Multi-Family Residential Rezoning and Land-Use Amendments Criteria for Review

1:02:34I a motion passes five zero. Um so commissioners, we're moving on to R2, but before staff comes up for R2, I just want to make a statement and and ask the board what their prerogative would be on this. My first question would be, did staff meet with with each and every one of you on this item?

1:02:59I see a thumbs up by Commissioner Starkey. Commissioner Oakley, did staff with you on this item?

1:03:04well

1:03:05staff meet with yes

1:03:06yes chairman

1:03:07yes okay so here's my here lies my issue.

1:03:12Yeah. We had a workshop, we had these discussions for a long time. We had a workshop, we had a discussion. What I we gave what I felt was clear direction on what we were looking for, which was along that 54-56 corridor and our and our issues and our concerns with the oversaturation apartments and the and the one-offs. And the easy things would be to. Take those off that major corridor. And move 'em back. You're at a distance where it'd be three thousand feet or thirty five hundred feet or twenty five hundred

1:03:42what may be. Or difficult to figure out. So when I cut staff and I which all you did too and looked at the pre presentation recommendations It got a little It got out there a little bit. We're looking at now they brought up design students to us. They got things going on over in the Harbor's District, over in West Pasco, things happening in multiple different areas, which to me wasn't the direction we gazed. My thought is is that You know, they can put up I don't want to go through I

1:04:12personally don't want to go through this presentation because it's not what we asked for. This is it's nothing even close to what we asked for. And I just think you put up the recommendations up there and let the board pick through it because we gave some pretty I thought it was pretty clear direction that day. Because I asked multiple times, everybody was in agreement. And I know Commissioner Starkey added some distance to hers on fifty four, where she liked to see some things, and Commissioner Oakley added some distance to his area. And if I'm not correct, I didn't think um Commissioner O Wells or Mary Young wanted to see anything

1:04:43along those areas where they lived. I thought that t correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's the direction we gave.

1:04:51Commissioner Mariano.

1:04:53Yeah, I I think you you nailed it. Um my conversation with staff was almost identical to that. Um You know, and and I think the development community is probably a little scared about us taking this extra step as well. So I I'm agree with all the way through. I mean, all the way from we said fifty-four, fifty-six, all the way from gun highway to three oh one. That was the impact that everyone wanted to to protect. And that's that's where I thought it should be limited to.

1:05:15I agree with you, sir. Anyone else in agreement with that?

1:05:21Chairman

1:05:21Mariano Oakley.

1:05:23Um I agree. This is a much broader take of that workshop than what I thought we were looking at. I thought we were only looking at pitch four. You know, fit six that area from uh Commissioner Starkey's area back over to 301. But this is broad, this is the entire county. Um Maybe some of that we need to look at, but I don't I don't believe they were understanding from that meeting. uh, the direction they would take, but I thought it was very clear it was that small area.

1:05:53Yeah. Uh yeah, uh Commissioner Starkey. Thank you, sir.

1:05:57Um When I listen to the presentation. I I like I like what they're trying to do. Uh maybe this isn't the right place to do it. We have to redo our land development code. Right. But uh and I I agree with their attempt to try and integrate multifamily better. Um You know, we la when I I was with them. We looked at some um places where Multifamily. was

1:06:29just kind of plopped with no connection or anything to any um commercial or retail around them and it it makes for a disjointed community. So I like the direction they're going in. Um And I hope that we can discuss some of these planning elements soon. I personally am okay to listen to the presentation. Because I think there's some good things in it, but I I understand what you're saying. I

1:06:59I thought we had said from Gone to Three oh one, I think, is what we said, but But there are some things in here that are good and I think we should listen to it and Well go on. What we think is appropriate for today.

1:07:13Thank you, Commissioner. I I don't agree. There's some items in there that I think we should like you stated to take a look at. I just think it's something that should be brought up specifically. Um and then we and those some of those thoughts that they have um and suggestions they had, I think those are gonna take stakeholder meetings and uh and more involvement from the community versus what the direction we gave, um, which was just, hey, let's get this done.

1:07:44and get 54 and 56 figured out, or not figured out, just taken care of. And then we can move back and and listen to some of those suggestions because all the design standards and stuff, that's gonna take a lot of discussion, I think, amongst the board and amongst our some of our community partners and stakeholders. Yeah. I know. I'll I'll I'll leave it to the entire board. Do we want to hear the entire presentation or we want to move on with what we decide that we want to see and vote on it?

1:08:13I'd rather move on and go to what we decided we gave him direction on.

1:08:17Yeah. Commissioner Weightman

1:08:19Yeah, Chairman, we I mean, we've all met with them one-on-one. Uh I can guarantee you Terry knows my opinion on it and his team does. And uh I agree that was the first priority. And you know, we've got a lot of cool projects going on in my district that are coming up and and I it This stuff really shouldn't be added. I don't want to get into too much, but I agree with you. The idea was the 54-56 corridor. Um, and I don't disagree with that. So.

1:08:43Mr. Oakley.

1:08:45Yeah, I was um I'm not I'm not a totally against it. I like the idea we're doing some planning, but I just don't want it to be something we

1:08:55I think areas

1:08:57of

1:08:57something haven't

1:08:59even thought about developing yet. That kind of concerns me a little bit, but uh project for that quarter. I I think we were very clear on where even though I do like what Terry does there for maybe the future time let's all discuss it a little better because I don't think we all meant for it to be The entire scope of what they brought to us here today.

1:09:23Okay. So can we get through this 5456? And if we have time, we can hear some of their thoughts and ideas after that. I can't make a motion. Well I can, but I don't. Um

1:09:38Right hopefully make a motion to that.

1:09:40Okay, okay, so

1:09:42Of that quarter.

1:09:44Okay. So the so with the this corridor was fifty-four, fifty-six. Commissioner Starkey, where was your Stopping point at

1:09:52Gun Highway.

1:09:54Done Highway and Commissioner Oakley, your stopping point was at three oh one, sir.

1:09:57Come

1:09:57on, yeah.

1:09:59Okay, 5456. And the next thing we just need to talk about is a distance. We talked about whether it's 3,000, 3500, 2500 feet off. The road. I mean three thousand is a pretty good number. I was counting some things off and that seems to allow um that furnish to build I mean either some office or possible retail. Um What are your thoughts on the distance?

1:10:26The dis the distance um does Harry uh Terry may have with staff have a thought of what fits better for what

1:10:35Yeah. I can't commissioner marks. Yeah. Mr. Starkey, go ahead.

1:10:41I'm not comfortable with making an ordinance. Um or making the rules. This way. Um Can we have Terry speak and hearing us all speak, can can I can we have him s suggest something and not from us, because we're we're not planners. We I don't know what the right number is. Let's let's hear what he has to say. No what we all just the direction kind of gave.

1:11:08I'm okay with that. I'm fine with that, but we are we are the policymakers, so we can

1:11:11Right. But let's let's hear from the expert there and then we'll make the policy. Okay. Well

1:11:16Carrie, we're not going through the whole presentation. We can talk distances.

1:11:33I'm sorry from slide nine. Yeah, just All right.

1:11:37Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1:11:41Here we go. We're gonna start from uh slide five and talk about what the comprehensive plan is referring to, which is Pasco County's 25 comprehensive plan outlines various policies and objectives that reinforce a review of an on a project. or strategies for the reduction of urban sprawl, the ability to adequately provide for employment generating uses, and the ability to appropriately locate and transition between commercial uses. So the policy proposed still maintains a level of flexibility for staff and the development community. to work with applicants to meet the intent of a desired outcome.

1:12:12um with easier to accomplish than a rigid quantitative standard. So Um what I'm gonna do here is I'm gonna walk through the original text that was provided to the board and that was prevent presented to each of the members individually. And I'll go ahead and I'll read that. I know you can't see it on this, or at least I can't see it on the screen, but I will go ahead and read that just in case uh it's too small at home. But the original text was new multifamily residential zoning and future land use amendments in the urban service area shall

1:12:42be integrated with a mixture of employment generating land uses, either existing uses in an infill scenario or new uses to preserve a balance between residential development and employment generating uses along the county's transit corridors and designated areas for urban development. To the extent this requires amendments to the Land Development Code and or the Comprehensive Plan, the Board directs the Planning and Development Department to work expeditiously on those updates. That was the original language. Um and the emphasis of that language. uh is

1:13:13to use existing policies and existing codes. uh to implement uh the directive. And you can see that in that policy, it was referring to the entire urban service area, which includes the West Market area and the south market area. So if you go to the next slide. This is an option to the uh original text that was provided. It's essentially the same text with the addition of the phrase along transit corridors. You can see it underlined and in bold. So

1:13:43now the the sentence would read New Multifamily Residential Zoning and Future Land Use Amendments along transit corridors in the urban service area. So that Brings it down from the entire urban service area to specific uh transit corridors. So if we go to the next slide. This is a uh essentially a map of the urban service area along with uh various transit corridors identified, of course the 5456 corridor being the longest at the at the south end of the county. If

1:14:14we go to the next slide. We'll see a a third option here, which is essentially the original text that was presented, plus a new sentence underlined there in bold, which specifically calls out the State Road 5456 corridor. I'll go ahead and read that in case those at home couldn't can't read it on their little screen. In addition, in the case of the State Road 5456 corridor, the first 1,000 feet adjacent to the corridor between Gunn Highway and US 301 shall place new multifamily residential zoning

1:14:44and future land use amendments behind non-residential land uses, unless the development will vertically integrate. A mixture of land uses. And then the the again, the emphasis is trying to use existing. codes and policies to the extent that we can. If we move to the next slide, I think there's a couple of points that I just want to bring up for the benefit of the board to consider. What this added sentence does is that it guarantees multifamily is pushed back off the corridor to allow for commercial or other non-residential

1:15:15zoning and development to front the 5456 corridor. But keep in mind that single family can potentially be a fronter. As well. In the first thousand feet from the right-of-way, development must ensure viable commercial or non-residential frontage lots before planning for the multifamily. So you have to really take that into consideration to understand what's left of the property in order to put in multifamily. There are a couple of zoning districts that can still accommodate this. Um I have just identified the two here, C2, and which is a Euclidean

1:15:45zone and an MPUD. Um that you could uh you could zone, for example, an entire property that's fronting um State Rule 5456, C2 zoning, establish the commercial uses up front, let's say, and then establish a conditional use permit for the rear portions of the property. As an example. Additionally, if the development vertically integrates multifamily with commercial or non-residential on the first floor. facing the street, multifamily can be along the corridor. You can bring it up to the street frontage,

1:16:16but that street frontage still has the office space. It still has the commercial space. available. um for the uh uh the commercial activity that and the employment generating land uses. Importantly, multifamily can still occur within the corridor. We have to keep that in mind to avoid any semblance of of potential exclusionary zoning. Um potentially this this uh additional language here risks conflicting with flu policy 162. Because it

1:16:46would it could force, it doesn't necessarily force, but it could force a continuous non-residential frontage. along the state road fifty four fifty six quarter. Um And Policy flu 162 prohibits strip commercialization. So we want to make sure that we're within the the confines of the of the comprehensive plan in that sense. Additionally, this kind of an approach would also mean that access to transit would be a little bit more challenged because buses aren't really going to turn off a 54 to go into the multifamily

1:17:16development and then turn back down onto the 54-56 corridor. They're going to try to stay along that corridor. Now there's one more uh option, I believe, that I want to present to the board as well. But before I do that, the map that's on your screens here is the 5456 corridor from Gun Highway to uh US 301. So if you read the map from top to bottom, the top is uh the west end of the corridor, starting at Gun Highway. And you move across and it goes to Land O' Lakes Boulevard. The middle one is from Land O' Lakes Boulevard.

1:17:46To Bruce B. Downes. And then the uh the bottom one is from Bruce B. Downs to US 301. What this image is showing are three things. Uh it's showing a buffer off of U um Sable fifty-four fifty-six. The the dark black line in the center, that's the center line of the road. The first red line that buffers off the of the road is a thousand feet. That's a 1,000 foot buffer right there. The second line, which is a uh black and white dotted line.

1:18:17That's showing the quarter mile distance from State Road 5456. And then at the very edge of the buffer where the color ends. Uh that is 2,000 feet from from the buffer. or from the state 5456. And those colors that are in there are illustrating what future land uses are being impacted by the buffer, right? So you so you can kind of get a sense for the future land use that's being proposed. A close inspection of the corridor along these guidelines, if you

1:18:47will. Uh we'll show you that There's already quite a bit of activity that approaches and comes into the corridor up to a thousand feet. Most of that time. uh along the corridor. You have single family residential coming within a thousand feet or at least definitely within a quarter mile of the buffer. So uh to the to the discussion point that was made, a three thousand foot uh buffer would be Or set back would be um uh well into the single family neighborhoods

1:19:17to the north and south of state road 5456.

1:19:23Next slide. And so in in our language here, we're using the thousand feet, that red line. This is the last option here, uh, which is again the original text. We've added the phrase along transit corridors in the urban service area again to to um focus the subject a little bit. And then of course we've got the specifics they were 5456 coronal language added in. Uh at the end as well.

1:19:53Um I'll really quick run through.

1:19:56Let me stop you right there, real quick. So option four here.

1:20:02New multifamily residences. I mean just I'm gonna read this for a second. We all need to read this.

1:20:10Yeah, right with uh five twenty four regulated areas we all addition to this. So This language, I I'm still trying to figure out how it's actually only focused on 5456. I'm thinking in addition in the case of 5456, but how is this option? Um

1:20:35The multifamilies are

1:20:37It's a good this is a good statement. But what I think that we were really concerned about was the mobility fee credits. And so. I think the m mobility fee credits still just be from gun. You know, to to di to take away the mobility fee credits from Gunda 301. And maybe keep them in other places.

1:21:02Let's just go.

1:21:05Yeah. Mr. Chair, the mobility fee is a different issue. It's a different item on the agenda.

1:21:11Yeah. We gotta we'll give it we'll get to that this afternoon.

1:21:18Yeah.

1:21:20Okay.

1:21:21Mm Mr. Chairman Mariano Yes. So if we're looking at the urban service area policies within the comprehensive plan. It is asking for density within uh or rather I should say the comprehensive plan is asking for density within the urban service area, but you have to kind of read it closely. because it's coupled with policies from the South Market area. as well as the transit emphasis corridor policies, the transit center overlays along 5456. and the transit-oriented development future land use policies. And

1:21:53the and the picture clarifies why the USA was originally picked to address the issue. I think with the phrase along transit corridors in the urban service area, the comprehensive plan is clearly indicating here. that you're looking at the transit emphasis corridor and you're looking at the transit center overlays, which if I don't have a map map of that in the presentation, but if you were to look at it, it's basically calling out the 54 Fifty six corridor. However, it goes a little the transit center overlays. Um and the transis quarter, obviously it's

1:22:23much bigger, but the transcendent overlays include as far west as little N54 and as far east as uh just beyond wire grass a little bit, just beyond Wiregrass.

1:22:38Um David N56. David, can you hear me? Goldstein.

1:22:46David, are you there?

1:22:47Yes, I can hear you. Go ahead.

1:22:48Okay.

1:22:51Help us with some language with what the direction was to pull these off 5456 from gun to 301.

1:23:01Well, I think what you could do yeah, I think you could take Terry's language and option four.

1:23:07Mm-hmm.

1:23:07But instead of saying along transit corridor, that first Um bold tech city have, just say along the fifty-four-fifty-six corridor.

1:23:17From gun highway.

1:23:19It's strike in the urban service area. In other words, so it would just say New multifamily residential zoning and feature line use amendments. on the state room 5456 corridor shall be integrated and then and then speak the rest of his language. And believe in his underline because that's where you get the specificity you're asking for.

1:23:39Yeah. Okay. And you wouldn't get this a thousand feet, um, mentioners. Um, that's not far enough back. We had, I mean, some of the numbers we throw up with I understand three might be too far, but I think two is a better number. You're not gonna get a Metler Toledo, you're not gonna get a true simulation, you're not gonna get a bargrass ranch sports complex, any of that stuff along that corridor. That's not that does not leave you that room for those big, big problems or those. Really, really good projects. It only leaves you small office and retail. It's not going to give you enough room for some of

1:24:09those larger projects when we say we want to save some of this for um for job creation sites. So I would suggest, I'm not saying you have to go to three, which is the number I was really looking for, but if we could do two and use the language that David Goldstein gave, we can move on today.

1:24:25Um I have a question. And I think it Uh I'm thinking of the project of uh New River. And the downtown that he's building.

1:24:35Yeah.

1:24:37How would this affect a project like that, Terry?

1:24:40It wouldn't because it's an MPD.

1:24:44Well i it ca it well it could because it would be an MPUD would be a a rezoning if you were to establish a new MPUD. Those would still be um influenced by this. But if you have it, if it's in place already, um this would not affect it.

1:25:02I mean, that's a great project and I don't know why we would wanna Make it harder to do a project like that.

1:25:09Mr. Chairman Mariano. Go ahead, please. Um, that project would actually comply with its policy because it says that new multifamily residential shall be integrated with a mixture of employment generating land uses. So Project Downtown is integrated with a mixture of employment generating lanes. Yeah, as

1:25:29long as we keep that language in.

1:25:31Yeah, it w it would comply. Yeah. It doesn't need to be exempt because it would comply.

1:25:37Yeah.

1:25:39Yeah. Okay. So that would be

1:25:42Chairman Jack Mariano?

1:25:43Yes, Commissioner Mariano.

1:25:45Um uh down at U at UCF. When you go to the main way there. They put some commercial apartments that are there or maybe condominiums. And down below they've got the uh commercial like a burger fi and a few other pizza restaurants

1:26:00over by the campus, sure, over by the stadium. Right.

1:26:03And I and I think this is going to allow that to happen as it says if the Non-residential use well, let's see. The development will vertically integrate a mixture of land uses. That would allow something like that to happen, the way it is written here, correct?

1:26:17Yeah. Yes, just like um Commissioner Starkey just asked and David Goldstein stated over at Avalon. That's the exact same thing you're talking about, sir. Yeah. Okay.

1:26:26I'm sorry. I'm not working.

1:26:29Anybody want to make a motion to do add to change this to 2,000 feet and and uh use David's language as we can move on?

1:26:37That's function four.

1:26:39With David what David

1:26:41Yeah I restate my language.

1:26:44Yeah, restate it and add two thousand feet.

1:26:47Yeah, it would be new multifamily residential zoning and future land use amendments. along the C Route fifth fifty four fifty six corridor from Gunn Highway to three oh one Shall be integrated with a mixture of employment generating land uses. either existing uses in an infill scenario or new uses to preserve a balance between residential development and employment generating uses along the county's transit corridors. And designated areas for urban development. In addition, in the case of the Sigurd fifty four fifty six corridor. From Gun Highway to three oh

1:27:17one. The first two thousand feet and then the rest would pick up as Terry wrote it.

1:27:22Anybody want to make a motion?

1:27:24I'll make a motion, Ron Oakley.

1:27:26And a motion. Another second.

1:27:30I have a second. What was the motion?

1:27:33It was It was David's new it was David's new language, which you you wanted to hear part of that, and we just changed the thousand to two thousand, and that was the motion.

1:27:44Unless they're doing the mixed use.

1:27:47That's

1:27:48Yes. Th the language it says unless the development was vertically integrated and mixed reviews is still in there. The only thing we changed from Terry's language is we limited it to the fifty four fifty six corridor from gun highway to three oh one And we changed a thousand feet to two thousand feet. feet. Otherwise basically Terry's language.

1:28:08Carrie, you can't interrupt right now. We're we're in the middle of a motion.

1:28:11I'm not, you know, I'm okay with the everywhere, but y'all aren't. I mean, I I think it's really good to encourage this um this kind of planning. It's the mobility me that I was more concerned about where we were gonna incentivize and deincentivize. Okay.

1:28:30Okay. So I have a motion by Commissioner Oakley to be seconds. Okay.

1:28:35I hear it.

1:28:40Mr. Mariano.

1:28:45I'm good with the second, yes.

1:28:48I have a motion by Commissioner Oakley, a second by Commissioner Mariano. Madam Clerk, please call roll.

1:28:54District One, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Bye. District four, Commissioner Weightman. Commissioner Oakley Commissioner Mariano. Aye. District two, Chairman More.

1:29:06Aye, motion passes five zero. Thank you. All right. Good job, guys. Um we are moving on to R four preliminary or presentation preliminary F well okay. So Dan, let me ask you this, because I know we wanted to try to get commissioner items done too, because it's a long afternoon. Um what's your thought?

1:29:25I would do commissioner items first and come back to R4 if we have time.