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

23:28uh Yeah, so I I have some reservations on this actually. Um I wanted Terry to come up. I received a couple couple of emails questioning Um you know, the our process and I I I tend to agree with them a little bit and I want to make sure that we end up doing what what it is that we really want. So um I wanted Terry to uh speak to you know what integration means. Um what could this actually it's not a half a mile, I

23:58I did the math and it's point three seven. Um so um but you know What is what would the the effect be um if this goes through? You know, i is it is it strip mall lining strip malls lining fifty four? 'Cause I don't think any of us want that. So But if you could address it what what it is that um the end game is of this. So

24:22can I jump in real quick just to make sure on the same page? Remember this is just a add denim to what we already passed. So you did ever just so

24:28Yeah it's clarifying the a d a date or something. But there are some there are still some misunder misgivings about M and misunderstandings about what we're doing and frankly I'm a little concerned about what we're doing myself, so

24:42Um thank you Mr. Wait Buddy, I see your hand up.

24:47Commissioner.

24:48I just

24:48have a question. Okay, you've got to wait for Commissioner Starkey. He's got a question on the table for Terry, so then I'll come back to you. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir.

24:56Thank thank you Mr. Chairman. Um right, so it is w we're clarifying today with this item uh uh when the applicability begins. So it would be applicable as of June thirty for new submittals into the planning process. Uh so new application. And also we're clarifying that the purpose of the directives is from State Route 54 from Gun Highway to I-75 and State Route 56 from I-75 to 301. That's the clarification that's being made. In terms

25:27of the language that's in the Uh policy directive that was previously uh passed by the board on the 30th of June. Um we do use language that includes the word in uh integration. So in in particular, I'll go ahead and read that sentence just to put everybody on the same page. It essentially says that new multifamily residential zoning and future land use amendments along SERO 5456 corridor from Gunn to 301 shall be integrated with a mixture of employment. Generating land uses and it goes on from there. Um when we talk about

25:57integration, um at a minimum, we're talking about you know the question of how many multimodal connections can you make to surrounding land uses. So we're talking about uh pedestrian connections, uh bicycle, vehicular, micromobile connections, et cetera. We're also talking about what kind of uh connections are you making to the land uses that are around you? So um what we've talked about previously has been um land uses that might uh be considered Commercial, industrial, office.

26:27We've also talked about civic types of land uses because often schools and local governments are major employers in local communities. Amenities. We've in we've also talked about single family areas as being part of the mixture of land uses that you might be connecting to and integrating with. And the various types of uh appurtenances to those uh types of developments in neighborhoods like parks. Um After that, when you talk about integration, really it turns into a a uh site planning question of

26:58how you're treating landscaping and the types of barriers that you're putting between land uses to separate or to bring together. You're also talking about the types of screens that you can put up that can soften hard edges, right? So landscaping that's up against a building that uh that softens the harsh appearance of a blank facade, for example. Um You're also talking about what kind of orientation to the local street network there may be. Uh so might you consider how

27:28might you consider the placement of the building on a site in relation to the street, how far back, how far forward? Whether or not parking lots are to the side or rear. It's all about the scale of the development and how that influences the the daily interactions of the people that are moving through there. Um and then also um I think uh integration also speaks to the idea of what kind of scales you're referring to. Mob automobile scale. pedestrian scale. Um all of those are um I

27:58think part of the discussion of what allows for Any land use really, but in this case multifamily to be integrated with the surrounding environment.

28:09Okay.

28:11Um Commissioner Oakley, you had a question?

28:15Yeah, one of I don't understand what Ms. uh Commissioner Starkey was talking about. Three seven miles. What what was that? Is that the longer distance we're talking about in this No.

28:26It's not the the distance isn't changing, Commissioner Oakley. She was just referring to somebody who made a statement that it was a half a mile. She was stating that that was incorrect. It's not a half a mile what a speaker spoke about earlier.

28:38Yeah, I misunderstood that. All right.

28:42Also, we went through the workshop to come up with this program and then we visited at one of our meetings. So we've done that to this point.

28:53But

28:53uh Yeah I would agree with you. Commissioner Starkey.

28:58But but uh this is a little bit in violation of some of our land development code that we're gonna have to fix, right? I mean I mean we a this is generating some work for you.

29:08Uh it can generate some work. I think uh some of the language at the end of the policy directive um Mr. Chairman Yeah. I I would let David Goldstein answer.

29:19Okay, maybe I didn't say that.

29:21Yeah. Yeah. That's a quick yeah.

29:24But I think we're conflicting with some of our own stuff. I'm

29:27just saying that. I I've had the conversations with the County Attorney's Office and and on everything and I think you need to let David answer that question being that he's the attorney.

29:37Yeah, I don't think it is in conflict but if to the extent we identify any conflict with the Land O'Ma Code or comprehensive plan Those would be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners through future land development code amendments or comprehensive plan amendments and those would go through a public hearing process. In addition, I think it's important to point out that this policy only applies to discretionary rezoning and land use amendments that are going to come back to the Board of County Commissioners anyway. So To the extent that Mr Two or any landowner

30:07feels that it's that uh the application of this policy to a particular zoning or comp land is inconsistent with other comprehensive plan policies, they can address that through the public hearing process when the rezoning and plan amendments come back to the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission. But to answer the direct question I'm not aware of any incon direct inconsistencies with the comp plan or land development code to apply this policy. However, if we identify any we will we will address that through appropriate land development code or comprehensive

30:38plan amendments in the future.

30:40Okay, but um my my fear um my my fear

30:43Oh that's weird.

30:45My my fear is I don't want to see fifty four and fifty six stripped out and th I know that goes against our land development code. So um I'm hopeful that we'll be able to see some projects that have this integration. Um You know, similar to uh downtown Longleaf or Lake Nona or um What's there's some other projects that bring this kind of mixed use feel right to the to the street. But um I just I would just hate to see us

31:16strip out everything. That's not a good development way to develop either. So

31:21again Commissioner Starkey, Starkey the you know, obviously the we talked about like Oakley did mention, you know, the r obviously the entire tent was a pool that you know the the oversaturation of multifam which we which we all talked about and agreed on off that Of that um corridor and then this one amendment too needed to clarify there was some confusion among some people and the public that asked questions about, hey, wait, is this the South? fifty four corridor? Are you including the other portion of fifty four, which it doesn't? So that

31:51had to be clarified today. So it was not that confusion was not um out there um within the community. So it does remember it's the southern portion of fifty four fifty six, which is one straight corridor does not include that section of fifty four which goes um from you know West each up to Zephyrhills. You guys with me? 'Cause I know somebody was concerned about that before, but that does not include it doesn't include that. That's that'd be clarified today. So

32:14so I'm not against multifamily and the fifty four fifty six corridor at all. I think our our comp plan um tries to put the density there along that corridor. Um that's the only way we'll ever have transit and and that is one way you kind of stop urban sprawl. Um I for me I'm not a fan of the big apartment complexes. I think w when these big developments come in there's other ways to integrate multifamily Um into a

32:45community rather than you put one kind of house here and one kind of housing there. Um that that I wish we could strengthen that and and say don't do these big complexes but mix them around. That's what he's trying to

32:56do.

32:57Well not necessarily but anyway, so I'm just on record I'm not against multifamily on fifty-four, fifty-six corridors.

33:04Okay. Commissioner Mariano.

33:05Thank you Mr. Chairman Mariano

33:08as well. Um micro.

33:10Turn on your mic. I'll turn my mic.

33:13Um I don't know if it's flora or it just I'll say I I didn't understand it to be this way but actually brought was brought up by uh Doctor Blanco which I think we met with yesterday. Uh he's got a very High end economic development. concentrated property that would be Great for a a big business. But we have a component in our code which I'd like to get you to bring something back so we can change that as well. Whereas we're making it mandatory that part of his employment jittering facility has to have multifamily in it. We don't need that. Correct.

33:43So we need to if you if you can, I think we need to bring that back. Otherwise he's got to go through a process to spend three grand. But no matter where it is in the county, I think it's a uniform policy that if someone's gonna have a giant company that wants to come in and they wanna use it all for commercial for th for jobs, I wanna have flexibility to go do that.

34:00I would agree with you, Commissioner. Yes.

34:05Commissioner Oakley, I apologize. Go ahead, sir.

34:07That's okay. Hey, uh one thing none of us I think have thought about and and I think uh Mr. Two brought it up in his statements in public hearing. We don't know what is gonna happen after COVID nineteen for the retail market that he was talking about that might not come to fill in that space between the road and these apartments. Which So That's something I guess we're gonna have to keep a close eye on because Yeah. Retail market that we would buy. Hey, it won't be like that in

34:38the future, so I think that's some that's just an unknown. So Yeah.

34:45No, I and I appreciate it, sir. I mean I think you know, I appreciate anybody's public comments and the g gentlemen that both the gentlemen that spoke this morning. Um I'll just remind you one was an attorney from outside the county and one of the person was from somebody outside the county too. I didn't hear from any landowners speaking against this that actually own land on long fifty four and fifty six. I didn't hear from one of them during public comment that have an issue with this. So I think it's I think that's a valid point. Like we did not hear from one landowner on fifty four and fifty six that says

35:16In public comment, they say they have an issue with those today.

35:20I didn't hear from anybody in Pasco County today during public comment that said they have an issue with this. From Pasco County, that lives in Pasco County. So I think there's any more discussion? I entertain a motion.

35:34Move approval, C fifteen.

35:36Motion to approve. Second, Ron Oakley. I have a second by Commissioner Oakley? Motion by Commissioner Mariano. Madam Clerk, please call roll.

35:45District One, Commissioner Oakley.

35:47Aye.

35:47District three, Commissioner Starkey. Oh we're like. District four, Commissioner Weightman

35:54Hi.

35:55District five, Commissioner Mariano.

35:57Aye.

35:58Chairman More.

35:59Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. And if I'm not correct, that does it for and thank you, Terry, thank you, David, for stepping in and answering those questions. Um I think that does it for our consent agenda.

36:14All right.