WORKSHOP MINUTES. February 16, 2010

Transcription

1 NI BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA WORKSHOP MINUTES THE MINUTES WERE PREPARED IN AGENDA ORDER AS PUBLISHED AND NOT IN THE ORDER THE ITEMS WERE HEARD February 16, :00 a.m. - Pasco-Hernando Community College, West Campus Executive Conference Center Ridge Road, New Port Richey COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Chairman Pat Mulieri, Ed.D., District 2 Vice-Chairman Michael Cox, CFP, District 4 Ted J. Schrader, District 1 Ann Hildebrand, District 3 Jack Mariano, District 5 John J. Gallagher, County Administrator Jeffrey N. Steinsnyder, County Attorney Paula S. O'Neil, Clerk & Comptroller ABSENT Ms. Katie McCormick, Deputy Clerk, present *************************************************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER, 9:00 A.M. Chairman Mulieri called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Katie McCormick, Deputy Clerk, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Page 1 of 7

2 ROLL CALL Ms. McCormick called the roll. All members were present. DISCUSSION: 1. Proposed 2010 Public Outreach Campaign Ms. Baker reviewed the business cycle. Every facet of the business cycle related to the customers and what they needed and wanted. The customers or citizens of Pasco County were the primary service of the County s Strategic Plan. She mentioned: the environmental analysis strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis the regulatory environment the economic forecast the demographics of Pasco County land development trends performance measures process improvements Ms. Baker expected to report back to the Board in the near future how Staff was doing in achieving the strategic challenges the Board had set forth in the Plan. The customers requirements, the environmental analysis, and the performance analysis would always be the data that informed and controlled the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan would lead to the Business Plan which was what the County would be focused on and what would be funded in the budget. Ms. Baker noted that both the Board members and Staff regularly received input from customers and that Staff had put forth several educational efforts this past year to include the citizens in the decision making process. The Public Outreach Campaign would be used in a variety of mediums including television, website, flyers, newsletters, etc. She hoped to use the tag line Bringing Opportunities Home in a variety of ways to gather information from the public. addresses in a centralized data base general newsletters or specific newsletters key messages and talking points to focus on with a short soundbite various ideas for communication plans navigating the website After discussion some communication ideas included: reshaping the organization informing the public technology means new ways to communicate Page 2 of 7

3 marketing the area proactive approach dealing with current challenges what the citizen needed or wanted, bearing in mind limited resources new businesses and jobs in the area changes in attitude/behavior better use of tools such as the Internet how to target and reach citizens a layered communication plan so that all citizens had access Some examples of key sentences or messages to motivate audience/citizens included: The new fiscal reality We care, we re partners and we understand Back to basics Ms. Baker listed the next scheduled workshops and what would be discussed at each of them. 2. Land Development Code (LDC) Rewrite Policy Discussion a. LDC Organization Ms. Baker reminded the Board that the rewrite of the Land Development Code had been underway a little more than a year at the recommendation of the Urban Land Institute report. b. Proposed Table of Contents Ms. Baker gave a brief synopsis of what was included in the notebooks which had been distributed before the meeting and how they related to the existing Code. These books would be updated periodically. c. Completed LDC Sections Ms. Baker noted that some of the tabs were empty which indicated sections that were complete and did not require any policy decision to finalize. d. Policy Discussion (1) Process Ms. Cindy Jolly, Development Director, explained the current review process with the emphasis on the role of the Development Review Committee (DRC) and then she contrasted Staff s suggestion of a revised system. She mentioned: an application content completeness review and technical review projects approved by Staff versus those that must be heard by DRC or the Board Page 3 of 7

4 pre-application meeting and content by appointment at intake public notice issues Ms. Jolly noted that the ULI report commented on: the Land Development Code, the organizational structure of the Development Services Branch, and the development review process. She updated the Board on the progress and the specifics in each of these areas. Discussion followed regarding what approvals should be administrative as opposed to items heard at public hearing. The ULI report discouraged the issue of public hearing for the types and numbers of developments currently heard by the Planning Commission and the DRC. One of the reasons DRC was an important step for some developments was that it brought all interested parties together at one time to review and work out details of compromise. Ms. Jolly said that Staff had asked the DRC for an administrative directive to allow for more Staff approvals and less items heard by the DRC. At the last DRC meeting, the Committee members had agreed to let go of certain development approvals which would streamline the process. After discussion, Ms. Jolly clarified that the Board agreed that Staff should send the notice of the application in the early part of the process, look at the mandatory meetings for those things that would not have a public hearing later in the process or that needed a public hearing through the Comprehensive Plan, and to look for more balance in the system regarding public notice. There was discussion regarding the status of the Planning Commission and the Development Review Committee. The benefits of the DRC was that it was a buffer to try to get issues resolved early in the process and that it gave the Assistant County Administrators (ACAs) the opportunity to know what was going on in the County. Mr. Steinsnyder noted that the Planning Commission, with 11 members, was too large to be effective, that there was no particular expertise required for appointment, and what role the Commission played. There was further discussion regarding: the ULI report regarding development applications issues which were currently resolved by DRC would be brought before the Board of County Commissioners by the residents School Consistency issue Sunshine Law the role of the DRC, the PC, and the Board of County Commissioners in Pasco County and in other counties MPUD issues Ms. Baker summarized by saying Staff wanted to streamline and simplify the Code but the more certainty provided in the Code, the more details had to be added which made for a bigger, thicker, more in-depth Code. She pointed out that the stakeholders wanted Page 4 of 7

5 certainty in the document, until they needed flexibility to deal with market conditions. She confirmed with the Board that they would like to see a cleaner clearer Code, more development by right, administrative decisions by a technical team of some sort, and recommendations regarding what projects should be heard by which group. (2) Zoning Ms. Debra Zampetti, Zoning Administrator, spoke of Conditional Uses regarding alcohol and how the waiver process was currently used. Staff proposed to speed up and streamline that process by completely doing away with the waiver process. An administrative permit would be issued if the facility met certain distance requirements; the facility could not be within 1,000 feet of a church, school, park, or pre-school facility. That permit would be what the applicant needed to go to the State. One exception would be a bar because it was considered more intrusive and would require the Conditional Use Hearing. The other exception would be if the facility did not meet the distance requirements, in which case a Conditional Use Hearing would be required. Ms. Zampetti said historically the sale of beer was exempt as were most supermarkets. The distance requirement did not apply to these two exemptions. One way to streamline the process would be to treat every applicant, except bars, the same regarding the administrative permit. If the facility met the distance requirement, every facility, except a bar, would receive the administrative permit. She asked the Board for direction in this matter. legal interpretation of the 1,000 foot rule a recent dinner theater that wanted to serve liquor conditional use caveats consumption of alcohol versus purchase of alcohol details of the exemptions Ms. Zampetti confirmed that the streamlining by completely doing away with the waiver process as discussed was acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board also agreed to Staff s suggestion of making beer and wine, along with supermarkets, completely exempt from any distance requirements. She clarified that Staff would include changes to allow big box stores the same exemptions as supermarkets. Ms. Zampetti noted she had passed out a sheet with designations of zoning districts, some of which had been lined through because they would be deleted from the Code. Zoning districts would be reduced from 27 to 18. the differences in various zoning districts making mobile homes a Conditional Use specifics in the setbacks, etc. of several estate zonings mobile homes and zoning issues Page 5 of 7

6 a new Conservation Preservation District specifically for ELAMP mother-in-law units transfer of densities target industries and employment generating uses planned development versus Euclidian districts traffic study and concurrency requirements prop share issues and timing C2 and other commercial/industrial zoning requirements In-depth discussion followed regarding details about each of the zoning categories and how to implement the new districts. If a particular use existed on the date of adoption of a new Code, the options would be to grandfather that use and make it permitted from then on or to abandon the use at a later date. The goal was to simplify and streamline without affecting property rights. Mr. Lee Millard, Zoning Department, spoke regarding accessory dwelling units, or mother-inlaw apartments, and when it was permissible. He mentioned: electric meters size limitations impact fees parking issues detached or attached units lot coverage The Board agreed with proceeding with the idea of granny flats. Discussion followed regarding other zoning issues such as setbacks; kennel regulations; pigeon lofts; mobile vendors; the historical preservation program; and signs. The Board agreed with Staff s recommendations on these matters. (3) Other Neighborhood meetings which should be held early enough for a developer to make changes to the plans while still compromising with the neighbors. The idea of re-evaluating what items would be heard by what bodies and if the separate committees could be consolidated. Timing of notice and public meeting issues based on the size or impact of certain projects. Employment generating uses being a priority. The Board agreed to not use I-2 zoned properties for I-1 uses. Protect the I-2 properties. Page 6 of 7

7 Mr. Gallagher pointed out that a Code with certainty, would make the application process easier, but it usually disallowed flexibility. Ms. Jolly confirmed the Board wanted to get away from newspaper ads as notice unless it was required by the State. All other notices would be handled in different ways, e. Reference: LDC Stakeholder Meeting Agendas and Minutes The LDC Stakeholder Committee meeting agendas and minutes were noted. THE BOARD RECESSED AT 11:54 A.M. AND RECONVENED AT 12:33 P.M. ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT. THE BOARD RECESSED AT 2:14 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 2:32 PM. ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT. ADJOURN The Board adjourned at 3:47 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 16, 2010 (SEAL) Office of Paula S. O Neil, Clerk and Comptroller Prepared By: Katie McCormick, Deputy Clerk Page 7 of 7