Land Development Code amendments: construction routes, bridges, trees
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
This archive found it in the recording: a call to order, a recess, or business the board never listed. The county recorded nothing about it, so everything below is our reading.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Aug 20, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Aug 20, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 5m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 0% of 336 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Uh, Mr. Chair, would you like to hear item PC five or the first item on the regular agenda, which is AP seven first?
Uh let's hear AP seven.
Okay, item AP seven, you'll be sitting as a local planning agency. It's PDE 260949, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, amending section 403.5 construction plan, section 403.7 mass grading. Section 901.6 street design and dedication requirements, section 905.2, landscaping and buffering, and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability and inclusion to the land development code, and an effective date to
be presented by staff.
Alright, thank you.
Patrick.
Good afternoon, Planning Commission members. Um so let me get this here we go. Uh you guys looked at some of these revisions I think two weeks ago where Tammy brought it forward and I was able to uh teams in and talk to you guys a little bit. But there are some things that uh we needed to clean up and some things that we wanted to look at and tweak. So uh we took took a closer look at some of these items. We brought it back to our ordinance development team with county staff uh to bring forward some proposals and we also have um some other county staff here to talk to
uh some of the questions that were brought up last time. So Let's start with the I believe the construction traffic plan. So basically where this is coming from, where there's a lot of new development here in the county. Some of these developments are using local roads to access their projects. Now the good news is it's generally a small percentage of developments. Our most of our larger developments have access to a collector or arterial roadway. So this construction access plan that we're asking for is using is only when a project
is using a local road. And so again, using the collector road on the left, not the local road if it's an option. If it's not an option and they have to use a local road, if there's two local roads to get there, they need to, if then there's a school route, they should use the one that doesn't have a school route on it. If there is no option and there is a a school zone along that local road, they need to coordinate with the school board, Mr. Divine, uh to schedule timing and make sure that we don't have trucks and kids uh kind of trying to get to the school or the site at the same time. Um
what we also added is, you know, what we've seen on these projects is uh some of the the trucks will line up at the the site waiting to get in before the site opens at early in the morning and we'll see trucks stacked up on the roadway which can block traffic. So we're saying, Hey, you can't really stage on those local roads anymore. And then what we also see is debris. We see debris on these local roads. So we're asking the developer applicants to clean those roads daily to make sure the existing residents aren't suffering from that development.
And then the repair when done. So this is the part that we've since talked about and are trying to address. And actually, let me grab my computer real quick. Okay.
Okay.
Sorry. Uh and for the record, uh Patrick Dutter, Planning, Development, and Economic Growth. Okay, thank you, Gianna. Um, so with the uh let me go back a little bit here. Uh repair when done. So um We have language currently in the the proposed language that talks about doing a videotape before the project starts and doing a videotape after the project starts. Um and this stems from one of the commissioners kind of voicing the concern when we were doing our tour to
the commissioners telling about the code changes that That commissioner and I would expect all commissioners have noticed that when these developments are using these local roads, they're leaving them in worse shape than before the project started. So they were interested in finding a way to make those projects repair those roads that they used. Now, something that was brought up before is there's something called the substandard roadway analysis and application. That review is Done before the project starts. So we wouldn't be able to
capture that time between developments and when development is over. So that's why we need something else other than the substandard roadway analysis, essentially. Um so well we took this, uh we talked to public works. Um one of the suggestions by one of the board members um was they had met with I think public works bump once before where They thought Public Works had a technology where you could have some laser or camera that's affixed to the front of a truck that you can drive over the road and it gives the road an assessment or score. So the
the idea was, okay, if that technology exists, use that before the site development starts, and then once again after development's over, and then if the the road has gone in disrepair, we ask the developer to repair the road. That technology, we don't have that technology at the county. I think the vendor that was suggesting it decided not to come to the county for whatever reason. But Public Works does have another program, which is the Pavement Condition Index, I think.
I have Public Works here to talk a little bit about the PCI if you want to learn a little bit more about the Pavement Condition Index. But it essentially does the same exact thing as you know driving over the road with that camera would do. So that's something that we've added since we've last talked to you. Again, in response to the commissioner's concerns about repairing the roads after it's done. So essentially it's going to be a videotape and a PCI score before earthwork starts, and then another PCI score after to see if there's a delta, and then if it has different. Um
the inspections team will essentially request uh repairs to the road.
Any questions on the construction route or anything that I've said so far?
How long will it take to get the PCI for public works?
Uh public works, would you like to come up and speak to that? I think it's fairly quickly.
Good afternoon everybody. Barrett Doe, Assistant Director, Public Works Operations and Technical Services. Thanks for having us this afternoon. And I'd like to introduce Mr. Chris Hanning. He's our engineering manager for Public Works, and he'll be happy to speak uh in more detail on the PCI program.
Thank you.
Hey, good afternoon, Chris Hanning, uh Public Works. Um the PCI score is basically a way to rate the condition of the road. Um much like a grade in high school or something, a hundred's the best, zero is the worst. Um generally uh We have um those types of numbers for all of the county maintained roads in our database and that's what we use mainly for our planning uh road rehabilitation services with. Um
but it's also a tool that we can use to um, as uh Patrick was um saying earlier, that we can uh see the degradation over time of of of a road um based on, you know, who's using it, how long, what type of traffic's on it and that sort of thing.
M Mr Moody. Mr. Moody, your question was how long would it take to uh I guess record the PCI uh for an area where a project is is going to commence, is that right?
Yes. Okay. Um generally uh that could be done in five to ten business days and typically our inspectors can get out there and do a visual assessment um well within that five business days.
Okay. Right. And do are there already assessments for you said for all the county roads?
Yes. Um back in 2019 and 2020 we um hired a vendor to use a uh specialized vehicle um with cameras and gyroscopes and lasers and all that stuff and they ran all the county maintained roads with that truck, um, to develop our database of uh PCI scores for each segment of roadway that's uh county maintained.
Oh. Okay, and I so the that was in twenty twenty.
Yes sir. Um we are in the process of trying to get um new PCI data um through a different vendor at this at this uh current time. And and I'm sorry, but um when we do a a survey like that at PCI score, it's basically a snapshot in time. Um
Yeah, and I I apologize. The so a concern, not saying it can't be overcome, but a concern is if you given these pavements a score in twenty twenty and I'm doing a project in twenty twenty seven. And then a new PCI is going to be assigned when I'm done construction. How do we account for whatever damage has happened in between when you did your PCI and when I started my construction?
That that's um what our uh our team of inspectors would do just prior to any um trucks um using this new raw ho new haul route. They will go out and do a visual assessment and do a current PCI. So if they did start in twenty twenty seven it would be what that PCI is in twenty twenty seven.
Will this be automatically conducted with uh construction plan approval or is this gonna be a separate process?
Uh yeah, so again I I think you know I think they did a global PCI study in twenty twenty, but a new one will be conducted when the project is is moving forward. Um it would be done anytime there is a construction traffic plan that is needed that they're using a local road. We're gonna ask that they do one.
Is that something your department is going to request or I'm expected to get?
W we're gonna request it um and you're gonna know about it ahead of time because it's in the code. I know there's maybe concern about that five, ten day deadline that you have, right? If you know it's coming, there's no issue with you getting the PCI a little bit earlier so you don't have to wait the five or ten days to get your site development placard, right? If you know it's coming.
Yeah, and I I guess just logistics, Patrick. And I I know most projects go through when they get ready for construction, they go through a quick construction meeting with inspectors. I mean another alternative may be if somehow that's gets triggered to get public works out there to do this CPI concurrently with the pre construction meeting.
Yeah, so I expect it's gonna be a condition of approval on your approval memo that says prior to site development placard issuance.
prior to you getting a placard that allows you to start earthwork, yes. But again, you can do it if you wanna do it twenty if you want to set something up with with public works twenty days prior to your approval memo, go for it. There's no issue with you doing it earlier.
Alright,
now
What happens if you have two projects on the same road?
John, just one second you had the follow-up
question. I guess just logistics here as we kind of think through the process and maybe this isn't something that needs to be codified. I mean we'll start by saying that I think this is a good idea. I think this is something that's needed. Um so uh my my questions are not trying to get away from this. I think it's more of just the how do we implement it and what is what are the expectations. So we have a a pre-construction CPI that goes out there and let's say you get a rating score of about 85. Okay, and your post-construction is uh 78. who establishes or
what how is it determined what The way the code's written, they gotta the the developer will be responsible to get it back to existing conditions, so you'd be back to get it to the eighty-five. Who establishes what's and how do we come to some agreement on what's needed to get it back to the eighty five? I mean I think that the guidelines that were sent out or the the stuff that was sent out was basically okay, well if you have a eighty score, you do this to get it back to a hundred.
Sure. So I I think there's discretion there, and I think that discretion already exists in our code. If you look at the right-of-way use permit code section, it talks about bringing the the road back up to the the same condition or better. And I think that's generally been at the discretion at staff, the inspection staff that is doing the review. So again, I I don't think the PCI tool is necessarily the answer. I think it's a tool. The video is a tool. The PCI is another tool. Using those two tools together, based
off of the recommendation of the staff, just like the right-of-way use permit would contemplate between those two tools, we should have a better picture and idea of how we need to bring the boat the road back up to repair.
Well we know the roads aren't gonna get better over time. So I mean is there an expectation to where if it stays like in the same letter grade that nothing no work's required or no work's expected to be done, or is that we we can't really even get that far.
I I I don't know if we can get that far. I think it may be a case by case again, at just like there's currently discretion built into the right-of-way use permit to have the inspectors make sure the the road is brought back to existing condition or better, I think that same discretion would need to happen here. I mean it's it's it's a very, very hard Issue to to tie a specific number to or letter grade to or uh it's it's and to John's I'm sorry to jump ahead to John's question about what if there's two projects on one road John,
honestly I didn't even think about it until you till you said something. So I I don't know what off the top of my head I don't know what the answer to that is right now.
I'll think about it for sure. Um 'cause it y I mean it's a good point.
At the risk of sounding like a don't support this 'cause I'm where Jamie's at with this thing. But I'm not in a rush to implement something that hasn't been I don't want to put out a half baked cake.
Sure.
Alright. And I think you need to have the details of the program worked out. and think of some different scenarios before we rush into making a Another change to the land development code is an ad hoc reaction to something somebody did. And that's how we've gotten our fifteen hundred pages. That'll now be fifteen hundred and how many pages this one is now, but it's just gonna add to this morass. and
we haven't really thought about all the details yet. It's not that I wouldn't be opposed to such a thing, but I think we need to get the details of this thing worked out. And I would point out And if you go back I don't know if there's videotapes back that far. Back when Jim Woodman was the county engineer. But the reason the substandard roadway ordinance exists is exactly what we're talking about. This is exactly how that ordinance got developed. the problem we were
having back then. was that we had guys who were planning subdivisions in the future but mining dirt in the present. And they were running trucks up and down neighborhood streets, through the through the back of residential subdivisions, to get to their undeveloped properties where they were taking dirt out of there and selling it and trashing the neighborhood streets. And that's how we ended up with the substandard road ordinance.
Over the years that ordinance has morphed into something different with a it doesn't stick to its original intent, but
that this is how our code continues to grow and grow and grow.
Sure.
We need to find ways to streamline approvals, not make them more complicated. Again, I'm not opposed to doing this, but I think you gotta think more about the details of how this is all gonna work.
Okay, understood.
I think I think the problem with that or the difficulty there, John, is there's so much so much ambiguity, it sounds like there's so many details to be worked out. I don't know how you how do you capture every single scenario.
Well I don't think you can.
So you know, who decides and what do we decide brings the road back to an existing condition? We know how to get it there from eighty to a hundred, but we don't know how to get it from seventy-eight to eighty-two, right? Sure.
And then again, if we have multiple projects on a roadway, who's responsible for what? And I can think about that going down Hudson Avenue. How many subdivision projects are going ongoing on Hudson Avenue right now?
Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. Or five A road. I think you've got the picture then. So we'll take that back and consider it. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Anything else, Patchett?
Uh yeah, again, so the only thing I would offer is the PCI and the videotape is just a tool for the inspector to make their decision. So, you know, the when the question is what number is good or not good, I think it's up for the inspector and their opinion to decide on whether or not it's good or not good.
Patrick, don't get me wrong. But this county has a long history of And I I hate to say this because the uh we have a lot of good people that work here, so I don't want anybody present employees to take offense. David, you're probably old enough to remember the coffee cup test?
No, I don't remember the coffee times.
I'll go pull the articles from the the time I think it would have been called the St Saint Petersburg Times back then.
When you spill the coffee.
Yes. We used to have inspectors. That would Test the base of a road. by putting a cup of coffee on the dashboard of their truck, and then driving down the base course of the road and if anything spilled out of the coffee cup then the contractor failed and they would back charge the contractor and this was ended up was big court case. I mean we've there's and that wasn't the only time we had problems. It
was just one of the more notorious ones. You can go back in the archives of the Tampa Bay Times and read that. I don't know that you have any current inspectors, but That's historically something that's happened. I want to make sure something like that doesn't happen again. I had an inspector come out recently on a site visit. complaining about the depth of the mulch. And a landscape bed.
Three inches. Was it two?
No, they were complaining that it was an inch below the sidewalk. Okay. And that that was going to be a trip hazard. I didn't realize the inspectors were Now the
Authority on trip hazards and you know, people were gonna fall off the sidewalks into a mulch l one inch off the sidewalk into a mulch landscape bed. But sometimes we get
Understood. Uh so I have nothing else to offer on this topic. So if you want to move along to the next one, uh 'cause I think we have three today to get
through.
Maybe lean into that more. I mean if it's a if you have a like zero to ten percent degradation over the project, they don't have to do anything. If it's ten to si fifty percent or you know, forty percent we can't get that, maybe they pay towards the repaving or percentage of the repaving of the road. Okay. If it if it's over sixty percent degradation from the project, they have to repave the road. Okay. Something well I don't know if you can do it that way or you know lean into that tool so that there is a guideline that they can point to.
Sure.
Mr. Chairman Mariano? Yes, sir, you may.
David Engel, Planning and Economic Growth. And um I'm here just to just put context on this item. We are barraged with uh citizen complaints on a daily basis about construction management traffic and it and I and I know we want to get this right, but we also have to get something out because um our community is under stress from all the development going on and the degradation of the roads and the obstruction of traffic. Thank you.
Okay, uh let's move on to wooden bridges. So the story on this one. Um there are a few wooden bridges in the county uh where the initial developer, for whatever reason, either aesthetics or for it's cheaper, I'm not sure, uh, decided to install wooden bridges in the community that they were developing. Um Uh what inevitably happened is the community, you know, the first few years, there are really no issues with wooden bridges.
But what happens over a a few years, there's going to be maintenance requirements or maintenance responsibility that needs to occur. Um the lifespan or the maintenance that's required on a wooden bridge is generally more costly and you have to do it much more frequently than a concrete bridge. So what we saw happening was, you know, as as soon as the developer was out, in this case done with running the C D D, you had the new C D coming in that's run by the residents, saying, you know, holy cow, we didn't realize the burden and the cost it took to maintain a wooden bridge between
the pilings and the the boards on the front, you know, they can get warped often. And we've seen this in a few communities. So the idea here was to basically say no to wooden bridges. The previous language that we brought last time was a little confusing in terms of not on county, but okay on private. We meant it to be all. So we changed the language to more or less say no wooden bridges on on uh in a residential subdivision uh in a private uh community or a C D
D or um if the roads happen to go to the county which we're trying not to accept roads these days uh but if that occurs basically no. So the default is no um but there's still the opportunity if if If someone came along with a uh good reasoning why they need a wooden bridge or should have a wooden bridge in a certain instance and they can prove that, uh the alternative standard process still exists. I know we don't like to approve things via alternative standard, but s again sometimes
there are unique types of projects where you kinda need to deviate from the code. So um that's The conversation on wooden bridges and the change that we made, uh, the ch again, the changes that we're applying it to all residential subdivisions, not just the you know, things that we're gonna be on the county road. Um now, in terms of the the technicals of wooden bridges, I I'm not the guy. Um Nick, our county engineer, is probably a little bit more fluent in talking about uh life cycle, lifespan of wooden bridges.
Bridges, so if you have any questions about that, I think he can probably provide a little bit better information than I can.
Sure.
So
A C D D
Gets the debt obligation for all the infrastructure and the development. Sell these bonds. The bonds fund, the infrastructure, the C D D members all have to pay back this debt. Right?
Sure.
Well, what makes them think they're going to get free lunch? Okay, the cost of a concrete bridge. You pay for up front, you got a higher debt payment. You got a lower debt payment from the Wood Bridge? We got a maintenance bill that comes with it.
Sure.
You know? Should I go out and buy a brand new 2026 GMC Sierra for a hundred thousand dollars? No. It'll have a warranty for a few years and I won't have to have any maintenance, but I'm gonna have a heck of a car payment. Or should I go buy a used one? Then I will have a low car payment but I'm gonna have a probably higher maintenance bill.
Sure.
You're not going to get something for nothing.
I think the key is is knowing up front. Right? When that initial payment is there up front when they're buying into the C D D and they see the cost of the concrete bridge, they know that cost is there. Whereas the long term maintenance of a wooden bridge, they don't see that value until fifteen. I'm sorry?
What about steel bridges?
is where I'm gonna defer to Nick on answering questions about
I think the point I'm trying to make is bridges aren't maintenance free. Bridges have to be inspected. The D O T has a The DOT for many many many years didn't go inspect their bridges and they had to ad an active bridge inspection program because they realized all the maintenance they'd failed to do over the decades. on their bridges and boy they got an expensive repair bill when they started doing some of these inspections on their concrete bridges, on their steel bridges, on their wooden on all their bridges. I mean a bridge is an infrastructure
cost and infrastructure cost infrastructure doesn't come without operation and maintenance costs. And I just think this is to me This seems nuts.
That we're amending the land development code. We're saying to all future developers, you can't do this. Because one C D D. This isn't ten C Ds or 100 C Ds around the county, it's one. has a problem with paying for the maintenance for the infrastructure in their neighborhood. The other question that I have is, has anybody looked in? I don't know for a fact because I didn't get a chance to check this before I came. But I looked at that wooden bridge on Rangeland Boulevard on
Google Street View to see what it looked like. And I will tell you that in Street View I can't see where that appears, at least from that picture, to be problematic. But that's crossing, it's a low crossing of a wetland.
Is there a chance or has anybody looked to see if that was part of the arrangement for the wetland impact when the environmental resource permits for that subdivision were done? Because some it Swift Mutt has in the past asked people to use natural materials when crossing wetlands. Same thing we would you know when we're looking at um boardwalks through wetlands. We want wooden boardwalks. We've told people
to go out and put c paved concrete sidewalks. That's something that's been done. So I'd I don't want to make it impossible for somebody to go get a permit. Because we've decided locally because one C D D's got some kind of issue.
Understood. And and not to be argumentative, but it's we had two C E D's with the issue, Union Park and uh Starkey. Sure. Yes. It's closer to one than it is ten. Yes. And Mr.
Moody brought up brought up a really good point before as well is you know some of these issues may be related to how the bridge was initially constructed and the quality of that construction as opposed to uh the fact that it's just wooden. I understand wooden bridges probably have a lower lifespan um than than concrete, but at the same time there's bridges that have been wooden bridges have been around for a hundred years that are still surviving just fine because they were built properly.
On
the
environment they're exposed to and how well they're maintained. You know, you go stick concrete down in salt water. It doesn't have a long lifespan either. Right. F D O T Has a beautiful concrete and Steel bridge over Tampa Bay and they've had problems with that since day one.
Sure.
Okay. There's no wood
in that bridge. And there's some really aesthetically pleasing wooden bridges that have been used throughout the county and you know, I I'm not a really big fan of government stepping in and saying that they just can't be built. I mean that's I think it's a little bit of an overreach.
Understood?
Anyone else on this topic or we'd like to move on to the next?
And I think I know the answer, but I would just like to confirm because that um Rangeland Starkey Bridge also has a pedestrian wooden bridge. Is that being affected by this? Are you now saying that that pedestrian bridge that's in that right of way can't be a wooden bridge and that would have
to
be a good one?
No,
I'm not sure.
This this is a nine oh one six and that's only two res residential roads. Yeah. Nine oh one seven is um sidewalks and that type of thing where we do permit uh
That's what I thought I just wanted to confirm.
Thank
you.
Alright.
Let's get to the the last item of my presentation today. Uh some changes to nine oh five two, which is landscaping and buffering. One of the big w uh ones that we talked about last time was the redevelopment landscaping where You know, we we think there's a little bit of a loophole there and we were trying to change the valuation of the building and it just got a little messy. Um so we said, all right, we're gonna put that one to the side right now because there, you know, it's it's there not that many people taking advantage of that loophole. We rarely see it. Um
so again we said we were gonna put that one to the side. Um the the big conversation I think left was about street trees, right? And you know, essentially how we define street trees are basically between the sidewalk and the curb in a right-of-way, right? So it's going to be on the C D D or HOA's property, it's not going to be on the resident's property. And one of the key main concerns, I think, was you know, this is another cost that is going. to go ultimately to the resident that is buying the home
in terms of uh you know the the tree itself uh root barriers that are essentially going to be required in in all of these instances because almost all of the trees that we allow them to plant in those areas that you know the roots need a root barrier. So these are additional costs that are going to be passed you know the developer is going to have to incur it's going to be passed on to the home buyer. So we heard that and we did some research and found some data that basically more or less says that you know there's a lot of there's more pluses
than there are minuses to including street trees in residential subdivisions. You know, the the resale value of a lot of the homes that have street trees compared to those that don't are generally higher. You know, the shade that's provided. Over the homes and the tr streets themselves. You're looking at smaller costs for air conditioning, right? Because that you're providing shade to the building and the building doesn't need to be cooled as much. And, you know, again, yes, there are impacts that are
that are could potentially happen because of the routes to the road, but also the canopy that's provided by the road protects the road from the sun. Sun also to preserving I think the the lifespan of the road itself.
Tall ones. Tall trees.
Yeah, it's gonna take them a while to get there. I mean if you drive through Longleaf you'll see they have a lot of street trees and
then a lot of times the height's limited because of but utilities along the street too. So
you're there are no overhead power lines in residential subdivisions, so there's there's nothing overhead.
I can testify that my streak tree does provide shape of my out. Yeah. Definitely.
Thank you, David.
Can I since we're on the topic of utilities? Sure. Is there a certain distance they have to be planted away from the utilities? Because usually along the street there's like a ten foot utility easement.
Yeah, so um our in our development review manual we have a tree list of all the trees that you can use in the county and there are two columns. There's a distance between paved surfaces and a distance away from those utilities. So you basically more or less you're using root barriers in all those instances.
I'm trying to get to the section, but your definition of utilities
ends with not including stormwater pipes and under drains. Why is there a need to protect all other utilities except stormwater pipes and under drains when it comes to routes.
It's been a while since I've looked at that code section and I can't remember why the specifics off the top of my head right now.
Just Trying to figure out Why a tree
An under drained pipe would be a wonderful place for a tree's roots to grow.
Sure.
And we have Residents complaining about Flooding. We have a rain tax. on everybody's tax bill. Two Run a stormwater utility. And we're going to protect utilities, utilities, but we're not gonna protect barretts. stormwater pipes over here, that to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Yeah, that that's I think it existed in the code as long as I've worked here and when we updated the landscape code in twenty twenty, uh twenty twenty two, um we talked about it and I again I can't remember the spsi specifics behind why we left it the way it was.
Okay, I just don't understand why we're gonna charge residents a tax, but then we're gonna allow trees to attack those routes, just not the other routes. But
We can we can certainly look at including those utilities um in in that list.
s something that didn't get said, yes, this is a cost to the homeowner.
Right. the trees were gonna be planted on C D D or HOA property, is that right?
Most likely HOA, but yes.
So then whose maintenance responsibility is it?
So I and I could be wrong, but I believe while it's on HOA property, some HOAs still assign maintenance responsibility to the homeowner that is adjacent to the tree. So I I think, you know, it's up to the HOA to decide. I've I've seen I've seen 'em set up both ways.
Nonetheless it's a maintenance obligation.
Sure.
So while we're worried about eliminating a maintenance obligation when it comes to a bridge, we're going to attach a maintenance obligation for these trees.
Yes. And you know, again I and I know you all sat through the multiple meetings, you know, uh our commissioners were concerned about the lack of can or the canopy that we're losing in the county. So this is one of the methods to get canopy back in Pasco County. It's primarily white recording. Yeah.
Right. So that was all three items. Uh open to any comments, questions, or anything else you'd like to discuss or talk about.
Yeah, the right end for discussion. The only the only other i issue I have with this is just um impeding Um evacuation andor response during a weather event with the street trees. That's a concern of mine. Cut it. And if the trees are planted back from the street, then it's less likely they're going to drop onto the street and block the roadways during a weather event. Uh-huh. Okay.
Understood.
Okay, anything else, Patcher?
Not from me.
Not let's see if there's any questions from the public. Do we have anybody that wants to speak on this issue? If not then. Um
What's your recommendation?
Anybody up here have a recommendation?
And
Motion. I have another question for staff.
Sure.
Okay, can you make a motion so uh for the purposes of the discussion?
No, I'm not prepared to do that.
Okay. Go ahead and ask the question. The sixty foot spacing.
Yes.
Has anybody tried to diagram out how that might work?
Um I mean th we've I think we have that requirement in so Connected City actually has the requirement for street trees in the land development code. So all projects in Connected City already have street trees. I I think that's where we got that number from, but I would have to double check.
If you have sixty foot wide lots, it's pretty easy. I can stick one in street tree at every lock corner or somewhere along the lock front digit or relatively even spacing. I tried before I left the office today diagramming out how that works with the forty five foot and fifty foot wide lots. And somebody probably needs to do that because you're going to find out that you're going to have trees in people's driveways. You're gonna have trees and people's water meters.
in drainage easement.
Gotta think about the dimensions of the lots. Where I'm going with that is I think it might be better. I'm not trying to shoot down the idea. I'm saying this is somewhere maybe a little more thought needs to go to this. Maybe it would be better that street trees go at lot corners, not an arbitrary spacing. Anytime we get prescriptive with something, we create a problem. Because no one's thought of the various scenarios. where this can happen. I
brought it up in a meeting the other day about requiring a parking island between every ten parking spaces.
Well This is the same thing. If you say trees are gonna be spaced sixty feet, then you're gonna end up with trees that are in problem locations because of You've created this prescriptive requirement. That's what I say it may be better to say Put them at each of the lap corners. That way we know where they're going to land and we know they're not gonna end up in where somebody needs a driveway or where I've got a storm sewer crossing across a street. Somebody
needs to look at what's the impact. of how we've writ how we've written the code.
Sure. Would on average help? Sixty feet on average. So
that's what you've got is it does. Blood.
That would allow some flexibility to move it five feet or, you know, if you needed to.
But again, open to any suggestions.
Yeah, I would I would think that the putting it on the corners or mandating it on the corners would cause problems with the utilities.
Well, yeah, I so that's I personally think mandating street trees is gonna problem cause problems with utilities all around, but yes.
But the fact is the public wants trees. So better find a way to make it
work. So on on that example of a forty five foot wide lot, isn't there a mandation, isn't there a requirement for a front yard tree?
So that's one of the things that we're removing with this section. So you're required to have two trees per lot. Right now with our land development code it's six thousand or less. Um and we're basically taking that tree that would have been in your front of your lot. Yeah.
So it's gonna be one tree per lot now on those smaller units, essentially.
Because it would look better up against the street messing with the all the utilities and in the front yard.
Um you know, we've not all they'll use some trees that are s smaller trees, the trees that are you know, they're generally farther back, but yes.
Yeah, so we're not netting really any more trees. Right? So 'cause the lot's being built already with requirement for that tree in the front yard, we're just moving it to the street. It we're just changing the location. We're not adding canopy.
And we're putting it where it's more problematic for utility and Right. Storm, whether we include storm and utilities even though we pay for a stormwater utility on our tax
bill.
I mean I I guess the purpose is just to add canopy, but if it's not gonna do that then it's I mean I like don't get me wrong, I like the aesthetics of Can you just
make
it subject
to some kind of administrative adjustment?
I'm sorry?
Can you just make it subject to some kind of administrative adjustment based upon you know the plan that comes in?
D the tree spacing? Yeah. I I mean y yes, I guess we could.
Yeah. Rather than say more or less sixty feet, you could say. Because you might have to move it might be or
lot. Yeah.
I think that's quite interesting. We you know, we're we'll just take the example that you gave of the HOA that assigns the maintenance of that tree to the homeowner. Well if I got trees on average sixty feet. And I got forty-five foot wide lots in my subdivision while one homeer home homeowner gets off and the next guy he's gotta pay for the tree.
Yeah, one of the reasons why we said um this spacing that way is because some townhome units can have very, very small lots and to require one tree on every single it it just doesn't work. So that's why we use that average sixty feet.
So
We have we need to have some kind of uh ability to make an a you know, educated judgment when the plane comes down.
You know, rather than put a number of feet.
We need the proper wording for that.
Yeah.
Maybe David could come up with something.
So I'll throw back my view.
I met
David Engel, but Well we certainly can work on a uh a language between now and the Board of County Commissioners to address uh a latitude of flexibility so we are creating our three facing compatible and built environment.
Everybody comfortable with that? Yeah, I'm I'm just struggling with the purpose of this ordinance. I mean it's if if the the purpose is to create more canopy This is not doing that. Um you know, and and the Uh cooling costs for typical house. So When these smaller lots are normally going to be planted in the front yard, so that's that's a wash, having it out in the street versus there. I mean in theory it would provide even more cooling if it's closer to the house in the front yard. Um
I mean can you enlighten me as to what the whole purpose w w w for this ordinance was in the first place? Was it to increase canopy across the
Increase canopy across the county and also just also get street trees on residential subdivisions.
I have not reached out to any homeowners insurance companies.
Go try to get homeowners insurance. They want to come out and look and see how close you got trees to your house. And they tell you I'm not gonna insure
you unless you get that tree out of here. In theory this moves it further away from the house, but it it's not increasing canopy yet. That's that's Well in our current
subdivisions we have fifteen foot front yards
The tree doesn't have to grow very tall before it's fallen on the house or its branches are dropping. And I used to live in a a house that had oak trees, live oak trees on the property where the branches overhung the roof. And it was constant roof maintenance. The roof didn't dry off because it didn't get sun. I had constant Spanish moss up there, constant leaf drop, constant acorns beating up the shingles. I'm not anti treat. I
like trees. But cooling is one benefit, but it doesn't come without other costs as well. Nothing's free.
Sure. So with larger lot sizes, in theory, these could be in addition to the already required trees on the lot, correct?
Right.
Okay. So in that instance you'd be increasing canopy because this is an additional street tree in addition to the required, but it's only on your smaller lots, the six thousand square foot lots where it would take the place of.
Right.
Okay. So we just get rid of the six thousand square foot blocks.
Okay.
Well, I mean in and and so then you think about what percentage of the construction going on is those smaller lots, and I'd say are you that's a large percentage of the construction. So we may be marginally increasing canopy somewhat, but
Understood.
Creating a whole bunch of other issues
to go with it. Well I think David O David uh Engel volunteered to come up with a suggestion for the commission and
Yes sir. We are just talking about it now.
I think we all know what our hope and intent is to increase canopy, but also uh have a realistic um plan of attack so that it doesn't end up in somebody's um utility.
No.
Do I hear a motion on with regard to that?
Patrick, would you like to make one now? I can
tr feel the tension. I'll just say from an engineer's perspective, it's very difficult. I'm trying to reconcile it. I'm gonna go install trees in what is commonly known on the edge of the roadway as the utility strip.
Mm-hmm.
It
makes repairing utilities very difficult.
But yet when I send my plans over to utilities there's details I have to include from their standard utilities. Showing how I've got to break landscape buffers and keep hedges away and I can't plant trees in this low zone or that zone, all for the purpose of protection of the utilities. And now we're gonna go in here and plant trees where we know they're going to be. in the way of utilities. And
even though We put root barriers. And I'm not really concerned about what tree roots are going to do to a force main or a pressurized water main. they might like to crawl into the sanit the gravity sanitary sewer. I'm more concerned about the utility crew. Okay. They gotta they gotta come through. They've got a fix a broken force main or a broken water main. they're
gonna have to take the tree out or they're gonna have to come in here and provide support for this tree just so that they can do the digging they need to do to do their maintenance and repairs. It just
I understand. There are pros and cons. Get it.
We're we're we're appeasing one group that is looking for an aesthetic And we're Appeasing them at the cost of being able to efficiently provide a public service, water and sewer service.
Wouldn't we accomplish the same thing by increasing the number of trees required on some of these larger lots? Because that's effectively what's going to happen.
that may potentially help uh Yes.
that would increase the canopy the same amount as this ordinance would without the conflict with all of the utilities and issues with storm you know branches and storms and trees going down the roadways.
Another comment or thought is we just adopted a new tree ordinance and our new tree ordinance re requires when we do a residential subdivision that we save 20% of these larger trees.
That ordinance hasn't been in effect long enough for us to see any of the positive benefits of that, where I'm going with that is when they're required to save twenty percent of these trees.
A developer may opt to put a fork in the road to save a big live oak that serves as a street tree. Right. It has the aesthetics of a tree in the in the subtillage. Right, exactly. And we're planning utilities around it, not planting trees and then trying to inhibit the growth of their roots so that they don't get in the utilities. Where we're going to have to be a good thing.
Inevitably when you have to repair the utilities you're gonna end up digging up the tree and killing the tree anyway. Well even if the roots don't interfere with the the utilities, there's eventually gonna be maintenance needed on these utilities.
Mr. Chairman Mariano make a recommendation, please. Mr. Chairman M my recommendation is because the construction routing item in this uh agenda item is very critical for us, I propose that we remove the tr shade tree provision. and just move forth with the other provisions of this draft ordinance revision. And then I'm going to uh enlist Mr. Moody to work with us in coming up with a solution on the shade trees, if you don't mind, sir.
Certainly.
Thank you.
I'll save the other comments I was going to make when these mics are not live.
I was thinking like crazy about the first of the years.
So again they're there are the the three, right? The wooden bridge, the street trees and the construction route. So looking for recommendations on those.
So I I mean I I agree with the urgency for the construction route stuff. There there there's some good s to remove the ambiguity and obviously we have to work on this language afterwards it would be um you do your CPI or pay PCI before and after, whatever that percent reduction is, they pay that percentage of the total paving costs for the repave of the route. If the county engineer can provide a repaving estimate for the route. Does that make sense? Alternatively they can decide to repay it themselves if they think it they think they think
they can do it cheaper. That way gives them an option and it defines what they're gonna have to do.
Um So if that's a good idea. doable for staff, I think that makes a lot of sense to me to get rid of the ambiguity and so we can and if we need to change it later, obviously we can change it later, but that kind of sets it sets something up that is defined that would potentially work.
um standardized
Is the process and the evaluation method standardized and published?
You should sit closer. I should.
Uh Chris Chris Hanning. Um yes sir. Um it's a national standard. Um our uh inspectors in public works have been um gone through some training to uh uh be certified to rate um roads.
Okay.
So the county staff is going to give the pre-construction PCI and then the post-construction PCI?
G what do you mean give? Sorry.
Well, they're going to calculate the pre construction PCI and the post construction PCI. And what if I as the developer or the contractor say, Well, I don't agree with your PCI. My engineer says it's this.
I I think we we have those disagreements all the time at the county for various different things.
How are they normally resolved for other disagreements similar to that?
Well, when we do have conflicts, we always try to find solutions within the code. So we'll sit down and we'll have a discussion and if we made a mistake, we'll own it and we'll uh you know, we'll consider what the information is that was presented by the development.
And then and then how who or how how is it determined what r what actually needs to be done to get it from PCI before or PCI before or back up to PCI before? So in other words, what what what who determines what work needs to be done to get it from seventy five back up to eighty five?
Well. Um the decoration of the road will be uh identified in the inspection, correct? So we understand what the immediate repair is requirement is and then we ask the developer to do it. I prefer the county not do the repairs and we can include other things. I think the developer if they uh prematurely age a road, they should fix it.
And just again, something else to add, right, there's existing language in our code right now for right away use permits that says it needs to be brought up to existing conditioner better. Just blanket without any Without any kind of anything. So it's right now it's up to the inspector's judgment to make that call. On this one, we're doing videotaping and we're adding this additional lever of the PCR.
Yeah. And layouts. Yeah,
the right-of-way inspectors. It's they're the same inspectors.
That's what I was curious about.
So My only comment to that would be just because there's ambiguity in it now, let's not add more um necessarily. But we are gonna update the land development code after we get done with the comp plan amendment as well. So maybe there's a potential to make that better. So in the meantime I mean I I wouldn't
personally be okay with keeping it as is and then let's make sure we revisit when we rev revisit the entire land development code update.
Right now I'm told that's twenty twenty nine. Right.
Okay. Well then that's a good point.
But that's better than Twenty th thirty one. I agree
with you.
Okay. Is this an opportunity to move forward or not?
So I think the existing language that we had before today was just videotaping. We didn't have the PCI and I don't think concern was raised last time about this. Um
I'd be more comfortable if we just left it into videotaping.
I don't want to get into a Oh I watch my language here. A an argument over the calculation of a paving condition index. The video is what the video is.
Yeah, I mean it can be somewhat subjective just like an appraisal is.
Yeah, either way it's either way it's subjective. Mm-hmm. Even if we're using the T C I to go back to what's eighty or eighty eight.
The video is somewhat less subjective, but it's still how the repair is made and What the damage that was done.
My concern is and I'm not concerned about the government I have. It's the one I might get. I've said that often. I said all of a sudden I'm gonna get told, Well, the way you fix the PCAI from seventy-eight to eighty is you need to overlay the road with you need to mill it and overlay it with one inch of asphalt. Well now I essentially just built you a new where surface. Well I only did a little bit of damage to the road.
Who who does the paving s the assessments for the paving assessment? Is that like who like who does inspections for like paving assessments and stuff? Are we is this done in a similar fashion? Like if you have a road I don't even know, does the paving assessment program say it still exist or did that go away?
The uh excuse me. The pavement assessment um that w that the P VS P S yeah. Yes, that went away uh a couple of years ago w when the MSTU um started.
What?
And that was that was really an assessment to assist. Yeah, but at some point
didn't somebody go out from the county that like evaluated the condition of the road and determine like what needed to be done. Did they follow the same protocol?
Yes. That's that's what we did in twenty nineteen and twenty twenty, when we uh surveyed all the roads to get a base line and that's what we use for our um our uh road rehab work plan.
I mean my my only hesitation here, I mean, at least this this method that's proposed, at least you get some kind of There's a lot less ambiguity. To me, I everybody can look at a videotape and tell you it says a different thing. Um I think this at least puts a hard number on it. You get a better evaluation of the road are a little more thorough. Like I what what I struggle with is is how do you get over the hurdle of the next step, not really this evaluation stage is it's how do you establish what needs to be done to bring it back up to existing conditions.
And I guess there's always gonna be ambiguity but I don't know, maybe if if this is put in place the way it's proposed, it's definitely better in my opinion than what we've got now. And and maybe maybe this is something we learn along the way, in my opinion.
Do we have an idea of how many developments are using local roads? Just out of curiosity, I I
don't have an
exact
number, but the majority are not using local roads for their access for construction a lot, most developments on a collector or arterial roadway. Yeah.
So is this a case then that we're creating a reaction to somebody did something that is causing a problem, so I'm gonna go change it in the land development code rather than going and hitting the problem with that particular
It's been happening enough that it's it's multiple some ones. Uh so that's why I think we're bringing it forward to the land development code, it's happening uh a decent amount.
I've been doing this for a long time. Okay, and it's gone in fits and starts. Again, I explained during this discussion, the substandard road ordinance was invention was initially created to address this very problem. But It only seems to have a few periods of problems. Okay, we had this problem and we got the substandard road ordinance
and you know we really haven't had a whole problem. It's only the last year or two now all of a sudden we have this problem. We didn't have this problem back in these other years. Why is that?
Because we have a lot more info. Yeah, so I was just gonna say again a lot more off the beaten path development. A lot of the stuff on the collector roads is spoken for.
I I mean I think this at least gives the county a a way to start the discussion to move forward with and I I I think over time really I I I think you're gonna see a lot more care and caution taken on the existing roads and right away so they don't have to do anything.
That's a good point.
Um because there's a method in place and right now the way it currently exists is there's nothing I mean like Good luck going me. under the existing conditions, how do you go back or what do you have to actually go back and get somebody to do something about what they've done? This right away permit language is there. You can always go back to them on that, but this gives them a little more T to the orchids, in my opinion.
I got um w I d one way one more comment, then I'll make a motion for the chair. Yeah. Um on on the street trees, I think uh Derek made a good point about maybe increasing the number per lot on the larger lots. I wonder and if we're gonna go back and look at that, maybe it can be a combination of street trees on collector roads and then increase trees per larger lots, so you're not putting Bunch of trees on the local road within that utility area. Okay. Just a thought. Sure. But I'll I'll make I'll make a motion that we uh
are we recommending approval or are you approving? But a we're approving uh the changes is at f uh section four oh three point five and point seven and uh but not the changes to the other sections until a later date.
We've got the wooden bridge ones too. Wooden bridge one too, right?
Well then we said we were gonna hold off we were just gonna do the Okay.
We'll hold off on the wooden bridge and the street trees.
So basically continue those to
Continu Yeah, continue those till what un date uncertain I guess and then recommend approval for the changes to four oh three five and four oh three seven.
I'll second that for discussion.
Okay, we have a motion and a second for further discussion. I'll uh we have any further discussion on those items.
Yeah, the only thing I would probably change about that is I would probably move to deny the wooden bridge prohibition. I don't think that's but we can talk about that more in the future with the continuation. So just for the record.
So you want them to make be able to have wooden bridges, is that what you're saying?
Correct. That's that's just me and just one commissioner. Yeah. But that's that's not that's not part of the motion though. That's the same thing.
Okay, so we have a motion, we have a second. Is there further discussion? If not all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Made a little step. Yeah,
there you go. Little progress. Like it.
Alright.