PDD-20005 self-storage facilities design standards
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 51m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 78% of 716 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Good afternoon, Alexandra Laporte, Planning and Development. This is PDD 20005 Self-Storage Facilities Design Standards. You'll be acting as an LPA for this item. It was we took public comments on October 10th, and we're here for a vote today. I will read the ordinance. An ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development
Code, creating section 1105, self-storage design standards, and amending section 521. I mean I'm sorry, five two five, C One neighborhood commercial district. Section 905.2, landscaping and buffering, section 907.1, on-site parking. section 1302.2 mobility fees to increase the mobility fees for mini warehouse.
Appendix A definitions and other amendments as necessary to ensure internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealers, severability, inclusion in the Pasco County Land Development Code, and an effective date.
Since uh we last met on October 10th, we did um receive further input from stakeholders. Um we met with the horizontal um roundtable as well as the ordinance development team and looped back around with some of the stakeholders we had originally met back in August. I have outlined here the following changes to the ordinance presented today for a
roll call vote by you. So based on that additional input, the scenic corridor name was changed to North 41, East 52 in order to minimize confusion with other definitions of the term, specifically that of the term as used in the Comprehensive plan.
Subsequent uh the purpose in that corridor was also slightly changed to read that it is to protect and preserve view sheds and retain existing natural landscape and topography for parcels that have frontage along the corridor. Um we also amend or um Uh cor change the height from the two-story max to as permitted in the zoning district or within
the urban service area where applicable because the area in 52 crosses two intersections of the urban service area. So in those locations the height there is no restriction. So we made that clarification. And with that, I'd like to um staff would recommend to find the proposed ordinance consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and to recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners.
Okay. Do we have any questions from up here?
Like the um North forty one, fifty two, east fifty two, redevelopment transit corridor map. So it's One of the things I brought up in the last meeting was that I felt like
Forty one in particular should be consistent from county line to county line. And north of fifty two you you have it Um with different standards.
We d yes, we c um we still kept that um those standards in that area. Um As we had identified previously. Um I don't have that map. But um right now how the slice of um parcels happen, it's a lot of the wetlands um and there are um very few C one, C two parcels, so we just kept it as the now
Forty north forty one, east fifty two corridor.
But that that corridor requires um Further setbacks, correct?
Correct.
So I just think it's inconsistent with With the way forty one is. to to just stop at fifty two and apply a different set of standards to it. Um I don't know what the rest of the commission feels like, but I just I think that forty one should be consistent.
Okay.
You know, and maybe that same little area that's marked here that is west of forty one on fifty two.
Okay. And um you're suggesting, Commissioner Cox, that those be um of the redevelopment standard?
Yes, the redeemer redevelopment quarter, right.
There are definitely different characteristics north of fifty or north of fifty two on forty one than between fifty two and fifty-four. Um I I personally have a problem with even north of f of fifty two on forty one being the seventy five foot setback. But that that's a different issue than you. If I mean What what you're saying in actually puts in a two hundred and fifty foot setback there.
No, um the redevelopment um would be consistent with the zoning district. Yeah.
Okay.
So what so that's what I'm saying a little bit. But what would be the setback that you're recommending then, Michael?
If it's consistent with um the uh zoning um standards, a C one or C two, it would be twenty five feet. Right. Right.
But
then I do agree, I take that back.
I mean I I I agree with you that right as it exists today, it is a bit of a different topography.
But it's not going to be a little bit more than a little bit. continues to develop north. So I I would just like to see at least that corridor be consistent.
Forty one.
The county line.
Okay.
And also the little area on fifty two.
No.
And
on eastern fifty fifty two as well. Dr. Sandy T.
the whole concept of trying to Um
w what the the staff and the board of county commissions is trying to do with this. Um But that's just one area that I just think that should be consistent. So everything on fifty two
west of forty one. It should be in the redevelopment quarterb redevelopment. Right. And forty one. And all of forty one. Fi and f east of fi and east fifty two. Uh Yeah, it would have a l larger setback.
Okay. Are we
Yeah, see per personally I'm not a fan of the seventy five foot setback, but I just think that that's that's overboard as far as those corridors go. I mean in certain uses that I don't know why we're enacting our Why are we implementing a seventy five foot setback there? I just still don't understand that, but that's just my position.
Okay.
Are there any other concerns other than what David has to ask?
So Well Well let me get my do you want to just ask mine first? Okay. Alexander, we talked at O D T about Pi seventy five in the Sun Coast.
Yeah.
I as we discussed at O D T, I'm concerned I I'm not sure I care so much about what the required setback is, but I have a concern about treating it if the if the purpose of the setback on fifty four-fifty six is preservation of employment. Which that appears to be the purpose of it.
Mm-hmm.
I'm concerned about not having the same standard on I seventy five and the Sun Coast because those are Key employment. Corridors for us. And again I don't know. know what the right standard is, whether it's two fifty, seventy-five, five feet, seven feet, I don't care what the standard is.
Mm-hmm.
But I don't think that we should be treating I seventy five and the Sun Coast materially different than fifty four, fifty six because they're I see the employment deals we do. And uh many of them are on the Sun Coast and I seventy five. So the purpose if the Board's intent is to preserve quarter for employment. I don't s I I don't think that I seventy five in the Sun Coast should have lesser standing in terms of preservation of for employment.
No, and we looked at um your uh suggestions, David, and we were trying to figure out how to address it from the the point of view of what happens with this um use
When it's pushed back from um those corridors and actually up against in the s in the street. So then you'll have this um use that's not very active. Sometimes most of the MPUDs are along those corridors, so sometimes in the middle of a neighborhood, but it's been pushed back from the corridor. So we didn't know How to kind of resolve that with the standards that we have right now, but we had looked at Um your suggestions. The 250
feet would certainly work from the corridor right-of-way. Um it's just a matter then the impact of that building and use essentially being pushed up to a neighbor on the front of a neighborhood street. So once you get off the highway and you're in that MPUD neighborhood, that self storage now has um a frontage that may or not be compatible with residential right up against it. So we didn't know
Well but you could have the same problem in fifty four, fifty six. I don't know how that's materially different. I mean, I think that's a good thing I I just don't understand the difference.
Because the corridor is actually more instead of a frontage, I understand your definition of the frontage, but when you're on the street as a pedestrian, that is more of a the back of the parcel. that fr the back of the parcel that fronts the corridor, essentially. Um so that's that's the the the difference between the fifty four fifty six and um
I just I I just try to think what was the board's intent when they did this ordinance and or asked for this ordinance. I thought their primary goal was To preserve employment on the fifty four fifty six corridor.
Mm-hmm. Correct.
Okay.
Taking up with uses that don't generate employment. That that was my understanding of their overarching goal.
Correct.
So
This somewhat dovetails to Mr. Gerardi's comment. I'm not sure that you had any specific direction about
Okay, but but putting that aside Um
I don't
I I don't know how you can I don't think if I asked the Board of Commissioner whether they wanted to see a self storage facility fronting I seventy five or the Sun Coast, I think they'd probably say no.
Okay.
And
And we can have that as an option certainly for November fifth. Um
We can have that change. Um
you see that. I mean, I drive in Tampa down the I seventy five. I see some self-storage facilities that are right next to
Absolutely.
Right. So I mean it's not like this is um theoretical problem.
No, no, no. It's not. You're right. Um i it's just a matter of it's the vehicle point of view or the pedestrian. So then you've pushed this use to Um be on a frontage where a pedestrian interacts with it versus the highway frontage. That's where we were.
But I'm not sure why the the use has to go there at at all. I mean why
Mm. That
that's
Let me try it. So I I think we I think the The observation can be accommodated, um, hearing the two side the two perspectives here. Um Nicarios Pitos Planning and Development. Um So uh uh so David just to be clear, you're saying that um it would be consistent with the economic development thrust of this ordinance to add I seventy five into that transit corridor. And
and the Sun Coast.
Because I'm just telling you that. Because I helped negotiate the Metler Toledo deal. Okay, it's right on the Sun Coast. The use everybody seems to like that it's there, big employer.
It couldn't have located there if we had had a big mini storage there. I mean it it it it wanted to be right there. on the Sun Coast with ready access to the airport. I mean that that A lot of our employers are wanting to Have that ready access to the airport from the Sun Coast or We already accessed I seventy five. And so There's no question that if you put a mini storage where Metler Toledo is now, it would have precluded that use.
Yes.
Right. And I thought that was the board's intent with this, was that they wanted to keep those key employment corridors available for employers. That was that that was the driving force behind this ordinance.
Um I understand. I think we can accommodate and add that. Um one thought that I'm having is that using similar language to the corridor SEPEC um where it talks about um let's see where is it That's actually in the general design standards. When you're when you're proposing a multi-use. In the transit corridor. Um you can bring that facility forward. into the
setback area. We could use similar language to say that when you're let's say you're two hundred and fifty feet setback from I-75 or the Sun Coast, if you happen to front then a local road, just make sure that you're a multi-use first floor storage facility. I'm okay with that.
Okay.
Yeah. So it's it's using the same language just if you're you're c if you're coming off and then you're on a frontage road. to the local network. You just have to have a little bit of a mixed use nature to yourself.
Okay. And again, I I don't want to get delve in too much into the design standards. That isn't my goal of my comment. It's simply that if the purpose of this ordinance is to protect fifty-four, fifty-six for employment I don't think that we should be saying that Sun Coast and I seventy five deserve lesser protection.
Okay, we can fix that.
Uh okay. Do you w do we wanna come up with specific language
now or are we gonna Well I'm the the I mean you you could make a motion to just include them as transit corridors with Those two roads is
Corridors. And then have staff make the necessary modifications to Make that work. I don't know that we're gonna come up with the exact language here.
And uh what about the other ones that you talked about, Mike, and
Wait, before we have a motion, I I've got a couple series of questions here. Oh sorry. Um as far as the effective date goes for the mobility fee.
And we didn't discuss that at all, so I apologize. um the mobility fees table, um those numbers uh for the freestanding piece are still um being calculated. So right now they still remain um the placeholder that you saw in Octob on October 10th. We're hoping that those numbers will be reviewed and calculated accordingly for the board. And if not, then you know we would propose to recommend
that we hold that freestanding component of the mobility fee until we are able to finish out those calculations.
I'm sorry. The only reason that makes me nervous on the mobility fee is is w we're we're placeholdering a a high number. I mean so there's no incentive The incentive's not with the county, the incentive's with the private side to push you guys to adopt the correct fee. 'Cause I think everybody here would agree that fee's probably too high. I mean if if you did the reverse and you adopted a zero. I promised you guys would get the right number in there pretty quick. Um th that that's my only point there.
W so I mean you could make a recommendation that the ordinance not be adopted until the correct fee is put in. I mean that's part that's within your
Sure.
The y the di the difficulty that staff has, I'll just tell you, is they're stuck between a rock and hard places. They were told by the board they gotta get this done in four months. Okay. I think staff would like to put in the correct fee, but I don't think the data is available yet. Right. And so But If the Planning Commission were to recommend that this
So that's the right-of-way. that could be added. I don't think staff cares. I mean I think staff's probably okay with it. They're b up against this deadline that they're stuck with is the problem. Okay.
Uh just a point of clarification, could there be two different ordinances? One that carried the mobility.
Well I think what Mr. Gerardi is suggesting is that he wants it done with this one. I think that's what
I think Well I think that makes most sense. Then you don't have to come back. I think everybody would like to do it all at one time. My only point is I I think it will definitely be all at one time if that number is a zero for freestanding boat and R V storage. to whereas the way it is now the with the the higher numbers, the inflated numbers in there I I don't I mean I've been dealing personally and I just for disclosure, I've been dealing personally with with the consultant that's doing the traffic counts, okay? And I've been hearing for three weeks that The traffic counts will be done. Well the traffic counts are done. So
now we've got a trip rate But how do you take the trip rate and calculate that and formulate that into what the fee is? Um I mean there People need to be involved. I mean the county needs to be involved in getting that number in in in my opinion and getting that turned into a mobility fee for inclusion with this ordinance.
Yeah, to to bring the rest of the planning commission up to speed. The issue the reason we have an issue is because I don't know why it happened, but freestanding RB and boat storage got lumped in with mini storage. And it there are some times when they're on the same site that does happen. But We didn't have a separate fee for a freestanding R and V boat storage. So And then we had the board directive to increase the fees on mini storage. So staff It
was trying to increase the Vs on mini storage but not increase them on the freestanding stuff.
But And may in fact like to lower them but you don't have the data to do it. Um That's why they're stuck. But I think that's a good thing. in their defense they at least didn't increase them. At least they didn't throw them in the increase pile with the uh with the mini storage. Um But I I don't think there's anything wrong with if if it's part of Planning Commission recommendation that the ordinance include that reduction Then we're going to do it. Staff will just and then the board in theory would
have to Waiting. To adopt this until that occurs.
That's really up to the board. The other the other dilemma that we have is that Part of the reason I think some board members wanted this done quickly is because We have a There's a lot of pressure for these mini storage facilities coming in and so they're trying to do something to regulate them Without dragging this out too far.
Uh on on the actual effective date though. I think I know the answer to this, but I just want to make sure No mobility fees are due at building permit issuance, correct? Not at C O?
They're they're due at CO they're they're calculated at building permits. In other words, they tell you How much you owe a building permit. And then you pay them at zero.
Okay, so if somebody has a building permit It's currently under construction. They're gonna get their C O after the first of the year. Are they subject to the old fee or the new fee? The
the the way it works is it it depends on when and And maybe you need to massage that language, but It's tied to the building permit issuance. That's when you determine your fee. So if you get your building permit before that date You don't You're still under the old fees. Does that make sense? Yep. Even if you get your CO after. So all of our fee increases are tied to the issuance of the building permit.
So do we need to add something in there that indicates that or is that
Probably I would agree that it needs to be clarified. 'Cause uh how does it read now?
Mobility fees increase as amended.
So I think what it should say shall be effective as to Building permits.
Apply uh issued after that date. after.
Instead of Shall Shall apply to building permits.
issued after December twenty-seventh, twenty nineteen.
Okay.
Okay, no. Now I'm gonna switch over to the ordinance itself. I mean the uh standard itself, I'm sorry.
Yep.
Um the north forty one, east fifty two corridor. Um Is there again, is there a reason why we're limiting The three acre. Minimum size. For those projects. I mean if somebody has a one or two acre parcel They can't do boat storage.
If you're right on the corridor. If your parcel is on the corridor. If you're outside of that, then there is no restriction. So it's just those parcels that touch the corridor right away.
And I don't know how many parcels there are there smaller than that. So I I just think that that's
And there and there's not currently um a a lot except for um at the intersections of the Intercoast and Seventy Five where it's the urban service area, you have the most C two um parcels currently. So um
I I m I would imagine there are most parcels off of the main corridor won't be zoned properly anyway.
Right.
That's
true. Yeah. Right. I mean this is only on the corridor directly, the way I understand it, right? Yes.
These standards are yeah, your parcel is on the corridor. Hordo right away.
Um we go to eleven oh five point five Now this is for all self storage facilities, not just those along the corridor?
Correct. There's just the general ones, yeah. So they won't follow any of the um additional corridor setbacks that we've established. Um they'll have just the the regular um performance standards um and uh general um building Uh design standards that uh 1102 provides for for buildings that are larger than 25,000 square feet.
We have that currently in the L D C.
Now it's that's just self storage, that's not freestanding boat storage.
Correct.
And so if I understand correctly, all self storage projects follow big box standards from eleven oh two.
twenty five thousand square feet or greater, yes.
If they're twenty five thousand square feet or greater, or no matter what.
Usually there'll be twenty five thousand square feet.
I understand. I'm just trying to clarify. Yes.
That's what a weapon of two said. Yeah,
that's
what a weapon of two
said.
Well, eleven oh two does indirectly. Yeah, I mean I I just th there's standards of the big box ordinance that are intended for retail and that's why they're there and they're getting lumped into self storage and I ten foot buffers around the facades of buildings on self storage. I mean that seems a bit excessive.
Um the specific
This is an example.
Sure. And per the mobility fee, self-storage is a commercial retail use. And then the size of the building alone would trigger additional care in designing that building because they are so massive. So
Anything
over
twenty-five
thousand.
I mean I I think it's
I've I've made my point. Um when you get down to eleven oh five five B under the buildings the um Basically the You've got eleven oh two and you've got all the subsections under under section four. Some facades is a duplication of A. Except it's more stringent. Same thing with B.
Um I guess there's nothing wrong with that. What which section are you referring to? Eleven O five five B three. There's already a facade section in eleven oh two four A.
These are are um a lot of times a summary of what the more detail is described in the 1102 section. So it it shouldn't be more stringent. Um The glazing component is recommended in order to, especially if you're up against a corridor, if you're doing active use, um, that that's something that you want. You don't want blank walls um along those stretches of street.
And I think the the key terminology there is glazing doesn't necessarily mean transparency.
Glazings or windows, right?
Yeah,
but you can also have spangial glass, for example. Oh, okay. As a as an example.
Well so so when staff at the end of the day is reviewing a plan And they go and they see a requirement in eleven oh two four A and eleven. O five five B three.
Mm-hmm.
I mean, I think that's a good thing I haven't compared them but I one if you're summarizing, why do you have to summarize what it already says? It's already referred to. But if it's it's not a good thing. Are you sure there's no conflicts in there? I just You you refer to a facade section that's in one section of the code, then you restate a whole nother section of the code. It's just it's duplication and I don't understand why.
You think it should be taken out?
Does it say the same thing?
intent of this particular section is and how eleven oh two is Applied.
So it's not necessarily adding regulation on top of eleven oh two, it's simply clarifying an intent.
And then you go to eleven oh two for the the detail of that. It's not saying anything um in addition to uh eleven oh two. So facades are to provide visual interest and you do that v um specifically and in detail in looking at eleven oh two section where it it tells you um the amount of feet you have to change your wall plane and the amount of length of your building before you need to trigger that wall plane change. So we didn't want
to Add all of that again and be redundant in this section, but reference it, but give you a c a quick summary. So someone who's doing self-storage, they get a full picture right away from the standard. And then some of those minute details like the setbacks per zoning district. You'll then refer to that specific session section for that.
In my opinion, if you don't have a savvy person looking at your code, it's misleading. 'Cause if I'm reading this and I read through and I say, Okay, here, here, oh I have a section that talks about my facades, here's my detail. I don't go to eleven oh two four A and look at all the different requirements.
W would would uh introducing a uh a reference two eleven oh two in that paragraph. paragraph. So it's a
those items are are pulled from eleven oh two
as summary. So massing is discussed in level no two, facade, um materials and um So we could list eleven oh two in each of those Um
Yeah, one of the problems that I have is that and I've seen this happen too many times Um Public comes in. Come to seeing somebody in in a specific department. and says, What can I do with my property A, B, C, D?
giving them the answer gives them the wrong answer because they don't really understand. all the intricacies and how Like he's saying, one code affects another code, one paragraph affects another They don't they don't have the knowledge that you have. Yeah. So w ends up being a problem. Then they come to me. and ask me about it and then I come out here and I ask somebody about it. I mean it's just We just need to keep it as simple as possible.
And I understand that concern and that's why current planning we did have um those um design development reviewers uh go over this and provide feedback as well to make sure that it's clear for them, you know, what to instruct applicants during the pre pre-application meetings.
Okay. What do you recommend?
Go with your guide. Whatever you recommend. that?
I mean i if you want to be specific about facades and materials, I think you put that in here and you get rid of the reference up up above in item B one. Um but I don't think I that's not what I hear you saying. I hear you saying it's it's B one plus
No it's not plus. It's a summary.
Materials is plus. M the materials is plus because the materials in eleven oh two four B only talks about the materials. It doesn't get into paint color and all that other stuff that you're trying to lump in here.
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but I my impression is is that the intent of the BCC was to
regulate where these facilities are gonna be at. And and also what they look like.
Mm-hmm.
Because I mean it seems pretty clear that they don't like the way they look. Uh which I agree with. Um So
And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but w doesn't it make sense for if the ordinance and the design standards that deal with Storage. are a little bit more stringent. And what the general code says, doesn't that make sense? I mean it does to me, but Of course I'm not I don't apply these things.
Well I I mean I agree, but I don't agree a hundred percent. I mean, you've got projects out there that the stakeholders and the people they've circulated this to, seventy to eighty percent of the people like certain projects that they see. So a general statement of people don't like what's being built is I I don't think that's true. There's some really good projects being built. Um now how do you differentiate that and how do you
They did not like the visual from the corridors or you know how a lot of them were not you know as addressed as um they could be. There are examples that are good and we certainly looked at those that Commissioner Moore specifically had outlined and built that into the standards and they've done a really good job. Um on their own. So we'd like to see that replicated more often than just the one or two times that it occurs. No and I
Again, I I think I think that section needs to be cleaned up. Bottom line, I I think there's a whole lot here that people don't realize is here. And I I see this leading down a path of this is the start. Next thing we're gonna get, we're gonna get apartments. Next thing we're gonna get, we're gonna get another thing. And and and we're we're painting everybody into such a box, they gotta come to Alexander or somebody in Terry's office and get them to approve the color of their paint on their building. I mean, it takes long enough to
get things through Pasco County as it is. Do we want to start and a adding that stuff too? I mean, I think that's a good thing I just a lot of this stuff I've I just got heartache about just because of the path that I see it going down, that's all.
So Since I was at the board meeting where this was discussed, I I think there was two focuses, you're correct.
The big focus was we don't want to see these areas on our key employment corridors because they're taking up space that employers should they're empty space that employers could occupy. Yep. And if I had to predict I would say that was seventy percent of what the board was after. Okay? But they did say in the same breath And we want to see design standards. And But and staff's defense, they weren't clear about what these design standards should be. They just said
go forth and create design standards without, you know any real clear guidance. And so Um So I I this is not something where we I I could tell you exactly, you know, which ones the board thought were ugly and which I mean maybe you've had discussions with the board members about which ones they thought were ugly and which ones they they liked, but Um You know that's It's kinda where we are. I mean uh I don't know for sure if it's gonna, you know, le lead to other forms of development that
that's speculation. I will say that in my opinion the Did the board desire to do something about multifamily isn't as strong as it is for mini storage. Um
I think it's really one commissioner that wants to do something about multifamily. It's uh I'm not sure it's
right
all of them. Um but There appears to be general board consensus on mini storage that A they're in the wrong place. And B they need to look a little better, but I the you know It's it's hard. To figure out what that should be.
Yeah, I I mean I I I agree with that and I understand that. I just think I mean we we took step one was the first two pages of this Land Development Code that's a good thing. section that is what I heard the predominantly the the commissioner say, and then we took and we applied it to every single self storage unit. In the county. Whether it's on the corridor any corridor or not in in the new standards. And that that's that's just my only point. I think that there These two pages are very limiting. They're very restrictive. They place a a whole lot
of Um
Additional development costs on on people coming in and frankly w there there are these projects that we need. We're approving apartment complexes. We're we need storage. Whether anybody likes it or not, okay, I don't think they need to be on fifty four, fifty-six. But we do need them and and there's good projects being built off of the main corridors.
And we don't disagree and that's why we feel that these standards looking at um best practices and looking at other jurisdictions and what they've done Mm-hmm. As well as what's been developed in Pasco County, we took all of that into consideration and made sure that we're not Placing an undue burden. You know, Dade City in their ordinance, you cannot be a self-storage use without being a multi-use development. They will not
allow it anymore unless you're an adaptive reuse, is the only time you can come in as a single use. They have also limited the lot size to five acres. As a minimum acres. So there's a lot of other jurisdictions that have been much more restrictive. And when we looked at the pattern of development in Pasco, we said, okay, well, where's the balance? And we feel that the standards that we're presenting shows that balance.
So w one of the things that I I will comment on is that
The county has really done an about phase on Making it. easier to do business in the county providing that you are bringing in the type of project that is gonna benefit the county. So A and employment generating use. is gonna get the red carpet rolled out as it should. These ancillary things that come to being because of what you
want I think we should get those right. And Okay, maybe that requires approval of a color palette, but I don't see that
if you're in that business I'm sure it's uh you don't like it. But Overall It makes the county look better. And I think function better. so that we can continue to get more of the employment generating projects that we want. So I mean I it's having some tighter restrictions on this stuff. I personally think is is not a bad thing.
You know, they'll get it right.
A lot of these standards the way they're written are very loose, very ambiguous, and and frankly in in several cases are are how how do you put landscaping around the perimeter, the entire perimeter of a self storage building? If you any of you guys ever use self storage, they all have doors all the way around three sides.
How
do you landscape around the perimeter of a self-storage building? So that that's just my only point. I don't think this gets it right.
Yeah.
by time certain. So we can't something we can continue.
Yep.
We can. And it's
a to address that, um, Commissioner, um the um those doors that you talk about for self storage along the corridors would not be allowed to um be facing that frontage. They have to be perpendicular to the frontage. So they're or completely enclosed um in the the climate controlled, so you do have the opportunity for the landscape to happen because what
prohibits the landscape is being addressed.
I thought we were talking about more than just on the corridors though. This is all.
Yes, but that is I'm saying uh uh specifically on the corridors, but in general that perpendicular um standard applies. So you're not seeing these garage doors everywhere. They're they're they're turned perpendiculars.
What uh well how did we
side of the building of the
How do we go from the major corridors to all all roads? How'd that happen? 'Cause I know that when my conversations with some of the commissioners They were talking about limiting the corridors, the major corridors. Not
And we're n we're not putting those I mean. Yes. Mm-hmm. Some of these things needed to be refined and clarified. We had very few standards for mini warehousing as a whole in this special exception use. So we've pulled that out and made sure that accessory uses were clearly identified. where they're located were clearly identified. So even though the setbacks
of the um corridor standards wouldn't apply, you're still not seeing all of the stuff just happening along all the frontage that there is some uniformity to that development.
Well if the if some of those standards are you feel are extremely ambiguous, why can't we
You know, leave those out. temporarily and come back when we have more specifics. Like we're doing with some other things. And just approve it on the basis of the year. Original. Standards.
We've um and David you can help me um we would not right now as it stands we would not be able to come back to you. Um we've the board has approved the moratorium 120 day to be extended to allow for the adoption hearing to happen on November nineteenth. So we are
suggesting is I think and tell me if I say this wrong, is I think he's suggesting that you only move forward with the restrictions on The designated corridors. Um And not include the
the standards that apply to all cell storage facilities. He's suggesting that be a different ordinance at a later date. Is that what you're saying?
I I do know that Commissioner During the board hearing um Back in uh September, November that that was something the Board of County Commissioners did not want us to do is to come back and piecemeal standards for this use time and time again. So we're doing a comprehensive planage um at this time and that was clearly noted at that point that they didn't want one quarter to come and then another piece of it and then other standards to come and
trickle along.
Right. So let me ask you, are there provisions to deviate from this?
So our code as a whole allows for that um to happen through alternative standards. Um so to answer your question in a short way, yes, there there's always a provision um to assist in that if there's um extenduary need.
Are those administratively approved?
They would be
Administratively approved.
Mm-hmm.
So I mean there's a solution there if it's an issue that doesn't work with a particular piece of property or something of that nature.
Yes. Right. If I if I understand the uh the dialogue I was on a sidebar conversation, but um our code does have capability Two Deal with certain circumstances if the if the if the code isn't working right for development, we can issue an alternative standard. And if there's a pattern of um Issues that arise out of that, then you could come back with a quote amendment to address all the various alternative standards that we're issuing. Um
but to provide some clarification with regard to Letter D buffer. Um as I understand the eleven oh two requirements, there's only a um a fifty percent requirement along the front facade, so the customer facing facade. Um and so with fifty percent landscaping there's ample opportunity there to um organize it in such a way that a little it should be able to work for the for the use and of course if there's one
instance in which it's not working as well as it should, you do have the alternative standard option to facilitate that forward. Also with regard to the other facades, 1102 does not have a prescriptive percentage. Requirement for the landscaping along those facades. So there too you can provide um uh
Some of the
I I might be misreading eleven oh two H one B. but all other facade seems pretty clear to me.
That they should have landscaping.
I I don't Yeah. I read eleven oh two H to re to mean that you gotta have landscaping around every every facade around your in the property on your building.
So I maybe I'm wrong, David. I don't know.
I don't even even have that section. So say that if you could repeat that please.
Eleven oh two H
one. You read that and B
to read that off. All other facades except the facade incorporating the service area shall be screened from public view with no less than a ten foot wide buffer with foundation landscaping.
Right, but there's no prescriptive percentage. So in this case,
you're correct, it doesn't. But if I tell you I've got all of your money, that means I got a hundred percent.
Right. And it says eleven and two point four. A through E and I through K show up. So it doesn't list H.
On D.
Letter D.
Letter D. Yes.
Oh that one. Okay.
I mean to the building for the right-of-way. In my opinion, if you wanted to take this ordinance and make eleven oh five five applicable at this time to Projects on the corridor. I could live with it. on a corridor. But a county wide, I have heartburn about doing something to a project o on some off beaten road that's all of a sudden gotta come in and they've got to provide meet your architectural requirements for all your all the facades, all the materials, all the landscaping. I I mean there's a lot of these projects
that are being built off of the beaten path. I mean yeah, we architecturally we don't want to build something ugly, but they don't want to build something ugly.
Some of 'em do.
And and currently, um, I guess luckily I don't know, C twos really only happen on the corridors. There's there's instances but there it's not the major the majority.
Well I mean there are a lot of C2s on roads like Rowan Road. You know, and start uh you know and uh the cubeless road, there's some C two there, there's C two on Moon Like Road, there's C T I mean it's there's C two everywhere. And it's not on this not just on the major corridors, so And that that that's basically what I'm agreeing with. What Jamie about is that You know, I think the thrust of it was to control the the really The eye candy basically the The pe the the
roads that are most heavily travelled. If people come through our county, they s that's what they see when they come through and we don't want 'em to See a big blank building sitting there with no windows. and painted purple. I understand that. But That shouldn't apply to some road that's you know, on the cubeless road or on Massachusetts Avenue or
Well I imagine if the one that's on Starkey Boulevard and the Cupolis, you know, if that developer hadn't taken care and and and making that building what it is, which um that is an entrance it's off the corridor certainly, um, but it is an entrance to a significant community in in Pasco. Um so I'm I'm I'm grateful that he did take the time to make those designs.
From a practical point of view, you're not gonna build a seven million dollar project. And have it look stupid. It just doesn't work. You know, and that's and that's where Jamie's talking about, you know. You know, if you're talking about a Mom and pop operation that You know where they're gonna build a row of uh where of
When there are some like that. But the point the but the the county commissioners my understanding was they wanted to control the major corridors. Yeah. David?
Seventy to seventy five percent of their goal. Th the the difficulty was that there were commissioners that did say at the same meeting They wanted to see countywide design standards.
D the problem was they didn't they weren't very specific about what that meant. I mean I you know they were We have much more specificity about this you know, the setback off the major corridors. I mean they they gave us examples of ones they liked and didn't like when it came to that. So But I can't tell you that. the board didn't want design standards, county wide design standards, because they clearly said that they did. Now I don't know if they knew that I can't promise you this is what they meant.
Mm-hmm.
I don't know. Um And maybe staff has had more conversations with him, so maybe they is this what they meant? You've got
to Well oh go ahead.
We've talked to the commissioners and shown them this the drafts here and um we've gotten their feedback and incorporated it into it. Um I could tell I could say that Um I I don't want to say how how many I suppose, but a number have been agreeable to what we've presented to them. Um but with I don't want to put words in their mouth either. But we have shown them the draft, they have been able to see it and comment to us, and um we've received
generally uh good feedback to incorporate into what you see here today.
What was the thought of um and I'm revisiting in my mind the comments that David made regarding the fifty two corridor. Um
So Why not try to protect it like you did fifty four and fifty six? I mean granted today it it doesn't look the same, but it will at some point. You know. So Um, especially around, you know, the big uh like I seventy five, the Sun Coast and Maybe some of these other big intersections where there are are really targeted employment areas.
Which that is my recommendation. Doc. Catch those. Right. Right. But you're talking about the part of fifty two between I seventy five and the that that part?
Well, you know, like I'll give you an example.
Yeah, and you know, we've I mean we talked about an employment center there at uh what Bellmy Brothers Road and fifty two
There is an employee employment.
Right. So th you know there's that and so why not just
But well,
why not include that as a transit corridor?
Well I think what they'd probably have to do though is They'd have to change that to transit slash employment corridor. because the the difference between twenty two and the other roads we talked about is in a fifty four, fifty six, I seventy five and the Sun Coast there are plans for regional transit serving those areas.
So that's quote unquote the name, why the name came up
with
the right-of-way.
There may be some local bus, but it's not part of the It's not even part of the urban service area. Like the The part of the Sun Coast, you're thinking now the Sun Coast urban service area goes all the way up to fifty-two.
Yeah. And
the I-75 urban service area goes all the way up to fifty-two as well. So We call those the fingers. Like the the so those corridors are included in the urban service area. And w that was reason why I made the comment well they should I seventy five and the Sun Close should be included because They're all part of the same urban service area and same transit emphasis. Fifty two doesn't have that same transit emphasis. So
Today it doesn't, but it will I'm just saying that the complaint's
a to accomplish what you're talking about, you would just have to change the name to them to transit slash employment. And and There are some designated employment areas on fifty two. So they could do what you're saying, I'm just saying they'd have to change the name. It's not a Not really a designated transit corridor today.
So if we if they change the name to transit employment center, would it Would that automatically pull in those areas. They
could apply the same standards that they have here for the transit corridor one. I'm I'm just pointing out that they have to change they can't just they'd have to change the name to transit slash employment because fifty two is not a Designated transit corridor.
So so let me ask the staff a question, then if that is the intent of the of the BCC. Wouldn't it make sense to alter that transit corridor to be more transit slash employment?
Well one of the things that So we we looked at the comprehensive plan. So the comprehensive plan was guiding us in how we were going to organize this ordinance. Um one of the things that is uh a significant feature along State Road fifty-two is um How topographically natural it is in terms of some of the wetlands that exist along the 52 corridor. And quite a bit of that corridor is wetlands, some of which can't be changed. Some things that can
be changed, sure. Um
the current um North Forty One, East Fifty Two corridor settings, if you will, um are suggesting that this particular use be pushed back off the corridor in order to preserve some of those natural topographical Um Uh features. Uh at the same time it's also saying that because And that's not saying explicitly, but if you really think about mini storage, it's a it's a dormant type of use. And so when you have a limited quantity of C2
available to you along a corridor, Um you don't want that limited quantity to be dominated by dormant use. You want to be able to activate that with the necessary retail or other economic functions for the local community. And so if you're going to have that dormant use, you're gonna want to set that back. In setting in setting that back, You're able to preserve then. Some of those uh natural features that are there. Now, this only for one use, it's not for all C2 uses,
but at least you're capturing at this point some of the uh natural topography and and what features are out there along the 52 corridor. On top of that I'd say too that you know those areas that are most developable for fifty two, like in the central Pasco employment village. It's those are all those are planned and ready to go. I think we recently passed the first MPU D on that. Um so Um I
I think that's would be my suggestion for fifty two is to m Keep it the way it is for now.
Yeah, the difficulty with fifty two is in terms of transit, I can't Speak for employment. The the Central Pascoal Employment Village was kind of visioned as sort of a suburban employment village, not necessarily Yeah. En I'm not sure we have the level of densities approved today. on fifty two that we need to support transit. I mean it just it He's right.
It's pretty vacant. I mean there's so now, along the I seventy five and the Sun Coast it's a different story 'cause we are planning some pretty significant we just approved Project Arthur which which Yep. you know, and connected cities off of the you know, the interstate. So on those corridors, yes, there's there's some fairly intense development plan where we likely could see some transit occur. But the segment of fifty two I think you're talking about is whether we like it or not, it is more of a rural Nature
today.
the the thrust of my comment is it's Those areas that We're trying to protect on fifty four. We also ought to take that same attitude to try to protect the other areas that are not critical at this point, but that are designated for employment. So whether you do that by changing the titling Of the standards or the map or whatever the case may be.
But I'm ninety percent sure of the intent of the county commission. is to protect those employment areas to make sure that Employment generating uses go in 'em
so let me rec make a recommendation to you. I Because I think What we're really talking about is Central Pascoal Employment Billage. I don't know of any other thing off of fifty two that Jump swap. You know that I remembered that is a plan there for employment.
You know, I seventy five is Considered. Um What used to be called the scenic corridor.
Right, but I'm suggesting
is not there.
But I'm suggesting but I'm suggesting that they that's why I started this conversation. Right, right, right.
Which will cover those two intersections. Okay. The the urban service area has little bulb outs at those intersections. I I don't have the map, but it's got like little It's more than just the actual intersection. It goes there there's a there's a significant amount of land around those inter interchanges. That's a part of the urban service area. Right. So In my opinion if you add Sun Coast and I seventy five to these protections You'll cover most of what you're talking about. which you won't cover is
Central Pascoal Employment Village, but as those as the MPDs come in for Central Pasco Employment Bills, we can just require they not have many storage within three hundred feet of the of their frontage. I mean you haven't we can just staff could just make sure that happens when those MPUDs come in. To most of them have not come in yet. We had one. We had one. And it was for an industrial light industrial use, so I don't think the many storage would even go there.
Um So how do we amend this to include, you know, these intersections and also the change that I I would prefer up on fifty four or forty one?
So you we need to make a motion well you probably need to make these motions one at a time because there's probably some things you all agree on and some things you don't. The I think you first should address whether you're gonna add Sun Coast and I seventy five, at least the portions that are in the urban service area. To the transit corridors.
Okay, so m um a motion to amend this.
Yes.
Are the the portions of I seventy five and the Sun Coast that are in the urban service area Through the transit corridors. Okay. I'll m I'll move that effect.
For clarification, is that just at the interchanges or is that everything along seventy five and Sun Coast?
It actually includes the urban service area is It's the whole It's the whole stretch. Hold corridor. But I I don't want you to think that like even the Sun Coast
Yeah the Sun Coast has got um We've we've approved Project Arthur on the east side of the Sun Coast. It's gonna have significant development and if we get the new interchange at Ridge Road, which I'm hoping will happen soon. there could be some pretty significant development occurring on the Sun Coast. You don't see it today. But what's planned is could be very intense. And then I seventy five was already approved for fairly intense development along it as well.
The only reason I asked that question is and I I don't know some of these areas well enough, but there's some what I would classify rural sections and that and I'm gonna throw one out and maybe it's not even there's no C two so it doesn't matter. But Shady Hills Road where it backs up to The Song Coast. I mean pretty far north in the county it All of a sudden they have a two hundred fifty foot setback is what I'm What's the setback?
Seventy five.
Seventy five foot foot setback. Um maybe it's not that big. Well to be
clear,
I I thought thought we we were were I was I was talking about
the two Sun Coast and seventy five themselves, not other roads off of them.
this whole blue area, okay, what I'm suggesting is that Those roads, the Sun Coast and I seventy five, have the same setbacks as fifty four fifty six.
Which is two fifty, isn't it? Yes. Right. So that becomes your rear setback on lots on Shady Hills Road, for example, that back up to seventy f to Sun Coast.
That's why I asked the question about interchange only.
You could stop it at fifty two. For residences, you mean
for we're talking about for storage.
We could stop it at fifty two if that's the concern. I I don't have a I mean that was my so just for
argument's sake, if if we did the urban service area. And if somebody wanted to do it on Shady Hills Road and I I agree with Jamie that's Probably not appropriate. Administratively can the staff allow it?
I'm sorry, Commissioner Cox, could you say that again?
Okay, so
you do an alternative standard for that project without a lot of undue It's a pain on the developer.
It's a variance. So reduction and a setback is
a variance.
So it would have to go through the process to to this board. Okay.
Yeah, it's the it's the facade design standards that are alternative standard. The the setback is a little different. So
Except as we've written that that setback on the transit corridors, the two fifty, if you're an active ground if you have an active ground floor use, fifty percent or greater of your ground floor use, you can reduce that setback. Okay.
Yeah, you can be um. Now let me ask it so i if we included the urban service area in the transit corridor. David with that
negatively affect Project Arthur.
No.
I I don't even know that Project Arthur is
I don't think it's uh Brad you need to help me out. I don't even think they have many storages of permitted use.
I don't know that we excluded it. Specifically? But I don't know that any is intended.
Well, I mean but that but that whole project well I mean it goes way
I can tell you that Project Excalibur, which was the primary driver of Arthur. Likely has no intention of ever doing that used. So um
But it's pretty n it's I mean it looks pretty skinny on this map, the
service
area.
And my understanding that the Arthur folks are mostly doing residential, so I I don't envision this as negatively affecting them.
Okay.
What about the area at uh Suncoast Parkway and the Hernando County Line? That's a interchange and would we envision anything there?
Well the only reason I stopped it is the urban service area is because their label is transit corridor. And we are not planning my understanding is the limits of where we're planning Premium transit facilities is up to fifty two. Okay. We're we're not planning it north of what you see here in the urban service area. Yeah.
And that portion is in the northeast rural um or north market area. North but the seventy five up there? No, it's actually
not Sun
Coast. Sun
Coast. Sun
Coast.
Sun Coast, not Sunday.
I mean I'm sorry, he said seventy five. Oh he was saying Sun Coast.
It might be or Sabrora. I'm gonna figure out which one is. I think that's the rural area. High. I'm not sure you're gonna be much demand from any storage north of fifty two, but even if there was, I I that It's hard for me in my opinion to call that a designated transit area. Yeah, yeah. It's not, it's I agree.
Yeah, I again I just wasn't sure if we were just trying to limit it to interchanges and the frontage roads with the interchanges.
I think would fall in that category versus some of these and again I don't know the east side of the county well. I mean, are there parcels along Old Pasco Road that back up to seventy five? Just a as another example, I I don't know. That's why I was asking the question.
I don't I don't know. I mean I could t I don't know when we created this map with these two fingers that you see there.
Mm-hmm.
I think the primary goal was to open them up for employment. That was part of the reason they were included in the urban service area. So I
I don't know how I mean we could draw the line somewhere else, I'm just not sure where else to draw it.
I think that's a logical way of doing it. So I'll I'll move that we amend the map to include the urban service areas into the transit corridor.
Yes.
Yes, yes.
Up to fifty two or this the boundary of the urban service area.
I I think you go to boundary of the urban service area because that's delineated.
I think the problem with fifty two is if you especially on the I seventy five pieces, there's a big chunk of vacant land north of fifty two. that you would lose if you stopped at a fifty two.
Okay.
Okay, so you want to take a vote on that motion first? Yes, I'll
second that.
Okay.
A second. Any further discussion? On the motion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Then an eye from it,
right. So then you the other one that I think you guys had some agreement on was changing the effective date. Two Um
The mobility fee.
So so it's building permits issued after
Yes, December
December twenty seventh of
Okay.
Is that the right-of-way? Can you get a motion for that change too?
I'll make a motion for that.
I'll
second it.
Okay,
any further discussion? All in favor? Nine. Post. Who
she cares? What um The other one was forty one. Forty one north of
North of fifty two to include it in the Redevelopment corridor.
So that setback would be what? Um that would go to what twenty-five feet?
Yeah. And that's in between f in fifty two between the Sun Coast and Forty one, correct? Two, Mike or no?
Well what would yes, what it would not be included in the urban service area. So the urban service area goes a little bit To the
Yeah, just
So it would be a little bit more than a little bit. fifty two to the urban service area.
So e east of forty one. Fifty two to the urban service area and then forty one north to the county line. uh to be included in the redevelopment corridor. That's unclear. Very clear.
Yep. How second?
Okay, we motion a second for the discussion on the motion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right.
Okay, th those are probably that's probably the end of the list of the consent. So then
yeah, so it so so then I guess I'll move for approval of the amended motion.
You have anything, Jamie?
Uh I'm sorry, I got one more just clarification thing. Um end of the ordinance eleven oh five P three. And I think this is just a typo unless I'm reading it wrong. Is that supposed to say occupies no less than fifty percent?
Occupies. Yes, thank you.
Thank you. So I'll ask Mr.
Dorothy because I don't wanna we did discuss the issue about the fee reduction for freestanding. I don't know if you want to make a motion on that or not.
Yeah. I'll make a motion but I'm not sure. My motion for approval is to approve the mobility fees with the freestanding boat and RV fee at zero for all categories. until the study's completed and they can come up with a calculated fee.
Motion
to approve.
Okay, we have a motion and I have a second. I'll second it. Any further discussion on that much? So
I d do want to be clear though that that means they'd have to advertise it as an increase if that happens. 'Cause it would start he'd be reducing it to zero.
And then they'll have to advertise an increase to the fee. I I mean they can do I'm legally they can do it. I just want to make sure You understand the ramifications of the
And the decrease would not require advertisement? Is that
decrease doesn't I mean so if he wants to reduce it now to zero. Um That can be done. But then when you go when the study's done
to
get it up to whatever the fee is
Which requires the ninety day thing.
Unless unless I misunderstand my my intent of this is to
Give some incentive to get a fee in that place by the time this is adopted. it let's say they come up with a fee between now and when it goes to the board. Can they put that number in that place for what the board adopts or does it have
to come back to us? If it happens before this gets adopted, Yeah. Change the zero to whatever the fee is. If it doesn't happen by the time this gets adopted and the s v zero stays in there Then they're gonna have to do a new ordinance with n ninety days notice because now you're increasing the fee from zero to whatever the fee is. So
I'm not sure what you're say I'm not sure what you're trying to do.
Well let me let me ask a question. Are you is it the intent to have those fees done by the time the board approves it?
Yes, that is the intent. Um there are calculations that still have to be um Done and then verified and th I mean that is our hope to do that um by the November nineteenth.
So if it's not done and the board adopts it, then what happens?
Um I believe that there is the option that they could place just the freestanding portion Um they could place it on hold. Is that the correct term, David? Or pull it out? um adopt the the increase to the self-storage facility um and place that freestanding component um on hold until we get the numbers.
Well th you can't really place an ordinance on hold.
That portion
you'd have to adopt the ordinance.
Mm-hmm.
And then bring back a separate ordinance to lower that fee. I think what Mr. Gerardi is suggesting is that the placeholder be zero.
Mm-hmm.
Until the until the fee is updated. I guess the question for Mr. Jordy is what happens if the
The trip counts are done. Somebody has to determine and approve the trip length. and plug the number into the the mobility fee formula. Now that I'm I'm sure I'm way oversimplifying it. But my concern is is it Somebody at the county needs to push and get this thing through in order to have a number in that place. So
Maybe so. Maybe your motion should be that this not be improved until the fee reduction for freestanding self storage facilities included in the ordinance.
You the reason your comments should be off guard is with the zero. I I don't know what your so 'Cause I think you're green is not zero. In reality it's not zero. Okay.
I agree.
So why wouldn't your motion just be to that the ordinance be amended to include the reduced fee for freestanding R B and boat storage. Then they'll have to figure out how to do that. Between now and the board meeting.
Democracy.
To extend even past the November nineteenth.
We can do that. I'll amend my motion. Got 'em to vote.
Do you understand the motion, Staff? Yes. So to
clarify that importantly
as I understand and correct me if I'm wrong. Um the motion is to not approve the ordinance until the Uh updated. fee for mobility fees is included for the s soft standalone soft storage facilities for RV and boat storage. Um what that would mean then is if we if we get it in time for the November nineteen, we put it in and then the ordinance can proceed if we if we don't get it by november nineteenth, then
we could continue out Until we do get it and then it can be approved.
Don't you still have like another month and a half on the moratorium that you could in theory extend it out? Potentially. If the board approves it, you you you if the board approves it, right. You had six months and you you've only extended it like two weeks so far, right? Just two weeks. So Your worst case scenario I mean, well that's the worst case scenario, but if for some reason it wasn't ready by November nineteenth, you still have another month or so on the moratorium that you could Extend that out until this is done, right?
Um I'd like to check that board hearing on December and how that falls. I mean, I'm not
Well you you it four months to s we have two months to play with, so you got about six weeks after
what I
think.
If that means you've got to extend your ordinance. However long it takes, it's so be it. I think that's what he's effectively saying. Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, that that's correct. I mean I I know.
Okay.
So I think if you just make your motion that this not be adopted until the Fee reduction for freestanding RV and boat storage is put into the ordinance.
The staff will have to figure out how to deal with that.
Correct, that's my motion. And I I mean just for clarification, there's all I mean everything in that table that has to do with freestanding boat and R V. I mean again, you don't do it per thousand square feet. I don't think that's anybody's intent, but that's what the the published tables show. So It's really populating that entire line of freestanding boat and RV.
Yeah, I think they know it all it all needs to change. They're all the only reason they have some hesitation is they're I think 'cause they're not sure if they can get it done by November nineteenth. But What I'm hearing you say in your motion is
Get it done.
Right,
correct. And that means you gotta d continue the ordinance, you gotta continue the ordinance. Is that what you're s basically saying?
Okay. So should that be An amendment or just part of the motion that approves the ordinance.
You c I'd probably make it a motion that approves the ordinance because i you can't really I don't say how you amend it to the
that you would approve the ordinance subject to them making that change.
Right. So
prior to
adoption.
Yeah,
so I think the current motion probably should
be withdrawn and
part of the I don't know if Mr. Gerardy's willing to make the motion that approves the rest of it. Are you I am not
so probably one of you needs to make that motion.
I'll take that into consideration.
What would so what uh the other amendment is this um
E three, adding the word no, right?
Right.
So that could be a m a motion to amend.
So I'll move that we Insert the word no in between Occupies and Less on
One one zero five point five E three.
So we have a motion.
I'll second, but just for the record, I think fifty percent is extremely high. I think there's Lots of examples around Tampa St. Pete where we're going to be able to do fifty percent occupancy of bottom floor storage for ancillary uses has not worked. And you have you have the you have projects built and you have vacant space everywhere. So, just for the record.
Okay, we do have a second. Second,
yeah, I second it, yes.
Have a motion second. Any further discussion of the motion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed.
I guess we have it, Mike. Okay.
Minority rules. I voted for you. Nobody voted nay, so I guess that's a Yeah, in absence of a nay, it's a unanimous vote. Um
So w we're back at the main order ordinance now, right? Yes. Okay.
So Uh hopefully I don't mess this up, but I'll move that we uh approve the amended ordinance Subject to the mobility fees being completed before final adoption.
the mobility fees for freestanding carbing and boat stores? That's exactly what
I meant. Mobility fee for freestanding RV and boat storage. So so Madam Clerk, I'll I'll m I'll move that we Uh approved the amended ordinance subject to the mobility fees for freestanding RV and boat storage Um
Be determined prior to final adoption.
Well I think what you probably want to say. Well I'm just 'cause I
don't
motion I'll I'll I'll I'll move it, okay?
Because technically staff determined them already, which is not one what he likes. Well determining the final. I'm
I guess I'm saying the the final.
Or you could say determine in accordance with the pending study. Is that it? Does that work?
That would be fine.
Okay. You got that motion?
I'm recording.
Okay.
Sort of.
Okay,
wait
a
second. I mean again just to add, I mean I'm I'm not opposed to the
The code section as proposed in general, I I s I am proposed in certain sections of the county. I mean that's that's why I'm I'm not gonna second it. Um to make this a blanket. development standard across the entire county I think is is way too restrictive on on certain sections of of of the county.
So you think it's a good thing. So from a parliamentary standpoint, if he if he doesn't second it.
Well the the Chair could pass the gavel to the vice chair and second the motion.
Yes,
you could.
And David, I'm not involved in this voting wise, right, right
place
he can if there's a tie if there's a tie yeah we we can't have a tie today. Not even wearing one.
Yeah, I have the same reservation as that uh Jamie has uh about the you know the the broad
the broad stroke of it, you know. Yeah. So so let me just throw this out there to to you gentlemen that um Mm-hmm.
If I if I read the tea leaves, I think the BCC is probably going to approve this. And Um
At least with us. Only it's only recommendationary to them, but at least with us taken position to recommending That they adopted Subject two I think it's better than us saying that we recommend that you don't adopt it because I think they're gonna do it Regardless of what we're doing. We recommend.
I think you're probably right about that.
not approve it. I I think I I mean D did the other motion fail for a second?
But so it sounds like the
chair is
not willing to second either, so you just
I make a motion that we approve. The Land Development Code the eleven oh five as proposed with the exception of making it applicable to all self storage facilities Within the three aforementioned corridors.
And not county wide. So we're not recommending denial for the thing. Recommending an approval of Mm-hmm. I just think it's too broad as proposed.
The uh as I recall the the BCC
When we were speaking to them at the workshop and then later in subsequent board meetings, they did comment on County wide regulation. Well
I I and I get that. I d I still I go back to building facades, paint color, landscape requirements, all that things that I'm sure they probably know all that's in here. I just want to make sure. And that that's why I'm making the mo I made the motion. to approve this for only the sections along the corridor. As earlier mentioned in the ordinance.
Just to get clarification, is the section is just the eleven oh five point five point B. Not the rest of the general um standards which include performance standards, parking, um The buffer, uh multi-use and ex and clarification of accessory uses, expansion, addition, and um the primary use of the freestanding recreational. Not the entire eleven oh five point five, but eleven point
five point five B
No, uh my motion is for eleven oh five point five to only apply to the corridors.
To e by the corridors, you mean the ones that are referenced above? Yes, that's correct. In the map,
but there are
map corridors.
There will have to be standards for those that like we have currently that are outside of the corridor, meaning performance, the accessory uses that are allowed, just basic setback and visual screening, all of that we have currently will also need to apply to the parcels that are not on the corridor.
I I understand. I mean you you have those now, you enforce those now. Under C one, C two. If you don't like them and if the board doesn't like them, my s I mean I I think they new standards need to be come up with. But I think these as proposed are too restrictive.
Okay. So I just wanted to clarify that with that entire section and not just the building.
It's really the same conversation that we had regarding the moratorium. I mean so this this body said that We shouldn't apply the moratorium to the whole county. And the County Commission said Yeah, we hear you, but we're doing it anyways.
No, actually they didn't. They applied the more term to fifty four fifty six corridor. Oh, okay.
I'm sorry.
But they at the same breath they said, but we want countywide design standards. They just Put a moratorium on the whole Okay.
But And and
I think Jamie's saying, well, you know, in effect we have countywide design standards because we have zoning ordinance.
Um we are we are striking those We are amending it and having it live in the 1105 section. So if you look at the amended sections in the code, the 525 C1, which is the only area that has those listed in the special exception com um piece, those are stricken. in order for this new section to happen.
Well I think that's a good thing. Hm. I think what Mr. Jardy is suggesting is that except for the corridors
No I
think his recommendation is that except for the corridors, the listed corridors, the the standards standards not change from what's in ex in the existing code. That's effectively what he's saying.
Yes. I I understand you.
There's an important implication though. If you eliminate the general design standards B through or excuse me, A through H. Or I. Um A lot of the incentives that are informing the court or the You know, section eleven oh five point four A, B, and C. are in these general design guidelines.
Yeah, but he's not suggesting that you not apply A, B, and C.
All this would apply just for the corridors.
He's not saying that you shouldn't apply A, B, and C. He's saying that A, B, and C should only apply in the listed corridors. Is that what you're saying?
The entire eleven oh five point five Should it remain to um be applicable for the corridors? and nowhere else. I think what he's
really suggesting is if you So let me just try to simplify this. If the beginning eleven point five point five said the following general design standards are required for all self storage facilities On the corridors listed above, or on transit scenic.
Correct.
That would effectively accomplish what he's saying. Yes.
No, I under yes, I understand.
That's what I think he's asking.
Yes.
That's right. So we really what you should do is amend again.
do another amendment to the ordinance to add that language.
Does that automatically then You go back and revert to the other sections of the ordinance that Alexander referred to where they struck all that other language.
Well
they'd have to
it would have repercussions. Land uh the nine oh seven. Yeah, they'd
have to eliminate anything they struck through that applies to existing because
we're trying to condense everything in the one section, not have different standards in different areas of the code. You're flipping through several sections to get the one answer.
And if I'm my memory serves me correctly, the the the old Code. was somewhat antiquated to Older type. Developing.
Format. Format and development. There's very few standards for the mini warehouse right now. It's just some visual screening and that's it.
That's
actually what's up on your screen. Thank you.
So they'd have to reinsert those old standards somewhere.
and the landscaping. Everything we pulled out, so it's one you know, one stop shop for eleven oh five. Is self-storage use, and with the exception of some details, this is all the information you need. And so If not, then you'll say okay, if I'm out on the corridor I have to go to section five twenty five and nine hundred for something else and then kind of
so let me ask you this. Yeah.
Just say Rowan Road, okay? So it just pops into my mind 'cause there's a a very old type storage facility that's on that road. Um So if if somebody came in and wanted to do self storage there
Based on what we have right now. Which standard would be applied to them. It's the one here on this sc screen. Today.
I'm sorry. So if this if this passes and this is put into law.
Which standard would you apply to them?
Just the eleven oh five point five section.
It's eleven oh five point five. So what's the setback for that?
The um The zoning district, which is twenty five.
Yeah, Mike, the setbacks and all that go back to the zoning code. It's it's the buildings and all the requirements for the building, the facade, the paint, the all your landscape requirements. Um
Well there are landscape requirements.
There's requirements anyways.
Well
I know, but it's it's a little bit more stringent.
Can you put that those requirements up again so Mike can see
those?
Is that a bad site?
Or or even the one at Trinity Corporate corporate Center. center. I I mean mean Yeah. And those are both built meeting the code that's in place currently. I mean they But they couldn't be built under what's proposed.
No, they could be. be, right? I don't
think they meet the big box land development. I mean the big box landscaping requirement. I do not believe they meet that.
No they don't
have to double check.
So all right, so These two instances, the one at on Trinity Corporate and at Starkeying Decubulus
Did they go over and above what our current code requires?
Yes. And oftentimes at preapps we suggest the eleven oh two be followed in order to improve Um their appearance.
But they wouldn't have to.
They wouldn't have to right now. That's not how it's been applied, yes.
So Did both of those facilities adhere to eleven oh two?
I would have to specifically look to see if you know the preapt notes and if that was taken it's it appears that certainly the Starkey Boulevard and the cupolas did in terms of um the dimensions um the wall plane change and how um the accessory use is behind the primary um building so it's not up on the front. And um so it appears I would have to confirm.
What I see on the screen, the current code, I think is just too lax.
The the thing to keep in mind too is that um the staff did look at what the market is building and they also did look at what alternative standards were being issued for these types of uses and fused those things into the proposed language here so that um this text would be able to handle uh without alternative standards in the future, be able to handle a project without having to do alternative standards in the future. Now There could be an opportun there could be an
instance in which an alternative standard may still be needed because no text is ever a hundred percent perfect. um we have that capability to do that and to use it. But this tax is has been designed to respond to what the marketplace has already been building in Pasco County and th to respond to what alternative standards have already been issued in order to accommodate those developments. uh to take place. Everywhere in the county.
Uh the two projects that we're discussing here.
they've sorta already adhered to What you're proposing.
Is that fair?
That that would be fair to say yes.
So then I I guess I'll just come back to the commission, then what would be wrong with approving this? If if if this encourages or requires
to be built what we have seen in those two subjected projects, then uh it seems to me like that we're going in the right direction with this ordinance.
Can I ask a secondary question that's somewhat related but here? D the standard you have for free standing RV and boat storage in here? Do those exist in the code today or or
No. We had nothing in the code today. Um that specifically um talked about freestanding.
So if you don't adopt if they don't adopt those then there's no standards at all for our freestanding.
Correct.
Staff enforces mini storage in
those
cases?
Right now it's kind of under the umbrella. That was the whole that whole um issue in the beginning of the moratorium. It's under the umbrella of the mini warehouse, but it's not um specifically defined anywhere in our L D C and no um different standards that would apply to them um in any way. So we we pulled
More stringent or less stringent than what staff's effectively doing today?
I the only um piece that we've added that you might say is more stringent is that because um the industry identifies four types of RV boat storage, that along this transit corridor, we said that those that are the open yards and one that just has the covered shed over it would not be allowed in the transit corridor. So that
Is that
No, we actually um allowed for fifty percent opaque fence instead of a hundred percent.
That's more lethal.
A hundred percent.
adopting at least that is the
The the freestanding RV and both storage actually may go back to more stringent Requirements is what you're telling me.
Yes. Yes. And then their visual appearance in terms of allowing for chain link fence to be viewed from um the corridor like, you know.
The historic problem is that R B and Bothworth just got lumped and Mr. Jarred just said it keeps getting lumped in with Mini storage. And So so staff is forced to apply those standards to freestanding and they don't always make sense. So That's why staff created separate standards for the freestanding RB and both sides. So it improves it in the ordinance. For R free standing RB and both storage it probably unless Mr. Jardy disagrees, it probably improves their scen their
In in my opinion, what needs to be done here is a s is a separate L O or eleven oh five point six needs to be added that covers development standards outside of The transit corridors. That are referenced earlier. I mean that I I guess I think that there needs to be standards for freestanding boat and Restorage, but I I think there's sections along the corridors
that should be more tightly regulated than other sections of the county. Personally.
Well
I meant Well It doesn't I'm not sure we're gonna solve this problem. Yeah. We've been at it a while and I I don't know
All I'm doing is voicing
my opinion. Is there a motion on the floor?
Well Well Mr Mr. Commissioner Cox did try to make a motion that it never got a second.
So I
I have
another question.
They change for the mobility fee for freestanding RBM boat storage.
where it says the following general design standards are required for all self-storage facilities. I believe you need to add or I'd like to make a motion to add within the aforementioned three Corridors as shown on the map.
So then we got into a discussion on Of Then what does it mean? storage look like outside of those corridors. And
And he was saying you need to add some specific design standards for those.
Yeah, because um
Separate
from what Well either separate or
If if we did that and There's areas of the county that would would fall under the old Standards. Or lack thereof. Um Could someone go out and build one of these single story facing the road that has, you know, thirty garage doors facing.
Yeah.
I I I I don't I think the county's moved past that that kind of stuff.
I think the market's moved past that.
I know, so if if it has, then adopting this proposed ordinance doesn't hurt the market.
But there's things that this includes that are additional requirements to projects you and other people that they've asked have all said they liked.
Well that's not the that's not the what I'm hearing. I what I'm hearing is is that the the two facilities that we like that have recently been built, so the one on uh the Trinity Corporate Park and the Cubulus and Starkey that those two projects were built to these standards that are in this ordinance.
By and large they were encouraged um in the eleven oh two. But again, unless Denise, you know otherwise, um I have to look at the pre app note specifically because that's not, you know, regularly required, right? So we're saying we suggest it because the size of the building um It would improve your development.
And they and they voluntarily. And they would voluntarily apply. Yes.
Oh.
No, Jamie Jamie just said my my comment.
That's correct. The Starkey project, for example, was approved in 2010. Granted it's been substant it's been non-substantially modified since then, but those standards were never brought up.
So staff has not historically applied big box to No, but Right. Well let me ask Mr. Jardy if the solution Would you object to them just applying big box two? too. If they wiped out the rest of that stuff and just said well big box will now apply to mini storage.
Would that cause you heartburn?
Across the entire county? Yeah. It doesn't in the transit corridor.
So so all I n all I can say is this. If if this ordinance would require Storage. to be built like Our two examples, the Trinity Corporate and the Starking to Cubulus project. If this ordinance would require them to do that, then I think that's the way it should be done. Across the county. And I I I'm pretty confident the county commission is gonna agree with that.
And And I'm completely fine with that. I apologize for hijacking a hour of everybody's time, but I I I mean I just I feel uh strongly that I I don't think the big box ordinance applies at certain sections of the county.
Okay.
This just clarifies, right? The twenty five thousand square foot development that is um recognized as a retail commercial use by the mobility fee. follows the eleven oh two standards that we have. Because there there's been that confusion, well it's only self-storage, they don't really sell anything, is it really retail? But in the mobility fee, it's clearly identified as a retail use commercial. And then their buildings are of twenty-five thousand or greater square feet. On average they're
ninety thousand square feet. Substantial buildings.
Let me make a suggestion in the interest of time. Doesn't sound like you guys are gonna get a consensus on the the The bulk of the ordinance. So you could just make a motion to send it the the rest other than the changes you already recommended to send it to the board with no recommendation.
Other than if they adopt it. Other than if they adopt it, they include the reduction for the freestanding RB and boat storage. I mean you could do that.
We couldn't agree. So we'll send it with no we'll send it with no recommendation on the rest of the ordinance other than Adding the mobility fee reduction for freestanding RBMB.
And
all the prior
amendments that you already so we passed all these prior amendments and then you just sent it with no recommendations. Well I don't think that makes a lot of sense.
Well we could just keep making motions to fail. I w would you guys keep I'll be willing to stay here as long as you want to.
But make
a mo I mean is that a motion request?
Yeah, yeah, you can you can make a motion that you send it to the But
before that, David I'm sorry. I I don't have recorded that we did have a motion to approve subject To the numbers of the mobility fee. I don't have that as a a vote yet. Okay.
So it because it died for lack of a second. M that was Mr. Commissioner Cox's motion to approve it as is. With the Reduction included for the freestanding RV and boat storage.
Okay, that was
too much. But he never got a second to that motion.
I'm not sure Mr. Darty ever made a motion, but I if he did, I don't know if it's not a good idea.
So we're We're kinda stuck.
That's fine. And
that's where you just So I s my suggestion in the interest of time was to just have them make a motion to send it to the board. With no recommendations other than the ones they previously made. Mm-hmm.
Got it.
And if the board adopts it That they include the reduction for the freestanding RV in both stores. That's
Prior to adoption.
Prior to adoption.
And the big difference is Wanting to apply it countywide or just to the corridors. I mean that's the difference. That's what is the difference of opinion right here.
Sure. And and again I go back to the big box ordinance. And and I I know Alexander you've made you made the statement that it is big box retail. I I haven't heard that interpretation and I don't know who makes that interpretation in the county. But I mean maybe that clarifies the issue, but I I've I've done numerous Hundred thousand square foot self-storage projects that have not been applied and then in the big box sti all the big box requirements have never come up for storage.
And yeah.
Because the argument is it's not a it's not a retail it's not a Walmart. Is that what the argument is?
Yeah. Yes, historically we've looked at the actual trip generation of it. as being significantly different from something like a Walmart or a Samsung, um where you have a large number of people coming in during the course of the day, in and out, in and out, in and out. It's very intense use. Uh so we did not interpret that the same way. Uh so historically we did not apply 1102. That was the direction that
we were given.
The problem with
Big Box is it's kind of a blunt instrument. It deals deals with more than just how the building looks, it deals with like Safe storage for pedestrians and things like that. So it's it doesn't lend itself well to a mini storage use. I think that's why staff tried to pull out the relevant
parts of it and put it in correct.
Applying only to storage. Right, right. And
that makes sense. Not all the other components of eleven oh two.
Yeah, that makes sense to me that that you're doing it that way. And making it uniform across the county makes sense to me. I mean But Al also I don't apply these things either. So I mean that's probably where it's not making sense to you. I
don't know. And Brad explained the historical uh interpretation that has been the case. But we've also identified that Big the mini warehouse uh sector is organized under the retail category of the mobility fee ordinance. So there's been a discrepancy in the past and I think what we've been leaning toward now is w what's written here in the proposed ordinance. which is that you should consider Yeah. similarly in design to uh the retail activities
because It is a dormant use. And it can take up significant frontages of our commercial areas, which tend to be flagship areas in tur in terms of the identif identification of Pasco County. So our C two land uses and our C one land uses in those types of commercial districts are very important to the image of the county. when a mini warehouse facility plops itself into one of those districts, what you're introducing is a is a dormant use that provides no jobs, no economic benefits, and
quite possibly a street level uh I don't want to use a strong term, but street level killing uh capability. So um in that sense then in the with the direction of this proposal We've been thinking about that and we're not going to be able to uh looking to consider it as part of uh the retail uh building stock that exists within a within a community consistent with the mobility fee ordinance.
So I can't make motions, but that was my recommendation that you do.
I'll make the motion that David just as David just stated.
So to repeat it's that This go that the other than the recommendations previously made. that the re bulk of the remainder of the ordinance comes to the board with no recommendation from the Planning Commission. Other than if the board adopts it it include the Reduction for Freestanding R B and boat storage, that's the subject of the pending study.
And Do you want to include in the motion that the reason you couldn't reach consensus could not reach consensus is because of the geographical applicability of the ordinance?
Yes. I think that's important.
You okay with that?
Mm-hmm. Yes. I think that was a second. Yes, I'll I'll reluctantly second
it. All right. Any further discussion? All in favor? Uh. Opposed?
Uh again, Terry and Alexander, I know you guys have put a lot of work in here and there's a there's a lot of good stuff. Don don't misunderstand my lack of support.
It's great to have discussions. I mean it's good. Very
good. Well in many ways this discussion wasn't far better than the one the board had, so don't tell them I said that.