Skip to main content
Pasco Countymeeting record

PDD-22-0020

Published agenda

7 appearances between Jan 20, 2022 and Aug 9, 2022, at 3 boards — continued 3 times.

OutcomeAdopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Aug 9, 2022
Approved to adopt by a roll call vote with Commissioner Moore voting nay.

Official title

An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment To Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.11: Cross Park PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.

On a calendar

Jan 20, 2022 → Aug 9, 2022 · click a mark to jump to that appearance

Every appearance6 of 7 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. 89% of 271 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 1 of the 7 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

  1. 1
    Planning CommissionPC2Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

    An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Plan Amendment (Continuance)- CPAL21(25) Cross Park PD- Providing For for A Comprehensive Plan Text … To Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.11: Cross 7.1.17-Cross Park PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. PD.

    Open this item →
    1m
    Denise

    The following item is PC two. It's PDD twenty-two zero zero two zero. It's a comprehensive plan amendment. C PAL 2125, Cross Park PD, and this is a re a request for a continuance to the February seventeenth, twenty twenty two, local planning agency meeting at one thirty in Newport Ritchie.

    GreyChair

    Okay. Is the applicant present?

    Denise

    I believe the applicant is virtually present. Yeah.

    GreyChair

    Um anyone here to object?

    Okay.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Motion to continue. Second.

    GreyChair

    Uh any further discussion of the motion? All in favor signify by saying aye.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Aye. Oops. Roll call.

    GreyChair

    Oh roll call. Yeah, sorry about

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    that.

    GreyChair

    Don, you're you're really getting after us here, Don. I'm sorry about that. Yeah, okay.

    Clerk

    Uh Jamie Girardi. Aye. Don Anderson.

    GreyChair

    Aye.

    Clerk

    Peter Hansel.

    GreyChair

    Aye.

    Clerk

    Roberto Sayas?

    GreyChair

    Aye.

    Clerk

    Christopher Poole?

    GreyChair

    Aye.

    Chris Williams? Aye. Chairman Charles Gray.

    Aye.

  2. 2
    Planning CommissionPC4Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

    An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Plan Amendment (Consent)- CPAL21(25) Cross Park PD- Providing For A for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment To to Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.11: Cross 7.1.17-Cross Park PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. PD

    Open this item →
    33m
    Denise

    Mr. Chair, you did you say you now wanted to do PC four?

    GreyChair

    Yes. Uh yes.

    Denise

    Right.

    Amy Heiler

    Hello, Amy Heiler with Long Range Planning.

    GirardiVice Chair

    So I guess I'm the one that asked this be pulled. Um, Amy Was this your application?

    Amy Heiler

    Uh uh no, I'm covering for somebody.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Well

    Amy Heiler

    for staff.

    GirardiVice Chair

    That goes to the heart of my question, though, because um So It it appears that this site the the employment potential of the site is being reduced. For example They're going from eighty thousand office to forty five thousand thirty thousand retail to ten thousand retail um incre we're getting rid of ALF and now there's multifamily. So I'm not understanding why if you look at the Denton Avenue one

    That you did.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Correct.

    GirardiVice Chair

    There's an analysis there's an analysis about our economic development policies. There was coordination with the Office of Economic Growth. to ensure that we were retaining employ the employment potential of that site.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Correct.

    GirardiVice Chair

    I don't see any of that analysis for this amendment, even though it's pretty clear to me it's reducing the employment potential of the site. There's no analysis about policy one point eight point ten There's no analysis about economic development policy of 1.4.4. I don't see any fiscal impact analysis. I mean I I don't I'm not understanding why staff is treating want two applications dramatically differently when it comes to the preservation

    of the employment potential of the site. So

    That's my concern. And I guess my question is did anybody coordinate with the Office of Economic Growth? On this application. Um was there any analysis done about Policy one point eight point ten and one point four point four Any fiscal impact analysis?

    It's just purely a reduction of the employment potential of the site without any analysis of those policies.

    Amy Heiler

    So as it relates to one point ten or one point eight point ten and one point eight point four, I know those speak directly to the employment generating uses of the aisle flu. So at least for the Denton Avenue purposes, that's why those were cited because the IL flu was being removed in that scenario.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Yeah, but they don't just talk about industrial, because their office is also considered a high paying. So this is clearly reducing

    Amy Heiler

    Absolutely. Um I'm not sure if if David Engel was involved in this conversation as well, but I

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    uh on on this is Terry Nictorios Pitos with the Planning Development Department. On this particular project We looked at it through the lens of the multifamily policy directive that the board had issued in July of twenty twenty. And in this project we approached it from a site planning, so we reverse engineered in the sense what can possibly fit on the site and how does uh how do the different land uses um line up on this irregular parcel. in uh working with

    the applicant, the site planning that we did with them to form uh the revisions to the planning to the planned development. Uh It was clear that we're not going to be able to In order to fit what they could do based on the multifamily multifamily policy directive, which is to put multifamily on the property. Uh but still meet the Board's intent of in preserving employment-generating land uses to create viable commercial street frontages. Uh forty five thousand square feet of professional medical office.

    was established along the frontage of uh State road fifty four. based on the parking capacities that forty-five thousand square feet would require. And then from there we started to uh obviously they had a number of units that they had to fundamentally meet to get the project done so they had a particular building size associated with the project that they had to meet. Uh and so in in site planning Uh we determined that forty five thousand square feet

    uh was appropriate to meet the multifamily multifamily policy directive. In addition to that, we vertically and we had them vertically integrate five thousand square feet of commercial retail office into the uh multifamily building that was separate from their clubhouse and leasing office spaces. And then there was a the bonus three thousand five hundred square feet that was identified for uh pet veterinary activities. So it was a it was a we didn't talk to OEG necessarily

    on this particular project, though it had I believe it had been circulated to all the appropriate departments. Um but this particular site was looked at from the multifamily sea policy directive and site planned. in order to determine the proper uh entitlement levels for the planned development.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Well I guess my concern, Terry, is that this seems from a strictly entitlement perspective Seems eerily simil similar to partial S nineteen and seven oakes. I mean it's a it's clearly a an exchange of employment generating uses for apartments and If staff wants to recommend approval over that, I'm not saying you you can't. But there be should be some analysis, at least with S nineteen you did an economic analysis and a fiscal impact analysis to demonstrate Why it met those

    policies I see absolutely No analysis in this memo about why it meets our fiscal impact policies or our economic development policies. You're looking at it solely from a multifamily directive, but you're not looking at it, in my opinion, you haven't looked at it at all from a economic development or fiscal impact. impact perspective. Right, but the And it might be okay. I don't know. I'm just saying that there should be some analysis in in the memo addressing those policies. And and I'm pointing this out because

    Amy on a very Someone on our other on our agenda There's one that specifically analyzes those policies. For the Denton Avenue one. So I'm not understanding why we're even though this one is clearly reducing employment Why we're not analyzing those policies here.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    We could take a look at the policies. The but the Multifamily Policy Directive was based on those policies to preserve employment generating land uses. And there are parcels along the corridor that are that are overentitled. And the site planning exercises that we went through with the applicant.

    GirardiVice Chair

    But I'm just being uh just it's not obvious to me that they are because Even ALF, in my opinion, and I don't think about David Engle probably generates more employment than than a multifamily apartment does. It's probably I think that's probably obvious that it does. So And they're clearly reducing office, they're clearly reducing retail.

    I don't I guess I just don't not sure I agree with you that just because they've comply with the multifamily policy directive, that they automatically comply with those Compland policies.

    Anderson

    Mm-hmm.

    GirardiVice Chair

    And the Complant policies are adopted provisions in our Comp Plan. They're not just a policy directive. So This may be perfectly okay. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying there needs to be more analysis that is not in this memo.

    And you did that analysis for S nineteen. And it wasn't done here.

    And even though S nineteen got denied, at least the analysis was in the memo.

    Amy Heiler

    So Cynthia is the applicant's um legal representation if you wanna she has got a couple comments.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Does she have the analysis for me?

    Right.

    Cynthia Speidel

    Uh good afternoon. Thank you. Cynthia Speidel, I'm with Stearns Weaver, 401 East Jackson Street in Tampa, and I have been sworn. We did do a detailed analysis as part of the application process, David. And if it would make you feel better, we could certainly uh attempt to beef that up in the staff memo between here and planning and board the board uh hearing. I'd also like to mention at least Batsel is the land use counsel, and she's online via WebEx as well as Alia Teffee. to speak to transportation issues. So transportation

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    issues,

    Cynthia Speidel

    so I don't think

    so.

    So um so what we did here, David, is we've actually increased the amount of acreage through the site config we have a very unique site configuration constraint here. And I don't know if we have an Elmo if we can pull this up. But um

    So due to the unique site configuration, this is the part, it's about a mile uh west of the US 4154 intersection, and it's where there's like a little hump in 54. So we're basically a right triangle. So when we looked at what the entitlements were there, including the ALF entitlements that you were speaking to, we actually did a thorough like site configuration analysis of three other uh ALFs and ILFs in the area, including the two in Trinity. is one is wiregrass. And because they have the benefits of uh Of using stormwater

    off-site because they're part of a master planned unit development with master stormwater drainage plans. We don't have that situation here. So we have a very constrained site. We have some wetlands, we have stormwater ponds and a permit already that has that those areas fixed. So um so basically we have limited net development acreage available to us, and when we look At what was actually entitled on the property in the sub-area. We do not believe, and I have the applicant here from Live Development that can speak to it well that did all the site planning for

    it. We we couldn't fit everything that was there. So it was just it was approved in the sub-area policy prior at a level that was not realistic for what the site could actually yield. So what we did was recognizing the um Staff's concerns with regard to employment generation is we've uniquely configured a medical office site at the corner there for 45,000 square foot medical office facility. And then we've put the multifamily behind that. And due to the uh Uh right in, right out, that DOT sort

    of, we can move it a little bit, but not that much. So that kind of forces where our driveway location is. And that leaves sort of a residual parcel just east of that, which will be veterinary center, pet center, and family park. So we basically have site constraints. We don't really have that much development acreage available to us. So we've committed in the sub-area policy. to address your concerns to a minimum two net acres, I think it's three and a half gross acres, to the medical office facility. And I'd like to introduce Tim who

    could actually speak to some of the site configuration constraints that led us to this development footprint.

    GirardiVice Chair

    You don't need to give me all of your justification right now. All I'm asking you and staff to do is Analyze why this complies with policy one point eight point ten. E D one point four point four. Why it's not a a loss in in in It it's not a cause loss from a fiscal impact perspective. It may all be okay, but I see none of this analysis And I just say uh it doesn't appear anybody coordinated with the Office of Economic Growth at all. So That concerns me as well.

    Um And I don't and I think that needs to be in the memo. I mean it may again it may be okay Let's say it's a little odd to me that you're saying it's too constrained of a site for ALF, but it's perfectly fine for apartments.

    Maybe it's all okay. I'll my I'm not sure.

    Cynthia Speidel

    I I didn't say it was constrained for an ALF, I said it was constrained for the amount that was entitled in the subarray policy.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Why couldn't you just do a smaller ALF? I mean, I think that's a good thing

    Cynthia Speidel

    Yeah, well there were market issues with that because uh the the uh landowner and we have submitted a letter into the record from the landowner that um speaks to his experience with trying to find an ALF and I L F user and um he actually tried to do it himself and it turned out that they came up with a market analysis that there was an oversupply of ALF and I L F within the ten mile radius that they were researching. So he tried very hard to develop it as that was a

    GirardiVice Chair

    office also?

    Cynthia Speidel

    Well this is medical office. That's the reason why we specified and we revised the subarry policy to make it medical office slash professional office.

    GirardiVice Chair

    I mean 'cause I you're saying that there's an oversupply of ALF so that's why you don't want to do L F, but why not?

    Cynthia Speidel

    Because we actually ha we're actually in discussions, well my client's in discussions with a potential medical office uh user for that site, so that's the more realistic version for the site.

    GirardiVice Chair

    If there's a market for medical office, why can't it all be medical office? Or retail.

    Tim Mckeacher

    Uh good afternoon. My name is Tim McKeacher and I'm with Lib Development. We are the contract purchaser for the subject piece here. Uh and

    GreyChair

    you've been been sworn, right?

    Tim Mckeacher

    I've been sworn in, thank you. Yeah. So we we have been uh working on this project since roughly 2019 with the uh current landowner. Um And we went through the process of analyzing the currently approved MPUD, which allows for ALF and the retail and office uses referenced in your comments. And the reality of the site is that um It has been overentitled to the extent that if it was built strictly as a 110,000 square foot office or retail, the 10 usable

    net acres would result in an FAR of about 0.25. So it would be no way in reality that we could fit an ALF project in addition to the 110,000 with the required parking for each use. So layer in the ALF with 275,000 in the original approvals, it's Clearly there's too much there's too much um entitlement for this site to even fit the buildings, the uh the level square footage and the parking that would be required for those uses. Now, going back historically, the original owner went through the process of designing the property,

    and he and his plan had a similar acreage allocation of about three acres uh gross to the corner piece and the ALF fit on the same exact component that we're showing the um the um uh multifamily today. The if you were to apply the 110,000 square feet of office and retail to just the three-acre gross, that would be an FAR.84. So there you wouldn't be able to fit that much entitlement onto just three acres of gross acres on the corner. So that also points to the fact that there is it is overentitled

    for what the use is. This is a site that uh has been approved before by the county as an MPUD, so there is obviously a mix of Uses that is allowed here. And what we've tried to do in our site planning, both dating back to 2019, when we looked at it for an ALF use, and today, as we're looking at it as a mixed use with an apartment, is how do we fit a reasonable balance of these components so that from an economic viability perspective it works? That we can get the mix of uses that the county desires, both employment generating also residential. This is the plan that we've landed on that works today. In

    2019, we went through the process of a market study with our senior living group. They found the oversupply issue. The letter that's in your packet would also state that the owner today went through that process since 2012, also faced the same headwinds related to oversupply. So, what we're trying to do today is meet all the sub-area policy requirements, create a viable mixed-use project, which uh we feel that this plan does. We have both an outparcel component of three gross acres with five to one thousand, excuse

    me, uh five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of medical office. That is the demand for medical office development, and so we've been able to fit that 45%. Yeah. uh or the you know I guess the triangle. Uh we've met or attempted to meet all the sub-area policies related to commercial and retail frontage along 54. We've also incorporated a mixed use component of retail into the multifamily. So This is I think the reality of taking the entitlement package that was approved previously. Putting

    a site plan together that's financially feasible and economically feasible, and presenting it to the board for in in for your consideration as an amendment to this to um both the comp plan and eventually the MPUD. And so

    GirardiVice Chair

    so I I'm not disagreeing with you that the site was probably overentitled. I'm not disagreeing with that point. I'm just pointing out that Yes it was overentitled, but that doesn't necessarily mean you take the land that is available and you convert it to multifamily, you could take the lands available and make it all medical office. You can make it all m office and retail. It doesn't mean that Just because it's overentitled, you have to convert it to multifamily. That's my concern and I'm not sure whether that's that conversion to multifamily satisfies our economic development policies, our

    fiscal impact policies. It may or may not. I don't know because there's no analysis in our memo that talks about those policies. Okay,

    Cynthia Speidel

    Elise Batzel, who's our land use attorney, is online, so we'd like to have uh introduce her and have her speak to some of your concerns as well.

    Denise

    She's a mirror.

    Unidentified speakerVoice E

    Yeah.

    GreyChair

    She doesn't have a lot to say, I guess.

    Elise Batsell

    Trying to speak, I'm unmuted.

    GreyChair

    Okay, go ahead.

    Elise Batsell

    And the board that the staff and the applicant supply additional information? Is that the request?

    GirardiVice Chair

    Yes, and I would hope that information shows that information shows that

    Denise

    we're being told that there's a lot of feedback.

    Elise Batsell

    David, you were saying I'm sorry, y you didn't finish your

    GirardiVice Chair

    So yes the application's missing any analysis about Compliance with economic development policies in our comp plan, specifically One point eight point ten and one point four point four economic development policy. and our fiscal impact policy. that analysis is all missing. I don't know what the results of it are because it's not here. So usually that if an analysis was done, we'd the results would be in the memo. But So I don't know. I guess my conclusion is

    Elise Batsell

    just saying it's not in your staff memo.

    GirardiVice Chair

    In and I'm pointing out there's another memo on our agenda where that analysis is in the memo. And so I'm not understanding this is really a question for our staff is why is it that One application has a full analysis about the economic development impact. in compliance with those policies, but then another application doesn't, even though this in my opinion, this pol this application is clearly reducing the employment potential of the site. So That that's my concern.

    If Planning Commission feels comfortable moving it forward with that big mystery, I guess that's up to the planning commission. I'm concerned that there's no. analysis here about the economic development impact. And what concerns me even more is that nobody coordinated with the Office of Economic Growth So that They could stand up here and say it's still a an equal or better economic impact. And and I'll be honest with you and my other concern is why is this on the consent agenda when You know, our board has been pretty clear about wanting to preserve employment

    on the fifty four corridor. And so I'm not sure why this apple this to me directly implicate some of the policy directors of the Board of County Commissioners and should not be on our consent agenda.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Mr. Chairman

    Mariano.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Yeah.

    Unidentified speakerVoice F

    If I may, um I agree with David, it's not about just to deny this application, it's to have the right information and treat every single application the w the same. So I move a motion to continue this application For the next board meeting if they are okay with the E City and we have the analysis for the economic growth and the fiscal analysis as well.

    GreyChair

    All right. So we have a motion on the table.

    Um yeah. I was gonna gonna let me see if I can get a second and then we can open it up for Yeah.

    Chris Williams

    I'll second that motion. Okay.

    GreyChair

    So we have a motion on the floor, uh now we're open for discussion.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Uh Mr. Chairman Mariano Speedall's Planning and Development. Um so as I mentioned earlier, the project was circulated and the comments that were received from the Office of Economic Growth where that OEG does not object to this land use amendment proposal. uh b due to the property site specific environmental constraints and restrictive remaining uplands. Suggesting that the O OEG looked at the irregular lot. the number of w the amount of wetlands on that site and did not consider it uh fully uh available for the uh to

    the did not consider the property Um important enough I guess for the maintenance of o the overentitlement. But I just want to point out that the other uh amendment that was on the that is on the agenda today that does include uh that uh analysis that Mr. Goldstein is referring to Um We did consult with the Office of Economic Growth be on that one because there was uh a large land area available for potential office development.

    Uh there. And we wanted to be able to preserve that. But even in that case, there was still a reduction in the economic development potential that was on the books versus what could actually be built. Um so it it's kind of the same scenario in both instances. There is a reduction on the Denton Avenue case, but there's also a reduction here. Even in this reduction, however, we have preserved 50 percent of the employment-generating land use based on the site planning potential. Uh that is available to

    the site.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Well that that assumes that ALF has no employment generating potential.

    Which I don't think is an accurate assumption.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Well it's going ALF is going to have uh the ad the administrative staff and the nurses, so to speak, that would uh look over the the people that would be there. Um But that also Could be the same amount of people that are grounds crew maintenance and office workers in a multifamily building. So it it not necessarily That one will have more than the other? One may have

    GirardiVice Chair

    your your position as a multifamily has just as much employment as AOLA.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    I don't know that for certain. Is that really your position? I don't know that for certain.

    Unidentified speakerVoice F

    Maybe that is the case. I just want to see the data. That is simple.

    GirardiVice Chair

    I mean I guess the other concern I have, Terry, is this is on the fifty four corridor. I mean I get your point about Denton, but The board has not really had the same interest in the preservation of employment on Denton Avenue. I understand that you did your best to improve preserve employment on Denton. But this is the fifty fo this is our Major Economic Development Corridor. where the board has said they want to see Employment generating land land uses.

    It's not obvious to me that this is preserving that mission. And it may be that this is all fine, I don't know, but I I think there should be some analysis about the economic potential economic loss. If it and if it's okay, then explain why it's okay.

    I mean you're the The memo didn't even have the statement from the Office of Economic Growth in it that you just read.

    GreyChair

    Because that maybe. Any other discussion from up here?

    Chris Williams

    Yeah, I'd like to make a comment about the nursing home or the AFL A L F I have a son that's a Director of the in that business. Of course he's not in the state of Florida. But you talked about nursing staff and clerical staff, but there's also culinary staff, food service staff, this custodial staff they're generally have some s type of security and they operate on a twenty four or seven basis too. So there's a significant number of employees there in addition to the the medical staff that will come in to visit these folks.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Well I I fur I firmly agree with you and I Totally disagree with Mr. Pito. So I have a mother who was just in an ALF facility.

    Chris Williams

    Yeah.

    GirardiVice Chair

    The level of employment in an ALF facility far exceeds What's in a multifamily apartment complex? So I'm not even sure that's accurate to say that they're equivalent, but Regardless, that's all analysis that should be in the memo. That's that's my point.

    Chris Williams

    And another point that these positions are relatively relatively high pain. I I know my s son, he's in the six figure bracket for a nursing home director. Uh Nurses are you know or are paid a significant And then you have L P N.

    GirardiVice Chair

    So Uh the other the other analysis that's missing from here, in my opinion, is Multifamily has an additional school impact that A L F does not. And so I saw nothing in this memo that's saying that Whether the schools in this area can accommodate the additional impact. It may be that they can. But Clearly ALF is not gonna have an impact on schools. Multifamily apartments clearly does, but I saw no statement in the memo about that the schools I mean.

    from school districts, th a lot of the schools on fifty four corridor over capacity. So there should be something in this memo Addressing whether they can accommodate the additional school impact.

    Okay.

    Chris Williams

    I mean that's certainly a concern. I mean uh elementary wise, that their zone for Lake Myrtle, they're probably all right, but Rushi and Sun Lake.

    Cynthia Speidel

    But we got a letter from you, Chris, because we did the MPUD, so we did the school questionnaire with the M PUD and we're here for the Com plan.

    Chris Williams

    No, I

    Cynthia Speidel

    think. But we but we did the questionnaire for the M PUD and that's all in the file and in the application.

    Chris Williams

    I understand. You know. If something went here then we'd manage but

    GirardiVice Chair

    you may v very well have done a lot of the analysis that I'm talking about, but What's in front of us today has none of that in it.

    Cynthia Speidel

    Right. So what I what is in the application, especially for the MPD, because we wanted these to be heard concurrently for this for this exact reason, was how an ALF is structured. So if we were to build 275,000 square feet of ALF on the site, there would be no medical office building. So I just wanted to make sure you realize that there is employment generation opportunity in a two-story medical office building and that 45,000 Three-acre site that we have in the corner. And so what we really tried to do was try to balance all of these competing interests to come up with a realistic site plan that you will get,

    you will get your employment generation, you're gonna get the office building, you're gonna get the veterinary pet center, you're gonna get everything, you're gonna get the multifamily behind that. I mean, staff's really worked hard with us.

    GirardiVice Chair

    I don't know, but it's not obvious to me and there's nothing in this memo saying Why it is or isn't.

    Cynthia Speidel

    Yeah, well we'd be happy to work with staff to get that information between now and the board meeting and March twenty second. And I'm sure a lot of it's in in the application. We just have to put it together in a format for you and beef up the staff memo.

    GreyChair

    Okay.

    Unidentified speakerVoice F

    Could you restate your motion? Roberto. Absolutely. Again. Maybe you are right, Cynthia. depending on the size of the medical uh assistant uh living facility can be reduced and you can have a medical office as well. So it's how you see, how you design it. Let me let me finish my my idea. So We don't have the information that we needed, in my opinion, personal opinion, to go and move this today. That doesn't mean we are not going to move in the next board meeting.

    That is not that can be the case. I just asking for the information to be evaluated for us in order for us to paste this.

    Cynthia Speidel

    I understand and that's the reason why when the the comp plan was originally adopted back in two thousand six when you had the PD flu, the MPD was originally David may remember this, was originally required to go as companion to it because it's a negotiated FAR and a negotiated density.

    preserve that frontage and have employment generating uses that are solely for office and retail along that frontage and put the multifamily behind it or we vertically vertically integrate everything and the sub-area allows that.

    Unidentified speakerVoice F

    I know what you're talking about. That's for what I live in for. Okay? I move a motion. Turtle. Yeah. Until we obtain the data data and

    GirardiVice Chair

    Now since there's no citizen opposition, so you don't necessarily have to continue it to the next Newport Ritchie meeting, but I don't know how long staff needs to do and the applicant need to prepare this analysis.

    GreyChair

    I think they ha seems like they have a lot of the work done, it just wasn't included in the report. So uh

    Amy Heiler

    we can update the uh agenda by the next book.

    GreyChair

    And I know Amy was wasn't Amy's report, so you're standing in for somebody. Yeah. Well,

    Cynthia Speidel

    yeah, and if David Engel had put in his comments that there was issues of concerns, obviously we would have addressed that. So we didn't get that comment from him. And that's the reason why, you know, he supported it or or their office.

    Yeah, and we've met w we've met with most of them already. So and we've tried to incorporate certain components of their concerns in the in the revised site plan. And we've done all the ex parte work, so that will be r you know included in the record when we go to the board.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Okay. J just for clarification, is the statement from David Engel sufficient or do they need to do the analysis? I still think they

    GirardiVice Chair

    need you to do the analysis. It's a co so these are policies of a comprehensive plan. I don't think you can just ignore

    Amy Heiler

    We can touch base with David Engel again.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    They weren't included in the agenda memo, but they were not ignored.

    GreyChair

    Yeah, I I think you know, I think it's um I think it's a evident that in your mind In your mind. You considered all those items.

    Isn't laid out in the excuse me. Isn't laid out. Is he is he talking a after me? I didn't know you had a twin. That's not your voice.

    I think we've got all the materials to to do the job properly. Yeah, I think you have a good case for what you're asking. But I think we you need to have time to put it together. I don't think it'll take very long. I don't think there's any reason why we can't continue it to the next Meeting. There's like like David said, there's no local opposition. So there's no reason why it can't be done in Dade City.

    Christopher Poole

    So it sounds like the application might might already or the applicant might already have that economic analysis. Dave, are you suggesting that David Engel's office? Still needs to produce that is it?

    GirardiVice Chair

    If the applicant has the the analysis that I'm asking for, then It just needs to be included in the memo.

    Cynthia Speidel

    And to the extent it's not already in the application, I'm happy to provide that for you.

    GreyChair

    Very good.

    All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

    Chris Williams

    Well, and just back to David's point, I mean it's we need to be consistent. 'Cause it's seven oaks. Even though I said capacity was fine, there was still um you know, people were bringing it up that has school impacts. Which is which it does. So that oughta be included as well. All right.

    GreyChair

    All right. So there's a f no further discussion. I'll have a Uh vote. Uh all in favor of the motion signified by second. So the continuance is to which date, just so I'm clear.

    Denise

    The continuance if if it's to the next date, that would be the March third, twenty twenty two Planning Commission meeting at one thirty in Dade City.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Is the applicant okay with going to Date City?

    Cynthia Speidel

    I'm also happy to write the staff memo too, so

    GreyChair

    Okay. Motion and second. Favor, signify by saying aye. You have a question?

    Anderson

    No, I was just saying calling

    GreyChair

    questions.

    Anderson

    Oh, okay.

    GreyChair

    All opposed? Like sign? Okay, the motion carries.

  3. 3
    Board of County CommissionersP66Public hearingContinued

    An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Plan Amendment (Continuance) - CPAL21(25) Cross Park PD-Providing for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment To to Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.11: Cross 7.1.17-Cross Park PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. PD.

    Approved minutes

    Continued to the March 22, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m.

    Open this item →
    1m
    Oakley

    P sixty-six is a comprehensive plan amendment, C Pell 2125, Cross PARC PD, uh providing for a comprehensive plan text amendment to sub-area policy flu seven one seventeen, cross park PD. A continuance is requested to the March twenty-second, twenty twenty-two. Board of County Commissioners meeting at one thirty in your porridge.

    StarkeyChair

    Madam Chair, publication. Yes. Uh item P sixty six was published in the Tampa Times on January fifth, twenty twenty two.

    Oakley

    Second.

    StarkeyChair

    All in favor?

    Oakley

    Aye. And P67 is a zoning amendment that is requesting a continuance. DCH West LLC change in zoning from a AC agricultural district to a MF1 multifamily medium density district in southwest Pasco County on the north side of Plath Road, approximately 260 feet west of Rowan Road, containing approximately 9.881 acres. This is being requested for a continuance to a date uncertain.

  4. 4
    GeneralP63Public hearingApproved

    An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Plan Amendment (Regular)- CPAL21(25) Cross Park PD- Transmittal of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment To to Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.11: Cross 7.1.17-Cross Park PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. PD

    Approved minutes

    Approved Staff’s recommendation with building the office building with Commissioner Moore voting nay

    Open this item →No recording
  5. 5
    Board of County CommissionersP57Public hearingContinued

    An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Plan Amendment (Continuance)- CPAL21(25) Cross Park PD- Providing For A for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment To to Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.11: Cross 7.1.17-Cross Park PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. PD.

    Approved minutes

    Continued to the May 17, 2022 Board of County Commissioner meeting at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey.

    Open this item →
    under a minute
    MarianoVice Chair

    Today we have three public hearing items on the consent agenda. We'll start with P fifty seven, a continuance.

    Oakley

    Item P fifty seven was published in the Tambay Times on January fifth, twenty twenty-two.

    Denise

    Thank you.

    Oakley

    P fifty set

    Denise

    P fifty seven is P D D twenty two zero zero two zero. This is a continuance request to the May 17, 2022, uh BCC meeting at one thirty in Newport Ritchie.

    MarianoVice Chair

    Move to continue.

    Denise

    Second.

    MarianoVice Chair

    All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? We dang. Okay. P58.

  6. 6
    Board of County CommissionersP64Public hearingContinued

    An Ordinance Amending The … To Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.11: 7.1.17- Cross Park PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.

    Approved minutes

    Approved to continue the item to the August 9, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City.

    Open this item →
    1m
    StarkeyChair

    Um P sixty four.

    Oakley

    I think it's a good thing. Item P sixty four was published in the Tambay Times on January fifth, twenty twenty-two.

    Denise

    Okay, good morning. Good afternoon, Madam Chair Commissioner Oakley, P sixty four is P D D twenty two zero zero two zero. And this was actually advertised as a continuance. It's a uh continuance request to August ninth, twenty twenty two, BCC meeting at one thirty in Dade City. Second. Book

    Unidentified speaker

    just fell apart. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Um Now we will go to P65. Also a continuance.

  7. 7
    Board of County CommissionersP84Public hearingAdopted
    Approved minutes

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

    Open this item →
    12m
    Denise

    are on to P eighty-four. Madam Chair, on this one, um as I understand it, P eighty-four and P96 will be heard consecutively.

    StarkeyChair

    Can I go ahead and do the publications on both?

    StarkeyChair

    Yes. And let's the the attorney doesn't have to stay with us if he doesn't want to.

    Bye.

    StarkeyChair

    Okay, yeah. Okay. So item uh P eighty-four was published in the Tampe Times on January 5th, 2022, and item P96 was published in the Tampe Times on January on June 22nd, 2022.

    StarkeyChair

    Okay.

    Amy Heiler

    Good afternoon, Amy Heiler with Planning and Development. Item PDD 22-0020 is a comprehensive plan text amendment. This is the adoption hearing for CPAL 2125 Cross Park PDE. As you see here, this is the lo the subject property which is located in the South Market area. It does look like we're missing a slide. um for this one. So I'll step back just quite a bit. On

    this one you are uh as I said adopting the proposed amendment so I'm gonna go ahead and read the ordinance into record. An ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a comprehensive plan text amendment to sub-area policy flu 7.1.11 crosspark PD, and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for a repealer, subrability, and an effective date. So, as previously stated, this is the adoption hearing for that. The proposal,

    applicant is proposing a text amendment to sub-area policy flu 7.1.11 to change existing ALF rehabilitation, assisted living facility entitlements to multifamily residential and commercial uses. The location is at the southeast intersection of State Road 54 and Henley Road, approximately one mile west. Of Land O' Lakes Boulevard. The resolution to their proposal is to amend this the sub-area policy as previously stated, and there is a proposed substantial modification to the

    existing cross-park master plan unit development accompanying this project. So these are the following policies that that the proposed comprehensive plan is consistent with. The general location, as stated, is at the intersection of State Road 54 and Henley Road, approximately one mile west of Land Oakes Boulevard. The existing future land use is PDF, which allows for an assisted living facility and rehabilitation, commercial and office

    uses, and as previously stated the applicants requesting to change those entitlements to multifamily and office retail. So here is the master plan that has been provided. As you can see there's two access points, one off of Henley and one off of State Road 54. Secondary access for emergency is off of Henley. uh go a little bit deeper into the master plan. So the portion along the frontage along 54 is

    proposed for medical and professional office. They are proposing 45,000 square feet in this general area. And the multifamily, which is proposed set back from State Road 54, and is buffered by the non-residential uses, which is supported by a policy directive from the board. This area is going to be proposed mixed-use multifamily with 280 dwelling units, 10,000 square feet of non-residential, which 5,000

    of that non-residential square feet. feet will be vertically integrated with the multifamily and then the rest of the 5,000 square feet will look be located along the frontage of State Road 54. And with that, we recommend that the BCC approve the proposed amendment and adopt by roll call vote. If you have any questions on the Plan Amendment, I'd be happy to answer them.

    StarkeyChair

    Okay, board members, any questions?

    Moore

    Well, Madam Chair.

    StarkeyChair

    Commissioner Moore.

    Moore

    Like most know my opinion. Oh.

    I'm just trying to uh make a decision on uh either we're gonna hear Sninety Six right after this.

    Elise Batsell

    Yeah.

    Moore

    You know we need again going back to statements I've made on multiple occasions and I don't know how many occasions along fifty-four or fifty-six corridor. Anytime we change a a zoning and um to for example a multifamily when we it'll use job creating sites, um it concerns me and will continue to concern me. Um whether I'm sitting up here uh or I'm uh citizen And alpha, like I'll be soon, so I'll still have those concerns and continue to have those concerns. So with that I'll be voting now.

    StarkeyChair

    Okay, um anybody else have any comments? All right, um is this a public hearing? Would anyone um here like to address P eighty four?

    Elise Batsell

    Okay.

    Moore

    Well that may get it to the applicant.

    Elise Batsell

    Hi, Elise Batsell on behalf of the applicant Live Development. Um just to follow up on Commissioner Moore's comment, um, we did do a job creation analysis and did submit that into re the record, and if I'm recalling the number correctly, because of the forty-five thousand square feet of medical office as well as the additional retail that we're providing, we are increasing the jobs by seventy-six based on what was permitted before. and what we have now. Um if you have further questions for the applicant, please let us know. And just as a a a quick housekeeping item, I think Amy mentioned a different

    number. It's sub area policy seventeen, just for the record.

    Okay. And um

    I've

    StarkeyChair

    driven Henley many times. I'm pretty sure there are there's no Industry Down Henley, it's all residential. So you've got the industry up at the front. 'Cause right across the street is Stanley Steamer. And I think there's a church.

    Elise Batsell

    Yes, ma'am. Um and we'll go into more detail. We we're happy to put a more uh descriptive site plan up if you'd like. We also have the three levels. We can show that a little bit more in the next um presentation, but we just don't want to be duplicative with your time.

    StarkeyChair

    Yeah. Okay.

    Elise Batsell

    So um

    StarkeyChair

    better.

    Elise Batsell

    Yeah.

    Moore

    Thank you. Um 'Cause this isn't public copy, this is the applicant, so

    StarkeyChair

    Yeah,

    Moore

    so make sure we're on the same page here. Um okay you said you you did an economic and

    You said you did an economic analysis analysis of t some type um when it comes to the jobs is it's included in this presentation that you gave us too.

    Elise Batsell

    And I'm sorry, Amy says that the analysis is the build out of the proposed sub-area policy would render ninety-three jobs I said seventy six. Yeah,

    Moore

    I think that's one of the th

    one

    of the things we were kinda debating, you know, last time around with, you know, okay, if you're taking some of this and adding additional office you know, compared to what you were previously, um, is it still more jobs? Again, you know I you know I might An ALF is one thing, but a nursing home is another, right? There's more jobs in a nursing home than there's an ALF. That's just that's a fact of the matter. And it's gonna matter how many beds you have as well in that ALF or um in that uh nursing home, you

    know. So I guess that's a question to be asked too. We don't know that, right? Because you don't have a user. You don't have somebody that's coming in to say I was gonna build a three hundred fifty bed um ALF and a 200 bed um SNF, which would be a nursing home. No, I'm just using that as a point. We just don't know that answer. So I appreciate the economic analysis. Don't not sure if I can agree with it 100% knowing and actually coming from that industry myself and being in the industry for a long time knowing how many jobs for nurses, PTs, OT, speech language

    pathologists, CNAs, administrative staff, etc. could possibly be in that. So again, I'm not telling telling you it's wrong, but I would question it depending on how large that facility actually is. is and if it's a full SNF with an ALF or if it would just be an ALF or versus you know a SNF by itself. You know, that's those are things would have to come in the equation. But again, so again appreciate it. Not saying you're wrong, just saying I can't say this is a hundred percent accurate with not knowing that um that they

    answer those questions.

    Elise Batsell

    We actually uh do have at least an indication of the end user. And it is forty five thousand square feet of medical office, not office, which tip typically generates more jobs as well. Um and I'm happy to have Tim from Live Development come up and tell you at least what he can about the user that he's speaking to and I think he's pretty far along. If you think that would be helpful.

    Moore

    I don't I don't I think it would probably be better for ninety six than this, don't you? Mr Stock Snyder, I think that would probably pair well with ninety six versus versus uh

    Unidentified speakerVoice G

    Well if you're I mean if you're approving the comprehensive plan amendment and that and that this goes to whether or not That changes your opinion. I would I would hear the testimony. That's

    Moore

    fine, that's fine. I didn't know if we

    wanted

    to wait for ninety seconds. I don't find that.

    StarkeyChair

    Yeah, I guess because and I remember that this developer also builds didn't he s doesn't this developer also

    Elise Batsell

    do ALFs?

    StarkeyChair

    But

    Elise Batsell

    yeah, I I think maybe if you remember if you recall and Tim's gonna tell you a little bit more. He looked at the viability of an ALF. Yeah, because they could do that. They would do that. All right. Without all this. It's a good

    StarkeyChair

    word.

    Tim Mckeacher

    Uh good afternoon, Tim McKeetron with Live Development. Um, when we were before the board at the transmittal hearing, I went through the process of showing uh both the new development and the site plan and the viability of it today, but also going back on the history a little bit. About three years ago, we looked at this property specifically as an assisted living facility. We have a senior housing group here at Live. We went through the process of doing a viability study, market study. We found that there was was a number of other projects coming on that would provide too much supply. Then we faced the COVID pandemic

    and that was problematic for our development of this property as an ALF. Since we last met together uh and we had the successful vote on the transmittal hearing, we have gone out to the market to gauge interest on the medical office component. And we're happy to say there's been a lot of interest in that. Uh there was expressed interest from the board that there may be, you know, uh local use for this property. We have found that use. We found those users, and they're very interested in in finalizing our contract with them. Um I would I I'm under an interesting. So I can't state who it is, but it is a top five hospital

    group that is looking at the property to do a medical office in a standalone emergency room. So there's very significant use for this property, but it's all subject to us being successful in the comp plan and also the zoning.

    StarkeyChair

    Okay. Um all right, anybody else? Public comment. Uh yeah. Uh any public comment? Yeah, uh

    Moore

    That's it.

    Christy Zimmer

    Hi, Christy Zimmer. Do I need to give you my address? Yes you do. [address removed]. I'm opposed to this project because it is supposed to be an ALF or I LF, but the problem we're seeing is are there going to be any traffic improvements required on this project? Because when you're putting this kind of traffic out onto Henley Road or 54 without any infrastructure improvements, you're going to have some problems. I would ask that you at least please have them put in traffic control devices of some sort within that intersection if

    you do approve it.

    StarkeyChair

    Okay, so we'll hear if there's any um that is a red light already, right? There's no light. No, they I will

    Fitzpatrick

    be adding a light though.

    StarkeyChair

    Okay.

    Fitzpatrick

    And paying for it.

    Unidentified speakerVoice G

    And this is a comprehensive plan hearing. So that'll be addressed on

    StarkeyChair

    the and that's a condition of the MPD. Okay. Thank you. And uh Madam Chair, just to let you know, no one is on WebEx for this item.

    StarkeyChair

    Okay. I seeing that then it is to the board. Roll call vote.

    Fitzpatrick

    Motion to approve. Is it a

    StarkeyChair

    roll call? No. It is. Oh, it is a rolling

    call.

    Okay. Motion to approve and a second.

    StarkeyChair

    Okay. Roll call vote. District 1, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District 2, Commissioner Moore. Nay. District 4, Commissioner Fitzpatrick. Aye. District 5, Commissioner Mariano. Aye. District 3, Chairman Stork.