PDD-20-7478

Published agenda

Heard once, at the Board of County Commissioners on Aug 4, 2020.

OutcomeApproved by the Board of County Commissioners on Aug 4, 2020

Approved Staff's recommendation by a roll call vote.

Official title

ZONING AMENDMENT (REGULAR) - Pasco Office Park, LLC - Change in Zoning from E-R Estate Residential District to PO-1 Professional Office District- Southcentral Pasco County - on the Northwest Side of Old Pasco Road, Approximately 330 Feet Southwest of Boom Boom Drive - Containing Approximately 1.85 Acres

Every appearance1 of 1 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 81% of 81 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1Aug 4, 2020
Board of County CommissionersP12Public hearingApproved
Approved minutes
Approved Staff's recommendation by a roll call vote.
Open this item →
14m
Jack Mariano
P12, Madam Clerk, do we have proof?
Ron Oakley
Yes, published Tampa Bay Times, June 24th, 2020.
Jack Mariano
All right. It's your show, Mr. Nandi.
Ron Oakley
Thank
Denise
you. So there should be a PowerPoint for this item as well, but I'll start. So item P12 is PDD 207478. It's a rezoning from ER estate residential district to P01 Professional Office District under the name of Pasco Office Park. The parcel is located in south-central Pasco County, approximately on the north northwest side of Old Pasco Road, approximately 330 feet southwest of Boom Boom Drive.
The owner's applicants proposed to rezone. So I found out that because it was a golf course community prior to 1975, all the names of the roads are based on the actual uh namesakes of what they called the the golfers who were very popular back then. So anyway, so there's a golfer who's uh uh nickname is Boom Boom. And that's why it was named that way. So the owners applicants propose to rezone approximately 1.85 acres of the property in order to develop it. Um with in
conformance with the PO1 professional office district standards. The surrounding area is characterized by existing residential and entitled professional office uses. So to the northeast of this parcel is the Quill Hollow MPUD. And that particular parcel and some other parcels on the other side of Boom Boom have entitlements for 30,000 square feet of. uh professional office and ten thousand square feet of Um, take care. The subject area has a future land use classification of res six
under the comprehensive plan and small-scale office development of five acres or less may be permitted within areas designated within that future land use where site with the site provides adequate buffers and is oriented to minimize impact on adjacent residential uses. So the uh according to the concept plan that was submitted for the parcel, this parcel will be uh developed. uh in uh in combination with the parcel to
the northeast. What's being proposed at this point in time, which again it's a concept plan, is just a few parking spaces and some buffering on that parcel. So they're not really any buildings being proposed on this parcel right now. And that's what I have. Um, this comes here with a recommendation of approval by the Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission. I'm here for any questions that you have. I believe there may be someone who signed up to speak on this item. There
Jack Mariano
is somebody that signed up to speak before we move on to that is the applicant on the line.
Is the applicant on the line? No.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Two numbers.
Rick Wagner from County Consult. A variety press rotary can desk.
Jack Mariano
Paul Manuel is on.
Kathryn Starkey
Thank you.
Jack Mariano
Okay, please go ahead. Did you have anything you would like to add?
H
Hmm.
So I do have a
Unidentified speakerVoice B
I'm sorry, who was that? I was muted. Can you hear me? That's Paul Manuel. Yeah, go ahead, Paul. Um, I didn't have anything to add. I agree with uh Denise's recommendation. And I'm here to answer any questions.
Jack Mariano
Great. So do we have any questions from the board at this time? I know there's a somebody that has signed up to speak. So we'll Paul, we may come back to you, okay? So stay on for us.
Okay. Let's go ahead and move on to we do have one person, um Alan Met Metzger, that has signed up a speak. I don't know if Mr. Metzger is on the He is on the line and unmuted. Okay, great. So Mr. Metzger, go ahead and your name and address for the record, sir, please.
Alan Metzger
Uh my name is Alan Metzger. I'm at [address removed]. My property uh is right next to the uh office park property.
Jack Mariano
Yeah, and I hate to stop you, sir. Have you been sworn? Uh no. Okay, let's go ahead and swear again, if you don't mind. Madam Clerk, please swear Mr. Mesker in.
Ron Oakley
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God.
Jack Mariano
I do. Okay, thank you. And go ahead and start us three minutes over, please.
Alan Metzger
Um, well, if the drawing of the office park uh that I was sent from the uh County Administrator Office for this meeting is correct and final, it shows no planned buildings on parcels two and three. which are heavily woodland areas, as shown on uh by the Southwest Florida Water Management District recent report. Uh the original drawing showed an extra building with parking extending well into the wetlands. And I'm
okay with the newest drawing, which shows five buildings as opposed to six. Now my concern though is uh a statement made at the develop by the developer at the July 9th planning meeting. uh that they would give me a generous buffer between the property at this time. Which I took that to mean they plan to come back later and request additional construction. Uh once they Get approval. Uh, which
is uh similar to what happened to Co Hollow development, going from three hundred to four hundred d dwellings. which you approved, and the proposed Oakley Drive um development near the Grove Shopping Center. Um and those wetlands connect to the office park property uh next to me. My request to the commissioners is to make parcels two and three permanently off limits to building in order to preserve the wetlands. So there is sufficient
land uh for water runoff. Bye. The time all the approved developments are done around the intersection. at Queen. Uh most of the property will be paved over. Of of all the areas in Wesley Chapel, the Pasco Road area Is a potential flood zone. I'm asking you to have some compassion on existing residents and their water problems. Even in a a conversation with
public works employees, water problems. Um Questions? Uh they questioned the decision to build so many complexes in an area already saturated with uh wetlands. So I'm asking you to uh take steps to protect the beautiful wetlands. In parcels two and three. For any future building.
Jack Mariano
Okay. Thank you, sir.
Alan Metzger
Thank you.
Jack Mariano
Okay, so we do we have anybody else signed up to speak?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
No, then we'll check out the right-of-way.
Jack Mariano
Okay. Um Denise, if you come back up and then I'll let the applicants answer that. But before we go with that, um parcels two and three, is that are those parcels that are already zoned um R6?
Denise
Um so basically I think what he's discussing is that when he looked at the concept plan, there's like a Siena 1A, Sienna 1B, and I guess they're this parcel is two. Um, Paul Manual would probably um best explain that. So the parcel we're talking about today, I guess he's calling it out as parcel two, but it's It's the parcel that's before you today. And according to their concept plan at this point in time, and again, Paul Manuel can s explain that as well. Uh, the concept plan, and we do have it on a
slide, and we can it's a it's a hidden slide, but we could show it. Um, it does only show parking, it does not show any construction, any a building.
Jack Mariano
So at this time, and Mr. Manual, I'll let you go ahead and chime in in a second, but um Yeah. Worst but currently it's owned R6.
Denise
Currently the this particular parcel is zoned ER, a state residential.
Jack Mariano
This was a state residential. And the one you mentioned that which one was zone R6.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
No, it you're probably in future land use classification of res of res.
Jack Mariano
Res six. Okay. Was res six. Okay. Paul, why don't you go ahead and jump in and answer that and maybe go ahead and answer the um cons uh the citizens um question about buffering.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Um, well, in the concept plan, you can see here um that there there was, you know, there is an attempt to stay out of the wetlands. So there is a buffer already on that side of the property. I think he resides to on the other side of the buffer um and there's not any development on that point. Um As far as flooding and other impacts. I mean it like any project, you know, this would still have to go through um, you know, a stormwater review
uh and through development review and Swift MUD. For um Water quality, water quantity impacts, anything like that. And I you know, I don't know that there'd be any desire to necessarily mitigate wetlands and get into wetlands and destroy them either. So it does look like there's some there's some effort here to stay out of that. Um those areas as well. So I don't know that that Many of the things that he's uh looking to accomplish wouldn't get accomplished any through any way through the d design
and development of the project. Um, we don't really want to be tied to anything through a a zoning restriction. So that would I would. Disagree with making that. a a a condition of the rezoning Uh but maybe defer it down to when we do actually go through a development review process. um and develop the property f further on in permitting.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Mr. Chairman Mariano, please go ahead, sir. So this, what is before you, is a P01 Euclidean zoning district. There can be no conditions on it. It's what we refer to as straight rezoning. So it is what it is. The concept plan may or may not be what they develop. It's whatever could be developed in the P01 district, is what you're approving.
Jack Mariano
Right. So for the citizens. Sake, just since we're that I'm sure the gentleman is listening, is that once it goes through the site plan review, there is a process for the citizen to and Terry, if you need to jump in, please feel free to, but there is a process where the citizen can review the site plan. That's
Unidentified speakerVoice D
great
Jack Mariano
if they have any objections at all to the site plan to feel it's going to have a detrimental effect on the neighboring property or the wetlands, they can. Yeah. Appeal that site plan review administratively.
Unidentified speakerVoice E
They
Jack Mariano
appeal it to the board. There's a process. Terry or the process.
Denise
And I can explain the process. Yeah, go ahead, please. So definitely there is going to be a public um outreach for the site plan. When the site plan is approved. The appeal can only be based on
S Technical inaccuracies that were made in approving the site plan.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Right.
Denise
It can't be based on I don't like the building, it doesn't look nice. It it has to be based on technical inaccuracies that were made in approving the site plan. Right,
Jack Mariano
right. So if they were felt there was any again detrimental effects via flooding or something that wasn't done properly during the review
Unidentified speakerVoice C
of the site plan, they can if if the allegation basically has to be that the site plan does not
Correct. Correct.
Jack Mariano
That's a quick way of saying it, right? So for the gentleman that is listening, there there is that that process you can undertake which I mean citizens do do all the time. So On a regular basis.
Questions from the board. Commissioner Oakley, please.
Ron Oakley
Well In this process, when they go go for a stormwater review and the the water's gonna be maintained on the on that property. It's not be allowed to go over on the other gentleman's property. So Uh, that has to all fall in. I mean, they're not gonna let 'em just use wetlands because there's there's rules to keep them from using wetlands. So
Denise
right, it has to be kept on the site, correct.
Ron Oakley
Yeah. Everything has to be kept on that site. So the gentleman's issues about water going from this site over to his site. should be controlled when when that comes back to us on the site plan. That's correct.
Jack Mariano
Yeah. Yeah. And the the the citizen that's on that was signed up, you can reach out to Um development team, whoever he's been corresponding with, and asked to be kept in the loop on the site plan if and when it comes forward.
Denise
Yes, we're happy to. When when he reached out to me and asked me for the concept plan, I sent that to him as well.
Jack Mariano
There you go. Okay. Beautiful. Thank you for Corresponding with the gentleman. Any other questions? Commissioner Starkey or Mariano?
Kathryn Starkey
No question.
Jack Mariano
Okay, back to the board. I don't have anything else.
Ron Oakley
Move approval.
Jack Mariano
I have a motion by Commissioner Oakley.
Unidentified speakerVoice D
Second.
Jack Mariano
Second by Commissioner Weightman Firk, please call the roll.
Ron Oakley
District one, Commissioner Oakley.
Jack Mariano
Aye.
Ron Oakley
District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Weightman. District five, Commissioner Oakley.
Jack Mariano
Aye.
Ron Oakley
District two, Chairman More.
Jack Mariano
Motion passes five zero.
Ron Oakley
Thank you.
Jack Mariano
And again, P13 was was withdrawn. And I think the gentleman might have been referring to that earlier, one of his statements about over over off Oakley. So that's not going to be a again an apartment complex.