given from the dais on this particular subject.

   3:32:18What we were told during the first presentation was that they went and in met with individual commissioners and got consensus. Whatever that is.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:32:28So I I I

   3:32:28mean

   3:32:28I don't know that we're ever gonna come to an agreement here. Well Um so I guess at the end of the day do we just provide a recommendation so this at least goes to the board for them let them add it out to

   Moody

   3:32:39Jamie that's my thinking. I understand Commissioner Starkey would like to achieve her goals and I don't want to be in the way of

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:32:46that.

   Moody

   3:32:46But I she told me what her goals are. I don't think this ordinance does it, but I'd like to personally if it's if it's me, of course I'm gonna get everybody's vote. Oh yeah. is to recommend what I know she wants and then you know we can circle back to all of this later. This doesn't have to get done this week. But the things that they want done now, it seems like we could recommend them to do that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:33:08So I think you have kind of two options in my opinion. I mean He could ask that it be continued again, but I'm not sure if the product you'll get from what Brad's telling me is going to be materially different. So If that's the case, you may be better off doing kinda like what you did on the park impact fee. I mean You all had some clear disagreements with staff on the park impact fee and you made various pointed recommendations on it. The board didn't agree with you. Right. So but but but

   3:33:38you made your voice very clear on the park impact fee as to what needed to change and staff put those recommendations in the agenda memo. Staff explained why they disagreed with it. And the board agreed with staff and not you. Okay. That could happen again on parking or maybe The board says we agree with the planning commission this time, but either way. staff will outline your at a minimum they're gonna outline whatever you recommend in the agenda amendment to the board.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:34:03Right.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:34:03So I think you if you want changes the staff just I mean Other than Jamie and I's technical minor tweets that we talked about in the beginning here, I don't didn't sound like they had any major issues with those. Um But if if you're not sure if you're on the bigger major policy issue I would just recommend what you think how the ordinance is changed and then

   Connected City

   3:34:27So basically approved not or basically not recommend it but then say, you know, this is what we think. Well and then the book it's up to the board to

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:34:36you did in with park impact fee is you recommended I don't want to get all the iterations of what you know parking back things, but you generally recommended approval if the following changes were made to the ordinance. So It sounds like you are at least in agreement the the minimums in our code need to be reduced. So there's some actus aspect of this ordinance that you agree with. So it sounds like what you need to do is say you recommend approval if the following was changed. I mean if you want the maximums

   3:35:06removed, say that. If you want the minimums adjusted, say that. Whatever it is that you think needs to happen, I would just because otherwise quote what I said I one time I believe in democracy the word five o'clock. Um like

   Connected City

   3:35:22it's five O textual point that addresses what Brad was saying before, right? 'Cause you were saying, you know, there's a mess out there. There's too the max the minimums were too high in the past. So if we reduce the minimums going forward and eliminate maximums, that's that's I think the flavor Of what everybody's saying, that's what you're saying, right?

   Chris Williams

   3:35:41Well I think reducing minimums were appropriate. Were

   Connected City

   3:35:44appropriate, yeah. Yes, were appropriate. And then, you know but I still don't think there's a minute.

   GreyChair

   3:35:52Right.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:35:53So I don't think that you necessarily need to craft exact language. 'Cause you didn't do that with Park Impact because all you said was we recommend approval if this these four things are added to the ordinance. Okay. So I think you just need to do the same thing here. Somebody needs to make a motion and say what's the one.

   GreyChair

   3:36:12So John wants you to graft a motion real quick.

   Moody

   3:36:17I would recommend

   GreyChair

   3:36:20P S excuse me, one second, one second, John.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   3:36:23I I just wanted to note one uh planning economic growth. I just wanted to make one note from the record that this uh updating the parking code and the land development code was a board priority. It was a it was a tertiary or secondary priority when they established their land development code priorities um a few years ago. I don't remember the exact day, twenty seven. 17, 16, somewhere around there. We've had a number of priority amendments that have come through over the years.

   3:36:53Remember things like airport zoning, things like that. This was on the same list of priorities that came through. So it's not that this was being brought forward without any board direction. There was board direction for that. And then when we met with the board to commence the project, they were presented with the options for maximum. and minimums. And based on the polling that we did at the time, which was that August? August, July, July-ish timeframe, it was the case that they favored

   3:37:25the ordinance as being presented to the Planning Commission. Now if they if that position has changed, we'll have to go back to the board members to talk to them again. But the the the consensus that I got and and the feedback that I've gotten over the years from multiple stakeholders, people don't want to recreate US nineteen on places like State Wheel fifty four or three oh one and

   Connected City

   3:37:47weigh our opinion, right? And still vote for that. That's because the nineteen seventies. But that's what we're here to do is provide that opinion.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   3:37:54Well that what's what I'm saying is it a lot of people feel like it's too late for fifty four or fifty six or three hundred one or wherever because the nineteen seventies code is still in place. So you know we this is the uh it may appear as a drastic change, but I think over the years uh we've attempted to moderate the nineteen seventies code With things like a lot of alternative standards. So I would I would just put that out there for the Planning Commission to consider. I

   3:38:24understand the direction that the Planning Commission wants to take. But just keep in mind that you know it's it's not that easy to redevelop parking lots. If it was that easy to redevelop parking lots, lots of places would have uh fewer parking lots. We have an entire quarter, a county line to county line. Lot of parking lot in front of that. We're talking about 19. Um and a lot of times parking lots are convoluted and constricted and restrained by covenants and corporate agreements that prevent anything, any further

   3:38:55use of that parking lot. So if we can constrain the amounts of parking lot on the site and maximize the productive value of the property by putting buildings on there, We have better outcome from the county in terms of using the most limited resource that the county has, which is its land. Mary, with all due

   Moody

   3:39:13respect.

   3:39:17I've done a lot of shopping centers in my day and I've been on the engineering end of them and I've been on the developer side of them. So I'm well aware of restrictive covenants, declarations and easements and so on and so forth.

   3:39:31We're not going to change how the developing community does business. Right? That's not our job. Our job is to make sure we get good product for our community, but we're not going to change how to do business. I don't want to go down that road and I also I have absolutely not comfortable. telling somebody. deciding for somebody else. what I think is a good use or not a

   3:40:01good use for their property. They bought it, they own it, they bought it knowing what the zoning was, what was allowed, what was not allowed, and and who am I to come in and tell 'em, no, I don't think you your use of that space as parking is a good use. That's not my That's not my job and you don't want me to come tell you what I think you can do in your backyard.

   Connected City

   3:40:26Yeah, again I don't think you're gonna see people developing a little bit.

   Moody

   3:40:29I move But for the moment.

   3:40:33We leave.

   3:40:36Chapter 907. Is that the parking lot here? Section 907.

   3:40:45Alone, we don't change it, but we add the following exceptions. We reduce retail parking by 20% from the current minimum. So that you don't need so you only need to provide 80% of what the current parking is. That there be no maximums.

   3:41:10that we provide a defined way for an applicant to request a reduction by presentation of data, parking study, etc., if they want to reduce parking below the current minimums.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:41:30Out outside of the current alt standard process? A different process that's the if that's We have the alt standard that does that right now, so that that can happen. Okay, okay. All right,

   Moody

   3:41:38that's fine. That's fine. And that we change the

   3:41:46for multifamily. to 1.9 spaces per unit.

   3:41:53so that we

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:41:54don't have to grant an alternative standard every time somebody comes in here and asks for multi-family inside an MPV.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:42:01Is that aside from the

   Moody

   3:42:06I think that's unfortunately Ms. Wilhite who said she was going to stay here didn't. But I think that generally includes their visit of the parking.

   Connected City

   3:42:15Are you asking proposal proposing removal of maximums? Um

   3:42:20I would also recommend Is that the

   Christopher Poole

   3:42:24So you're not going to be able to do that.

   Moody

   3:42:25Single family and town home parking as presented in this ordinance stay in the ordinance. The commissioners have made it clear they want mark more parking for town homes and they want more parking for single family

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:42:37detached and I agree with them. Especially when we have these forty forty-five-foot lot

   Moody

   3:42:43subdivisions that we we recognize the parking problems. Something Jamie said. said earlier and I would also move that the minimum. parallel parking space on a street be at least nine feet wide. the DOT allows vehicles up to a hundred and two inches, which is more than eight feet wide, to drive down the road,

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:43:07so you don't want them trying to park on space.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:43:11So just to clarify your motion, there's other stuff in staff's proposed ordinance like so bicycle parking, changing comp allowing

   Moody

   3:43:21compact space. I think it needs more work as Mr. We can always come back to these things. There's n I'm not telling you my motion, I'm not moving that the staff not bring this back to us. If they want to study this more and go back and fix all these things with the bicycle parking like Mandy pointed out earlier, go to it, bring it back. But I think the commissioners want something today and I want to hold up the process, so that's what I'm willing to recommend today. If they want to come back

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:43:48So all the other later other all the other miscellaneous changes in the ordinance are are not part of your motion. I just wanna make sure if you want the

   Moody

   3:43:55automotive and fuel station it's in.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:43:59You're talking about the uh we started the motion with leave it as is except for the fall. Yeah, was it I just wanna make sure that we're clear that that means

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:44:08none of this other stuff.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:44:09None of the other stuff that's that's presented would be part of your motion. I I'm not trying to get into weight of the policy, I'm just wanna clarify what your motion is. Yes. Okay. So it's leave it as is except for the things that you said. Yes. Okay.

   Connected City

   3:44:24And as is has no no there's no maximum. As is has no maximums, correct? Yes, no, absolutely no maximums.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:44:37Okay. Can we repeat the motion? I'm sorry.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:44:44No, he's talking about as as currently the code is currently written with the case. Okay.

   3:44:51It's the current ordinance. Forget what staff has presented. He wants the code as currently written with the following changes and save them again.

   Moody

   3:45:01Following changes are reduction in retail parking by twenty percent from the current minimum, which I think now is one per three hundred, and I'm sorry because I can't do the math and I don't feel good.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:45:14So yeah. Okay. One for one per two forty.

   3:45:19Well that's not in the current code anyway, so you don't really need to say that on the storm.

   Moody

   3:45:30that we amend nine oh seven to include the single family and town home parking as presented in this ordinance because the commissioners wanted that increased and this tended to increase that. Yes, I agree with you.

   3:45:51And I agree with Mr. Tiffin, they can apply for an alt standard if they want to reduce

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:45:56That's in the existing code. See that doesn't really need to be made part of your function. So I'm trying to keep it simple.

   Christopher Poole

   3:46:01And exclude everything else that's recommended.

   Moody

   3:46:04And I for the also will include that we Adopt staff's recommendation of the changes to section 525.4 and the definition of fuel station. Like that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:46:22Is everybody clear on the motion?

   Denise

   3:46:25Just one clarification, um John Moody had s also stated the minimum parallel parking space on street to be nine feet wide. Okay. Thank you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:46:37So other than what John his motion is other than what he The changes you recommend in the code would stay as its existing in its existing form. That's the

   Connected City

   3:46:47motion. Okay? I'd second that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:46:53And just to clarify the the nine feet is outside of curb curb and gutter. 'Cause that's the change that we've been making that was reducing it to eight. You're just trying to clarify with this so we can make it simple and say nine feet. It's

   Moody

   3:47:08nine feet when it can't be in the travel lane. That's what it says in the coordinates today.

   3:47:15Okay, me and Jamie will argue about

   Connected City

   3:47:17whether you should block the gutter or not later to where

   3:47:23Yeah, there is other things that need to be addressed obviously and you know, but we can that that makes sense. We can get to that, you know, after some more work on it. And this is this accomplishes a short term goal.

   3:47:34Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Yeah, I second majority. Okay, there for the discussion of the motion.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:47:41Yeah, I I guess just uh before I vote. I don't want my my I don't want I'm gonna vote against it. Now the only reason I'm gonna vote against it is not because I support the way it's written, but I think there's a lot of other good things in here that should be considered. So I w I would support and be behind it an alternative motion or alternative recommendation. So Okay. Just explaining that.

   GreyChair

   3:48:06All right. So any further discussion? All in favor of the motion should motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

   3:48:17Uh let's do have a roll call.

   3:48:22In favor of the motion?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:48:23Nay.

   GreyChair

   3:48:32Bye.

   3:48:36Name. For the same reason that uh I think there are some other things that should be

   Connected City

   3:48:42Okay we can get to that. Yeah you can do that now.

   GreyChair

   3:48:48Three to three?

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:48:50So the

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:48:50most important.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:48:53Yeah, but already voted. He voted. He voted. Yeah. Well actually. He probably should not have voted. Well the school was in there. Well the school was in there. Oh that's true. It does affect the infrastructure for school. Okay, so the motion fails. Who voted nay?

   Christopher Poole

   3:49:10Yeah, there are only two.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:49:12Yeah, there were only two.

   3:49:16Is that accurate? Do we need to do it again or do you

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:49:20Yeah, can we just do it one more time?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:49:22Okay, okay. Don't change your vote. Mr.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:49:24James Giorardi. Nay. Mr. Derek Ronlett. Aye. Mr. John

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:49:30Moody. Aye.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:49:31Mr. Chris Rold.

   GreyChair

   3:49:32Aye.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:49:33Mr. Chris Williams.

   GreyChair

   3:49:36Nay, nay.

   3:49:41Now

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:49:41we know why fees with

   GreyChair

   3:49:42you.

   Christopher Poole

   3:49:44Darn it. That was funny.

   Connected City

   3:49:52I'm sorry, you only get one vote.

   3:49:55Now there's election season. Yes.

   Moody

   3:50:00I realize we finished the consideration of that, but they may bring this back in some other form in the future and we'll have to see what the commissioners would do. Are you willing to tell us what your alternative might have been?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:50:13I mean the alternative, I I think there's a lot of good things in here. I think the minimums are set too low and I don't think there should be a maximum. I mean I think they need to go back and relook at things that the minimum things what are the good things

   Moody

   3:50:24so that if this comes

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:50:25in. Well I think the the splitting out and the adjustments in the bicycle parking, I think a lot of the um There's a lot of the alternative text amendments in here I think clean up a lot of the things that aren't in the current ordinance. But again, that stuff can come back. Um but I my point was it was already done and it was already here so you could go ahead and and move forward with it. But I am will just say on the record

   Moody

   3:50:46I have no objection to you bringing this

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:50:49back these other things back to list that means that James

   Chris Williams

   3:50:53or Mr

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:50:54Gray have

   Chris Williams

   3:50:56And and I would just add they they made some you made some changes to the school and reference statute, which I was fine with, but again I I agree with what Mr. Moody's um Motion was and and w we're doing okay the way we are, but I wouldn't mind seeing it go back to uh how you changed it either, so I'm fine with some tweaks there.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:51:18And I'm glad we didn't continue it.

   Chris Williams

   3:51:20Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:51:22I'm I'm sure they'll they are too.

   GreyChair

   3:51:24Yeah. Thank you for the hard work for I know it's difficult to please everybody. So Thank you Commissioner

   Moody

   3:51:29Weightman. So when we didn't get into this business of live local in the bill that passed the Senate yesterday, they've opted to tell the us that we have to reduce Is it vertically integrated mixed use parking for Lib Low? Yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:51:49Yeah, I'm not really prepared for I mean, first of

   3:51:51all

   3:51:51it only passed the Senate. It does not pass the House. I don't think it'll change materially in the House. But that being said, um So nothing happened with the fixed bill then. D the bill that was passed by the Senate does not address Pasco County's major issue with local law. So I don't see our board stance changing. So I I recognize what Mr. Moody's saying, but you have to understand that I have more direction to sue any project that tries to invoke the local act. So I'm not

   3:52:21sure I will get an application that seeks to reduce parking because uh or if they do they'll be an tied up in litigation for the next two years. So I I'm not particularly concerned about that provision currently.