PDD-22-7585

Every appearance4 of 5 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. 79% of 609 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 5 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1. 1May 19, 2022
   Planning CommissionPC5Public hearingContinued

   Zoning Amendment (Continuance) (Consent) – Eagle II Industrial … on Approximately 321.13 Acres.

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue the item to the June 16, 2022 Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey with Mr. Girardi and Mr. Saez voting nay.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 33:11
   ▶ 33:111h 27m

   GreyChair

   33:11All right, I think we're back to five, right?

   Planning and Development staff

   33:34Hey good afternoon, William from Million Planning and Development. This is item P D D twenty two seven five A five Eagle Two Industrial E C M P D.

   33:44The subject site is south of State Road 52, half mile west of Bellamy Brothers. It's in the Central Pasco employment village. The current zoning district is A C To the north is A R, to the south is A C. To the west is A C and to the east is M Puty.

   34:05Uh the future land uses employment center to the north is Res 1, to the south is Res III. To the west is easy and to the east is easy. The proposed is a rezoning request from AC Agricultural to ECMP Employment Center Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the development of two million square feet of corporate business park, target business, light industrial uses, 300,000 square feet of support commercial office on approximately 321.13 acres. This

   34:36is the master plan.

   34:41The proposed development is currently within CPEV. The parcels are currently vacant being used for agricultural pursuits. Effective August 24, 2021, the landowners within this Eagle II EC MPUD entered into a certain exchange agreement, CPEV master plan land use designations for portions of SWOP and Cocholaxis East parcels, which is now recorded OR Book 10. Forty-two six, page four sixty one of public records, Pasco County, Florida.

   35:11The applicant is seeking the following variations from the LDC sections eight oh five point six nine o two point two M to allow industrial parcels under single ownership to maintain their stormwater ponds, wetlands, open space without having to plat them as separate tracks and convey them to a separate entity for the maintenance. All activity, maintenance, or restrictions in such areas shall be in accordance with the environmental resource permit. The proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County LDC Chapter four hundred, subsection four oh two point two zoning amendment, MPUD master plan unit development, and

   35:42within the applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan.

   35:49The P D D recommends approval to BCC with conditions. Thank

   GreyChair

   35:55you. All right. Thank you very much.

   35:58Appreciate it. I know.

   Saez

   36:04Hey Brad Tippin Play. I'm gonna thank uh William Vermillion. Uh those of you that have you've seen some of his work before come through on consent, but he hasn't had to present before and he got dropped this one was dropped in his lap last minute when uh Jessica left us, so he did a great job. But uh we're gonna be here collectively to answer any questions if you need it. And I think Cynthia Wants to speak a little bit on it. Just a little bit?

   GirardiVice Chair

   36:22She has fifteen minutes.

   Cynthia Speidel

   36:25Uh good afternoon, Cynthia Spidel, 401 East Jackson Street, Stearns Weaver, and I have been sworn. Just two minor cleanup items. Um we received an opposition letter uh in the middle of the night, so I'd like to make sure that some of our presentation time is allocated and allotted for rebuttal after the neighbor speaks. Um and then for the record, I'd like to um submit letters of support. From Keith Swope, Dale Swope, Gerald Delfino, and the Aprilis. So if I can enter those into the record.

   GreyChair

   36:54Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   36:57Motion to receive and file.

   GreyChair

   36:58Second. Favor? All right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   37:01All right.

   Cynthia Speidel

   37:09And is it okay to reserve some time for rebuttal? Mr. Chairman Mariano. Thank you. So again, my name is Cynthia Spidel. I'm an AI CP certified planner with 17 years, almost 17 years of experience in planning. My first day at Pasco County was May 31st, 2005. So we're gaining on that 17 years quickly. So our whole team is here today, either online or in person, from engineering planning. Jesse Eiserman from Stern's Weaver is here from me. For

   37:39land use. Mike Razor is our transportation engineer and an infirmary environmental webclock call, and I believe they are online virtually.

   GirardiVice Chair

   37:47So Cynthia, can I stop you for a second? Sure. Stop our time, please. Todd, we don't have what's being shown shown up here. Is there a way to at least get these T V screens oriented so that we can See them up here? Okay. Thank you.

   Cynthia Speidel

   38:04Yeah, that would help.

   38:08So the property is located on 321 acres, excuse me, on the south side of State Road 52, about a half a mile west of Bellamy and State Road 52, and it's located in the central Pasco Employment Village sub-area. The current future land use classification is thus employment center with sub-area policies, and the current zoning is AC, and the current use is vacant and agricultural. So there's a lot to digest here, so I'm just gonna try to keep it real big picture and just walk you through it step

   38:38by step. So the future land use is employment center with sub-area policies, and as I stated before, it's in the CPEV sub-area, so it falls under the sub-area policy flu 7.1.12. And as William pointed out, that was most recently amended in 2021. So those are our guiding policies that we that we used as guidelines to come up with the MPUD conditions of approval. And we are subject to the maximums within the sub-area policies. And

   39:09we did, as required by those revised sub-area policies, conduct a CPEV landowner meeting on November 8th, 2021.

   39:19Um let me just go back a second. If I hold on to the top. So this is where the this is where the parcel is. And it's also the same landowner as the one who came in with Eagle One, which is just to the east of the property.

   39:35So surrounding uses and zoning. So we are abutting and south of State Road 52. To the north, there's AC, AR, and AR5. To the south, we have AC and public lands. It's the Cypress Creek Wellhead. We are well aware of that, and we've incorporated that into the MPD conditions of approval. To the east, we have AC and Eagle One EC MPD, and to the west we have AC and Vacant. And I kind of sketched in the Um oh wait, here we go. I sketched in the um Swap MPUD, so you can see the relationship to Swope MPUD

   40:05that was most recently approved. It just doesn't show up on the GIS layers just yet because it probably has to become effective past the appeal period. So um this is the wellhead protection area. We are well aware that we're in the 10-year and the five-year protection zones and MPD condition number three addresses that we have to comply with the groundwater protection ordinance.

   40:30So we received an objection letter in the in the middle of the night. I'm going to try to preemptively address some of those concerns with the presentation. Um but long story short, you really need to look at Eagle One and Eagle Two together, collectively. And one of the things that came up with um Eagle One is this Eagle's nest here, which is shown right down here, which has sort of readjusted some of the lines. Amazon parcel is up here, and there's an MPUD

   41:00non-substantial modification on file with staff right now that sort of cleans up a lot of items and will clarify some of the things that are going on with ECMP Eagle 2. So we are asking for 2 million square feet of light industrial. We are asking for 300,000 square feet of commercial. That 300,000 square feet of commercial represents 15% of that two million. As a general rule of thumb, from when I worked at the county, as well as being back on the private side, that 15%

   41:31is below. Usually staff uses 20% as sort of the threshold. So we're below that sort of 20% policy guidance that has been used as a ballpark figure in the past. But when you look at Eagle One, together with Eagle Two, it's only 9%. And on file with the county right now is a non-substantial modification to Eagle One that basically releases the commercial entitlements that were previously allocated to Eagle One back into the pot, move some of the stuff over to Eagle Two. But collectively, we're really having 300,000 square

   42:01feet of support commercial for Um the one point two milyen square feet. Of in light industrial and eagle one and the two million here. So together it would be three point two million and then that Uh 300,000 of the 3.2 million is 9.3%. So we have two vi we have two vision roads that go through our parcel. We've got vision road S and Vision Road AC. So Vision Road AC is currently shown in a location where DOT is at 60% design for a flo

   42:31floodplain mitigation pond. So in order to ensure that the county is going to get Vision Road AC, we have our a different alignment right here. And depending on where the floodplain mitigation plan actually ends up going, either way, Pasco County is gonna get Vision Road AC, they're gonna get Vision Road S. Um, it's just you know where exactly is it gonna go? And we did write in the option to have both. uh roadways. So you might even get two ACs and along with the the Vision Road S. So this

   43:01is Vision Road S here and this is Vision Road AC here.

   43:08So we also added to the Eagle 2 EC MPD a condition that requires Vision Roadway S and AC to be constructed to serve adjacent development.

   43:20So moving on to the next slide. So this This one here shows we have a non-substantial modification on file for Eagle One that we're gonna work with staff and we're going to ensure that so that the board can see both of them together, we're going to have that as an attachment then to the Eagle Two ECM PD when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners next month. And here you can see that this Vision Roadway S then is aligned in a logical location that services both parcels. We're also going to

   43:50add a condition to Eagle One ECM PUD. Right now, Eagle One does not require, is not required to construct Vision Roadway S just to donate right away. But we talked to staff this morning extensively, and we will have the two MPs. duties match to ensure that this roadway is constructed to serve adjacent development. And as you can see, here's that eagle's nest right there. So again, it's 9.3% for both ECMPDs. It's a support commercial component. The

   44:20vision graphic, I just really want to highlight that the vision map, the vision highway map is the alignments are not set in stone. The alignments on the CPEV sub-area map were not set in stone. They are always just a guide for the future in terms of connectivity and ensuring that connectivity. And then there's a lot of engineering. engineering and environmental review that has to go through. So this is the the beginning of a long process where we go and then we engineer the site and and that road goes into an engineered location.

   44:49So then with that staff has found the application to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and recommends approval. We have letters of support from some of the landowners which we put into the record.

   45:03I'd like to reserve some of that time for rebuttal. And I'm happy to answer any questions. We did spend a lot of time with staff today. We have a methodology to address some of the questions that staff had and David had, and we're happy to work on all that between today and the Board of County Commissioners to make sure that everything's neat and clean. But the bottom line is we have a light industrial project. It's an employment center. We wanna we have people that are looking for large light industrial acreage tracks and we wanna help the county fulfill that vision and bring some jobs to Pasco County. And with that I'm

   45:33happy to answer any questions.

   GirardiVice Chair

   45:35Yeah, go ahead, David. So Cynthia, um When we spoke this morning, I think you said that you were willing to Add language to condition forty one. It's would say something to the effect that some of those commercial entitlements could be returned back to the s c overall CPEV pot if and when staff removes the cap on industrial entitlements Within C Penny for Pasco. Is that still something you're

   46:05willing to do?

   Cynthia Speidel

   46:06Yes, I spoke to the client after after you and I had that conversation and if we could get three million square feet of light industrial, then he would be willing to put two hundred thousand of that commercial back into the pot. So it would be three million light industrial and a hundred thousand square feet of commercial.

   GirardiVice Chair

   46:23So you then you'd be willing to add that language to condition forty one if two hundred thousand of it would go back into the overall pot i if staff is successfully gets the cap removed on. Or at least an additional million million of light industrial added to CPV.

   Cynthia Speidel

   46:42Yes.

   GirardiVice Chair

   46:43And so I guess a related question for staff is When are you anticipating Processing that amendment to Remove the cap on either remove the cap or significantly increase the amount of industrial and CPV?

   Unidentified speaker

   46:58Uh Amy Hiler Long Range Planning, we plan to get that started as soon as possible, aiming for a July LPA and then adoption in October.

   GirardiVice Chair

   47:08Okay. Um And then my that was my only question for you, Amy. But okay, so On the

   47:20The the Eagle One and Eagle Two it And you quickly went over that map, but Um The color version of it might be better. I don't know if there's an earlier version that's got colors on it. Let's go.

   Cynthia Speidel

   47:33I think I have I d in my backup slides I have some in there.

   47:38I gotta those are all the sub-area policies in case we wanted them. Sorry, I gotta scroll.

   GirardiVice Chair

   47:46Yeah.

   47:49And do you have sort of the before and after? Is there one that still shows the before and after?

   Cynthia Speidel

   47:54I don't know if I put it all on one slide. Nope, I did not.

   47:59Oh wait. wait, that was it, wasn't it? That's before

   GirardiVice Chair

   48:03this is

   Cynthia Speidel

   48:03the before

   GirardiVice Chair

   48:03condition. And then the next slide is the after condition, right?

   Cynthia Speidel

   48:08Correct.

   GirardiVice Chair

   48:09So I think part of the issue here is if you look at Eagle Two in isolation From the between the before condition and the after condition, it does look like An increase of retail land. Right. But it My understanding from our conversation this morning though is if you consider the changed eagle one that there isn't an increase in retail land. That if you if you eliminate the red out of Eagle One

   48:41Did your after condition either has equal to or less Red than the before condition. Is that accurate?

   Cynthia Speidel

   48:49Yes. Yeah, this is about thirty this year is about thirty-five acres, and then when we Uh This here is about thirty three acres together.

   GirardiVice Chair

   49:01So I think part of the and I read the objection letter. I think part of the confusion or concern is that that what's not before the Planning Commission today is the change to Eagle One and I'm not blaming anybody, but

   49:16the opposition and the Planning Commission would have no way of knowing that all that red is being removed from Eagle One and being moved over to Eagle Two. because the application to do that is not before the Planning Commission and nor was the nor were the injectors privy to it. So I think that's a good thing. That's part of the issue. So That's why I told Cynthia that this The Eagle One, even though it's a non substantial amendment, the Eagle One application to do that needs to be part of the record of Eagle Two,

   49:46otherwise nobody's gonna understand that that red area is being eliminated from Ingle One.

   Cynthia Speidel

   49:52Yeah, and we agree. And uh that's the reason why we filed the non-substantial non-substantial modification to Eagle One with this EC MPUD for Eagle Two so that we could clean them both up together. And we're happy to include that. We can work with staff to make sure that that non-substantial modification is attached as an agenda item, you know, attached as an exhibit to um Eagle Two when we go to the board next month.

   GirardiVice Chair

   50:16Okay, so my third question for you is about the road. Um So the road uh currently is shown along the southern boundary Of Eagle One and Eagle Two, correct? Yes. This

   Cynthia Speidel

   50:30is where it's currently shown, yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   50:32So If the road had been in that location, would your client have built it?

   Cynthia Speidel

   50:37No.

   GirardiVice Chair

   50:39So In the new location. Is your client going to build it?

   Cynthia Speidel

   50:43Yes.

   GirardiVice Chair

   50:45Okay.

   50:48And that's because it's more internal to the site. Correct.

   50:55All right, and then my last question for you is Part of the letter deals with an issue about the cutting of trees

   Cynthia Speidel

   51:04Yeah, I'm gonna have the uh the landowner speak to that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   51:07Okay.

   Cynthia Speidel

   51:10Uh it's up to you. I thought maybe we should save all that for rebuttal.

   GirardiVice Chair

   51:14We have the letter here, we might as well let him address it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   51:23George Southward, [address removed]. I have been sworn in. All right. I am cutting trees on the property. What I have done is I have sold seventy-two acres to Amazon or about seventy acres to Amazon. I have the other partial behind Amazon under contract. I'm effectively losing a hundred and forty acres of my cattle grazing land to industrial development that I certainly hope's gonna benefit the county and and myself also. There is approximately a hundred the

   51:54same amount of wooded area on the Coca-Lacas East property. Which is zoned agricultural and it's under an agricultural exemption. right now clearing that land. which costs about fifteen hundred dollars an acre, is far cheaper than my trying to purchase any land in this immediate vicinity to replace that grazing land. I have no guarantees that there's gonna be a a zoning approval and I have no guarantees that I'll ever sell this property. And

   52:24cows don't care about rezoning. All they care about is I need some grass to eat. So logging the timber off the property Yeah. Just a natural agricultural practice, and so is the clearing of the gland to make improved pasture for grazing. And that's what we're currently doing.

   GirardiVice Chair

   52:44So Mr Tippen I guess I'll ask you How does that work when they come in for site plan approval? Do they have to replace those trees or mitigate for them, or how does that work?

   Saez

   53:00So that's one of the things that that we have discussed uh and it depends on the uh ag exemption and the type of trees that are removed, uh but at time of preliminary plan uh we would identify if there is any mitigation that needs to occur.

   GirardiVice Chair

   53:16You breathe. It is possible they would have to mitigate Either replaced or mitigated for the trees that are taking down?

   Saez

   53:23It is possible depending on what is identified at the time of site plan.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   53:26I would say it would be absolutely highly unlikely. It's under complete and total agricultural exemption until the site plan is submitted. It will probably likely be years because this property is going to develop from east to west before the far western side of this property where I'm clearing is ever going to be under

   GirardiVice Chair

   53:46the I'm not asking about prior to you submitting a site plan approval. I'm asking Once you submit a site plan approval Is it possible that you'll have to replace or mitigate for those trees and the answer from staff is yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   54:00It's possible.

   GirardiVice Chair

   54:02Well I think that's what the code reads. That's how I read the code. Is it The second you submit a site plan approval, your ag exemption's gone.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   54:09That's correct. correct. Okay. So if there's any trees, okay. It's it is possible that we would have to mitigate for trees. And or add trees because of any tree ordinances that you might have at that time of site plan approval. That's correct. And right now, by the way, we've identified the wetlands, we've delineated them, we've had them adjudicated by Swift MUD and DEP both together, and we are not doing any tree removal in the wetlands with the exception of some select logging of large pine trees. that

   54:39are subject to beetle infestation and everything else when you cut other trees on the property. So We're not doing anything that's not in accordance with standard BMPs and normal agricultural exemption.

   GirardiVice Chair

   54:55I just wanted you to be clear and to hear it on the record that Even if you're operating under an ag exemption, doesn't mean that lives forever. When you go to develop it, the you may have to replace some of what was taken down. I I understand.

   GreyChair

   55:12Oh I I'm understanding that if the trees are gone, there's nothing to replace. Once you once you apply. Is that correct, Brad?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   55:25Well

   55:25that's

   GreyChair

   55:25my understanding also. I was asking Brad. Thank you.

   Saez

   55:30So yes, it depends on the the surveying that's done and what's identified, tree species and and different things of that nature. There are certain types of trees that are allowed to be removed under various circumstances that would not need mitigation. So there's a lot of different factors. That's what we do at the time of survey at the site plan.

   GreyChair

   55:49But when you do the survey you're g surveying the trees that are still there, that will be taken out. not the trees that have already been taken out. Correct. I understand that pine trees are considered a crop. So you you can take down pine trees. But they're also Lots of You know, period oaks and things like that that Can't be taken down without mitigating them. But if they're gone They're

   56:19gone. You know, you can't mitigate something that's not there. Just wanna make sure everybody understands that

   Chris Williams

   56:26Well I guess I need clarification, Mr. Chairman, between what David's saying and what you're saying now. So has the site plan been the site plan hasn't been submitted yet? No. then yeah, or th how would those trees get mitigated for? So that's where I'm confused either David or Mr. Chairman.

   GreyChair

   56:48Pardon me.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   56:48Good afternoon. May I be recognized.

   GreyChair

   56:50Yes, ma'am. Uh

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   56:51my name's Jessica Eisterman. I'm a land use attorney with Stearns Weaver Miller representing the applicant today. Um the applicant intends to comply with the tree ordinances as they exist today or as they're amended. With respect to the current tree clearing, there is a valid ag exemption applicable to the property, so no laws have been violated to that effect, and it is not applicable to the application before us today.

   GreyChair

   57:17We aren't saying that he's violated anything right now. But we're what we're trying to do is explain what the ramifications will be later on. So I think what you're speaking to is Totally off base of what we're talking

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   57:30Well he intends to fully comply with your specific.

   GirardiVice Chair

   57:37plan. The issue that I think the Chair and Brad are talking about is how does staff do the surveys Once they come in. Um I don't know if staff has the ability to When those surveys are done, take into account prior removals or not because there could be New growth at that point, there could be I don't know how staff is a little bit more. determines what was or was not there When they're doing their tree surveys.

   Saez

   58:09So we we typically wouldn't. We can do uh this this commission can can make a request uh that that survey be done now at this point. Um we can do that as a a form of um a sampling where you take a certain amount uh that's typical of the acreage, so you don't have to actually survey the entire site. which would not be cost effective realistically. But you can do a sampling of it to identify that and

   58:39that can that number can be used for mitigation purposes when it comes time to site plan if if that's something that that you wish to impose.

   GreyChair

   58:48All right, Brad. Thank you. Thank you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   58:53Okay. I think that was all my questions, Mr. Chairman Mariano.

   Cynthia Speidel

   59:00I don't have anything else unless you need me to answer anything else.

   GreyChair

   59:03Uh no, well let's see what the what the objectors have and then we'll give you some time to respond.

   59:11All right, is there anyone here to object or speak speak about this project?

   Chris Williams

   59:16Mm-hmm.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   59:28Daniel Bergen, Civil On Demand, 3802, Earlick Road, Suite 312. Here representing D D Ranch of Pasco County. Of Pasco, sorry. They are the Uh adjacent landowner immediately to the west of Eagle Two. So sorry, I'll back up. Yeah. So if you're looking at this map that's um that's available that's on the screen here, they would be on the left side of the screen where you see the uh tan high density residential support

   59:59commercial and industrial uh land uses that are comprised of that parcel. Uh I apologize about the Um the middle of the night uh objection letter We were uh provided or you know, I was provided the conditions um from staff on Monday. So we needed a day uh and a half to to try to get get our mind wrapped around What we find as a um a troubling

   1:00:29approval Um so I'm gonna just briefly kinda talk through is um has everyone been privileged to the letter of objection that we Uh sent in. Okay. So I think it was

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:00:42distributed to the entire planning commission, but if you want us to receive and file it for the record, we can that

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:00:48No we're we're fine. It's So as we identified currently, or what was identified uh previously was that Eagle 2 seeking 300,000 square foot of commercial use. As um Mr. Goldstein had said, uh, when you look at what was initially under current entitlements approved, Eagle 2 has 10.4 acres of support commercial. Um If you were to do the equitable density that should be awarded equal to based

   1:01:18on the density that's allowed within the CPEV, uh they are much higher than what they should be given. Um so there's nine hundred and fifty thousand uh square feet of support commercial that is permitted within the entire CPEV. If you were to uh find out what or if you were to calculate the equitable density per acre, that amounts to approximately six thousand two hundred and nineteen. uh square feet per

   1:01:48acre of commercial use. Our position here isn't that we oppose people seeking approval for their to the entitle their properties, what we seek is equitable approval. And what is equitable is an equal distribution on an upland developable acre of support commercial or any other entitlement within the CPEV that is distributed amongst all owners. So um as the applicants uh representative was saying they used,

   1:02:18I believe it was fourteen or fifteen percent based on an acreage that we weren't sure where they came up with. That's just not Not equitable. So what we're trying to um determine here is You know, what is the equitable acreage that is allowed amongst all owners within the CPEV and that all applications that come before yourselves and the Board of County Commissioners are in line with exactly that. So

   1:02:49this application does not meet that standard. It's above that. And that's what this letter identifies. Even then, if they were to transfer the entitlements from Eagle One as hasn't been exactly filed yet, which is somewhat uh the car you know, ahead of the horse. Um and they were to go along with the thirty-three point seven acres that they um intend to seek uh they would have five hundred thousand square feet of commercial a of support

   1:03:19commercial amongst thirty three point seven acres Which is the right-of-way. They would have over fifty percent of the support commercial. entitlements. in approximately a quarter of the overall support commercial. and they would be extremely unbalanced. And

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:03:39that would be Can I stop you for a second? Because I'm not sure that last fact you said is accurate. My understanding and I Realize there's confusion 'cause we don't have the Eagle One application in front of us. Correct. But my understanding is they're eliminating commercial entirely in Eagle One. And that the only thing they're seeking in Regal Two is three hundred thousand, not five is that correct? Okay, so They're not seeking five hundred thousand in Eagle Two. They're seeking three hundred thousand And they're proposing to eliminate what's in Eagle One

   1:04:09entirely. So Eagle One has two hundred thousand split. And they're and I realize there's confusion. I d I don't blame you for being confused. I was confused until it was explained to me. But They are There's a non substantial amendment in Again, not approved yep in the pipeline. They would eliminate the All commercial entitlements from Eagle One. So that the only commercial that Eagle One and Eagle Two would have would be three hundred thousand, not five hundred thousand.

   1:04:38I just want to make sure you

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:04:39I I understand that, but even at that number, David, It's unbalanced. I

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:04:46understand, but I just want to make sure we are operating under correct facts. I don't want you to think it was five hundred thousand when it's not. Okay. Well we'll

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:04:52have to see when it

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:04:52when the when it's filed, because we don't know at this point in time, right? Yeah. So I understand the confusion again because I was confused too. to stand up here saying it was five hundred when I know it's not. So go ahead and you can continue.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:05:07W if this does get amended. or Eagle One is filed that when they apply for when they adjust their numbers for Eagle Two, which is what we're hoping for. for, that it's based on an equitable distribution of the support commercial square.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:05:22So while we're on the topic, The applicant said they would commit to return two hundred thousand of the three hundred thousand back into the C P V pot. assuming staff re removes the cap on industrial. If that were to happen, would that address your concern or not?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:05:41I would have to calculate what that how that hundred thousand square feet relates to the total support commercial acreage that is then on eagle two.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:05:50So I think it would still be the thirty three acres So it would be a hundred thousand on thirty-three acres.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:05:59Well if that's in line with Six thousand. Two hundred and nineteen square feet. Per acre, which is what's permitted through the

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:06:08I'm not good at math, so I

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:06:10don't know

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:06:10whether that is or not.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:06:11A hundred thousand square feet's gonna be about a little over two acres, so So uh if you give me a second I could get a calculator real quick and check it. It's

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:06:21a what was it? I mean

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:06:24currently right now that's not what we're we're dealing with, which is why we're we're here in objection because the the application the petitions unclear as to what their intent is in the current application that we're understanding is these numbers

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:06:41He was preaching to the choir, I was confused too, until this morning. And when I realized they were giving up their entitlements in Eagle One. Then I also asked them are they willing to c Return some of the Eagle two, three hundred thousand into the pot, If you're not going to be able to We removed the cap on industrial and the answer I got was yes, two hundred thousand of it. So I think you can assume I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the board will approve the removal of the cap on industrial because our

   1:07:11board told staff to do it. I mean This wasn't d discretionary. They were staff was directed to do this.

   Chris Williams

   1:07:17Sure.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:07:18So I feel fairly safe in knowing the board's going to Make that happen. So I my real question is if they only end up with a hundred thousand in Eagle Two, and nothing in Eagle One, Does that address your concern, at least on the entitlement issue? It's gonna be close,

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:07:35but it it It Again, I mean it's that that seems if it's six roughly sixty three hundred square feet per acre. Um Times thirty three. You're at about two hundred thousand. Yeah, so that would be a That's that's that's in line.

   1:07:56if um if there was somewhere in that in that range.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:07:59Okay. Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:08:00I

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:08:00mean

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:08:00that up again, but it we'd have to see the plan to to make sure that What what's being proposed is actually executed.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:08:06I I understand and I understand the Eagle One application is not in front of us and that confuses things, but Nor is the condition that we talked about in there now. But I'm I'm asking if You had an Eagle One application in front of you that had zero commercial and there was a condition on Eagle Two that returned two hundred thousand to the pot once the board approves the Plan use change. Does that address your concern? It sounds like the answer is yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:08:33If there was we would be satisfied if there were two hundred and seven thousand square feet, they would be allowed up to 207,000 square feet of support commercial. within Eagle Two.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:08:46Okay, but they're actually proposing even less than that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:08:49Then then

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:08:49it would address

   1:08:50it.

   1:08:50They're proposing a hundred thousand after they return two hundred thousand to the pot.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:08:54Yeah, so as long as they're you know as long as the application If they if they were under two hundred and seven thousand square feet, they could get more It would and they were at thirty three

   1:09:07Yeah I want

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:09:08to be clear. I think they're seeking approval for three hundred, but they're Willing to commit to a condition that Returns two hundred of that

   1:09:17Once the land use change takes effect.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:09:19Yeah, if we saw that condition And then they they complied with another of the policies that that showed the net exchange between the the parcels and then what was remaining in the C P E V that that was memorialized as part of Of the conditions of approval. then we would be in support as long as long as we're in line with what you're saying. But we would have to see it

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:09:42I understand that none of it's there now. I'm just asking if all that was there, would you be okay, at least on the entitlement issue? Uh if yes.

   1:09:52All right. You can finish now. I believe. Okay. I I

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:09:54this is I know you and I are struggling with this, but because we're we're basing it off of something that has yet to have happened. Um again, you know there's um based on some of these.

   GreyChair

   1:10:06interrupt you a little bit because we've gone over the time substantially. But I want to make sure that we uh allow you the proper amount of time and I'm gonna allow the the uh other party they have extra time too if they need

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:10:19it. So

   GreyChair

   1:10:19sure

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:10:19thank you. I'll I'll try to be brief because I we talked about some of these through Dave and I'm not sure.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:10:26I don't know why who's keeping track of time,

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:10:28but

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:10:29but

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:10:30I'll I'll practice brevity. Uh again we have um Yeah, multiple land use exchanges between multiple parcels that are contemplated as part of this application. Um that seem and it have not been justified through the CPEV with respect to multiple policies, specific specifically policy eight. That all need to be to show to be shown and supported. These applications, if there are land use exchanges, need to go through

   1:11:00the proper processes before they're included as part of Eagle Two, which if Eagle Two is contemplated on these non-substantial applications being processed with land use exchanges between other owners and the CPEV, those should be executed either concurrently or before we get to this stage or bef even before the or or approved before this application is brought in front of the uh commission. Um so we're trying to hypothesize what the applicant is wanting

   1:11:30to do um but as yet it filed. So we we object to the to the application on on that point. which discusses, you know, multiple conditions of condition forty and forty one um under policy eight. As well as um the entitlements concerns that we were having struggle with. But If we If we go into the uh master plan here, we discussed this vision road, which um When we did

   1:12:01our initial neighborhood meeting The vision road was shown along the southern portion of Eagle Two. and then would kind of head out on a on a north northwesterly fashion through D and D Ranch. Um this new plan which we have just been privileged to uh shows the Vision Road bifurcating the Eagle Two property. and then uh doing an interconnection with D and D Ranch, uh

   1:12:31right there adjacent to some environmentally sensitive areas, and then meandering where it back to the south where it joins and it crosses that wetland area. Are you all able to follow that? Um That was a that was unilaterally adjusted by the applicant. At no point in time was um DD Ranch consulted about the relocation of this vision road. Uh we haven't had a opportunity to vet the location of the Vision Road. I feel that It might be beneficial to them, but we haven't

   1:13:01had a chance to tell you if it's beneficial to us. Um and we can immediately tell you that based on the new location of this road, what you can see would be upland high density residential areas that are almost undevelopable um based on their location. So we feel that this was somewhat of an egregious um assumption that was made on behalf of the applicant without consulting uh D Ranch and making this adjustment. So

   1:13:32if this is part of the record, you know, we staunchly object. to the location of the Vision Road. And you know, request that we have app you know ample time to vet it and discuss it with the applicant before it's approved. Which is a major concern of ours. Um

   1:13:52Lastly, uh there we had mentioned some of the environmental impacts that have occurred on the property. This is a concern of the owner. Um, as I understand it. The uh are we able to Zoom to it. Is there an aerial that we can pull up for the property? William, did you have an is there an aerial In your presentation.

   Denise

   1:14:13Um I think Patty could have deserved their fourth you want to let me pretty

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:14:20Haskell Mapper's fine.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:14:23She's

   1:14:28Sure. Right. We have an aerial here we could

   Denise

   1:14:34say.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:14:39So we understand that the property is is under an agricultural exemption currently. However, um The trees that were removed were located within the former location of the Vision Road. which was on the southern boundary of the property. So if you were to zoom in where it says service road, Um if you follow that southern boundary Heading east west, Those w that's

   1:15:10where the trees were removed. So it's it's kind of hard to understand um the applicant's justification for increase pasture space when the trees were removed, which would have been uh county right-of-way. based on the initial vision plan that we've all been working off of, or the initial location Um for the vision road that we've been operating off of. So the open pasture still exists, but the the trees to the south along the southern boundary

   1:15:40which would have had to have been mitigated for as part of the development of the property Um which is specified in the uh ordinances. Or have been removed. So you we are um We uh object to that and you feel that the county should Should consider that as part of the application. Um and then Andy, would you like to speak?

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   1:16:12Good afternoon. Andy Joe Scaglione. I've been sworn in. Um uh a a lot of this uh m actually most of this information was not submitted with the application and that's why it's it's such a mess. Um I feel like it hasn't been very transparent, actually it's been misleading. Um uh at the neighborhood meeting this was not all all this uh um information regarding Uh Eagle One was never even discussed or even brought up. Um I

   1:16:43will um in all fairness to um uh uh Mr. V uh Vermillen got this thrown on his desk uh a month and two days ago. and it's taken me over ten years to figure this out. It's very complicated, so Thank you for your service, uh Marine. And um And and I just wanna say it's not fair it wasn't fair to him to be throwing this a month a month ago. Um so If I can't understand it and I've been involved in this because it wasn't in the

   1:17:13application, wasn't a neighborhood meeting Um I will um I we've asked for uh March one we sent a letter for uh clarification. We never received a spawn response. We received actually a response on the twenty third. saying that that they just found our email and they would and and if we would n if we still need the information we said we did We never got a response um and that's been over two months as of today. Um since th that response. The um I

   1:17:43will um The trees, I mean, uh uh you know. This is a land speculation deal. This isn't a cattle. issue regarding taking out all these these are code enforcement counted so far over a hundred trees back in February, oak trees over five inches. Um It is unbelievable what Uh uh we're supposed to be a steward of the land, not not do it w do what Mr. Southward has done. Um And um In summary, Um

   1:18:15I'd I'd like to repeat what Mr. Garardi said uh a month ago. that that at the end of the day When uh myself and and some other uh uh owners go in that bucket that there's something left in there and it's just not empty by pr uh property owners coming in now and grabbing everything. And uh I'd like to ask for a continuance because all this information was not in the application and and And that we um kind of work this out with the road and some of these other issues and have a clear

   1:18:45understanding uh before this goes forward. So thank you very much for your time and thank you for volunteering all your time.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:18:52Thank

   1:18:52you.

   1:18:52Can I ask them one question?

   Chris Williams

   1:18:54Do you want to go for Chris? My my question just is when when did you see the change in the vision road?

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   1:19:01This was um actually this report was sent to us on Monday. Was it Monday?

   Chris Williams

   1:19:06Monda Monday. The first time you saw that that changed was Monday. Okay. So

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:19:12the county, not through the applicant.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:19:14So can I have one more question? Shall

   1:19:16we

   1:19:16can we put the graphic back up that had the Business Rhodana.

   Chris Williams

   1:19:21Yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:19:35So I preferred the color one better, but I can live with this one I guess. Uh Um I guess my question is because the applicant is saying that if the vision road had stayed on the southern boundary They wouldn't have built it at all and I read the conditions and there probably wasn't any requirement for them to build it at all. if it had stayed on the southern boundary. So

   1:19:59It seems to me that there might be some benefit to you to have the road constructed to your eastern property line versus just a line on a map. I mean 'cause it gives you an additional access to your property that wouldn't exist if it was on the southern Boundary.

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   1:20:20I mean this was this was done uh we got this on Monday I mean we haven't had really I mean how do you I mean this is a big deal um going over my family's property. And um I don't think we've been given enough time to even

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:20:34I I agree that you need some time to look at it. I'm just saying that you may want to consider whether

   1:20:41There is some benefit to having a road another access to your property from the east Because the way I look at your property and again the color map is better, it almost that part almost seems landlocked. Because there's a big wetland system that kinda goes through the middle of your property

   1:21:01Is that part of your property seems somewhat landlocked? That yeah. So Because of that big green system, I don't know what that is, but it's probably some That's a creek. Okay. So The eastern side of your proper side of your property seems somewhat landlocked. unless there's a road that goes out to the east And what the applicant is saying is that by moving it they're going to build you a road. Going out. To the east. if they had stayed on the southern boundary, they wouldn't have built

   1:21:31it at all. So

   1:21:37it's your call, but I'm just saying I'm looking at it and thinking that road may actually Benefit you more than hurt you. Again, now there may be a way to orient the alignment a little better so you doesn't take out s so much it doesn't leave you with a piece of land that's totally undevelopable, but Aga I think the road in general would be better for you if it's built versus not built.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:22:01So David, I I I I guess I'm confused because when I read through the conditions the policies and the future land use uh for the C P E V You know, it says specifically here that it's an interconnected community. uh between parcels. So to to say that the road the east west vision road would not be constructed

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:22:26Well, I can tell you I read the Eagle One conditions, and maybe staff missed something, I don't know, but I'm just telling you, if you read the Eagle One Eagle One conditions, There is no requirement for them to build that east west road. Maybe an Eagle One, but it should be an Eagle Two. But where is it gonna go? I mean it's if it's not an eagle one, it's it's be it would be The the problem is is that generally the county Now if it was a mobility fee credit deal that would be different, but we generally only make them build roads that are needed to serve their development. If

   1:22:56it is on the southern boundary, I am not sure it is ever going to be needed to serve their development. If it is in the middle of their project, there's a better argument for the county that it's needed to serve their development, therefore the should have to construct it. Well if we

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:23:10When we objected to this, it was the objection was based on the proposed location and the lack of um knowledge that they were going to be relocating it. So we would like the opportunity to at least sit with that. I don't I don't just

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:23:25I don't disagree with you that maybe there was a lack of communication about the relocation. I I'll be honest with you, I didn't even see a good m a good map uh showing the relocation until this morning. So I get your point. I'm only saying once you get past that issue that nobody communicated with you You may want to consider whether there's a benefit to having that road relocated because If it stays on the southern boundary, I don't I don't being honest with you, I don't think it's going to get constructed. Brad's

   1:23:57gonna have a hard time making them construct it by saying it's needed to serve their development because It's on the southern boundary. They can build all their access off of fifty two and not even need it. So by moving it to the middle of their project Now Brad does have a tool to say you need this road for your development They're volun they're saying they will in fact construct the road if it's in the middle of the project. I'm looking at the map that seems like that's a benefit to you. to have an eastern connection to your property that you don't have

   1:24:27now. Yeah. All that said, there may be a way to have it connected a spot that that is is more beneficial to you and I think you should work with the applicant To maybe figure that out. I'm just saying I don't know that it's in your best interest to insist that it stay on the southern boundary. That's my point.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:24:47We're not insisting that it stays on the southern boundary. Okay. What we are is we would like an opportunity to to to discuss this before it's up for approval.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:24:54But I

   1:24:54mean

   1:24:54I looking at the new alignment, I c I see your point, but there may be a way that they can kinda

   1:25:01Veer the road a little bit north and then have it come down as your property at an angle so it doesn't take up you know, it leaves you with more developable piece, but that's something you can work out with the applicant. Correct. Um but I di I did say and I don't think it's in your best interest to continue to assert that it should stay on the southern boundary. Because then honestly Brad's not gonna be able to make them build it. And then you'll have a l you'll have a line on a map that go that doesn't help you anything with anything. The county might build it twenty years from now, but it wouldn't it

   1:25:31wouldn't be a good thing. Is that gonna help you market your property?

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   1:25:35I understand what you're saying. I'm real reasonable. Um and and I'm open to it. Again Um uh this was all new information and and I'm asking for a continuance to be able to get with the applicant to go over all these issues because um this was not at the neighborhood meeting and neither was it in the application. So um And and I have um um Uh Matt Maggard, my attorney, he's on on he's him and his family got uh are under the weather.

   1:26:06So if if there's any questions of uh Mr. Maggart, he's on also Does he Want to say

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:26:10something or just he's

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   1:26:11available for

   1:26:12the right-of-way.

   1:26:15But anyway, thank you very much for all the time you all spent away from your time in families and and Um I again we just asked for continuance to get some of these new items that came upon us to discuss them and um and go from there. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you.

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:26:34Good afternoon, Cynthia Speidel, 401 East Jackson Street Stearns Weaver again. Um, I'd like to enter into the record the November 8th, 2021 Landowner Meeting Summary. It is part of the application because we uploaded it in response to the response for additional information by staff. Um, but it does go over, it has a meeting summary of what we discussed on November 8th, 2021, and then I'll show you the map that was presented. at that meeting but I'd like to have a motion to receive Motion to receive and file.

   GreyChair

   1:27:04Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:27:07Aye.

   1:27:14So as you know, um the purpose of the landowner meeting is to present the MPD master plan to the other landowners in the CPEV. And I'm just gonna go back a couple to the And uh as can be shown from the meeting summary, which is part of the application on file um with the county. This is the map we showed. The CPEV sub-area map that the applicant seems to think sets the alignment doesn't actually really set any alignments. It just shows

   1:27:44connectivity. It's a sub-area map. We were not at the landowner meeting. We're not required to hold the landowner meeting to discuss changes to the CPEV sub-area map. The landowner meeting is required to talk about the MPUD. This is the map we had on a big placard. We had extra handouts. This is the map that we had at that meeting that shows Vision Roadway S going through the middle of the property. So I'd just like to correct for the record that it's just not true that we did not that we withheld this alignment. We should

   1:28:14we that was the whole purpose of the meeting was to show them our plan and we did that. So the other comment was with regard to the support commercial. And as we've stated for the record, we're we're willing to add the conditions that as soon as staff can process the Complant Amendment to release the caps, we're happy to increase the industrial and return the 200,000 square feet of entitlements back into the pot. I think the applicant's a little the yeah opposition, I'm the applicant. The opposition's a little confused between

   1:28:44the terminology land use the he and the opposition led he talks about the land use exchange mechanism. That's we're not requesting a land use exchange mechanism. The land use exchange mechanism is like a trade-off matrix. Well actually we do have a loom as part of the ECMPUD, but he's saying that this conversion from yellow to red is a land use exchange and it's it's just not. So um and then the vision road we covered. Um and so with that if you have any other questions I'm happy to answer.

   1:29:15Mhm.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:29:16I think their main objection, if we could again go back to the color map, um

   1:29:23Is it the way it's oriented

   1:29:32Maybe I'll guess I can live with this one. Um I think Their c their concern is that the way it's kind of shown once it leaves your property it leaves them with a piece of upland north of the Vision Road that may not be that usable. So I guess the question is is there a way that you can have Division Road on your property sort of Start to Veer more to the south. So that it leaves. them with a more developable

   1:30:03upland piece north of the Vision Road.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:30:05In our preliminary engineering studies, David, we're probably going to actually curve the road up more and hug the ex the southern boundary of the Let's say conservation area where we're planning on doing on-site mitigation for wetlands around the existing wetlands. And that road will actually probably curve and and exit right about where Cynthia's arrow is, which is above where it is now. Now what they choose to do

   1:30:35with it when it's on their property From that point. We've provided the connectivity. They can swing the road and hug their line. They could they could actually put a stop sign there and go straight straight south.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:30:53We're

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:30:53never going to work out a connection point with Andy Scaglione. It won't ever happen.

   GreyChair

   1:30:59I don't think that's necessary. Oh okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:31:04Based on what they're telling us, it sounds like they're willing to work with you. I'm just saying I think there's a way to either have the road go your your side of the road go farther north so it like you said it hugs the wetlands so that then when they bring it down it can hug the wetland too and not give the leave them with a sort of remainder piece that isn't y unusable.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:31:23I understand his argument and I and I think that those roads are just preliminary conceptual ideas that will take place Yeah.

   1:31:34You know, the first customer that comes in and wants to buy a a lot is gonna start to define it. The next one we can

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:31:41make. I get you I get your point, but th the issue is once it's shown on your M PD plan in this location, staff's gonna kind of assume that that is the location And so If there's a way to work this out now where you either move it. farther north or farther south so he's not left with a unusable piece I think this could be w I mean 'cause it sounds like the entitlement issue he's fine with is l based on the condition we talked about.

   1:32:09You know, the the tree issue we may be able to resolve by the tree survey requirement So we're down to this one issue which is

   1:32:19Aligned so it's not adversely impacting them.

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:32:22So David, the conditions currently state that the roads shown on the MPD master plan are conceptual and will be finalized at site plan. So I mean I certainly would be open to expanding that to say that you know it will move north, but we don't we haven't engineered the site fully yet. So you know I'm I'm a little reluctant to nail down. That's the reason why these road ways go through this concept planning phase and then they get engineered and then they get finalized down the road. So You know, we do have the I think the the

   1:32:52wetland portion uh has been completed, but we have not fully engineered the site yet. So the I don't remember

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:32:57does is our standard condition that says you'll coordinate with the adjacent landowner?

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:33:02For the connection point? Yeah, we can we could add that at the time of site plan.

   1:33:09William,

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:33:10is it in there? Do you remember?

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:33:11No, No, we can we can add that. So what we did for Eagle One was we said that wherever Eagle One goes, and then Coca-La was Coca-Laca's east at that time, would have to meet that, but then he purchased it. So now it's so now the Eagle One, Eagle Two alignment is up to is up to George. But we're happy to say kind of something similar then for the other side now as as the uh development moves west. That at the time a site plan will coordinate the connection point with the adjacent landowner.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:33:39Because yeah, that's allowed in the conditions of

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:33:41it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:33:42One other point I'd like to make is that we submitted our Eagle One minor MPUD. Two months ago. This is not something that's it's been public record for two months. It's not something that was hidden and it's not something that we're proposing to do after the fact. It's something we've voluntarily given up the support commercial. Correct. And we have volunteered to build the road and move the road. to the southern boundary of Amazon, which

   1:34:12creates a far more usable location for the road for us. And for future other landowners and it gets the road constructed for you. And these are all voluntary actions that have been public record. No one should have been surprised if if Missed the object. There has a civil engineer, all of the money. All the

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:34:33files are in Excel. And also staff did, in all fairness to William, I know he only picked it up last, but Jessica did put us through the ringer and we did several responses for additional information. And the Eagle One non-substantial modification, uh the revised maps, the sub-area maps, all these maps, the vision road maps, all these maps were all part of those responses for additional information. So that's That's how we got to this point. So it is part of the application and it's all in a cella.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:35:01Okay, so there is a standard condition, but I'm not sure it's gonna help them much because it says If the property to eastern west has an approved PDP, I don't think he's gonna have an approved PDP. By the time you I think

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:35:14what we can say is that the l the roadways are conceptual and at the time a PDP will have to coordinate with the landowner to finalize that connection point.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:35:24Yeah, I think you need to expand on the condition that talks about The the alignment of those roadways

   1:35:31Um

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:35:33Yeah again, I don't think we need a continuance for that. I think we can wrap that up between now and

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:35:38board.

   1:35:41It requires you to coordinate with the landowner

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:35:43before

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:35:43studying the

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:35:45other MPDs I could use.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:35:56So it's really up to the Planning Commission how you want to handle this, but it sounds like if you want to proceed forward today, you would need to add Language to condition twenty one dealing with the Coordinating with the property owner to the west about the alignment of Vision Road S. And you would have to add Language to condition

   1:36:19Forty one about returning two hundred thousand square feet of support commercial back to the general land use general C P V entitlements once the the board approves the Removal of the cap on the industrial And then it would be up to the Planning Commission if he wanted to impose an additional condition requiring a tree survey within some period of time after the M P D approval as opposed to Waiting. Is that that's what you're basically talking about, Brad? It would be a good idea. Say within six months of the um P D or thirty

   1:36:49I mean

   Saez

   1:36:49Yeah, you could you can set it at uh you know prior to the first P D P on the site, there would be a tree survey required.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:36:56Well but I think but I think your concern though, Brad, was that if

   Saez

   1:37:04Potentially, yes. You can you can't mitigate that. That's that's something we would generally do, but we can we can s make it

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:37:10a

   Saez

   1:37:10different timeline.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:37:11But if if if this planning commission imposed a requirement that the survey be done But then say thirty to thirty to sixty days after the MPD approval, then you would have a sir m a survey now, right?

   Saez

   1:37:24We would have a survey. Uh I think the the issue is we w Yeah, we could we can do that. We would need to just file it with this M PUD in the Acello file so we can pull it up later um as a follow-up to this MPUD. But you can you can certainly do it that way. I would also uh state that uh you would need to probably add that it's not the the standard tree survey because of the size of the property, that it they can do a sample. based on the sampling criteria that

   1:37:54we use elsewhere for these types of surveys.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:37:58Okay. I think if you wanted to proceed forward today you're looking at two or three conditions that would need to be added, but it's really up to the Planning Commission about how you want to handle the application.

   Christopher Poole

   1:38:13Or or the next Newport Ritchie meeting?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:38:16Uh William, you know what the

   Saez

   1:38:19Yes, it's it's six six twenty-one is is the date and just uh also a a continuance here would probably throw off the timing uh of that and with the July Uh there's only one board hearing in July. Uh it could push it further back, uh depending on how the timing works out. So just keep that in mind as well.

   GreyChair

   1:38:42Well personally I think we're it seems to me like this is being piecemealed and not very cohesive and not being Uh you know, there's a lot of Parts to this thing that have not been fully vetted and discussed, I I feel uncomfortable with it. And you're talking about Voting on an ifs and buts if the county does this then the Applicant will do that. I it's just To me it doesn't make any sense. To to try to Put

   1:39:13this puzzle together today.

   Christopher Poole

   1:39:16I I share your concern, Mr Mr. Chairman Mariano make a a motion to continue it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:39:22All right. Can I just make one clarification comment? Yes, sir. Rajon. I mean the applicant has a concern with continuance. I don't necessarily necessarily have a current concern with the continuance to sort of work out the conditions. However If you want us to continue it until the county takes that action that would be a very long continuance because what what we just heard is that it could be Summer, fall before October. October before were able

   1:39:53to remove this cap on the industrial so We need I think we need to be clear about why we're continuing. If if the continuing is to get the Eagle One application before you to work out the conditions, to let the landowners try to figure out maybe some better alignment of the of the vision road. that probably can be accomplished fairly quickly. But if w if you're wanting to wait till October that's a different Discussion.

   Saez

   1:40:20And and to be clear when when this was changed from uh CPEV a while back was changed originally it was intended as one large MPUD over the entirety of it. When when the decision was made to allow multiple MPUDs to come in independently Uh it kind of created the situation where you're never really going to have the complete picture at one time. We have to work with the information we have and and build off of each piece. So uh I don't know that you'll have the level of clarity that you want by waiting too long. Uh like David said, you can certainly

   GreyChair

   1:40:50my biggest concern is that there's a promise to do something if something else happens. You know, that's doesn't that wouldn't give me a lot of comfort.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:41:00Well no, I think I would say though in response is to fairness of the applicant is that's not in the applicant's control. I mean the If you want I can yell at planning for taking too long to do it, but the board told staff to do this. I mean uh I don't want to underestimate the the board already directed staff to remove this cap on industrial and CPV. One could argue staff should have already taken it to the board. Okay. And that they're slow. Okay, but if you want me to yell at staff, I'll do that. But That's not the applicant's fault. Did

   1:41:32the that staff is not done with the board direct that I can pull pull the tape for you Our board was very clear that they wanted the cap on industrial and CPV removed. And so I'm not sure you wanna hold up an industrial project because our staff has failed to do that. I would like to I'm just being trying to

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:41:52I would like to make a comment based on the Honestly we need industrial parks in this town more than anything. More than any type of construction that we have right now. hold this for a long time, in my opinion, is not the way. I think we need to approve these qu conditions today to keep this moving. That is my position.

   GreyChair

   1:42:12Well I'm thinking that I'm not talking about necessarily Delaying it until October, I think. the owner of the adjoining property. hasn't had enough time to review What this application li the vision road, the that the you know, the turn back of the two hundred thousand square feet. I think all there s needs to be at least a meeting in the minds. And if you and if you David, if you say that The county had g has given directive to r return two hundred thousand square feet. I

   1:42:42I'm okay with that, you know, as long as you feel comfortable with it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:42:46But to be clear, the condition would say they have to return two hundred thousand once the board Removes the cap. What I'm saying is the Board of County Commissioners has already told the planning department to remove the cap. The fact that it hasn't been done is I'm just being honest with you is not the applicant's fault. It's it's our staff hasn't done it. I mean I'm just being honest with you. Yeah, and now they're overloaded. I'm not they've got a lot going on, but it just hasn't been done. So I'm not sure it's fair to the applicant that Staff hasn't done what the board told them to

   1:43:16do. Well that's why we're trying

   GreyChair

   1:43:18to be fair to all parties and give them a

   1:43:24procedural question.

   1:43:27Um I is to give them time at least thirty days. to n have an opportunity to get together and come to an agreement on

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:43:37these things. If if it's thirty days or whatever the next Planning Commission may whatever that is. If y if you want to continue that's why I said if the continuances are just to fix the conditions to mirror what we talked about today And to maybe get them to work out the roadway alignment, that probably could be done fairly quickly. If you're expecting the land use amendment that the board directed to be done in the next thirty days, that's not going to happen. That's what I wanted to be That's not gonna happen until October t sometime and

   1:44:08So there will be an if then condition. There will be a condition that says If the board takes that future action, two hundred thousand is gonna be returned to the pot. But Again I'm It's rare that I stand up here and try to defend applicants so vigorously but in this case I really think it's not their fault that that the board hasn't removed the case.

   GreyChair

   1:44:28I'm not even blaming staff. They're overloaded. We all know that. What and I agree and I I agree with uh What what you said? uh we need industrial development but we don't need it at the expense of ruining somebody else's property. So I think thirty days. to come to some kind of an amicable agreement. is not unreasonable.

   Christopher Poole

   1:44:53I I should have clarified my requesting the continuance 'cause it's it's exactly what you're saying, Dave. But I think there's gotta be more coordination between the The landowners obviously on the Vision Road, I think that the conditions can be cleaned up on that time and I'm not I wasn't suggesting that we continue it until October when when that's uh confirmed. I'm I'm thinking more of a thirty day uh opportunity for them to coordinate more amongst the landowners more than anything um as far as the the connection point of that vision road.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:45:22Mr. Chairman M Um

   1:45:26Obviously I know from from day one, anytime C P anything on C P E V comes here, I I always ask the same question about, you know, what's in the pot, who's entitled to what and all those, you know, kind of clarification issues and and From what I understand that's all gonna be worked out and I think the the support commercial stuff will get worked out. My biggest concern here is the alignment of that road. I mean it w we're not talking about an interconnect of a driveway. I mean we're talking about a vision road that goes through a big piece of property that's very important. I mean it it's not gonna be easy

   1:45:56for adjacent property owners to work together. I mean there's gonna be differences of opinion. But you guys all got I mean you you guys all joined together as and got some benefit from C from C P E V and you're getting benefit of entitlements. My my question and David or Staff, I don't know As far as sighting for other vision roads, when vision road sighting's done Are there transportation folks from the county I'm assuming that are involved in that process and are they involved in that process here? Here.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:46:25So let me try to answer and then Brad can weigh in. Yes, the answer is yes. But I would say that our transportation staff is mostly looking at it from a Movement of traffic for for vehicles perspective, not is it potentially adversing adversely impacting the developability of somebody's land? Am I making sense? So they may say, well this vis transportation was up, it's still an east-west road, it's still relieving State Road

   1:46:5552 and air and cutoff. So let's say it still provides the benefit that it was intended, whether it's on the southern boundary or the middle boundary. So that's what I think transportation staff is looking at. They're not looking at And Brad tell me if I'm wrong. I mean that's

   Saez

   1:47:11No, that's actually exactly what I was gonna say. We we look at the the functioning of the roadway uh more so than the potential of which entitlements would be going on next door. Um well that I

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:47:24mean that that kind of leads in it.

   1:47:28But my my concern even in looking at the map and the alignment that's shown. And and granted this comes down to scale of the map, I'm sure. But the geometry of that trough of the road to cross through the wetland troubles me and they're talking about moving that connection point further north, which is gonna make that bend even worse to get through the wetland. So I I I think that needs to be worked out because I think that plays a pretty critical role here in in the planning and and and the future development of this whole

   1:48:00Yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:48:02Yeah, I actually was thinking it'd be better to move it further south.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:48:05South. I

   1:48:05mean

   1:48:05I to me I thought that it made more sense to the on the south side of the wetland that straddles the property line. But I I mean again, it it's you know, we're talking about alignments and I think that's all stuff that needs to be worked out before we uh approve this.

   GreyChair

   1:48:21All right. I'm sorry. I speak as another

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:48:25landowner.

   GreyChair

   1:48:26Well there's a motion on the floor.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:48:28Well sir, the the problem is is that He asked for public comment. And she's already had a rebuttal to the comment.

   1:48:38Did you not? Oh just

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:48:40another neighbor.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:48:41I understand that but he but he asked for public comment previously. Why did you not get up previously?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:48:46I tried.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:48:51It it's up to the chair and but you're gonna have to give her rebuttal again if if you let

   GreyChair

   1:48:57be as brief as possible, give you your name and address. My name's

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:49:00Kyle, [address removed]. I'm Andy's neighbor. My main concern is that road. It looks like it's going right through my residence. I have a house out there. I plan on raising a family there. So that is my my most main important Subject to this whole matter. Uh as for the trees, you know, it's it's beautiful out there and I wanna keep it as pristine as I can in my power. Uh I understand progress is progress, but

   1:49:31uh the the road is gonna be my main concern. It right now it looks like it's going right through my house.

   Christopher Poole

   1:49:37Sir, can you con confirm on that map where your generally where your property is? Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:49:42My property is right now.

   1:49:46My house is all right there. Thank you.

   Clerk

   1:49:51Can you um state your name again for the record?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:49:53Kyle K Y L E P U P E L O L thank you.

   Denise

   1:50:00Mr. Chair, for just a second, I do want to mention that Mr. Maggard, who is the representative of Mr. Scaglione, has has his hand hand raised. He wants to speak.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:50:10Okay.

   1:50:14Okay, Mr. Maggard.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:50:17I apologize. Can you hear me? Yes, sir.

   1:50:22Okay, thank you. I apologize for not being there in person, Mr. Scagloni kind of be around the bush, but my wife and I and my children have COVID nineteen, so we are quarantining So I appreciate the ability to

   1:50:38Um I just wanna reiterate what Mr. Scagloni said with with regards to the timeline and and the road and and I think we can probably work something out between uh the developer and my client. We just need some time. I think it being a conceptual plan, I don't think sits well with me. I think Uh uh I agree if it's on a P U in P U D, then that's what the County assumes is gonna happen. So we would reinstate our request for

   1:51:08a continuance for at least thirty days to try to work out that road alignment issue. Uh I I know that the public comment has passed. I've had my hand up for a little while. I just Couldn't figure out how to get your intention otherwise. So I apologize for the late r late comments, but thank you for your time.

   GreyChair

   1:51:27All right. Thank you, Mr. Maggart. Okay, I guess it's your turn.

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:51:32Thank you. Sorry. Um, Cynthia Speidel again, 401 East Jackson Street Sterns Weaver for the record. So um two things. I feel like we're being a little penalized for coming in first and trying to entertain an engineered alignment. Any landowner, if you want your entitlements and your share of the entitlements, you want to set an alignment, you can come in with an MPUD rezoning and and work it out with staff. That's what we've done. Mm. Second of all, um, can we my procedural question was can we proceed if you were to uh to vote on it, can

   1:52:02we still keep our board date? Because I would rather you vote it down and me keep my board date than a continuance. Thank you. And because I think we can work out these issues with with staff pretty quickly and get a revised and keep our board date. So I I we would officially object to the continuance. and then um proceed forward with a Planning Commission denial if that's an option.

   Saez

   1:52:23All right. So just to uh give some feedback on the timeline of that, uh if if it is indeed a minimum of thirty days uh that was requested, that actually makes us miss the June sixteenth Planning Commission meeting and would push us to a July Planning Commission meeting and an August uh board meeting.

   1:52:42And the next July in Newport Ritchie uh is July twenty first. So that would all be almost two months.

   GreyChair

   1:52:51So what's the what's the Planning Commission meeting after the sixteenth?

   Saez

   1:52:56Uh that's it. Uh there's only the second, June 2nd and June 16th, and then they go to July. There's July seventh in Dade City and July twenty-first. in Newport Ritchie.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:53:09So if it was continued to June second. What board meeting would they make?

   Saez

   1:53:18It would be July, July twelfth. Uh the problem with June second is that that is essentially ten days, twelve days from now. I don't know if that's enough time.

   Chris Williams

   1:53:29What w what about the sixteenth?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:53:33They missed the board

   Saez

   1:53:34date.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:53:37So the only continuance we could do that causes them to not miss their board date would be June second.

   Saez

   1:53:43Which which is not thirty days, that's like ten to twelve days. Okay. Plus a holiday weekend.

   GreyChair

   1:53:48All right.

   1:53:51Well you need to be clear to what date. What is the motion?

   1:53:55Oh okay. Do you want to say June sixteenth, Chris?

   Christopher Poole

   1:54:07Hold on one second.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:54:10Is this there a reason why it has to be in New Port Richey? I mean I know you asked about June City.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:54:14No, there's no doesn't it doesn't. It could be Dade City.

   1:54:18In fact this is pretty much in the middle of the county. So

   Saez

   1:54:24the Data City dates are June second or July seventh. June second is is not very long from today. Uh so I don't think that gives enough time for what's being asked.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:54:37Now, I will say that June second is probably enough days to craft the three or four conditions that we talked about today.

   Saez

   1:54:46Correct, except the uh an agreed upon alignment would be an issue uh in that amount of time more than likely.

   GreyChair

   1:54:54Right. So is June sixteenth enough time?

   Saez

   1:55:04Uh I think yeah, I think that we can we can h ensure that a meeting occurs uh to the extent that uh they come to an agreement on an alignment in that time, I don't know. Uh but we can we can make sure the meeting is held and bring it back with whatever information comes out of that meeting.

   Christopher Poole

   1:55:26All right.

   GreyChair

   1:55:27Mm-hmm. Chris.

   Christopher Poole

   1:55:29Yeah, okay. I'll specify may continue this to June 16th. Um you know I I echo what both Roberto and Jamie said. I think you know this is a hugely important project for the county. Um Moving forward, I agree with the industrial being needed, but uh again I think there's gotta be more coordination between the the landowners. So Uh yeah, we'll specify the continuance to the June sixteenth meeting.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:55:57Brad, can I get con confirmation that you'll have the Eagle One Non substantial amendment approved before it comes back to the Planning Commission?

   Saez

   1:56:09We intend to have that. Uh if for some reason it's not approved we can at least include the draft. Uh we we aren't aware of any objections to it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:56:20Well to be fair, it's not really noticed that well.

   Saez

   1:56:23So it's uh it's a non substantial modification s so it's

   1:56:31any major issues with it. So we can either have a a very reasonably accurate draft or the actual approved document by then.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:56:43Right.

   1:56:46Did anybody clarify Cynthia's question?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:56:49Which one? So if it's

   1:56:50the right-of-way,

   1:56:51the answer is that you're under no legal obligation to

   1:56:57Do what the applicant requested. You if you if you want to continue it, that's within your purview. Or you could deny it, that's within your purview, or approve it with conditions, that's all those things are within your purview.

   GreyChair

   1:57:09Right now we have a motion on the floor. And I'm a uh do we have a second to that motion?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:57:19Uh well I guess just just to clarify, if we continue the Planning Commission has comes back to the Planning Commission. Right. If we deny it goes to the board.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:57:29It still would go to the board if you deny. Um And then it would be up to staff and the applicant to Try to formulate.

   1:57:42Well, then you can't really condition your denial, that's the issue. So so I guess staff and the applicant would have to figure out a way that they could Maybe modify the conditions to make it more palatable for the board.

   1:58:00Okay.

   GreyChair

   1:58:05But I do. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:58:12I mean again th the difficulty is I I I I completely agree that it's imp I mean I think that coordination of that connection and that roadway is Vitally important. I mean I mean the the problem is is I I know the applicant requested the vr they requested denial, the continuous in the denial of this thing so they can stay on the board. I mean if if

   GreyChair

   1:58:33Well we had a motion on the floor so we have to follow through on way

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:58:36of

   1:58:37the right-of-way.

   1:58:37I understand. I understand. I'm just before I vote, I'm just that's what I was

   Chris Williams

   1:58:41so before you vote, let me ask David, is this something I vote on?

   1:58:47I think

   GreyChair

   1:58:47you

   Chris Williams

   1:58:48don't

   GreyChair

   1:58:48need to if if there's an

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:58:54I don't well there's no residential in the project and I don't think any of these roads access the proposed school site, right? Well we don't officially have one yet.

   Chris Williams

   1:59:04So that's a little speculative

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:59:06to say that it accesses a school site. So my answer would be No.

   1:59:12And

   Chris Williams

   1:59:13that's kinda where I was thinking, but I wanted to I

   1:59:18I see how this is going, so I just want to make sure. The answer is no, you don't vote. Okay. All right. You probably are relieved

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:59:25you don't vote.

   Chris Williams

   1:59:27Remains to be

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:59:28seen. Well, I I I take that back. You do vote to break ties. Correct, that's why I correct.

   GreyChair

   1:59:34We have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Uh. Opposed, like, sign.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:59:44There's a tie. Okay, there you go, Chris. You're gonna vote to break the tie.

   GreyChair

   1:59:48So I'll vote aye. Okay. So the motion carries.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:59:56So it's June sixteenth. Yeah, perfect.

   Saez

   2:00:00June 16th, then we will also have to uh do a continuance for the board meeting that's related to the prior date. Uh so that'll push the board meeting further back uh into July, I believe, if we can get it there.

   GreyChair

   2:00:18Okay.

   2:00:22Anything further?

2. 2Jun 16, 2022
   Planning CommissionP2Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Zoning Amendment (Continuance) (Regular) – Eagle II Industrial … Light Industrial Uses and 300,000 150,000 Square Feet of Support/Commercial … on Approximately 321.13 Acres.

   Open this item →No recording
3. 3Jun 21, 2022
   Board of County CommissionersP69Public hearingContinued

   Approved minutes

   Continued to the August 9, 2022 Board of County Commissioner meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:23:01
   ▶ 1:23:013m

   StarkeyChair

   1:23:01Aye. Thank you very much. I was at that kickoff last week. Um P seventy. Sixty nine. What? P sixty nine. Bam.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   1:23:15You want to start off with rezoning procedures?

   StarkeyChair

   1:23:17Yes, could you please

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   1:23:18um

   StarkeyChair

   1:23:18read the instructions?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   1:23:20There are two rezoning agendas regularing consent. Staff will present each application to the Board of County Commissioners. If staff or planning commission has recommended approval, And there's no opposition to the application? The application will be considered. by the board without further presentation. If staff or planning commission has recommended denial Or if there is opposition to the application, the applicant will be given five minutes for presentation, the opposition will be given three minutes for each individual or five minutes for a group representative, and the applicant

   1:23:50will be given three minutes for rebuttal. Any individual disagreeing with staff or planning commission recommendation or anyone wishing to object to any condition of the rezoning may at this time request the petition be pulled from the consent agenda, in which case That application will be heard under the regular agenda later on during the meeting. Otherwise, all rezoning applications On the consent agenda will be approved by a single motion and vote. If you wish to speak to any petition, please give your name and address and whether or not you've been sworn for the record. These

   1:24:20are quasi-judicial public hearing.

   1:24:25or opposition of an application is insufficient for this Board to take action, Please limit your comments to those criteria found within the Board's Land Development Code.

   Nikki Alvarez

   1:24:36Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   1:24:37Madam Clerk, would you like to swear them in?

   Nikki Alvarez

   1:24:39I certainly can. If you're here to speak on any of the remaining items on public hearing, please stand and raise your right hand.

   1:24:47And if you're online? There's n no one else online yet. No one online today? Okay. Well. For these items. All right. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God. Thank you.

   1:25:03All right, item P publication.

   StarkeyChair

   1:25:06Yes, um we have eleven public hearing items on the consent agenda and we're gonna start with P sixty-nine. Right,

   Nikki Alvarez

   1:25:13right. Item P69 is published in the Tampay Times on May 4th, 2022.

   Denise

   1:25:19Continued. P sixty-nine is P D twenty two seven five eight five on the Eagle to Industrial B C M P O D. Um as the Chair stated, this item was published as a continuance for to the August ninth, twenty twenty-two Port of County Commissioner's meeting at one thirty in Dade City.

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:25:37We'll have continued date sort of

   Denise

   1:25:38second.

   StarkeyChair

   1:25:41Um

4. 4Aug 9, 2022
   Board of County CommissionersP87Public hearingContinued

   Zoning Amendment (Continuance) – … Light Industrial Uses and 300,000 150,000 Square Feet of Support/Commercial … on Approximately 321.13 Acres.

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue the item to the August 24, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:14:44
   ▶ 1:14:441m

   StarkeyChair

   1:14:44Second. No one's on WebX. Okay, I have a motion of second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, P eighty seven.

   StarkeyChair

   1:14:52Item P eighty seven was published in the Tampa Times on May fourth, twenty twenty two.

   Denise

   1:14:58P eighty seven is PDD twenty two seven five eight five. This is eagle two industrial ECMPUD. This item was also advertised as a continuance. The continuance is to the eight twenty-four-twenty twenty two Board of County Commissioners meeting at one thirty in New Port Richey.

   StarkeyChair

   1:15:15All right. Uh does anyone wish to speak to this item that is being continued? Well they can speak today or not?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   1:15:21It's published continued. It's published continued.

5. 5Aug 24, 2022
   Board of County CommissionersP76Public hearingApproved

   Zoning Amendment (Continuance) (Regular) – Eagle II Industrial … Light Industrial Uses and 300,000 150,000 Square Feet of Support/Commercial … Use on Approximately 321.13 Acres. Acres

   Approved minutes

   Approved Staff’s recommendation with the revised conditions that were passed out.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:42:05
   ▶ 1:42:0521m

   StarkeyChair

   1:42:05Okay, seventy six.

   StarkeyChair

   1:42:07Uh this matter was continued from the June twenty-first Board of County Commissioners meeting to August 9th, and then again at that meeting to this day and publication was provided for the original hearing. Back in June.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:42:24So change it. Eagles. Good afternoon, William for Million Planning and Development. Uh there has been changes to the uh conditions approval, if I can enter those into the record. Yes, it is a natural resources condition number twelve.

   StarkeyChair

   1:42:39Do we have to have a motion to receive?

   1:42:47Second. All in favor? Aye.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:42:55That's in your area.

   1:42:59This is item P D D twenty two seventy-five eighty-five, Eagle Two Industrial E C and P D. Here's the location map south of State Road fifty two to the west of Bellamy Brothers.

   1:43:15The current zoning district is AC, to the north is AR, to the east is M Pud, to the south is AC To the west is A C. The future land use of this parcel is EC. To the north is Res One. To the south is res three, to the east is E C to the west is E C

   1:43:37Proposes a rezoning request from AC Agricultural to an EC MPUD Employment Center Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the development of two million square feet of corporate business park, target business, light industrial uses, and 150,000 square feet of support commercial on approximately 321.13 acres.

   1:43:59This is the CPEV sub-area map at the top. Is the current CPEV sub-area map and on the bottom is proposed after these changes to Eagle Two in terms of entitlements.

   1:44:16This is the master plan.

   1:44:25The proposed development is within the CPEV Central Pasco Employment Village, and the parcels are currently vacant. They are being used for agricultural pursuits. Effective August 24, 2021, the landowners within this Eagle II ECM Puty entered into that certain exchange agreement for CPV master plan use designations for portions of Swope, Coca-Lacus, East parcels, which is now recorded in OR Book 10426, page 461 of public records of Pasco County, Florida.

   Fitzpatrick

   1:44:52Can you go back to the last slide please for a moment? The one before that with the master plan?

   Planning and Development staff

   1:44:56This one? Master plan?

   Fitzpatrick

   1:45:04Okay. Thank you.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:45:10The applicant is seeking the following variations from the Land Development Code, Section 805.6 and 902.2 M, to allow industrial parcels under single ownership to maintain their stormwater ponds, wetlands, and open space without having to plat them as separate tracks and conveyed to a separate entity for maintenance. All activity, maintenance, or restrictions in such areas shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Resource Permit.

   1:45:37The applicant has also submitted a non-substantial modification to the SR 52 Industrial Employment Center Master Plan Unit Development to revise the entitlements on Parcel 2 to be solely light industrial and increase the square footage from 482,780 to 700,000 square feet of light industrial. This will serve as the support commercial for both Eagle 1 and Eagle 2. It will all be allocated on the Eagle 2 MPUD. Going back. Eagle One is the all purple parcel.

   1:46:09that is directly abutting equal to to the east. You'll notice that the map is a little bit more. on top the red Shifts to all purple below, and it's because of this non substantial modification moving those support commercial entitlements to Eagle Two.

   1:46:32The County is prepared to purchase Orange Belt Trail right-of-way along the southern portion of both Eagle One and Eagle Two as set forth in the conditions of approval or has the option to use an existing easement. If the if agreement is reached with the beneficiary.

   1:46:47And that's a thirty foot easement.

   1:46:51And Pasco County would buy thirty feet north of that to make a total of sixty feet.

   StarkeyChair

   1:46:58Okay. Uh I'll I w won't stop you until you're done with your presentation. Absolutely.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:47:06This is a graphic depiction of that Orange Belt Trail. It's pretty hard to tell from here, but there's a hatched area that indicates the easement. And then you have the overall red area which would include the thirty feet north that the county has an option to purchase.

   1:47:25The proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County LDC Chapter 400 Subsection 402.2 Zoning Amendment MPUD Master Plan Unit Development and applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Development Department recommends Approval with conditions. The Planning Commission voted three one for denial.

   StarkeyChair

   1:47:48With the changes they voted three one?

   Planning and Development staff

   1:47:50No. The changes happened prior to in between PC and BCC. It was denied on the fact of the trail.

   StarkeyChair

   1:48:00And um

   1:48:04Um So I have questions. I don't know if the applicant wants to go first or would we ask our questions now? I would suggest you take the applicant's presentation. We'll have the applicant's presentation. And Mr. Karbala, who is gonna Besides me, speak about the trail on your staff. Who is your trail czar today? Sam?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   1:48:24Sam's here.

   StarkeyChair

   1:48:25Sam. Okay.

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:48:32Good afternoon. Uh Cynthia Spidel, Stearns Weaver, 401 East Jackson Street, and I have been sworn. Um we worked really hard to get to this point. We've worked out all issues. Um thank you very much. We want to thank uh William Vermillion, Brad Tippen, Terry Pittas, and David Goldstein and all of you for taking the time to work out these issues. And uh I have a full presentation, uh but that's at your at your pleasure if you'd like me to present that um or if you have any specific questions. But with that we um you know we just thank you for your time and we support staff's

   1:49:02recommendation of approval.

   StarkeyChair

   1:49:03I guess um one of my first questions would be um if you have Uh if there's any objections from your neighbors on the

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:49:10road, not to my knowledge, but I see one here. Yes. I just want to be sure. Um well he can speak for himself, but we have uh worked really hard. We've met with him subsequent to the planning commission meeting um to remove to move the road uh alignment again. Um during that call, they indicated that they were okay with that revised alignment, so we basically our revisions and resubmittle to the county based on that phone call. So what before you is based on what we understand they're okay with. And then we worked really hard with staff to come up with Orange Trail options.

   1:49:40And so like I said, we're very happy to answer any other questions and the landowners here as well. Okay, so do does anyone else have questions?

   Moore

   1:49:49I just wanted to wait and hear from you know the public that's here to make sure we're all on the same page. I know we stated everybody worked hard to fix that road alignment. I know that was from me watching the Planning Commission meetings, that was obviously one of the um things that needed to get worked out um with your your neighbor. Um And then I know the trail was a big part of it too, so I guess I'm just waiting to hear those two items and have confirmation that everybody's on the same page now.

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:50:15Right.

   Moore

   1:50:17Um and I apologize if you know the purchase price or any additional um right away that we'd be purchasing as well. Well

   StarkeyChair

   1:50:24that's what I'm gonna

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:50:25uh have

   Moore

   1:50:25Sam

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:50:26talk about.

   Moore

   1:50:26Yeah, so that uh those are the We seem to be on the same page.

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:50:29So what we did for the right-of-way acquisition is we threw in the 30-foot easement for free. We based the additional 30 feet that you would be purchasing based on the comps in the area, and then averaged it over the over the 60 feet so that it would be comparable with what occurred to the west of the property. So that option's in there. But obviously if you can um get the easement or the beneficiary of the easement to allow you to use the trail, then obviously the client's willing to give that to you for free. Yeah. So and then I'll

   1:51:00reserve um any other additional comment based on rebuttal if that's okay. Okay.

   StarkeyChair

   1:51:04Thanks, Cynthia. We boy, we put a lot of put a lot of hours into this one. Yeah.

   Oakley

   1:51:07I think there was an issue about some of that right away because it's gonna be we were having to get right away over Tampa Bay right away.

   StarkeyChair

   1:51:14So uh on that thirty foot easement on the bottom, um The um Saint Pete had the original uh Easement. And when Tampa Bay Water was formed that that uh language went over to Tampa Bay Water. And um Sam's been working very hard on this and um Tampa Bay Water has Agreed that They don't need the easement, so if you want to speak to that. Um right with our alignment?

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:51:44Sam Bennick with uh engineering services. Um I can't say better than you, ma'am. Uh the Tampa Bay Water uh controls that easement. Um and and we did get response from Tampa Bay Water that they didn't object. They had some some pretty reasonable conditions that we would Yeah. Expected and would would comply with if we we did go ahead and locate a trail along that alignment.

   StarkeyChair

   1:52:12Our next little challenge will be moving eastward. Um but we are gonna tackle that one next. Yeah. Um but I'm glad we have this one worked out. Commissioner Oakley.

   Oakley

   1:52:24The vision road that I've seen on the maps that come through there, there's no set alignment of that because that doesn't matter. The vision road is

   StarkeyChair

   1:52:31to the north now.

   Oakley

   1:52:33But it's north of of where the That easement for the sidewalk.

   StarkeyChair

   1:52:38Yes. Yeah. And that and that that vision road has a trail along it as well. So people can um will be able to live uh in the development and get to work without going on the road if they didn't want to.

   Oakley

   1:52:50Well what I understand that. That easement for that roadway. It's not set in stone, so that doesn't mean it can't change or something.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   1:52:59Um

   Oakley

   1:53:00that's my understanding.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   1:53:03Madam Clerk. The MPUD when when you approve this MPUD, you are effectively setting the alignment through this M P D. Okay,

   Oakley

   1:53:11because I was told, oh no, there's nothing set in stone, but I will set it if it was.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   1:53:15That was the reason the neighbor was objecting, because it was in fact setting the alignment of the roadway through this MPUD.

   Oakley

   1:53:20Yeah, and I have concerns of setting alignment and then um Forcing that neighbor to do something he wouldn't want to do in his project coming forth without

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   1:53:31hear from him, but the applicant's representing that he's now okay with the alignment. But it d this will set the alignment. I

   Oakley

   1:53:38want to be clear about

   1:53:38that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   1:53:39I haven't I haven't heard that. I've heard it but I've not heard it from him.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   1:53:43Madam Chairman, maybe you ought to take public comment then.

   StarkeyChair

   1:53:46Oh do you have a question for Sam? Yeah,

   Moore

   1:53:48Sam sorry.

   StarkeyChair

   1:53:49Can you come back up?

   Moore

   1:53:50Yeah, sorry.

   StarkeyChair

   1:53:52Take public comment afterwards.

   Moore

   1:53:55All right.

   1:53:57Tell me again about the uh let's talk about the trail one more time. Okay.

   StarkeyChair

   1:54:01Can you put the route

   Moore

   1:54:01up,

   StarkeyChair

   1:54:02please?

   Moore

   1:54:03It okay, so the applicant said they um are they're giving thirty they're giving uh thirty feet Correct? Easement? Well, we gotta don't.

   StarkeyChair

   1:54:12Can you go to

   Moore

   1:54:13thirty? Yes.

   StarkeyChair

   1:54:13Can you go to map?

   Moore

   1:54:14An easement of thirty feet. But we would need to purchase the additional thirty feet.

   StarkeyChair

   1:54:23No, we don't if we needed it.

   Moore

   1:54:24So we I don't think so that's why I'm wondering if we don't so you're basically selling us we're not gonna need it now. That was

   Fitzpatrick

   1:54:31Bellamy Brothers is all the way to the right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:54:34And I don't know if you if there's a a slide that has that condition language, but uh the the way that the condition is drafted,

   Chairman

   1:54:41okay,

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:54:42it gives us the option um when notified by the applicant that a sale is pending, um, that uh there's a period where the county has the option to either um decide to not purchase right away or decide to purchase right away at that time. Right now our our study for this alignment is just getting underway and so um uh if If it's acceptable to everyone, I would suggest that we wait until the

   1:55:12the applicant has need for us to make a decision and based on the best information at that time we can either uh purchase at a price that has been negotiated and agreed to um or or opt to continue. This would allow us again to continue working with Tampa Bay Water and go from An email which is a I mean we we trust their their email but uh

   Moore

   1:55:35we're trying to

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:55:36I had a conversation too.

   Moore

   1:55:37Okay good part. No that's good because I know I'm just being honest. So the last thing I'd want to do, I mean, is have to buy a another thirty foot e additional thirty foot easement. at a current market rate with what it is now because it's the prices are inflated. So we lose

   StarkeyChair

   1:55:54Yeah, so I'm I'm hoping she's getting the map up 'cause I wanna give you a pic a big picture of what's happening in in this area. So are are we putting maps on or Google Earth, whatever you want

   Moore

   1:56:05to call

   1:56:05it? Yes, sir.

   1:56:07If you're looking at current valuations now in Pasco County What we would have paid two years ago or just be honest, when when the purchaser paid what they paid for it, you know, I mean it's it's inflated now. Uh so I would be very

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:56:22We did work with uh our

   Moore

   1:56:23attorney's

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:56:24office and the ones that

   Moore

   1:56:25are easement for a trail. I'm

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:56:27sorry, sorry.

   Moore

   1:56:28I

   1:56:28be

   1:56:28I'd just be concerned paying that side of price for an easement for a trail.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:56:32Uh we I mean we did work with the the county staff who um have the we understand the the most direct um you know i uh understanding of that issue. And concluded that the um agreeing to a price now. while we we're not tied to having to purchase that right of way. was preferable to waiting and maybe having either a higher price later or getting into an extended debate about whether or

   1:57:02not the you know, what the definition of um you know fair market value is uh given where we are in our study, we now have a a clear understanding of what the cost of that right away would be. And so we can very accurately compare that against

   Moore

   1:57:19So what's that number?

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:57:20Um Ms.

   Moore

   1:57:24So give me a total.

   1:57:28Well you can't talk from there, I mean sorry. Sorry. For the record.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:57:34It's all of it is uh con both options are in condition thirty five with the prices. Okay, well just

   Moore

   1:57:38give me the price. For I mean for the public and everybody else and

   Chairman

   1:57:44Do you want to follow in fifty minutes?

   Planning and Development staff

   1:57:48I'll get the exact number.

   StarkeyChair

   1:58:11I hear rumbling.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:58:18It's not added up in the condition. It's just uh five Five point seven four four acres times eighty one thousand. One hundred and twenty two.

   Moore

   1:58:26Five. Five five times eight, is that what you're saying? So Yeah, five

   Planning and Development staff

   1:58:30point six.

   Moore

   1:58:30Let me let me do my math. Five times eight is four. And I'm gonna add three zeros. So four hundred thousand plus? Four sixty five. You're like

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:58:39look

   Moore

   1:58:39at

   Cynthia Speidel

   1:58:39that.

   1:58:42You were faster than my calculator.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:58:45Yeah.

   StarkeyChair

   1:58:48Yeah, but I don't think we're gonna need it. Um so if you see Aaron cut off Kind of is on your left and up here is Tampa Sporting Clays.

   Chairman

   1:58:57Yep.

   StarkeyChair

   1:58:58But you don't want a trail going by. Um and I thought originally we were coming up that southern edge and I thought that was gonna be exciting. But Um The way uh We think it's gonna go, right, Sam? Is that we're gonna uh jump onto this Swift Mud Road going in Crot that's uh Cypress Creek, is that right? And it comes up And uh comes up and it comes and you see where it um I don't have a pointer but You can see where it

   1:59:28touches, yeah, right up there. And that's where we reconnect with the Orange Belt Trail. And head east. So um that's gonna be a beautiful ride through that through that park. So Well

   Moore

   1:59:40M Madam Chairman I don't disagree with you in one bit. I I just don't wanna ha pay, you know, almost five hundred thousand dollars for

   StarkeyChair

   1:59:46Well

   Moore

   1:59:46there's

   StarkeyChair

   1:59:48it's an easement that no one's ever used and um but when we've got permitted

   Moore

   1:59:52But you feel confident that uh Tama Bay Water is going to

   StarkeyChair

   1:59:56they already said it

   Moore

   1:59:57pass it over then I clarified it. I'm sure the applicant would prefer not to have to sell it to us, so because probably wants to use the land anyway. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure if you're But I know that's part of the condition to allow that to happen if we need it. All right. You feel confident. I'll trust you.

   StarkeyChair

   2:00:13So uh I I appreciate all the parties working hard together. And um getting everyone on the same page. And we thank Tampa Bay Water and Saint Pete as well. Um now's the time for public comment. Come on up, Andy.

   Oakley

   2:00:30There's Ray.

   Andy Joe Scaglione

   2:00:32Andy Juscaglione, I have been sworn in. Um I agree with Mr. Goldstein that the approval of this P MPDU D um excuse me MPUD sets the general alignment of the Vision Road with that understanding. I do not oppose a location of the interlock uh connectability between Eagle II and D and D Ranch, which is my which is our family, as shown on this uh M P U D site. Map. I'd like to thank um Mr. Goldstein and William and uh staff

   2:01:03for being uh uh I it's a shame that that this wasn't done at the Planning Commission, that it had to come to this point. There's been a lot of uh time and effort. and and uh of of my engineer, Dan Bergen and Matt Maggart. that I've had to spend to get to this point and it's it's uh it's it's I'm not happy that that it had to get to that point. Um I appreciate y'all looking after the taxpayers money. Uh Mr. Moore, Mr. Oakley and and Ms. Darkley that road uh uh the the uh trail would be beautiful,

   2:01:33but thank you for getting that because um I I was having some heartburn um as a taxpayer's paying eighty something thousand acre when it was just sold for twenty five thousand thousand um back in July of this of last year. So um um so anyway, thank you very, very much. Appreciate ya.

   StarkeyChair

   2:01:52Okay. Thanks, Andy. Okay, is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this item?

   2:01:59All right, it is to the board. Where

   Fitzpatrick

   2:02:01is the road that

   StarkeyChair

   2:02:04He is now in agreement to it was shown um in his slide. Is it part of your presentation?

   2:02:15It's on this p here. I'll just hand you that. That's

   Fitzpatrick

   2:02:19the

   StarkeyChair

   2:02:19sliding show previously. Mm-hmm. Oh, they changed it a little bit. Okay. Can I take a motion?

   Fitzpatrick

   2:02:27And he is in agreeance? Because he didn't say that.

   Moore

   2:02:32No. Yeah, Madam Chairman I'm happy er the our parties were able to work together and get through this. I I don't disagree. I think I wish we could have probably I'm sure David w himself too probably wishes this would have not had a continue continue continued through the Planning Commission and But we are where we are now, so move for approval.

   Oakley

   2:02:52Second.

   StarkeyChair

   2:02:53All in favor?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   2:02:55And that incre that includes the revised conditions that were passed out. Yes

   2:02:59it does. Okay.

   Moore

   2:03:01I agree.

   StarkeyChair

   2:03:01Correct.

   Moore

   2:03:02Mr. Motion making it that is part of my motion, yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.

   StarkeyChair

   2:03:06All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All right, that one's done. We are putting a lot of jobs on the books today. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, folks.

   2:03:18He