PDD 190944 temporary moratorium on mini warehouse and self-storage applications
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, May 23, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 26m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 75% of 118 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, Commissioners. Alexandra Laporte with Planning and Development. You will be acting as a local planning agency for this portion. It is PDD 190944, the temporary moratorium ordinance, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners establishing a temporary. Temporary 180-day moratorium on the submission and acceptance of applications not previously
submitted through the pre-application process prior to the May 7, 2019 Pasco County Commission agenda online posting of the introduction of this proposed ordinance for plan development, comprehensive plan amendments, rezoning, preliminary site plan. and preliminary development plans where the use of land for new mini warehouse and self-storage facilities is specifically identified in the application.
The background is that there is a need to resort research and develop standards within the LDC pursuant to comprehensive policies that support design standards to preserve and enhance the visual and functional characteristics of certain locations along major commercial corridors. There's also a need for Planning and Development Department to research best practices for the development of. many warehouse and self-storage facilities within Pasco County. And there is a need for Planning and Development Department to
analyze whether or not additional standards relating to these uses should be incorporated into the LDC. There have been similar ordinances adopted by Tamarack Florida, Miami, Florida, and Collier, Florida in the past couple of years for the same purposes, as well as other municipalities around the country. So this imposes a temporary prohibition on the submission. It exempts special exceptions, MPUDs, and plan development, comprehensive
plan amendments approved prior to the effective date of this moratorium, whose sole purpose was for the development of such use. And we would have designed standards in the ordinance forthcoming at the end of the six-month moratorium. So the recommendation is to find the proposed ordinance consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, and we recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. The first reading being June 4th, 2019,
in Dade City at 1.30 PM. And for the BCC adoption second reading June 19th, 2019, 130 in um Newport, Ritchie.
All right. Any questions from up here?
I have several questions on this one. I guess first just a little background for me. I mean I know it says it's commission and Yeah, commission wanted us or asked for this, but I mean what's the purpose of this?
The purpose is to
do away with self-storage?
No, it's not to do away with self-storage uses, is to better um understand their impact on our corridors. So both from a visual aspect, but also in order to maintain economic viability on those corridors for higher generating employment businesses. Depending on your location in various corridors across the county, the standards would reflect that, whether um it would be push back
from any given corridor or limit, you know the distances between such uses. We're still in the phase of researching um what other municipalities have done across the country to better understand what would be applicable in Pasco.
I mean w wouldn't another way to do that would be to limit it in certain corridors where you're concerned with it. I mean this just puts a blanket moratorium on a hundred percent of self storage in Pasco County.
Just for this submissions while we're researching and developing the design standards um to go along.
Well I I mean I hear that and I understand what you're saying, but I know this is only one hundred and eighty days, but I mean what's to say that can't be extended down the road? I mean, is this like a blanket hundred and eighty days is it?
The board could choose oh David if you wanna
Well there's legal there are legal requirements. I mean it I don't think it could go longer than a year without a little bit of a little bit of a little causing some legal issues. So but The county attorney did ask staff at the board meeting whether they could complete this within the six month time frame and the representation was that staff could complete it within the Six month time please. Mm. Based on that representation, we have no reason to believe this is gonna go beyond six months.
Yeah it is I mean, Hey, there's there's a need for it or else developers wouldn't be doing it. I mean I hear and I read in the agenda that's not a good idea. There's been thirteen applications in the month of February, et cetera. I mean, developers wouldn't be doing it if they didn't if there wasn't a need for it and if they weren't able to do that.
And we recognize the need, and that's why the moratorium isn't to ban such use. It's just to recognize there's a need, and how can we best facilitate accommodating that need while maintaining certain corridors for their best and optimal use? Because they do consume a lot of land. And um they have uh eighty-five percent of self-storage uses employed less than five employees. So we're trying to have, you know.
Do the research, do the best practice to understand the impact.
Yeah. So so the rub is uh that they're taking up places that should be designated for employment. That's the concern that has surfaced
Yes. And depending on how they're placed on a site, um they there's an opportunity to allow for such use to still come to the site, allowing for the frontage to be developed with liner buildings that would um be consistent with developing higher um employing generating businesses.
Portland is a a case that um they have really um well defined development standards uh where building location comes into play not only how the building looks but also where they're sited within a a property.
Uh I have it. Question though. that was brought up by my colleagues over here. When I drive from the Wesley Chapel area, either to Dade City or in this area here, I just see Hundreds, if not thousands, of apartments being built. And there are homes that are Yeah. Probably the twelve hundred square foot living space. What? is in my opinion, I see the timing of this is kind of detrimental
to the construction of all these apartments. These folks are going to move into these apartments If they have excessive property that they wish to store, isn't this going to be a uh negative impact on those folks that are moving to apartments?
If they're already moving, then the um self-storage facilities are already here that can accommodate them. This is just a six month, you know, application.
Assuming that they have the space currently Currently in place. But if you're not going to allow new ones to be constructed, It's kind of like having Kind of an airplane trying to land on an aircraft carrier but no aircraft carrier.
The ones that are are
you know
I understand, Commissioner. The ones that are already in the pipeline, they already will be built, right? This is just for new submission and applications for such use. So we have a very large one near Bexley and at the corner of North Point and 54. That has been approved. It's currently already under construction. It's about 96,000 square feet of storage, just that one site. So there it there are many
that are already in the pipeline. The 13th in February, there's been more. are in the pipeline since then that will have had their site plan and construction plan approval and will begin construction. So
units then f of these thirteen that you just spoke of, how many units will they have available for people to store? The ones in
I I can't speak to how many units.
Maybe I'm not explaining it very clear. Well
no I
think uh I think some very valid points have been brought up here. I think uh I think maybe we're just it's overkill. Uh I'm sorry. I think maybe it's just overkill. You're banning Uh the construction of units. Anywhere in the county when really all you want to do is ban them on the primary roads.
We're not banning any we're not banning the construction of
those that are not anything yet.
And we're here to Make a r judgment of whether that proposal was reasonable. And personally I don't think it is reasonable. I think what you need to do is take it back and start looking at what roads you want to protect. and and limit construction on those roads, not the entire county. We've got people out here this is the real world. We've got people out here With money invested, time invested. you know, and opportunities that We don't know if they're gonna be there tomorrow, so you know,
I don't think that's fair. to hold somebody up for six months. uh when you don't really know why you're doing it. So don't don't answer me yet because I'm not done. And I believe Jamie, you had you're right on t you're right on target. That there's You know, you can't ban everything just because you want to control a smaller portion. You know, I think you need to be more uh targeted. About what you want to limit. And I I wouldn't have any problem with
that. I understand And I even agree that We should limit. Uh those types of units on major roadways for for a number of reasons. And some of it's just vis visual, but the other things are employment. I agree with that. But I don't think you should ban something that's back off of a road somewhere that somebody can have access to if they have the property and it's in the proper zone. And that so that's my feeling about it.
Can I answer the question of location? RC2 zones that um in C one zones are all along the corridors. So very few exceptions, and I don't have the map. I wasn't prepared to talk um to this map, but there's very limited um roadways that carry C two and C ones um as well as industrial. uh that are in the back you know back roads away from these major corridors.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yes, Terry.
If you look at the zoning map, um most of the la of the zoning districts that would allow them any storage, such as the C one and the C2s, and very many of the MPUDs that would also take into account the C2s and the C one uses um are located along the targeted corridors that you're referring to. Um And so we believe that the moratorium will help us uh better guide the development along those corridors. uh while we work and and the
point of the moratorium of course is to establish walkability, is to establish the economic development uh character along these corridors. Um Without which We'll have a lot of land use. a lot of land used up by Many warehouse storages that don't have high employment or high uh commercial activity taking place there? Uh and so uh the moratorium is necessary to uh spend some
time working on regulations that can help That can improve the right-of-way. the corridors that we're targeting, such as fifty four and fifty six, fifty two, Um Uh US nineteen, I believe. Um off the top of my head, US forty one. Um we've looked at those areas and here's here's the map that we were talking about in the second. Uh Alexandra can refer to it. But we believe by uh produci by enabling this moratorium we'll be able to more adequately address The land use
Before it all fills in.
Well w
w
what about those poor people that uh have people have property that's not on a major corridor. Well, such as take Denton Avenue or New York Avenue in Hudson. There's a number of properties there that are zoned adequately for for that ki type of use. Why should they sit there? for six months and not be able to do anything while we're trying to dream up a a way to control these other properties.
Well well there's an important distinction being made in the proposed ordinance which is that Um there are uh exemptions available uh to entitlements that exist solely for mini warehouse storage. So if you had a special exemption exception for mini warehouse, you wouldn't be stopped by the ordinance by the moratorium to go build it. Um for those other properties that don't that don't where the exemption doesn't apply to them. Um there are other land uses available. according
to the entitlements of their zoning district. w that they could freely develop into those uh during the moratorium. So it's not it's not as if you're completely destroying the value of the properties um that have the C one or the C two zoning status. There's a whole list of other land uses that they can also also do uh under that zone designation.
You know, I mean you're
it
wouldn't get destroyed. i uh if I had uh ten acres, for example, on New York Avenue And and I could normally put something like that on there. And now I can't. I can't not not only can't, I can't even apply. Wouldn't that affect me?
Well well you have other uses available to you but I
other entitlement. But I don't want to do. I wanna I wanna build I'm just going to do that. Using that as an example.
Why couldn't I apply? Yeah, that wouldn't ch that wouldn't be a good thing.
develop standards, but
it's overkill. That's my personal opinion.
What what I've heard today is the the question's on location and it's on uh Spread the floor area ratio, for example. I mean if you limit those I mean if you limit the zoning that you're allowed to build the If you limit the areas where you're allowed to build the self-storage and you make them build up, I mean 'cause there's a lot of ple a lot of people are doing these things now that are three and four stories tall, climate controlled storage, they're nice looking places. I don't understand what the problem is. I mean the single story that uses five acres for Twenty thousand square feet, yeah, I understand that's an issue. I just I I just
personally have a problem with it. And I one other thing I don't know and I I I've heard interpretations before that R V and boat storage is classified into self storage and mini warehouse type space. Is that true? Is that a more is there a moratorium on that too? Under this or this moratorium?
This ordinance as currently proposed does not have that language. It was um there there is a component to self-storage that some of those R V boats com combined was self m the mini self storage, but Specifically called out the R.
So if somebody comes tomorrow calls tomorrow and wants to set up a pre application meeting for Boat in R V storage place, are they gonna be allowed to do it?
Yes.
So
Mike, I'm sorry.
You know, I think of a couple ones that have recently in on this side of county that have recently CO'd um the one that D built on to cubul, you know, I mean I think that That's the right-of-way. That one um is perfectly located because it's sitting next to New Port Richey's stinky water plant and what else are you gonna put there, right? versus the one that's out on Trinity Boulevard that um
It's a good looking facility, you know, there's no question that that it is, um is maybe that the Is that the best place for? Maybe not. But
I realize that Certainly in an employment center where you really want to have employment Uh and push and incenti incentivize employment centers to go on an employment center, not a storage facility or something of that nature. Um I hear what you're saying. But on the same token th these facilities pay Good property taxes. and they're not a drain on services. You
know, I mean You're not gonna have a lot of calls for police and fire and and that that type of thing. So I I I don't see that they're that bad of Um bad of a project to have where the market says they need to be. You know, at the end of the day the market is going to determine what needs to be where. Um And if it goes through the proper approvals and gets the approvals and I think it ought to be allowed to be built. Um
You know. The fact that you have so many applications in in right now just tells me there is a need for it. Also says that Americans have too much junk, but you know That's what we have. I'm one of 'em probably. Yeah.
Mm-hmm. Mr. Chairman Mariano. Uh J just to you know. Speak to the idea of services. Um I I think you're right that as a as a land use specifically. It doesn't uh requ th these types of land uses don't require many services in terms of fire and police. and and what have you. However, they do contribute to the sprawl nature, um, particularly along these cor corridors
because I think the what is the average size, Alexandra, of a a warehouse site?
Typically five acres of land times the twenty or so we have right now. And uh you can understand the the amount of land that's being taken up on the corridors currently. Um so a as the map indicates, it's it's a question of um How can we uh better address the land use on these corridors. Um and again it's not a it's not a outright ban, it's only a moratorium that creates a pause in what can be submitted.
What's already in the pipeline is already moving through the pro moving through the process and will be built.
So my my concern is if if we the board ultimately gives you a moratorium there than Mm you have a six month window.
Critical but Six months can turn into eight months, could turn into maybe a year. And as opposed to if you don't have a moratorium, then maybe It's such a big issue to you. then you rather sooner rather than later bring something back and say this is what we'd like to do to regulate that I'd rather see If it's such a big deal, then get the job done. as opposed to saying we're not gonna allow anything which gives
us six months, which will turn into eight months. Or more.
Well the the six month window is probably one of the fastest windows we can turn around in ordinance because of the stakeholder groups that we need to attend and go to. So Um we're confident that we can do that. We have a draft ordinance already prepared. It's a matter of calibrating it. and then uh speaking to s to various stakeholders about it.
And we're trying to make sure we're as consistent to the comprehensive plan and what it lays out for these corridors as possible. So Mm mm.
Well I I just don't think it would take very much effort to identify the coordinates you're concerned about. incorporate them in the in what you're trying to do and then it wouldn't penalize somebody that's not on one of those corridors. That's my objection.
I can I ask one other question. Have you done a study on the capacity of the current storage facilities, whether or not that are eighty percent, a hundred percent of capacity? But you've done a study on how much space they take up on acreage to build one, correct? I'm in other words, I'm asking for a uh if you have done a study on whether or not these facilities are at capacity or not.
No, I have not.
Um
Have you ever considered doing a moratorium on apartment constructions to Slow things down. After all employment is one of the issues I heard. You said that these facilities only employ I don't know about apartment apartment complexes, once they're constructed, how many people do they employ?
Well the question of apartments is a separate issue
because
you're cherry picking one industry over another. And they both have the same capacity in that they require uh goods and people to store some facilities, whether it's an apartment or whether it's in a storage room. Uh that's what I look at it and see that you're just cherry picking one industry. And you know, I have a problem with that, let's be honest with you.
Well i it's really two separate matters because one deals with density issues and the other deals with intensity issues. So uh self-storage facility along fifty-four is a very low intensity use. And it takes up frontage along fifty four that could otherwise be used for office or industrial or commercial activity, which are more intense uses that are more economically profitable um to the uh to the r long long
term economic outlook of the county.
Terry, why don't why can't you just identify the corridors you're concerned about? What's the big deal?
Sure. And I have a So they're they're outlined here as per our comprehensive plan, the corridors that have been identified, and there's three additional ones that we would also look at having the standards apply to specifically. So the the ones highlighted in um in the dark yellow are the three that are not yet um
spoken to specifically um in the comprehensive plan amendment. Um the other ones are.
You know, so US nineteen is one of them.
Correct.
And the the service merchandise sat vacant there for twenty-five years. I I don't think I'm exaggerating how long it sat vacant until a storage facility came in and went in there and made it a viable piece of property again. That looks good? It does. Um
Any other comments from up here? Do
you
want to add Did you want to comment on that or
No, I don't I don't know? Anything about that site specifically?
Uh is there any public comment? From the From the floor. Anybody would like to speak?
Okay. Barbara, nothing.
All right. So uh any further discussion up here? Anybody like to make a motion?
I'll move
to deny.
For this ordinance is Determine whether it's inconsistent or consistent with a comprehensive plan. So I don't know that you really have authority to make a recommendation to deny. You can't make a recommendation that it'd be found inconsistent with a comprehensive plan. Um but you I don't think you have authority to just say deny. You always
take
the fun out of everything I'm trying to
do.
But you do have authority to say to recommend that
So I'll move that That uh we find it inconsistent with the companion.
Okay.
We
have a second.
I'll second that.
Further discussion? All in favor of the motion? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Well
she carries.