PDD-21-0179

Every appearance4 of 4 are in a recording

Each appearance carries the official title above. Where the county’s wording changed, the change is marked: added and removed. Steps with no marks were worded identically.

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 90% of 289 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Jan 7, 2021
   Planning CommissionP5Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Regular) LARGE-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (REGULAR) - CPAL 20(12) Hay Road HAY ROAD – Transmittal of Proposed Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment … Sheet 21) from RES-6 (Residential-6 (RESIDENTIAL-6 DU/GA) and IL (Industrial-Light) (INDUSTRIAL-LIGHT) to RES-24 (Residential-24 (RESIDENTIAL-24 DU/GA) on Approx. 28.22 … Blvd & Hay Road (Public Hearing: BCC: 2/9/2021 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; BCC: 4/7/2021 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid)

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:24:36
   ▶ 1:24:3625m

   GreyChair

   1:24:36I think we have one more. Dewey Denise?

   Denise

   1:24:40We have one more item and Amy Heiler will be presenting the item.

   Amy Heiler

   1:24:47Okay, hello again. Amy Heiler, Planning and Development. What you'll see here is a proposed comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAL 2112 Hay Road. And it is it is PDD 210179. What the applicant is proposing is a future land use map amendment from map 2-15 and sheet 21 to amend the future land use from res 6 residential 6 dwelling units per gross acre and IL Light Industrial

   1:25:18or Industrial Light to Res 24 residential 24 dwelling units per gross acre to allow for the development of a hundred earth. 400 apartment units. The proposal is located at the intersection of Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Hay Road. And as stated, the resolution is to amend maps 2-15 and sheet 21.

   GreyChair

   1:25:40Okay.

   Amy Heiler

   1:25:42And the comprehensive plan is consistent with the following policies of policy flu 1.8.8, employment center purpose, policy flu 8.1.2, the South Market area, as well as policy flu 1.6.3, transitional land use. And this is a location map in the South Market area and urban service area. The visual uh for your aerial is located uh along Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Hay Road, approximately

   1:26:12two miles north of State Road fifty t 54.

   1:26:17And the existing zoning is AC agricultural and I1 industrial. The small pink portion is going to be your I-1. Um the proposed development is also uh or the applicant is also proposing and accompanying MPUD with this. Uh the The reasoning why we're going to Res 24 for 400 units is because of the restrictions of the wetlands on site. So the developable acres with the 400 units would equate to approximately

   1:26:4713 dwelling units per gross acre. And because the comprehensive plan does not have any future land use between a Res 12 and a Res 24, we're proposing Res 24 and And the applicant will cap um the development at 400 units in the MPUD.

   1:27:04Distinct future land use. This is just a visual. You'll see the striped area is going to be a res 6. The light gray is IL.

   1:27:15And then um the proposed land unit would be res twenty four so And with that, this was supposed to be updated again. Since this is a proposal for apartment units or apartment complex within the county, it is directed to seek an alternative motion. So the same as before, either propose the approve the proposed large-scale comprehensive plan amendment according to the Planning and Development Apartment. uh

   1:27:46department, uh approve the proposed large scale comprehensive plan amendment with modified conditions, deny the large scale modified or the large scale comprehensive plan amendment, excuse me, or direct PDD to take other action. And I'm be happy to answer any questions. Jul too is the uh representative for the apple.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:28:07Mr. Chairman before the applicant speaks to Amy. I'm not sure if I understand your second alternative. It Is there is there any sub degree associated with this plan amendment?

   Amy Heiler

   1:28:19No, um this is just a straight future land use amendment from res six to res twenty-four. But because it's a partners, we're just seeking the alternative action.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:28:28I understand that, but I'm not sure it's an ad adequate alternative to say with modified conditions because There are no conditions you put on a Plan amendment unless you have a sub area policy. So

   Amy Heiler

   1:28:41I understand.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:28:42My point is, I think you need to modify the language of your alternative. I'm not even sure that is a viable alternative, is my point.

   Amy Heiler

   1:28:50Yeah, I understand.

   1:28:53Update that for transmetal.

   GreyChair

   1:28:56So what's the c what's the fix, David? Yeah, what's

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:29:00The Planning Commission can can recommend approval or denial. That's up to the Planning Commission. My point is approving it with modified conditions is not really an option. to You would just you would make a motion for approval or denial, whichever you want to do.

   GreyChair

   1:29:17And that would include the limit to thirteen units per acre?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:29:20The limit I think will be in the M P D as Amy stated. I don't think the they'll they're proposing the limit in the plan amendment.

   GreyChair

   1:29:27Right. Okay.

   1:29:30Right.

   1:29:33So does anybody have any questions?

   Cox

   1:29:35Amy.

   1:29:38Mr. Chairman Mariano Cox, I have a a couple general questions.

   1:29:46mainly dealing with the level Of entitled multifamily apartments already in the county. Um You know, I'm when I look at this project, uh, I'm concerned about the traffic impact. On to Wesley Chapel Boulevard. And um I've heard multiple occasions, especially after the last Planning Commission meeting. of the

   1:30:16level of apartments um that we have already in the county and the existing entitlements that are in the county. So I'd like to hear from the Planning Department just general conversation about How many apartments are already Entitled And does that fulfill the potential need. that the county is projecting.

   GreyChair

   1:30:48Who'd like to speak to that? Amy?

   Amy Heiler

   1:30:50Um I think as as of now, we I personally do not have those numbers for you, but we can get those numbers if necessary and and you know answer that question for you to see how much is entitled. I know we have some projects going on internally that kind of speak to that, so we could probably give you those numbers.

   GreyChair

   1:31:11I know we have a certain don't we have a certain area designated uh which limits the construction of new apartments.

   Amy Heiler

   1:31:20More district two right now is is where it's being

   GreyChair

   1:31:26Okay, so Anything outside District Two is not within those boundaries.

   Amy Heiler

   1:31:31Correct. And then we also have the urban service area which promotes that level of development.

   GreyChair

   1:31:36Okay. So would this request be impacted by those Is it within those

   Amy Heiler

   1:31:42are it is within District Two, but it is also within the urban service area.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:31:47Uh-huh. Mr. Chairman Mariano take motions on this particular project?

   GreyChair

   1:31:52Well, are there any questions or concerns?

   Joel

   1:31:55Well the app the applicant would like to uh present.

   GreyChair

   1:32:00Yeah, Joel j just one second. You I definitely give you your your

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:32:05Yeah, I would I would say uh Chris Poole, I'd say I I share Mr. Cox's concerns with the uh with the project overall. Um I think his comments to staff are are very valid regarding trying to get uh more of an understanding of of um what the uh what that looks like for the so I I I

   GreyChair

   1:32:25Sure, Mr. Cox

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:32:27turns too.

   GreyChair

   1:32:28All right. Well so that we can get a better picture of what's really being asked here. Um Joel, if you'd like to make your presentation, we can get maybe some of these questions answered.

   Joel

   1:32:39Yes, sir, Mr. Gray. I'm happy to. And uh thank you all for just a few moments here. And obviously the applicant and I are well aware of some political concerns about more multifamily apartments in Pasco County, and I intend to address that head on. First, let's talk about what the planning principles are, what your comprehensive plan says, and how this property fits into that. As we all know, Uh the county, including the Planning

   1:33:09Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, are obligated to follow their own adopted comprehensive plan unless and until the County Commission, pursuing to law, changes that comprehensive plan. So what we're dealing with here as a proper legal matter and a proper comprehensive plan matter is we have to deal with what's adopted. And here's what's adopted. This is an infill site. It's an undeveloped infill site. It

   1:33:40is in the South Market area. The County Commission long ago designated the South Market Area for mixed use. uh employment supporting density and actually encourages and emphasizes higher density residential in this South Market area. So that's point number one is that this property owner, this collection of property owners and their proposed developer, Florenority

   1:34:10Development. They've actually identified an infill site that the comprehensive plan and the adopted policies of the County Commission direct them to go to. So that's number one. Number two, the property already is designated res six, which is a multifamily designation. Um it it already is recognized as appropriate for multifamily use. Part of it is industrial because it happens

   1:34:41to be under this ownership. So it's not like we're asking to change bag land or single family residential land to multifamily. It already is multifamily and it's recognized. in the South Market area. Even more importantly, it is sandwiched. by industrial commerce park on the entire eastern boundary. Its southern boundary is contiguous with a very large employment center. designation

   1:35:11under the comprehensive plan. So we have a large employment center on our south. And employment center, as was pointed out on your first item today, it actually has a mandatory multifamily component of 20%. So you're going to have multifamily apartments in the parcel, the large parcel, contiguous with us to the south. The comp plan also says under the employment center designation that you are to encourage higher density residential development adjacent

   1:35:42to employment centers. So my definition, and that's the policy that Amy referred to under policy 1.8.8. You are supposed to encourage multifamily use such as what we're proposing adjacent to this employment center. Finally, the parcel to the west was recently recommended for approval by your planning commission and approved by the County Commission for multifamily development. It has a townhome project under construction by Matamy Homes. So

   1:36:12you've just recommended approval for multifamily on our western boundary, and your comp plan has an employment center on the eastern boundary, and we have an industrial. Park Commerce Center to our east. So my question is given this linear narrow parcel. that has multiple wetlands in it and limited developable area, what pre tail would the property owner sell their property for development as other than multifamily?

   1:36:43So I submit that this is the poster child according to the adopted comprehensive plan and the applicable policies. It is the poster child and compels a conclusion. That the plan amendment is appropriate and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Significantly, the staff, the staff, which is well aware of the political issue, the staff has professionally, independently, and logically concluded with their findings of fact that everything

   1:37:13I just told you is correct and that it is consistent with the comp plan. Now on the the locational item, uh Ms. Heidler, I'm sure unintentionally, but she she misspoke a little bit. In response to your question, she said that the multifamily locational criteria that the board adopted by resolution recently, that that applied to District 2. That is not correct. Um, the County Commission very specifically in

   1:37:44public hearing, and I attended them, they very specifically narrowed the specific corridor in which the board as a group, we're getting any one individual commissioner's prerogative, but the board as a group voted. And I believe it ultimately was an unanimous vote, but they voted to define that corridor as the state road 5654 corridor, and it specifically excluded this County Road 54, aka

   1:38:14Westley Chapel Boulevard. It excluded that from those restrictions. So the correct factual answer to your question is that not only is this parcel in the urban service area. Not only is it in the South Market area, but it is outside. It was not included by the County Commission in the court or along 5456, where the board adopted some interim locational criteria. So the legal fact is, in my opinion, and

   1:38:45what the established board policy is, that this site is entirely appropriate for multifamily development. And in fact, as an infill site, based upon the applicable comprehensive plan policies, it should be approved and recommended for approval. Uh so I urge you to Well, or your oath to do, and that is to apply your independent judgment and planning principles, and specifically to apply the comprehensive plan

   1:39:15as it's drafted today. to apply that board resolution as it's drafted today and not to speculate or conjure what the County Commission might do in the future. I've said this before and I said it at the public hearing. If and when the County Commission decides that it is prepared to ban apartments and passions, your

   GreyChair

   1:39:35time required I forgot about two minutes ago, but I'm trying to be uh generous.

   Joel

   1:39:41I'll I'll wrap up in one sentence. If the board wants to change the policy, they need to go through the process, change their comprehensive plan, delete the Mount South Market area, or modify it. But as long as it's in place, this needs to be approved.

   GreyChair

   1:39:58All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate that clarification. Any uh any questions for Mr. Two?

   Cox

   1:40:06Mr. Chairman M

   GreyChair

   1:40:12Anybody on uh WebEx uh have any questions?

   Cox

   1:40:15Yeah, Mr. Chairman Mariano Cox. Um can we address the traffic uh concerns? Love that.

   Joel

   1:40:24I I can, is that what you're asking, the applicant? Yes, sir. Yeah, we uh, Mr. Cox, we were required to uh have our transportation consultant, Steve Henry, he did that analysis with your transportation staff, and they concluded as a factual and professional matter that there was no needs analysis required because the previously approved trip under our prior designation because of the industrial area. Actually, are greater than what our trips will be with limited to 400 multifamily units.

   1:40:55So we in fact will have a decrease of the theoretical density from the prior plan categories as compared to this cap with 400 units. We still will have to go through the normal timing and phasing analysis as part of the MPUD. So you will still have uh, and that'll come back. through you guys, you're still gonna have the MPUD and you're still gonna have the traffic analysis. But uh our our study indicates that there's absolutely no problem here. There's no capacity issue. And our access

   1:41:25is at a fully signalized intersection, uh, which already exists.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:41:31Okay,

   Cox

   1:41:32fair enough.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:41:33Mr. Cox, the only thing I would add to that is the winding of of Wesley Chapel Boulevard using the county's capital improvement plan. And it's scheduled, I believe, in the next few years.

   Cox

   1:41:44Okay. Yeah, you've addressed my concerns. I mean m you know, Mr. Chairman, I I I would just say this that the the issue of the the apartments continues to come up, but The facts are that the comp plan allows for the use of these properties in this fashion. So and if the county commission doesn't want any more of them built, then they need to put their big boy and girl girl

   1:42:14pants on and change the comp plan. But until they do that, I don't see where um a project like this should be denied.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:42:26Well, I disagree with that one, that's for sure.

   GreyChair

   1:42:28Well, that's okay. Were you making a motion, Michael?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:42:32I'll make the motion that we request based on increased traffic. parking congestion which is minimal out there, but I'm more concerned about public safety. I live in that area. They just recently put that light. At the intersection. There are uh on building of uh

   1:42:55Warm.

   1:42:57Find it out there.

   1:43:02So that's going in out there right next to this area, by the way. Uh-huh. It's uh I don't know it's anything. So therefore I request that we deny this. Based on traffic, parking, and law enforcement. Oh see.

   GreyChair

   1:43:19Um So we have a motion. Uh we have a second to that motion.

   Cox

   1:43:29Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yes. Here hearing no second to the motion, I'll move for approval.

   GreyChair

   1:43:36All right. So having a second to the uh motion that was made. We have a s another motion to approve the applicant. uh have the application. We have a second to that motion.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:43:49This Jamie Girardi. Uh I'll second that motion uh along the same lines as Mike. I mean th there's I I don't see where we have basis to deny this and I I I've agree and I find it s You know, in in agreement and conformance with the comp plan.

   Denise

   1:44:05Mr. Chair, before you take the full um the vote. Um I do want to mention that there is no one at the public comment kiosk on this item, nor have we received any emails of objection or any letters of objection on just for the thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:44:20Thank you very much.

   GreyChair

   1:44:27Yeah, I'm gonna ask for that comment in just a minute. Um so we have a motion and a second. Any further comment on the motion?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:44:34Yeah, I have a few words. There are a number of

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:44:43Mr. Chairman Mr. Hansel's breaking up. We really can't hear him at all.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:44:48Mr. Hansel speaking. Yeah, I'm I want to address the issue of the the the abundance of con of apartments in this area. Uh as we know, or as you may know, there is one right in front of my community Lexington knows, uh which is not fully uh it's not full yet. There are uh there is one that is recently built at the intersection of say Wesley Chapel Boulevard and 50 54 basically across the street or near the

   1:45:18uh Outlet Mall. That area. Uh there was recently one that was approved on Bruce B. Down. So What I'm trying to tell you folks is we have an overabundance of apartments in that area. I thought the county at some point in time would do a study on the number of vacancies. There is no need. for another apartment complex up here. It's that simple. And in a few few

   1:45:48years And I don't know how many years down the road. But you can anticipate some of these apartment complexes that are being built by individuals or corporations with relatively deep pockets will sometime in that near future find that there's a number of vacancies One day is Huge.

   1:46:12Will begin to deteriorate. Seen it happen in other big cities. Saurian. I would request again that you rethink your vote and vote no. That's all I have to say.

   GreyChair

   1:46:26Okay. Any are are there any other comments or concerns?

   Cox

   1:46:29Yeah, Mr. Chairman M Let me just address Mr. Hansel. I I mean I agree with you on what you're saying. Yeah, I personally think that there are plenty of apartments right now. But the fact is is that this request is consistent with the comp plan. And ultimately a decision to deny would have to be Yeah. defensible in a court.

   1:47:00And I don't quite frankly I I do not believe that it's defensible right now. And if the County Commission doesn't want to see any more of them built, then the County Commission needs to change the comp plan. It's just that simple.

   GreyChair

   1:47:18Yeah, well that's I think that's my my concern too. You you know, we need to We would deny something like this. We need a leg to stand on and You know.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:47:31Sorry, I would like to make a comment. Oberto Sáez

   GreyChair

   1:47:37I'm sorry, Roberto.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:47:38I would like to make a comment and in reference to this. In our last board meeting in 2020, and I went through a similar um project in Wesley Chapel, an apartment complex, and I I was of a strong opposition to development of this part. At the same time, after some research, I agree with Mr. Cox. We need at the level of the County Commission made the changes to be able to sustain

   1:48:09any kind of actions or deny for a developer who wanna do this type of apartment complex in Pasco County. Um I will I I will go against this project, but I'm pretty sure we cannot go farther. We uh we can uh have our opposition, but at the same time We cannot do much. in to to stop this kind of development until the County Commission make the adjustment and the changes that need to be done. So just

   1:48:39want to put that out of there. And I agree with Mr. Cox and I agree with the with Mr. Hall so It's all I can say at this point. It's trustrated and like we cannot do much. We have our hand tight.

   GreyChair

   1:48:55All right, Roberto. Thank you. Okay, any other comments?

   1:49:03Then uh If we could uh have a vote uh by roll call. Please. All in favor? Signified by a Opposed, nay.

   Clerk

   1:49:18Jamie Girardi?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:49:19Bye.

   Clerk

   1:49:21Michael Cox.

   GreyChair

   1:49:23Bye.

   Clerk

   1:49:25Peter Hansel. Roberto Saez

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:49:28Night.

   Clerk

   1:49:30Christopher Poole. Chris Williams. Chairman Charles Gray.

   GreyChair

   1:49:37All right.

   Joel

   1:49:45I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I think I heard five to two to approve, but I it wasn't very loud. Is that correct?

   Denise

   1:49:54It was weird. Five to two for sure.

   Joel

   1:49:57Okay, five. Five to two. And thank you all for your time. We appreciate it.

   GreyChair

   1:50:03All right, thank you.

2. 2Feb 9, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP59Public hearingApproved

   Approved minutes

   Approved the item per Staff’s recommendation by a roll call vote with Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Mariano voting nay.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 31:59
   ▶ 31:5925m

   OakleyChair

   31:59Move on to P fifty nine.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   32:04Item P fifty nine was published in the Tampa Bay Times on December twenty-third, twenty twenty.

   Moore

   32:10Yeah.

   Amy Heiler

   32:15So So what you are receiving right now was by the request of the applicant, they wanted to uh put this into the record for this item. So uh item PDD 21-0179 is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAL 2112 Hay Road. The proposed amendment is proposing to amend the future land use maps, Map 2-15 and Sheet 21 from Res 6, residential

   32:456 dwelling units per gross acre, and IL Light Industrial to Res 24 to allow for the development of 400 apartment units.

   Barbara Wilhite

   32:54You have

   Amy Heiler

   32:55the location is at the intersection of Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Hay Road. And the resolution is to amend the future land use maps, map two-15 and sheet 21. There was also a companion rezoning petition for this one. Slide.

   33:11Uh the proposed amendment is consistent with the following uh policies, comprehensive plan policies. Slide.

   33:19This is your like locator map. It is in the South Market area as well as the urban service area. Slide.

   33:28It's located um off of Wesley Chapel Boulevard with access from Hay Road. Slide?

   33:37The existing zoning district is AC agricultural with I-1 Light Industrial, and as stated before, there is a companion MPD. Next slide.

   33:49The existing future land use is Res 6 and I L. The proposed amendment to uh Res 24 would be kept or would permit a maximum density of uh 400 dwelling units. There are wetland constraints on site as well, um as and the proposed development will not exceed uh 13 dwelling units per gross acre. Slide.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   34:11Yeah.

   Amy Heiler

   34:12And this is your visual as to what um the res twenty four would look like slide.

   34:21The proposed conceptual plan, as you can see, it is abutting a multifamily area or use. So they will be providing access to the multifamily as well as access to the EC flu. I wish I had the little pointer and I should have put an arrow on there. Access is going to be on the left of the screen. Access to that site is provided to the EC flu that is abutting the property as well. Slide.

   34:51And with that, we find the BCC find that the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and authorized transmittable to DEO and other reviewing agencies. There are four additional slides. Those are reserved for the applicant. And I'm happy to answer any questions if you have.

   OakleyChair

   35:09All right. Uh is the applicant available? Oh wait.

   Amy Heiler

   35:12Yes.

   Joel

   35:14Yes, Mr. Chairman Joel two for the applicant. That's right. Um, Joel to an associate's uh Palm Harbor, Florida, and I have been sworn. I represent Florinoy Development Company with the consent of the property owners. Uh there are multiple property owners. This land has been assembled for this potential project. As Amy said, we're on Wesley Chapel Boulevard west of the I-75 interchange there at 54. This

   35:45is about 43 acres, gross acres. However, over 16 of those acres are wetlands, many of them class one wetlands. So we actually have 37% of the site that consists of wetlands, which makes this a little bit more of a challenge from the development standpoint and what type of use would be practical. There are 37 developable acres. As Amy pointed out, we have agreed in a companion MPUD

   36:15zoning, which is pending to cap the density of 400 units. And if you do that actual math, if you divide those 400 units by 43 gross acres, it's about nine, nine units per acre. If you divide it by the twenty-seven developable acres, it's a little over fourteen units per acre. And if you do the somewhat complicated math under your comp plan where you get credit for your developable acres and then a percentage bonus

   36:46for the wetlands. It does come out to right at 13 units per acre as Amy indicated. So the practical problem is your comp plan only has a RES 12 multifamily category, and then it jumps all the way to Res 24. So we can't quite get the density at Res 12, hence the reason that it needs to be REST 24. But with that said, We've stipulated for the record and the application that we absolutely will cap the

   37:16density at 400 units in the companion MQD. We are coming to you with a recommendation from PDD staff and also your planning commission sitting as the local planning agency to approve this plan amendment. And I'd like to point out, and I think this is very important, this is just a transmittal. We understand that there are ongoing questions and discussions about the propriety of more apartment uses in the South Market area, specifically, and possibly

   37:46other areas of the county. We fully understand and respect that this is not an approval. This is just a transmittal to move the property. To the state to get any comments they may have. And we recognize and understand that any final approval would and could only occur when this comes back, and the board sees both the plan amendment for consideration and also the companion MPUD. So I'm urging all of you respectfully to simply transmit this for us so that at least

   38:16we aren't held up further. if and when the board sees fit for any ultimate approval, which would not be before a May and more likely a June timeframe before this could come back. But as to the specific justifications, we are not, I say again, we are not within the designated State Road 54, State Road 56 quarter, which you established by your locational resolution last summer. We're not within that. We're

   38:47outside that. So this is not an area that the board elected to restrict. We are within the urban service area. We are within the South Market area. We therefore are entirely consistent with the ULI recommendation that originally served as the basis for your existing cop plan policies, which specifically promote Higher multifamily density within the South Market area and this region specifically. If we could go

   39:17to my surrounding land use map, Amy, if someone can put that up. It was my first, my first slide.

   39:26Thank you. Our site is in purple on the graphic before you. As you can see, it's a north-south, very linear parcel. To the east of us, the brown area is the existing industrial commerce park, which is largely already developed. So we have industrial commerce immediately to our east. We have the very large employment center future land use designation to our south and wrapping around to the west, which is in purple. As Amy

   39:57said, we've committed in the MPD to provide both a vehicular and a pedestrian cross-connect from the southern boundary of our property to and from the employment center. And then immediately contiguous to us on the west side is a project that the board just approved last year. It's the Matomie Homes Town Home Project. You approved a multifamily zoning there immediately adjacent to us. So from so from the traditional comprehensive plan analysis, if there were no other noise

   40:27or any other concerns. We we submit that this would be the poster child for an appropriate infield project. It's the hole in the donut. And because we're adjacent to a large employment center and a commerce center to the east, obviously having multifamily apartments adjacent to that is totally consistent and supportive. For example, in your employment center land use. The board itself established. Mandatory criteria

   40:57of 20% land allocation to multifamily use. So Obviously, multifamily has been deemed critical to supporting employment center and job growth. We can help support that employment center by being contiguous with it and by functionally integrating our project with cross-access to and from that future employment center. This as I said is a unique narrow parcel. If we can go now please to my second side, which is that zoning

   41:27concept plant. If you look at this, you see substantial wetlands. And most importantly, we have a very large forested wetland on the right-hand side of that screen, going all the way out to our frontage on Wesley Chapel Boulevard. In fact, we only have enough upland area to accommodate our excess driveway, which will be at that existing signalized intersection on Wesley Chapel. Everything else in the Front has a large forested wetland. It's also a class one wetland, which means

   41:58there is absolutely no possibility, unlike some other sites that you've looked at recently, there is absolutely no possibility here for future uh retail or future office employment on that road frontage because nothing can will ever be constructed there. So we have substantial setbacks. Over 850 feet from Wesley Chapel Boulevard to our first apartment building that will be more than one story. That first building is a one-story clubhouse

   42:29and it's over 500 feet itself from the road frontage. And you will not even be able to see this project due to that forested wetland in the front. I also point out here that we're being even though this is the MPUD plan, I think it's important that you see what we're committing to, that whole perimeter of buildings along our western boundary adjacent to the Matamy Town Home Project, every one of those buildings is restricted in the MPUD to a two-story building only. That two stories will

   42:59match the two-story townhomes immediately on our western boundary. Any buildings above two stories will be on the commerce or industrial park site. So, with that said, we did put into the record the market study that you're going to have presented during your work session. I simply wanted to make sure it was part of the formal record here, but I urge you to please just transmit the plan amendment so we can get that path going and

   43:29have this back for your potential consideration in May and June once you have further. uh the countywide issues that you're discussing about the rental market. I'm happy to answer any questions. Have my client on here as well. And we appreciate your time.

   OakleyChair

   43:47Right. Let me go to uh the WebEx first. Uh is anyone on WebEx to speak to this item?

   StarkeyVice Chair

   43:54No one is on WebEx to speak to this item and there was no email submitted for this item.

   OakleyChair

   43:59Is anyone at the kiosks for this item?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   44:02There is nobody at the kiosk for this item.

   OakleyChair

   44:04Okay. Commissioner Moore.

   Moore

   44:07Oh so we're back we're out to the board now, right?

   OakleyChair

   44:09Yeah.

   Moore

   44:10Okay. Just to make sure. I yes, so I I I was gonna refer to this market study. I I thought it was for this afternoon, but since it was presented during this item, I will refer to it. It's incorrect. Um It states on page one, two, three I don't know, the back of Let's see here. Six since they presented the nano. We'll get a page eleven and it says class A apartment communities mapping inventory. I I can actually I can actually show you one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

   44:40eight, they're not even included. So I'll take this and throw it in the little round can next to me. Um You know, we're we're gonna submit things, let's be correct when we submit things. Um Second thing is um well you know I I don't want to I don't need to go through what I went through last time. Um referring to the comp plan and the you know and everything. There's no need to and I think Mr. Steinsteiner can attest to that. I mean the the bottom line is this time is now we're taking

   45:11away Light industrial.

   45:15I'm not gonna talk about the past. I'll talk about right now. That's what we need. We talk about it all the time that we need line industrial. I was on a conversation this morning with somebody. that has somebody they want to bring into town that's from outside the area. That is willing to spend Millions and millions of dollars. for light industrial land. We keep taking it away. What's our EDC going to do? What's our internal economic development department going to do? They're not

   45:45going to have anything left. You know, there's gotta come t it's you know, we as a board are allowed to say no. if we think it's not in the best interest of the community. And over and over again these are coming in front of us and we're having I'm hearing yeses. If we get rid of our light industrial land, we're not gonna have any left. Right next door to this site is Compark 75. very, very,

   46:16very successful project. They've done an extraordinary job.

   46:23You know, there there I'm not saying there could be or would be potential 'cause I'm not in the land buying business. But considering it's contiguous With this site, there's potential there. So that's my f again, my fear. Listen, nothing listen, nothing no nothing against Mr. Two, the applicant, whatever, they're they're doing their job. I get it. At the same time, we as a board, and we talked earlier today about what people in the community think and

   46:54listening to the community. It's time to do it. It's time to do it. I spend all my time in this district And we talk about how much we know our districts and the people in the district. Yeah, the one per well, I don't know how many for sure, but I know one person. I watched the Planning Commission meeting, which I watch all of them. And there was a nay vote on the Planning Commission, and it was the person that lives in District Two, because that gentleman knows and hears from the

   47:24people. What's best for that area? And what we're losing in the area. So he was in he was in dang. But, you know, at some point what I'm gonna ask and I appreciate it, is if The people that are up here with me. Listen to me. Cause I know what I'm talking about. And our my people in my community. And I say my community The you know, that whole district too, that's where I live. So I hear from I see the people all the time. But again, in this instance right here. I'm

   47:54talking specifically about losing light industrial. We can't lose any more of it. We're not gonna have any left. It was great what happened today, this morning, great project, right? But do we need raw people to pay Paul? Again, we're gonna have c cons continue to have people that are gonna bring apartment complexes here on a regular basis. We know that's how it's gonna be. It doesn't mean it's needed. If a Kirby vacuum sales guy comes to my door. He's gonna do his best to sell me that vacuum. I don't

   48:24need a vacuum. But he's gonna try to sell me. We don't need to be sold anymore. Okay. Close the door.

   OakleyChair

   48:32Um, Ms. Moore, I'm gonna give you an example of of where we do need housing because there are places that do need it, because we have been doing a good job of bringing in business and for an example, Wiregrass. Has residential in that area, has, you know, the different shops and the different things to create business. Yep. They have only residential in that area. They only have, say, 6,000 residential sites, when in actuality they have over 15,000

   49:02jobs there. And so it calls for some of these apartments to be near those areas provide a place for people that work there, live there in our community.

   Moore

   49:13So that's a great point, Mr. Chairman. And that's why Wiregrass did a good job. Let me let me continue for a second. Did a great job of adding those products there. There are s you gotta remember how many entitlements are already there. And if you'd like to, I'm happy to provide each and every one of you with it. Because the entitlements, the amount of entitlements within Wiregrass, the amount of entitlements that are within the Meadow Point area that some have been there since nineteen eighty nine. They haven't been built on yet. So

   49:44what happens then when they're ready to roll? Okay, so

   OakleyChair

   49:49Well you still gotta remember now everybody can't live in a five hundred thousand dollar home.

   Moore

   49:54D d did I not just say that there's entitlements for apartments? Mr Chairman, what I told you was there are entitlements for apartments on the Wiregrass property that have not been built. Tons of entitlements. There are tons of entitlements right down the road from the mall you're talking about. Within the Seven Oaks area. There's a ton of apartment entitlements right down the road in the Meadow Point communities. Their diamonds are already there. They're sitting and waiting for them to be built. We're we're not asking, and I've never asked to take away somebody's entitlements that

   50:25they already earned to have the zoning they earn. Continue to keep rezoning properties. With this oversaturation and doomsday will come.

   OakleyChair

   50:35Starkey.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   50:36Oh okay. I'm is this slight industrial or res Res

   Amy Heiler

   50:42let's

   StarkeyVice Chair

   50:42say so residential, not

   Amy Heiler

   50:45yep. So it's both. Um so the majority of the property is currently res six. Um but there is five acres that are I L. However, um there's about ninety percent of that five acres that is a cat one wetland, so it can't be developed on on that cat one wetland. And then it's also surrounding to the north. Um east and south is that cat one wetland going into the um I L that's adjacent to it. So it it wouldn't even be able to interact with that I L component

   51:15because a cat one wetland can't be developed on at all.

   OakleyChair

   51:18If you pull on

   Amy Heiler

   51:19a

   OakleyChair

   51:19baseline with that map up we're set problem.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   51:22I was gonna be with Commissioner Moore if this wasn't light industrial because I don't that is valuable property that we need to bring

   OakleyChair

   51:31Yeah, but I want you to see

   StarkeyVice Chair

   51:33up this but this is not

   OakleyChair

   51:35See at the bottom of the map.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   51:36Yeah.

   OakleyChair

   51:37Look at the left side and see that pond on the on the bottom. That's that five acre pond. Cannot be built on in that slight industrial zoning.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   51:45Right. So sadly.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   51:51I'm sorry, we can't hear you. And then you can see it. You gotta be at the mic. You have to be at the mic. There's a mark of the mic right there.

   Amy Heiler

   51:57Sorry, sorry. I get it. Yeah. So two right there. To the south, that's all cat one. So what they're utilizing is whatever space, it's about ten percent of that site. They're use utilizing that for drainage, and then they're gonna have their buffer that they're gonna activate as well as a component or an amenity to their site so

   StarkeyVice Chair

   52:14so

   Amy Heiler

   52:15so for

   StarkeyVice Chair

   52:15that reason I'm gonna be in support of this. If I'm telling you if this had been industrial I would not have been support supporting it because I don't want to be flipping and d you know A good site for Great jobs. Um

   Amy Heiler

   52:29Yeah, it's about five acres of the existing forty-three

   StarkeyVice Chair

   52:33acres. You know what's really sad, and it's probably before all of y'all were here, Commissioner Oakley, I don't know if you were paying attention back then, but I think at one time this was the Saddlebrook Corporate Park. A lot of this land. And the owners of this property held it and held it and held it for a long time in hopes that it would be a class A industrial park, like what what you see in Raleigh and and it's such a shame that, you know, the there was the recession, I

   53:03guess, and I I don't remember what precipitated to become housing instead of a really great Uh Um business park. And it was well situated too. Seventy five, fifty four. Could have been a you know Could have been another um Evangeline. But um Uh so I I will be in support, but um just throwing this out there to everybody. It's not gonna I'm I'm not

   53:33in favor of Swap an IL for Multifamily.

   Fitzpatrick

   53:37Now that I L the most case they you can't build IL or homes on that property. It's strictly just gonna be used for dredging and

   Amy Heiler

   53:47That's what their proposed proposal is, yes. What is it? Yeah. Around the wetland. No, you can't build anything in the wetland or around it.

   Fitzpatrick

   53:57So it doesn't matter if it's an I L, Res six, Res twenty four, you can't build anything on it anyway. Correct.

   OakleyChair

   54:03Of the wetland part. Correct. Okay. Any other?

   Moore

   54:10Well I don't this will follow up and

   OakleyChair

   54:11Terry Well Terry came up from the

   Moore

   54:14Mr. Done. Thanks. And I appreciate Commissioner Starkey's comments she just made. Uh and I think we need to remember to ex we we extend that. We talked about industrial again. This is kind of More we'll get into this later, but since the comment was made, we talk about industrial, but let's talk about this doesn't have doesn't have the zoning, so I'm not referring to this property. Okay. Not referring to this property at all. But we gotta think about the commercial and the retail in the office as well when we talk about the rezoning, which we'll get into later this afternoon.

   54:45Um all right, I will yield.

   OakleyChair

   54:47Mr. Mariano, I don't mean to forget you, but do you have something to say to this item?

   Mariano

   54:51Yeah, I was gonna say um You know, I I just I think we do have enough apartments out there. Um It's a big jump in the zoning. If they wanted to keep it residential and keep it as smaller densities, I mean it's it's a tough road to get out on. Uh we're gonna spend a lot of money on that roadway coming up. I don't know how much money we're spending on that, but you probably know. Uh we get a lot of traffic in that whole area. So do I need more density right there? I don't know that I do.

   OakleyChair

   55:18Well you gotta realize um The infrastructure we've built in that area is is part of the reason a lot of these things come in that area with the planners because uh you gotta move the traffic. And it's there we built the infrastructure to to serve those people.

   Moore

   55:36Yeah, to serve the people that are there that can't get out right now. Well it's the truth. I mean I don't know why I need to sell people.

   55:45They

   OakleyChair

   55:46keep coming.

   Moore

   55:46I'm gonna invite everybody in a bus ride one down d one day down there. Seriously.

   OakleyChair

   55:51You guys need

   Moore

   55:52to see it.

   OakleyChair

   55:53Does there's some time there. Do we don't have to vote on this at all, do we?

   Amy Heiler

   55:57This is the vote for the transmitter.

   OakleyChair

   56:02Okay.

   Amy Heiler

   56:03And this is the second phase of the comp plan, so it's being transmitted to DEO.

   OakleyChair

   56:07All right. Then I'll need a motion.

   Amy Heiler

   56:09Uh moved to approve.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   56:15Move staff recommendation. Is that

   OakleyChair

   56:17yeah

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   56:17move staff recommendation?

   Fitzpatrick

   56:19And the staff recommendation is to

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   56:21transmit it to DEO.

   Fitzpatrick

   56:23A second.

   OakleyChair

   56:25Okay. Um I got a motion and a second. All those and Favor say aye by roll call vote.

   Fitzpatrick

   56:34That was selecting. District two, Commissioner Moore. District Three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Fitzpatrick.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   56:44Aye.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   56:44District five, Commissioner Mariano.

   OakleyChair

   56:47Aye.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   56:48District One, Chairman Oakley.

   OakleyChair

   56:50Aye. Most past three to two.

   56:56Okay, right.

   57:01I think it's getting me that time. All right, we go on to where are we at here?

   57:18Yeah, I can go to

3. 3Apr 7, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP51Public hearingContinued

   Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Regular) - CPAL 20(12) Hay Road – Transmittal of Proposed An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the To The Future Land Use Maps … 2-15 and Sheet 21) from From RES-6 (Residential-6 (RESIDENTIAL-6 DU/GA) and And IL (Industrial-Light) to (INDUSTRIAL- LIGHT) To RES-24 (Residential-24 (RESIDENTIAL-24 DU/GA) on Approx. On Approximately 28.22 Acres of Of Real Property Located at the At The Intersection of Of Wesley Chapel Blvd & Hay Road (Public Hearing: BCC: 2/9/2021 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; BCC: 4/7/2021 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid) Road; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue the item to a date uncertain.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 9:40
   ▶ 9:402m

   StarkeyVice Chair

   9:40It um P fifty one was published in the Tampa Bay Times on December twenty third, twenty twenty.

   Denise

   9:45Item P51 is PDD 210179. Um, this item is actually a request to continue to a date uncertain. I believe your there's your agenda might say continue to April 20th, 2021, at 1:30 in Newport Ritchie. Uh, but since that time, we have spoken to the representative who hopefully is on WebEx today, and he would like to continue the item to a date uncertain so that it can track together with the master plan unit development district adoption

   10:15when they apply for um when the MPUD comes through the public hearing process. And it should be Joel too.

   OakleyChair

   10:26Yeah. Does the applicant want to speak?

   Joel

   10:29Yeah, Mr. Chairman Joel Two, can you hear me?

   OakleyChair

   10:32Yeah. Can't hear you. We can't hear you.

   Joel

   10:36I'm sorry, can you hear me now?

   OakleyChair

   10:39There's something wrong with it.

   Joel

   10:42Hello. Can you hear me?

   OakleyChair

   10:45Uh we got it now. We got the volume up. We can hear you.

   Joel

   10:48Yes, uh Joel to to an associates for the applicant, just to confirm that that when you transmitted the plan amendment. We agreed with you that we would hold the final adoption hearing on the plan amendment until the MPD hearing was scheduled to be final so that you would see both of these at the same time. Uh we're getting close on the MPUD, but we do not have hearing dates yet. So that's why this is an indefinite continuant. pending

   11:19the MPUD review. Thank you.

   Moore

   11:22All

   OakleyChair

   11:23right, thank you.

   Moore

   11:25Move

   11:25to continue. Good public comment.

   OakleyChair

   11:28Mm. Uh is there any public comment? Any email? Or to continue? Yeah, go ahead. Okay.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   11:37There's no one on WebEx and no emails on this item.

   OakleyChair

   11:40Is anyone at the kiosks in Dade City?

   StarkeyVice Chair

   11:43There is nobody at the

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   11:43kiosk in Dade City.

   OakleyChair

   11:45Thank you. Keoks and Newport Ritchie.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   11:50There's no one at the kiosk in Newport Ritchie.

   OakleyChair

   11:53Okay, thank you. All right. Back to the board. We want to continue. Thank you. Get a motion second. All those in favor say aye.

   Moore

   12:04Right. I okay.

   OakleyChair

   12:07Uh motion passed, five zero.

4. 4Sep 15, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP101Public hearingAdopted

   Large-Scale An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Regular) - CPAL 20(12) Hay Road – Transmittal of Proposed Plan; Providing For A Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the To The Future Land Use Maps … 2-15 and Sheet 21) from From RES-6 (Residential-6 (RESIDENTIAL-6 DU/GA) and And IL (Industrial-Light) to (INDUSTRIAL-LIGHT) To RES-24 (Residential-24 (RESIDENTIAL-24 DU/GA) on Approx. 28.22 On Approximately 43.22 Acres of Of Real Property Located at the At The Intersection of Of Wesley Chapel Blvd & Hay Road (Public Hearing: BCC: 2/9/2021 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; BCC: 4/7/2021 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid) Road; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt by a roll call vote with Commissioner Moore voting nay.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 2:16
   ▶ 2:163m

   OakleyChair

   2:16Good afternoon. I now uh will call back to order the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners meeting of September 15, 2021. A reminder to everyone present, please silence all electronic devices and mute your microphones. Let's now proceed with public hearing agenda starting with ordinances. P101.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   2:41Item P101 was published in the Tampa Bay Times on August 4th, 2021.

   Denise

   2:50Good afternoon, Commissioner. Denise Hernandez. Item P101 is PDD 210179. This is the adoption hearing for this item. So today we're asking you to approve the proposed comprehensive planning comprehensive plan amendment and adopt by roll call vote. It's an ordinance amending the Pasco County comprehensive plan, providing for a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use maps, Map 15 and Sheet 21 from res. six residential six dwelling units per gross acre and I L Industrial Light to Res 24 residential

   3:2024 dwelling units per gross acre on approximately 43.2 22 acres of real property located at the intersection of Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Hay Road providing for repealer severability and an effective date.

   OakleyChair

   3:38Okay.

   3:41Do we have um

   3:45Applicant. Anyone is I don't believe it.

   3:49Is there an applicant presentation with this?

   3:54Right there.

   Joel

   3:57Mr. Oakley, ladies and gentlemen, Joel II, two-one associates for the applicant. Staff and I both made a full-blown transmit uh presentation at the transmittal hearing on this. We're prepared to do it again if the board wishes to hear that, but it was transmitted. It had been previously recommended by Plan. commission we've had no public uh comment, no public appearance, uh uh no opposition to it and uh I think staff and I would would be willing to dispense with presentation

   4:27textbook process unless the board wants another presentation. We're happy to do it if you need one.

   OakleyChair

   4:34Okay. Thank you. Is anyone uh signed up to speak to this out to this public thing?

   StarkeyVice Chair

   4:39So no one signed up on WebEx and no one signed up in person.

   OakleyChair

   4:43Okay. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this item?

   4:50Seeing no one uh pleasure vote

   4:55No problem.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   4:56Second.

   OakleyChair

   4:58Got a motion and a second. All those roll call vote.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   5:03District two, Commissioner Oakley. District 3, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District 4, Commissioner Fitzpatrick. Aye. District 5, Commissioner Mariano.

   OakleyChair

   5:11Aye.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   5:12District One, Chairman Oakley.

   OakleyChair

   5:13Aye. Motion passed 401.