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

1:16:08Okay, so now we're going to um item P7.

1:16:16And um what I'd like to do today on item P7, which is PDD 210282, is to kind of continue the discussion that we had on. February fourth. As you recall, um the discussion that we had on February February fourth. Um, I explained the genesis of this uh proposed amendment and we'll talk through it. On February 9th, the Board of County Commissioners directed the Planning and Development Department to bring forth a standalone modification to the land development code to remove

1:16:47multiple family dwellings as a conditional use in the C2 district. During that time, and I'm sure you um you did watch the uh the actual board uh minutes for for that date, um, one of the concerns that the board had was that um Every conditional use that's coming in in the C2 district for multiple family dwellings is basically a standalone multifamily request. It doesn't have a vertic vertical into integration of any other commercial uses.

1:17:18So to refresh your memory, the land development code currently allows multiple family dwellings in MF1 district, MF2 district, and MF3 districts. And then also you can have multiple family dwellings through a master plan unit development district. So we brought this to the local planning agency the last time when we spoke about this, you stated that you had some concerns that there might be some unintended consequences to making this the outright

1:17:48ban of multiple family dwellings as conditional uses in the C2. And you receive some commentary on how this change could potentially affect proposed affordable housing applications, specifically in the West Market area.

1:18:06So to address these concerns that the local planning agency had at that time, we're proposing the following language. So this is an excerpt from the section 526, which is C2 General Commercial Districts, and the subsection 526.3. O uh conditional uses. So the stripe the underlying and bold language is a new language. So basically it allows multiple family dwellings through the conditional use process where the project complies

1:18:37with one or more of the following criteria. Affordable housing as defined in section 420.004 Florida statutes, or vertically integrated mixed use where there's ground floor commercial, office, or other non-residential uses, or located within the West Market area as defined in the comprehensive plan and as depicted in Map 2-17, Market Area 1, West Market Area of the Comprehensive. comprehensive plan future land use settlement. So

1:19:08for reference to go over those three points, uh Subsection 125.01055 Florida statutes prov provides. that and I'm quoting from the statute, notwithstanding any other law or local ordinance to the contrary, the Board of County Commissioners may approve the development of housing that is affordable as defined in 420.0004 on any parcel zoned residential, commercial, or industrial. So um keeping this as a conditional use allows it's

1:19:38it would be allowed by right under that statute 125.01055. Keeping it as a conditional use in the C2 district allows us um

1:19:50to place conditions that could mitigate any impacts. Additionally, conditional uses can be revoked pursuant to violations of any other conditions of approval, and it's in 402.4.j of the land development code. Some examples of some conditional uses in multifamily or some conditions that we've imposed on conditional uses in multifamily, I'm sorry, in the C2 district, I apologize, include compliance with 522.4 development standards, site design. Those are specifically

1:20:20for projects that are in the coastal high hazard area where we have to look at site design because of evacuation and different things of that matter. Additionally, there's one specific conditional use that I wanted to point out, which there was some opposition on. That was conditional use 18-38. Where the adjacent property owner to the west had some concerns that when the vehicles that were going to the multifamily

1:20:50complex would park, they would shine the light on the adjacent parcels. So they agreed to place a minimum six-foot-high opaque wall. So that's one of the conditions, and you know, that that's one of the uh the tools. tools that we have in order to condition conditional uses.

1:21:09Denise, Denise, before you move on to the next topic. You I just you made one comment that I want to be clear about. Um The statute, in my opinion, doesn't say that you get affordable housing by right. It says because it says the Board of County Commissioners May approve. So I don't think it's by right. However I do agree with you that the proposed amendment your requesting consistent with the statute because it defines the conditional use process. as the method to obtain

1:21:39that. Discretionary approval. of multifamily on a commercial parcel.

1:21:45Thank you for the clarification, David. Thank you.

1:21:49So going on to the following topic regarding the vertical integration, most of the C2 General Commercial District parcels that you see in the county either have a COM land use or an ROR land use. The comprehensive plan provides the following range of uses within COM. So, to quote the comp plan, residential uses are only permitted when constructed in combination with commercial uses within a single building of two or more stories,

1:22:19wherein the first floor use are commercial, office, and/or other non-residential uses. So incorporating this vertical integration concept within the conditional. use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Additionally, um many of the existing C2 General Commercial District parcels are located in the West Market area. As a matter of fact, um I conducted a review of prior requests going back to 2015.

1:22:51of conditional uses that were requested for multifamily in the C2 district. Um f from 2015 to 2020, those are all the projects that went have gone through the system. And here's a map showing that. So we had 13 applications. Eight of those applications were in the West Market area. Um Four of those applications were in the South Market area. I do have an asterisk on that because I wanted to comment

1:23:21that those two part projects that you see that are on Lando Lakes Boulevard, kind of like in the central part of the county, one of those projects was actually or two of the projects were actually. commercial and multifamily integrated into one another. One of the projects was a townhome project, and then they were going to also have a commercial brewery on the on the property. And then the other project was going to be duplexes or triplexes. Together

1:23:52with commercial as well. So that's why I put an asterisk on that because it kind of like, it's not, it wasn't a standalone commercial, I'm sorry, multifamily project. Um One of the one of those on the uh on the actual list is uh the one that is going through the process currently. So there hasn't been a decision by the Board of County Commissioners in the uh South Market area. But again, these are the percentages out of the 13 applications, eight were in the West Market area or 61.5%.

1:24:23four were in the soft market area or thirty point eight percent. And one was in the north market area or seven 7.7%. I do want to mention that one of the applications that was in the West Market area was denied. So, you know, then that would make it seven in the West Mark market area.

1:24:42And just to show you the map of the West Market area, so this is the um the map. Of the West Market area. The map on the left is map 2-17, which is in our comprehensive plan. The map on the right, I just kind of showed that to you because it's a little bit more blown up and easier to read, I think. Um and this uh that's from the um Harbors redevelopment. Um area plan.

1:25:06So can I make one more comment on the West Market area, Denise? Yes. And This change to the code came about Probably about a year ago now, but If the Planning Commissioner Weightman recall, the Board of County Commissioners recently Um raised mobility fees for most multifamily in the county. However, in the West Market area, they are trying to encourage redevelopment and infill and and actually reduce the mobility fees for the West marketer.

1:25:37So I do believe that the exce the exception that's been created for the West Market area. Is consistent with that prior um direction and action by the Board of County Commissioners regarding mobility fees. So That was the other rationale for treating the West Market very differently.

1:25:58Right.

1:26:00So um this is the uh this this is going through the following process. Uh the first reading will be on April 20th at 1:30 in New Port Richey. The adoption is scheduled for May 4th, 21 at 1:30 in Dade City. Um so we are Requesting that you find the proposed ordinance as Um Shown to you today, because I know there were some amendments consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval of the

1:26:30ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners.

1:26:33So Denise, I got a text from Barbara Willheid saying she would like to speak. to the matter. So I know you called for comment earlier. If you could call for it again, that'd be great. Yes.

1:26:43Absolutely. Absolutely.

1:26:46Did you want to hear from Ms. Will Hyde or do you have questions?

1:26:51No, I think I uh anybody else have questions I

1:26:54go ahead. So if if this were to go through It doesn't preclude somebody though from coming in to a piece and and they w but they would have compliant amendment and then a rezoning. Yeah. That's not the case or or they'd have to do an M P U

1:27:15D, right?

1:27:16Right, so th s so outside of I don't know if I want to talk about P six, but They could still apply for a rezoning to MF1, MF2, or MF3, or bring um a proposed multifamily project through the MPUD process. And then the conditional use as so as long as it's um it complies with one or more of the following. So it's affordable housing within the West Market area or ver vertically integrated.

1:27:47But if there's a Yeah, and again I'm uh I'll understand all the workings of that. But let's say there's a piece that's that's own commercial. And the future land use is commercial. Do they have to come in? Let's say they wanted to come in and do M F one or M F two. Would they have to do a comp plan and then they have to do a rezoning or

1:28:06Um I will defer that question to Terry. I believe that they they would have to because Calm Land Use specifically states that residential uses are only permitted when constructed in combination with commercial uses. So if they were gonna do a standalone multifamily, I don't believe it would be consistent with comm. It would probab it would probably be consistent with R O R Retail Office Residential, but not with Calm.

1:28:33What if they were gonna do a mixed use? Right. Major

1:28:38mieri.

1:28:39Hi,

1:28:39Terry. Yeah, I would concur with uh Denise. The distinction is a mixed use building versus a mixed-use site. So the comm is requesting if you're gonna do multifamily with under a com flu, it's gotta be above commercial, which is which means you're in a

1:28:55mixed-use building. A restaurant or a workout. Yeah, company or something like that. And then the next floor all the next floors would be residential. Sure. Thank you.

1:29:10Okay, any other questions? Is Barbara on the line?

1:29:14Yeah. I am here.

1:29:16Hey Barbara, could you uh did you you have to be sworn on this one or no? No.

1:29:22But

1:29:23she state your

1:29:24name and address for the

1:29:24record.

1:29:28Commissioner Oak Barbara Wilhite, [address removed]. I'm not representing any particular project. There was a couple of things I wanted to make sure Um, and I had commented staff on this. One is that this doesn't apply to any pending conditional uses. obviously not fair to them, you know, they followed the rule. and those should be able to be completed under those pending applications. And I think the ordinance provides for that. The second thing was the unintended consequences. Um, I'm a former board member

1:29:58of the Homeless Coalition and most of those West Market area applications that Denise Um She uh told you all about A lot of those I did. for um affordable housing projects so that they could go compete at the state level for incentives. So we could win affordable projects for Pasco with a lottery system. The more you get in the system, the better chance. that Pasco has the opportunity to have some projects that are much needed in Pasco. If not, they go to other counties. So

1:30:28I think um staff has done a a very good job of coming up with a couple exceptions. um that will uh Hopefully avoid the unintended consequences on affordable housing.

1:30:44So that's all I have. Thank you.

1:30:46Barbara. Okay, uh any other comments or questions? Yeah,

1:30:52I mean just

1:30:53I think Mr. Two wanted to speak on this item too.

1:30:56Yes, I also believe that Mr Gordinho is also there on uh for this item as well.

1:31:01Jamie, did you have a comment?

1:31:02Yeah, I mean I just uh I mean I just wanna echo Barbara's thoughts on the s staff's done a great job of of incorporating those changes in in revisions to the ordinance based on the discussion we had last two meetings ago.

1:31:14Good. I I agree. But but for the the uh amendments I I probably wouldn't be for it, but with the the uh criteria that's provided, I think it's I I agree with what Mr. W what I'm saying.

1:31:28Okay. So you said you have someone else who wants to speak? It is

1:31:34Yes, we have Eric Gardunio and we also have uh Joel 2 available.

1:31:46Mr. Chairman, it's uh Joel too. Can you hear me this time?

1:31:50Yes, sir, we can.

1:31:52Hi, Joel to an associate's Palm Harbor. Um I respectfully suggest, well, let me first show an example. The mere fact that within two weeks we have these now thoughtful carve-outs. uh of unintended consequences. It it's actually a demonstration of why I objected and this planning commission uh hit the pause button a couple of weeks ago. Um, my fear is that there are other factors

1:32:22that need to be looked at before we rush through an ordinance that makes a substantive change. The whole argument. Made by staff and Mr. Goldstein on the moratorium ordinance is that it wasn't a permanent change. They were just asking for time to study the problem. Um, I also point out that based upon your recommendation uh of the moratorium ordinance. Uh, if the board approves that, and undoubtedly they will, uh then that renders moot the need to press immediately on

1:32:53this substantive amendment because part of that moratorium is a prohibition on any of these conditional use applications. So you in fact will not get a new conditional use application for at least six months. So my question is: if we've identified these two or three. Three unintended consequences, perhaps there are others. Why would you not hit the pause button on this substantive ordinance, put it into the mix with everything else that is going to be studied and analyzed? And whatever comes out of the end of that six-month analysis,

1:33:23whatever substantive amendments, this can certainly be one piece of that in whatever final form. But again, I just point out the fact that when we say Well, wait a minute, what about this? That suddenly we have this substantive change uh that just shows you that everyone was running too fast. Uh, they're doing it for, you know, because they're being pressed to do it, and we're simply not thinking this through. So I I don't see the need to press forward with this one now because we've got a six-month hiatus on this very issue. Thank you.

1:33:55Thank you. Mr. Guardino? Junior.

1:34:02Hi there. Yes. I I believe the other two speakers really cover the the points I wanted to make. I'll just I'll just add, you know, the the Well, for clarity's sake, I guess there's two questions for clarity's sake. If this ordinance does go through, going to the point that Mr. Toole just mentioned, uh, this would still just like to have staff clarify that this is going to be captured under that moratorium. And then second, in terms of affordable housing, say there is affordable housing being integrated

1:34:32into uh a rather uh a larger market rate development. Is that going to be captured by this? Uh these changes or is that something separate?

1:34:45So I'll try to answer the question. So The Both ordinance is Uh three. um then there still would be a moratorium in the geo in the specific geographic area that was identified. For a six month. The key key difference between these two ordinances is one of them, the one we're considering now, is countywide in nature. So Where I disagree with Mr. Who is that he says we did took a six month pause. That's only in a

1:35:15very small area of the county that there's a six month pause. There's still the rest of the county to deal with. And I think the board intent is to it with these again, with these three exceptions. Two fit multifamily in commercial districts. So I don't I think that the the opp the the two ordinances are Um Okay, drop it. issue. One is addressing the temporary pause for a limited geographic area. The

1:35:45other is a permanent change to the code. for all C2 districts. So

1:35:52Due respect to Mr. Two, there are other areas of the county that are not in the pause area. for which this ordinance would apply. And so That's why staff Went ahead and tried to carve out. The unintended consequences issues in this ordinance because they knew it was a permanent change. to the code that would apply county wide. And I don't want to. Spoke Mr. Two in the eye, however All the comments I leave to date have only addressed these three particular unintended consequences. Affordable

1:36:23housing. Mixed use market area. If there's some other unintended consequence out there, we haven't heard it. So And I don't think you heard it today. So I think we've adequately addressed with the Planning Commission. asked us to do which is address the unintended consequences and I think the board would support these changes.

1:36:43Okay. I think everybody's spoken. So uh any questions from the dais? If not, let's uh make a motion.

1:36:57Camaro, please.

1:37:03I think the uh I think the staff has pretty much done what we asked 'em to do and taking the time to consider the un uninc unintended consequences. Uh I think uh doesn't it's not preventing people from getting multifamily zoning. It also allows them to get multifamily under certain conditions in a in a C two zone. So I think it's pretty flexible and a and a fair approach.

1:37:29I'll make the motion too. Mm.

1:37:36All right.

1:37:39So we have uh a motion to approve PC seven.

1:37:42Yes, Jamie Girardi, I'll second.

1:37:44In a second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Hi. Any nice? Okay, the motion carries is unanimous.