PDE-26-0002

Every appearance5 of 5 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 56% of 513 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Oct 2, 2025
   Planning CommissionPC4Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 18:52
   ▶ 18:521m

   Moody

   18:52Yes sir. Uh item PC four is the last item on continuance and you will be sitting as a local planning agency for this one as well. Uh item PC4 is PDE 26-0002, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Land Development Code amendment. Section 522.9, Connected City Master Plan Unit Development District, Section 901, Infrastructure Standards, Section 901.1, Transportation Corridor Spacing, Bicycle Facilities,

   19:23and Section 901.8, Pedestrian Facilities, and Appendix A definitions. This is coming with the request that the local planning agency continue the item to the October 16, 2025 Planning Agency. Commission meeting at one thirty PM in Newport Ritchie.

   GreyChair

   19:37All right, does anybody here have any questions about this?

   19:42See no one.

   19:46All right, I think that's the that's the extent of the continuances. Um do I have a motion?

   Unidentified speaker

   19:54I make a motion to continue PC one, two and three to November sixth in Dade City and PC four to October sixteenth in Newport Ritchie.

   GreyChair

   20:03All right, you have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, I'll signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. A plaque sign for a negative. Motion carries.

2. 2Oct 16, 2025
   Planning CommissionPC7Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:43:06
   ▶ 1:43:0633m1/2

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:43:06For item PC7, you will also see cities and local planning for this item. It's PE 26002 and ordinance by the Pasco County Burning County Commissioners. Amending the Pasco County Land Development Code is Section 522.9, Connected City Master Plan Unit Development District, Section 901, Infrastructure Standards, Section 901, Clinic One, Transportation Corridor Facing. Section 901.6 street design identification requirements, Section 901.7 Bicycle Facilities, Section 901.8,

   1:43:36pedestrian facilities, appendix A definitions, and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability repealer, providing for several abilities using inclusion into the Pasco County Land Development Code, and an effective date for design by staff.

   Chris Shaver

   1:43:53Again.

   Unidentified speaker

   1:43:58Do

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:43:58you guys hear me okay? Yeah. Mike O, Planning Development, Economic Bird. Here again to present PE 26002 infrastructure standards, Playingable and Code Amendment.

   1:44:17Okay, so really quickly, the intent of this ordinance update is to update sort of portion of the club for internal consistency, consolidating sections 901.7 and 901.8 into a comprehensive section 901.7. Providing enhanced standards for location and connectivity for our bicycle and PED network. And we hope that these changes will strengthen the company's position to require land development projects to construct segments of our non-motorized transportation network.

   1:44:48So as a recap from our last uh discussion on this item, there was concerns about requiring a multi-use pay trail exclusively on the south or east side. The general thought was that this policy was too rigid and raised several concerns. Including potential impact on property values, challenges on diagonal roads, conflicts with existing alignments. And there would remain a need for pedestrians to cross the street to get from the sidewalk to a trail. So to resolve

   1:45:18these issues, we are proposing a 10-foot multi-use page trail on both sides of arterial and collector roads. This approach will simplify administration, create a symmetrical network, and support future updates to the county's typical sessions.

   1:45:38Most of the other uh conversations we had was that what we were proposing didn't exempt rural future land use categories, and that section 901.7 and 901.8 as they exist today currently do exempt anything below REST III. So to address those concerns, we've written in language to exempt agricultural, agricultural rural, residential future land use from the requirements of this section, except where the

   1:46:08zoning is an MPUD, and in that case, the county would retain the right to negotiate these facilities.

   1:46:18All right, lastly, we discussed the payment and loot option. There was some sentiment that that option should model the Penells County's system, which allows developers to build where the sidewalk is needed rather than putting it on their site or advice to the site. So what we are proposing with our payment and loo option functions similarly in situations where it's not feasible to construct a sidewalk or a multi-use path. or where there's already a path programmed

   1:46:48in the CIP. Um The developer can pay the county and then we can construct that path somewhere else that provides a benefit to the fee payer. I did review Pinellas County's land development code for this particular process. I found one section in their code that spoke to this. It was applicable to subdivisions. And it explicitly stated that they can provide a sidewalk in other locations to overcome physical

   1:47:19constraints where there is a benefit to the development. I didn't find in their land development code anywhere else where they have a payment loo option or an option to build it the sidewalk somewhere else. I even called Penells County and they confirmed that there was nothing else written in their land development code that touched on this process.

   1:47:42All right, so overall summary of our changes. We're making some updates for internal consistency. So 522.9 and 901.6. We're updating cross-references. So everywhere the code says 901.7 and 901.8, we're updating that to the 901.7. Section 901.1, transportation corridors facing. We are updating that to reference the current resolution that's 19-136. and indicating that we will be placing the county typical sections in

   1:48:13our development review manual, which we hope will make them easier to find. We're also adding some clarifying language to that section, which states that bicycle and pedestrian requirements, as stated in 901.7.

   1:48:27are applicable to arterial and collector road designs.

   1:48:33Oh, and we're updating 901.6 street design dedication requirements. This is a minor update to allow friction course as an allowable road construction material.

   1:48:44And a broad summary of our changes to the bike pad. Uh Land Development Code. Currently, 917 and 918 are applicable to Res 3 future land use or higher. On subdivision collector roads, they had to provide either a bike lane or a 12-foot multi-use path. Pedestrian facilities are required on all street types except for alleys. On collector and arterial, five foot sidewalks are required and four foot sidewalks on all other streets. What we're proposing is

   1:49:15a land development code that would be applicable to all development sites except for agricultural, agricultural rule, residential one, future land use, and it varies by street type. So again, we're proposing 10-foot multi-use page trails on both sides of our trail and collector roads. five foot sidewalks on one side and eight foot side or multi-use paid trails on the other side of a subdivision collector and five foot sidewalks on residential roads.

   1:49:43In addition, we're proposing pedestrian circulation and connectivity language. So this language would require all on-site uses to be linked via sidewalks. They have to connect to the external pedestrian and bicycle network. All principal structures have to be connected to each other. And parking lots with 100 more spaces have to provide a safe direct path from the parking lot to the building entrances. A little later in our process in writing this code, we got some feedback that this particular section

   1:50:13for the parking lots should require frequency requirements that specify how often sidewalks should be provided within the parking area. We're currently working on adding that into our drafts and we plan on Adding it to the drop that we will bring to the Board of County Commissioners.

   1:50:32Oh, and then Our payment in lieu. So as I mentioned previously, we're requiring or providing a payment in lieu of construction option. So again, where it's not feasible to build a sidewalk or multi-use path, applicants can pay in lieu. Um and And we can use that money to build a sidewalk. As long as it benefits the P pair.

   1:50:57This was our overall vision for the multimodal network we'd like to achieve.

   1:51:04And the recommendation is that find the proposed amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I'm here to answer your questions.

   Moody

   1:51:12Very useful. B for payment in lieu.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:51:17I think the plan right now is to have the developer provide a cost estimate. That cost estimate would then be reviewed by the county attorney who would give a snip of approval. The county attorney.

   1:51:34The county general review, I

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:51:35think. Uh

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:51:37he would give the stamp of approval and then that would be the cost that we would use. And We like that method because it can accommodate different widths and construction materials that might have otherwise been required by the code.

   Moody

   1:51:51Can I ask who did you speak with at Penelas County?

   Unidentified speaker

   1:51:57D I don't recall her name.

   1:52:03But if there's a process that they're using Penellas County that's

   Moody

   1:52:07I wouldn't. Tell you to reach out to Gene Cross and Okay. Use the development review manager. Okay.

   1:52:18And it is their common policy that if you cannot build the sidewalk adjacent to your site, then you will go build the same length of sidewalk elsewhere where they need it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:52:29And uh What I'm saying is that in their land development code, I didn't find any supporting language for that. I'm just saying

   Moody

   1:52:35that's their policy and that's what they do. I've had it happen on multiple projects.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:52:40Understood.

   Moody

   1:52:42Reason that I suggested that here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a payment in lieu. In fact, I've been behind the scenes lobbying for a payment in lieu for many years because my clients

   Chris Shaver

   1:52:54have built a lot of sidewalks to nowhere.

   1:52:59The difference is this.

   Moody

   1:53:03My client can build a sidewalk. Probably half the price you can build one. And they can do it twice as fast. We want sidewalks, we want production. I don't need this to sound insulting. I do understand there's a process David for Demonstrating that you're taking over what you need for a real But the citizens in Shady Hills are screaming, We need a road, we need a road. And we're telling them,

   1:53:33Yeah, hold on for six or seven years, you'll get a road.

   1:53:38If you let the developer go build a sidewalk. Before you give him his C O, you'll have the sidewalk today. Not seven years from now, not when you get around to it, not when it's on somebody's CIP. Not when there's seven years of inflation on the money that was paid in. Exactly. you'll get more sidewalks quicker. I'm not opposed to payment in lieu at all. I just hope that you would keep Such a such an option open. as

   1:54:08a way to satisfy building a sidewalk regulation so that we can actually have sidewalks to somewhere and have them today, not 10 years from now. But that's all. Otherwise I'm happy with this. Can you flip back

   1:54:20to the previous slide? The

   Miss Will High

   1:54:22plug

   Chris Shaver

   1:54:22of the blocking.

   Miss Will High

   1:54:27Okay. So that's the big difference is we we talked about the east and the south, I think, so now this is just Slowly the difference in working on both sides everywhere.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:54:36Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:54:39Any other questions or comments?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:54:42Maybe it's one or two more slides. Yes one? Yes.

   1:54:48So where's the Twelve foot multi-use pathco?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:54:53That's the piece that we're changing. So we were proposing a 12-foot multi-use path on one side, the south of the east side, and we've changed it to propose a 10-foot path on the side.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:55:04What it was. Correct. Right column is okay. Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:55:11Supervise the diagram again.

   Miss Will High

   1:55:16So on your subdivision collectors it it actu it actually isn't Symmetrical, right? So it's five foot on one, eight on the other?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:55:24Yes.

   Miss Will High

   1:55:25And that's on is that the same situation it's on the west and north sides where it's five feet and then

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:55:32No, in that particular section, the road language say put it on one side, but if there's an existing alignment, you have to.

   Moody

   1:55:41The question about the graphic. For the vision roads, it says You want a 10-foot multi-use path on each side. It says five foot marked bicycle lane on roads forty miles an hour or less. Does that mean you're gonna have a multi use path and a bike lane, or if it's a forty mile an hour or less road, it'll just be the bike lane?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:56:01It means we have both, but if it's a 40 mile per hour or less road, it would be

   Unidentified speaker

   1:56:05marked as a bike lane.

   Chris Shaver

   1:56:11Just say I'm

   1:56:14not supportive of bike lanes. Pretty sure one of the

   Moody

   1:56:17commissioners will give you

   1:56:21Give you some pushback about bike lanes. I call them suicide lanes.

   Chris Shaver

   1:56:27Yeah.

   Moody

   1:56:27As soon as these things were invented and people could start texting and driving. Riding your bicycle in a bike lane is a death wish.

   Miss Will High

   1:56:36Well, I've been advocating that we start calling them by claims. Nobody ever listens to me.

   1:56:43Because to to me they basically function as the road shoulder. And I don't know why we keep calling them Viklanes because they're effectively The breakdown lane. I mean when your car You need a place when your car is broken down, you don't want people stopping in the middle of the travel lane. Disagree with you. So you need a place for people to pull to the side and if that is Maybe we just need to stop calling them bike lanes and calling them the roadway shoulder. Good, good. That's the problem when you say eliminate the bike lane

   1:57:14is you're eliminating The road was shoulder too.

   Moody

   1:57:17That's the problem. The only thing that makes it a bike lane is that little diamond stripe.

   Miss Will High

   1:57:23We should start calling it shoulder slash bike lane, but but B I want a place to break down when my if if my car is broken down. I don't want to be stuck in the middle of the travel lane. So Let's not forget about the people driving the cars too.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:57:44Yeah, but then it's about the multi-use path. That seems to me you

   Miss Will High

   1:57:47could ride a bike on that.

   Moody

   1:57:48Yeah, pretty much. That's why it's called multi-use.

   Miss Will High

   1:57:50But I'm saying is is that even if it is usable as a bike lane, it's also usable as the and that's what the code makes it clearer is that that it also function as the shoulder. We're not gonna require you to go bike lane and a shoulder. They're the same thing. The irony of this is, is you lose that on a road 40 miles an hour or above. where you arguably need more width. The faster

   Moody

   1:58:18you're moving, you need you need more width of travel. I don't think the intent is presented here is this is supposed to be a lane for bicycles. I'm just saying I'm not supportive of these lanes for bicycles adjacent to Whether it be 30 mile an hour traffic or 50 mile an hour traffic or 70 mile an hour traffic, it's foolish. Half the time I see people riding down the wrong way down these bike lanes. I see people in wheelchairs riding in the bike lanes. I Get them

   1:58:49off on. That's why we're building these multi-use paths. If we need shoulders, I'm all about shoulders. That's fine. Get the bicycles off of adjacent to the track.

   Miss Will High

   1:58:59Very dense urban areas, you know, where it's fifteen miles an hour or less or something like that. But

   Moody

   1:59:04you got to buy a car by 15 miles an hour, it's still very simple. Well, no,

   Miss Will High

   1:59:08I'm my only point is is that if you have the width there, if you decide to take out the striking for bikes, it's still there as a short. My my concern is that if you don't at least require that width to be there, you have no shoulder. That's my concern.

   Moody

   1:59:22Garrick's point. If the road was if the road is going to be designed for 45 mile hours, then you wouldn't have a shoulder. Right. You actually lose width

   Miss Will High

   1:59:34of the road, which is Counterintuitive for a faster speed limit. Oh. It's probably usual there too. I don't disagree with that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:59:43One thing we need to just everybody needs to keep in mind is the right-of-way width doesn't change. So you start out in extra five feet for a sidewalk, extra five foot for North East Trail, extra room for a shoulder. You're you're taking away green space, you're taking away landscape trees that

   Moody

   1:59:56on the

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:59:57other side of the argument we

   Moody

   1:59:58And that's the other place too where you have to run those utilities. And so the next time you've got to dig up the broken water main, guess what you're fixing? Sidewalks and roads.

   Chris Shaver

   2:00:06Yeah. Mm.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:00:11I

   Chris Shaver

   2:00:11agree with David. I don't think we should call

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:00:13it a bike line. Does that make that's I think we're almost forcing people to ride in the lane because they think that's what legally

   Miss Will High

   2:00:22is required. Of course, none of that's in the purview of our committee, but It's on the record. I mean, could you at least call a bike lane slash holder something so that it's clear that it's functioning? I mean, even the code itself. I think we put language in saying that you don't have to put a shoulder and a bike lane because it was the same thing.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:00:42Yes, the shoulder uh shoulder widths, the bike lane satisfies requirement for shoulder widths as well.

   Miss Will High

   2:00:47Right. So It should probably be labeled as a bike lane slash shoulder. Even if even if you want even if we think it is gonna be We can debate back and forth whether we should have bike lanes or not. But Mike, when is it? it's functioning as more than just a bike lane. So that should be my opinion properly indicated on the graphic.

   Linda Farmer

   2:01:06Okay.

   Chris Shaver

   2:01:07Well

   Moody

   2:01:09say this to your point.

   2:01:13If it's a five foot wide Shoulder. Whatever we want to call it. You're still going to block the right lane if you pull into it because your car broke down. So You're not going to have any different effect on traffic. Because they're still gonna have to go in the next lane over to get around you if you're stopped. So it doesn't really matter.

   Miss Will High

   2:01:35Well I don't know about that. I think if you Because of our lane widths, I think that the

   Moody

   2:01:41You guys made the lane widths from 12 feet to 11 feet. You've made them narrower. So respectfully disagree with that. We don't have a county engineer here. I guess I heard anybody from traffic cops to know whether that's enough. I'm I'm not providing false testimony here. They made them 11 feet width. Whereas the standard lane widths are twelve feet. It's

   Miss Will High

   2:02:05the average width of the car, seven, eight feet. Seven vehicle. Seven six and change. Seven feet. Call it. So you're two feet if you're five feet into the all the way into the bicycle lane, you're two feet still into the lane. Yeah,

   Moody

   2:02:18so you I You still

   Miss Will High

   2:02:20have a little bit into the other lane, but you're it's still less.

   Moody

   2:02:23I encountered the problem on US nineteen this morning. Well. Two people who had a bumper scratcher of an accident decided to pull off on the little shoulder in the median. And then that blocks the entire That's southbound US nineteen. We were forced to get in the other lane to go around and then regardless, you have to go around that car. It's blocking the lane.

   2:02:49The way you're not blocking the line is if they pull off on that multi-use path. Maybe we need maybe we need a wider shoulder then.

   Chris Shaver

   2:02:59Well, with this there'd be a curb there, correct?

   Miss Will High

   2:03:04From the road road level that would depend if it's an urban or rural. If it's rural, it's less of an issue because you can spool in the grass too. Right.

   2:03:15Yeah, so it was a curve. Makes it more difficult to pull off of the road into the grass in a emergency situation.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:03:25So I pulled up the at least one of our typical sections as adopted in 19-136, if that helps provide any context.

   Miss Will High

   2:03:35So where's the curve in this? You can see the little teeny step there.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:03:40Two feet immediately adjacent to the bike lane.

   2:03:45Two

   2:03:45foot section and Yeah, I see.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:03:55Well, that style curve isn't so hard to drive over, is it? The old style.

   Moody

   2:03:59Well those are Okay. The ones in the medium are median are mountable. The ones on the outside edge. What did you say the standard width of a bar was? Was it the

   Miss Will High

   2:04:09standard width of a bar?

   Moody

   2:04:11Somewhere around well they vary by car, but Average around six feet or so, six to seven feet. Well, okay.

   Miss Will High

   2:04:18If the bike lane is five feet, you're still getting the majority of the car.

   2:04:23Either way, you

   Moody

   2:04:24still gotta get in the other lane.

   Miss Will High

   2:04:26I don't I'm I'm not

   2:04:27creating real estate here. Make your

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:04:32You didn't be rather cheerless.

   Moody

   2:04:34Then what are you gonna do about a semi-truck that's allowed to be eight feet wide?

   2:04:39Okay, if you want to make the bike lane six feet, I'm all for it. I'm just saying I don't care what I'm all for Pave Shoulders. How about it? I'm just saying let's get the bikes off the road and I think there's a certain commissioner who might be the chairman of the board that's probably gonna push back about the bike lanes. That's all I'm saying.

   Miss Will High

   2:04:57Not like a microphone. I don't disagree, but that's why I'm saying we should call them something other than mic lanes. Call them bike lanes on shoulders or whatever it is, but Partnership lines. Multi uh whatever we want to call it, but it but it

   2:05:14I do think that having that five feet Makes it safer during a breakdown. I was standing what Mr. Woody says that I I think it gives some relief to the uncommon art of the

   2:05:29The car's six feet wide, I see six feet of See how you can get six feet of car in there.

   Moody

   2:05:35We're not arguing we're we're not arguing about the same thing.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:05:38Mm.

   Moody

   2:05:39I'm not against having additional pavements written for shoulders. I'm saying get the bicycles off of it. Okay. That's all I'm saying. Okay. Get the bikes off of it. Get the bikes on the multi-use path. That's why we're building ten foot wide multi-use.

   Miss Will High

   2:05:55Okay, how about we just call it a biplane or a shoulder? Call that shoulder.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:06:01To be clear, are we talking about actually revising language in the proposed LBC or just on the graphic?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:06:08It's just the sections. There's

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:06:10no

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:06:10language in there, is there?

   Miss Will High

   2:06:13There

   2:06:13is

   2:06:13a reference to a bike lane, but it also language in the code says it is the shoulder too.

   Chris Shaver

   2:06:18Yeah.

   Miss Will High

   2:06:20I'm not sure there's a problem with the code. The code says it's functioning, it's serving as both function.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:06:30I tend

   2:06:31to think that that it is a danger and I think I agree with a bike line is. It's almost like telling people this is the lane we gotta be

   Miss Will High

   2:06:39in, it don't wanna be on a bike. And I rarely see people use a bike lane as well.

   2:06:45You see these

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:06:46people with all the gear on and the helmets and everything. Yeah, 15 in a row going down the bike lane. Yeah,

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:06:52I thought that's why I'm providing a 10-foot trail.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:06:54Exactly.

   Moody

   2:06:55Isn't that the whole point of providing

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:06:57trail? That's what I'm

   Moody

   2:06:58talking about. I'm not opposed to shoulders. Have all the shoulders and emergency pull-off areas you want. We don't have them up.

   Miss Will High

   2:07:06What if we call the shoulder and then we decide later whether we're gonna allow bikes on it?

   Moody

   2:07:12Well, the state law allows bicycles to ride down the road too. I'm just saying you're stupid if you do it. Right. And I we don't need to encourage people to do it. That's why we want to invest in these multi-use paths. It's to get them off of the road so we can have a safe place to bicycle. And I'm sure there's a certain retired school board member that could come here and testify to that personally. Correct.

   Miss Will High

   2:07:35Yeah.

   Moody

   2:07:36I

   Miss Will High

   2:07:36I've seen municipalities that designate a portion of that multi-use trail as bicycle. Doesn't mean you can't walk on that section, but there's a little lane built into that, painted onto that multi-use trail. And so that one might be a better use to encourage that. He doesn't need three feet of that ten feet trail. To a bike those rails, the trails, they have bikes all over. They do, yeah. But I see I've seen it before where they actually have a lane designated for bikes.

   Moody

   2:08:04Yeah, I have to

   Miss Will High

   2:08:06Multi use

   Moody

   2:08:07and just please don't put stop controls on the bike lanes like New Port Richey because the people on the street don't understand that the stop sign is for the bike path and not for the street.

   Unidentified speaker

   2:08:18Neither just Google Maps.

   Miss Will High

   2:08:20Yeah.

   2:08:23Ultimate question is you hit the nail on the head, Mr. Mitty. If the streets are allowed to use the road anyway. I mean the bikes will all ease the road anyway. Wouldn't you rather have them on the outside edge? In the shoulder.

   Moody

   2:08:36I don't want to Well I want to highly encourage them to use the multi-use path that we're now going to obligate developers to build along Vision Roads. Our terms. Okay. And all I'm suggesting to you, and I don't care because I'm still gonna recommend approval of this thing, but I'm getting telling you when you get to the board There's a lady who's got a gavel up there and I'm pretty sure she's gonna tell you the same

   Miss Will High

   2:09:04thing. I don't I understand that and what I'm seeing is I don't want an overreaction that causes us to lose

   Moody

   2:09:10our shoulders. That's my issue. No, I don't want you to lose your shoulders. I'm going on the record. I am completely in support of having adequately wide enough paved shoulders. So that you can pull over in the event of David's Tesla runs out of electricity.

   2:09:28And he has to sit there for the next 12 hours while they charge.

   Miss Will High

   2:09:31Jerry, give it give a suggestion to get solved this. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Mariano.

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:09:37Charge Detail's point economic growth. Um there There is work that's happening in the background on the right-of-way typicals with County Engineers. So we could look at the term more comprehensive, whether we denote it on the typicals as bike lane or as shoulder or bike lane slash shoulder. There are other terms that are used by like the GIS profession. Asri ArcJS calls them edge lane roads or ELRs, advisory bike lanes, advisory shoulders. There's

   2:10:07a slew of terms that we could debate internally as to what we should actually call them. But for the purposes of this graphic, we could simply remove it and just be just be silent on it. Yeah.

   2:10:19Since this graphic is really intended for the momentum.

   Moody

   2:10:24Terry, just point we're trying to make is we don't care what

   2:10:31It's not a semantic argument over what we call it. We all understand that it is safer for the bicyclist to use the multi-use trail that we're going to require be constructed than to Ride in the traffic lane or on the side of the traffic lane. That's the whole point of having the multi-use trail. Otherwise, we just call it a sidewalk.

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:10:54Uh understood. And

   Chris Shaver

   2:10:56I'll disagree.

   Unidentified speaker

   2:11:00So for additional clarity here.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:11:02Um There are certain sections in our proposed amendment here that does refer to bike lanes. So The guidance here to maybe remove bicycle references to bicycle lanes for now because

   Miss Will High

   2:11:17My preference I need to replace it with whatever term Terry comes up with that this multifunctional thing, whatever I don't know what the right term is, but the shoulder. The shoulder or whatever whatever it is. If that Terry means there's some new

   2:11:35term of art that's used for these things that I'm not opposed to using, but I think the concern you're hearing is designated as a as a bike lane is a problem because it implies that that's the purpose of it. Got it. When it's I don't think anybody thinks that should be the purpose, the sole purpose of that pavement. You mean you're encouraging people to use Sarash.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:11:58Okay.

   Moody

   2:11:59Which is not good. There was a time that was probably okay. I remember when I first went to the University of Florida and I was enthralled at the city of Gainesville who had these lanes for bicycles on the side of the road. Okay. We didn't have these in nineteen eighty two. Okay. Once we got these changes,

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:12:19I changed the chat

   Moody

   2:12:20changed the

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:12:21equation. So Mr. Chairman, just to clarify earlier comment, it's the federal highway administration. And their small town and rural multimodal network guide that identifies these as edge lane roads or advisory shoulders by FHWA. So that's a federal term.

   Miss Will High

   2:12:40Yeah, that doesn't divisory shoulders. I'm okay with. That doesn't say mics. I like it when it doesn't say. Doesn't matter, they're shut down.

   2:12:50It's true. I mean, it it it's clearly not a place where you want cars driving fast either. It's

   Moody

   2:12:56no we don't want any cars driving fast out there's why the term advisory shoulder is a good thing. Yeah,

   Miss Will High

   2:13:01it's

   Chris Shaver

   2:13:02shoulder.

   Moody

   2:13:06So don't call it a bike lane. That's all we're saying. I like

   Miss Will High

   2:13:08advisor shoulders.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:13:11We just wanted a place for people to

   Miss Will High

   2:13:12walk. We won't need we don't need ten feet wide there.

   Moody

   2:13:15Exactly.

   Miss Will High

   2:13:17Yeah. Right, but we're talking about the five feet. We're talking about incurred bicycles. We need it to be quite I agree on the multi is true. We're just the the issue is what are we going to call the five feet? I should all. Well for the purposes of this hearing, can we leave it out? Entirely. Is there well I think or do we need to come up with a term before we I think the problem is the code is referred to a bike lane, I think.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:13:47That's the super.

   2:13:51So we 9016 already has shoulders covered.

   2:13:58No. So we have a section that talks to shoulders. um already. So I again I don't I don't know how this is going to interplay with each other, but I just wanted to point that out. So if we're changing the name of what a shoulder may be, maybe we're changing that code section as well. Now granted, 9016 is generally talking about Um subdivision collector and lower. So subdivision collector, local roads, even minor rural subdivision has a small little shoulder on it. We're talking about vision roads, right? That's covered by a vision road typicals, which I

   2:14:28believe they're we're intending to update in the not so distant future. So there's different hierarchy of things that are at play here. So if we're talking about changing terms. I think we need to look at it a little bit more holistically, just to

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:14:44Well in Land O' Lakes in this section of the code of what's proposed underneath the bicycle lanes, you got subsection one, two, and three. Can we just delete two and three and leave it to where it says it shall be constructed in accord with the adoptive typical sections? And then when the typical sections are updated. They'll be called whatever they decide to be called.

   Barbara Wilhite

   2:15:03I am not opposed to that.

   Moody

   2:15:05Sounds good to me. Sounds good to me.

   2:15:10You should probably make a motion, Jack.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:15:11Yep.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:15:13Well,

   Moody

   2:15:13so moved. Did you get that?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:15:16You can eat it.

   2:15:19Gotta level up the hierarchy here, but it's sub subsection two and three under bicycle lanes for arterial collector roads. We're just gonna strike those two subsections.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:15:31I would second that. Motion and second for the discussion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Others like sign. To go home.

   2:15:45Bay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:15:49I'm full confidence that Terry can come up with a good name from interval sections. Absolutely.

   2:15:56Yeah.

   Miss Will High

   2:15:57Carrying the weight of the world on the shoulders.

   2:16:03Got a lot of writing on your filters. Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:16:06Thanks for your time.

   Miss Will High

   2:16:07Thank you. Thank you.

   2:16:16Oh. So

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:16:17I'll I'll move approval.

   Miss Will High

   2:16:20Second. So

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:16:21motion is second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Behind saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

   2:16:29Okay. Okay.

   2:16:33Okay.

   ▶ 1:46:4633m2/2

   Moody

   1:46:46For item PC seven, you will also be sitting as a local planning agency for this item. It's PDE 26002, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, Section 522.9, Connected City Master Plan Unit Development District, Section 901, Infrastructure Standards, Section 901.1, Transportation Corridor Spacing. Section 901.6 street design and dedication requirements, Section 901.7, Bicycle Facilities, Section 901.8,

   1:47:17Pedestrian Facilities, Appendix A, Definitions, and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability, excuse me, inclusion into the Pasco County Land Development Code, and an effective date presented by staff.

   GreyChair

   1:47:34Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:47:38Okay. Can you guys hear me okay?

   GreyChair

   1:47:39Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:47:40Fantastic. Rebecca Bow, Planning Development, Economic Growth. Here uh again to present PDE 26002 infrastructure standards land development code amendment.

   1:47:58Okay, so really quickly, um the intent of this ordinance update is to update certain portions of the code for internal consistency. consolidating sections 901.7 and 901.8 into a comprehensive section 901.7. providing enhanced standards for location and connectivity for our bicycle and PED network. And we hope that these changes will strengthen the county's position to require land development projects to construct segments of our non-motorized transportation network.

   1:48:29So, as a recap from our last uh discussion on this item, there were concerns about requiring a multi-use paved trail exclusively on the south or east side. The general thought was that this policy was too rigid and raised several concerns. including potential impact on property values, challenges on diagonal roads, conflicts with existing alignments, and uh there would remain a need for pedestrians to cross the street to get from a sidewalk to a trail. So to resolve

   1:48:59these issues, we are proposing a 10-foot multi-use paved trail on both sides of arterial and collector roads. This approach will simplify administration, create a symmetrical network, and support future updates to the county's typical sections.

   1:49:18So some of the other uh conversations we had was that what we were proposing didn't exempt rural future land use categories and that section 901.7 and 901.8 as they exist today currently do um exempt anything below res three. So to address those concerns, we've written in language to exempt agricultural, agricultural rural rural, residential one future land use from the requirements of this section. except where the

   1:49:49zoning is an MPUD. And in that case, uh the county would retain the right to negotiate these facilities.

   1:49:59Alright, lastly, we discussed the payment and loo option. There was some sentiment that that option should model the Pinells County's system, which allows developers to build where the sidewalk is needed. rather than putting it on their site or adjusting to the site. So what we are proposing with our payment and lieu option functions similarly in situations where it's not feasible to construct a sidewalk or a multi-use path. or where there's already a path programmed in

   1:50:29the CIP. Um the developer can pay the county and then we can construct that path. um somewhere else that provides a benefit to the feed payer. I did review Pinellas County's land development code to look for this particular process. I found one section in their code that spoke to this. It was applicable to subdivisions. And it explicitly stated that they can provide a sidewalk in other locations to overcome physical

   1:50:59constraints where there is a benefit to the development. I didn't find in their land development code anywhere else where they have a payment lie option or an option to build it the sidewalk somewhere else. I even called Penells County and they confirmed that there was nothing else written in their land development code. that touched on this process.

   1:51:23All right, so overall summary of our changes. We're making some updates for internal consistency. So 522.9 and 901.6. We're updating cross-references. So everywhere the code says 901.7 and 901.8. We're updating that to the 901.7. Section 901.1, transportation corridor spacing. Um we are updating that to reference the current resolution that's 19-136. And indicating that we will be placing the county typical sections in

   1:51:53our development review manual, which we hope will make them easier to find. Uh we're also adding some clarifying language to that section, um, which states that bicycle and pedestrian requirements, as stated in 901.7, um are applicable to arterial and collector road designs.

   1:52:13Um oh and we're updating nine oh one point six street design and dedication requirements. This is a minor update to allow friction course as an allowable road construction material.

   1:52:25And a broad summary of our changes to the bike PED. Uh lane development code. Currently, 9017 and 9018 are applicable to REST III, future land use or higher. Um on subdivision collector roads they have to provide either a bike lane or a 12 foot multi-use path. Pedestrian facilities are required on all street types except for alleys. Um on collector and arterial, five foot sidewalks are required and four foot sidewalks on all other streets. What we're proposing

   1:52:55is a land development code that would be applicable to all development sites except for agricultural, agricultural rule, res residential one, future land use. And it varies by street type. So again, we're proposing ten-foot multi-use paved trails on both sides of arterial and collector roads.

   Diane Grady

   1:53:12Five

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:53:12put sidewalks on one side and eight put side or multi-use paved trails on the other side of a subdivision collector. and five foot sidewalks on residential roads.

   1:53:24In addition, we're proposing pedestrian circulation and connectivity language. So this language would require all on-site uses to be linked via sidewalks. They have to connect to the external pedestrian or bicycle network. They have all principal structures have to be connected to each other. And parking lots with 100 more spaces have to provide a safe, direct path from the parking lot to the building entrances. A little later in our process in writing this code, we got some feedback that this particular section

   1:53:54for the parking lots. Should require frequency requirements that specify how often sidewalks should be provided within the parking area. We're currently working on adding that into our draft and we plan on Adding it to the draft that we will bring to the Board of County Commissioners.

   1:54:13Oh and then Yeah. So as I mentioned previously, we're requiring or providing a payment in lieu of construction option. So again, where it's not feasible to build a sidewalk or multi-use path, applicants can pay in lieu. Um and

   1:54:30And um we can use that money to build the sidewalk. As long as it benefits the fee payer.

   1:54:38This is our overall vision for the multimodal network we'd like to achieve.

   1:54:44And the recommendation is that find the proposed amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan, and I'm here to answer your questions.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:54:52Is there a proposed fee for payment in lieu?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:54:57I think the plan right now is to have the developer provide a cost estimate. That cost estimate would then be reviewed by the county attorney who would give it its stamp of approval.

   1:55:11County engineer.

   1:55:14The The county engineer would review it. Yeah. Uh he would give the stamp of approval and then that would be the cost that we would use. And We like that method because it can accommodate uh different widths and construction materials that might have otherwise been required by the code.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:55:32Can I ask who did you speak with at Penellas County?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:55:37Like mm. I don't recall her name.

   1:55:43But if there's a process that they're using in Penellas County that's

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:55:47I would Tell you to reach out to Gene Crossan. Okay. Who's the development review manager? Okay.

   1:55:58And it is their common policy that if you cannot build the sidewalk adjacent to your site that you will go build the same length of sidewalk elsewhere where they need it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:56:09And that What I'm saying is that in their land development code, I didn't find any supporting language for that.

   1:56:20Understood.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:56:22And the reason that I suggested that here Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a payment in lieu. In fact I've been behind the scenes lobbying for a payment in lieu for many years 'cause my clients have built a lot of sidewalks to nowhere.

   1:56:40The difference is this. My client can build a sidewalk. Probably half the price you can build one. And they can do it twice as fast. And we want sidewalks, we want production. I don't mean this to sound insulting. Because I do understand there's a process, David, for Demonstrating that you're taking only the right of way you need for a road. But the citizens in

   1:57:10Shady Hills are screaming, We need a road, we need a road and we're telling 'em, yeah, hold on for six or seven years, you'll get a road.

   1:57:18If you let the developer go build a sidewalk. before you give 'em his C O, they'll have the sidewalk today. Mm-hmm. Not seven years from now, not when you get around to it, not when it's on somebody's CIP.

   Connected City

   1:57:31Not when there's seven years of inflation

   Unidentified speaker

   1:57:33on the money

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:57:33that was

   Unidentified speaker

   1:57:33paid in. Exactly.

   David Engel

   1:57:36You'll

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:57:37get more sidewalks quicker. I'm not opposed to payment in lieu at all. I just hope that you would keep Such it. such an option open. as a way to satisfy building a sidewalk regulation so that we can actually have sidewalks to somewhere and have them today, not ten years from now. But that's all. Otherwise I'm happy with this.

   Connected City

   1:58:00Can you flip back to the previous slide real quick? I just wanted to look at that little diagram again.

   1:58:07Okay. So that's the big difference is we we talked about the east and the south, I think, so now this is just Splitting the difference and we're going on both sides everywhere.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:58:16Yeah.

   GreyChair

   1:58:19Okay, any other questions or comments?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:58:21Go back to your table. I think it's one or two more slides.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:58:25This one?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:58:26Yes.

   1:58:29So where's the twelve foot multi use path go?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:58:34That's the piece that we're changing. So we were proposing a 12-foot multi-use path on one side, the south or the east side. And we've changed it to propose a ten foot path on both sides. The right

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:58:44column is what it was.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:58:46Correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:58:47And the right column is okay. Okay.

   Connected City

   1:58:52So go back to the diagram again?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:58:53Yes.

   Connected City

   1:58:57So on your subdivision collectors it it actu it actually isn't Symmetrical, right? So it's five foot on one, eight on the other? Yes. And that's on is that the same th situation? It's on the west and north sides where it's five feet and

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:59:13No, in that particular section we wrote language to say put it on one side, but if there's an existing alignment, you have to um build per that alignment.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:59:22Quick question about the graphic. For the vision roads, it says You want a ten foot multi use path on each side. And then it says five foot marked bicycle lane on roads forty miles an hour or less. Is does that mean you're gonna have a multi use path and a bike lane, or if it's a forty mile an hour or less road, it'll just be the bike lane?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:59:42It means we'd have both, but if it's a forty mile per hour or less road, it would be marked as a bike lane.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:59:51Okay. I'll just say I'm

   1:59:54not supportive of bike lanes. I'm pretty sure one of the commissioners will give you

   2:00:01Give you some Pushback about bike lanes. I call them suicide lanes. Yeah, mm-hmm. As soon as these things were invented and people could start texting and driving, Riding your bicycle in a bike lane is a death wish.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:00:17Well, I've been advocating that we stop calling them by queens and nobody ever listens to me.

   2:00:24Because to the to me they basically function as the road shoulder. And I don't know why we keep calling them bike lanes, because they're effectively The breakdown lane.

   2:00:36You need a place when your car is broken down, you don't want people stopping in the middle of the travel lane. So you need a place for people to pull to the side and if that is Maybe we just need to stop calling them bike lanes and calling them the roadway's shoulder. But But That's the problem when you say eliminate the bike lane is you're eliminating the roadway shoulder too. That's the problem.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:00:58The only thing that makes it a bike lane is that little diamond stripe thing.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:01:03Maybe we should start calling it shoulder slash bike lane, but but But I want a place to break down when my if if my car is broken down. I don't want to be stuck in the middle of the travel lane. So Let's not forget about the people driving the cars too.

   2:01:22That's so but that's effectively what that is.

   GreyChair

   2:01:24Yeah, but ten foot multi use path, that seems to me you could ride a bike on that. Yeah, pretty much. That's what

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:01:30multi use. But I'm saying i is the is that even if it is usable as a bike lane, it's also usable as the and that's what the code makes it clear is that that it also function as the shoulder. We're not going to require you to do a bike lane and a shoulder. They're the same thing.

   Connected City

   2:01:48The irony of this is is you lose that on a road forty miles an hour or above. where you arguably need more width on you e you know, the faster you're moving you you need you need more

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:02:00width of travel. All right. I don't think the intent as presented here is this is supposed to be a lane for bicycles. I'm just saying I'm not supportive of these lanes for bicycles adjacent to Whether it be thirty mile an hour traffic or fifty mile an hour traffic or seventy mile an hour traffic. It's foolish. Half the time I see people riding down the wrong way down these bike lanes. I see people in wheelchairs riding in the bike lanes. I uh Get 'em off o that's why we're building these

   2:02:31multi use paths. We need shoulders. I'm all about shoulders. That's fine. Yeah. Get the bicycles off of adjacent to the track. It might make it away from the track.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:02:48Well my my only point is that if you have the width there, if you decide to take out the striping for bikes, it's still there as a shoulder. My my concern is that if you don't at least require that

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:03:05if the road was if the road is going to be designed for forty five mil house an hour, then you wouldn't have a shoulder. Right.

   Connected City

   2:03:13You actually lose width of the road, which is Counterintuitive for a faster speed limit.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:03:19Well, I you probably need a shoulder there too. I don't disagree with him.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   2:03:23Yeah, one thing we need to just everybody needs to keep in mind is the right-of-way width doesn't change. So you start adding extra five feet for a sidewalk, extra five foot for multi-use trail, extra room for a shoulder, you're you're taking away green space, you're taking away landscape trees that the other side of the argument we've got to do.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:03:38And that's the other place too where you have to run those utilities and so the next time you've got to dig up the broken water main, guess what you're fixing?

   Unidentified speaker

   2:03:46Sidewalks and roads. Yeah.

   GreyChair

   2:03:51Well, I agree with David. I don't think we should call it a bike lane. 'Cause I think that's a f We're almost forcing people to ride in the lane because they think that's what legally is required.

   Connected City

   2:04:04Of course none of that's in the purview of our committee, but It's on the record.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:04:09I mean can you at least call it bike lane slash holder or something so that it's clear that it's functioning. I mean even the code itself I think we put language in saying that you don't have to put a shoulder and a bike lane 'cause it was the same thing.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:04:23Yes, the shoulder uh shoulder widths the bike lane satisfies requirement for shoulder widths as well.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:04:28Right. So It should probably be labelled as a bike lane slash shoulder. Even if even if you want even if we think it is gonna be We can debate back and forth whether we should have bike lanes or not. But my point is that It's functioning as more than just a bike lane. And so that should be, in my opinion, properly indicated on the graphic.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:04:47Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:04:48Well say this to your point.

   2:04:54If it's a five foot wide Shoulder. Whatever we want to call it. You're still gonna block the right lane if you pull into it because your car broke down. So You're not gonna have any different effect on traffic. Because they're still gonna have to go in the next lane over to get around you if you're stopped. So it doesn't really matter.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:05:15Well, I don't know about

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:05:16that. I think if you Because of our lane widths, I think the the You guys made the lane widths from twelve feet to eleven feet. Made 'em narrower. So I'll respectfully disagree with that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:05:32Well we don't have the county engineer here, I guess

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:05:33I'll

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:05:34or anybody from Traffic Cops to know whether that's enough.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:05:37I'm I'm not providing false testimony here. They made 'em eleven feet width. Whereas the standard lane widths are twelve feet.

   Connected City

   2:05:45So what's the average width of a car? Seven, eight feet? Seven vehicle? Seven feet? Six and change. Seven feet. Call it. So you're two feet if you're five feet into the all the way into the bicycle and you're two feet still into the lane.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:05:59You still

   2:06:01have to go a little bit into the other lane, but you're gonna

   2:06:02it's still less. I encountered the problem on US nineteen this morning when two people who had a bumper scratcher of an accident decided to pull off on the little shoulder in the median and then that blocked the entire Left southbound US nineteen. We are forced to get in the other lane to go around. Regardless, you have to go around that car. It's blocking the lane.

   2:06:29The only way about blocking their lane is if they pull off on that multi-use path.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:06:34Maybe maybe we need a wider

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:06:35shoulder then.

   Connected City

   2:06:40Well, with this there'd be a curb there, correct?

   Unidentified speaker

   2:06:45From the road road level.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:06:48Yeah, I don't know if it's urban or rural. If it's rural it's less of an issue because you can just pull in the grass too.

   2:06:55Yeah,

   2:06:55so

   Connected City

   2:06:56there's a curb. There we go. Which makes it more difficult to pull off of the road into the grass in a emergency situation.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:07:06So I pulled up the at least one of our typical sections um as adopted in nineteen dash one three six if that helps provide any context.

   Connected City

   2:07:16So where's the curb in this? You can see the little teeny step there. Two feet.

   2:07:23Yeah. Yeah, the two foot section there. See you David. Yeah,

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:07:28I see

   Connected City

   2:07:28you.

   GreyChair

   2:07:35Mm. Well, that style curb isn't so hard to drive over

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:07:38as a The old style. Well those are Is it The ones in the medium median are mountable, the ones on the outside edge are the right-of-way.

   2:07:52Somewhere around six well they vary by car, but

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:07:58Well, okay. If the bike lane's five feet, you're still getting the majority of the car. You st either way you still gotta get

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:08:05in the other lane.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:08:06I don't know.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:08:09I'm not convinced that that you're

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:08:12You got the gutter too.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:08:14And then what are you gonna do about a semi truck that's allowed to be eight feet wide?

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:08:18Ha ha ha.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:08:20Look, if you want to make the bike lane six feet, I'm all for it. I'm just saying I don't care what I'm all for paved shoulders. How about it? I'm just saying let's get the bikes off the road and I think there's a certain commissioner who might be the chairman of the board that's probably gonna push back about the bike lanes. That's all I'm saying. I

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:08:38I I I don't disagree, but that's why I'm saying we should call them something other than bike lanes. Call them bike laneslash shoulders or whatever it is, but

   GreyChair

   2:08:47Emergency lanes.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:08:49Multi uh whatever we want to call it, but uh but it

   2:08:54I do think that having that five feet Makes it safer during a breakdown. Notwithstanding what Mr. Moody says that I I think it gives some relief to the uncommon dri other drivers.

   2:09:09If the car is six feet wide, I see six feet of see how you can get six feet of car in

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:09:14there. We're not argu we're we're not arguing about the same thing. I'm not against having additional pavement width for shoulders. I'm saying get the bicycles off of it. Okay. That's all I'm saying. Okay. Get the bikes off of it. Get the bikes on the multi-use path. That's why we're building ten foot wide multi-use path. Yeah. Okay, how about we just call it a bike lane or a shoulder? Just call it a shoulder.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:09:41To be clear, are we talking about actually revising language in the proposed L D C or just on the graphic?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   2:09:48I think just the sections. There's no language in there, is there? Is there language?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:09:54There

   2:09:54is

   2:09:54a reference to a bike lane, but it also the language in the code says it is the shoulder too. So I'm not sure there's a problem with the code. The code says it's functioning it's serving as both functions.

   GreyChair

   2:10:10I I tend to think that that it is a danger and I think uh the one at a bike lane is That's almost like telling people, This is the lane you gotta be in if you wanna be on a bike. And I rarely see people use it as a

   Connected City

   2:10:23bike lane as well.

   GreyChair

   2:10:26You see these people with all the gear on and the helmets and everything. Yeah, fifteen in a row going down the bike lane.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:10:32Yeah, I thought that's why they were riding a ten foot trail.

   GreyChair

   2:10:35Exactly. Isn't

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:10:35that

   GreyChair

   2:10:35the whole

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:10:36point of the riding

   GreyChair

   2:10:37trail for the training?

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:10:39I'm not opposed to shoulders. Have all the shoulders and emergency pull-off areas you want. What if we have a

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:10:46bikes off the road? What if we call it a shoulder and then we decide later whether we're gonna allow bikes on it?

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:10:53Well the state law allows bicycles to ride down the road too. I'm just saying you're stupid if you do it. Right. And I we don't need to encourage people to do it. That's why we want to invest in these multi use paths is to get them off of the road so we can have a safe place to bicycle. And I'm sure there's a certain retired school board member that could come here and testify to that personally.

   Connected City

   2:11:16I I've seen municipalities that designate a portion of that multi use trail as bicycle. You know, it doesn't mean you can't walk on that section, but there's a little lane built into that, painted onto that multi use trail, and so that might be a better use to encourage that. You designate Three feet of that ten feet trail. You see those rails, the trails, they have bikes all over 'em. They do, yeah. But I've seen I've seen it before where they actually have a lane designated for bikes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:11:44Yeah, I have too. on the multi-use and just please don't put stop controls on the bike lanes like New Port Richey has done because the people on the street don't understand that the stop sign is for the bike path and not for the street.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:11:58I know that's fairly contriving.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:11:59Neither does Google Maps.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:12:01I mean I I g I guess the ultimately the question is uh you you hit the nail on the head, Mr. Moody. If the streets are allowed to use the road anyway I mean if the bikes are allowed to use the road anyway, legally wouldn't you rather have them on the outside edge Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:12:18Well, I want to highly encourage them to use the multi-use pat path that we're now going to obligate developers to build along vision roads.

   2:12:32Correct. And all I'm suggesting to you, and I don't care because I'm still gonna recommend approval of this thing, but I'm gonna tell you when you get to the board There's a lady who's got a gavel up there and I'm pretty sure she's gonna tell you the same thing.

   2:12:52No, I don't want you to lose your shoulders. I'm going on the record. I am completely in support of having adequately wide enough paved shoulders. So that you can pull over in the event of David's Tesla runs out of electricity.

   2:13:08And he has to sit there for the next twelve hours while he charges it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:13:14Yeah, mm Mr. Chairman Mari

   2:13:20There is work that's happening in the background on the right-of-way typicals with the county engineer, so we could look at the term more comprehensive plan whether we denote it on the typicals as bike lane or as shoulder or as bike lane slash shoulder. There are other terms that are used by like the GIS professional. Esri ArcJS calls them edge lane roads or ELRs, advisory bike lanes, advisory shoulders. There's a slew of terms that we could debate internally as

   2:13:50to what we should actually call them. But for the purposes of this graphic, we could simply remove it and just be just be silent on it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:14:12It's not a semantic argument over what we call it. We all understand that it is safer for the bicyclist to use the multi use trail that we're going to require be constructed than to ride in the traffic lane or on the side of the traffic lane. That's the whole point of having the multi-use trail. Otherwise we'd just call it a sidewalk.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:14:34Uh understood. And Don't disagree.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:14:40So for additional clarity here. There are certain sections in our a proposed amendment here that does refer to bike lanes. So Is the guidance here to maybe remove bicycle references to bicycle lanes for now because

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:14:57Uh my preference would be to replace it with whatever term Terry comes up with that this multifunctional okay thing, whatever

   2:15:09The shoulder or whatever whatever it is. uh Terry made sound like there's some new

   2:15:16term of art that's used for these things that I I'm not opposed to using but Mm.

   2:15:24designated as a as a bike lane is a problem because it implies that that's the purpose of it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:15:29Got it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:15:30When it I don't think anybody thinks that should be the purpose the sole purpose of that pavement.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:15:35Understood.

   2:15:38Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:15:39Which is not good. There was a time when that was probably okay. I remember when I first went to the University of Florida and I was enthralled at the city of Gainesville who had these lanes for bicycles on the side of the road. Right. We didn't have these in nineteen eighty two. Okay. Once we got to change the ch change the equation.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:16:02So Mr. Chairman, just to clarify my earlier comment, it's the Federal Highway Administration In their small town and rural multimodal network guide that identifies these as edge lane roads or advisory shoulders by F H W A. So that's a federal term.

   GreyChair

   2:16:20Advisory shouldn't advisory shoulders I'm okay with. That doesn't say bikes. I like it when it doesn't say bikes. It doesn't matter, they're shut down.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:16:30It's true. I mean i it it's clearly not a place where you want cars driving fast either. It's no we don't want any cars driving fast down there either.

   GreyChair

   2:16:48I like advisory shoulders. If we just wanted a place for people to walk, we won't need we don't need 'em ten feet wide either. Exactly. So yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:16:59Right.

   GreyChair

   2:17:00If we're talking about encouraging bicycles, we need a ten P wide.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:17:05I agree on the multi use trail. We're

   GreyChair

   2:17:07just tr

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:17:08the the issue is what are we going to call the five feet

   Connected City

   2:17:11The shoulder. Well for the purposes of this hearing, can we leave it out entirely? Is there or do we need to come up with a term before we

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:17:22I think the problem is the code does refer to a bike lien, I think. That's the

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:17:28mr chair, if I can add uh Patrick Dutter, um development review. So we nine oh one six already has shoulders covered. I'm sure the engineers up there know. So we have a section that talks to shoulders. Um already. So I got it. I don't know how this is going to interplay with each other, but I just wanted to point that out. So for changing the name of what a shoulder may be Maybe we're changing that code section as well. Now granted, nine oh one six is generally talking about Um subdivision collector and lower.

   2:17:59So subdivision collector, local roads, even minor rural subdivision has a small little shoulder on it. When we're talking about vision roads, right, that's covered by our vision road typicals, which I believe they're we're intending to update in the not so distant future. So there's different hierarchy of things that are at play here. So if we're talking about changing terms, terms I think we need to look at it a little bit more holistically. Just a thought.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:18:25Well in in the land of uh in this section of the code with what's proposed, underneath the bicycle lanes, you get subsection one, two and three. Can we just delete two and three and leave it to where it says it shall be constructed in accord with the adopted typical sections? And then when the typical sections are updated. They'll be called whatever they decide to be called.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:18:43I am not opposed to that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:18:46Sounds

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:18:46good to

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:18:46me. Sounds good to me.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:18:48Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:18:48Brilliant. You should probably make a motion, Jamie.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:18:54So moved. Did you get that?

   2:18:59Yeah I've got to follow up the hierarchy here, but it's sub subsection two and three under bicycle lanes for arterial and collector roads. We're just gonna strike those two subsections.

   GreyChair

   2:19:11I would second that. Motion a second further discussion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those like sign? Want to go home.

   2:19:25Okay.

   2:19:28Good buttons all.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:19:29Thank you.

   GreyChair

   2:19:32Oh yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:19:33In a typical section.

   GreyChair

   2:19:34Absolutely.

   2:19:38Carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders.

   Connected City

   2:19:39Carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders.

   GreyChair

   2:19:44Got a lot riding on your shoulders there, Terry.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:19:46Thanks for your time.

   GreyChair

   2:19:47Thank you. Thank you. You thought it was gonna be quick, didn't you? Did you all make it that

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:19:52that was just a motion to strike those sections? We need a motion to start.

   GreyChair

   2:19:56Oh.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:19:57So I'll I'll move approval. Second.

   GreyChair

   2:20:01We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Like signed? No.

   2:20:14Okay.

3. 3Oct 21, 2025
   Board of County CommissionersP63Public hearingContinued

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue to the November 12, 2025 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 0:05
   ▶ 0:051m

   StarkeyChair

   0:05Board of County Commissioners afternoon session. We will uh begin with P sixty three this morning. This actually is oh yeah that's

   0:19Thank you. P

   Oakley

   0:20sixty two. Proof of publication, Tampa Bay Times, September third, twenty twenty five.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   0:32Thank you, Madam Chair. Victorious Pitos, Planning Development, Economic Growth Department. Item P63 is PDE 26002. This is an ordinance amending the land development code. for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This is being requested for a continuance of the November 12, 2025 Board of County Commissioners meeting in Dade City at 1.30 p.m.

   MarianoVice Chair

   0:57Move to continue time certain.

   StarkeyChair

   0:58All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Next.

4. 4Nov 12, 2025
   Board of County CommissionersP59Public hearingNo action

   Approved minutes

   No action was required as this was the first public hearing. The adoption hearing was scheduled for the December 9, 2025 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 2:57
   ▶ 2:579m

   StarkeyChair

   2:57We approved publication in the Tampa Bay Times September 3, 2025 for the October 21st, 2025 board meeting, where it was continued to today.

   Oakley

   3:10Item P59 is PDE 26002. This is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, Section 522.9, Connected City Master Plan Unit Development District, Section 901, Infrastructure Standards, Section 901.1, Transportation Corridor Spacing, Section 901.6, Street Design and Education Requirements, Section 901.7, Bicycle Facility. Facilities, section nine and one point eight, pedestrian facilities, appendix A definitions and other sections as necessary

   3:40for internal consistency, providing for applicability repealer, providing for severality, inclusion into landed element code and an effective date. This comes this is uh the first Presentation or reading of the proposed ordinance. No action is required. The Board of County Commissioners request to accept public comment and we have a presentation if so desired.

   StarkeyChair

   4:00Okay, does anyone uh need a presentation?

   4:07Okay. Um let me see if there's any public comment on this.

   StarkeyChair

   4:12We have no one online.

   StarkeyChair

   4:16All right, and I this passed unanimously out of the Planning Commissioner. I listened to the meeting. Um I did anyone want to I guess no action taken? Is that what I heard you say?

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   4:29No, this is a this is accept public comment.

   StarkeyChair

   4:32Yeah,

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   4:32but yeah. And no action taken in the first of two public hearing.

   StarkeyChair

   4:36I know Rebecca you've worked very hard on this one. Do you want to give a presentation or are we we good to go?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   4:44I'm ready to give a presentation today. It's maybe like ten minutes.

   Amanda Hill

   4:49Okay. Four.

   Mike Carballa

   4:51This will show what the new pedestrian standards are gonna look like along collectors and arterial roads.

   StarkeyChair

   4:56Okay, let's give let's have a presentation.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   5:09All right, Rebecca Bowden, Planning Development, Economic Growth.

   StarkeyChair

   5:14Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   5:14All right. So the intent of this ordinance upstate is to make some updates for internal consistency. Um we're also allowing friction course as a roadway material. We're consolidating sections 901.7 and 901.8 into a comprehensive section titled Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. We're also including in that rewrite some enhanced standards for site location and connectivity. And the overall goal here is to Strengthening

   5:45the county's position to require land development projects to build segments of our overall multimodal network. We did take this to the Planning Commission on 918 and on 1016. At the 918 hearing there was a lot of discussion about our previous version of this rewrite where we were asking for these trails to be built on the south or east side. There was concern that this particular piece was rigid. and may cause issues with aligning with existing facilities.

   6:15So we revised it to require 10-foot trails or multi-use paved trails on both sides of arterial and collector roads. And we hope that this will create a symmetrical network, support updates to the future typical sections, as well as simplify administration. There was also concerns at the nine eighteen LPA meeting regarding Whether or not we should be requiring these facilities in rural areas. Um in response to that we went back and explicitly

   6:45exempted um These requirements in future land use categories AG, AGR, and Res1.

   StarkeyChair

   6:55Um Can I stop you there for a second?

   7:00D I don't know if you saw the two year old that was killed um because they were walking out here somewhere and there's no no sidewalk, no no no place for that father to walk with his two year old safety.

   WeightmanSecond Vice Chair

   7:15It's behind public in the community and there are sidewalks in there.

   StarkeyChair

   7:19Oh. So so he was he chose not to be on a sidewalk? Okay. All right, go ahead. Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   7:27All right, so we also brought this to the 1016 Planning Commission. Um and at that meeting there was discussion about the requirements to uh mark shoulders as uh bicycle facilities. Ultimately we there was a motion made to remove that language. All right.

   7:49Okay. Okay.

   7:53Okay, so um the summary of our overall changes here is Our current 901.7 is applicable to REST 3 future land use or higher, and it's on subdivision collector roads. They're required to provide either a bike lane or a 12-foot multi-use path. Section 901.8 pedestrian facilities is also applicable. The Res 3 future land use are higher on all street types except for alleys. And the requirements there are for either a five-foot sidewalk on collective or arterial streets or a four-foot sidewalk on all other

   8:23streets. What we're proposing by combining the two is a land development code that's applicable to all sites. Except in the agricultural, agricultural rural and residential law and future land use categories and the requirements would vary by street type. So on arterials and collectors, um, they're there'd be required to provide a ten foot paved multi use trail on both sides. On residential subdivisions, we're asking for a five foot sidewalk on one side, and eight foot multi use paved trail on the other side, and on our residential roads,

   8:54we're looking for five foot sidewalks on both sides. We're also adding connections or standards for on-site circulation and connectivity standards. So this would require late development projects to connect all their buildings, connect to the external bike pad network. And in parking lots with 100 spaces or more, they're required to provide sidewalks from the parking lot to the principal building. We're also adding a payment in lieu of construction option. This option would be available where there's already facility

   9:24programs in the capital improvement program or where it would otherwise not be feasible to build a facility by the site. We're also adding a definition for paved multi-use trail. This is our overall vision, what we hope this land development code will ultimately create.

   9:45And as mentioned, this is the first public hearing with adoption set for December 9th.

   StarkeyChair

   9:53Uh

   9:53any

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   9:53questions?

   MarianoVice Chair

   9:54Question. Did this go before the uh Tibet Builders Association?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   9:59We did have communications with them, yes, via email.

   MarianoVice Chair

   10:02Well I think you need to have a meeting with him.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   10:05We didn't have like a a meeting though.

   MarianoVice Chair

   10:08So we had a was it a phone call or was it room meeting?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   10:11It was an email communication. And of course we took it to our ordinance development team in the horizontal roundtable.

   MarianoVice Chair

   10:19Okay, so they have presence there.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   10:21Yes.

   MarianoVice Chair

   10:21Alright. And did no problem with it?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   10:24They did provide some comments like minor adjustments to the um corridor spacing language, which we needed some tweaks to. Their biggest concern was our requirement for boardwalks over wetlands. Um we're asking for those boardwalks to be constructed of concrete materials.

   StarkeyChair

   10:39Yeah. Because the other ones don't last. Then then the neighborhood has a massive repair building.

   10:48Um I have a question. Uh does this take care of issues like um some of the new developments that were built, say along fifty-two, that did not put a sidewalk across the front of their property?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   11:03Yes, this would require all applications post adoption to build a ten foot facility.

   StarkeyChair

   11:08Okay, because that's I don't know I don't know how we're gonna fix that, but We have some issues that we're gonna have to go back in and fix. Okay, uh is there anyone in the public that wishes to address this ordinance?

   11:26Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Long time coming.

5. 5Dec 9, 2025
   Board of County CommissionersP83Public hearingAdopted

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 22:06
   ▶ 22:062m

   MarianoVice Chair

   22:06Aye. Item P eighty three?

   Madam Clerk

   22:08P eighty three proof of publication, Tampa Bay Times, September third, two thousand twenty five.

   Oakley

   22:14Item P eighty-three is PDE 260002. This is an ordinance by the Pasco County Count Count Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code. Section 522.9, Connected City, Master Plan Unit Development District, Section 901, Infrastructure Standards, Section 901.1, Transportation Corridor Spacing, Section 901.6, Street Design and Dedication. Requirements Section 9 to 1.7, Bicycle Facilities, Section 9 to 1.8, pedestrian facilities, appendix A definitions, and other sections as necessary. For internal

   22:45consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, providing for several ability, inclusion into land development code, an effective date. This comes to you with a recommendation to accept public comment and adopt the proposed land development code amendment and ordinance by roll call vote. Uh the last since the first hearing, this item has undergone a little revision. PD PDE amended the list of allowable construction materials for boardwalks to include composite decking. Nice. And we worked with uh area stakeholders to uh accomplish that. So that

   23:15was an addition since the first public hearing. Okay.

   MarianoVice Chair

   23:18Any questions for staff? Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone here from the public like to speak to this item? Anyone online?

   Madam Clerk

   23:27No one online.

   MarianoVice Chair

   23:28Back to the board. Move approval. Second. Roll call, please.

   Madam Clerk

   23:33District one, Commissioner Oakley.

   MarianoVice Chair

   23:34Aye.

   Madam Clerk

   23:35District two, Commissioner Weightman. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Yeager. Aye. District five, Chairman Mariano.

   MarianoVice Chair

   23:42Aye. Now we proceed to the public hearing so the county attorney