Clinton Town Homes CPAS 2218 res nine amendment
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.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jan 19, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jan 19, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 36m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 66% of 186 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, Doreen Roy, Planning and Development. Item P C six or P six.
P six.
It's like working.
It's Clinton Town Homes, C P A S two Two Eighteen, Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PD D twenty three zero zero eight nine.
Site location property is located in the East Market area.
Proposal to amend future land use flu maps two-fifteen and Shi 15 from Res six and Res 9 to Res 9, approximately a quarter of a mile west of US Highway 301. on Clinton Avenue. A resolution is to amend future land use flu maps two-fifteen and sheet fifteen from res six residential and
res nine residential to res nine.
The following policies are consistent with the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Policy flu 1.4.3, transitional land uses, and policy flu eight point one point four, East Market establishment.
Approximately a quarter mile west of US three oh one on Clinton.
The existing future land use is res six and res nine.
And you can see it clearly marked there. Um you might not be s be able to see it clearly with the coloring and the hash marking, but I specifically put the res nine and res six so you can see the parcels. It consists of two parcels.
Let's go back. And the proposed future land use is res nine for both parcels.
Zoning is MF2. On both parcels.
Staff's recommendation to the local planning agency to find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Are there any questions for staff?
Any questions?
Mr.
Mr. Chairman uh Dorian, I I have an update um on page five of six of the agenda memo. This was originally requested of us um Uh I think we'd start about a year and a half ago. So it was before we changed um some elementary boundaries on that side. So in the agenda memo it says um that Centennial Elementary will serve this uh location that is no longer the case. Um
it is now Pasco Elementary. And Pasco elementary would the middle school and the high school does not change. So it'd be Pasco elementary, the school capacity there is seven hundred and fifteen. Uh the 2022-23 current ADM is 537, so it's at 75% of capacity. And so the enrollment with this proposed development would be 550, bringing it to 77%.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Dor Doreen, while you're there, is it still standard? I notice we keep getting these things and there keeps being no comment from fire, from emergency, from sheriff, from any of those are are any of those departments reviewing this these submittals or these requests?
We are sending them and uh I do reach out. So when when we do have something like this come forward, we do it it is sent to them to be able to do that. review and I constantly have to uh send out an email to make sure that we get in comments and sometimes they just email back no comments.
Okay, but the Sheriff's Office did respond back, no comment. It wasn't that you didn't hear from the
Correct. Okay. Yes, they do respond. Very good.
Okay.
Thank you.
Fire department, uh I usually never g hear from them.
I if I may, I think many months ago, almost twelve, the subject came up and I think it's unfair to the public as a whole that these two departments, which are extremely critical to safety, Of the c of any county, uh, do not respond other than in a negative fashion. And the fire department's not even doing that, it sounds like. I I think There should be some pressure applied
s that they either indicate that yes, we have reviewed this. And we do not concur, or we concur, or we have comments. I think there needs to be a positive response rather than no response. And that's just a
Or and sometimes they do say new c no no comments.
So um I'm just gonna play devil's advocate with you a little bit. Um Part of the problem staff was having and was more on the M P D side than the Complan side is that they were waiting on comments from some of these departments and it was actually Slowing down the entire process and we Applicants were put in limbo for months and months because staff was waiting on comments from affected agencies and not getting any. So The problem with saying that they have
to provide comments is It has the potential of slowing down an otherwise meritorious application for months and months
doesn't want to focus on it. So
Mr. Pitos isn't here, but he actually created a new processing, at least for M P Ds. I'm not sure if it applies on plan amendments or not. That He designated certain agencies that for which we had to have comments. and then other agencies that were they were more optional. They still get the applications And they're free to comment, but they're Staff is not gonna hold up the applications waiting on their comments. That's the issue.
And that's correct, yeah. We we try to keep it flowing, keep it moving, and um like I said, I often have to reach out several emails to get a response.
So at some point it becomes a fairness to the applicant issue. I understand that.
And and we do not want to slow that process down because it's not fair to the applicant, but
having come from that field, I I still think that and in some counties that I've lived in in the past, especially in southern counties or southern states, there was that process in place and there was some there's always some positive feedback, especially in the Fer Sheriff's Department or law enforcement, because they have to
count or determine how many officers they would need down the road to hire. per thousand population, depending on whatever county it is. I d I don't want to belabor the point, but I just I just feel like
No, you are correct and I agree fully. Um you know it's future projections.
Part of the issue in my opinion is that I'm not sure that those two groups, fire rescue and the sheriff's office And staff can tell me if I'm wrong.
people to just reviewing applications and plans. So for example Transportation we have a whole team of people that review all
Parks has dedicated staff to reviewing plans. Uh Natural Resources has dedicated staff to reviewing plans. I don't know When Brad or Denise you tell me if I'm wrong. I don't know if fire rescue and the sheriff's office Well the school board obviously does because Chris is paying attention to everyone that comes through. So I just don't know if fire rescue and sheriff's office have that same level of staff involvement.
So so Brad Tipp and planning and development. Uh the answer to that is uh yes and no. For the for the fire uh fire rescue, they have Uh the fire marshal has uh people on his team that are dedicated to reviews of both site plans, uh building permits, and also make comments on these. Uh just to to clarify on this one in particular in the system, it does show uh that the fire marshal's office did make a comment specifically of no comments on this particular project. So they
did respond. on this one. This wasn't one where we we cleared it off.
The difference with the Sheriff's Office, that's a little bit of a different thing. We tend to get a kind of a standard generic comment back from them about the the ranking of Florida. uh and the sheriff sheriff officers per capita in the county, uh but there's no real constructive feedback on uh the sheriff's needs or anything specific to the projects uh when they do respond so far. So uh but I to my understanding I believe they only have one person that's looking at those plans. And they do get at at the
board's request and the sheriff's office request a while back, they get all of the plans. They they are uh said everything that we do, site plans, they're sent MPUDs, they're sent comp plan amendments. Uh so they've got one person that's likely overwhelmed with information there.
Brad, what what's the timing? So David mentioned that there's a process that Terry's come up with for timing. What's the timing allowed for them to respond? Um and is that consistent for you know if you're looking at Euclidean or is is it just related to MPUDs where they have a time limit to respond?
Yeah, they are there are different timelines associated with the Comp Plan amendments and they they function a little bit differently. Some of them are a little bit more of a back and forth process, some of them are a more structured process. When you get down to the site plan review, there's kind of that back and forth comment process. So the timelines are a little bit different for each case. Uh But generally Uh the timeline Ford MPD comment coming back from them would roughly be forty-five days. Okay for the comp plan. I'm not sure exactly where that would be as far as uh uh what
that was designated at. I know that's that's a different department for me, so Terry was working on that one. I agree that uh you know David was discussing the memo that that Terry had put out uh regarding MPUDs and and kind of creating two different categories, kind of like the must-have response from category and then the respond if you do, but if they don't respond then we move forward. Um my understanding is fire is is on the respond category, but uh I don't know that the sheriff's office is. Thank
you.
So since we're speaking hypotheticals, is there anything and this might be a question for you, David Is there anything that the BOCC uh can do to compel these uh obviously firefalls under county? Um Sheriff's a separate constitutional, but is there anything that the BOCC can do or or us uh that we can do to compel these agencies to respond with some sort of a positive comment, either You know, we we think it will affect us and we have a plan for that. We think it will affect us, we don't have a plan, or we don't think it'll affect us.
So the county administrator so the fire rescue hall reports to the county administrator and the assistant county administrator for public safety, they can both compel that department to respond to applications. You are correct though that the sheriff is an independent constitutional officer in Generally the board has no authority to compel the sheriff to Respond to applications. Now We also don't have authority to compel the school
board to do it either. But they just do. Um because they they recognize the value of being able to participate in the planning process. At one point I thought the sheriff would anticip recognized that value too, because at one point he asked for a seat on the Planning Commission. Um and I think Stop's solution was that they would just involve them more in the pre app and application process
I can't s I can't answer the question about why they're not more actively involved. I'll All I can tell you is we have a good model of the right-of-way. even for the not under the county administrator or the school board. actively participates and probably gets certain developer concessions that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten had they not participated in the process.
I can't comment as to why The sheriff was not doing that.
I think the comment of no comments is much more helpful than No comment. Then then not commenting. At least then you know that they've seen the application, they know something's coming. That that was I mean that's But
I mean I can
give you
probably the most extr I mean there's there's some kind of fairly extreme examples, which is Even when we're planning very large scale Like villages of Pasco Hills or connected city or Angela, very large areas of the county that probably are gonna have public safety needs. even in those projects we weren't getting a lot of feedback from public safety So for example villages of Pasadena Hills has Sites allocated for parks, sites allocated for schools.
To the best of my knowledge, there's no specific sites allocated for Fire stations or Share substations. Um Probably the same thing with Lan Angeline. I I mean So It is a problem. Yeah, I'm I've raised this concern in the past, but I don't have a solution.
Yeah, public safety s appears to be a little bit more reactive as opposed to proactive. And we know these projects are coming down the line and there's no reason, you know, fire stations aren't built in a day and deputies aren't hired in a day either.
No, I with with fire I do occasionally see MPDs where fire rescue has requested a a fire station site that so I wouldn't say that they never request one. Um But I'm not sure that their advanced level of planning is as sophisticated as the school board or transportation or parks. It's To your point.
Well that'd be my concern too, David, with with like s say villages of Basidiana Hills. I mean some of those M P U D's are coming in now. And they're gonna need, I would think. They would need some fire stations and And that needs to be planned. Yes. It needs to be planned and and it's time now for them to be in that process.
At at the advanced level of development that's going on in this county, that's something that needs to be I you know, we could get away with being more reactive when there wasn't a whole lot of growth going on, but there's a lot of growth going on.
I mean if it's important enough to the Planning Commission, we can get staff to request that a representative from the Sheriff's Office and Fire Rescue attend a future planning commission meeting and kind of explain their thoughts When applications come forward and why they either are or are not generating comments. I mean That's the only thing I could suggest that you do, right? 'Cause I'd I'd make that motion.
Yeah, I would I would concur with that. It it it's just not the planning stages, it's the growth, especially with the apartment complexes that are coming in. You know, I think that's a good idea. Some twenty plus years ago when I moved here. I could drive from Wesley Chapel to Newport Ritchie in a reasonable period of time and there was a lot of open space. Today there there is a tremendous growth and it's predominantly in population growth with the apartment complexes. And those house uh A number of
people. you think would require and do require law enforcement, but more important is fire department. And in my area that I've seen, the three or four fire stations have not grown in equipment nor in size. Or would indicate manpower shortages too. So You know, those need to be addressed. They're important. And if
you're gonna have higher Multi story buildings, so they d they're gonna need additional equipment, I would assume. I assume they're planning for that, but I don't know that.
So this is uh Brad again, yeah they uh they have been participating uh in that manner. Um They don't necessarily have comments. Like David did mention that, you know, the M P U D's where they know there's an area where they're gonna need a station for response time, there's usually a condition of approval that says, you know, we're gonna we're gonna get one by such and such time within here and we'll work out exactly where and how big. So there's there's there's some of that that happens. Um And and we do have participation uh from
the fire marshal's office quite a bit in in looking at you know where some of those are going. Uh but they seem to be uh reacting somewhat to when things come on the ground when we have actual site planning that shows that there's gonna be this many units in this area or this much density over here, not so much to the f the the future land use or the zoning because those don't always reflect what happens on the ground in the end. So they they kind of have a general planning um and they often don't. respond until the site plan
stages as to whether, you know, what they need to do in certain scenarios. Um makes it difficult because we usually in the M PUD stage is where you where you actually get some land uh to do some things if you need to do them. But uh they I I think they have uh more so than than in the last year or so there's There's a few that that have they have specifically requested locations in certain areas and we've made sure that those are a part of the MPUD.
Yeah, I'd say that's the issue because it takes time to be able to purchase assets and to hire staff and to you know in the case of fire rescue to to buy new fire trucks and ambulances and and it has that has to be budgeted well in advance. So You know, that's that could be a couple year process right there. So that the earlier in the planning process that this gets addressed. With some um I g I guess with some uh substance, uh, the better.
Potential issue is that the We do have concurrency which so for things like parks Water, sewer, um Those types of facilities. Schools. There's a there's actually somebody that has to sign off and say, Well yes we have capacity, yes they've passed concurrency We don't have that for fire rescue in the sheriff It is an option. I mean you you local governments can have concurrency for other public facilities like fire
rescue and
have that in our comp plan or Land Development Code. So
You wanted staff to pursue, that's something that The Penny Commission or the Board would have to direct staff to Mr. implementing some concurrency type review for fire rescue Hand over the sheriff's office. But it doesn't currently exist in The advantage of that system is that there's actually somebody that has to sign off and say, Yes, we have capacity to serve This new development. That's Right now fire rescue and sheriff's office don't have to do that. They
can just say no comment. They don't have to make the affirmative step of saying, Yeah, I have capacity to serve their issue.
Huh? That's that's not a bad idea in some ways, 'cause that that's at least you're getting a either an affirmative answer to something. Yeah, we concur that we do have sufficient uh staff and support service to provide this community and you know, we find out eventually that in fact they don't. You know.
Well to Dorian's comment, I know that the Sheriff's Office typically has a their typical comment that comes back down their their reviews. So until their point having that sort of teeth in the process and then to actually have to progressively plan. and and you know advance that discussion. You know, if they if they have uh actual concurrency and they have to review these plans they have to give their their concurrency to the developments, that gives teeth to what they're asking for is for is hiring additional officers and putting in additional substations and and the like. So
And just to clarify, uh I did just also confirm that the Sheriff's Office also replied with a specific comment that they had no comments. Okay. So both FIRE and the Sheriff's Office on this one said they had no comments.
That's the problem is the no comment is a neutral response. It's not a yes we do, no we don't. We have a plan if we don't or we don't have a plan if we don't.
Well, I I'll
play devil's advocate. I mean I I look at that comment as is is they don't see any issues out there. So I mean at least then they're giving you some kind of concurrence that they've looked at it. Right. I I understand your point.
Yeah, they have a chance to say that there is an issue. Sure. Or there's no comment. And that's that's sort of the way I would look at it. But you know. I think sometimes in my experience the most difficult thing is just to get a comment. Because I know. There's some pretty simple applications that, you know, have sat on the shelf for weeks and weeks. Just on simple remodeling jobs and things like that. You're waiting for the fire marshal to respond. And nothing, you know, so
What do you do? You have to find somebody to try to intervene. That that shouldn't happen. There should be some kind of time limit.
Mm-hmm.
You know, they have to respond in because I I even know a guy that s was Trying to open a small takeout pizza place. It took him over a year and a half to get his permits. I mean that's ridiculous. For the fire marshal. That's that's crazy. So if we don't we ne they need to have some kind of uh
You know, something to motivate them to respond within a certain period of time. And they can't keep changing it every time you turn around. You know, it's just that that gets old after a while. That's not fair. to these people that are
trying to do business. Well there's Okay. There's deadlines on the rest of the process. If we require cons concurrency, why couldn't we require a deadline on that as well? I mean, yeah. I guess it's up to them to respond within that deadline, but Yeah.
Yeah if they don't respond then it's It's a no response.
The application really can't move forward until there's been some Affirmative sign off by The affected agency. So
I guess I'm not talking about concurrency as much as I am just a simple
Building permit. Yeah.
So I mean it sounds like it's an important enough discussion to kinda have those you know, have fire come here for a meeting and kinda discuss our process or So like I Brad, did you say that Sheriff has somebody that's dedicated or I I thought they did have somebody that's
Sheriff Sheriff's Office does have uh an individual that's dedicated. I think uh there's that individual in the backup or someone that that assists. I'm not sure exactly how the structure is over there, but there is somebody that that does that there. Uh fire marshal has several people on the team that that helps do that review. Uh just also confirmed that they are both on the MPUDs. They're both optional reviewers. So if they don't give us feedback within the time limit, we move on. That's based on the MPUD. And it looks like that's gonna be uh
Okay. It seems like that's that's kind of gonna be what it's gonna be for the uh the comp plan amendments as well. Um and I see that there isn't uh There's a meeting that is in the process of being scheduled to discuss all of that with them. Uh in in terms at least of the comprehensive plan amendments.
I know the feedback we're hearing from the the citizens or you know, the increased l lengths of time for time of um call responses to calls for service and that may or may not be related to planning, but um it would be nice to at least you know, know that that's not related to planning, so it's something that we should at least speak to them more about.
I don't know if you would need a a motion that we propose a meeting with um a rep from the fire marshal and from the sheriff's office.
Well I don't th I don't personally I don't think it'd be a bad idea to have a representative from each attend and at least get you know, some feeling of The The importance of the issue. And the importance of responding in a timely manner.
Yeah, I concur with that. I think the ten minutes that we have spent on the subject matter, I think there are some ears out that are listening and that it will get to the correct source. I I think uh Chris Narkel does a good job with his agency and I think the fire department does a good job too. I just concerned about as growth Growth goes two ways. It goes both for those two agencies and the building within the community and I certainly do not want to slow anything down. That's my personal
feeling and I hope it's our feeling as a as a board here that the progress needs to move forward as quickly as possible all these subjects that come before us. So but I think fire safety and police sheriff are very important. And that's the end of my remarks. Thank you. Thank you, Peter.
Well so did you do you have a mo was was your motion to have a workshop on this or not? I I don't know if you got a second to your motion or not, but Yeah, I'd I'd make that motion to have a
workshop
on it.
So we have a motion on the floor or do we have a second? Second. Have a second. Any further discussion on the motion?
Can can I ask what exactly the workshop would be? Normally a workshop is us presenting information. Um do you want them to simply appear to have a discussion or do you want some them to prepare Some sort of a presentation as to what they do and how they do it when they review this.
Maybe discussion might be better, so I can amend my motion if that's Okay. So we have
a
motion.
Yeah, I only called it a workshop because it's not an action item. It's a good idea. Or a public hearing item. It's it's Workshops are discussions basically. It's the same thing. He was just asking for expectations.
do a presentation for the workshop and it sounds like the answer is no. Yes, that is right. It's correct.
Okay.
So uh all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye aye opposed, like, sign?
Oh.
Okay. Record one nope.
All right.
I think we're still in the middle of a case. Yeah, sorry for the detour Doreen.
Yes. And I didn't mean to bog down the
easy thing.
Shilly's turf. Yeah, you started all this. Yeah. Sorry about that Shelley. Are you coming up?
Thank you. Shelley Johnson, [address removed], and I have been sworn. Um I'll here to answer any questions, but we're obviously in agreement with staff's recommendation on this one, so
I I guess Shelley, while you're up there, can can you kind of walk me through how we got where we are? I mean how did a plan come in for more units and then all of a sudden a big hole get left in the front of the development to where We're almost back in the same case of Here we built the house, we didn't meet the setbacks. What are you gonna do to make us tear it down? Kind of situation.
No, I don't I to be honest with you, I wasn't involved when the construction plans were approved. I know Patrick has a lot more detail. He's here to today too. If you want to answer any questions, if he he can answer some more questions, but my understanding is the construction plan approval for 125 units was within the existing land use and zoning. but it could not be blended across the site. So they had because it's a Euclidean, so they had to do the comp plan amendment. So they got to actually construction plan approval and long-range planning told them go back and do a comp plan amendment. So that's what they had to do in order to do the res six to the res nine so
they can blend those densities. But the project under construction. The project is not under construction. They got us they they were stopped until they came through the process with this complaint amendment.
How are they stopped? They have an approval.
They were stopped. So they have not done anything. So um I m I know he has a little bit more information about it, Patrick, but yeah, they were told that they could not move forward even with that approval unless they did this complaint amendment. So then they went back and started that process, I believe last April.
Okay, and then my my next question is Not something I normally see when I look at a developer's plan because there's a big parcel that's included in this land use amendment that they're not touching. Is there some reason they're not doing anything with that six acres on the north northeast corner of their development? But lumping it in to to gain the entitlements?
And to be honest with you, I don't I don't know. I mean th if they they whatever they're including for the res six and res nine is what
it was a perpetual drainage easement. Oh okay. Um
yeah. He's probably
For that North Party. Sorry, as
so if I may just give you a little bit on the timeline. Um so yes, so they submitted their residential subdivision. Um uh actually it was a resubmittal back in April of twenty tw twenty-two. And in May Um Long range planning told them about the uh the amendment because uh according to section flu A-3.2 it
interprets the flu boundary as a fixed boundary. So therefore they could not mix or blend the two uh res six and res nine together uh They needed to do an amendment to make uh make it all unified for the density.
The the question is how did the site plan get approved? And then after the fact they're told to stop.
Right. And they got an approval for 125 units, and Mr. Dutter uh for current current planning can explain that.
He's privy to the details.
Okay. Some of the details. Uh Patrick Dutter, planning and development. Um yeah, that answer is is basically correct. I said
where are you sworn? I didn't think you stood up.
Um
staff usually doesn't swear into the why not.
I I I can do it if you want, but Staff
swears all the time.
After
the hang up. If
they're not telling
the truth, we're
gonna get fired.
That's why. Okay, that's good enough. Yeah, so um we had a pre application meeting. Um application came in. It was noticed when the application came in for the entirety of it that they were essentially trying to blend densities, which you can't do if it's not an MPUD because it's Euclidean. So we said we can't approve it like this. They said they want to essentially continue to move forward, but take off a portion of their development. So they still meet the density restrictions
on either side. And so they have an approval. They could theoretically start construction because they are underneath the density caps for either side. Now they're trying to come in to to essentially make the entire project res nine. So the res 9 will then encompass the entire project. Therefore, there is no more blending of any densities. It's all res density.
Was there a site plan that was approved which blended the densities?
No.
No.
There was a site plan that was approved that had a res 9 section on it and a res six portion on it.
So it wasn't a mistake in Site plan approval.
No, we were aware during the review and we would not have approved during the review we caught it and we we recognized it and this is kind of how we were we're essentially gonna move forward is okay we can approve it because they are separate um densities but for them again to get the number of units that they want they have to now come in to do a
I understand. I think it was just confusing and I think Jamie and I are both confused the same thing. When I read the initi the staff report initially, my initial thought was oh they issued a site plan by mistake, but now you're telling me that's not the case.
That is correct. That is not the case.
Well that's pretty good when they can confuse both of you guys.
And just to clarify, I and I do see the reference and I missed it before, there is a perpetual drainage easement, so there is not a chance that the remaining entitlements once this whole thing's res nine will be sold off to somebody else.
which if they're res nine they technically I think by the comp plan they'd be entitled to a hundred and ninety five or a hundred and ninety six. So I just But if there's a perpetual drainage easement on the northern piece, there's the chances of somebody coming in to develop that in the future don't exist. So I just wanted to confirm that that's
All right, Patrick. Thank you. Is is that still two legal separate parcels?
Uh currently so they'll need to do unity of title to essentially use that density.
Okay.
Okay.
All right. Mr. Neese, what's next?
I think you Is
there any
other question? Don't you need a motion for this one?
Yeah, we do, but I'm just asking if you have anything else.
No, that's it.
Nobody on WebEx or anything like that.
Uh we have no one that signed up for this item on WebEx.
Okay, good. So uh any further discussion? Questions?
Did you ask? If not I'm sorry, did you ask for public comment?
I think I did. Did I not? Yeah. Is there a public comment?
I guess there's not.
Well, I
just
wanna make sure.
There are a lot of people in the audience.
Yeah, mostly it's staff people. There's a couple of people who just like to watch our proceedings.
Last meeting we would have to do. Give this man some satisfaction. At our last meeting we didn't have to beg for comments. Yeah. No.
This is true. That is for so true. Okay. So if there's no further uh comments, then I'd be open for a motion.
Sorry, go ahead. Second, because I've denied both of Shelley's last two projects. So I want to make sure she gets this one.
I know. Yeah, she wrote that down too.
Okay, so we have a motion to second any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed. Motion carries. Hey Shelley. All right. It's a win. Yeah.