PDD-21-0290

Every appearance6 of 9 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. 83% of 783 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 3 of the 9 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1. 1Mar 4, 2021
   Planning CommissionPC2Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Continuance) … Pasco Employment Village – Adoption of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment … Pasco Employment Village Subarea Policy, Policies, Policy FLU 7.1.12 (Public Hearing: LPA: 3/25/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; LPA: 4/22/21 at 1:30 p.m. at NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; BCC: 6/8/21 3/4/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; BCC: 7/6/21 3/23/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid, DC/Hybrid continued; NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 8/10/21 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid) NPR/Hybrid)

   Open this item →No recording
2. 2Mar 23, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP51Public hearingContinued

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Continuance) … Pasco Employment Village – Adoption of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment … Pasco Employment Village Subarea Policy, Policies, Policy FLU 7.1.12 (Public … 3/25/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; LPA: 4/22/21 at 1:30 p.m. at NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; BCC: 6/8/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; BCC: 7/6/21 3/23/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid, DC/Hybrid continued; NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 8/10/21 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid) NPR/Hybrid)

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue the item to the April 20, 2021 BCC Meeting in New Port Richey at 1:30 p.m. by a roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 2:34:31
   ▶ 2:34:311m

   OakleyChair

   2:34:31Now we move on to um P fifty one and I see that's gonna be continued, but

   StarkeyVice Chair

   2:34:40Yes, item P fifty one was published in the Tampa Bay Times on February seventeenth, twenty twenty one.

   OakleyChair

   2:34:46Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item P51 is a comprehensive plan amendment. Uh CPAL 2014 Central Pasco Employment Village. It's a comprehensive plan text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village Sub Area Policy Flu 7.1.12. It is requested for continuance to April 20, 2021. one at one thirty here in New Port Richey.

   OakleyChair

   2:35:10Okay, got a motion.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   2:35:13Second.

   OakleyChair

   2:35:14And a second.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   2:35:16District two, Commissioner Moore. District three, Commissioner Starkey. District four, Commissioner Fitzpatrick. Aye. District five, Commissioner Mariano.

   OakleyChair

   2:35:26Aye.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   2:35:26District one, Chairman Oakley.

   OakleyChair

   2:35:28Aye. Motion pass four. Oh, excuse me, she did show up. Motion pass 5-0 to continue. Uh P fifty two.

3. 3Mar 25, 2021
   Planning CommissionP6Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Continuance) – CPAL 20(14) Central Pasco Employment Village – Adoption of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment … Pasco Employment Village Subarea Policy, Policies, Policy FLU 7.1.12 (Public … 3/25/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; LPA: 4/22/21 at 1:30 p.m. at NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; BCC: 6/8/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; BCC: 7/6/21 4/20/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid, DC/Hybrid continued; NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 8/10/21 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid) NPR/Hybrid)

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:32:38
   ▶ 1:32:381h 27m

   Nectarios Pittos

   1:32:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Niktarios Pitos, Planning and Development. Item P six on the agenda is a comprehensive plan amendment. In the name of C Pel twenty fourteen, Central Pasco Employment Village, it's a comprehensive plan text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village sub-area policy. Policy flu seven dot one dot twelve. So The proposal that's before the plan the local planning agency today, as you're sitting as that, uh is to amend the sub-area

   1:33:08policy flu seven one twelve. Uh to enable initial residential development, to increase the number of single family detached entitlements, to remove the affordable housing provision, and enable case-by-case review at the MPD level school sighting. For school sighting. The the location, as we'll see in a second, is on the south side of State Row fifty two between Aaron Cutoff. Alternity some alternatively sometimes known as Collier Parkway Extension and Bellamy Brothers Boulevard. And the resolution uh

   1:33:39that's uh before the the body today is to provide it for a text amendment to the sub-area policy as as it was as I noted. Um next slide please.

   1:33:58There we are. So before I get into the uh overall presentation, I do want to talk about some of the uh items that are before you and what what's in your hand uh to m to make clear for the public. So what was in the agenda memo for today, or what was in the agenda for today was a placeholder memorandum. Um and I was going to bring the Uh a copy of the agenda memo to the planning commission as well as the sub area policy itself. And so those handouts have been provided to the Planning Commission.

   1:34:28Uh what you have is a version of the sub area policy as it appears today in the comprehensive plan. That one is th um the clean copy that you that you might have in your packet in front of you. The date at the bottom says July twenty five, twenty thirteen. Um the second uh attachment that you've got in your possession is the draft version. Which illustrates all of the edits that we're talking about today. And that one will say

   1:34:58draft 325-21 at the bottom right corner. And you'll you'll also see the edits in um in the in the actual text itself. And I'll go through and we'll walk through those today in in uh in short. So the amendment uh to the policy that you have in front of you today um is consistent with policy flu 7112. It's consistent with itself. Uh it's also consistent with policy flu 813, which

   1:35:28is the central market area uh future land use policy. Uh and of course it has the EC Employment Center future land use designation uh to be consistent with, as well as the CON or conservation future land use designation that it must be consistent with as well. Next slide. Uh the map is showing you where Central Pasco Employment Village is located within the county. It's pretty much uh right in the center. And this is a m

   1:35:59uh the master plan of the Central Pasco employment village. And uh I want to point out a few of the land uses that are present on the um on the master plan there. The different colors represent different land uses, so red represents uh the commercial support uses um and which include commercial and office. The purple represents target business, corporate business park, and light manufacturing. So three three uh uses

   1:36:30there in the purple. The yellow is representative of just corporate business park. The brown is representative of the high density residential area. the orange is representative of the medium density residential area and the Peach color. uh is representative of the low density residential area. So you can see that there's a a gradation or a step down from east to west, uh contemplated in terms of densities

   1:37:00within CPEV.

   1:37:08So the the existing sub-area policy supports employment generating land uses with workforce housing in close proximity. Uh the mixed use nature of the current policy is essentially to achieve a job to housing ratio of one to one with the purpose of phasing requirements, uh, to ensure residential development does not preclude employment generating uses from locating within the planning area, to make provision for the residential to not outpace provision of the needed non-residential infrastructure. That's a that's an existing. component

   1:37:39of the policy. Um to not restrict the establishment of multimodal transportation network and to enable critical wildlife habitat preservation in central Pasco County. The proposed sub-area policy maintains these same objectives, but with a change in emphasis on the residential build-out thresholds located at the end of the policy. And we'll get into that uh when when we're at that point in the policy review. The applicant or the petitioner is requesting a num a couple of amendments to the sub-area policy.

   1:38:11The first is to enable residential land uses to precede the development of employment generating land uses. And we'll talk a little bit about that in just a few minutes. As well as to establish a service-ready sites initiative in the sub-area policy like Connected City, like Connected Cities service ready site acreage requirements. The second is to authorize the increase in the number of limited development. Uh and limited development of up to 1,500 single-family detached

   1:38:41homes, which increases the percentage of single-family from 20% to 33%. The total residential units allowed in CPEV remains constant, however, at 4,500 units. The third is to remove the Department of Community Affairs, which is a state agency that was disbanded, I believe, in 2010 or 2011. Remove the DCA mandate to impose affordable housing requirements in CPEV, consistent with the elimination of the provision from other similar projects in Pasco

   1:39:12County.

   1:39:17and other MPUDs. And the fourth is to enable a case by case MPUD level review to determine the appropriate timing and location for the establishment of Pasco County school board facilities such as schools.

   1:39:32Next slide please. Oop. Yeah, a little too far. Yeah, I I apologize. Yeah, yeah, no, no, I apologize. Um one more. Yeah, yeah. So I wanted to put that out forward first so that we can take a look at the future land use map in consideration of what is being proposed here. So the future land use map, the pink is the EEC Employment Center of Future Land Use, and in general. that constitutes the boundaries of the C

   1:40:02P E V planning area. There. It's very similar to the master plan map that I just had on the screen. There are agricultural flus to the northwest, planned developments to the north, directly across from CPEV is the Palmetto Ridge Plan Development. Conservation lands to the south and west, Res1 is to the northeast and to the southwest. Res 3 is to the southeast, and you have IL that is directly to the east, sort of at the nose

   1:40:32where Bellamy Brothers and SARO 52 are. Intersecting.

   Chris Williams

   1:40:36Excuse me for a second. Could I get a copy of that document? I didn't get a copy. Yes.

   Nectarios Pittos

   1:40:44Uh next slide.

   1:40:47And this is essentially the zoning map for the CPEB area as it stands today. um in general. I'm not gonna go entirely through the zoning uh classifications because Um this isn't really a land development proposal so much as it is a policy change uh in the comprehensive plan. But the zoning in C P E V right now is mainly AC. And AR5, as

   1:41:18well as MPUD, at the very far eastern limits of CPEV.

   1:41:26Okay, so um what I really wanted to do uh today with the planning committee or the local planning agency is to illustrate that you have a copy of the existing sub area policy um before you to compare to the proposed uh changes. Now the proposed changes are gonna have the edits plus the existing language in there. But I wanted to make sure you had an existing um copy of it as well so that you could uh refer to it without any of the

   1:41:57additional editing that was taking place. Um And what I'll go ahead and do now is I'll walk through Next slide please. I'll walk through the actual amendments. So what you have in front of you, uh to be sure, is the official version of the edits. And what I'm showing on the overhead is kind of the behind the scenes version of how the document was edited. So you could kind of see what what kind of negotiation was taking place. But the actual edits are cleanly

   1:42:27provided to you in the uh

   1:42:31So In the first edit that appears is not covered on my slide, but it's on A four. And that is essentially the affirmation of the preservation of land and area for employment generating uses within CPEV. Uh and then later on you see in that first subsection A, item number nine. There's a provision that's added to the sub-area policy to include home occupation as a potential uh for the residents

   1:43:01that will live in the employment village itself. Um

   1:43:08The first major edit to the sub-area policy itself takes place in section B three. That's what we have see showing on the overhead. And I I won't go through and read the entire um paragraph there, but essentially the main points are to establish a service ready sites initiative within CPEV and we'll talk about this later on in subsection F of the uh sub-area policy. It's also to emphasize uh the construction of infrastructure and preparation

   1:43:39for the employment generating land use is to make sites that are serv serviceable that that are ready to to uh construct. uh buildings, and then also to allow initial development of residential This is an affirm affirmative statement here. Actually, if you look at the existing sub-area policy in the very end of that document, you'll notice that there's a table that's called the jobs to housing ratio at one job per 450 square foot average. Um

   1:44:10the original Sub area policy always uh considered the establishment of some initial residential within CPEV in order to uh build the square footage requirements that are outlined in that table. So there's a threshold associated with building square footage or building area in the current uh sub area policy.

   1:44:41So in this first section B3, there's uh confirmation that uh some initial development of residential is possible. And also uh importantly, as we'll find uh in subsection F, that we keep ex those same existing thresholds that are currently referenced in the sub-area policy. Next slide please. The next major change that's happening uh within the uh sub-area policy is uh related to section

   1:45:11C4. Uh, this is the removal of the affordable housing. provision uh in the uh central Pasco Employment Village sub-area policy. The main points again here is that The language itself is not inconsistent with state statutes. uh the language uh does appear to be very consistent with the the statutes. Um there are, however, local precedents to remove this language and in the in

   1:45:41the agenda memo I go through and discuss um what some of those precedents were to remove the affordable housing uh language then. Uh Because despite the state statute and the potential for a strategy to define whether costs might be might be offset fully. Uh there have been a number of board-approved DRIs and MPDs that removed the same affordable housing language from the regulatory documents. The last one was the Wiregrass Development Order, which was adopted by the

   1:46:11board in January of 2019. Um and in that case the affordable housing mitigation was eliminated. until the county could adopt an applicable countywide affordable housing mitigation ordinance. Uh since affordable housing was not being required across the board.

   1:46:28Um having said that These are the precedents that are invoked to remove the same language from the Central Pasco employment village. However, we do have uh comments uh from the community development department that are not in agreement with the removal of the affordable housing provision from the sub-area policy. Uh noting that affordable housing uh is a future or potential component of a ending Pasco County strategic plan. Um This provision is before the planning

   1:46:58commission and the board of county commissioners. The county may either strike the provision consistent with past precedent or retain the provision, it is not in conflict with the state statute, and that can be done as a policy decision. Um next slide please. In section C5, we find the next major uh change within the sub-area policy. This is uh the main point of this uh particular section is to increase the single-family detached entitlements to not exceed

   1:47:28more than 1,500 units. So again, as I noted earlier, it's an increase from 20% of the residential entitlements to 33%. Uh and also the main point of this paragraph is to put is to have the potential to introduce a master land plan allocation formula for single-family detached. Now the Discussion point here that I that I'd like to make is that um there's only a limited supply of single family detached

   1:47:58uh available within uh the Central Pasco employment village, even with the increase from twenty to thirty-three percent here. And so allocation of the single family detached is important for the uh fairness of all the various property owners and the development. There are two types of ways that this can be approached. The first way is to consider these on a case-by-case basis and review them each according to the ECMP or ECMP or MPUD that is brought in.

   1:48:30This is no different than what might occur elsewhere in the county outside of the C P E V area. You'll look at it on a M P U D by M P U D basis and determine entitlements at that time. And of course in that uh

   1:48:47public meetings involved in which uh neighboring and neighboring r residents or even neighboring property owners may come in and provide their input at that time to uh Yeah. The second way of doing this is to establish a master land plan formula where one might say that no more than 45% of the allocation may be allowed in high density, in the high density area of CPEV. That amounts to about six hundred seventy-five units. Um across approximately

   1:49:17570 acres. No more than 30% of the allocation may be allowed in medium density areas. So that's about 450 units and approximately 370 across 370 acres. And no more than 25% of the allocation may be allowed in low density areas. which amounts to about 375 units and approximately 200 acres. So the important thing to note here is that the low density designated area of CPEB is the most sensitive to the allocation of single family entitlement. Because it's limited to the two dwelling

   1:49:47units per acre that the master plan was indicating to us. And so it's important uh to consider that um That type of product is available for that low density area. If we follow a formulaic allocation like this, you could get very close to the two dwelling unit per acre single family entitlement for the low density area and still offer or afford single-family entitlements to other other property owners. It's

   1:50:17been argued previously that uh this method may be um harder to accomplish via a comprehensive plan amendment in other uh cases. So I do want to bring that up t uh to your attention. Um The next slide will show us uh some of the if we do want to provide a master land plan formula for single family entitlements, this is the kind of language that you would add within uh subsection C

   1:50:48four. Of the sub-area policy. And what this is basically illustrating is language that talks about what I just explained. Up to 45% of the single family detached entitlement may be allocated to the high density residential area, up to 30% for medium, 25% for the low. And the allocations may be incrementally calibrated to increase up to a maximum of 5%, additional allocation on a case-by-case basis. This this is so that you can make sure that you reach a balance and that there's some wiggle room involved.

   1:51:19Um And then at such time that the C P V V planning area is fully zoned with E C M P Ds. Any unused single family entitlements could also be added beyond the allocations uh since they may be left over and avail and uh available for u for for use.

   1:51:38And so this language, like I said, could be added to C four. The next available next slide. Uh the next uh major change within the sub-area policy is section E3. And what this is basically a text uh clarification that's taking place. The the the language is basically being cleaned up. It's essentially saying the same thing. Um actually it's i I didn't really consider it a major change, but it is a change. Next slide please.

   1:52:10All right, and so then this is the next major change within the sub-area policy. It's section E6. Here, E6 is talking about school siting, and the main thrust of this uh provision here is uh that school sighting should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in MPUD reviews. It's currently not called out how that would happen in the existing sub-area policy other than to amend the map to illustrate or to identify where the school might be sited. or where the facility might be

   1:52:40cited. Um Elsewhere in the county, this is typically determined on a on a MPUD by MPUD basis until such time where thresholds are exceeded for the school district to require a facility from a development. And so this is basically aligning with current practice in terms of what's being done elsewhere in the county. Next slide please.

   1:53:06And then finally in section F here, uh there's a couple of edits. The whole the whole section has essentially sort of been redone here. Um this is the section that's talking about how infrastructure ought to be developed um in support of the building areas. Needed to house the employment generating land uses themselves. Now, before I get into this section, I do kind of want to go into some of the history of CPEV. The Department of Community Affairs originally

   1:53:36imposed uh this section here to require jobs to housing. Uh ratio. And at the time the landowners, as I understand it, uh understand the history, there was opposition to the DCA imposition, uh and then there was an attempt to mediate between what the state was uh working to impose and the what the landowners were resisting. And so the um County Attorney proposed a middle ground uh to

   1:54:07establish pad ready sites.

   1:54:12In keeping with that previous uh effort that the county had to mediate, um we're we're we're bringing that forward into this proposal such that the thresholds are not entirely deleted from the sub area policy, but they are reworked to include uh infrastructure to support rather than building uh the actual shell buildings. And so what you have in the in this section F is

   1:54:42to uh preserve the economic development potential of those employment generating land uses identified on the master plan. Uh by establishing a service ready sites initiative that's modeled after the service ready site acreage requirements of Connected City, which is one of the more recent ways in which the county has provided for uh economic development and essentially creating or a prepared area to accept uh industrial as well as off it cor office,

   1:55:12corporate business park and

   1:55:17The Service Ready Sites Initiative and CPEV is outlined in um on the on the slide, it's outlined A through H, but in your packet it's one through eight, renumbered. But uh similar to connected city, an MPUD or an EC MPUD would establish the specific requirements for each development, but it would have to meet the the criteria outlined in the sub-area policy. So CPEV service ready sites would be flexible, shall be flexible, and enable a mix of non-residential

   1:55:47uses in support. This is to capture those red areas that you saw in the master plan. Uh it's gonna require a minimum size of a land parcel that will qualify as an SRS parcel. It'll establish limited and prohibited uses within SRS parcels, so every MPUD will be doing this. It'll require the construction of adjacent infrastructure for roadways and utilities to serve the service ready sites parcels. It it'll also facilitate expedited development permitting for them for

   1:56:17mass for mass grading of service-ready sites for future or by future employment users. It'll restrict by deed to service ready site parcels for the reservation and preservation of their economic development potential. This sub-area policy is mandating the posting of identification signage on service-ready site parcels, clearly noting the site is going to be a future development for light industrial uses and employment site and require residential users to be notified of those nearby SRS

   1:56:47parcels. And also it'll establish compliance with the provisions of the land development code as a prerequisite. for any kind of incentives or credits for that infrastructure to the SRS parcels.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:56:58Mm-hmm.

   Nectarios Pittos

   1:57:07Next slide please. Oh, you got it. It's up there.

   1:57:17Now on this slide you can see that the thresholds are st that are present in the existing sub-area policy are still present within the uh proposed uh sub-area policy. But what uh this slide is actually uh talking to now is that rather than requiring a shell building to be constructed, um, or a or a Mm-hmm. a prospective building or a speculative development

   1:57:47uh occurring um When a residential development moves into C PEV, it must extend the utilities of course uh for itself, but also provide the utility extensions and the roadway access to the SRS parcels. uh in exchange for the dwelling units that are going to be authorized according to these thresholds. So at seven hundred dwelling units um in this case, uh the initial development would have to would have to build the infrastructure

   1:58:18to support a building or buildings that would amount to three hundred fifteen thousand square feet of uh service ready site. And then at two thousand they would have to have infrastructure to support nine hundred thousand square feet and so on down the the table. So the thresholds are still there to achieve what um CPEV was contemplating originally just not with the construction of s of speculative or shell buildings, but

   1:58:48actual pad ready sites, which is similar to and consistent with other parts, other economic development initiatives in the in the county.

   1:59:08Next slide, please. So the recommended motions uh that are before the planning or the local planning agency today are on the overhead screen. Um You have before you the recommended agency action to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village Sub-area Policies, Policy Flu 7112, which removes the affordable housing provision in keeping with the precedent. the precedents that have been uh set previously. There

   1:59:39is also the alternative agency action to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village, Sub-area Policies Policy Flu 7112, keeping the affordable housing provision. There is an optional agency action also to recommend including the master land plan formula language in the that identify that is identified in this agenda memo uh for single family detached entitlement allocations. If you don't want to include the master land plan formula,

   2:00:09you don't have to have an extra motion because the default would be that those allocations would be reviewed on an MPUD by MPUD basis regardless. And then there's other a other action that is also available to the local planning agency, which is to recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed text amendment. to set to the Central Pasco Employment Village Sub Area Policies, Policy Flu 7112. or to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to direct the Planning Development Department to another course of action regarding

   2:00:43Uh this will complete my presentation, but I would be uh happy to take any questions now or or after um you may have heard from Other stakeholders.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:00:57Okay.

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:00:58Uh

   GreyChair

   2:00:59are there any questions from the day at s at this mo point?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:01:02Uh Terry's Jamie Girardi here. Um Just Out of curiosity, I mean is there a reason why Nobody on this board saw any of this information before like one minute before the presentation. I mean they you threw a lot at us. I mean that was a very thorough presentation But I mean, we don't sit up here and hear twenty or twenty five minute presentations very often of stuff we're expected to vote on, not at least having seen what we're gonna vote on before the meeting. Yep.

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:01:31Yes, so that's kinda why I wanted to walk through on a point for point and not do the the typical three minute uh presentation that we generally have because we didn't have the opportunity to provide this information uh to the Planning Commission sooner. Um This was a uh this is a uh difficult project that has taken us to the wire to um provide the information uh before the um for the local planning agency. It's uh it's occurred in other projects too.

   2:02:02This wouldn't be the first time that this this sort of uh difficult project has come before the county and gone all the way to the end. Um You know, a similar project was Project Arthur that that that happened like that. Um But Uh Other than to say that this is a very this was a very difficult and challenging uh project to this point and it was taking us quite a bit of time to work this out and negotiate it um with uh the various

   2:02:32stakeholders.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:02:34Okay, I mean I I I just we continued this item three weeks ago. Um so I mean this item was originally advertised to be heard three weeks ago. Um so then we continued it with uh thought the assumption that we would at least know what we were voting on. I mean I know just in as you were going through your presentation, I've got a list of questions to ask you, but that's without even reading the the page after page of text of the agenda memo. I mean, I'm not even sure I could vote on this thing today and and have any idea what I'm voting on.

   Chris Williams

   2:03:00And Mr. Chairman I would agree with Mr. Giordy. We haven't had a chance to read all this stuff. It's a lot.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:03:05I agree too.

   Chris Williams

   2:03:06I mean I guarantee if John Gallagher was here at DRC he'd be jumping up and down.

   GreyChair

   2:03:11Well let's give John a call.

   Chris Williams

   2:03:20I agree with what has been said. This this is I can read reasonably well, at least at the grade level that my wife teaches at and uh and I tried best I could. Two questions I have. Basically Over the years I've sat here and I mean literally over the years, I've heard nothing about We need jobs, jobs, jobs. And on your chart up that I wrote down here 'cause I have a short memory sometimes. Basically in section F. Proposed

   2:03:50text text change. is to remove jobs for housing. Why would we wanna change our jobs for housing? And don't ask me what page that's on. It's way back there. It's it's in section F I guess. That that's my my problem is you want us to change Jobs. For housing? When that's what I've always heard about these job centers. In fact it was a couple of months ago. that we had an argument not an argument.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:04:15We

   Chris Williams

   2:04:16phrase that. A discussion about job centers and creating jobs versus I still don't know what low income housing is. One of these days I'll have the courage to ask what that is. But But that's where I'm at. If we want j 'cause I see in this community, in this county. Housing popping up. And we say, Well we need to bring jobs here. Because we don't want everybody to drive to Hillsborough County or Hernando County. or whatever county that they drive to. We want them to stay here in

   2:04:46the community. So that that's my dilemma.

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:04:48Yeah. I'm not sure why the tables referring to a jobs to housing ratio, other than that the Department of Community Affairs approached it in this way, but the net effect of what that table was doing was establishing Establishing a housing to building square footage ratio, not necessarily jobs per se. But I will say that um You know, identifying a job to housing ratio within a comprehensive plan is typically not done. Um When such ratios are

   2:05:19offered as regulatory requirements, which is pretty much what's in the existing sub-area policy. um they're often articulated in specific development agreements. That are the right-of-way. Related to a particular Project. you don't really see jobs to housing ratios within comprehensive planes because these are aspirational. um uh concepts and not uh specific. Um what would happen at the end of the day if a project Did not have the

   2:05:49jobs to housing ratio that the comprehensive plan is calling for. Is it a bad project? Is it inconsistent with the comprehensive plan at that point? Uh so that's one reason why you w don't see uh a jobs to housing ratio specifically in comprehensive planes, do they exist out there? From time to time they do. But in this case

   2:06:09This is this was really a housing to building square footage

   Chris Williams

   2:06:13I wasn't fair to you. Basically, what I thought this this map that that I ran off at home before I sh came here today. I thought this was gonna be like a jobs location. And I know the when you said jobs to home ratio, I meant like outside of the series. Well you s the way I interpreted what you said was that they were going to be homes replacing jobs in here. Uh but I see people I see homes being developed throughout the county. And so I see people can drive to work

   2:06:43or if there's public transportation to this location, that even works out. Well. But the other question I have too, and I I I wrote it down and I have a question mark on it. What did you mean by homework in here? Does this mean that somebody will have a home in this community and then they do homework there? I I'm not sure what kind of homework they would do. Not homework like studying. I mean they would build things or develop something or create a particular product. Home occupation. Home occupation, it could be You know,

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:07:12Right. Home occupation. Um there's a and the land development code identifies a number of different types of home occupations. Um but it's basically those small very small business operations that people can do outside of their house.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:07:25Uh

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:07:25either through special exceptions. In some cases they get special exceptions, in other cases I suppose they're they're permitted. Uh it just depends on the use.

   Denise

   2:07:32Yeah, minor home occupation, which is basically they're just uh using um the internet or there's no foot traffic to the house, that is allowed by right in all zoning districts. Uh some of the times you see them here before the Planning Commission is when there's trip generation. Um so there's there's traffic, you know, um either through uh um specific uh um you know

   GreyChair

   2:07:56deliveries.

   Denise

   2:07:57I understand not deliveries by um uh appointment service to the house. Yeah,

   Chris Williams

   2:08:02I can understand that type of thing. But if you get there's a a book that Department of Labor puts out that describes jobs and that type of thing. But I I I would have a hard time

   2:08:13Putting a home business in this type of community. Because what you want is you want manufacturing or you want some type of Or some type of business that would create jobs. That's what the county needs is jobs and decent paying jobs.

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:08:32You know, it's it's called the Central Pasco Employment Village. The idea being that you live in close proximity to where you work. Part of that employment village concept. And then of course in in in a post COVID nineteen world Um where pretty much any and every house has become a local home occupation because people have to work remotely. Um where better to uh insert home occupation than in an emp mixed use employment village. I suppose that would be

   2:09:02the argument. But to clarify some uh one comment I made earlier, Mr. Chairman, um Right. I was talking about jobs to housing ratio. I I do want to point out that as I noted, it's a it was a housing to building square footage ratio. that that the sub-area policy is actually talking to. Um but the ratio is still there. The thresholds we as I just illustrated um on the in the presentation are still present. So the ratio of single family homes to the number of square

   2:09:33feet of building is still present. The difference is rather than having a shell building constructed by, say, a r a residential developer, you have a padready site. That enables a employment generating land user to come in and construct the building of their choice. Or a speculative office builder, for example, to come in and build what they want to build on that particular site. So the ratio is still there. We haven't eliminated the ratio, it's

   2:10:03just changed in in the in the way It's being articulated.

   GreyChair

   2:10:09Okay, and uh are there any other questions for for Terry right now? Or I think we have some other people that wanna speak, right? Let carry off the hook for a minute, huh? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay.

   2:10:23All right.

   Denise

   2:10:23Yes, Mr. Chair, we do have someone who is at the public comment kiosk, um, Mr. Scaglione. Okay. And then I'm going to make you

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:10:31Mr. Chairman you should hear from the applicant first.

   GreyChair

   2:10:34I'm sorry, what did you say?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:10:36You need to let you need to give the applicant an opportunity to speak first.

   GreyChair

   2:10:41Okay.

   Joel

   2:10:45Yes, Mr. Chairman Mel to Two and Associates, Palm Harbor, Florida. Uh and along with my colleagues at Height Design, uh we represent the property owner uh who is the applicant. Uh this is a property owner of a portion of the Central Pasco Employment Village, albeit a a large portion. It is the Swoke family, their various family entities. Dale Swoke is their family representative. He's

   2:11:15on business, legislative business in Tallahassee today. uh but we're speaking on behalf of his family. And if I may, uh let me just address the concern that the Planning Commission members have expressed. Uh Obviously, we don't disagree with you. about asking you to vote on something uh that has this many pages um and of this significance that just hit your desk. Um so I I want to proceed here today with your permission,

   2:11:45but I would I would say uh that I think it'd be prudent for you to hear the applicant. uh for you to hear any public members that are here to speak. Uh but we're certainly not going to resist if you decide you need to then continue this to the next meeting on April first to give you time to go through the documents. Perhaps we reconvene then and you ask any detailed questions. But I think there are already some misperceptions from just the comments I've heard. So before you

   2:12:15go off in the wrong direction, in our opinion, we would like an opportunity to present. um the matter. And just as to the predicament we're in, um PDD needs to plead me a copa a little stronger here. As Mr. Girardi pointed out, we were on the March 4th agenda. We had a recommendation of approval. We had received no we thought that we had complete agreed sub-area policies, that there were no questions. I was called very shortly before that meeting

   2:12:46that there were some late last minute questions. Uh we agreed to that continuance. We've worked feverishly. We've agreed on revisions. This application's been pending for eight months. And then all of a sudden there's this flurry at the end to get things in PDD's view correct. So what I'm saying is please don't hold it against the property owner or the applicant. This is not his. doing um as to predicament you're in, but we certainly

   2:13:16understand it. Um, but with that said, I I I want to stress one thing and then I'm gonna turn it over to Pat Gasway to present the application. But getting to Mr. Hanson's point, and this is what I was concerned about, if this isn't approached historically and properly, the first conclusion is: wait a minute, you're replacing jobs with housing. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's simply not factual. Yeah. This land was master planned and approved

   2:13:46by the this commission and the board, uh, and it has specific land areas that are reserved and allocated exclusively to the employment jobs. It has specific land area that is exclusively committed to the residential portion. This proposed amendment does nothing. It does zero to alter the land that is absolutely restricted for employment versus housing. All it does is recognize that the Department of Community

   2:14:16Affairs, which has since been abolished. At the time this was originally approved, it would not approve this plan. Without literally tying home construction to someone going out there, investing tens of millions of dollars building empty shell office buildings, having no user, and hoping they would eventually show up. Well, that requirement has left us exactly where we are with a vacant piece of cow pasture out

   2:14:47there and not the first bit of development. So all we're saying is that that is not been required a connected city. It's not been required in villages of Pasadena Hills. It has never been required by Pasco County anywhere in this county to go build a speculative shell office building before you can build a house. So just to get everyone back on track, we're not changing, we're not increasing any housing density. There were 4,500 units approved here originally. We still

   2:15:17will have 4,500 units. All we're doing is taking a portion of those potential multifamily units. This thing was heavily tilted toward apartments and multifamily. We're taking a portion of that to allow more single family, which at least one of your county commissioners is gonna be delighted about, and probably more. We're not changing the total residential units. We're not detracting any from the employment job. We're simply saying that you're not going to build empty speculative buildings,

   2:15:48but we are going to require that residential developer that comes in to start just on the residential portion, just with the previously approved units. He's going to have to upsize and build the roadways and utility infrastructure so that we have lines and roads adjacent to those. Industrial and corporate sites so that if you do then find a user, they don't have to wait and bring that utility. So that's what's going on here. I just wanted to provide you that background

   2:16:19so that we don't get off on the wrong tangent. But if you're willing, I'll shut up. I'm gonna ask Pat to give you our overview and then My suggestion, obviously it's your prerogative, is that we hear we hear the public comments and then we we continue this to the next meeting if you need time to digest documents and then possibly come back and ask follow-ups to Terry or to us because obviously we need to get you comfortable with this. And I don't want anybody going off half-based

   2:16:49with with inadequate information. That's certainly none of your

   GreyChair

   2:16:55All right. Um thank you. Thank you, Mr. Two. Uh we have uh Pat Gasway then to speak.

   Pat Gasway

   2:17:04Good afternoon everyone. My name is Pat Gasway. I'm with Hype Design at uh 5904 Hampton Oaks Parkway in Tampa, representing the applicant. Uh we uh we were actually the uh the the authors of the uh of the first comprehensive plan amendment when we were representing over a dozen property owners uh within this particular area. Back in 2008, the history is uh it

   2:17:34has been properly recounted by uh by Terry, even though he didn't have the luxury of going through the agony of dealing with DCA. Um the the original um See if I can uh give you a little bit of info here.

   2:17:54Ah, blue good. Looks like I'm Oh could could I share my screen with the uh with the rest of the board?

   GreyChair

   2:18:05Yes, it's fine with me. If you know how

   Chris Williams

   2:18:09to do that.

   GreyChair

   2:18:10I I think I do.

   Pat Gasway

   2:18:17I think I'm gonna go over here to the

   2:18:27Okay. Yeah does everybody uh does everybody see my screen now? It's the uh Central Pasco Employment Village Illustrative Plan from the original uh comprehensive plan amendment that was approved back in uh in uh 2010.

   GreyChair

   2:18:45Yes, I think.

   Pat Gasway

   2:18:47Everybody see that? Okay. Um great. The the idea um back then is exactly the same. That the notion is to be able to bring uh light industrial, target business, uh office complexes uh here to this particular location and close proximity into this landmass wedged between State Road 52 and the Cypress Creek well field to

   2:19:17be able to have various types of residential units to provide close workforce. Um in in that regard the uh the the land plan was structured uh in a way such that the major infrastructure, this east west um collector road, as well as these two north south Collect erodes. would be able to provide the requisite infrastructure and

   2:19:48utility corridors to support to support the entirety of the development plan. The area was very complex to attempt to plan because of course the Cypress Creek well field has a bunch of wells in it. And those well fields have five-year and ten-year travel times that that radically affect the allowable uses within it. You'll see on these land plans these dashed lines, those are the five

   2:20:18and ten year travel time envelopes for the most closely located wells. Inside those areas, you cannot build industrial uses, but you can build office uses and residential is an allowable use in all of those well-field exclusion zones. So the the nature of the land plan was was it's simply put to create a parallel

   2:20:48reliever to State Road 52 and have the the residential uses where residential uses were allowed. And to force it. Yeah, uh light industrial and the office uses into those areas that would not adversely affect the the well-field protection zones. uh all of those acreages associated with those uses are preserved by the mandate to

   2:21:18have all of the MPUDs that will subsequently come. they must conform to the master plan.

   2:21:27This is a wildly important thing to understand because this ends up with hundreds of acres. of uh target business and uh light manufacturing. uh as a preservation area inside this landmass. In other areas like the Connected City, those are not mandated, they are negotiated on a MPUD by MPUD basis. Here, very differently, all the MPUDs

   2:21:58must subscribe to this master plan. Consequently, we can predictably expect in on the on the screen, those purple manufacturing areas and those yellow office building locations are going to be what the future development plans provide. That is extraordinary and I can I can tell you that this is an extraordinary amount of acreage that is dedicated from the inception to those job growth building

   2:22:28uses. So All of those things are solidified. You know, the in this particular example, this is where we've brought the uh the uh overall master plan into GIS to be able to do some of these calculations. You see outlined in yellow here the perimeter of the swoke property. In essence, it's about 30% of the land mass located almost in the geographic center of the C P E V Land Mat land mass.

   2:23:00So when when we think about the the things that Terry talked about, and by the way, that that was uh an extraordinarily well thought out and well presented uh summary of the application. I think the key points are well articulated in Terry's presentation very, very briefly, you know, the idea of having 1,500 maximum

   2:23:31single-family detached units within all of the residential areas within. CPEV is an item that is included here. We believe that that's an important part of providing a variety of mixed use residential product to support those that will want to live in close proximity to their jobs. Um When when we look at the uh the affordable housing language

   2:24:01to to me that's uh that's really uh quite a relatively um minor point since that language has been taken out of almost all of the large DRIs that I've worked on in Pasco County and we've taken it out of the villages of Pasadena Hills and the it it is um it's specifically not included in the the connected city language that we most recently adopted in January. So I I think it's a very common practice to to eliminate

   2:24:32that language from these large entitlement approvals. Um and then lastly, you know, when when it gets to the uh to the notion of you know jobs to housing, the the most important thing that we need in Pasco County is not empty buildings. The thing that we need are pad ready sites with roadways and utilities such that the users can come in and have

   2:25:02exactly what we want. Imagine if we had arbitrarily 10 years ago Built a building that was the wrong size for Amazon. We would have certainly not seen any activity there. They have very specific uses, and the uses have very specific needs of those buildings. We'd never anticipate them, and we'd never properly plan to have those as enticements to have those companies come. They'd have to pass. the buildings wouldn't meet

   2:25:32their needs. A far more thoughtful consideration is to say, let's blend the residential and the non-residential and have the residential precede it such that it allows the residential development to bring those roadways, those water lines, and those sewer lines that will ultimately serve all of those non-residential. residential job growth uses. In fact, in this particular application,

   2:26:03we actually have a chart that allows the residential developers to understand the thresholds by which they need to accommodate those non-residential uses with the master planned infrastructure that will ultimately support all of the uses in the CPEV area. The the the only thing that that Terry suggested to you that I would I would caution you about is the notion

   2:26:33of a formulaic methodology for determining how much single family detached is in each of these land masses. Um in Terry's discussion, um, I mean, we've been working on this job since 2008, so I'm pretty familiar with it. Um at two units per acre for low density, 12 units per acre for medium density, and 24 units an acre

   2:27:03for high density, we would probably more than double the allowable residential units. So the the notion of um of trying to look at the overall at densities that um that he was you know uh alluding to I think is very dangerous. Because what we've discovered is there's a lot of floodplain and a lot of wetlands and a lot of infrastructure

   2:27:34that has to be fit within these individual specific sites. So I'm a much uh a much stronger believer in being able to look at the specific constraints of each NPUD. as they come in. by the way, as the applicant can afford to do all of the detailed investigations that are necessary to to properly allocate the uses. and still conform to that maximum 1500. and uh and subscribe

   2:28:05to the maximum 4,500 units of residential development as a part of a cohesive mixed-use master plan on all 2,400 acres of the CPEV landmass. These things were contemplated back in 2008. We argued with DCA for a couple of years, and I can safely say it's the only time that David Goldstein and I were actually arguing in the same direction against someone else. Um the the

   2:28:35necessity of of thoughtful contemplation as each MPUD comes along, I believe is the wisest move. I mean, I I recognize it's not a matter before the board today, but you know, when we look at at the MPUD plan that is coming to in support of this comprehensive plan, you can see here on the screen, let me blow it up just a bit. I mean, the the non-residential manufacturing uses here that are in accordance

   2:29:06with the the master plan, the support retail and office, and the high density multifamily are all consistent with the master plan. When when we look further, we can see that Um l this is an illustrative plan. Uh one of the things that come in as a byproduct of of the MPUD at at the next step. But you can see, you know, we have a lot of uh of wetlands on these sites, we have a

   2:29:36lot of floodplain on these sites, and managing those things are the things that can only be thoughtfully considered when we get to a more detailed level of information at the MPUD level. Just as as a precursor to what will be what will be coming in the future with this MPUD, you see the non-residential uses all in conformance with the master plan. These vision roads that support the entirety of the development pattern would be the things that are

   2:30:06constructed to access this the residential uses that are located south of that east-west master plan roadway. So I guess in in summary I'd say um Terry got it right. The uh the summary is on point. Um the the master plan that controls the development pattern preserves these job growth uses.

   2:30:37and the table that that Um ties residential to the square footage of non-residential is is a marvelous guide to the amount of master planned infrastructure that must be accommodated. as these master plans for these M PUDs uh come before you in an incremental way. Um in in um you know it it in in

   2:31:07rough numbers, you know, these kinds of densities that we're talking about, you know, the the swap property as a subset of the CPEV, you know, it it's about thirty percent of the land mass and they're and they're talking about you know about thirty percent of the uh uh of the single family detached and they're talking about thirty to thirty five percent of the single family attached. You know, in in my

   2:31:37world, you know, Pasco County has three types of residential. You've got multifamily, you've got single-family attached, which are everything from duplexes, triplexes, quads, newer product that you're seeing, as well as the good old standard townhouse unit. And then above and beyond that, we drop down to our lowest density single family detach component. So when we think about an overall strategy of being able to attract

   2:32:08the people who are going to want to work in close proximity to these job growth uses, we'd like to make sure that we have the flexibility on an MPUD basis to be able to be able to incorporate all three types of those residential uses in the smartest way to appeal to the market.

   2:32:28I know that's a lot all at one time. Um but Uh I I think Um if if you if you have any questions, I'd I'd be happy to uh to attempt to address them at this point.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:32:44Okay, are there any are there any questions?

   2:32:48So I just I have a question, Chair.

   GreyChair

   2:32:51Is that you, David?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:32:53Yes,

   GreyChair

   2:32:54it is. Okay, I can't see you, so all right.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:32:57So can you see me now or not yet? Yeah

   Denise

   2:33:01Pat if you would start stop s sharing your screen, please.

   Pat Gasway

   2:33:06Oh, I sure can. Let's see. So then Over.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:33:13Okay.

   Pat Gasway

   2:33:14Okay, we got it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:33:19it's a question for both Joel and Pat. So To sum up everything you said, are you in agreement with all of the text amendments as presented by Terry? Except for the language that allocates the single family By formula, is that an accurate statement of what you support?

   Joel

   2:33:39Yeah, let me let me clarify that. Yes, we are in 100% agreement with Terry on the actual text of the Subberry policy amendments that he has provided to the LPA today. But if you look if you look at his recommendation page in his PowerPoint or in his memo. What we support and agree a hundred percent with is what he has labeled as the recommended agency action. So his

   2:34:09actual recommendation, we agree with Terry. What we don't agree with, Terry, is we don't agree with the alternative agency action, which would keep the affordable housing provision that has been deleted in every other project I've ever worked on in Pasco County and everyone else's. So we don't agree with this alternative agency action. And we do not agree with the optional agency action that recommended this predetermined land use

   2:34:40allocation formula because as Pat said, nobody's smart enough right now to know what that formula should be. And the only way to figure out that allocation is to do a site-specific MQD. So in short, we support the recommended agency action, which is exactly the proposed sub-area policies that Terry gave you, because he did not include the alternative agency action and he did not include the optional agency action in those SAPs.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:35:13Okay, so Well I guess I need to ask Mr. Pitos a question then. Did is he making a recommendation on I mean it's pretty clear that he's he's is recommending removal of the affordable housing provision. I can From the language. Is he making any recommendation whatsoever on the Entitlement allocations for single family?

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:35:38I'm illustrating Mr. Chairman Mariano Spito's Planning Development. I'm in the agenda memo I'm illustrating how one might approach single family allocations. I provided two options. One was to do it on an MP MPD by MPUD basis. Another way where it's been done is This master land plan formula language. Both have their limitations. One is preferred more often than the other. Um I added it as an optional action. if

   2:36:09it was the pleasure to to the local planning agency to make that kind of consideration. Um If I uh the recommendated agency action is the first one that's on the list because it's consistent with way uh with past precedent. And so if I'm consistent with past past precedent as well in the case of the allocations. I it would be with the first option, the M P U D by M Pud review basis. All right, Gary, thank you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:36:38That that answers my question, thank you.

   GreyChair

   2:36:42Okay. Um is anyone else here to speak for the applicant? I think we still have a

   Joel

   2:36:48We do uh Mr. Chairman Joel too again. Uh if you'll indulge us for just one or two more minutes. We have uh we have Bill Eschenbahl who as you know is a uh um uh reputable and experienced uh land broker here in Tampa Bay and specifically in Pasco County. I've asked Bill to provide his market and industry insights on this job to housing uh speculative empty building um item.

   GreyChair

   2:37:17All right. Bill.

   Denise

   2:37:19So just for the record, there's eight minutes left.

   GreyChair

   2:37:22Okay.

   2:37:27Is this your last speaker?

   Joel

   2:37:31Yeah, sir, and after after Bill we will reserve any time for rebuttal after the public comments.

   GreyChair

   2:37:38Okay, we have a total of about seven minutes left.

   Joel

   2:37:42Yeah Bill's only gonna take a couple. Thank you.

   GreyChair

   2:37:45Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:37:50Yeah. Well.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:37:53That's what I'm gonna read.

   GreyChair

   2:38:00Bill, are you there?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:38:06Cool snap. Yeah, I said.

   Denise

   2:38:09Is Bill William Eschenbaum or Esch

   GreyChair

   2:38:12Hash and Ma.

   Denise

   2:38:19Joel, we need to promote someone. Is it William Eschenbah?

   GreyChair

   2:38:24Correct.

   Denise

   2:38:36Mr. Escherm, if you would uh provide me for the record

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:38:40Oh good. I'm William Eschenbach. I was panicked because I thought I wasn't ever gonna get on. I'm president of Eschenbaya Land Company. We're at 304 South Willow Avenue, Tampa, Florida. And I was sworn early on this afternoon when I was on the screen. I I've had the listing on this property since January of two thousand twenty. Uh first couple of months had some activity and then we went into the COVID period. During that first couple of months it was all residential either builders or residential developers. Code shot us down March, April, May, June, July.

   2:39:11The home builders start to show up in August to September a little bit. Had a contract presented in October. Uh I couldn't quite get it done. Got another one done in December and was able to announce in January this year, a year later, I had an area under contract with order subject to all the approvals required. And Since then I've been able to quantify my materials and go out to the market to look for that User and As an example, yesterday I had a user in here who spent ten years with Amazon. He was a lawyer, was on

   2:39:41their staff in the real estate department. Yeah, but wow, well I kinda like this. It's close to the interstate. Have others who've been here and driven from the interstate back and forth to determine timing. But the one question that keeps coming up is where's the housing? Yeah, are the houses coming before the here so we have people to support? the machinery, operate the lift forklifts, operate the trucks and so forth that we might have in distribution or work in the offices and we get out here. And I I've shared with the rest of my team. I have another one in Wildwood with a landowner that has three properties, all distribution

   2:40:12from a hundred to two hundred and seventy acres. We've actually taken one of those in and rezoned it for half residential for the same reason that our people show up and they look the turnpike. Uh I-75, 301, and County Road forty four and it's still the same question. We don't have any housing here other than the villages near Wildwood. So it's it it's a pretty heavy dynamic driver to have the Um have some housing close by so we have these workable, walkable communities. So that's I'll turn back to Joel here and uh I

   2:40:42didn't say hello, Mr. Chairman, and good to see you again. Haven't seen you in a long time. But you

   GreyChair

   2:40:45too, very good.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:40:46Nice to hear him. Thanks for the opportunity.

   GreyChair

   2:40:48Okay. Thank you very much.

   Joel

   2:40:52And uh Mr. Chairman Mariano it is Joel. I'm gonna close my initial presentation by reading a brief statement from my client who, as I said, is on uh legislative business in Tallahassee, but Dale Swope asked me to tell you that, and I quote, on my industrial land, I have no greater aspiration than to find an end user to build it for jobs. But for the past thirty years, I have solicited those industrial and office users and I've had

   2:41:22no interest. But now that we have a contract with Lenar to start some residential and to bring the roadways and the utilities Beside the industrial sites, we now get an inquiry every week from people who have end users to create jobs. We can wait another 30 years or we can proceed with the residential portion, get Lenar to build the utilities and roads,

   2:41:53and then find us a job producer in the next 12 months. Those are our options. Thank you.

   GreyChair

   2:42:01All right. Thank you very much. Okay.

   2:42:08I believe we have some other speakers, do we not?

   Denise

   2:42:11We do have a speaker. We have Ray Gadd who's on WebEx. I also do have two items to that were requested to be readed to record. Okay. I do also want to say that this room is re needed at four o'clock. For a Citizens Academy. Um, so we're kind of you know running on time. So just just wanted to put that out there.

   GreyChair

   2:42:32Well I don't think anybody else has requested extra time, right?

   Denise

   2:42:36That's correct.

   GreyChair

   2:42:36Okay, so well let's keep close track of time and We can maybe get to the end here.

   Denise

   2:42:46And that's right, we do have Mr. Scaglione, I forgot to mention well I did mention that earlier, he's at the kiosk as well. So just let me know which order you want to do and that way we'll get folks uh through the process.

   GreyChair

   2:42:58Why don't we uh hear from the people that are here?

   2:43:03With the available time left we'll read into record.

   Denise

   2:43:06Okay, let's have Mr. Scaglione, please.

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   2:43:17Of the

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:43:18chance.

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   2:43:20Andy Chicks. Good afternoon. [address removed]. Uh excuse me, early. I've been sno. Um I'll hit the high points and and um make this kind of brief. The two main contentions here I have here is the um planning, the timing of the jobs. and allocation of of residential entitlements. So um I have not been involved in any of the negotiations as of yesterday. Uh was

   2:43:50the first time I had talked to Terry. Um so I I would have liked to been involved in that early on after especially after this application was um uh filed back in August. Um and the first time I heard about it was when I got a letter on on uh dated February seventeenth. Um But Anyway, um The property

   2:44:16I have 211 acres. Also, um, the abutting property owner couldn't make it because of COVID. He had to abutt com uh cancel at the last minute. D easy. E DC has this site rank as number one. And it's a very, very unique site. Being right off on Highway fifty two, the amount of land you have And being ran out the inter uh out of seventy five.

   2:44:42I think it's very, very short sighted. Two Highland residential before the the the D. Jobs come in. Right now currently Uh seven hundred houses and you look at the phased on the last page, seven hundred job but seven hundred units are allowed to go in before At the next level is 315,000 square feet. That is not a very high threshold, 315,000

   2:45:13square feet. This these properties in 208 since the last We were in the Great Recession. None of these properties have been listed until 2020. Um So to say that that there's been no activity, Pascoal County's on fire, especially when it comes to distribution. I've been in the state uh for thirty five years now. Yeah. Pascoal County is on fire. So Um A corporate business park create

   2:45:43close to eleven thousand jobs in this area. And as Tampe Business Journal said, let's let's shade the the shed the the bedroom ministerial type. of the past years because we've been hep so heavily focused on residential. Um Pasco time has a come of of of age. So um Again, where I'd like to really hit on Is that um On the last page. You have infrastructure to support. That is a very, very

   2:46:13huge a big problem for me because infrastructure i is actually It's a joke. Because that just means you have a pad. What what we need is some buildings to go out there. Um And and once you have the buildings Because if the if the residential comes in, you allow all the residential to come in. These buildings will never come, the square footage. Um again Haskell deserves better, especially for our children and for jobs. And um I thank you for serving and

   2:46:44taking times out of your family and business. Thank you very much.

   GreyChair

   2:46:46All right, thank you, Anthony. Appreciate that. Who's next?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:46:51Mr. Chairman while we're waiting for the next speaker, is does they notice public hearing and so If the Citizens Academy needs to wait, they just need to wait. I don't want you cutting off People's public comment because this room is needed by the Citizens Academy. So you need to complete the public hearing.

   GreyChair

   2:47:09Very good. Thank you. All right, next.

   Denise

   2:47:13Next we have Ray Gadd.

   Raymond Gadd

   2:47:18Uh Mr. Chair, thank you for um uh uh giving me this opportunity to speak. And if I may, um, Bill Cronin is not able to be present and I would like to read his statement and then make a comment about it. Um Regarding agenda. Uh number six, comprehensive plan amendment. Central Pasco uh Pasco Employment Village, uh comprehensive plan text amendments to the Central Pasco employment village sub

   2:47:49area policy FLU 71.12, the Pasco Economic Development Council is not in favor of the proposed text amendment to master Plan which would allow for residential entitlements to be used prior to the fulfillment of employment center requirements. The Central Pasco Employment Village was the highest ranked site for industrial development in the Pasco Ready Sites Program. and activating the site with residential development prior to the industrial development with deterr. industrial

   2:48:20developers and site selection consultants are including the site in their selection process. As the official economic development agency for Pasco County, it is important to mention that there are over 16,000 economic development agencies in the US. and they are all competing for these projects simply by h by having residential Already in place at CPEB may be justification for Pasco to be cut from the project candidate pool for fear of public

   2:48:50protest or encroachment. Slash buffering issues. It is also important to mention that residential development has a negative impact on property. Property tax rev revenues if we do not have the industrial and commercial tax base to offset the loss. Please deny the request for text uh text amendment to ensure that employment center entitlements are satisfied first. Thank you, Bill Cronin. Um my final comment. about this. Uh in my position as dep deputy superintendent

   2:49:20of schools. Is that the school district? Supports policies. That ensure when kids graduate from high school That they can get jobs, or when they return from college, that they can get jobs. And we support policies that uh ensure robust economic development. Thank you for your time.

   Denise

   2:49:46Please.

   GreyChair

   2:49:50Mr. Ray, were you sworn?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:49:54Oh.

   2:49:56He's still on.

   2:49:59Or he's muted or uh Still.

   2:50:03Yeah.

   GreyChair

   2:50:05Ray Gad, are you there?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:50:11Okay, well.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:50:13Mm-hmm.

   2:50:15Ask him again, sir.

   GreyChair

   2:50:17Ray, are you there? Yes. Okay. Have you been sworn Ray? Oh, I'm sorry, I have not. All right. I thought you were getting sneaky on us. Raise your right hand.

   Clerk

   2:50:31Do you s do you swear or affirm the testimony that you gave was the truth? So help you God.

   Raymond Gadd

   2:50:39Uh uh I do. Thank you. All right.

   GreyChair

   2:50:42Thank you.

   2:50:45Okay. Uh is anybody else?

   Denise

   2:50:49No, but we do have two letters to be read interact. One of them was writ writ read by Mr. Gadd, but I do want to say that that comes from Bill Cronin, who is a president CEO of the Pasco EDC. And that's 16506 Point Village Drive Suite 101, Lutz, Florida, 33558.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:51:07Mm-hmm.

   Denise

   2:51:08The following one, if you would time me, um is from Rob Park. [address removed]. Good day for this project, even the whole corridor from the Suncoast Parkway to I-75. I would like for all of you to try to envision something different. I am no artist. I wish I could draw something up for you, but for now imagine this. Look in front of you and see the box. The box that has the employment center, the retail, the apartments, etc. Now look outside the box and see State Road

   2:51:3852 running one way eastbound on the south of the box and one way westbound on the north of the box. On each side of Aaron Aaron Cutoff and Bellamy Brothers, envision long sweeping U-turns far enough apart to allow merging. Think of you of the U-turns as rotaries on steroids. Now see that there are no stoplights. There would be no need. All the connecting roads would turn right and then follow a U-turn as needed. Inside the box, there could be a central corridor from one end to the to the other. For

   2:52:09people to move People mover of type. The possibilities are endless, but if you proceed with the proposed plan, you are just going to have another State Road fifty four and fifty six. What is the planning of that? Rob Park.

   GreyChair

   2:52:23All right. You made it in the time allowed.

   2:52:28All right. Was there anyone else that needed to speak?

   Denise

   2:52:31That's all we have.

   GreyChair

   2:52:33Okay. And I b think the applicant was out of time, right? And about five minutes left.

   Denise

   2:52:40About five minutes the applicant has.

   GreyChair

   2:52:42Okay. So Joel two, do you have any rebuttal?

   Joel

   2:52:48Yes, sir, I will. I'll be very brief. Um, we are not adding any residential units to this project. If Mr. Cronin and Mr. Gadd or anyone else had a problem with there being residential next to Industrial Incorporate, why did the county approve the Central Pasco employment village by definition to be a mixed-use community? Everyone always knew the whole concept was we had a live, work, play village, as

   2:53:18Terry said. And Terry will tell you, ask Terry if he thinks you need this residential adjacent to these employment uses. He will tell you yes. All we're doing is in the original approval, out of the 4,500 residential units, only 900 of them could be single family. All the others had to be multifamily. We're simply asking to make an adjustment there, which, as I said, is certainly going to make your county commission happy if some of the multifamily is shifted to single family. We

   2:53:48already know that story. So, point number one, that's all we're doing. That's all we're doing on the residential side. Flipping to the business side, I would like Mr. Gadd or Mr. Cronin to tell me with a straight face, because I know them well and they're smart men, tell me with a straight face. That they know anyone, including themselves, who's going to reach in their piggy bank and go build these Spec industrial buildings without having a user. None of you on this commission are ready to pony up in my LLC

   2:54:18to go make that investment. І і вас реклама from the state. Mr. Goldstein, if you ask him, I believe Mr. Goldstein will tell you that that imposition was forced on us. The county opposed that imposition with us. The county disagreed with DCA. The county has mandated infrastructure and no other project is setting aside the quantity of land for jobs. And now if you approve this, we'll be obligating the residential developers to pre-build

   2:54:48that infrastructure to support those jobs. No me suele. There's things that short sighted to have residential before employment, the employment jobs always follow the rooftops. That's always the case. You heard Bill Eschenbahl tell you that. Those of you who are in the real estate business, you know that. So the long and short of it is, I don't know why Bill and Ray are opposing this. It makes zero sense to me. Mr. Cronin

   2:55:19has had over 10 years. If he's right, then why hasn't he produced users out there? If you don't need residential, why hasn't he located those users and put them on this site? The answer is because there's no infrastructure. He doesn't have residential. Roads and utilities. He's not gonna write the check to build them. The county's not gonna write the check to build them, but we have a residential developer who will start writing the checks to build them. So unless Ray or Bill or Andy Scaglione

   2:55:50want to build that infrastructure, their great idea is dead in the water and going nowhere as it's gone nowhere for over 10 years. So that's all we have to say about their objections. Other than being very, very disappointed in all their objections.

   GreyChair

   2:56:09Okay. I think a strong letters to follow on that one. Yeah. we anybody else. Ray

   Joel

   2:56:15Ray will get his let Ray will get his letter tomorrow. Yeah.

   GreyChair

   2:56:20Okay. Any any anything else?

   Denise

   2:56:26That's all we have. Okay.

   GreyChair

   2:56:30All right. Having heard the presentations of all the parties. Um, do we still have a recommendation for continuance?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:56:39Yeah, it's this is Jamie Gerard and I I think that a lot of valid points have been made on both sides. Again I just go back to the fact that we we only got this thing right before the hearing, so I mean with that in mind and I I know the schedule's kind of complicated things in my opinion a little bit here. I don't I don't even know if Continuing I'm gonna make a recommendation for continuance, but I don't know if continuing it to the next meeting, which is only seven days from now, is even adequate. Um I mean Joel would you be in opposition to if I

   2:57:09made a motion to continue to the I think the next meetings on the twenty second of April.

   Joel

   2:57:15No, Mr. Girardi, as long as Terry promises me, because we've also filed the MPUD, as long as he promises me that staff will continue the MPD review, then your deferral to April 22nd won't affect us at the end of the day, because obviously we're not done until we get the MPUD done. So if you feel like you need that time, I want I want the commission to be comfortable with it so we we don't object. Yeah.

   Nectarios Pittos

   2:57:41Um Terry? Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh we're we're sufficiently far in the sub-area policy discussion where the MPUD can be submitted. Um I'll I'll I'll uh coordinate with staff on that aspect of it. Okay. Thank you. Very good.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:57:58Okay, yeah. I mean with that with that in mind, I would like to make a motion to continue this to the April twenty second meeting in Newport Ritchie.

   GreyChair

   2:58:04I'll second that motion. Do we have a motion and a second? Any further discussion of the motion?

   Chris Williams

   2:58:09Uh Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a point that I you know I can speak for Mr. Gadd somewhat. I can't speak for Mr. Cronin, but Mr. Gadd is not uh opposed to having residential here. The issue is that they are changing. The text amendment to allow residential prior to any employment uses. Um connected city Epperson Ranch is supposed to do that, and I uh I don't really see a lot of those kind of uses out there either. So I think you could argue both sides. And I would love to and I

   2:58:39hope we have Mr. Cronin here on the twenty second to hear his viewpoint. I'd like to hear that.

   Joel

   2:58:44Very good. I I with all respect, Mr. Chairman, that's not factually correct. I would like David Goldstein to answer the question of whether residential already is allowed to proceed before the other elements. Ask David that question.

   GreyChair

   2:59:00Well I think we've had everything everybody make their presentation, so I don't want to go back and and rehash something. We have a motion on the floor. And I believe we have a second, is that correct? Correct. Yes. And uh uh we've had discussion from the dais. Any further discussion from the dais? Yes. Okay. Uh okay, so we have a motion. The second. No further discussion. All in favor or opposed by roll call. Signify by it by roll call vote.

   Clerk

   2:59:30Jamie Girardi. Aye. Peter Hansel. Aye. Roberto Saiz.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:59:36Hi.

   Clerk

   2:59:37Christopher Poole. Chris Williams. Aye. And Chairman Charles Gray.

   GreyChair

   2:59:42Aye.

4. 4Apr 20, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP49Public hearingContinued

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Continuance) … Pasco Employment Village – Adoption of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment … Pasco Employment Village Subarea Policy, Policies, Policy FLU 7.1.12 (Public Hearing: LPA: 3/25/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; LPA: 4/22/21 at 1:30 p.m. at NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; BCC: 6/8/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 7/6/21 4/20/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid, DC/Hybrid continued; NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 8/10/21 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid) NPR/Hybrid)

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue the item to the May 18, 2021 BCC meeting at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey by a roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 3:11:05
   ▶ 3:11:051m

   OakleyChair

   3:11:05Aye. Um motion pass? Five zero. Next. P forty nine continuous.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   3:11:14Item P forty nine was published in the Tampa Bay Times on february seventeenth, twenty twenty one.

   Denise

   3:11:19P forty nine is PDD twenty one zero two nine zero comprehensive plan amendment C PAL twenty fourteen Central Pasco Employment Village. This is a request to continue to the May 18th. Uh Board of County Commissioners meeting at one thirty in New Port Richey.

   Fitzpatrick

   3:11:34Motion to continue.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:11:35Second.

   OakleyChair

   3:11:36Got a motion and second to continue.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:11:38Time certain.

   OakleyChair

   3:11:39Time certain. May what did you say? May eighteenth. May eighteenth, one thirty, New Port Richey. All those in favor by roll call vote.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   3:11:50District two, Commissioner Moore.

   OakleyChair

   3:11:53Bye.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   3:11:54District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Fitzpatrick. Aye. District five, Commissioner Mariano.

   OakleyChair

   3:12:00Aye.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   3:12:00District one, Chairman Oakley.

5. 5Apr 22, 2021
   Planning CommissionP8Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Continuance) – CPAL 20(14) Central Pasco Employment Village – Adoption of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment … Pasco Employment Village Subarea Policy, Policies, Policy FLU 7.1.12 (Public … 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; BCC: 6/8/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 7/6/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid, DC/Hybrid continued; BCC: 8/10/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid)

   Open this item →▶ Play from 5:00:34
   ▶ 5:00:341h 45m

   Denise

   5:00:34Okay, um now this is item P eight. So on this item um we have some things to be read into record and um Mr. Two and his team have been granted twenty minutes time on this item.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   5:01:01Mr. Chairman Mariano. thank you. Would there be an opportunity for a five minute break?

   GreyChair

   5:01:06Sure,

   5:01:07Absolutely. Sorry

   5:01:08about that. Yeah,

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   5:01:09I shouldn't have thought about that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   5:01:10that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   5:01:11Thank you. Yeah,

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   5:01:12sure. Thank you, Terry. Isn't there a restroom in there? Yeah.

   Chris Williams

   5:01:18That's for sure. Denise will be

   Denise

   5:01:20my VIP part into it.

   Chris Williams

   5:01:22Oh wow.

   GreyChair

   5:01:23Yeah. She's got the key, all right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   5:01:26The troll under the bridge.

   GreyChair

   5:01:50Yeah, you're allowed there or you're printing.

   Christopher Poole

   5:06:30really good without the meaning up.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   5:06:32I'm I'm just glad those thirty five people out there didn't want to talk.

   Christopher Poole

   5:06:37Yeah, right. I thought they were gonna come through the door there for a while, so

   GreyChair

   5:06:44Yeah, I'm sorry.

   5:06:49That always annoys me when you're out there yelling and stuff.

   Denise

   5:06:53Yeah we've got Bill Croan, we've got uh Sheriff's Office speaking, we've got more professional a couple of other people out there.

   5:07:05And then I have three items to read into record on this one.

   Chris Williams

   5:07:17Claro.

   5:07:24You see Barbara tells us she did a fantastic job.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   5:07:30that like three times one day and I I pulled, I went around, I found, I asked the screwdriver, and I unscrewed the drawer and I put it. It was still sitting on the side of my desk. We didn't open it as a lot of that's what I've been. One time. so

   5:07:47I'm not sure.

   Denise

   5:07:50Bye.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   5:08:09Yeah,

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   5:08:09that's what it is. Um

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   5:08:11Yeah.

   Denise

   5:08:14I'd say they need to make an accommodation

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   5:08:16line.

   GreyChair

   5:08:16Boy Terry, you took forever. Good.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   5:08:21I didn't realize you were stepping up to present right. And uh

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   5:08:26turn the microphones back on.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   5:08:28Touch, test. Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   5:08:29I'm gonna go back to my hiding place.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   5:08:31Okay, Brad. Be that way.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   5:08:44Ready? Terry, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item P eight is uh CPAL 2014 Central Pasco Employment Village. this item was continued at the March twenty-five LPA hearing uh to the April 22nd LPA hearing which is today. I would like to note that the materials which were submitted for this meeting were the same materials that were provided at the March twenty five meeting And as uh was

   5:09:15indicated at the March twenty five meeting, um this project has been fairly fluid with negotiations and presentations and so some of the initial details from the original submittal of the project Um Since since the time of submittal from the very beginning of the project, not since March twenty-five until today, has been uh we've been working on them. So the memo uh that was given to you today was not updated in the spirit of continuing the discussion following the presentation that was made at the March 25 meeting. So I'm not

   5:09:45gonna go through and walk uh straight through the sub-area policy like I did at the last meeting. Instead, I'll just focus on four areas that I will briefly discuss in summary. Because they've already given the full presentation at the March twenty five meeting. So there are four basic uh updates, four main updates that are happening to the sub-area policy. The first one is to establish the Service Ready Sites Initiative within the Central Pasco Employment Village to control for residential development and ensure horizontal infrastructure is implemented per the proposed

   5:10:15phase build-out table. Um and I again I'm not gonna go through all that today. I presented all that at the past uh meeting. The second main update is to authorize the increase in the number of single family detached homes at the cost of multifamily uh units. So in short, we're going from a 2080 mix, 20% single family, 80% multifamily, to a 3366 mix, 33% single family, 66% multifamily.

   5:10:46The overall entitlements for residential stay the same, however, at forty five hundred. The third main update that's happening is to remove the Department of Community Affairs mandate to impose an affordable to imposing affordable housing provision on the on the sub area. Um the provision only called for a strategy and did not actually prescribe any particular type or number of affordable housing units. So we want to make that uh clear. And then the main uh the fourth main update

   5:11:16is to establish a case-by-case MPUD level review to determine the appropriate timing and location of schools. So as noted, I won't go through the whole presentation. But there, as I mentioned, there were some updates that have occurred. There were three particular updates that occurred to the sub-area policy since the March 25. So the version of the sub-area policy that was handed out to you today is a copy that includes the three provisions I'll quickly walk through right now. These were late updates to the sub-area policy that occurred through stakeholder discussions. So

   5:11:47in the slideshow if you'll just advance to the last three slides, or last two slides.

   5:11:54We have all of this here in case we have questions and wanna reference it. Um back one, sorry.

   5:12:04Oh uh Patty, did you add the Did we add isotherids uh

   Ed Zodian

   5:12:16Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   5:12:18Well what I'll do is I'll walk you through it anyway if I can't show it on the on the screen. Um the three the three updates happened at the very end of the sub-area policy. You got it? Okay. So um it's uh in section F one

   5:12:39And section F four. So we'll show them up in a second here.

   5:12:51There we are. So in section F1, in section F, we're talking about service-ready sites and what the MPUDs need to establish within the CPEV planning area. And the first bulletin F1 uh we mentioned that these were imported out of the Connected City Comprehensive Plan and imported into the exported from Connected City and imported to CPE. P E V Um a late arrival to this provision is what I've

   5:13:22underlined on the screen there. It says however a mix shall not be mandated for sites dedicated to target business, corporate business parts, light manufacturing, which may be developed as a single use. Yeah.

   5:13:34Yeah. Since the corporate business or the target industry would generally encompass the entire service ready site. That's why you're setting them up. Um and in F four. Uh the added language is underlined again. It says require and encourage construction on of adjacent infrastructure for roadways and utilities to serve SRS parcels. For target business, corporate business park light manufacturing, this may include county and or state economic incentives to promote employment generating uses.

   5:14:06The only thing I'll mention is that while this uh language appears in the sub-area policy text before you and on the screen, we would probably ask that the words and encourage Be stricken. be pulled back out of the sub area policy in order so that we can remain consistent with the uh connected city comprehensive plan. uh the fact that we imported it from from that. But then also um When you require something you don't generally encourage it, it's

   5:14:36it's required as a little bit of an oxymoron.

   GreyChair

   5:14:38Yeah, because

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   5:14:39you would

   GreyChair

   5:14:39say if you said require or encourage, that'd be different.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   5:14:43Right.

   GreyChair

   5:14:43But here you requ it's implied that you're gonna require it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   5:14:48Right. And then the last edit, which is I think is on the next slide. is in section G, um which is on page two dash ten and the copy that was sent to you. Um

   5:15:00Basically it remains the same with the addition of the last part uh of the paragraph G where it says, uh I'll I'll read the whole sentence, nothing in the phasing requirement shall prohibit non residential development from proceeding prior to residential development where applicable, nor shall any non residential development area be required to provide infrastructure to support any residential use area in order for the resid for the non residential development to proceed. So those are the three. uh

   5:15:30add ons or updates that occurred since the March twenty five. Everything else has s remained the same. Uh and that will I believe conclude my brief presentation for today.

   GreyChair

   5:15:44That was brief. Yeah, did the big one last time, so Okay. So we have someone here to speak. Beneath.

   Denise

   5:15:53Yes, we have several folks to speak, but I have been I have a have been asked by one of the speakers to actually read one of the um letters into record first before the speakers if that's okay with the planning commission.

   GreyChair

   5:16:10Yes, whatever you think. That's fine.

   Denise

   5:16:12Okay. And in that light, may I read everything? I have three letters to read into record. May I do that?

   GreyChair

   5:16:19Sure.

   Denise

   5:16:20Okay. Three minutes. The first one is from Sheriff Chris Nacko. I hope this email finds you well. I was made aware of the concerns of Mr. Cronin noted in the email below, and wanted to also share the concerns of the Pasco Sheriff's Office. As discussed when it comes to the pre-app review process, the Sheriff's Office is concerned about the continued growth, especially among key corridors in Pasco County, and this project raises those concerns even more. This is in regards to the fast growth

   5:16:50and the Ability to provide public safety services to the level that our citizens expect. The Pasco Sheriff's Office supports job creation efforts in Pasco County and believes this amendment would harm those efforts, as noted by Mr. Cronin. Thank you again for including the Pasco Sheriff's Office in the pre-app review process. We look forward to the opportunity to raise concerns such as this earlier such as this earlier in the process.

   5:17:16Yeah.

   5:17:18The next one is a a letter from Just a moment. Rick Narkowitz, and that's N-A-R-K-I-E-W-I-C-Z.

   5:17:32From Newmark. And it says, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Rick Markovitz. I grew up in Pasco County, returned here to raise my children 15 years ago, and have over 25 years of experience in the marketing of employment centers, specifically the sale of land and buildings suitable for distribution centers and high-tech manufacturing facilities throughout west central west central Florida. Currently, I'm a mark I am marketing over three million square feet of space in various stages of development, and I am represented I am representing end users seeking

   5:18:03over 1.5 million square feet of space in the region. Although I do not represent the property owner, I have presented Mr. Swop's development on State Road 52 to several of my clients who maintain interest in this property and are monitoring the development's progress. While I am a strong advocate for job growth. in Pasco County, this site is hindered by its access to state. Interstate 75 and the lack of infrastructure to the portion that would support the employment center portion of the project. The widening of State Road 52 will reduce potential employ employers' concerns regarding

   5:18:33its ex access to Interstate 75 and greatly increase the odds that a developer would construct buildings on a speculative basis. As you may already know, in most cases companies are seeking existing facilities to establish operations rather than Than construct their own or wait for a bill to suit. Most developers of employment center space throughout the county are seeking sites that are as close to going to vertical as possible. Therefore, sites that do not have utilities, roads leading to it, and entitlements in place are ruled out by the majority of parties that would

   5:19:03otherwise be interested in constructing speculative buildings, which directly leads to job creation. It is extremely important that a planning Is derived in advance to bring infrastructure to the land supporting the employment center of a of the project, and that those costs are not r the responsibility of potential buyers. Arranging for this portion of Mr. Swope's project to be developed as easily and as quickly as possible is critical to creating jobs. Thank you for everything that you do for Pasco County, especially as it relates to relates to forming a live, work, play environment.

   5:19:34I have served on a large bo public board for ten years and understand it can be a thankless position at times. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 813-453-0797 or R-N-A-R-K-I-E-W-I-C-Z at ngf.com if you feel I can be of help in the future. Sincerely, Rick Narkowitz. Last letter is from

   5:20:01Um Clay Witherspoon, it appears. It's it's signed and sign oh yes, Clay Witherspoon, who's the managing director. And principal for Avison Young. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Clay Witherspoon. I represent Avison Young and have 25 years of experience in the marketing of employment generating sites in the procurement of industrial corporate office warehouse distribution and other employment generating end users for sites such as your CPEV master plan area on State Route 52. I have looked specifically at CPEV on behalf of interested industrial users. The

   5:20:31proximity of CPEV. CPEV location to I-75 and the state FDOT's pending improvements to the State Route 52 corridor position the CPEV land as an excellent location for job growth in Pasco County, provided the terms and conditions for development of such employment-generating uses are favorable to the marketplace. In the case of CPEV, the primary obstacle to its short-term job creation is the absence of infrastructure support to support pad-ready sites. And primary access roadways and utilities in place. The state's prior mandate for construction of employment

   5:21:01generating buildings ahead of any other development when there is no infrastructure in place and no end users to occupy them is unrealistic and an absolute impediment to any job creation within CPEV under the current regulatory structure. As the marketplace clearly has demonstrated for the last dozen years, CPEV will not develop under the current regulatory structure. The solution now proposed by the applicant and supported by the County's Planning and Development Department, which eliminates the precondition to construct empty, speculative office or industrial buildings when there is no infrastructure and therefore

   5:21:31no end users to support them, is an excellent first step. In addition, the opportunity to allow residential development to commence on the residential portion of CPEV so that the residential developers can be incentivized to bring roadway and utilities. Infrastructure, which will also support pad ready sites for employment users, is a market-friendly approach which will immediately propel CPEV into a premier industrial office employment opportunity. I have personally marketed CPEV to employment use developers who have serious interest in CPEV, provided

   5:22:02infrastructure can first be constructed for pad-ready employment sites. However, none of the users are interested in CPEV.

   5:22:10I understand the County's Economic Development Council director has taken a contrary position on this application, which is very confus confusing to those. of us in the employment industry. A modification which maintains a substantial reservation of land for employment generating uses and provides a practical market mechanism for the residential developers to provide the critical infrastructure for pad ready employment sites is exactly the type of regulatory solution that should be favored and endorsed by the Economic Development Council. I urge the local planning agency and the Board of County Commissioners to support the CPEB text amendment

   5:22:40so that working to them together we can continue the path forward to generate more jobs in Pasco County. Sincerely, Clay Witherspoon.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   5:22:54That's it. Yes.

   GreyChair

   5:22:56All right. So who do we have to speak?

   Joel

   5:23:01Apple can

   5:23:06Mr. Chair, can you hear me, Joel too, for the applicant?

   GreyChair

   5:23:08I do.

   Joel

   5:23:11Good afternoon. Uh Ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna try to be uh as brief as Terry was because obviously we're very, very late. Uh, but since this is the third time we've uh been continued, we appreciate uh your time. Um, I would like to try to help clear up what I think was some confusion from the last Planning Commission hearing when unfortunately uh we kind of dumped this on you uh without an opportunity for you to study it. I know you've had an opportunity now uh since that hearing. But

   5:23:42I think the confusion, uh, frankly, was over exactly what are we asking to do here. I think it is assumed that we're asking for a lot more than we are. I think Terry has helped clear that up today. As the the important thing is we're not here on an MPUD review. This is an overall CPA text amendment for the overall CPEV area. And just by way of background, please remember that CPEV was created over a dozen years

   5:24:12ago by the county. This was a county-initiated area plan. So contrary to the sheriff's This has been on the books and plan for 12 years. The county approved this development. It approved this employment center. It approved this supporting residential. It is actually an adopted part of the comprehensive plan. So it's very late in the process to say, wait a minute, we don't want this area developed. We're way past that point. Um There was one prior

   5:24:42amendment to the CPEV that also was county initiated, and that was to remove the requirement for a single overall MPUD for these 20 plus separate properties. That was uh everyone thought that was a good idea at the outset. It proved to be completely impractical because we could not get 20 plus owners to do a consolidated. M P U D. So those have been the only two amendments. This third amendment is to clean up, as Terry said, really

   5:25:12only four substantive modifications. And I'm going to expound on those a little bit. Two of the four, which Terry mentioned, two of the four were the original result of the then State Department Community of Affairs, which of course that agency has long since been abolished, but at the time, DCA mandated two requirements in this plan. Um one was, as he mentioned, the affordable housing

   5:25:43requirement. The problem with that is there was never any implementing ordinance. Pasco County never adopted an implementing ordinance to tell anyone what that meant or how you would mitigate that or apply it. The other problem is that that requirement has since been deleted in every major DRI and every major MPUD in Pasco County, which has requested its deletion. To my knowledge, the county has never failed or declined to remove that requirement. So what

   5:26:13is what is being supported by the staff here and what we're asking is simply to comply with what the county has done uh with every other project. We're not asking for anything new. Now, if and when the county adopts an affordable housing ordinance that's applied countywide, of course this project will be subject to it, just like anyone else. So no one is saying there won't ever be any affordable housing program. We're simply saying that until one is adopted This

   5:26:44restriction makes no sense because it's not even defined. So that's point number one. That was a DCA mandate. The other DCA mandate, as Terry pointed out, and and again, this was at the time of the original county adoption, when the county adopted CPEV, DCA objected to the plan amendment, objected to the county's plan amendment. The county, together with the property owners, uh litigated and opposed

   5:27:15DCA. So the county at the time did not think that this mandate to require speculative uh commercial or industrial or office buildings to be built. uh as the first step. The county never thought that was a good idea, litigated it, and opposed it. So all we're asking at this time is to say, um, since DCA has been abolished and this is no longer a state issue, we're simply saying let's remove

   5:27:45that spec building requirement, which has never, I repeat, never been applied or required in any other project in the history of Pasco County. Now, the county has taken a very different approach as a matter of county policy, which is what we're trying to apply here. When we did the connected city, which Mr. Gasoway and I, of course, worked on that with County. When we did the Connected City, we came up with the service ready site. Requirement. And

   5:28:15we're proposing exactly the same concept that what is practical, and this was just alluded to in the Abbison-Young letter, what is practical is to provide the roadway, utility, and other infrastructure to get those employment sites PED ready. And the beauty of CPEV is it has virtual. All of the residential land lying on the south side of the employment center land. The employment center land is

   5:28:45between State Road 52 and those residential areas. So any residential developer who comes in will have to build roadways and sewer to get to themselves. They'll have to extend that down 52 and into the project. And fortunately, They have to bring it directly past those employment center sites. So asking that residential developer to upsize those lines and those roadways to take into account the future square footage in those employment areas

   5:29:15is a very practical solution that will get us the pad-ready sites that really are necessary to bring these employers there. So again, We're not eliminating any of the requirements. In fact, if you look at the very last uh section of the uh text amendment which Terry has provided, there was originally a chart that was required by DCA that had the specific square foot phasing requirements of how much employment

   5:29:46would have to be provided for in order for each phase. Of residential to proceed. Please look at that chart and note that we are not changing that chart at all in terms of what that square footage threshold is. The only change is where the chart said building square feet are the threshold. Terry has inserted, PDD staff has inserted infrastructure to support building square feet. So in other words, all we're doing is taking

   5:30:16away the vertical spec building requirement that never made any sense and has never been required in Pasco County and changing it to the infrastructure to support that quantity of square feet. In other words, those sewer lines will have to be sized to accommodate that. Uh and the roadways will have to be sized to accommodate that. So those are the first two items. Those were state mandated requirements that Pasco County itself as to the vertical building requirement, Pasco County

   5:30:46itself had opposed originally. The other two items, one of those is a cleanup item. The school siding process, as I said, the prior amendment that was done to eliminate the overall MPD requirement, that was a county-initiated amendment. Unfortunately, it created an issue for the school district because when there was going to be a single MPUD, the policy required that in that single MPUD a

   5:31:17an appropriate school site be designated if the school district determined that it needed one. Well that Single MPD was deleted without really addressing a concern, a legitimate concern of the school district of okay, what do we do now? So to address this, I met right off out the door, I met right away with Mr. Williams and Mr. Tanello. We discussed it, uh, and we said that you know it would have to be

   5:31:47handled on an individual MPD. Review basis. And what they asked me to do, and which I did, is I drafted a sub-area policy for the school district that put as much teeth in it as we could to make it very clear that you won't get an individual MPUD reviewed and processed without arriving at a satisfactory solution with the school district. And so that change is simply to help out the school district on

   5:32:17what was an unintended consequence from the county's last amendment. So that we're just trying to clean up so that there is a control process for the school district as it reviews these individual MPUDs. And finally, the fourth item is is is simply an item that uh we think makes sense, as Terry pointed out in the original approval. The split between single family and multifamily was twenty eighty.

   5:32:48And again, that's only was only twenty percent single family, eighty percent multifamily. So we are proposing to convert 600 when you do the math, when you go from 20% single family to 33% single family. That what that effectively means is you are converting six hundred multifamily units to single family units. Well it's no secret with the Planning Commission that certainly uh the

   5:33:19commissioners, given their more recent policy directives, are going to look favorably upon fewer multifamily units and more single family units. So there's nothing about this proposal that runs afoul of any current county trend or policy. So with that said, um, oh, and I'm sorry, the the three new points that Terry just brought up, um, just for clarification, those were requests made by one of the other property owners, not the Swoke family.

   5:33:49They were made uh by Mr. Southworth, who has the eastern parcel and his planner. Uh, and we agreed with Terry, we have absolutely no issue with those. We also think they're good ideas and in terms of that one deletion to delete uh the words and encourage we we do understand and agree with that and obviously that's a good idea so we're okay with those most recent tweaks to accommodate another stakeholder um and with that said uh that's really the essence of our request I'm gonna let Pat Gassaway

   5:34:21um handle any details also handle any questions uh and any follow up for us since he's our planner and has been from the uh original design and organization of CPEV.

   Pat Gasway

   5:34:35All right, Pat. Thanks, Joel. I appreciate it. Um well I I think Terry's done a great job of being able to describe what is before the uh the Planning Commission today. Um I will add one thing. Pat um Can you hear

   GreyChair

   5:34:50Pat can you hear

   Pat Gasway

   5:34:51me? Yes.

   GreyChair

   5:34:52Okay, I I'm sorry and I don't know if we did this with Joel, but I I know we need to always get uh your name and address and Have you been sworn? Sorry about that. It's been a long day.

   Pat Gasway

   5:35:05I know, I know. I apologize. Uh it's even I'm tired. Um Pack Gasweg with height design representing the applicant. Uh 5904 uh Hampton Oak Parkway, Tampa, uh 33610. Um

   GreyChair

   5:35:23And you've been sworn? I think the point by um

   Pat Gasway

   5:35:25by Terry is um Pat.

   5:35:30Oh yes, I have been for one. Okay. Although it seems like days ago I that was Tuesday.

   GreyChair

   5:35:38Yeah.

   Pat Gasway

   5:35:38Um

   5:35:41The Um the thing that I did want to point out that that may not be um get completely clear. Um is uh is something that I think probably would benefit being seen on the screen. Would it be possible for me to to share my screen with you?

   Unidentified speaker

   5:36:03We're gonna do that.

   Pat Gasway

   5:36:08Okay, great. Let's see.

   GreyChair

   5:36:23There we go.

   Pat Gasway

   5:36:25Okay, great. See if I can uh is everyone seeing my screen currently?

   GreyChair

   5:36:33Yes. Yes, sir.

   Joel

   5:36:40I can see it on WebAx. I I don't know if the commissioners can see it.

   Pat Gasway

   5:36:46Okay, great. Um I'm going to uh but j just for for orientation purposes. Um this is the the Swoke property. Um the the northern half of the job is the target industry uh business park uh and some support uh retail here on the corner. Everything south. Of uh the east-west vision road is um is

   5:37:17high density residential. Um when when we look at at this overall plan outlined in yellow is uh is the limits of the swole property. Again, here on on this particular piece. the the purple is the target industry and the and the dark brown is the residential. The thing that I wanted to uh to to point out, here's something that

   5:37:47you'll see soon with the um as as this goes forward in the MPD process. This is an illustrative plan that reflects the the development concept. These red roads here are are the portions of the Vision Roadway Network that actually are within this portion of the CPEV master plan. Again, all of these uses on the north side are are the uh target

   5:38:18industry or support retail. Everything south of this red vision road here is the residential components that we're talking about.

   5:38:30This intersection of this Vision Road and State Road 52 is where the community infrastructure will begin. These red roads. That will be necessary to construct immediately to gain access to the residential components are over $11 million worth of infrastructure that Mr. Swopes Bayer is committing to be able to

   5:39:00construct in order to access and utilize the residential initial development. In addition to that, utilities will be constructed in these red roadways, along with about 1.8 miles of extension of utilities down State Road 52 to the east in order to get to their point of connection. When you add those dollars together, we add another $2.4 million worth

   5:39:31of utility infrastructure that will be necessary in order to be able to begin development in the residential portions of this community. But when you think about, you know, over $13 million of investment in infrastructure is going to be created here. And and you can see with its location in this particular portion of the site plan We'll not only have vehicular access along the north side in 52, but we'll be

   5:40:01creating collector road access along the east and along the south for all of the utilization in the future of these target industry uses. That is what I believe the letters were speaking about directly in that those missing infrastructure dollars are the things that are missing currently for the rapid absorption of those target industry uses. those things are going to be things that will be

   5:40:31fleshed out and detailed in the conditions of approval of an MPUD zoning if we can never get there. Uh if if anyone has any questions uh uh about those items, I'll be I'll be happy to answer them, but uh if if uh in in being sensitive to time, I'd I'd like to to to say i if there's uh additional info, I'll be happy to bring it forward to to address a specific question.

   GreyChair

   5:40:59Do we have any questions so far?

   5:41:04Nothing yet.

   5:41:08All right, go ahead and continue.

   Pat Gasway

   5:41:13Okay, great. Um a at at this point I'm guessing uh I can stop sharing my screen um and uh Terry can take it back perhaps to pr proceed forward with uh public comment.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   5:41:30Mr. Chairman we do have several speakers at the keynote.

   GreyChair

   5:41:32Okay. N n n nobody on the presentation side. The people that want to speak to the in the opposition?

   Denise

   5:41:42We don't have anyone on the WebEx other than uh Mr. Uh Two's team. Um

   GreyChair

   5:41:49Okay. All right, then we'll uh we'll go to the kiosk.

   5:41:57And Mr. Two can uh have time for rebuttal.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   5:42:12It matters.

   Unidentified speakerVoice L

   5:42:14Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission. I'm Alexander Ahl, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer for the Pasco Sheriff's Office, and I have been sworn. Uh so unfortunately the sheriff was not able to be here today, but he did ask for me to attend in his absence. Uh as it is pretty late, uh I will be brief. Um So I just wanted to echo the concerns conveyed by the Sheriff in his letter to all of you as it relates to this item. Uh as the Sheriff mentioned, uh we are concerned

   5:42:44about continued growth in key corridors in Pasco County. Uh with the fast growth in the county, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to provide public safety to and services to our citizens at the level that they expect. Um and with the that said with the recent inclusion of the Sheriff's Office in the pre app review process Uh it is a positive step that would allow us to uh uh raise these concerns earlier. Um, but I did just wanna share that these concerns that we have and that

   5:43:15we think that this plan amendment could harm Yeah, potential job creation in Pasco County.

   5:43:21Thank you.

   GreyChair

   5:43:22Um excuse me, let me ask you a question.

   Unidentified speakerVoice L

   5:43:24Um

   GreyChair

   5:43:26I'm trying to crystallize in my mind Why you think this is gonna harm job creation?

   Unidentified speakerVoice L

   5:43:34Uh so I it's my understanding that I and I will defer to some other speakers on this, that they I believe that they're going to elaborate further on this. Um but it is my understanding with With this particular project, um the goal was to have Businesses come in first. to allow um to allow development in the area before residents come in. Uh and by by doing it this way and going in the opposite

   5:44:04direction, I it's our concern is that it would negatively impact growth in that in that uh uh But for this project. and per and perform potential future growth for uh um for business coming into this area. And again, as I said, I will defer to uh to other speakers on this. I believe they have some more details in that regard.

   GreyChair

   5:44:29Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Nope. Okay. Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice L

   5:44:36Thank you.

   Bill Cronin

   5:44:40Good evening. It's Bill Cronin from the Pasco A D C. I've been sworn. Members of the Planning Commission, thank you for taking the extra time to listen to all the considerations about this important piece of property. It means so much that a lot of people have been sitting here for well over five hours to make sure that you hear these sentiments. There's a couple of facts and points that I want to mention. Uh first of all, all of the property owners of the CPEB agreed to the conditions of having phase development

   5:45:10to ensure that residential development did not outpace. the employment center component of that property. I've heard mentioned that the county was against this. The county was also wanting more employment center in the CPE being and settled for the amount of entitlements that are currently in that agreement. Also, another fact, and I've mentioned this several times in previous correspondence, this particular piece of property is part of that larger footprint

   5:45:41of CPEV, and CPEV was our number one site out of 67 sites that we surveyed in the county as part of our Ready Sites program for industrial development and growth. My intention has always been to make sure that we put forward this site in the best light possible so that we can recruit companies to create quality jobs in that area. The lawyers for this property would like you to believe that the

   5:46:11employment center requirement requires them to build a shell building or a spec building, which is not the case. The DCA requirement to go vertical isn't limited to shell buildings alone. But even if it was a requirement, it wouldn't be a bad idea. The county's already made significant investments in speculative building market and already created numerous jobs in this county. If you look at Aristida at um Asturia at 54, we're

   5:46:41on our third spec building there. It it already has a tenant, and even the expert

   GreyChair

   5:46:48Go on, keep going.

   Bill Cronin

   5:46:49Okay. Even the expert that uh Mr. Two had right in, Rick Narkowitz, uh is working with the county on four hundred and nine hundred thousand square feet of spec space going on county land at I-75. These are not bad ideas and the market out there uh needs it. We are turning away projects because we don't have buildings. Another fact is that employment center entitlements are not created to build shell buildings. They're

   5:47:20created to attract actual employers, creating actual jobs. Unlike residential development, industrial development requires us that we actually go after projects and not simply wait for them to come to us. The experts are correct. Infrastructure is really important. However, One of the landowners in this CPEV that mentioned earlier broke out, has their own MPUD, and I'm happy to say we already have a project that is committed to

   5:47:50putting 500,000 square feet there. Mm-hmm.

   GreyChair

   5:47:54Um I think that's your time, Bill. But uh let me ask you a question. Um if they're not gonna put the residential land first, uh where's the uh Sewered water coming from. Who's gonna put that in? To get to their industrial builders.

   Bill Cronin

   5:48:10developers often put in that that sewer and water. As a matter of fact, the project I was just getting ready to tell you about. uh will have part of that water already running to C PEV. And uh all the property owners now will be able to take advantage of of that because that's a huge complex going in there, five hundred thousand square feet. It also means that uh that triggers under the current agreement the ability for Mr. Two's uh client to build up

   5:48:40to two thousand units, far more than what he's asking for right now. So realistically, this portion of the agreement, the text amendment, isn't needed. The other things that he's asking for are not necessarily in our uh area of emphasis for economic development. However, if you do make a text amendment and grant the text amendment, I would strongly encourage you to look at our ReadySites program as an alternative to the service ready sites. The

   5:49:10service ready sites have not worked to date. There's not a single company that has looked at the service ready sites. If you go to the county's website and look at service ready sites, you will see coming soon, nothing there. Those sites are small, our sites are fifty acres or more, and we're going after big users. And the users that we have right now is proof that the Ready Sites program works. We don't need to plant this and and cobble it up into small

   5:49:40pieces for startup companies in the service ready sites program. Connected City doesn't have a single industrial user there and hasn't been marketed yet, nor has this property been marketed. If we market this for industrial, we'll get you a user.

   GreyChair

   5:49:56Okay. Um we've known it's coming, Bill. I mean, why aren't we marketing it?

   Bill Cronin

   5:50:02The landowner has to agree to market it as as well too. You take a look at the realtor that's currently listing this property, all you see is the residential mentioned on their website.

   GreyChair

   5:50:16Okay, any other questions for

   Chris Williams

   5:50:19I'd like to ask one question. Um I read your letter that you presented to us the last time we brought this up. Maybe you can't answer it, but Are we are you or are we close to getting uh an organization or a company that will come in and give jobs away, I I concur with the philosophy that let's bring w a workforce or a company in before we start building these uh Homes. I'd rather see the jobs there first. Are you close? Are you close to

   5:50:49having

   Bill Cronin

   5:50:50to come? Maybe I wasn't strong enough in my comments. We have a user that is committing to five hundred thousand square feet. in a confidential project within C PEV right now.

   Chris Williams

   5:51:03And they will provide their own and excuse me for interrupting, I apologize for that, but that or company that's coming in or Will put in its infrastructure in. As opposed to having houses put the infrastructure in is what you're saying. Is that what I hear?

   Bill Cronin

   5:51:18Yes, yes, that's absolutely correct. That is absolutely correct. Uh that particular user is is showing us that without having the encroachment of residential, these are very attractive sites. My concern is putting that residential in first makes any of these sites less attractive and more difficult for us. You you've been here today and saw over 70 people. We're here for public comment and with concerns about changes in their community.

   5:51:49Once those those residents these sites We'll have a hard time bringing in another company. However, this company, because it's already an MPUD in place, they're probably gonna be up and running before we even get through the MPUD price uh process on Mr. Swokes Land.

   GreyChair

   5:52:06Chris, did you have a question?

   Chris Williams

   5:52:08Mine was similar to um Mr. Hansels and that and basically what I'm hearing is you have a user Potentially committed. Without houses being there and without infrastructure being there. That's correct, right? That is correct.

   5:52:24Anybody else

   GreyChair

   5:52:25have any questions?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   5:52:26Yeah, I I guess my only comment um on this and and I know that there's some language added to to the policies here, but I mean there I guess what I'm struggling the most with is that th the statements made that there will be problems getting industrial users and and and these job creators to come in I mean it it's it's clear by the conditions that are are written in in section F of the sub area policies that They're gonna put deed restrictions on it. There's gonna be signage up there. The difference here is between

   5:52:56this and what we spent several hours on earlier today was is nobody knew what was coming when they moved there. I mean these people are all gonna know when they buy a house that's what's coming there.

   Bill Cronin

   5:53:06Yeah, that that's not necessarily the the the question. So there's sixteen thousand agencies in the United States that do what we do. We're all competing for these projects. So when an industrial user is looking for a site, and if they're looking in the Tampa Bay region, There's probably 200 different locations they can look at. Their goal is not to add us. Their goal is to cut us and get us down to two finalists and let us duke it out using incentives. Any type of impediments that are there, infrastructure,

   5:53:36the lack of infrastructure is clearly one. Resid residential growth that may be encroaching on them is another. So the Ready Sites program that we have actually is to put ourselves in a position that we are quote unquote pad ready. We know when the utilities will be there, we know how much it's gonna cost, how long it's gonna take. And those questions are answered and there's less uncertainty and less risk. So the site that I mentioned M CPEV where we've got

   5:54:06the user, that particular owner entered the Ready Sites program and in six months now has uh LAN under contract and doing due diligence. So These are the you know what we're doing here. In the if we end up Just um putting putting people there because we can or allowed to. uh in terms of residential it might be legal, it might be fair. But a user that we're trying to attract is just gonna say, you know what, we're not gonna take a chance of sitting for

   5:54:37five hours at the county commission meeting with protesters. Instead we're just gonna move to the next site.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   5:54:44I understand that. I guess is there is there a quick quick explanation of the difference between the your ready sites program and the the service ready sites program that's oh yeah

   Bill Cronin

   5:54:54Yeah yeah service ready sites is nothing more than laying infrastructure uh next to the pads that are out there. If you go to the it it's very difficult to find in the county website their description of service ready sites, uh but they came in at four acres and look at the connected city footprint, it's a total of fifty. Ours start at fifty. So another component of that is that with Ready Sites program, with the Ready Sites for program of Pasco E DC. you no longer have the non-res

   5:55:24platning requirement. I'm sorry, the not yeah, the non-res commercial plating requirement. So these big users don't have to chop up Uh That piece of property And then try to market it. The developer doesn't have to go through that extra headache that sometimes is a year long to do plating. And then only to have a big user site, that's not what we have in mind. So these are big sites. We have a total of well over 2,000 acres of ready sites that we've been marketing in the last five years. We started

   5:55:54this program using the penny because we knew that we didn't have what the industry was looking for. We're one of the only places in all of Florida that has land and people, and we can go after these big industrial projects. My friends in Hillsboro cannot. My friends in Pinellas cannot. That's why we're able to get the big ones.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   5:56:16And and if if this goes through with these amendments that eliminates this property from being able to enter the ready sites program?

   Bill Cronin

   5:56:26No, it does not. But I would urge you not to use the service ready sites program and I would urge you not to change the requirement to go vertical and create jobs. Employment center is not about putting in the infrastructure in exchange for buildings. Nobody says they have to be spec buildings, but we already have users out there that are willing to come and and and build factories as we know right now we've got one at five hundred thousand square feet just

   5:56:56down the road. It works. It's nice to see that that infrastructure will go through that property. Uh but I don't think that's the whole meaning of why C P E V was required. It is the Central Pasco employment village. It is not the Central Pasco residential village. Yeah, I agree with that one.

   Chris Williams

   5:57:15Ca can I ask one more question? Sure. Absolutely. Something was brought up about uh State Road fifty two. I I thought Wilton Simpson a number of years ago, he's the um It slipped my mind what his position is. He's the what? He's the president of the Senate. Yeah, Senate President. I was under the impression that he acquired uh sufficient funding to widen fifty two from I seventy five to Veterans or Sun Coast. Is that not correct? Because

   Bill Cronin

   5:57:46Yeah, I don't think it's a few years.

   Chris Williams

   5:57:51I thought there was funding for that. Okay.

   Bill Cronin

   5:57:53Yeah, that's a crystal ball that's not in my that's that's not in my shop. Okay.

   Christopher Poole

   5:57:59Okay. Anything, Chris? Bill, just to drive the point home again, so you're saying that that new user that's that's coming online, that's under due diligence right now, is willing to extend utilities one point six miles. I I think Mr. Gasway mentioned it's one point six miles from the point of interconnect. to bring those utilities to to his location. I'm not uncertain where his location is, but you're saying they've committed to bringing those utilities to their to their property.

   Bill Cronin

   5:58:28Yeah, I can't I can't disclose details of a negotiation of a project right now? Because there's job commitments, there's uh capital investment, things like that to consider. But yes, that is the that is the plan is that uh uh that Dell will be extending utilities. They are actually further east than uh the Swoke property, but it does get you halfway there.

   GreyChair

   5:58:51Thanks, sir.

   5:58:54All right. So who's next? I mean thank you, uh Bill. Thank you. Uh who's next? Can I make it a comment?

   Unidentified speakerVoice M

   5:59:09My name is Joe Papello. I'm from Tampa, Florida. I've owned the property out right on Cypress Creek for thirty

   GreyChair

   5:59:17two years. Joe, I'm sorry. What's your uh address and have you been sworn?

   Unidentified speakerVoice M

   5:59:21[address removed]. And you've been sworn.

   5:59:27I have not been sworn out, so

   GreyChair

   5:59:30let's get to him sworn if you raise your right hand.

   Clerk

   5:59:33Go ahead and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God?

   Unidentified speakerVoice M

   5:59:39Absolutely.

   5:59:44And then listen, much respect to Mr. Two, uh I was uh part of the original group. that did the Landings change. And this is exactly the opposite of what we proposed you know, to do. Uh several years ago. And what we've done is now we're gonna Jump into residential. On Cyber Creek, which is a A

   6:00:14very

   6:00:17What share? Excuse me? From from Green Swall. Through Pasco. to Pinellas County Waterfields. Have been into Tampa. And you put As many hobes as they're talking about. Disturbed the traffic on fifty two. And uh

   6:00:44We're gonna say that. Well The unity that Mr Two's talking about We need Industrial. And actually right there is perfect. There is a five hundred thousand Square foot proposal. Well we're gonna get ahead of ourselves. And I think you guys are Looking at a problem. On the highway. I

   6:01:14think we're looking at a problem with Run off to the creek. I think we're just looking at You know, things we won't know about till later. All right, and I've been there thirty years. I've raised my family out there. It's a beautiful place. And we're about to mess it up. So Hello. Mr. Tube, with all respect Swoke family, all respect, actually went to kindergarten with this. With

   6:01:45the slopes. Uh it's a problem. with what they're proposing. They get the cart for the horse. So uh Do y'all have any questions for me? I'd be glad to talk about it, but

   6:02:05I don't understand everything. But I will take But we have a prestige property that we're about to mess up. All the runoff and The water table is as close to the quarter aquifer there. Is it anywhere in Florida? And uh we're gonna have some runoff. We have some bloom in the creek. It's gonna cause a problem for two counties. But uh And we have some opposition. And

   6:02:36we are a property that has been there for a long time. Swog's been great neighbors. News Daddy. But um I don't think I think we could Excuse me. We're killing the houses. Prior to To the infrastructure. I don't see it.

   GreyChair

   6:03:00Well thank you very much. Uh your time has expired, but do we have any questions from the day as

   6:03:07No. No, we're good. Thank you very much for coming and speaking. I appreciate it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice M

   6:03:11Pleasure. Thank you. And my name is Joe Papello, I'm at T H N in Tampa. And we've been there seventy years, so we know about long long term business.

   GreyChair

   6:03:22Okay, Joe. Thank you so much.

   Unidentified speakerVoice N

   6:03:28Hi everyone, County Commissioners. My name is Nathan Janera, [address removed]. I have been sworn in. I am opposed to the land use change. The possibility of what this property property could be reminds me a lot of what Sable Park is in Tampa, which is industrial job creating businesses surrounded by residential. As a speaker has previously stated, this site is currently ranked number one in Pasco County. That opportunity is lost by letting residential come in first. We are especially

   6:03:58missing an opportunity if we have businesses willing to b bring in infrastructure like he stated. Make no mistake that residents will resist large scale industrial development after the houses have been built. Thank you.

   GreyChair

   6:04:10Thank you very much. Any questions?

   6:04:16No, uh we're good. Thank you very much.

   Joel

   6:04:18Thank you.

   Dennis Valdez

   6:04:26Hello, my name is Dennis Valdez. I live at [address removed]. I live right there at the creek. My property adjoins uh Mr. Hellows and it'll be right next to this place. I was part of the original plan that they were gonna do here. I would like to see that go forward. I I don't think that the plan you're putting you're putting forward to now is is what we discussed many years ago. Uh the infrastructure needs to

   6:04:56come first. The industry needs to come first. Too many people there.

   6:05:03It's just the traffic is terrible now. I don't know how you're gonna do it without the infrastructure.

   GreyChair

   6:05:12Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Any questions?

   Chris Williams

   6:05:15I have one question. When you talk about interest industry. You're talking about jobs, correct?

   Dennis Valdez

   6:05:21Correct. Thank you. We have many people already in Pasco County looking for a job. So bring in a bunch of more people, that's just gonna make it even harder to find a job for the people that are looking for one now.

   Chris Williams

   6:05:33Thank you.

   Dennis Valdez

   6:05:35Thank you. Thank you.

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   6:05:44Good afternoon. Andy Joseone. I've owned the h two hundred eleven acres of budding this property. I purchased it in two thousand nine and I read in detail The central Pasco employment village in detail wrote the sub area policies, the SAP And I was very comfortable With with what had been approved. To deviate from this would be a Not not Good for Pasco County. Um

   6:06:15I think it's working. The triggers that are in place Well uh with this five hundred thousand square feet will trigger Post of two thousand homes that can be built. Um, so there's no reason why I I don't even see why we're even discussing this today. Uh i i if it was me, I would have withdrew it. based on the the information that we got since the last meeting. But the great job. that um Bill Cronin and the EDC team have done. So in addition to that, the entitlements The

   6:06:47two uh options are not acceptable at all to me, especially because I'm in the Uh well head uh protection zone. But um The bottom line is is approving this today would be a short term decision With long term consequences and um I thank you for all the time you spend away from your job and your family. And I really, really appreciate it. Um and Pasco County I'm sure appreciates it. Thank you.

   Chris Williams

   6:07:16Can I one other question?

   6:07:19like to know, d are you in favor of the homes, are you in favor of the uh of the industry coming in? Uh you lost me.

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   6:07:27Oh I'm sorry. Absolutely in favor of the industry coming in first. Okay, thank you. No I mean uh uh no doubt about that.

   Chris Williams

   6:07:36Thank you.

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   6:07:37Thank you, Andy.

   GreyChair

   6:07:42Okay. Anyone else? Here we go.

   Rachel Rodriguez

   6:07:47Hi, how how are you this evening? Thank you so much for being here so late in the day. My name is Rachel Rodriguez. Address [address removed]. I'm here on behalf of my parents, the owners of the property. We are absolutely opposed to the land use change to the single family home residence to be built there. This area was originally zoned for commercial. That's why they bought this property almost 30 years ago to keep it as a

   6:08:17commercial property. Right now we have a dirt go-kart track on that facility, which runs at 95 decimals or less. With residential being there, we had could have pushback from the families there to make us pull our go-kart track from there, and that is a major concern of ours. Um We would like at this time to say that we don't think that the timing mechanism of the residential before commercial property um

   6:08:47is great for our property value. We would like to keep it as commercial and hopefully um leave a legacy for our children. Thank you for your time.

   GreyChair

   6:08:59Any questions? Thank you for coming on behalf of your parents.

   Rachel Rodriguez

   6:09:04Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   6:09:13No one else has made a public house on the side.

   Paul Thatcher

   6:09:47You ready for Joel?

   Joel

   6:09:54Mr. Chairman, you are ready for applicant rebuttal?

   GreyChair

   6:09:57Yes, I am.

   Joel

   6:09:59I'm gonna let Pat uh Gasway start out on the issue about the utilities and roads so he can clear up the uh misstatement of facts. Okay.

   Pat Gasway

   6:10:10Great, thank you, Joel. Again, Pack Gasway with Hype Design for the Applicant. I if you would um allow me to share my screen again, I think a graphic would be helpful at this point.

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   6:10:35Yeah, he had three minutes left on his twenty, so

   Pat Gasway

   6:10:49Okay, is everyone able to see my screen at this point?

   GreyChair

   6:10:53Mm-hmm.

   Pat Gasway

   6:10:55Okay, great. This is the master plan for the Central Pasco employment village. And um

   6:11:05Previously uh Mr. Cronin indicated that um the the applicant on the corner with the uh significant upcoming success um was um was providing utilities that would be of benefit. The the current point of connection for utilities is located at the northeast corner of that applicant's property. So the extension of utilities would be

   6:11:35associated simply with the development of the site. Is it is that i able to be seen here? This this purple here on the on the corner At Bellamy Brothers and State Road 52 is the current terminus of the utilities that are near the site. The 1.7 miles of extension goes from Bellamy Brothers all the way over to the swamp

   6:12:06property northeast corner.

   GreyChair

   6:12:11Gotcha.

   Pat Gasway

   6:12:12The other thing that I want to make sure that we understand is the significant difference between service ready site acres and the everything that's going to be located in the Central Pasco employment village. No matter what we do going forward, the sub-area policies require conformance to the master plan that you're looking at. So the yellow and the pink and the support retail that supports it are all

   6:12:42target business, corporate business park, and light manufacturing. And those acreages, those hundreds of acres, not four acres. are mandatory to be maintained within the development pattern as this master plan proceeds forward.

   6:13:07So the notion that there is a uh a a dramatic um Inferior circumstance with service-ready sites, I think it is inappropriate to even discuss in this particular regard, in that this has more acreage set aside for target industry and light manufacturing than every other application that I'm aware of along State Fifth State Road 52 corridor.

   6:13:38I'll be happy to share the the the time with Mr. K.

   GreyChair

   6:13:45Okay. Are you finished, Pat?

   Pat Gasway

   6:13:48Yeah, that's good. I'll stop sharing now so that you can un unless Joel you need a graphic.

   Joel

   6:13:55No, I'm just going to conclude. I know our time is up and it's late, but Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, uh the bottom line here is uh there's no issue with three of these four items. So whatever you do, we need we need the three substance changes recommended if you see fit. Regardless of what you do about this fourth item, which are the vertical building requirement versus having infrastructure to support those uses. So

   6:14:25at a minimum, we need the other three recommended. I think it will be a grave mistake for the reason Pat just demonstrated. It's easy for Mr. Cronin to say that after 12 years, he finally Finally, as a user for a site that sat there for 12 years, he failed to produce any one for 12 years. And the only reason he has one at that corner is because the roadway and the utilities are already sitting there at that corner. That actually makes our point. If you have the roadway and utilities at

   6:14:56your corner, you can probably get a deal if somebody gets out there and markets it. In this environment. The problem is, even if he gets that deal on that corner where he has utilities, that does zero for every other owner in CPEV who has industrial target business designated land. The Swole family is going to sit there for another 12 years until somebody comes up with $13 billion to run the infrastructure down there. He has a residential developer. Who's willing to front that

   6:15:26cost? And I think it would be insanity not to take up that deal. I mean, this will be the worst business deal that Pasco County ever made if it runs off the residential builder who's willing to bring this infrastructure down there. Finally, we're not changing anything. The as adopted, the plan allows the residential to start first. Please ask. David Goldstein, your attorney, if that's correct. Under the current approval, you can start and build those 700 units before

   6:15:56you have to have any building or any infrastructure. Now, I hope Mr. Cronin gets that deal, and I hope Mr. Southworth gets that deal. But there are no guarantees in life. What do we do if you don't pass this amendment? That deal falls through, and we're sitting here right where we are. Started. There is no good reason not to make this change. But we urge you to approve all of it and recommend it up. Thank you.

   GreyChair

   6:16:22Uh any questions? Uh from they as um The three changes you're suggesting are Uh not the service ready sites. You're not talking about that. Are you talking about the three you talking about the mix?

   Joel

   6:16:38Yeah, the three that I think are no brainers because there's no one disputing them is getting rid of the affordable housing mandate that the county doesn't have, correcting uh for the school district, correcting that school siding condition so that Chris and and his team have control over that with the individual MPBs, and allowing the additional single family units. Units so that up to 600 of the multifamily can become single family units,

   6:17:08which clearly the BCC will favor. To me, those three are no-brainers. No one has questioned that. Staff recommended it. We've asked for it, and none of these people have said don't do that. The only issue that is being debated is this economic issue about how do you best get this employment. So that's the one that they're debating. I just wanted to clarify that. We still believe they're very wrong about that, uh as a as a business matter and as a as an economic policy matter. But

   6:17:38The others are not even being disputed.

   GreyChair

   6:17:44Any other questions?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   6:17:46Mr. Chairman, you want to just get those three out of the way first? I mean

   GreyChair

   6:17:50can we do those

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   6:17:50with a separate motion?

   GreyChair

   6:17:51I just want to make sure that we all understand what we're what we're trying to do. The I think uh One you know, one of the things that's obvious to me is that when this was originally laid out and I and agreed to it was always identified as an employment center.

   Unidentified speaker

   6:18:08Correct.

   GreyChair

   6:18:09Yeah, the the the residential was a Was a secondary issue? Secondary. And what I don't want to do is I don't want to change that focus.

   Chris Williams

   6:18:19Absolutely.

   GreyChair

   6:18:20Um And It's not up to me, it's up to all of us. But uh

   6:18:27modifications, potentially we can make those modifications, but I'd like to have Terry's input on or David's input on um how it affects the overall plan as we originally saw it. Terry.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:18:48Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um with regard to the actual master plan. Um There is no land use change that's being proposed. It's mere text amendments at this stage. The master plan will stay the same. All the colors that you saw on the map that was on the overhead will remain in place. Um and as was noted at the previous uh public hearing, The thresholds that were initially in the jobs to housing ratio table and

   6:19:18that are now listed out in the what's called the we the name was edited to be changed to the f the proposed phased build out table, th all those thresholds remain the same. And It said in there that you are able to you're authorized to do up to seven hundred Single family r or multifamily, just any residential dwelling units. Uh In phase one. And then in order to graduate from phase one into phase two, you've got to provide the three hundred fifteen thousand

   6:19:48square feet. So that was a good one. um original to the C P E V. So they can start those

   GreyChair

   6:19:55residential units at any moment, as long as they get their utilities there.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:20:01Yes, following the master plan.

   GreyChair

   6:20:03Okay. And uh what about the uh the thirty three to sixty six mi or mix or the the of the forty five hundred units. Is that something that uh We need the mug. Change in incorporated in our change. Or is that something that's already in there?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:20:21Well what's in the current sub area policy is a twenty eighty m uh mix. So you have twenty percent of the residential entitlements are to be single family detached product. And eighty percent are to be multifamily product. Uh the proposed sub area policy indicates and suggesting an increasing the single family entitlement to thirty three percent. At the cost of decreasing the multifamily entitlement down to sixty six percent. So

   6:20:52it's a reduction in in multifamily entitlement.

   GreyChair

   6:20:54So you don't see that as a conflict conflict.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:20:57No, I don't i i it's an overall decrease in density. Okay.

   GreyChair

   6:21:02Um and about what about the v affordable housing aspect?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:21:07Uh as I mentioned previously, the affordable housing provision um it's in there. It's on the books currently. Um we've m we've noted that it has been removed consistently in other from other projects.

   Liam Devine

   6:21:19Right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:21:20The provision itself uh does not mandate affordable housing for CPEV. nor does it prescribe a particular amount of affordable housing for C P. E. V. It says that you have to include a strategy for affordable housing. That strategy I I mean Not to show cards, but to be transparent in a sense, but that strategy may very well be that we're offering market rate at market rate, but naturally occurring affordable housing. Within our products, right? But

   GreyChair

   6:21:50not man not mandated or

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:21:52so the the strategy might be that the a developer comes forward and says, Well, you know, we're not gonna make any extra effort to do affordable housing because we're the housing product that we're building here today at market rate is naturally occurring affordable housing. It meets all the median income requirements and whatnot. um for affordable housing set. That's what a strategy could could say. Um it doesn't necessarily mean that in the strategy the d a developer would commit to a particular number of affordable housing

   6:22:22units. They could. It's possible that that can happen as well. But it's a strategy. And and that would occur at the M P U D level anyway. It would not occur because of or at the comprehensive plan level.

   GreyChair

   6:22:35And

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:22:35um

   GreyChair

   6:22:35in in terms of the school site selection process, uh Chris, what do you have to say about that? We're fine with

   Chris Williams

   6:22:42that. I but I still have issue with this building houses first.

   GreyChair

   6:22:47I understand that and I do too. What? according to what I'm understanding is They can build houses first now under the current p plan. Is that right or is that wrong? Because it's

   Chris Williams

   6:23:01not a good thing.

   6:23:01It's pending on that last text amendment, which is let's let the which is infrastructure to support. Yeah, let's let that

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:23:09so the Mr. Chair, they currently could build seven hundred units Without building any buildings.

   6:23:19really the change that you need to evaluate is Are you gonna let them go beyond seven hundred units without having built without having employment builds? Pop. That that's the real issue here. It's okay. There's no issue.

   6:23:37having employment buildings currently. But right now it would be capped at seven hundred units. unless they also have employment buildings going up. So if you're asking sort of in English what's changing There is the potential now that you could have A lot of residential out there without employment. If the change occurs. Um you'd have service ready sites for employment, but you there is a potential you would have more residential out there. um

   6:24:07before you get employment buildings if you allow this change and More of it could be single family. Presidential. I mean if I had to sort of summarize the change in English. that's pretty much it. But Joel is right that they do get residential today. I mean that that's that's undisputed that There's some allowed today, but it's capped at seven hundred until you have buildings for employment.

   GreyChair

   6:24:30In order to get those seven hundred they'll have to put the infrastructure in.

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:24:34Well no without actually No. You could the seven hundred that's allowed now. is is really sort of A freebie.

   6:24:46They could go out and build seven hundred units now without doing any infrastructure, without now, there may be the practical problem that they can't build seven hundred units without extending some utilities and in road infrastructure. But but in terms of the the the text requirements They could build seven hundred units without building any employment buildings today. But the the major change is if you if you agree to the change, they could exceed

   6:25:16seven hundred without building any building for employment.

   6:25:23If I had to summarize it in a nutshell, that's the issue.

   GreyChair

   6:25:26Okay.

   6:25:28So are are are there any items that on this list that I was going through that we need to address? Like f for the schools, you don't think there's a problem that And uh in the affordable housing s uh section just le you think we should leave it.

   6:25:47I mean it's deleted and every other thing, but I don't I don't really not sure I understand why that's even a Even in there.

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:25:58Mr. Chairman

   GreyChair

   6:26:00Mariano.

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:26:03Because How do you It it is worth pointing out that Terry did try to mitigate some of the impact of the change because Currently if they built seven hundred homes there would be no requirement for them to put signage up their that says future employment or future light industrial. So they could build seven hundred homes now. And there'd be no real requirement to to Put up big signs saying feature industrial or feature employment.

   6:26:34So That that is one positive change about the amendment is that now they have to put that signage out there. I well whether that's enough to Put the residential on notice about the future employment is I guess uh You know, for the planning commission to decide I'm just pointing out that's a new requirement that Terry imposed that doesn't exist today.

   GreyChair

   6:26:59But with that comes the ability to build more than seven hundred units. Correct. Gotcha. Okay.

   6:27:08All right. Did anybody have anybody else?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   6:27:11Pat or Joel, one of you will probably answer this, but under Under what you guys are proposing to construct the infrastructure to get to the Swap property, how much of this building square footage would that support? Is there a way to quantify that?

   Joel

   6:27:27Yeah, Pat Pat can address that, but our intention is to be able to support uh all of the swap uh uh employment center land, I believe, right, Matt?

   Pat Gasway

   6:27:37Yeah, that's correct. And you know, as as a practical matter, it uh it depends uh on what the additional uses would be to the east or west. Uh our infrastructure may support that as well. Depends on the requirements of those users.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   6:27:57Okay, but I I mean I guess from a square footage standpoint Would you guys be able to come in and say we've put in infrastructure to support one point three million square feet, therefore we should be able to build three thousand units? if this goes through.

   Pat Gasway

   6:28:13Uh we we'd be able to quantify what we are providing uh above and beyond the eight hundred thousand that we're going to certainly accommodate within our property. Okay.

   Christopher Poole

   6:28:29Chris, do you have anything?

   6:28:33Just trying to keep it all clear in my head. It's uh I

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   6:28:35guess the the biggest thing that I'm struggling with if I can just continue is that I I'm I'm just having trouble In my mind coming up with why it's a bad thing to Have utilities and roads brought to the site to make them more ready than they are today. I mean the way I understand the way this is written today

   6:28:57Residential can go in up to seven hundred units and then it's up to somebody else to try to market and get buildings in there and the buildings have to be built before they can build additional residential units. I I I don't know. I mean I to me there's a benefit to providing the infrastructure of the roads, the utilities, to make these things more marketable. I I I just don't I don't understand how it makes them less marketable.

   Chris Williams

   6:29:25So to me I have a couple things. One I I find it interesting that here we're I guess they can build seven hundred units, but if you look at the memo Or if you look at section uh on page two eight They've added language to say initial development of residential uses and or support commercial office uses may occur within any individual EC prior to development of Corpus Business Park. So why are we adding

   6:29:55that language if they can already do seven hundred units?

   6:30:00Yeah.

   6:30:03Number one says enable resident this is petitioner's request, enable residential land uses to per proceed the development of employment generating land uses. So why is that a request if they can already do that? I think the problem

   6:30:21I'm concerned about the the this addition to the table. where it's seven hundred units and then it's building square feet. But now they're a adding infrastructure to support. So that to me is a big difference. I'm not in favor of that, adding that change.

   6:30:43Yeah. So

   6:30:44you know, the school district we want we want jobs and I'm concerned with what Mr. Cronin's saying about They can market it. And we got I got a graphic if we want to see it. There's plenty of homes out there that businesses can come and take advantage of. And so I get the fact that the struggle of infrastructure but I'm very concerned with um um potentially impacting this site for future jobs. with any changes we might make today.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:31:17Mr. Chairman Mariano.

   Chris Williams

   6:31:18Mariano.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   6:31:18Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   6:31:20You know, since the comment is related to the agenda memo, if if I may um sort of help explain the situation a little bit. When the project was initially submitted, the original proposal was to delete Um the entire last section of the uh sub-area policy, including elimination of the thresholds that we've been talking about here today. So coming at it from a deletion standpoint, um it had to be a discussion about enabling uh the residential. However,

   6:31:50as we mentioned at the previous meeting, Um Right, because if you were deleting the table, Let me take one step back here. If you were deleting the table, then the table is what was already enabling the initial construction of seven hundred. By deleting it, you were not Able to get this going uh in the way that it was set up originally. So Um we pushed back and in the negotiation the table came back. The memo itself, the language, um, it didn't get updated

   6:32:20in that in the fluidity of those negotiations. Um, but we did say that that particular section that that talks about initial development may take place. In the in the March 25 hearing, I noted it as an affirmation that residential can indeed occur prior to the development of those 315,000 um square feet of in the initial In the in the existing sub-area policy vertical infrastructure, in the proposed sub-area policy of the horizontal infrastructure.

   6:32:51In any event, I I did want to point out that the the the petitioner did work with the county to establish a system for the service ready sites using the existing thresholds Through the phased build out table, which would ensure the horizontal infrastructure is established for the employment generating land uses. So I I I want I just wanted to clarify that uh because I know that that was a bit confusing in the in the agenda memo. and it probably should have been updated even for this meeting, but it I opted not to change anything, not to add uh

   6:33:22further confusion.

   6:33:25Thank you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:33:29All right. Mr. Chairman a question? Oh sure, Dave. Yeah. Um because I never really heard their response about Mr. Clinton offered well I don't know if it's a compromise or not, but he did say if it were approved that it should be certified sites rather than service ready sites and I never really heard Whether that's something the applicants Would agree to or not. So I'd like to hear their answer to that.

   Joel

   6:33:58Yeah, I'll respond to that because I'm I'm gonna be honest with you. I'm very upset about what's happened today. I had this discussion with Mr. Biles, the county administrator, who spoke with Bill Cronin. And I had been told that uh as long as we agreed to review with them the possibility of joining his Ready Site program as we went through the MPD level, that I would not hear this vigorous objection and argument today. So I had agreed to have my client look at that with

   6:34:28them during the MPD level, but based upon Mr. Cronin's uh uh failure to By that today, um, you know, I don't know the answer to that. Um, so uh we're always willing to look at it. Uh if it makes sense, we will do it. But I'll tell you right now, if this if this amendment doesn't get passed, what you're gonna get is you're gonna get 700 residential units under the threshold, not oversized to handle anything else, uh, and and you're gonna have one building. possibly down at

   6:34:58the Southworth corner where the utilities already exist. We've always known that one would get built and thank God it is. And you're gonna get nothing else. And and the rest of this land in C P E V is going to sit here for another 12 years. But we we will look, we will look at the Ready Sites program. We're happy to do that, but the the understanding through the administrator is that that was the direction we would go rather than what we've had to do today. And I I'm I'm not happy

   6:35:29about that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:35:39Okay, well I guess that kind of answers my question. I uh

   Joel

   6:35:43It was it was you did have that deal until somebody reneged and backtracked and ambushed us. So I've got to get over the smarting of that and then if it makes sense we'll do it. But we offered that, we agreed, and and he welched on that. That's all I got to say.

   GreyChair

   6:36:13Any other questions?

   6:36:20Chris, do you want to make a motion? Do I want to make a motion?

   Unidentified speaker

   6:36:24Yeah.

   GreyChair

   6:36:25Yeah. Sure.

   Chris Williams

   6:36:28Um

   6:36:32I'm gonna recommend I move we recommend denial.

   Chris Williams

   6:36:36I'll second that.

   GreyChair

   6:36:39All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   6:36:42Just for clarity, is that denial of everything? I mean even the other three items that were no brainers? Or that weren't even up really for the right-of-way. Well,

   Chris Williams

   6:36:51there's a lot of stuff in there. I'm I'm worried about about About Jeopardizing and and making more Opportunity for our houses.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   6:37:00Well, I I I mean I I understand, but there was the the cleanup for the school siding process that needs to be done. There's the the allocation of the single family versus the multifamily that I'm I'm sure the board would be all for. And there's also the the affordable housing condition. Um that That kinda goes back to why I I asked. a while ago if we could knock those three out before we went into the other thing, but that that was why I was asking for the clarification.

   GreyChair

   6:37:29Yeah, and so would you be willing to include those items in your the motion?

   Chris Williams

   6:37:36Well, I I guess uh we'd have to look at uh what exactly is getting changed, I guess.

   GreyChair

   6:37:44Or we could vote on this motion and if it passes it okay. If it

   Chris Williams

   6:37:47doesn't then we can Dammy

   GreyChair

   6:37:49can make a motion.

   Chris Williams

   6:37:50I mean 'cause yeah, I just want to be really careful about what exactly we change. Right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   6:37:55So that so just with clarity, this is denial of everything that's being asked for.

   6:38:01No, I think that I think that's what you said.

   GreyChair

   6:38:03That's what I said. Very good. Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Is there any further discussion on that motion?

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:38:11Mr. Chair, can I make one comment? I'm sorry.

   GreyChair

   6:38:14Yes.

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:38:15So I gotta know that Mr. Cronin wanted to respond on the Ready sites issue.

   6:38:23I think it would be helpful to hear from him because I would like to understand what was negotiated or not negotiated as it relates to ready sites. Can we let him just respond to that one issue?

   GreyChair

   6:38:35If you think it's important, yes.

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:38:38Okay.

   GreyChair

   6:38:40Back

   Bill Cronin

   6:38:40this morning and still so so I did not make an agreement with Mr. Two in my conversations with the administrator. Okay. But we're basically in theory because Anything that you do with regards to ready sites or any changes to that. You can't roll that out to the whole site. That has to happen during the M PUD. And the the issue that we have at hand here is a trust issue. And uh I've already seen Mr. Two's behavior

   6:39:10towards me both this meeting and the last meeting. Uh I'm here to create jobs. This is about uh whether or not we keep that site attractive under the intention that it was made. Uh this is not a behind the scenes horse traitic type of maneuver. We are looking at how do we make sure that this stays attractive. I would love to have that infrastructure to that site. I don't think anybody doubts that the infrastructure to that site is a good move. But infrastructure is still

   6:39:40not a substitute. for Buildings and Employment Center. The Buildings and Employment Center requirement will be satisfied by the project that we're bringing. So everything else at this point should be a new point. Now he has to have faith and trust that we're gonna deliver on this project. Just like I would have to have faith and trust that he says he's going to talk about the Ready Sites program with the owner during the MPUD process. I've seen this behavior many, many times where he'll come

   6:40:10back and say, Well, no, we decided not to. So what you do today, the most critical part of it for me is that We do not allow for residential to outpace. the employment center. And if you take a look at the infrastructure deal that was done Uh out at the uh connected city at Epperson. There is not a single industrial user that is going there to look at. those sites and those path those service ready sites and the infrastructure is

   6:40:40not drawing people in there. I'd I'd urge you to take a hard look at what's been done previously and his comments that this is a county accepted policy is absolutely incorrect. It's lazy for tiny staff to consider. using this as a blueprint for future development when you don't have a single user going there. And also while I've got you, I've only worked at this job for five years. And if you look at what I brought in in the last five years, it's pretty

   6:41:11darn significant. And it came with the Ready Sites program that came with me. I've not been marketing this piece for 12 years, as Mr. 2 says. I don't welch on deals. I live by my word. And I've actually worked in several areas around the Southeast. All have been successful. And you can talk to any of them and look at the results, whether it's Boeing 787 facility, Google, Porsche's headquarters. We know what we're doing there. And just having the infrastructure to that

   6:41:41site is not going to make it sellable. I would love to see you have more MPDs that required an employment center creation before the residential, at least a phasing in to it. 700 units by themselves. No one's going to build that because they're not going to run the infrastructure out there. I'm not worried about 700 units. I am worried about 1,500 units and then no business is there to support it and then scare.

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:42:09So so Mr. Crohn, so can I just clarify the question? It's my question is if if there's a currently a service ready site requirement in subway policies as recommended by staff. If that was changed to a ready site requirement. instead of service ready, well you know the connected city type requirements is changed to match your ready sites program. Would you still be an objection to the amendment?

   Bill Cronin

   6:42:37Um If you have 50 acres of more of upland that can be used for industrial That would be a satisfactory substitution, but not all the landowners in the CPEV have that footprint. And I think it also is important to point out, too, that that that footprint that's drawn in that that current plan is not mandated to stay the same. We can go back and make changes with those. And you know it as well, too, during

   6:43:07their permitting, that they can do it as long as they're not substantial changes. But I think if you rolled that out as policy for this whole CPE V. For those those landowners that didn't have 50 acres of upland that was usable for a ready sites, then how do we address them?

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:43:26Well yeah, my specific question though is if there was enough acreage of ready sites. Would you be okay with that unlocking the residential? Are you still saying there needs to be buildings? That's really what I my question is.

   Bill Cronin

   6:43:40No, no. I think so so that's the same thing. So ready sites ready sites is putting in the infrastructure and getting the pad ready. It does not substitute having the employer there in the job creation.

   GirardiVice Chair

   6:43:53Okay, that answers my question. Thank you.

   Bill Cronin

   6:43:55Okay, thank you.

   Joel

   6:43:59Mr Chairman Mariano, may I make one thirty second response to that? Sure. Since he accused me of mistrust for the record, I want to point out that I'm not the person who under oath in his first presentation misled you to believe that his bill on the corner parcel was going to somehow provide utility and roadway infrastructure for the swap parcel in the center of the project. He's the one that created that implication, which we all know it's not correct. I didn't do that.

   GreyChair

   6:44:31All right, thank you. Think we're done with comment now unless there's somebody up here that has a question.

   6:44:39So uh we uh are we wanna m move forward with your uh motion, Chris? After what I just heard, yes, sir. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and I think Peter you're the second. Yes sir. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion?

   6:44:56All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Neg.

   6:45:05Okay, so let's do roll call.

   Clerk

   6:45:21Jamie Giardi.

   6:45:26Peter Hansel.

   6:45:28Christopher Poole? Chris Williams. And Chairman Charles Gray.

6. 6May 18, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP62Public hearingContinued

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Continuance) (Regular) – CPAL 20(14) Central Pasco Employment Village – Adoption Transmittal of the Proposed Comprehensive … Pasco Employment Village Subarea Policy, Policies, Policy FLU 7.1.12 (Public … 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid continued; BCC: 6/8/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 7/6/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid, DC/Hybrid continued; BCC: 8/10/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid)

   Approved minutes

   Continued to the June 8, 2021 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 7:22
   ▶ 7:222m1/2

   StarkeyVice Chair

   7:22Thank you, sir. Item P fifty one was published in the Tampe Times on February twenty-fourth, twenty twenty one.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   7:27Mr. Chairman M but before we go to that, Terry, don't you have additional continuance items that you want to take up?

   OakleyChair

   7:34Yes, the there's uh item P ninety four which was posted as a as a request for a continuance as well.

   7:43And then there are two additional items on the agenda, P sixty three, I believe, and P sixty four.

   OakleyChair

   7:49Let me pick them up individually or together.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   7:51Individually. P sixty two and P sixty three.

   OakleyChair

   7:55Oh P sixty two, P sixty three, yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   7:57Okay, g C P is P sixty two, sixty three is the Ridge Road. Those are the two Comp Plan submittals. You're continuing both of those, correct?

   OakleyChair

   8:07Correct.

   8:11So P

   8:17D sixty one is the first one.

   OakleyChair

   8:21P sixty two and sixty three.

   OakleyChair

   8:24P ninety four was a container.

   8:26P sixty two. We'll We'll take that one up now. What we got um published State.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   8:33Yes, I do. Um the P sixty two was published in the Tampe Times on February seventeenth, twenty twenty one.

   OakleyChair

   8:39P sixty two is a comprehensive plan amendment, C Pell twenty fourteen. the Central Pasco Employment Village. It is the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village Sub area policies. The request is to continue the transmittal hearing to the June eighth BCC meeting at one thirty P. M. in Dade City.

   OakleyChair

   9:01Second. Second. I got a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Motion passed. Five zero. Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yeah.

   ▶ 1:52:193m2/2

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:52:19No, we don't need a note motion to do that. No,

   StarkeyVice Chair

   1:52:22we approved uh staff's recommendation.

   OakleyChair

   1:52:29Do you wanna?

   County Administrator

   1:52:31Or one of the continuances we only continued the transmittal hearing we need to continue the adoption hearing as well. Terry can go in detail about that.

   Fitzpatrick

   1:52:40When will there the s water mitigation project be done?

   OakleyChair

   1:52:50Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um just for clarification, item P sixty-two, which was a comprehensive plan amendment for C Pel 2014 Central Pasco Employment Village. Their the motion was to the applicant requested a continuance of the transmittal hearing Um from today to June eight. One thirty PM in Dade City, which that motion was uh passed earlier. There was a second motion also to continue the adoption hearing of the of the same project from the July 6th BCC meeting to the

   1:53:20August 10th BCC meeting. In anticipation of the motion to move it to June 18th.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:53:28Mm. Well, but that wasn't scheduled for today to be heard.

   1:53:36So how are you how are you continuing an item that was not before the board?

   OakleyChair

   1:53:43Does the transmittal has to occur before the adoption?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:53:46I understand that but you're conti you you're asking the board to continue Adoption and that was never before the board today.

   OakleyChair

   1:53:57So you you're saying that you can't do that. Move a motion that's in the future up.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:54:04Right. You gotta continue it the day you advertised it to be heard.

   OakleyChair

   1:54:08Very well.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:54:10So you just have to readvertise? No. So what I'm hearing him uh what I'm hearing Terry say is that the that that is scheduled for a July sixth hearing. That's what it was advertised for. Correct. That's the day he's gonna have to continue it to the August date he wants. He can't Do it again. I mean what what happens is they they publish it on the July agenda. to continue to August and it gets continued then. But there's been no advertising

   1:54:41to the public that it's going to be heard today, so you can't hear it. You can't do anything with it today. Okay. Thank

   OakleyChair

   1:54:48you. Understandable. All

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:54:49right.

   OakleyChair

   1:54:51Nice try.

   1:54:55It just doesn't work that way, so Okay.

7. 7Jun 8, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP83Public hearingApproved

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Continuance) (Regular) – CPAL 20(14) Central Pasco Employment Village – Adoption Transmittal of the Proposed Comprehensive … 7/6/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid, DC/Hybrid continued; BCC: 8/10/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid)

   Approved minutes

   Approved Staff’s recommendation including the amended language as read into the record by Mr. Nectarios Pittos, Planning and Development Director, by a roll call vote.

   Open this item →No recording
8. 8Jul 6, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP76Public hearingContinued

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue the item to the August 10, 2021 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City.

   Open this item →No recording
9. 9Aug 10, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP114Public hearingAdopted

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Continuance) – CPAL 20(14) Central An Ordinance Amending The Pasco Employment Village – Adoption of the Proposed County Comprehensive Plan Plan; Providing For A Text Amendment to the To The Central Pasco Employment Village Subarea Policy, Policies, Policy FLU 7.1.12 7.1.12; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. (Public Hearing: LPA: 3/25/21 … 7/6/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid, DC/Hybrid continued; BCC: 8/10/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid) DC)

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 12:26
   ▶ 12:263m

   OakleyChair

   12:26Okay. Uh P114.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   12:30Item P114 was published in the Tampa Bay Times on February 17, 2021.

   Denise

   12:35Denise Hernandez Planning and Development. P one fourteen is PDD twenty-one zero two nine zero and this one this is the adoption. Hearing on this, there was a large presentation. Done on this about a month or or so ago. Um this is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village Sub-area Policies, Policy flu 7.1.12, providing for repealer, severability, and an effective date. And again, this is uh we ask that you adopt this by roll, take public comment, sorry, and adopt by roll call vote.

   OakleyChair

   13:06Okay. Is the applicant here to speak on this item? Yeah. Mr.

   Joel

   13:13Two?

   13:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Joel II to an associates and I represent the applicant. I'm not going to make a presentation, happy to address any public comments, but just as a polite reminder, of course, we vetted this at length. We got everyone happy at the transmittal hearing, including the Economic Development Council, staff, and other constituent property owners. There were no changes from the state. Nothing to my knowledge has changed. And so we we would appreciate your consideration for final adoption. And then

   13:46we do intend just to update you as we represented to the board. I've been working the last couple weeks with the property owners and uh to implement. the land use exchange that Mr. Cronin had recommended, it does appear that those property owners are going forward with that and they'll be modifying their zonings to kind of uh improve the location of the employment and the residential uses as was suggested through that process. So so far so good and uh the

   14:16Plan Amendment adoption will allow us to proceed now with those zonings.

   OakleyChair

   14:20Thank you. Okay, thank you. Uh is anyone signed up to speak to this item?

   StarkeyVice Chair

   14:26So no one has signed up in person and no one has pre-registered for WebEx for this item.

   OakleyChair

   14:30Okay. See

   Moore

   14:31now we've report.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   14:33Second.

   OakleyChair

   14:34Motion motion and second. All those in favor say aye. Aye aye. Aye. Motion passed 4-0. Roll call vote. Oh roll call vote. Okay.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   14:45District 2, Commissioner Moore. Aye. District 3, Commissioner Starkey. District 4, Commissioner Fitzpatrick. Aye. District 5, Commissioner Mariano. Aye. And District 1, Chairman Oakley.

   OakleyChair

   14:55Aye. Motion pass 4-0.