An Ordinance By The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending The Pasco County Land Development Code; Chapter 300 Procedures; Section 303 Common Procedures Adding Section 303.1.B Design Standards Manual; Chapter 400 Permit Types And Applications; Section 402.2 Zoning Amendment – MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District; Section 407.5 Alternative Standards; Chapter 900 Development Standards; Section 901.3 Access Management; Section 901.4 Substandard Roadway Analysis And Mitigation; Section 901.6 Street Design And Dedication Requirements; Section 901.7 Bicycle Facilities; Section 901.8 Pedestrian Facilities; Section 901.10 Traffic Control Devices; Section 902.2 Stormwater Management Requirements; 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.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Feb 2, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Feb 2, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
ENA-23-0005 in full →ENA-23-0005 was taken up 7 times between Feb 2, 2023 and Jul 11, 2023, continued 5 times — this is appearance 1.
- Feb 2, 2023PlanningPC8▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Feb 21, 2023BoardP53▶Continued
- Mar 2, 2023PlanningPC15▶No disposition in the minutes
- Mar 21, 2023BoardP41▶Continued
- Apr 4, 2023BoardP42▶Continued
- Jun 20, 2023BoardP44▶Continued
- Jul 11, 2023BoardP49▶Continued
No appearance of this case has a final disposition in the minutes. It was continued, or the minutes do not dispose of it in writing — which is true for 24% of items.
What was said
Machine transcription of 42m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 97% of 235 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Taken up 2 times, not once through — set aside and returned to. Each stretch is below, in the order it happened.
1/2Taken up at 18:05
item nine above item PC eight. We're going to be presented with a design standards manual after we're asked to vote to remove the design criteria from the manual. I think that's tantamount to the Speaker of the House telling us we can't do that.
Yes, Mr. Moody, thank you. Thank you so much. I was actually gonna ask that myself because but we don't have a way to put it on the agenda that way. So yes, thank you so much for So yes, we would like to also We were going to ask that you hear PC P nine before PC eight.
What that what is not on the agenda pack? Say it again.
Is there a reason the manual is not in the commission's agenda packet by
the community? Um no, there isn't a reason why it's not in the agenda packet. It was a presentation only item, so we didn't add it to the agenda packet. Um so we can send it to the Planning Commission. Um because you're not you're not voting on the design standards manual?
Un understand.
Well let's just go ahead and I assume you're making a motion, so would we have a second to move the item?
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, I'll signify by saying aye if you're in favor. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Like signed? Okay. Yeah, so switched.
2/2Taken up again at 3:38:04
late as we've been here before. All so All right, all thank you so much for your patience and your time. So this next item is the corresponding Land Development Code amendments that go together with the moving the design elements into a design standards manual. So this is um file number is ENA 230005. So why are we here? I think you guys already know this, but we can kind of talk about it again. The
Engineering Services Department is proposing that the BCC adopt a design standards manual by resolution. So the issue is that many of the design standards are currently housed in Chapter 900 of the Land Development Code. Several sections which include maps and graphs, exhibits and tables, are proposed to be moved from the LDC to the Design Standards Manual. So going through the history on this, this was first presented to the Ordnance Development Team on May 27, 2021, then again on November
10, 2021, then on December 16, 2021, and on January 13, 2022. It then w then moved on to the horizontal round table interest parties meeting. those meetings and these are this are these are not the only meetings that were captured. These are the ones that actually had the horizontal round table, the entire group together. There were subgroups that were also meeting. Um and those meetings were February 16, 2022, March 16, 2022, November 16, 2022, and December
21st, 2022. And throughout the entire 2022, beginning in February, this item when it was not being heard, so those other horizontal roundtable meetings that occurred every month, the item was listed as an as a Um old business items. So in other words, it was constantly on the agenda even though it wasn't spoken about.
Alright. So basically generally what you're going to see is all the L D C sections that re All the LDC sections that are being pulled from the LDC into the design standards manual. that refer to the design standards manual will have a link. So each document is going to be hyperlinked into the other document. Once we know where they're going to reside, there's going to be a hyperlink that will be a hyperlink in Municode and there will be a hyperlink in our website into Municode to to connect those two uh documents. So
um one of the things that we did and this is something that David was actually talking about now is that We added in Chapter 300 Procedures, Section 303, Common Procedures, we're amending that section to add the design standards manual. So the way it's being proposed today is you know this is the basically it talks about this is everything that's bold and underlined is new so this is a new portion. So the design standards manual, this is the what it's intended to do. The first
paragraph, the second paragraph, if any um uh design elements within a project cannot meet the design standards manual, you can apply for an alternative standards in accordance with 407.5. And then the last section, which is what David was alluding to, wanting to add language, is that that section would start with it is intended that changes to the design standards manual be made in a collaborative manner with input from all appropriate stakeholders, including final approval
by the plan at a at a public hearing by the Planning Commission. Um so that's one of the things that uh it it's a new section in the L a new subsection in the LDC.
Which would still be appealable to BOCC.
Yes, that's that's correct. So the the next thing that we're adding is new things. This is not stuff coming out of the design out of the d out of the land development code, is we're adding section four o seven, which is uh relief procedures, we're adding that section to state that a design standards manual, um an element in the design standards manual can be um uh an alternative standard can be requested from that. And it includes the criteria for Requesting
a reviewing and approving an alternative standard to the design standards manual. It looks very similarly to the way that a design stand um an alternative standard to the land development code can be requested. Um it it's it's fairly similar in the way that it's laid out. Okay. All right. So moving on, this is I know you're probably used to yes. Absolutely.
Am I if I'm reading this correctly, the only difference is that we're adding that environmental requirements prohibit meeting the criteria.
That is that is accurate.
Four, five, and six are the same for alternative standards to the land development.
Um four, five, and six are the same as yes, as three, four, and five.
I think two and three are different.
Number one is is similar to L D C deviation. What's different? What's what changed for two? I don't think that you can deviate from the L D C based on two.
So all right, just to make everybody very confused, so for the um um criteria for the alternative standards The criteria are the following. I'm gonna read them into and you'll see how a lot of them match up. One. The alternative standard meets or exceeds the intent and purpose of this code the code requirement at issue. That's for alternative standard from the code. Two, no feasible engineering or construction solutions can be applied to satisfy the regulation. Three.
The alternative standard does not adversely affect compliance with other code provisions, development orders, or permits. four. The alternative standard is not in conflict with other mandatory substantive requirements of local, state, or federal law. Five, the alternative standard is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. So those are the criteria for alternative standards from the
L
D C
So I think I'm still correct. The difference is two and three. Two and three. Yes. Because two and three in my my recollection when I discussed this with Margaret is those DOT has those as deviation standards in their chapter. In their green book. Yeah. We didn't think it was appropriate to say that you can deviate those from those standards under DOT's criteria and not under our criteria. So So so we added those.
So that's why two and three are there. Okay.
Okay, so following on I'm sure you guys love when I put these tables together for you. But just wanna go pretty much almost like section by section as to what exactly Um and and of course you have the strike through underline version and you have the clean version as well. So um as I stated um chapter 300 uh 303 comma procedures we do do we did do a d a general cleanup of three 303.1A development manual Um one of the things that we noticed when we were looking through the section is that It calls
out the assistant county administrator for the development manual. Usually we do county administrator or designee. So we just wanted to clarify that and make it consistent throughout. Additionally, we found in the development manual, we're now talking about development manual, not the design standards manual, that we didn't have a statement of how it could be appealed. So we added that statement. So the same Statement.
That's in sorry about that. It's in your paragraph two. That statement was added to the development manual.
Oh, I apologize. No, the last statement. Um that our appealable to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to four oh seven point one A three. So it reads the development manual and all changes to development manual shall be considered written policies of general applicability that are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to sec to section four oh seven point one point eight point three of this code within thirty days of their final of their initial publication on the county website.
That's what thirty days of their Initial publication.
On the county website.
And when when they're what When do they take effect after being published on the county website?
Likely but we'd we'd probably say they don't take effect until after the appeal period is
run. After the appeal period is over is usually what we we would do.
Sure. So
How will I know that there was a change made to the design standards?
Am I literally supposed to go to the county website every day and check to see if there was a change so that I know that my appeal period is running?
Are we now talking about the design standards manual or the development manual? Because the design standards manual it specifically states that it's they're going to be and and I believe Ms. Smith spoke about that this is gonna go to the to the horizontal round table. You're gonna talk to the horizontal round table to the interested parties about changes that are being proposed. So there's gonna be a public process for that.
Okay.
For the design standards manual.
For design standards okay, what's before you today is design standards manual. But you're making
changes to the development manual.
Okay, well, It depend it's hard for Denise to answer your question. Are you assuming that the sentence we just talked about gets added? 'Cause if the sentence we just talked about gets out of, you'll know it because it'll come to Planning Commission at a public hearing.
Well there's a lot of things.
Does that cover the development manual as well?
Well uh we haven't talked about the development manual, but I I'm gonna ask Denise and Brad whether they're willing to bring those changes to the Planning Commission or not. That's a different issue, but Let's talk about the design standards manual first.
So if it's if it's at a notice public hearing, that's that's how they would know about a change of the code today.
I understand for me it's the other stakeholders that would have interest in those designs. So you take those to the horizontal meeting.
We're gonna ask Adju on the list right now?
Well how many more John Moody's are out there that have never been invited to
the lab
table meeting?
I'm not sure if my colleagues know how many hundreds of people are invited to that horizontal round table meeting, but there is a huge email list and it continues to grow. Monthly based on folks a asking to be added.
But is public notice made to anybody that has an interest in attending that?
It's on the county calendar. Yeah. It's it's a specific day every every month on the county calendar. It's like the second or third w Wednesday of the month.
Okay.
I would my general understanding is that most of the Mr. Rudy may be an exception Most of the engineers that routinely do business in the county get an invite to that meeting. Whether they choose to attend or not is a different question. But but I believe that most subpoena to the meeting. Um but but I believe most of them are invited to the meeting.
That's that's an accurate statement. Jesus. No, I think.
I guess your invitation got lost in the mail. But but but y you'll be oh now. It sounds like they're gonna add you. Thank you.
Yes, we are gonna add you.
But in terms of but regardless for you personally, if it's if the language we added gets put in, it'll come to the Planning Commission.
I understand.
Then you would know.
Trying to make sure that stakeholders in these criteria have their opportunity to participate in the process of the process. But that's why a hearing is going to happen.
But the sentence that I proposed actually talks about both. It talks about collaborative manner with input from appropriate stakeholders. Including final approval by the Planning Commissioner public hearing. So it contemplates both things happening.
What is it? Trying to make sure.
Now it doesn't contemplate that the des development manual would do that, but I will tell you the development manual doesn't have technical standards in it.
Sure it does. It tells you how far you can put a red maple from the pavement and how far that's it.
Okay, well I guess I'll have to ask Denise and Brad whether they're willing to bring those to the Planning Commission too. I
Uh you're not gonna like this, but short answer is no. Uh the entire intention of that is that those are those are more policy-level things that we do within the department. Uh and they are some specific criteria that are in the land development code that are supposed to be in that manual, and it actually specifically calls them out to be in that manual in the land development code, so that's why they're there. Um the entire intent of that is to not have to come back to this committee every time there is a small change. We have the meeting from the
horizontal round table, other stakeholder committees. Well John, let me let me let me explain this a little bit. I need you to understand this. Um This is an extremely time consuming and problematic process
for you. I volunteer my time to come here and review all of these things. I do. How many pages is this agenda today? This is 400 plus pages that I get hit with on Friday night every time. We had one
This addendum's 148.
700 and something one time. I had one time where I got a walk-on agenda handed to me that was this thick. Two seconds before here.
So yeah, you don't have to tell me about time consuming and cumbersome. I get to spend my weekends reading this. And I don't get paid for this. But I'm happy to do it.
So the the decisions are appealable to this body. So you still, if there is a concern with the development community community about something that we are doing. you would still be able to hear it. And have a final say.
But it it is it is just a a process nightmare to as fast as the markets change and as fast as the requests change and everything else is changing for us to process these this type of work more frequently to be able to accommodate that and go through these multiple hearings for what could be a tiny little item. is is excessive. We we can't we don't have the resources to do that.
Okay.
Say I agree, I'm just saying okay.
Well, this is the same discussion we had on the last one. I mean you all can recommend something different than what staff does but you just add very similar language to the language we just talked about, to the development manual.
Yeah, I mean my only concern is if ever just to be able to see it and have a chance to b have a bite at the apple. You know, that's all. Well, more importantly that the public has a chance.
So I went over the changes in um in three oh three um adding the design standards manual. I went over the changes in four oh seven for the design standards manual. So um there's other sections, for example 402.2 with the z which is the zoning amendments. It talks about that variation it talks about variations from the land development code. I'm now adding variations from the land development code or from the dip design standards manual. Um chap um chapter nine hundred Um 901.1 transport transportation
corridor spacing, there are no changes, so it stays the same. 901.2 transportation corridor management. There are no changes, so that stays the same. 901.3 access management. Well, I'm sorry, I want to back up.
Sure. I'm not trying to be arguing.
Transportation, corridors, spacing, and corridor management, but yet in the design standard manual are the typical cross sections for the corridor. So does that mean they can be changed at will? Notwithstanding the
proposed amendments.
those lists are embedded in the complaint. Because yes, the cross-sections were there was a typical cross-section adopted by resolution of the board, but then This body approved an amendment to the Com Plan Which put in the widths of all those roadways into the Complan. So no, that cannot be changed administratively. That's actually a Complan amendment. So then why are they the design standards made for? Because the comp plan just has a width. Okay, the comp plan just says 142
feet. The design, the typical cross section says this is what goes in that hundred and forty these are the facilities that go in that cross section.
So I think perhaps I need to be clearer. Nothing in nine oh one point one is going into the design standards manual, staying in the code. Nothing
I understand that. Okay. I agree. I'm looking at the rent.
Sorry about that. It's a related issue. That's why I'm trying to get clear on it. Go ahead.
Okay. Nine oh one point three access management. Um there's some cleanup other than moving some things into the design standards manual. It clarifies that the correct name of the F D O T manual is it it there's different names that it's called out so it clarifies th the correct name and then it also um clarifies that it's the latest edition throughout. And then it references correct F DOT chapters and indices throughout.
In that same section 901.3, tables and graphs are moved into the design standards manual. And it moves these sections in the desi into the design standards manual. 901.3.1, access control, 901.3. Isolated corner properties, 901.3.
We missed K.
Oh okay, well I apologize, I will fix that for you.
K is throat distances, that's a design standard.
Okay, throw distance nine to one point three point K.
I don't was it I'm not telling you to put it in or put it out, I'm asking, does it belong left in the L D C or does it belong in the DS proposed D S M?
That's what I was trying to figure out when I'm looking at this. This didn't get red lined out, but it seemed like that's a design standard.
No, I sa I can see it.
Okay, according to the document that I have It is staying in the Land Development Code. So throat distance did not change.
I guess Mr. Moody's question is why isn't it? Okay.
And I will defer to my colleagues from engineering services.
I think we I think we debated a couple of these things. Are they design standards or not? And that's just, you know, a certain length. I don't know. We're looking at uh I don't even know. Is that listed in the DOT standards? I can't remember offhand.
Well
the D O
T does enforce I can tell you from getting DOT driveway permits, yes, they require forty feet to the first conflicting movement for throat distance.
Okay. Well I mean we went back and forth on some of these and if um That's something that would be better off than the uh design manual. That's something we could move over to the design manual. If that makes it more clear. You know, I'm saying to the to the designers that come in.
so you're asking us to evaluate the proposal,
so
I'm asking the question.
Right, okay. I uh but I'm ch I'm talking to you as engineer to engineer because that's what we did with the horizontal round table. We went back and forth on these things with all those engineers that were on that committee. And so That's how I'm talking to you right now, but if but I understand I understand where you're coming from. You're on the panel. Um it's something we'll look at. We can add that. That's one of the things we've talked about continually. This manual will be something that We can work more flexibly with it with the uh horizontal roundtable.
If it's still in the L D C you can't easily amend it. I mean I think that's part of what Mr. Moody's trying to say. He's kind of helping you here. Because if your whole argument is you want to be able to easily amend standards in the DSM, you won't be able to do that if it stays in the L D C So if that's one that you want throat distances is
yeah, we could consider moving.
Let
me
ask another question before we go any further too. During the meeting that we had, I got told this has to be done by March seventh. What the heck happens on March 7th? It what happens if this happens April 7th or May 7th? Is the what hap what what's the consequence of March 7th? And so what I'm afraid of doing is rushing into these things and I'm seeing some of these things still need some thought, some work. And I'm being being but I but I was told this must be done by March seventh. So what happens
on March seventh?
Uh we picked a date. We picked a date and said we wanted to we we l we've been working on it for two over two years and and if you don't sometimes put a date on things, you you uh you just keep doing that. You keep sliding out to April. May, that type of thing. I like to see it done before I leave because I put a lot of effort into it and and it to me it's an important document. It's it's putting us in line with the other counties around here. I I mean so I think we talked about that as well in our meeting.
Are there are there are there many other ones that were 'cause if it's in the DSM in theory it can be changed later fairly easily. Are there any others that you that were left in the L D C that If you're questioning whether they should have been moved to the DSM, besides that one.
Well, the horizontal act, let's see, this would be Q, other design elements.
Even as design in the title.
And it talks about, you know, that the angle between connecting roads should be between ninety and sixty degrees. That sounds like a design criteria. An access that has a gate across it shall be designed so that minimum three car stack distance, seventy five feet. That sounds like a design criteria.
Access is designed to facilitate movement of vehicles off highway or prevent the queuing of vehicles on the trap. These are design criteria things. Um another let's see.
Well we get to talk about the substandard roadway, but that's being taken out and my question is that's a procedure, that's not a design standards.
Pavement widths, I'm confused there. We're leaving pavement widths in the manual. In fact there's another table that we all got an email about about right away widths and pavement widths, but shoulders are being moved to the manual, so I guess if I'm designing a road now and what's supposed to be easier with one manual, I gotta look in the L D C to figure out what the pavement width is and then I gotta go to the manual to get the shoulder width.
Mm-hmm.
So Margaret, let me ask you a question. I I guess um the reason I'm a little lost is I guess I thought when Commissioner Oriano asked you to meet with Mr. Moody to I thought these we'll put the democracy comment aside because that's a different issue. But this kind of discussion about standards that should or shouldn't have been moved I thought that was the the purpose of the meeting with Mr.
I got less than twenty-four hours to review the manual. I got an email one day with a manual and proposed LDC changes attached to it, and at nine a.m. the following morning we had a teams meeting. Well I guess my question is So I didn't get a fair shot. I think I
mean
those are things I just quickly
can we have another meeting where we go to this kind of detail 'cause I I think the rest of the Planning Commission I don't want to speak with the rest of the Planning Commission. The whole issue about us l them losing their review authority is something the whole Planning Commission probably needs to weigh in on, right? But the kind of things that you're talking about now seems like they could be resolved with a one on one meeting with staff where you say Hey, why didn't wasn't this one move? Maybe this one should stay here. Maybe that means but we're being asked to vote on it now. Well that's
what I'm asking is
We're willing to delay. I mean I d uh you did have some very good comments for having such short time to review it, Mr. Moody. Uh
well that's why I'm wondering if we can
delay it.
So do you have another meeting with Mr. Moody to go over these kind of issues? I realize we're not gonna reach agreement on the whole democracy thing, okay. That's a different issue. But you should be able to reach agreement on this kind of stuff, like whether something should be in the D S M or
Yeah
or the L D C so I'm wondering if we could continue this. Do you have another meeting with Mr. Moody to fix those kinds of things and then bring it back to the Planning Commission?
Well I'd like to make sure our guys in the HRT are looking at it too.
Well I I mean I I agree you're not the sole judge, but you probably have the most expertise with possibly Mr. Girardi too. But you can't be together because That's a sunshine law problem. But and and
there are things that this pool over here is affected by in this land development code that affects his business.
I understand, but has Mr. Cole identified any
that'sn't yet, but since the first shot and it never changes too.
Well Yeah, so Mr. Gerardi was on the H is on the HRT and he he has seen a lot. Um but but we actually did want to have a meeting with him and we then he mentioned that he wasn't gonna be here today so
Okay. My recommendation was
he knew something that we didn't know. Probably so maybe What this how long this would last. Okay. He's
he's been
looking
through
I'm gonna throw this out. You continue it. You have one more meeting with Mr. Moody. You then have a separate meeting with Mr. Gerardi where you alert him to what you changed But you ch the changes that have occurred since he last saw this at Horizontal Round Table and he wouldn't know about anything to change since Horizontal Round Table. See if he has any additional comments, then bring it back to the Planning Commission after you have those two meetings. I'm not trying to if you if any other Planning Commission members wanna have one on one meetings, I'm not saying you shouldn't.
You This is your chance to ask for it now, but I'm just some of the details we're talking about I'm not sure. a public discussion of them is gonna be that helpful. I I agree.
I totally agree with that.
They're either design standards or they're not.
And I think you are making some very good comments. My point is that I don't know that the rest of the Planning Commission wants to go standard by standard.
We we shouldn't do committee work in a board meeting.
Right, yeah. Wants to go standard by standard and say this one should be in DSM, this one should be in code. So that's why I'm suggesting maybe we continue and you have that
Part of my job is to represent the entire planning commission. I suspect that some of the things that we're going to do is
how much time would be acceptable for our for everyone.
Next meeting or I
guess the question would be how long I mean there's obviously there's no public That interested in this. So
Well let me ask the staff, because I can tell you that you come back and have a meeting with me I know two was ignored. There hasn't been anything Regarding stormwater, I mean I'm gonna have a lot of questions about that. There all these changes were things that affect roadways and roadway designs and DOT standards. And for those of you who don't know it, the name of my company is two G H Solutions and
if you're a stormwater engineer you know that there's significance to the name. So
And we would definitely have but the stormwater team there. Um As I said, they are working on their standards. Um they wanted to get some of them moved over and and be able to work with them on an ongoing uh go depend in an ongoing process. Uh but I d I definitely would have to have them with us to work through that. I don't know if you know Joseph O'Mowen. Any of the public works general? So we'll we'll uh we'll bring them with us. How much time would you need to
really get a good look at the uh
I think that depends on what they want to change. I mean I I got a few questions here. I've marked with folks I don't have hundred of these that need that I said our design criteria. And
I
brought them to point
them out as examples.
Right, but I don't want this to go to the board with We should fix it before it goes to the board. And if there's ten of them, there's ten of them, or if there's fifteen of them, there's fifteen of them. They regardless they need to be identified and fixed. I'll tell you that
I would feel a lot better about this if this were a comprehensive design standards manual. One of the questions I'm gonna ask. So stormwater. What about I'm sorry, what section is parking standards? There's lots of design criteria there. I asked about landscaping. There's lots of design criteria there. Why aren't all these things being moved into this manual?
Good questions?
So the question is is how much longer do you should we continue it for so you have a chance to address this?
Well, it depends on the scope of what we probably need to let Brad speak. But if it's simply to s talk about what staff has already done and whether there's a five or ten ones that should have been in the manual that are in the code or that probably that that's a one continuance meeting. If it's What about all these other things in the code that didn't go in the manual at all? That's more than a one-meeting continuance, but let's let Brad speak to the
Yeah, uh generally just to answer that question real quickly, um at at the most basic level there are uh different designees by the county administrator for those different sections of codes that are actually operated by different people through different processes, so that's why they're split out basically in the way that they're done. Um Margaret is the designee for the pieces that are in the design manual And uh selection of other people or designees for the center
in
the other part.
But some of what you're talking about are affect aesthetic standards and I don't know that the board's gonna want aesthetics to not have a role in changes to aesthetic standards. In fact I think they're very interested in aesthetic standards and they're not gonna want that delegated to staff in the Planning Commission.
So That would be my answer why parking and landscaping and those types of standards are not being moved to the manual.
Yeah, but there are things that are not aesthetics in those. You're talking about landscaping and upper and that kind of thing. Okay. We're about to be asked to reduce the width. We haven't even gotten to this. We're still s hung up on design standards. There's other things going on in this ordinance, one of which is going to be changes to right-of-way widths and streets, which are things that Affect how we administer the comprehensive plan. And I'm going to have lots of questions about
when we get to that, about why the street widths are being changed. But I find it quite interesting that I'm going to reduce the width of a residential street in this ordinance. But at the same time, a parking lot's required to have. drive aisles wider than what we're going to require developers to do residential streets. So these things are so parking is something And it's related. So I think I won't
go in and tell a private guy, a guy that builds a shopping center. Well, you have to build a 24-foot road, and you have to build a cross-axis that has a structural number of 2.96. But if you want to come in here and build 40-foot-wide lots, you can build a 50, whatever, 22-foot-wide street now, and you can do it to a structural number of that's less than what we require for a cross-axis. This is the market.
Well, uh if we uh plan to meet again on this issue w the next time we meet here in Dade City, would that be enough time? I would think we would need at least thirty days
or a month, whatever, two the
two meetings a year. The next next meeting dates that
work for everybody?
W I'm sorry, I didn't hear
about continuing to the next meeting in Dade City, which is what date?
March. March
second.
That might be enough time to talk about some of these things, but uh if we're gonna make major changes, I don't think a month is enough.
You need more than a month?
I would say if we're gonna change the manual drastically that's gonna take time. Uh we're thinking of this as a more of a roadway standard manual. We're we're now including site development, landscaping, all kinds of other stuff. So we have to even come to a common ground on what we think this manual should have.
Margaret, I'm sorry because what
I just talked about. Isn't in the manual, this is a table. This change that we're being asked to evaluate today contains more than just the design manual. There's also substantive changes to how much right-of-way we require of developers for streets for subdivisions and widths for pavement. And I'm a very and there's been no explanation which. got that far yet and I'm sorry.
Oh okay so that's different than ours. That's not exactly I am totally losing into the manual. Boom we're going to different areas. I was
confused as to why that's not going in the manual at the same time we're gonna be asked to change streets right street widths and right-of-way widths and I questioned why isn't that in the
manual? It's more potent comprehensive
Why I'm anxious to hear why? Why are the reasons?
Do you would you like to hear why now or do you want to continue it and we could talk about it 'cause I I I do have someone to talk about that. That section.
Well how much time do you think we're gonna need to continue? You wanna we're gonna need more than two uh two m two uh two meeting cycle?
So as as as Margaret Smith was talking about, if we're just gonna focus on the things that we're focusing on now, which are nine hundred and um the stormwater the that part of the stormwater section. I think that a month is adequate. Um And
then if it's not you you can bring it back to us and say we propose another continuance um because we haven't Yeah. So I'd I'd I'd move that we continue it for a month.
Yeah, we're we're not I just want to be clear that we're not talking about landscaping, we're not talking about buffering, we're not talking about We're
not talking
about
anything, we're moving to continue. So that I I contains all of the things that we've got to do.
Those other things you're talking about can't be moved to the manual without you seeing them anyway, because they'd be being pulled out of the code. So
and I'm not saying they can't be or shouldn't be. All I'm asking is if the gold is custom I'm being sold this manual that this is customer service and this is easy. But yet to get I'm an engineer, I have to live with this. Whatever we practice, I gotta live with. Okay? So when I wanna go When I need to know the shoulder width, I'll go to the design standard manual. When I need to know the pavement width on the subdivision street, I'll go to the uh to the land
development code. When I need to know where I can plant the maple tree, then I'm gonna have to go to the development. I'm trying to figure out how this is easier in my life. Just as a I
As a point of order. As a point of order, we had a motion And a second that puts us in discussion at the moment. So any further
discussion? Anyone else on the board? If not,
wait. I want to know what we're voting on. To continue for a month. To continue.
To continue this, that is section 901, which is transportation, and 902, which is stormwater.
Okay. And what's the period of time?
That is going to be to the March 2nd Planning Commission meeting or LPA meeting at one thirty here in Dade City.
And if at that time then they feel like there's still items that need to be addressed, we can always continue it again.
Please let me finish. If Margaret is retiring in the near future, will she be here at that meeting or will she already have an uh
I believe Margaret retires at the end of March if I'm not mistaken. Um so she'll still be here.
You wouldn't want to start this whole conversation with the new person. That's what I'm trying to get to on that one. Or maybe we would. Yeah. No, you don't want to open that door, you know, honestly. That doesn't work that well.
Okay, so we have a motion and a second, no further discussion. All in favor, signifying by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign?
Just by way of clarification, the meetings that will occur between the next thirty days are with Mr. Moody and Mr. Jorrity. None of the other Planning Commission members need one-on-one meetings. Right. I'm just asking because I don't want to you all to say I'll defer
to Mr. Moody. Okay, sorry.
And Mr. Jordy.
And I'm sorry for getting contentious right out of the box today. But when I got my Planning Commission agenda on Friday evening,
Yeah.
To where the design standard manual presentation was just to see if any of the things that we had talked about during our teams meeting got into the manual. And I was shocked to find that the manual wasn't even in our agenda packet to take a look at. I was personally insulted by that. And I hope that you'll put whatever manual. Never form. we agree on in the in the material that we get to review.
We'll do.
Okay. Anything else? Denise? How we finished?