Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) – CPA23(12) Pasco County Peril of Flood Amendment - Amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing for Text Amendments to Chapter 2, Future Land Use Element; Repealing of Future Land Use Map Series Map 2-2 Coastal High Hazard and Evacuation Zones and Replacing with Map 2-2 Coastal High Hazard Area and Adaptation Action Area; Text Amendments to Chapter 4, Coastal Management Element; Repealing Coastal Management Element Map 4-1 Coastal Area / Coastal High Hazard Area.
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, Jan 18, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jan 18, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-24-0115 in full →Heard once. PDD-24-0115 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Jan 18, 2024PlanningPC16▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 25m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 87% of 164 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Following item is PC9. That's PDD 247759 zoning amendment. EFH Holdings LLC Elite Pavers for a change in zoning from an AC agricultural district and C2 General Commercial District to a C2 General Commercial District with a voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction preserving reserving the uses for those uses consistent with C2.
Mm-hmm.
Okay. The applicant present. Anyone here to object?
No objections.
Okay, next.
Next item is PC 10. You're sitting as a local planning agency on this item. Um it's PDD 240031. It's a comprehensive plan amendment. C Pass 2215, Gowers Corners, PD. It's for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet 12 from COM commercial to PD Planned Development on approximately 48.98 acres located at the southwest corner. Of the intersection of State Road 52 and Land O' Lakes Boulevard, and a text amendment amending sub-area policy flu 7.1.37,
Tibbetts Land at Gowers Corner, Sub-area Policy, and a Map Amendment to the future land use map 2-9, amending sub-area map 2-937, Tibets Land and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer, severability, and effective date. There was an updated agenda memo that was sent to the planning commission members and uh the clerk's office clarifying uh comp plan policies and comp clarifying the transportation needs and needs assessment and additionally there was an ex parte
um with um Mr. John Moody on this matter. This comes to you with a recommendation that you find it consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
Okay. Is anyone here for to speak on this one?
I see that one.
Next.
Following item is PC 11. It's a zoning amendment, PDD 247699, Tibbetts Land at the Cowers Corner, MPUD, Tibbetts Land LLC. This is for a rezoning from an MPUD Master Planning United Development District to an MPUD Master Planning United Development District to allow for 300,000 square feet of retail and office and up to 400 multifamily apartments on approximately 48.98 acres. With a recommendation of approval with conditions on this item as well. There is an ex parte form that's been provided
to the clerk's office from Mr. John Moody.
Okay. Anyone to speak on this one?
Okay. I see no one.
Following item is PC twelve. On this item, you're sitting as a local planning agency. It's PDD 240042. It's comprehensive plan amendment. C Pass 2301, the Corwin at Wesley Hills for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet 23, amending from REST 6, residential 6 dwelling units per gross acre to PD Plan Development on approximately 25.57%. Acres of property that is located on the western. On the west side of Elon Boulevard, approximately 1,836 feet north
of State Route 54, and a text amendment creating sub-area policy flu 7.1.71, the Corwin at Wesley Hills PD, and a map amendment to a future land use map 2-9, adding sub-area map 2-971, the Corwin at Wesley Hills PD, and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer, severability, and effective danger. We're asking that you find this item consistent with a comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
All right. Anyone here to speak on this one?
Do you know what?
Following item is PC 13, which is the Companion MPUD, PDD 247719, Zoning Amendment, the Core Win Wesley Hills MPUD, Master Plan Unit Development. Stanley Hilton, a rezoning request from AC Agricultural District to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for a maximum development of 350 multifamily units, 7,500 square feet of office, and 7,500 square feet of commercial retail on approximately 24.42 acres, comes here with recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet.
All right.
But Can you make sure that whoever does the agenda memo calls out the fact that they're waiving the right to the live local tax exemption?
Yes.
It's in the conditions and I noticed eleven calls it out in the agenda memo, but Thirteen does not.
Okay. I'll make it consistent with eleven.
I suspect the board will raise the issue unless you call it out.
Yeah, I think that's a great idea. Thank you, David.
Noted.
And I'm sure my colleague is listening to you and in the audience.
All right. Uh anyone here to speak on that? No. Okay, next.
Next is PC 14, its conditional use, BDD24CU04. It's for Vincent Academy, Adventure Coast Inc., Vincent House Academy. It's for a group living arrangement in an AR agricultural residential district. Comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet.
Anyone here for this one? Okay.
Right.
All right, following item is PDD 24 CU05. It is a conditional use in the name of Karen Kate Shoe Blind, Family Trust, Anthem Net Inc. Verizon Wireless for a 195-foot above-ground level close mount monopole wireless communication facility in an AC district. Comes through with a recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet.
Okay.
Speak on this one.
See no one.
And Mr. Chair, if we can move to the addendum item, because PC 16 will have an actual presentation.
Okay.
Thank you. So PC 17 is PDD 240003. It's a comprehensive plan amendment, C PASS 2312, Lone Star Shady Hills. You're sitting as a local planning agency on this matter. It's for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet four. Changing from Res One residential one dwelling unit per gross acre to COM Commercial on approximately four acres of property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Shady Hills Road and K Helen K Drive, providing for additional text amendments as necessary for
internal consistency, providing for repealer, severability, and an effective date. We're asking that you find this item consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
Okay. Anyone here
to speak on this one?
Okay. Do you know if that includes deed restriction on level of the case?
Um with this one, it I believe there is, I'm I'm pretty sure that I saw a um an actual email stating that they would um be using the property con consistent with C2 district. This is a an actual so this is a uh conflict zoning situation here. So the existing zoning is already C two on the property. They're just trying to resolve resolve the conflict by making the land use COM instead of res one.
Gotcha. Okay.
And I've if I've stated anything incorrectly, please let me know from
So we have the applicant present. Uh is anyone here to object? I see no one and the applicant's welcome to speak if you wish, but You have a recommendation for approval, so Okay.
As I understand that this is going to be developed with a self storage facility.
Okay.
Mm-hmm.
And that concludes your consent agenda.
Okay, and we're gonna have a presentation on sixteen?
Yes.
Okay. So we're pulling 16 from consent.
Yes.
Okay.
Yeah, no, would that be Amy who's gonna do that?
I believe so, yes.
All right. Okay, let's have a motion on the consent agenda, please.
I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Um
Trying to get a list here of all the items. It's all the items listed on the agenda under consent with the exception of Sick. I'm sorry. Four and five that got pulled, got withdrawn. Got withdrawn. And sixteen's gonna be pulled for presentation.
Yes, and uh I think I don't know if we need to mention that thirteen Well be you'll you'll be adding a level of the language.
Right. So modified?
That's your amendment.
That's my amendment.
Okay.
Second.
Your motion and a second? Any further discussion? If not, I'll signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Like signed?
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, Amy.
All right, good afternoon. Amy Toll with Planning and Development.
Sure.
I'll make sure I hear everything you have to say because it's important.
Like I didn't make it to the second sausage.
Mm-hmm. Okay, Miss Amy, any time you wanted.
All right.
So the item before you is actually a comprehensive plan amendment um to Oh hello, welcome. This is the a this is our consultant. Um so I'll do a quick presentation and then when we have questions, we'll bring you up if we need to. Thank you very much. So that also goes with our background slide. So this is going to be CPA 2312. It is a peril of flood amendment. Basically, this comprehensive plan amendment is ensuring that we are in compliance with the statutory requirement
that was adopted, approved, initiated in 2015. So basically, this is a comprehensive plan amendment. The intent is to propose an amendment. amendment to become compliant with the statutory requirement. The changes that are occurring are in Chapter two and Chapter Four. Chapter two is your coastal management and chapter or Chapter Four is your coastal management. Um Chapter two is your future land use. I knew that. Um and uh there's also a map that's being amended. We're repealing a map
that's in um chapter two because or repealing a map that's in chapter four, element four excuse me, because it's already in element two, so there's no need to have them repeated in there. So we're repealing one of them and amending it. It is your coastal high hazard map that's being updated with the new data. So a little background information. Approximately eight months or so ago, we received a grant from FDOT in the amount of $75,000 to hire a consultant and achieve
this change. And so our consultant is here. We hired Benish, and they have been working with us diligently to ensure that our comprehensive plan is in compliance with that. Statutory requirement. So here's just a snippet of the map, this slide and the next slide. This will show you the updated coastal high hazard area map. It is also in your packet. This is going to be the north portion of Pasco County. With the updated data
and this is going to be the south portion of your Pasco of Pasco County. The coastal high hazard area as defined by the state is basically the slosh one model or a category one, any storm surge affecting a category one hurricane. So as I stated, it is a fairly quick presentation just to advise that this is occurring. If you have any questions, please let me know. I do have a a consultant here as well. But with that, we do recommend that you find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and
uh approved to the Board of County Commissioners. Have a question?
Yeah, I I think we do. Well unless somebody else wants to go for it. No, no, you go ahead. Okay. Amy, so in policy one point three point one Coastal high hazard area. I don't have any objection to the language you're adding I guess my question is Is there a reason you're not fixing that issue the issue with this policy that deals with Whether density increases in the coastal high hazard area need to be MPUDs or not. I know that
Are you checking
two? Yeah, Terry has issued opinions about
that they don't necessarily need to be M PDs to increase density in the coastal hazard area, but
planning's position, I'm not sure why you're not making that perfectly clear in the policy. I mean this seems like this would be the opportunity to
Yeah, yeah. Sort of codify
with
Terry
with Terry's previous interpretation.
Sure. And we can explore that. We can take a look at that. Um again, the intent of this was solely to comply with the statutory requirements, but I think you definitely um presented a good point that we can take a look at and
I I don't disagree with but you're you're amending that very policy. So
I
would think that if you're amending that The very policy that's caused this angst. About whether they need to be M P Ds or not, you would just go and
Just go ahead. Yeah, I'm just going to
fix it.
Sure. Yeah, we can do that.
Okay. So and so F from a practical point of view, how does that affect uh people that want to build, develop, whatever. I mean, is it gonna create more Another layer of uh Bureaucracy for that. It would remove a layer. That's what I'm asking. Yeah,
yeah, th that's the issue is that the current complex arguably Requires any density increase in the coastal hazard area to be an M P U D now. I believe Mr. Pitos has issued determinations that it Doesn't really mean that. I'll let Terry weigh in if he wants to say that differently. Um Right.
Whatever planning's current policy is about density increases in the coastal hazard area. The comp plan should reflect that current policy, not The way it reads now.
Understood.
But I agree with you. Mr. Moody, this This is making it easier to developing the coastal is area not harder.
Mm-hmm.
Okay. That that's my main question. I I'm I'm trying to keep it simple.
That's good. Thanks.
Anything else from up here?
Well this only talks David about M P U D for multifamily.
Yeah, but the way we define multifamily in the county is Do you even attach town homes? are considered multifant. So
Anything but single family.
Yeah.
But
then it's a single family has to be So can you propose a language change here on the fly that we can make a recommendation to the board?
I'd like Mr. Pitos to weigh in because he's the one that issues determination about what this policy means. And I don't want to step on his toes about How it should be rewritten to reflect his
Intent.
Two point one guy. Two point one point three you said in the blue element?
One point three point one.
One point that's my dyslexia. One
point one point three. One point three point one.
Yeah. Thank you. Pardon me? She said two point two point one also. also.
Which I think are saying similar things. I think they say the the
very similar things, yes.
as the mechanism to win presidential diagram is
I have to
If you'll give me a minute, I just I'm just reading it. Possibly just say limiting future rezoning actions to the lowest allowable urban residential densities. within the future land use designation period. Just cut out the rest of the sentence.
Makes sense.
Well, I don't I I think Gary needs to weigh in on this because I'm not sure that's exactly What he's how he's interpreted it. So
the in policy flu one three one It there's a there's a reference at the end based upon the standards and guidelines of policy flu one three three. So when we go down to one three three. It says require those land development applications for development within the coastal high hazard area, except for single family dwelling unit. Uh except for a single family dwelling be planned in a specific manner that is compatible with site characteristics. Through the use of the MPUD master planning development requirements
of the Pasco County Land Development Code with specific site and building design provisions that shall mitigate the effects and impacts of evacuation issues for the project site. So the this is an old interpretation. Um
W the way the provision had been understood in the past was that the Comprehensive plan was not actually calling for the mass a a rezoning to MPUD, but through the use of the MPUD requirements of the Land Development Code. And so the site plans would essentially could could essentially you could do a Euclidean zone and then ultimately when the site plans were to come in, they would have to meet the various requirements as conditions of approval
uh on the on the site plan. Um that could be cleaned up, the sentence could be made clearer, uh be planned in a specific manner that is compatible with uh M P U D
in a specific manner that rezoning to M PUD and is compatible through the MPUD requirements of the Land Development Code. We could we could play with the sentence a little bit to require it to be MPUD. Um that would res that would result in the entire coastline essentially becoming M P U D then, at some point in the future, when properties would come in for rezoning.
Yeah,
sure.
I know this has been an issue and we've actually the Planning Commission and and Board of approved some rezoning. in the coastal hazard area that are not M P U D. And they are every time I see those agenda members they say it's based on Terry Pitos's determination that The com plan means something. Means X. Okay. Well,
Y you want me to just
mention in the a fix the complain so it actually says whatever it is that you've been So that it's consistent with what?
I wasn't trying to rewrite it here. Thank you. I just think since you have this section of the comp plan open you should fix the issue.
Is there a specific M P U D development requirement that we're looking for developments in the coastal high hazard area to meet, like for instance, more than one access point or
Presumably, yes. That those are the requirements that are in the land development code. So it's either It's either this policy could be interpreted w one of two ways, right? You could either go the route of Making it a little less stringent, but still follow the MPD requirements than in the land development code, but allow Euclidean rezoning to take place and thereby avoid the entire MPU diffudification of the entire coastline. Or
the other way would be to simply require the MPUD. PUD outright. But so when this interpretation was made, the the policy posture was to enable development to take place more easily. Well personally I I like the first one.
Yeah, I like the first one too. Me too. Mm-mm. And the issue is the way the comp plan reads currently It can be argued either way. So That's why I'm asking for you to just fix it so that We can fix it. When Terry Pitos isn't here anymore, the comp plan actually reads consistent with how everybody's been applying it.
Yes, we can do that. If if the Planning Commission wants to direct us to do that we'll we'll definitely Uh Write that into the amendments. Okay. Well
then do I hear a motion? So moved. I'll second it. So I understand your your mo your motion is to pr is to lean toward the first interpretation.
Policy flu one point three point one. such as to not require an M PU D rezoning, but that Euclidean rezoning shall meet the MPUD master planned unit development requirements as otherwise stated in the land development code.
And and and two point two point one, which is a similar policy in the C OA element. Yeah,
because the first one references the other one.
Yeah. Yeah. And then may I also add, Mr. Moody, um Policy flu one three three is gonna require some tweaking too, so we could we could touch it. Okay. Well
in your direction, I'll amend my motion. to request that the planning staff work with the county attorney's office to correct the language. So that we don't have to try to draft it on the fly today.
The sum of all of this is that we have not been requiring MPUDs in the coastal high hazard area. Right unfortunately the complaint still makes it sound like many provisions of the complaint. Still make it sound like it's required. So You basically just be directing staff to Fix it so an MPD is no longer required to rezone in the Coastal Lye Hazard. Exactly. Perfect.
Yes, that's
the motion.
All right. So if that's your motion, I still second. Thank you. Okay.
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion?
If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign? All right. Thank you, Gary. Thank you, Amy.
So do we s do we still have to approve the item or does that count as approval of the item? Are
there any other questions that you have on this item, David? I that was my only issue. Pleasure of working with staff and the consultant and Ms. Wilhite on this, so I'm fine with it. I was surprised Miss Willy
didn't ask for the chains that I just asked for. I was thinking it
Okay.
So do we have to actually approve the PC sixteen or that did that?
Direct staff to fix the M P U D issue, you probably need a motion for the remainder of the item.
I would otherwise move to recommend approval of item PC sixteen, otherwise known as the Peril of Flood Amendment. Second.
Okay. Motion and second. Further discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay.