PC9 Pasco County Design Standards Manual presentation

2:48:09I think so. Um Thank you gentlemen. Sorry it's been a long day. Um Denise Hernandez Planning and Development. I would actually like to introduce Margaret Smith. Who's the engineering services director and the county engineer? They will be discussing item P9, which is the Pasco County prop the proposed Pasco County Design Standards Manual. This is a presentation item only, you don't have to vote on this item the following item PC eight which are

2:48:39changes to land development code that are ness that are needed because of the changes that um Ms. Smith's team is going to discuss with you. Um you will ha you will be sitting as the LPA on that item. Thank you.

2:48:52Thank you.

2:48:58Well

2:48:58okay, good afternoon again. This is something I at least have some information on.

2:49:03Mm-hmm.

2:49:04I'm sorry, I don't know much about the p uh PVAS. We it's a whole different department than we are. Um

2:49:13So over the last few years we've had a lot of people calling us and asking us uh about standards, about the design standards. And in this county, the design standards are mixed in the land development code. And um so we started looking into ways to make it more customer service friendly. And also I'm a I sit on the board for the uh Green Book, Florida Green Book. and also on the board for uh facers uh Florida Association of Counties. And we've talked about this issue

2:49:44and um quite a few counties throughout I mean, yeah, a lot of the counties throughout uh the state have completely separate documents and if you go into Hillsborough or Penellas you just go into design technical manual and it's there. It's very easy to find. Um like us, they also follow uh Florida Department of Transportation standards. So back, gosh, two or three years ago now, it's been a while, we st we started working on developing, uh working with our consultants. Tim Bourne has has been a tremendous help

2:50:14to us here. Um, but he's been helping us go through the document, through through the land development code. Pull out anything that's a standard, a Florida DOT standard, road standard, and put it into a new manual called Pasco County Design Standards Manual. And so it's not only just cutting and pasting. We wanted it to do it in a way that we would have easy cross back and forth across between the two documents.

2:50:44Along the way we want it. Let me see if I can figure out how to do this.

2:50:51There we go. So we wanted to also the as you can see in the bottom, we wanted to make sure that um we were updating the standards. I don't know when these standards that are in the code were last updated. I don't know when that code was uh m uh put together when the standards were actually even put in there. I would assume around I don't know, twenty ten or something. But nonetheless, DOT standards changed. Uh usually about an every year you get changes on the standards and so there's a lot of things that are a

2:51:21little bit behind. So on top of being a little complicated for our new people coming into into our county that are used to a specific manual where they can just go and find the standards.

2:51:35it gets a little it gets a little outdated and it gets a little difficult um to work with that when it's all mixed together. Codes and standards are two different things.

2:51:47So just uh history of what we've been through. I've kind of gone through that really quickly with you. Um So here's the sections of the code that we change for anyone that's familiar with the code and has used the code. We talked to John about it, uh, because I know he's a engineer and has been working on probably using these quite a bit. He had some very good comments. Uh some of those are still not some of the things he pointed out were great comments. Um in my response to him was, Well, we g once we

2:52:18get this manual set aside, changes like that can happen a lot easier, a lot more efficiently and effectively. Because we're not going through the policy changes that you see Denise going through on a regular basis when she's uh updating the land development code. Uh one of the other things we did was we kept the numerical system the same. uh between the two documents so that you can easily go back and forth between them. And we also have hyperlinks. We don't have them yet, but we will have hyperlinks where you'll see it in one manual or the other and you

2:52:48can click back and forth. crosswalks between the two. So wow, I can't even read that, but Um this is a good idea of um kind of a good example of on the left is a land development code. And on the right is the what the design manual will look like. And um I really don't can't see that, but maybe you guys can.

2:53:12So for instance, nine oh one nine oh one point ten is now just gonna be one point ten. So we just took the nine oh. So the code I mean the num numeric system to say if there was an A B C in the land development code, there will be an A B C in the in the yet design manual. It's just sometimes it'll say re you know, for those for those particular letters, it'll send you back over to the land development code. So that's how it went you know, that's how it works back and forth. Uh pretty straightforward. Uh

2:53:42we've had a few people we had a we've had a lot of our consultants uh on the horizontal round table look at it. We've had throughout the throughout our county we've had a lot of reviewing of the document. And uh so we feel like it's ready to go out and um become a one of our one of our county manuals at this point. So we wanted to show that to you and Um ask me and let find out if there's any questions or any concerns.

2:54:09What? What I'm still struggling with, and let me give the rest of the commission a little background. Earlier this week I received an email from Mr. Sumner down here indicating that they had met with Commissioner Mariano regarding this proposed manual, and Mr. Mariano asked if they would meet with me prior to the planning commission before they present this as

2:54:39well as the land development code. So I agree we had a teams meeting uh I'm sorry, it was a week ago, Wednesday, is that correct? So we had a we had a teams meeting. I got to quickly run through the manual

2:54:55And what I'm seeing is There are many they're proposing changes to current standards that are in the land development code. I don't think any of them are onerous or egregious. There's a proposed change to make the structural number for pavement from 2.35 or something to 2.45, 2.34, and I when did the math that amounts to a quarter inch of asphalt. Down a road. Um

2:55:26But to me the the question is why the manual? We have the standards in the land development code. They're not hard to find. I use them every day. All my colleagues throughout the county and everybody that brings up an approval before us uses them every day. And the only reason that I see, and it's actually I asked. question directly. The reason for the manual is so that the criteria can be changed

2:55:57administratively, so that they don't have to come to this body to hold a public hearing to change the criteria. At the end of the at at the end of the day, that's the long and the short of it. is they want to be able to do this administrative thing. And so I have to ask myself whether that's reasonable or not reasonable. And listen, the changes proposed today, I'm not gonna tell you that they're unreasonable,

2:56:27but what we don't know is Margaret, you're leaving. When are you leaving?

2:56:32End of March.

2:56:33End of March. So we don't know do we know where your replacement is yet?

2:56:37No, we do not.

2:56:38So this person's gonna be able to come in and change this administratively. And that pretty much pretty sure somebody's gonna get up and tell me, well yeah, the ordinance you're about to vote o vote on says, well they'll publish the changes on thirty days notice on the website and then if you don't like them you can appeal them to the Board of Commissioners. But if you've ever looked at what the appeals process is, that's kind of onerous. to go appeal those. I think if the Board of

2:57:08Commissioners, and the other question that I asked during that team's meeting, was did the Board of Commissioners direct you to do this? And the response that I got was, well, they knew we were doing it because we put in a requisition for Mr. Bourne. Is that the money?

2:57:26That that is true. That is true. There's a lot of things that we do. Okay, but they

2:57:30didn't ask you to come do this.

2:57:32To do this.

2:57:32And there wasn't overwhelming there wasn't what I what I guess where I'm at a loss is I didn't hear any argument that you know people were coming to the county commissioners and complaining that they couldn't figure out how to design something in Pasco County because there wasn't demand. manual and that they needed you to go put this in a manual.

2:57:57We did that as a customer service. We do get a lot of calls in engineering services and I don't know if these guys do M Wells team, but we get a a lot of calls asking us how do they find how do they find this and how do they find that. Um and we also are aligning with what many of the counties throughout the throughout the state do. So um if you're from a different county And you're used to a technical manual, which most counties have. Uh you come to our county and you're looking for that manual. And maybe that's why I get the calls, maybe

2:58:27that's why our department gets those calls. So uh we're always looking for ways to make things easier for our users, uh, especially our new users. Our county is growing. We have lots of new developers and a lot of new engineers coming in. So uh we're we're always looking for more, you know, better websites, better ways to to get information out. So here we are trying

2:58:50And at the end of the day you're going to link w so we have a link to another book or a link back from this book to Municode. Right. The only thing that's different is the process by which the standards can be changed. Like I said, there's some minor I don't want to get into all of the technical issues and bore you to death with engineering issues over what's being proposed in the manual. The other thing I see is I'm looking at, I'm in the

2:59:20manual, it says, all work shall be in accordance with the latest editions of standards and requirements utilized by Pasco County and the Florida Department of Transportation, which include but are not limited to publications such as. Then there's this long laundry list of things to do with asbestos. which I'm kind of at a loss on how roadways and stormwater have asbestos. I mean I guess we could run into some places where we need to remove a little transite pipe or demolish a structure. All the Asheville

2:59:50manuals make sense. Rules of the Board of Surveyors, but I didn't see rules of the Board of Professional Engineers listed in here. I see Florida Department of Environmental Protection rules, but has anybody ever looked at Chapter sixty two of the Florida Administrative Code? It's taller than David's chair. So

3:00:11you agree with it. Yeah. The F DOT Computer Aided Design and Drafting Manual. So does that mean now that my CAD drafting has to comply to FDOT standards as a private consultant need to draw plans for a private land development in accordance with DOT CAD standards? FDOT procurement procedures 001-375-030, compensation for consultant travel time on

3:00:41professional services agreements. I'm trying to figure out how that's a designed standard.

3:00:50I'm not a laws for that one. Florida statutes. Well yes, we have to comply with Florida statutes, I think. That's a given. There's another one about asbestos and then here's one quality assurance guidelines safety standards.

3:01:08What are those here?

3:01:14And then again repeated all applicable Florida statutes and administrative comments.

3:01:22Well yeah, I get it and if I'm designing a subdivision or a commercial site in this county, I need to apply, you know, uh comply with applicable statutes and Florida Administrative Codes, but that's not Those things are policed by the state, the state's agency, Swift MUD, the Department of Environmental Protection. It's not the county that does these things.

3:01:50The county has its standards for what we need to do locally and I agree and I'm not against standards. I would tell you I do this every day for a living and I know what my clients would do if there were no codes and no standards and let's just say we would we all probably wouldn't like that. Developers might like it, but the public probably wouldn't like it. So I'm it's not that I'm against codes and standards. What I don't agree with here, and I just don't know how to say it any more plainly, is

3:02:22the elimination of our role in those in reviewing and assessing what those are. Today they're in the Land Development Code. If they want to come, if the county engineer wants to come before us and say, hey, Mr. Moody, we've got a problem. The land development code was written by somebody who thought the structural number for a subdivision street should be 2.34, and we're finding out that these subdivision streets are falling apart in

3:02:52five years, and this MSTU that we were talking about, David, is now going to be taxed and taxed because we have these horribly built roads and we need to change it to 245. You're probably not going to get an argument from me.

3:03:06But what you want to do is eliminate me from the process. And I don't know why I mean I guess everybody can do what they want, but I don't know why you would vote to eliminate yourselves from that decision process. I realize we're not the ultimate decision. But we we're here to make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. To me it really comes down to it's almost an American the structure of the American government. We have separation of powers. So you're saying we still have to have some type of oversight

3:03:37responsibility, correct? Well if you vote to adopt well we don't get to vote to adopt the manual, you get to vote on the next item. And that's to eliminate all the Design standards from the land development code and be put in this manual which could be changed administratively. So you're gonna if you vote for that, you're gonna lose your say.

3:03:56Can I talk a little bit about what we did to get to this point? Uh would you mind if I did that for a minute? Sure.

3:04:02If you talk about what?

3:04:03What we're what we did to get to this point. This was not by any means just.

3:04:11point as far as I'm concerned. And that's what, you know Who's gonna make end up making these decisions? It doesn't matter what you worked on to this stage if if this is not

3:04:22It was more about who we coordinated with. We coordinated with development, the horizontal round table we developers throughout the community. So um I'm just uh just facts. This is not something that we we arbitrarily choose to do. This is something related to the Florida Department of Transportation standards. As those change, our our standards change. And it says right in the code, and I didn't add this, it's been there since 2010 or whatever. We will use the Florida Department of Transportation standards or the Land Development

3:04:52Code, whichever is more stringent. And through my our time my time here there have been some of the code uh standards, codes are kind of mixed with standards here in in the in the land development code, that we have uh looked at and said, Well no, that's a little bit if if we're not being if the state's not requiring that, why are we requiring it? And so back and forth with the horizontal round table and the people involved in our business and we've we've actually reduced code, um you know standards at times. So this isn't And I know this is a

3:05:22fear that you guys have that we're just gonna willy-nilly make changes, but none of these changes will be will be anything other than what the Florida Department of Transportation they reflect those changes as those changes.

3:05:34But this manual also covers stormwater. Yes

3:05:37it was

3:05:38and that was a big discussion when we when we had the teams meeting. I noted that in the design manual there were lots of revision. to updated F D O T standards and the change in the structural number and all of these things which affect roads. And then I got down to the stormwater section. And there was nothing. In fact, the stormwater section says we're gonna comply with Chapter forty D four and Chapter 40 D forty that was in effect on December whatever, twenty eleven.

3:06:09David, those were repealed. They don't even exist anymore today.

3:06:14So we

3:06:14we're all about updating and making sure we're with the current codes and standards, it's not even in there. You know, I see Will sitting back there and Will you can come on. attest to this. I had a development. and I had to write your reviewer a letter. Your reviewer came and said, You need to size your storm sewer using a minimum time of concentration of 15 minutes. And I had voluntarily Without a deed

3:06:44restriction, used eight minutes. And the way that calculation works, the shorter the time of concentration, the more the flow, the bigger the pipe. So I'm imposing a bigger pipe on my developer than the land development code. And then I get scolded by a junior engineer in development review about how I'm not following the code. So I had to write a long letter to the engineer and explain how the calculation. works and then I was told well you still need

3:07:14to do it this way but if you want to voluntarily upsize the pipe even though I'm doing the right thing for public health safety and welfare that I can do that. So I thought okay great we get into the manual you'd think that'd be changed. It's not changed. There's nothing changed there.

3:07:32Could I address that? Would you mind?

3:07:34Sure.

3:07:35Um stormwater was an area that we debated about what to do. We knew that they were in a in a in a progression. They were working towards making changes. And um Working with them, they're in the public works uh uh department, we decided we could get that first part in. And then as they as they made improvement, this is where and this is what I was explaining to you, this is where they can make changes more more efficiently and effectively, just as they go through the book. And again, they're the same as we are. No changes can

3:08:05be made to our manuals without working with the horizontal round table. And we can tell I don't know how many meetings we had. We we've been meeting with them for probably the last year and a half. So we don't do any of this in the dark behind clock closed doors. Uh it's all back and forth, back and forth, based on the standards. In the code, yeah, and the stormwater part, I as I said to you during that team meetings was, yeah, we knew there was there was going to be updates. We knew they had things to do.

3:08:37So Margaret, let me just see if we can find a compromise here rather than you guys going back and forth on this issue. Um

3:08:46Since you intend to bring changes to the the DSM, the manual to horizontal round table for comments, would you have any objection to bringing them to Planning Commission for comments? Oh, not not at all.

3:09:01Not at all.

3:09:02So so maybe there's a middle ground because there's under the development manual there's a sentence that says It's intended the changes to the development manual be made in a collaborative manner with input from all appropriate stakeholders. For whatever reason, that sentence doesn't exist down in the design standards manual. I mean we could add a sentence that says it's intended the changes to the development manual be made in a collaborative manner with input from all appropriate stakeholders, including the Planning Commission.

3:09:30How would that work?

3:09:33Probably not.

3:09:34Okay.

3:09:36Well I've I'm just throwing it up. I I I've the one thing I've been very consistent and Margaret that this has nothing to do with you and it's funny already beat me to the punch today. I did want to mention that if you open the F D O T Green Book, her name is d this woman knows roads. So I'm not I'm gonna get in here and argue about what standards, what roads, it's about process. The one thing I've been very consistent about Since I got back in the Planning Commission, is about due process. And I think that

3:10:07the commissioners have appointed us to evaluate changes to the land development code to hold public hearings, advertised, noticed, public hearing where the community gets to come out common. I realize there's probably nobody, there's no But from public here to this today.

3:10:29But that's what we're here to do and I I just can't support changing that process that allows us to make that That recommendation. I'm not saying that I disagree with anything that's in this manual. Like I said, the 245 I'll I can tell you right now I designed private parking lots with stronger than two forty five structural numbers.

3:10:57So to be clear, Mr. Meet, the reason I made this suggestion is I'm gonna play devil's advocate with you, because technically your role on a Land Development Code amendment is as the LPA is to evaluate consistency with the comprehensive plan. That's technically your duty on a proposed change of the land development code. These are technical design standards which generally don't even implicate the comprehensive plan. I mean there might be some general reference to standards.

3:11:26I really don't want to get down to this, but I'll show you in the proposed changes where there's still design criteria, very specific design criteria being left in. So is it being taken in? Putting Left in or being taken out?

3:11:45Yeah, I would like to I'd would like to work with you on that because I'm not aware of that.

3:11:49So but I guess my question to you is if If the Planning Commission had an opportunity to comment on the design standards manual, I mean, so that it's not just put on your agenda as a presentation only item where you actually get it's actually a discussion item. I guess my position is actually that's actually my view that you're actually getting more authority than you currently have because technically Planning commission is only supposed to be saying is this Plan Development Code Amendment consistent

3:12:19with the compliment or not? That's technically all you're supposed to be doing today.

3:12:23So Well wait a minute. We s we sat in here and talked about adding trees to lots. We talked about whether aluminum fences could be used visibly. I'm not I'm not saying that you all don't

3:12:36yeah, I'm not saying

3:12:37those have nothing to do with

3:12:38I'm not saying that you don't have The right to comment on any land development code. When

3:12:42we were asked to comment is the LPA to vote on those land development code.

3:12:47Right, but I'm just changed. But your technical duty is to say, is the are those land development code amendments consistent with the COM plan? And there are many by the way, there are many land development code amendments that directly implicate the COM plan. For example, when you're about to be you're about to hear the zoning, I mean the airport zone. zoning regulations, those directly implicate the cost of the right-of-way. Are

3:13:06the economic impacts of land development design criteria? Are the economic impacts caused by a code, something that affects consistency with the comprehensive plan? I mean if all of a sudden we go in and Margaret's retiring or I don't know whether you're going back into private practice or retiring, but the next county engineer comes in and decides that the structural number for a road should be 3.25 and he does it in the middle of a recession and all of a

3:13:36sudden we don't have any development. because you've made it more expensive and administratively made it more expensive to develop in this county. So these things have economic impacts. Well

3:13:49my fund fundamentally my feeling is is that we're still a representative government and and we operate on the basis of representatives who've been chosen to represent the people in decisions that have affect their lives. And the more and more we flow toward an administrative type of government, we're getting away from that. And so

3:14:14that's why that's why I go to the compromise because I'm trying to figure out a middle ground here where

3:14:19I get Mr. Middle's point. I don't think we want to compromise on our principles of American values. I think

3:14:25I'm saying I'm trying to get you input. I'm actually trying to argue that you should get more input than you currently have today. 'Cause technically I understand that you do make comments on land development code amendments B. Some of them are probably beyond your role. I'm actually trying to make a We can make the ultimate

3:14:44decision here. We make a recommendation.

3:14:45But I'm but I'm trying to actually codify the commissioners. I'm actually trying to codify that you have a commenting role on changes to the development manual. Which isn't co isn't codified anywhere today.

3:14:58Yeah.

3:15:01Your current role is just to say is a land development code amendment consistent with the Comm Plan or not? That's technically all the you're you're authorized to do today. I'm actually trying to embed in the in the code that you have authority to comment on changes to the development manual, which I'm not sure you Would have that on it if it was just the

3:15:22Manium code. I've been here since July and I can't tell you how many land development code amendments that contain technical criteria we've already voted on. And

3:15:37I I agree I agree that you vote, but if you if you look at your actual agenda memo, what it says is you're voting to find it consistent with the call plan. Isn't that what they all say? Yes. So it doesn't say you're voting to say that the the standards are correct or you're voting to say that the standards make sense or whatever. I mean I'm But what

3:15:55it's

3:15:55like,

3:15:56a comprehensive plan. Uh although it doesn't lay out specific design criteria, we talk about things like there are economic impacts, there are social impacts, these things are considerations of the comprehensive

3:16:11plan they certainly are for land use. Like when you're making a land use decision Absolutely, the economic impact of that landing decision is relevant and implicates the conflict. I'm not sure that every design standard. is directly implicating some the economic development policies of our complaint. But yes, there's many land use decisions where every land use decision you make

3:16:34last night. Tunnellas County had to hold a public workshop on its stormwater design manual. And the reason they had to do that is because their staff, along with some people, former Professors from the University of Central Florida decided they were going to change the course of stormwater in Penellas County forever. And it went on since

3:17:042018. And what it's resulted in is developers walking away from Pinellas County because it's become impossible to comply with the manual. And the manual is changed, is written and changed and made administratively.

3:17:28I guess my question to you is if if they have to bring 'cause Ms. Smith is conceding, she's agreeing, that she'd bring these changes to the Planning Commission before they're adopted. What I guess what is the substantive difference if it's coming to you as a just to make comments versus you coming to you as the LPA? I don't I don't I'm not that's the part I'm not getting.

3:17:53But we don't really have any decisions if all we're doing is making comments. We're just making comments.

3:17:58Well, but the difference is is I think

3:18:02And they could ignore our comments.

3:18:04But the board can ignore your comments today anyway.

3:18:09No, they have before. They've

3:18:12ignored us before and then there's other times where they've been with us in locksteps.

3:18:21I guess it really comes down to whether the board wants to see every change to the design standards manual. Because if the board doesn't, and you do then to me as long as it comes to you

3:18:35Well you sh you can make a recommendation to the county engineer or whoever you know the county administrators designee about whether that change should be made.

3:18:45To the board, but what if the board says I don't want to see these changes to the design standards? The

3:18:49board didn't ask them to do this.

3:18:51Yeah Well we don't know whether the board wants to see these or not. I don't know because what we have to do is

3:18:56question directly. Did the board ask you

3:18:58did the board direct

3:18:59The board did not direct us to do this. But we have spoken to all the commissioners except for Commissioner Starkey. They have all been um met with

3:19:06and Commissioner Oriano specifically said go talk to Mr.

3:19:11And what I um and my compromise would ensure Did those changes come to this body? If the board doesn't want to see them, if for all I know, Commissioner Oakley wants to make sure that you see them.

3:19:24Well he mentioned there's two engineers on the board and that they it would be good

3:19:27to

3:19:27share.

3:19:28So so so I get I get why the board might say these are technical design standards, I want my planning commission to weigh in on that. Doesn't mean the Board of County Commissioners wants to weigh in on it. So what's wrong with saying you all get to weigh in on it?

3:19:41Well they are gonna weigh on it because they have to adopt the manual by resolution.

3:19:45The the original one, but then amendments can be made administratively. No, it says they're gonna do it

3:19:51by resolution.

3:19:53Uh just the first one. No,

3:19:54just the first one's done by resolution.

3:19:56Just to create the manual.

3:20:00On our website. But the amendment I'm proposing would say they could not be adopted until they first come to the Planning Commission. I guess I'm trying to figure out how is that materially different. If you assume the board doesn't want to see these, and I don't I can understand that may or may not be the case, but Miss Smith is saying she doesn't think they want to see it. If they think that they're comfortable with you as the body that reviews these then you're not making a recommendation to the board anymore. Your only recommendation is to the County Administrator's

3:20:31designate. 'Cause that's who controls the manual now. But you're still getting to see them. I guess I'm just gonna figure how is that materially different whether that comes

3:20:40that assum that assumes that well I don't know how the vote's going to go here today. That assumes we vote to eliminate the design standards from the land development code and that the Board of Commissioners does that. Well

3:20:54and I'm proposing I'm proposing a change to the land development code, not the manual, that says that they can't be changed until they first come to the Planning Commission for Commons.

3:21:07Because Miss Smith is saying she's willing to bring the every change to the manual to the Planning Commission for confidence.

3:21:12Ms. Smith's not going to be here.

3:21:14But I'm proposing to codify it. It doesn't matter whether Miss Smith is here anymore. If we codify the code, that can't be taken out of the code unless it comes back to you.

3:21:24But if we if we give 'em comments and they and they ignore them, what good is that?

3:21:28I mean Well but the board could ignore them now anyway.

3:21:31But they still but they have a consequence of the Bayonet Point. Well staff

3:21:34staff could ignore you

3:21:35they'd have to

3:21:36Let me just put that the one that you deny today, staff can still recommend approval to the board.

3:21:41Yes, they can.

3:21:42Yeah,

3:21:42we know that.

3:21:44But there's a second body that represents.

3:21:45But they're but they're a second representative body. And they have to fall on their own sword.

3:21:51I understand that I'm just saying that the

3:21:58I mean do you want to Final approval authority over any? I mean I don't know what you're asking for.

3:22:06That's what I'm asking for. But you don't have final approval.

3:22:12Listen, I think if the county commissioners were concerned, so concerned that our land development code was junked up with design standards that needed to be removed then they would have ordered them to remove them. But I don't think there's been some big massive public backlash or outcry. So Miss

3:22:29Smith, I don't know the conversations you've had with the board about the general impetus for this. I'm just trying to figure out is there some middle ground that lets Planning Commission still have input because I agree with Mr. Moody that today they have input on changes to the land development code. Now it's arguably limited to consistency with the complain but they do have input and they make a recommendation to the board. I'm just trying to figure out is there some middle ground where they still have Yeah.

3:23:01I mean I don't I mean i do would you feel better if the it said that you have final approval authority over the changes

3:23:06to the manual? Well that's not what we're here to do. We're here to make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioner Weightman we we we we listen to evidence, okay? People give and testimony. Just like the last hearing. People come up and they give us testimony. Maybe we'll have engineers or architects or developers come up and say, No, no, no, Planning Commission, this isn't a good idea because the consequences are be this or maybe they'll come up here and say, Hey, this is great, we love this. And

3:23:37you should recommend to the board this. But we hold a hearing, people get to have their say. They get their due process. Well but you can that's part of our American system. But the

3:23:48code could the code could say that bring to Planning Commission at a public hearing. I guess I'll

3:23:53and if we had if we had final say I wouldn't be objection to it. But we if all we can do is make a recommendation, then there's no there's no next step.

3:24:03You're not asking for final decision, correct, John? No. I'm not.

3:24:08But but I guess the where we have a disconnect, and this goes the ultimate issue, is I don't know for sure that the board wants to see these. And I guess I'll ask Ms. Smith. The board didn't

3:24:19ask them

3:24:19to do this. Okay, but Ms. Smith has had one-on-one meetings with the board member.

3:24:23Oh, f four of them so far. We haven't the Commissioner Starkey's next week. But not all of them thought it was a great idea. All of them were pretty uh pretty happy with it. Uh so I mean I guess Commissioner Mariano was excited.

3:24:35Is it possible? Is it possible? that the board trusts you all so much that They only want your input on these design standard manual changes. Maybe Commissioner Mariano asked you to look at it because he doesn't want to look at it. He trusts you so much more.

3:24:52I'm not going to betray the confidence than him, but he and I have had a discussion and I understand how this was pitched to him. And I'm going to tell you if what he's telling me is true, and I'm going to take it at face value. He didn't get the same. You guess that we're all getting right here.

3:25:09Can could I ask what that is? I'm not because

3:25:14we

3:25:14had a private conversation publicly here, but I'll just leave it at that.

3:25:18Well but it ultimately this comes down to whether the board wants to still see these types of changes. If the board still wants to see them Then I agree with you then it doesn't make sense to then then the manual then might as well just have the manual go to the Planning Commission and the Board just like our Land O'Ma Code amendments do. Just like the current process. But I don't know for sure whether the board wants to see every technical change to the manual. Yeah,

3:25:45but I'm

3:25:46not sure.

3:25:47Have you read the manual? No, I'm not. I read the Okay, so there's things. Some of these things are technical changes like structural numbers. Some of 'em are procedural. We're moving the substandard road review procedures into the design manual. That's procedural. There's no design flexibility in how you do a substandard road analysis. You follow the code. So why is it being moved?

3:26:13I'm not aware that those are being moved, sir. I think we have 'em in there, but we point back to the to the land development code.

3:26:22I think the crux of it the is what Mr. Moody's saying is that some sort of representative um body should have a final authority on this as opposed to administrative. As of now, the final authority is the Board of County Commissioners. Um we have input on it, and then this this proposed change would We w might be able to comment on it with the codifications you're speaking of, but ultimately the final authority will be administrative.

3:26:52And

3:26:53that's the practice of the issue. Right. Well I I well so I had at least one commissioner, commissioner, say that he'd be okay if you all had final approval authority. I guess I'll ask Ms. Smith, is staff okay with that? If he were this body would get a final vote on any changes to the design standards manual.

3:27:12I mean I I think our whole purpose here was to make it more efficient and uh you know follow the the the Department of Transportation as they make changes. But if this is what um I I think it's very important to have a separate manual. Most of our counties uh do have a separate technical manual if uh if there are recommendations to have a different type of review from the board or from you? Uh

3:27:39You know, we're trying to to move this through more.

3:27:44I think it's very important that the citizens

3:27:47substandard

3:27:47road procedures are election deleted. They do have the opportunity to have oversight. I think that's a uh a good value to you and to county employees to have some oversight. Yeah I think that that would be the best way to go.

3:28:03They may not want to see every technical change in that one. I didn't say they wouldn't want to go as a fundamental.

3:28:09Yeah we're we're a hundred percent about transparency. We're not trying to hide anything here. So we're not approvals we're just gonna try to be a thought.

3:28:16Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there's anything nefarious going on here or that there's anything egregious other than I'm sorry, I'm taking a stand at a higher level here, and that's in the structure of our government and our representative form of government. We we have a system. Our elected representatives have appointed us to hold

3:28:46hearings and listen to testimony and make recommendations. And what we're voting, what we're going to be voting on here is a change to that structure. And I'm just I'm

3:29:02so

3:29:04posed to

3:29:04that.

3:29:05Okay, so um again, I think there's a way to at least have you make a recommendation that allows this to move forward. Which is you could add a sentence that says in the code, not in the manual, in section B that says something to the effect of It is intended the changes to the volume manual be made in a collaborative manner with input from all appropriate stakeholders, including Final approval by the Planning Commission. Now, I don't know if staff's gonna agree

3:29:35with that, but That would seem like that would address your concern.

3:29:41That probably would with one

3:29:44I think staff would concur with that because now with one technical problem.

3:29:52That's the approval. We won't we're trying to get approval. I mean that's what we do in the middle of the year.

3:29:55No, I'm saying I'm saying the sent I I modified the sentence, okay, because That sentence I just read, except for the very last part of it, is in the development manual, I'm proposing that sentence be cut and pasted down into the design standards manual and then add it at the end of it in including final approval by the Planning Commission. That would Now, I don't know if we want to do the same thing on the development manual, that's a different issue, but but but I'm just trying to deal with the design standards manual. I I like

3:30:23I like

3:30:23that one.

3:30:28That would solve my problem. If we had final approval on that, that would solve my problem, yes. Then we still have a representative form of government where there is due process. Right. There's some oversight responsibility.

3:30:42With public comment, public hearing. Yes sir.

3:30:45I mean we could say including final approval by the Planning Commission at a public hearing if that is that that's just to make that clear.

3:30:51Yes.

3:30:54And anybody who doesn't like the Planning Commission's decision can always appeal that to the Board because all the decisions of the Planning Commissioner Oakley. Including staff. Staff could appeal it to the board if they don't like your decision. Absolutely.

3:31:10Make a motion.

3:31:13Well we're we're still in the presentation.

3:31:18Yeah the change I just read is a change to the code which is PC eight.

3:31:24But I don't even know if staff's in agreement with it. I'm just trying to move this forward to the

3:31:27Yeah, I'm just concerned that yeah, we're we're talking engineering standards and uh a I'm not sure that the board except for Mr Moody and um Mr. Girardi, our engineers. These are engineering standards that we're talking about. They're not they're not code. This is not code. Standards. Yeah, how thick the pavement is and that type of thing. So Is is this the board that would get final re you know, final uh yes or no on that because

3:31:58we're directed by the Florida Department of Transportation. Our Florida statute says we we we follow those standards just like Swift MUD, you know, when you're doing a drainage project you're working with Swift MUD standards. So There there's I guess where we have a concern. Is this the right word to do that? Uh I can understand what you're saying about transparency and and that type of thing, but When you're talking about DOT standards or or pro you know, roadway standards, how thick is the road to be? What kind of pipe should you have? What you know, that type of thing. What

3:32:28is the slope of the road? That those are standards and uh and unless you're in the engineering world, unless you're a designer and you're really, really familiar with those standards and what they mean when we do change them, uh it's a lot of things. So I I get what you I get what you're saying. This is the right group.

3:32:44I get what you're saying. I'm I'm a financial planner. I mean I'm I'm not big on land development.

3:32:48I

3:32:49couldn't do your stuff either. Yeah. So I mean but uh By having these public meetings and allowing a board like this to contemplate this, we can allow the public to comment. We can allow engineers that might be working for a developer that might be impacted by those design standards to come present their case to this body to be able to make a decision as a representative form of government. government. So that's whether or not what our background is is is kind of irr irrelevant in regards to that because

3:33:19we're not making those decisions. We it's more about having the public forum and the ability for public to make comments on these types of matters.

3:33:27I get you we do that quite well, I mean we do it very intensely with the horizontal round table we've had, I don't know, f over the last year and a half. meeting upon meeting upon meeting with the with our developers and their engineers. So none of this is is uh s anything that they haven't seen. They have seen it and they have seen it and they have seen changes and we've gone back and forth. So in that regard we've not done any of this just in the engineering department. And that b

3:33:51might be fine for the code as it stands, but that's not speaking to what might happen in the future with future changes.

3:33:57Can we somehow codify that it has to be Well

3:34:00that's what we're discussing.

3:34:01Well you're you're discussing that, but you're saying you would have the final say, which I'm saying that when you're talking these standards, I d I would love to have our engineers here. And we would I'm sure this group would meet with them. The horizontal round table is not going away just because I'm leaving. What F

3:34:16D O stand what F D O T standard controls the structural number for a cross access between two private parking lots.

3:34:25Well you and I talked about that and I don't have an answer to that. But but so

3:34:30in the man let me make this clear. In the manual So we're she's setting forth that the structural number for a residential street is going to be 2.45. And I'm sorry because I don't want to bore you into this. the number for a priv for a cross access driver. Between two private parking lots is 2.96. So you there's a more stringent standard to build a little tiny driveway connecting two private parking lots, then there is a county road. But we're

3:35:00told all this has to be done because this is F D O T standards, but there is no F D O T standards.

3:35:04So so just we have

3:35:06being moved in the manual.

3:35:07You know, with all the engineers

3:35:09that do affect Development in our county. These are things that affect costs on developers.

3:35:15And these would be so easy to change. Between us and the horizontal that hasn't come up until you brought it up. I love that you made that comment. If I had known that comment was made before, we could have resolved that. But I had I don't know how many engineers sit on the HR on the

3:35:29your comment as to the Excuse me, wait a minute.

3:35:33Go ahead.

3:35:34comment as to the fact that w we have two engineers on the board here. and the rest of us don't know what the hell we're talking about. Is it s sort of irr i sort of you know, and an insulting to me because every person on this board has different strengths and different knowledge base to draw from. And that's what we're supposed to do. We're supposed to be representing the community as a whole. We're not supposed to be representing engineers. or any kind of scientists. We're supposed to be representing the people.

3:36:05The people should have a chance to present their case. We should have a chance to listen to it. in a common sense way, ask questions and make a decision. And if you don't trust us to do that, that's on you. That's not on us.

3:36:20I don't I I'm sorry, but I don't think I said I didn't trust it. I apologize for that.

3:36:27In an effort to move this forward, I'm not sure We're gonna have universal agreement. It sounded like a majority of the Planning Commission agreed that with my sentence it resolved the concern. So my recommendation would be to you just make a recommend when we get to the code amendment, if we were to get there, that you add that sentence. And then Denise will have to put in her or staff will have to put in their agenda amendment to the board that you recommended the addition of that sentence. Whether

3:36:57staff wants to agree with that or not is up and whether the board agrees with the addition of that sentence will be up to the board. But at least you will made it clear that you only think this should move forward with the addition of that sentence.

3:37:08Right.

3:37:11We're getting into fights about democracy and everything else. I I whether somebody insulted somebody. But but I just want to move this forward. It's five o'clock. There's nobody in the public here. I think

3:37:23This is nothing like the British Parliament.

3:37:25Yes. So but I got you all to agree. Stout doesn't have to agree with you. Okay, I got you all to agree that the addition of that sentence resolves your concern. Right. Let's just Recommend that you add the sentence the board add that sentence and move on. Does that sound okay? Yes. That's okay with that. Okay. I would be happy to move on to the next item because the

3:37:44land development code change.

3:37:45Okay. All right. Can we so let's move on to the next slide.

3:37:51You're a genius.

3:38:01That's what it's all about.

3:38:04Not as