Skip to main content
Pasco Countymeeting record

PDD-21-7506

Published agenda

4 appearances between Dec 10, 2020 and Feb 9, 2021, at 2 boards.

OutcomeApproved by the Board of County Commissioners on Feb 9, 2021
Approved the item per Staff’s recommendation by a roll call vote.

Official title

ZONING AMENDMENT (REGULAR) – Trust #7541207 Land Service Corporation Trustee– Change in Zoning from an A-R Agricultural-Residential District, A-C Agricultural District and a C-2 General Commercial District to a C-2 General Commercial District and an I-1 Light Industrial Park District – Northcentral Pasco County – on the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Interstate 75 and Blanton Road – Containing Approximately 89.074 Acres (PC 1/7/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting; BCC: 2/9/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting; Continued from PC: 12/10/20, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting and BCC 1/12/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting)

On a calendar

Dec 10, 2020 → Feb 9, 2021 · click a mark to jump to that appearance

Every appearance2 of 4 are in a recording

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

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 87% of 151 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 2 of the 4 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

  1. 1
    Planning CommissionC2Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

    ZONING AMENDMENT (REGULAR) – Trust #7541207 Land Service Corporation Trustee– Change in Zoning from an A-R Agricultural-Residential District, A-C Agricultural District and a C-2 General Commercial District to a C-2 General Commercial District and an I-1 Light Industrial Park … Containing Approximately 89.074 Acres (PC 1/7/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting; BCC: 2/9/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting; Continued from PC: (PC: 12/10/20, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting and BCC Meeting, BCC: 1/12/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting)

    Open this item →No recording
  2. 2
    Planning CommissionP3Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes
    Open this item →
    17m
    Denise

    Okay, we'll move on to item P3.

    Charles GreyChair

    Okay.

    Denise

    Item P3 is PDD 217506. It's for Trust No. 754-1027, Land Service Corporation Trustee, for a change in zoning from AR, Agricultural Residential, AC Agricultural District, and C2 Commercial District. uh general commercial district, sorry, uh to a C two General Commercial District and an I one Light Industrial Park District. Um the property is located in um On the northeast

    corner of the intersection of I seventy five and Blanton Road in in the northeast part of Pasco County. It contains 89.074 acres and is undeveloped. The applicants propose to develop the site in conformance with C2, General Commercial District, and I1, Light Industrial Park District. The applicant has also volunteered to record. uh deed restrictions restricting uh limiting the uses on the property. This surrounding area is characterized by residential uses and

    agricultural pursuits at the moment. The future land use on the property is EC and AG. On December 8th, the Board of County Commissioners approved a comprehensive plan amendment for the future land use on the site from EC and AG to IL and COM. And if the zoning the subject zoning is approved, it will not take effect until such time as the appeal period on the Companion Comprehensive Plan Amendment has ended. As stated previously, the applicant has volunteered a deed

    restriction for the C2 portion of the property, limiting the uses as follows, limiting the square footage on C2 to 140,000 square feet. Prohibiting multifamily apartments, prohibiting auto-towing and connective storage of vehicles, prohibiting yard trash disposal facilities, prohibiting construction and demolition debris disposal facilities, prohibiting truck truck stops. The applicant has also volunteered a deed restriction for the I-1 portion of the property, which basically uh limits the uses

    on I-1 portion to 500,000 square feet. Prohibiting towing or connected storage of vehicles, prohibiting yard trash disposal facilities, prohibiting construction and demolition debris disposal facilities, also including a 25-foot setback along an adjacent parcel, which shall remain as a natural undisturbed area except as necessary for fence installation and maintenance. tying property to grade and installation maintenance of any required landscape buffer. The subject site is located in the

    Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Overlay District, Land Development Code 604. Although right now there are no design standards for commercial development, they have not been adopted as of this time. The lack of standards does not preclude the property from developing commercially. Here's the surrounding zoning, a stated, you know, agricultural districts, AC and AR surrounding it. Some of the property does have a C2 general commercial district designation.

    The land use right now, as stated, is it's EC, but it was um uh cha uh um changed to IL and COM, but the appeal period has still not passed.

    And this shows the access to the property. And the recommendation on this item is approval. And um We do not have anyone at the public comment kiosk at the moment. Um and the applicant and I am also here for any questions that you may have.

    Charles GreyChair

    Okay. Alright. So any questions?

    Yes. Who is that? Is that Robert?

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    So was somebody who spoke at the last

    Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

    last meeting on this, I think the output is going to have an opportunity to rebuff what was set at the last meeting.

    Charles GreyChair

    Yes. Would the applicant have anything to say?

    Barbara Wilhite

    Hi, Barbara Blue High. I've not been to R.

    Charles GreyChair

    Okay.

    If you raise your right hand.

    Clerk

    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to hope you got?

    Thank you.

    Barbara Wilhite

    27 Ramble of our new working for the applicant. This is our uh fourth public hearing uh on law property. We had three public hearing on the um comprehensive plan amendment as uh as Denise has explained, was adopted by the board on the eighth of December. Um change to change the COM plan to I L and COM. Um the this body heard the Complant amendment sitting as the LPA and found the requested compliant amendment um or

    consistent with the comp consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended that the board adopt it, which they did on December eighth. At the last Planning Commission um hearing we requested a continuance, but one of the neighbors, Mr. Dukowitz, you'll recall. Um, was that your um kiosk? and was, you know, asked if he wanted to speak at that hearing um or the continued hearing which is today, and he did speak. And I think that's what David's referring to. Um We

    have reviewed I reviewed multiple times now. Mr. Dukowitz's Um allegations, positions regarding the comprehensive plan and the like. and staff has as well. We have had them in both The Planning Commission he had a written What he would call a brief And um as well as at the board, we reviewed his brief. He's not a land use attorney, but he is an attorney. And he ha he happens to own adjacent property. And so we've reviewed those and um He

    has what I would call cherry pick the comp plan. Um doing comp planning for as many years as I have, twenty years. um and actually being uh writing most a lot of the Comprehensive Plan in two thousand six, I'm very familiar with the Comprehensive Plan. And I would kind of characterize what he's what he does as cherry picking and then misapplying language. People do that often, but don't understand compliant construction. He is not a planning expert or a land use attorney. Um For example, he

    referred you to a transitional land use chart. that applies to comprehensive plan amendments, but you have a rezoning before you today. um not a comprehensive plan amendment. And that chart that he refers you to on its face specifically doesn't apply to the Northeast Pasco rural area. The proposed despite his assertions and if you have any specific questions from staff and I, we could go through those. But um I I would say that the zoning districts are consistent with I L and COM. They I won. is the

    zoning district that is compatible with the IL land use designation, and C2 is the zone district, the including zoning district that is compatible with the COM land use designation. Land use industrial and agricultural districts our adjacencies are An interstate. an interchange, Blanton Road. and agricultural districts. Light industrial and agricultural districts are compatible. The Com plan only prohibits heavy industrial adjacent to residential areas and residential

    area is not defined to include agricultural districts in any event. The Land Development Code sets out standards, performance standards and buffers for light industrials next to agricultural districts. We'll have this project will have to comply with the performance standards in that in the IL district, storage and waste disposal, coverage regulations, yard regulations, height regulations. In addition, it we'll need to comply we'll have to comply with the Northeast Pasco overlay, which is additional level of regulation dealing with the corridor,

    Blanton corridor or the scenic corridor, quarter buff additional corridor buffing requirements, building buffer requirements. and I understand staff is working on a commercial um aspects regulations relating to Northeast Pasco development that would apply to this project as well once those are adopted as we go through the development review process. In addition to the land belt regulations for IL and C2, as well as the special regulations for Northeast Pasco as currently adopted and as

    proposed be adopted. We also have agreed to some deed some deed restrictions that are very noteworthy. Um, we had agreed to limit the amount of square footage on both the industrial property and the commercial property Under the I1 district, we could have had 1.2 million square feet of industrial. We have um limited that by deed restriction to 500,000 square feet. And I could also tell you that under EC EC would have allowed heavy industrial

    uses and light industrial uses at a 300% lot coverage. under I L and I one we're limited to a fifty percent lot coverage. and commercial Um the C2 district would allow 239,000. We've deed restricted that to 140,000. And again. under EC, the commercial aspect of EC would have been allowed to develop at 300% lot coverage and and under C2 were limited to 50%. So

    not only have we limited any potential for heavy industrial uses that would have been allowed under EC, we've also limited our ability to do industrial. We've agreed to deed restrictions as staff has went as uh Denise Hernandez has gone through. You've you've seen those. And noteworthy is that we did specifically look at the adjacency to Mr. Dirkwitz's property. And the buffer there. Now I think you might have had a reference in your agenda packet to an email from a a

    citizen. My client um has did clear the timber on his property, but purposely left existing vegetation as a buffer to Mr. Duke Dukowitz. And while we are under code would be allowed to remove those trees. and do a type B buffer, which is a fifteen foot buffer, we've voluntarily deed restricted the property so that For twenty five feet, we're gonna keep what the client had already kept. and keep that

    natural buffer which exceeds the code requirement.

    With that, um we appreciate staff's work on this. We oh actually we actually one other thing I want to note that's also noteworthy is Although there are no design standards for any commercial industrial development at this time in Northeast Pasco, we did agree to some addition some design standards in our deed restriction for the industrial property. for buildings that are gonna f uh front I seventy five. So we've worked hard, you know, to t with staff um on this and I think it's a exactly

    the type of development that we hear the county needs and wants. We actually removed the residential component of EC when we took away EC from the property. So unlike a lot of other interchanges that had been and in if you know had been developed with residential uses, we took the ability to do and actually the mandatory requirement in EC to do residential. And so this property is purely non-residential. Um and we'd ask that you also like staff uh support the rezoning for the property.

    Charles GreyChair

    Okay. Uh any questions?

    Chris Williams

    Sure. Yes. So I don't know if this is for staff or Barbara. Barbara, you mentioned this is Chris Williams. You mentioned and just this is my curiosity. So you mentioned um design standards in regards and I saw that um things that were facing I seventy five couldn't have um overhead doors facing I-75, etcetera. What's what's the rationale behind that?

    Barbara Wilhite

    One bike. We worked with staff. Staff had pointed out that This property is visible from I seventy five. We have over What, a mile and a half of frontage on seventy five? And our property goes all the way to the Hernando County line and then for a mile and a half down to this interchange. And so staff wanted to work with us to see how we could um Have our buildings present to seventy-five as opposed to backing up with maybe an overhead

    door, we would present it in a in a manner that had um it wasn't the back of the building, it was a front of a building and it was a a defined front of building that would face I seventy five. And so we worked with staff on that. That's actually what caused our continuance. was so we could have time and it was the holidays as well. Um, so we can have time to work on that with staff.

    Chris Williams

    I guess my only concern about that and a and again, I don't think it applies probably in this case, but maybe y'all can tell me. you know, is is it gonna look better from seventy five than it does from the other way? And on the other side, are there houses or something that it would be more beneficial for it to look better to the houses? You understand what I'm asking?

    Barbara Wilhite

    So the only adjacent residential is Mr. and it's it's um a residence, not residential because residential is defined not to include agricultural districts, but there is a residence and that's where we added the buffer. But we kept the natural buffer there. So the other adjacencies do not have um residences.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Okay. Thank you.

    Charles GreyChair

    All right.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    No, sir. No. Mr.

    Charles GreyChair

    J. There's I understand there's nobody there to raise concerns or object, so Uh

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Mr. Chairman Mariano.

    Charles GreyChair

    Yes.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    I do have one quick question. Is there something in this package? Yeah, is there something in this package or is there something that shows what the limits of the C two and what the limits of the I one are.

    I could probably go back and deduce that from the land use amendment, but I didn't see anything in the package.

    the the sub property is gonna be C two and this portion's gonna be I one.

    Charles GreyChair

    You know the answer to that, Barbara?

    Barbara Wilhite

    I do not. My client probably remembers the dimensions. Um Larry Guildford is on WebEx here. We can probably tell you how b how many feet back uh the um C two goes before the I one picks up.

    Charles GreyChair

    All right, Larry, are you there?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    I am. Can you hear me? Yeah.

    Charles GreyChair

    Yeah.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Okay. Uh you wanna do I have to swear in or Yes,

    Charles GreyChair

    sir.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Okay.

    So if we'll actually do

    Clerk

    Do you spare affirm that the testimony you brought to give is the truth, so hope you got?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Yes, I do.

    Clerk

    Thank you.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Um the original uh acreage I believe was 14 acres across the front. And it was a depth of approximately 450 feet. And there were two separate legal descriptions given to the county. at that particular time. So the frontage, the front 450, frontage uh to a depth of 450 would be across the whole frontage, which is about 1,320 feet quarter mile across the front on Blanton Road. The rest of it would be the I one. And

    as you can see, the property goes up and some of this acreage is uh is in, you know, in natural. It'll be kept that way. So Um But and then and actually it's probably only and then we're also giving up some frontage uh some additional property for right-of-way. So it's we we lose that of the 14 acres, it's probably gonna be more like 13. So Okay. Very

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    good. Okay. Sure. Thanks for the clarification. No problem.

    Charles GreyChair

    All right. Thank you, Larry.

    Barbara Wilhite

    Thank you, Larry.

    Charles GreyChair

    Thanks, guys. Okay, any other questions? If not, we hear a motion.

    This

    Michael J. Cox

    Michael Cox, I'll move for approval. Thank you, Michael. Do we have a second?

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Jamie Girardi all second.

    Charles GreyChair

    All right. We have a motion, a second. Okay, any further discussion of the motion? If not, all in favor by roll call, signify by saying aye. Opposed, negative.

    Clerk

    Jamie Dorothy.

    Charles GreyChair

    Bye.

    Clerk

    Michael Cox?

    Charles GreyChair

    Bye.

    Clerk

    Peter Hansel? Roberto Saez?

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Bye.

    Clerk

    Christopher Poole? Chris Williams? Chairman Charles Gray.

    Charles GreyChair

    Okay.

    So

  3. 3
    Board of County CommissionersC2Public hearingApproved

    ZONING AMENDMENT (REGULAR) – Trust #7541207 Land Service Corporation Trustee– Change in Zoning from an A-R Agricultural-Residential District, A-C Agricultural District and a C-2 General Commercial District to a C-2 General Commercial District and an I-1 Light … Hybrid Virtual Meeting; BCC: 2/9/21, 1/12/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid … p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting and BCC 1/12/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting)

    Approved minutes

    Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda.

    Open this item →No recording
  4. 4
    Board of County CommissionersP57Public hearingApproved

    ZONING AMENDMENT (REGULAR) Zoning Amendment (Regular) – Trust #7541207 Land … DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting)

    Approved minutes

    Approved the item per Staff’s recommendation by a roll call vote.

    Open this item →
    15m
    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Item P fifty seven was published in the Tampa Bay Times on december sixteenth, twenty twenty.

    Denise

    Okay, if you can bring up the PowerPoint on that item, please.

    Well we wait for that to come up. It's uh P57 is PDD 217506 in the name of trust number 74541207, Land Service Corporation Trustee. It's for a change in zoning from AR Agricultural Residential, AC Agricultural, and C2 General Commercial Districts to C2 General Commercial District and I1 Light Industrial Park District. Next slide, please. The parcel is located in north central Pasco County on the northeast corner of the intersection of I

    seventy five and Blanton Road and it goes up to the to the um Hernando County line. Next slide. The site contains approximately 89.07 acres and it's undeveloped. The applicant proposes to the to develop the southern 14.66 acre portion of the property in conformance with the C2 General Commercial District standards for development, and the northern 74.41 acre portion of the property in conformance with the I-1 Light Industrial Park District

    standards for development. The surrounding area is characterized by residential and agricultural pursuits. Following slide, please.

    The site has a future land use classification of EC currently. However, on December 8, 2020, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a comprehensive plan amendment CPAL 2006, which amended the future land use on the site from EC Employment Center and AG to IL, Industrial Light, and COM Commercial. If the rezoning is approved, it shall not take effect until such time as the appeal period for the companion. And C P A L is has ended. Uh the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on 225 of 20. Next

    slide please. The applicant has agreed to to uh voluntarily agree to a deed restriction for the C2 portion of the property that basically limits the permitted uses. um to 140,000 square feet. Prohibits multifamily apartments, prohibits auto-towing or connected storage of vehicles, prohibits yard trash disposal facilities, prohibits construction and demolition debris disposal facilities, and prohibits truck spot stops. Sorry. And some of the many of those prohibitions

    were as a result of comments from the neighborhood meeting. The following slide, please. Thank you. The applicant has also volunteered to record a deed restriction over the I-1 portion of the property, which basically limits the uh I-1 Industrial Park District permitted uses to not exceed 500,000 square feet, prohibits auto-toying and connected storage of vehicles. Prohibits yard trash disposal facilities, prohibits construction, demolition, debris disposal facilities, and also places a requirement for a 25-foot setback along a parcel

    that's adjacent to the east, which has a single-family uh dwelling on it, to remain as a natural undisturbed area, except for the necessity of a fence for maintenance.

    Next slide.

    It also um includes um uh specific development standards that are for the property, which include architectural design of building facades facing 75, shall include windows at ground level and or claristory and shall not um or at the claristory level sorry and shall not include overhead doors. It also uh outside storage of materials, supplies, or products not permitted in the front of any structure. When outside storage is exposed to I-75,

    the area shall be screened at a height of at least one foot higher than the higher material being stored, being screened, not to exceed ten feet. Additionally, the applicant has included in the deed restriction that loading docks, utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction, and other service functions are to be incorporated into over to the overall design of the primary building using screening walls of compatible material design and color. Next slide. The

    next slide uh shows the current zoning on the property. If you move to the next slide. And this slide actually shows you in the purple or lilac area, that shows you the area that is proposed for I-1 Light Industrial Park District. And the area that's red with a diagonal line on the bottom on this on the south end of the property. That's where the C the C2 General Commercial District is proposed. Following slide.

    Following slide shows the uh future land use. And if you would move on to the next slide. This is the adopted land use based on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment C PAL 2006 on the next slide.

    The following slide shows the access to the property.

    Off of Lanton Road.

    And um staff moves to uh it's the this comes to you actually with a recommendation of approval. Um and it's actually from the Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission. Here for any questions you may have.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Yeah. Uh we have anyone to speak to this item?

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    We have no one on WebEx for this item and no emails were submitted for this item.

    Ron OakleyChair

    But you do have an applicant. There's the app in here.

    Barbara Wilhite

    I am here.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Yes, would you like to speak?

    Barbara Wilhite

    Yes, hi. Barbara Will Hype for the record, sixty-three twenty-seven Grand Boulevard, New Port Richey, Florida, three four six five two. Good afternoon, Commissioner. Um this is our this public hearing on this item. Um we've got a unanimous recommendation from Planning Commission, not only on the comp plan that was adopted back in December, but also on our rezoning that's before you today and staff is right recommending approval. I don't know if there's anybody at the kiosk Um to speak. Maybe

    we can check on that. We'd like to reserve any time. I do have my team on the on the line here as well. Larry Guilford is on as well as Mike Razor.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Okay.

    Let's go to the kiosks and see if anyone's at the kiosks to speak against this item.

    Mike Moore

    But there's somebody there.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Here's it.

    Unidentified speakerVoice E

    And have you been sworn, Mr. Dou Dukowitz? Have you done?

    Edward Dukowitz

    Not on this camera. Outside I raised my hand but I'll do it again, I swear.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Yeah. She'll do that right now.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Um we're gonna need to get his um address again for the record. It just came up.

    Ron OakleyChair

    We're gonna need you to state your name and address again because your the voice didn't come through very good, so

    Edward Dukowitz

    Okay, first then Edward Duke of its D U T. K I E

    residence is [address removed]

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Thank you, sir. And could you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God. Yeah. Thank you. You may proceed.

    Edward Dukowitz

    Okay. The request actually.

    Yeah. There are seven reasons.

    Let's go overlay. rezoning is eradicating the agricultural and rural nature of the area. Resulting in Laos further commercial development. Hobbit for

    Fritz. His own employment center. Hasgown county for June in two thousand nineteen. It the Pasco Economic Development Council, a group of people's purpose was that's a is to get money from the taxpayers. 2.9 million taxpayer dollars to attract target industries. She can go to the targeting display to sick place. house which are slated for his development. The fast food locations anticipated in Motel fall far

    below the targeted income level. Did you have pull from proposed? And the board is going along with it. The conversion from EC zoning defeats and intentionally wastes. the taxpayers' money which was given to the Pasco E D C for the purpose Which will be defeated by this application. Also parenthetically, the representative of the Yonis, Ms. Willight, appears to be on the board of directors of the APC. She appears to be representing both the MPC. preserve and market the EC zone

    property and the entity which wants to eliminate EC zone property. How could such a conflict go unnoticed? Four, the light industrial use in fast food restaurants are eyesores placed in public view. Either provide the higher than average income which are one of the goals of the EC zone property, and neither is consistent or compatible. the rural character or rural quality of life. Five, commercial zoning is limited in size and the proposed changes exceed the commercial limit. The cob development is limited

    to six hundred by six hundred feet along Bland Road. Six, strip development is prohibited like the comprehensive plan. C policy FLU one point six two C By definition, the strip is defined as land which lies alongside a roadway. The industrial strip development lies along I-75. And lastly, seven The compatibility table plainly states But the zoning changes requested are not compatible with this wrong period.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is anyone else at the kiosk?

    Unidentified speakerVoice F

    There is no one else at the kiosk.

    Ron OakleyChair

    All right, thank you.

    Mike Moore

    Right. Yeah, no Mike. Just just to c uh if I'm not correct for staff in the app, you know if I'm not correct. Isn't this site right at the interchange in along Interstate 75?

    Ron OakleyChair

    Yes.

    Mike Moore

    Is that right?

    Barbara Wilhite

    Correct.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Yeah.

    Mike Moore

    Okay. So make sure.

    Ron OakleyChair

    So it's in forty one and seventy five.

    Mike Moore

    Yeah. Um I c I knew. I just kinda wanted to state it for the record. But uh um No, we talk about, you know, wanting and needing more industrial, you know, in the county, industrial sites. And um, you know, unfortunately, we're actually losing industrial sites in many instances where people are rezoning from industrial to something that doesn't is not a job creating site. And this is right on Interstate 75, which is obviously the access you want for tractor

    trailer trucks, um, you know, ease for the community and people to do business there. So to me, I mean, if anything we've seen in a long time, this probably makes more sense because it is at Yeah. Seventy five. So

    I don't know if the applicant wants to respond, but I'll I'll move for approval.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Mm

    Mike Moore

    Mr. Chairman, why

    Ron OakleyChair

    don't we have the applicant? Applicant needs to respond first. So

    Barbara Wilhite

    Just for the Mm-hmm. As staff stated, the the comprehensive plan was amended and you adopted an amendment to IL and COM. The the zoning categories that are proposed are I1. And C2. There is nothing more fully consistent than an I-1 zoning district with an IO land use and a C2 zoning district with a POM land use. the policies that Mr. Dukowitz uh Mr. Dukowitz who's not any type of planning expert, um,

    although I am because I participate I wrote most of the Pomp Plan back in two thousand and six. that each each carriage the language from the comp plan, misapplies the language. We're at the rezoning level and he speaks to policies that deal with the land use amendment level. Now for example, 1.4.3 and 1.6.3 of the of the future land use elements are transitional land use policies that are applied at the comprehensive plan level. He he cites the policy, the comprehensive plan policy

    dealing with commercial one point six point one and says we violate that, but that's the very policy that says you can only have C two zoning in comm land use land use two if you've adopted a com land use. So, you know, I've I've heard his different statements regarding the comprehensive plan and you know, they are misinterpreted, they are misapplied. It is property, the stormer land use was EC. We took away the multifamily component. We kept the commercial component, we kept the

    light industrial component. We thought the better use of the property was to have no no residential, so we could maximize the use of the property for the employment generating uses. And um but Mr. Dirkowitz says that we're not maximizing it for employment generating generating uses. current zoning is agricultural, so it doesn't have any job producing industrial or commercial jobs where well it may have agricultural jobs. Certainly not the target job that your that your Complant has. So with that, um, unless

    you have any specific questions, we ask that you support staff's recommendation. Um yes, I am on the PDC board. Yes, I'm proud of what we brought forward here. We have the support of the Economic Development Council. Um, this is exactly what you want to do in an interchange. And um we're happy that we took the multifamily component out because um we need to save the property of this interchange for non-residential use. Yeah.

    Mike Moore

    Okay.

    Motion and a motion I would

    Ron OakleyChair

    second um Commissioner Moore's motion. This is a great place for the question. I've got a motion and a second. Uh all those in favor, uh my rule call.

    Barbara Wilhite

    Yeah.

    Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

    Bye.

    Ron OakleyChair

    Hi.