PDD-24-0026

Published agenda

3 appearances between Oct 10, 2023 and Jan 9, 2024 — continued 1 time.

OutcomeAdopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Jan 9, 2024

Approved to adopt by a roll call vote with Commissioner Bradford absent from the vote.

Official title

An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan: Providing For Text and Table Revisions For The Villages Of Pasadena Hills (VOPH) Comprehensive Plan Goal FLU 6: Allow Increase Of Land Area In Village Cores Of Villages B and C, Increase Maximum Residential Conversions, And Add Conditions To Transfer Unused Densities To Village Cores, And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.

On a calendar

Oct 10, 2023 → Jan 9, 2024 · click a mark to jump to that appearance

Every appearance3 of 3 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. 92% of 308 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1Oct 10, 2023
Board of County CommissionersP74Public hearingContinued
An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive ~~Plan:~~ Plan; Providing For Text ~~and~~ And Table Revisions For The … And An Effective Date.
Approved minutes
Approved to continue the item to the November 14, 2023 Board of County Commissioners Meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City with Commissioner Brandford absent from the vote.
Open this item →
2m
Jack MarianoChair
So public hearing, the first item we have is P74. Madam Clerk, we have proof.
Kathryn Starkey
We do, yes sir. Stand by. P-74 was advertised in the Tampa Bay Times on June 7, 2023.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
Speaking Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Item P74 is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a text amendment and table revisions for the villages of the Pasadena Hills, the OPH comprehensive plan goal flu six, allow increase of land area and village cores of villages B and C, increase maximum residential conversions, and add conditions to transfer unused densities to village cores, and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency. providing for appeal observability and effective date. And this is a request for continuance to the November
14, 2023 Portal County Commissioner's meeting here in Date City at 1.30.
Jack MarianoChair
May I have a motion to continue P74? Some of the
Kathryn Starkey
That's the one that that's villages with Pasadena Hill.
I don't bribe one.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Do you want to talk about the rehound, which we actually have the site plan attached to it? Yes. That's later on in the remote. Okay, we'll wait.
Jack MarianoChair
So this is all so I do have a motion. Some move. Second. Call the rule.
Kathryn Starkey
District one, Commissioner Oakley.
Jack MarianoChair
Aye.
Kathryn Starkey
District two, Commissioner Weightman.
District three, Commissioner Starkey. District 4, Commissioner Bradford.
District five, Chairman Mariano.
2Nov 14, 2023
Board of County CommissionersP92Public hearingApproved
Approved minutes
Approved Staff’s recommendation of transmittal by a roll call vote with Commissioner Bradford absent from the vote.
Open this item →
45m
Jack MarianoChair
Aye. P ninety two.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
Item P ninety two was published in the Tampa Times on August second, twenty twenty-three, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.
Denise
P92 is PDD 240026. Today we just ask that you take public comment. This is the transmittal hearing, so you're asking we're asking that you direct staff to transmit to the Department of Commerce and other reviewing agencies. This was presented to the Pasadena House Planning and Policy Committee on 816 of 23, the local planning agency who followed it consistent with a comprehensive plan and except for adoption. On 19 of 24 at 130 in Dade City. It's an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for text amendments and table revisions for the villages of
Pasadena Hills. The OPH comprehensive plan goal flu six, allow increase of land area and village village cores of villages B and C, increase maximum residential conversions and add conditions to transfer unused densities to village cores and providing. for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for a repealer, severability, and an effective date.
Jack MarianoChair
Like that. Do we want a presentation or any questions for staff?
Denise
So
Seth Weightman
what was the presentation?
Jack MarianoChair
Oh. H how long's a presentation?
Denise
Um it is my colleague Gavin Covey, um probably just about Five minutes or so?
Jack MarianoChair
I I would like to see it.
Denise
Okay,
Jack MarianoChair
thank you.
Gavin Covey
Good afternoon. Gavin Covey Planning and Development.
So this is item P D twenty four zero zero twenty six, the Village B and C Text Amendment. And so we're proposing to change three things to the V OPH comprehensive plan. So the first thing we're doing is increasing the land area of village centers in just villages B and C. The second thing we're doing is we're going to increase the allowable conversions of residential entitlements to commercial and retail entitlements. And the third thing is we're adding an additional policy for unused densities in the edge district to be transferred to the core.
So here's the village prototype for you. As you can see in the center, with the red is going to be the commercial and retail uses. Surrounding that is the brown, which is going to be the high density residential, which is 10 dwelling units per acre, and then around that, five dwelling units per acre, and then the outer edge, which will be two dwelling units per acre. So, like I I mentioned before, we're increasing the amount of land dedicated to both the brown. area and the red area in B O P H and we're gonna be increasing it just by ten percent.
So here's our current Village B master plan that we have. With this new proposal this is what we would be allowed to have. Um as you can see y the higher density goes south and north as opposed to this previous one. Oh, I'm so sorry. Which was just uh to the north.
So the second thing that we're doing is we're allowing the residential conversions and so I've done uh just a couple sample ones for us here. So if you convert 20% of the residential units, you can increase uh your commercial entitlements by 36,637 in the village B. If you convert it just to office, you can add an additional 80,000-ish for office uses. And then if you do a 50-50 split, you can do um add an additional eighteen thousand square feet
of commercial and then another 40,000 of office.
And so the last thing we're doing is we're adding that unused density transfer policy. And so this is to allow for unused densities from the neighborhood edge and neighborhood general area to be transferred into the village center. Uh the transfer units may exceed the twin ten dwelling units per acre in the village core. Uh units may be converted to non-residential entitlements and be used in the village center, which is subject to the comprehensive planning policies. Owner must produce signed record document with the intent to transfer the density and cannot exceed the approved entitlement for the MPU
MPUD and the transfer must be within the same village or within the same uh MPUD if across multiple villages. So here are the three uh comprehensive plan policies that support it.
And then this comes with a recommendation of approval or uh with a transmittal to the Department of Commerce and other reviewing agencies. Put you.
Jack MarianoChair
Uh Commissioner Starkey.
Kathryn Starkey
Can you go back one slide, please? Overall design principles and land use inform and village characteristics. I think these are really important to make a quality place. I'm just adamant that we we're not getting strip malls. Absolutely. And um and that it's uh you know, I'm all for density in the downtown core, but but it needs to be, you know, some vertical density. and not just uh a public surrounded by a lot of apartments. I mean that's that is just not what we
should be doing. So what what requirements do we have in here?
Gavin Covey
So there's none um that are necessarily going to get in this proposal that'll be promoting that, but overall V O Page has a you know the intent is to provide those village centers and stuff like that in the comprehensive plan. Um I will say V OPH does lack in some of the regulatory stuff to promote. Um like an L D C that would promote those design standards. But a lot of that happens within the M PUD negotiations and stuff like that.
Kathryn Starkey
Well, I just want that to be happening in the M P U D negotiations. I mean this just shouldn't be another repeat of what's going on on State Road fifty four and some other places where I think we kinda lost our way a little bit in my opinion and not building anything that's memorable.
Seth Weightman
Mr. Waven thought if you go back and got him. You have a what we talked about earlier, the big one. Is that the original or the new?
Gavin Covey
This is the proposed one.
Go to the original. Go to the original.
Seth Weightman
So VOPH has been being planned for the last two decades. Essentially. Long years. A long time.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Yeah.
Seth Weightman
I'm concerned
With the level of planning that's gone into this overall project, I'm talking big picture here. That we are I we need to come to a consensus and take a look at the overall V OPH plan, in my opinion, in the Village Course. Because we have already made decisions that aren't in line with the original plan, and that's the plan with the public that's on that's online around the Village Court. And the item today. continues to go against the
plan that's been established and been studied for the last couple of decades.
I'm not opposed to shifting where we need to shift to make make make it work, make it healthy. I don't want to set precedent that we're going to run fast and loose over this project as it starts to come online. We have an opportunity to build something very unique to Pasco County. It's got beautiful topography and can create a fantastic place for folks to live and raise their family and work and so on. So I guess my my question
to the board is when you look at what's proposed and what's been planned for a long, long time And then what? The new the modified proposal is I think we need to set uh uh a direction or understand where where we want to go and do how How rigid do we want to be in discipline on these village cores? Because we're going to start approving potentially products today that aren't in line with the plan and it modifies each the village in my opinion, extensively. And the precedent's
already been set. This board made a decision A few months back. And um Now I've realized what the decision we made and what that precedent was, I may have managed my vote differently.
Kathryn Starkey
What can you be more specific?
Seth Weightman
Well look at the brown, do you have a laser pointer? I think so. So explain the densities in the core when you when you get out. Like we we and how we what the vote was on the McCabe and PUD, for example.
Gavin Covey
Yeah. Oh, sorry. So I don't remember exactly what happened with it. wasn't the exact planner, but just to give context, um that uh McCabe MPD was approved for ten dwelling units per acre uh in
Seth Weightman
eastern. What's on it, it was it's ten dwelling units per acre, but we approved multifamily towns and a little piece of residential on there. And during that board meeting, you know, there was back and forth going on. But ultimately what was approved was not What's identified in this V O P H Village Court plan? So we're moving, we're sh we're we're what's been happening is we're We're shifting what's what's going on there and you move to the south with a with a very unique project that we're going
to hear about today which is Really an interesting project. M the heartburn for me isn't necessarily about the project, it's about Does it fit in the plan that we're supposed to be following and all the investment that's been in made to what makes up The village is in the village. Centers. So if we're going to, I think if we're going to start making these decisions, we need to take a broader look at VOPH in the course. to to make a a policy decision on Do we
want to modify the village cores a bit to make them differently but to go in and just piecemeal again again like you talked about Commissioner Starkey We've seen some of the Come to fruition some of the decisions that have been made. We have an opportunity right now Two not make that mistake again. And so I just
Like to get feedback and staff and we've talked extensively on this. I don't want to see the value of this project erode away. We can We can have something really quality here and something uniquely special for Pasco County.
Gavin Covey
Yeah, and just so I can chime in between y m you Miss Starkey and you Seth, um it kinda just seems like we should do a big comprehensive update to V O P H at this time. It kinda needs it, it hasn't been touched comprehensive, it's been piecemailed uh for the last few years, so Maybe we look at that and and try to figure out what we can put in and make this a better thing.
Kathryn Starkey
My my angst is that we took out what I thought was the the rules that made it very special and that was all the T and D requirements. But we have a developer, Mr. Ga Gavin Galvin.
Gavin Covey
Galvin, yes, correct.
Kathryn Starkey
Who's putting his back in. So I think his his area is gonna have higher values than any of the other areas. Um that's what happens in those kind of communities. So uh I'm not against the density s near the downtown the village centers because I think we need those it as long as we We make sure that the people can walk and ride their bikes or whatever to there to make them successful areas where people will, as I like to tell people who come in and see me. Hang
out on a Saturday night, you know, not just drive into a C V S and leave. That's not a that's not making something That's not a village core. That's not a village. That's just The characters.
So to me that's a design a design standard more than density requirements. But y you gotta have the density to make those retail village centers work. As I mentioned to my colleague over there, Commissioner Oakley, if you had more density down here your your stores would be
Seth Weightman
It's not Commissioner Weightman. Thank you, Chairman, Commissioner Starkey. It's the evolution of the village core. It's the moving of the density where it's not planned to be. That's if you can show the the the before and after if we had a laser pointer that could be a little bit more clear. The plan that we're supposed to be following Or not.
Kathryn Starkey
Which is the brown the brown is the higher density?
Gavin Covey
Sorry. So that's okay, well that's not working for me. Um so yeah. Yeah, sorry.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
Is this the point?
Gavin Covey
That's existing.
Jack MarianoChair
And to to help you, that line in the center is a dirt road.
So
the rope hang on, let me finish. the to the land to the side where the lake is, you've got a whole series of landowners, they have no intention of giving up any right away. So that center of that whole thing Doesn't have a chance to happen. What's worse is when you look at now shifting this over. You've got connected cities on the other side? They've got all their densities that are over down the there down in there. A new development's coming right toward the front, right to the south of fifty-two. Uh McCabe Road. And they don't have a connection out there to
Curly Road. Even though Curly Road's gonna be sixth lane. Your connection is gonna be La Marada, which goes at the very bottom of the pitcher, where that road kind of bends out and around. La Marata comes out over there. So you gotta be careful how you assign these densities because if you just put everything right along Curly Road and that road isn't gonna get built and you don't have the connections to the south above, you're gonna have a cluster that's gonna be loaded with traffic that's not ready for it. Um And I will say that. I I'm very happy I
I talked with David Goldstein and our uh county engineer Nick Ern yesterday about this very personal that see the green piece that's in the in the intersection there? That's a retention pond.
Jennifer McCarthy
The green square on the corner on the interface?
Jack MarianoChair
Yeah, the it's a retention pond. So here's the here's the here was here's what the problem is. And this happened the same thing happened up at fifty two in Bellamy Brothers when we took out the neon cowboy. And we took that whole parcel, right. Prime piece of land, and we made a retention pot out of it. Makes no sense. What happens is D O T puts their plans together. We haven't gotten together with them, but talking to David and Nick Juren, uh We're gonna need to get our planners involved every time DOT's gonna do a road, that we get in the mix of it. We go look at that stuff to see what we're
gonna be planning and what's coming in so that doesn't happen again. But that's what's made a a big issue with this whole center right here too. You you can't get the density where the triple retention pond is. So Commissioner Weightman, you run the money. What we plan is not happening. Now, I will tell you the the way this happened was probably about eighteen years ago. We had biannual comprehensive plan amendments and we had some amendments going down here, down by Hancart Road specifically, and that was trying to go from a Res One to a Res, I think nine, maybe Res 6. And
that didn't go anywhere. And that it was at that point in time, uh give Commissioner Schrader credit, he then said, Let's go look at doing an area plan. And that's when the things really started evolving, and that's when the V OPH grabbed ground to come forward. So a lot of time d has been into this, gone through it, but again With what's going on? And when you consider the neighbor next door, we really need to work this connected cities and V O P together as well, but we need to go look at what's gonna go on with these cars because you just don't wanna have a whole bunch of density down the road 'cause it'cause the core
center's not gonna take it because all you can do is push down traffic down there, that's still gonna come back and forth and you may not have the infrastructure in place. Which 'cause I don't know When that's gonna be sixth lane, if it's gonna be sixth lane, and how it's gonna connect down below. And it's it's an issue before we really pull the trigger on the next thing going in there. Commissioner Weightman.
Seth Weightman
Thanks, Chairman Mariano. Yeah, my concern is is to have consistency. consistency and uniformity, you know, amongst each village and we're following what needs to happen. And it's we kick this this one all. I understand in in your plan, which I guess it's a be a different piece. To make a shift. I'm not opp I'm not opposed. But I just I'm concerned That each one's gonna have a little bit of uniqueness to
it, but that we're gonna get away from what the intended purpose and the design of each village is supposed to be and that we follow the integrity of what's so much work and effort that's been that's been made into this. So, I mean, right here was kind of this this over this side was yeah, look out, I got my I feel like a Power Ranger here.
What's kind of outside the bounds. You go here, that's outside the bounds of what's gonna be what's gonna be planned. And then decisions are gonna meet be made that'll impact What's supposed to be in this core? and it no fault of their own, the project's supposed to be inside this corp, might be having to be you know, they're they're gonna have to give up something for something for a project that's not even following where it's supposed where it's supposed to go. So it's just a a broader conversation.
I'm not calling any particular pro a broader conversation of What? What planning principles and what plan are we gonna follow as we make decisions on on this project? So that's that's in essence of Why I'm bringing this up.
Jack MarianoChair
Well and a and a good point too. When you look to the north part where you're just more pointing.
Seth Weightman
You want your magic pin?
Jack MarianoChair
Uh sure.
Seth Weightman
Why not have some fun with it?
Jack MarianoChair
So right in that section right in there there's a bunch of open land that's there. It's been kinda like where they're storing supplies and doing the do the doing the reconstruction. That's like an untouched piece of land that should get more density as opposed to just trying to throw it down over here where There's really not much to support other than internal. And if you get everybody in connected cities, if they're going inside, going to La Marata and and all the stuff that's going on in there where your core center's gonna be, those neighborhood people are probably gonna go that way. So your apartments
that you're looking at down over here It's great that they're captivating their own trips and everything, but a lot of those people there, they're still gonna find their way. And right now there's no easy way for those people in those apartments to get to that point. There's no connection to the north or the south. So again these are Great th great points to bring it out. I know it was gone. I w I read the article in the paper about how you were looking at that stuff about what what's going on. And some of these places coming in are gonna want single family. There's nothing wrong with single family in some of these places. I mean It it's something to to
really take a close look at everything we got going on. Rather than just pulling triggers every time we're getting something that comes before us.
Kathryn Starkey
Can can I add something? I think we've made some mistakes. Uh in looking at the Murata, I guess this is their road network. Why are there any p even pedestrian connections to Curley? We we really need to be looking at the connectivity around.
Jack MarianoChair
Is
Kathryn Starkey
Brett Tippin here?
Gavin Covey
He is not.
Jack MarianoChair
He's not?
Gavin Covey
He yeah, he's uh at a wedding.
Jack MarianoChair
Most of two here.
Kathryn Starkey
And That's unfortunate because if we wanted these people to go to that village for Right. They're gonna have to drive down, around, go out, and all all the way around. And it's just the it's not a good transportation plan anyway. I think
Jack MarianoChair
Joel too
Kathryn Starkey
might be able to
Jack MarianoChair
answer any questions. Okay. Let me just see if we have any more questions for staff and we'll bring public comment up and m we'll let Mr. Two come from there. And if he needs extra time to to go further, that's fine 'cause there's uh been here from the get-go on it. Any other questions for staff? All right, so let me open it for public comment, Mr. Chu?
Joel
Good afternoon. Joel to [address removed]. Um I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm going to uh gratuitously share some input. I was not involved with the project on Curly Road, so I have no axe to grind, no dog in that fight. But just I think we need to be careful not to conflagrate two different issues. This particular amendment is to give you the chance to concentrate density in village cores, which I know all of you want. One problem you're worried about is
that seeping out. This gives you the chance to help ensure that it gets pushed in. Um the issue you're discussing in my opinion is a totally separate issue, which is an individual MPUD approval issue. The only way these MPUDs get approved in BOPH is if you approve them. And against that The way this works is every time someone comes in with an MPD application of EOPH, they have to not only convince you their MPUD makes sense
in and of itself, At that location, but they have to present to you as a companion to their MPUD plan what the new village plan will be for that total village. So every time you get an application, you get a chance to revisit that overall village configuration. And frankly, if the new MPUD you're being asked to approve doesn't perpetuate the requirements of of that particular village, then it shouldn't be approved. But the only
way they get approved is when this board approves them. So I'm a little confused as to how you perceive we got where we are. Um because all of those came through the board and you simultaneously saw what the new village will be. Now Those nice concentric circles in that plan 15 years ago were planning instruments to simply demonstrate the principle that you're now looking at, which is concentrate densities toward the center, feather them out, make
them walkable, make them connected. That was the concept. And In an MPD you have to deal with the real world because real property ownership lines and real wetlands and real streets on the ground Don't necessarily match up those neat circles. That's why it you cannot no matter how good a planner you are, you can never draw one of these village plans that looks exactly like those concentric circles. Now with that said, it's not hard to
say is my density concentrated toward the center, and then is the next layer of density concentrated around that? And I agree a hundred percent. It depends on where it is. And also remember these villages have different intensity requirements. You have type one villages, type two, two A, two B, three A. So it also depends on what size village that was intended to do. So that's a long-winded explanation. But you do have control over this. I'm not saying don't go back and revisit the whole plan, but I'd hate to see you throw the baby
out with the bathwater when when paying attention to each of those approvals in the context of that village plan, I think will help solve the problem. So and again, I don't know how you got there on this village wasn't my wasn't my application.
Jack MarianoChair
Yeah. And And I know it's a little different for public comments, but we're gonna use this expertise. Um I'm working for free now, so it's gonna really take some time here. That's when
Kathryn Starkey
you do your best to do it.
Jack MarianoChair
Whether they gotta make changes and th and and I get we gotta do some changes. But here's what concerns me. I could have one development on part of it coming in for a thing, for a for development approval, another one for a different part of the same center. And the two of them haven't come together and staff, I think when we get something that comes together in a in a two month window, in mind a two or three day window, they should all get together. And let's go put something together that's gonna work for everything from the get-go. Rather than dividing and conquering who's gonna get in first and who's gonna get
streamlined through for whatever the reasons may be, but to have like two things going when I'm doing some changes as well. I it just I think takes away from the pl the big plan we're trying to put together. It it breaks it all up. And it's not fair for the V O P H people to hear it, the Planning Commissioner hear it, and and then one by one by one they're all coming in. We should be looking at this if we've got a few things coming in. Let's go look at it. Just like the project we're gonna look at later later on today with the hospital and The complex above. We put those together and it made it's gonna make more sense than having
them separate.
Joel
Well that's a very co uh very fair comment because initially in the early days we never ran into that because we were lucky if we had one applicant that would write the check to go entitle their property and start a village. So at that point all we had to do was we had to come in with your your with our proposal for our portion and we had to draw you a conceptual village plan that showed you how everything else could play out to prove that we weren't taking more than our fair share. And that's how we did it. But
you're right, now it gets a lot more complicated. I when I was still working, I would have times that I would be engaged for an MPUD in a village and only find out secondhand that at the same time someone was doing another one in that village and that what they were doing was not consistent with what we were doing. And and we would have to reach out and say, wait a minute, we need to all get on the same page. Where is the the street going, where are the connections and what density are you putting where? So I mean you're entirely right. I
think if you have more than one application pending in a village at one time, then you absolutely need to get all of those people in the same room and say, you know, what should this village look like? Because that's a problem. And that was not a problem in the early days.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
Okay. Yeah.
Joel
But you've got a lot of activity now.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay.
Joel
Some
Ron OakleyVice Chair
somehow we need to be looking at that because if we want to get one One project coming. You look at that and it fits. You don't know about the other one until months later, maybe it comes.
Kathryn Starkey
Yeah.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
And then maybe it doesn't fit. So somehow or other staff needs to bring these to us. With it fitting in that the circles the way it's supposed to be. ahead of time so we're looking at it and it's fitting. So
Joel
And and you should be able to do that if more than the ones pending because everyone who applies, like I said, has to give you their updated version of that Overall Village Plan. So you you re at least you have the two views and you can sit down and compare 'em and see if they work.
Jack MarianoChair
Commissioner Weightman. So Professor Two.
Seth Weightman
So if there's a project in Village Corps that's followed, followed the rules. You're getting ready to rock and roll. And there's another project that says comes in down here. And they're gonna pull away from this one who's following the VOPH plan in the core. And for this one to work, it has to kind of cut a deal so it just, you know, spreads it on out down. You're you would agree or disagree that that's kind of bucking
the intent of what this core is all about and what it represents and what we're trying to accomplish here.
Joel
Now if I'm right, this is intersection of Curley and New Clinton, correct? Also New Clinton. known as McCabe, that big primary intersection. The way it would work under the existing rules is once you get, let's just say the Northeast Quadrant got approval and has MPUD approval. Then no one else can take away the entitlements you gave that project. So whoever's there first is vested as to what you gave them for their part because their part, as you say, matched that village plan and you
had no problem. So when applicant number two comes in, number one, they cannot take those other entitlements that have already been granted. And they have to show you that they have logical reasons why you giving them additional density on the south side of that intersection makes sense. And they still have to stay within the overall limits of the entitlements allowed for that village. So it is done on a piecemeal, but they only get to take their fair part of what's left based on where
they're located. And as I understand it, your concern is they extended the high density residential farther down Curley than perhaps you would have thought appropriate. Right? Well they didn't really take away. Not just that,
Seth Weightman
but take away
Joel
Well how did they take was that approved on the northeast corner?
Seth Weightman
So this right here is done. This right here is done right here.
Joel
Okay.
Seth Weightman
But if you're if when you're talking about who's there first, I mean that comes to staff. There's no subject matter expert here, which is good. Uh
Kathryn Starkey
Christy wants to say something.
Joel
It depends on whether the northeast corner was already approved. If it was not approved then the new applicant has to demonstrate that they still have an overall village plan that meets with y the intention and requirements for that village center. And so you shouldn't approve the new one if they can't demonstrate that. That's just a theoretical discussion. Presumably they convinced three or more of you that that it fit the overall plan.
Jack MarianoChair
All right, let's hear from Christy 'cause I think she wants to get a couple of things in. Thank you, Joel. Mr. Chu?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Christy Barrera with High Design. I actually did work with staff on this amendment language to change villages B and C, so this village here and then the one just east of it to allow instead of a maximum of 25% high density and intensity to 35% high density and intensity. And it was in these two specific villages because New Clinton, McCabe, whatever other names we're calling
it, runs through these villages. And so, yes, 18 years ago, 20 years ago, when we were working on BOPH, we did say that this is a primary road, it's planned to be a six-lane road in the future, but maybe didn't realize how important it would be with the interchange at 52 and 75 being. improved a couple of years ago, this road actually going through now, actually getting utilities in this area, that there's been a lot of demand for development along Clinton Road. And there's
also been a lot of applications. There's three pending in village B right now. There's two pending in village
Kathryn Starkey
C right now.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
MPUD zonings. So we're all in the zoning stage and staff asked us to work together to come up with a solution because they liked both projects. You know, how can we get higher density for both of these projects? Now the one thing that is important to remember is that we are not increasing the number of units that is approved in either of these villages. What has happened over time is it appears That the number of units that were approved in the villages, we can't actually reach
that maximum because of constraints like wetlands and topography and things like that.
Kathryn Starkey
A pond, maybe.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Ponds, stormwater ponds are important, yes. So so we want to have as much density as was planned in Pasina Hills in these areas, but to do that, we have To increase the density around that core area. And in some places it is stretching out. But we think along Curley and especially along Clinton, both of those are planned to be six-lane roads in the future. But along those roads, it does make sense to have higher density and higher intensity uses.
Kathryn Starkey
But does it have to be, excuse me, do you want to pass?
Jack MarianoChair
Commissioner Starkey goes.
Kathryn Starkey
I think part of my frustration is: does it have to be all rental apartments to get density? I mean aren't there other things that could get density and when do we reach the limit of how many rental apartments we want in the area.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Definitely. And so a plan that you haven't seen yet that's actually going to the Pasadena Hills Planning and Policy Committee tomorrow is the one that you were talking about, Commissioner Weightman, in the Northeast Quadrant. And that is going to have mi vertical mixed use in those some of those apartments along um the main road. So something that we've heard you want in the plan is something that we're committed to in that MPD project that will be coming forward to you in January.
Jack MarianoChair
Ms. Whitman.
Seth Weightman
So based on that information, is there any harm in waiting to see what the VOPH policy committee says? I'm sure they'll hear what this board discussion
Unidentified speakerVoice D
is today and what staff may bring back to have a maybe have a fresh look over all. I mean there's a lot of subject matter experts that have spent a lot of their time on this project and plan for
Unidentified speakerVoice C
So this actually went to the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee in September, I believe. And there was a very lengthy discussion at that time also. But they unanimous unanimously recommended approval of this Comp Plan amendment.
Seth Weightman
So what about the taking a look at the overall because the the option that's being rescated? I don't my power pin's not that powerful. So the new the new plan would be to essentially shift this range south.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
So it's not shifting itself, it's adding more of the brown. So if you go back, it's not taking away any of the brown, it's just adding. It's adding more acreage to be able to get as many of the units as were previously planned in this village.
Seth Weightman
So the the success of the I shouldn't say success, but I'll say success. So initially you're looking at having the entertainment and the fun things that Commissioner Starkey and I enjoy up here and looking at shifting it down this way.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
We're adding more areas where it can occur. So there will be some entertainment. It's a little bit deceiving here because you see that red L. That's actually a hatched area in this updated version where I what I was talking about there will be vertical mixed use and also a standalone non-residential north of Clinton in that project that you'll be seeing in January.
Kathryn Starkey
And I I am hopeful for I'm hopeful that who's ever designing that Red area below. You can take that stormwater pond and turn it into an asset. If you line your fillings upright and you put a You know, make it Make that a w A water feature, don't make it a
Something negative, turn that into a positive and work with DOT.
Jack MarianoChair
DOT could be tough, but it could happen. Um What I what I look at I look at the red down below on the southern part and I look above I don't see the r any red up there. Any reason why there's no red?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
So It's a hatch. I created a new color because I just want to keep you guys on your toes. Um so at the time
Um, we weren't exactly sure where we wanted the non-residential to go, and we wanted to do vertical mixed use. So it's a red dashed line over the brown saying that in that area we want to have be able to do non-residential and residential and mixed use. So that's what that hatched line is supposed to represent: is all of those uses. So north of Clinton, where We're proposing 75,000 square feet of non-residential as an additional uh seven hundred
plus residential units. So there will be a lot of density in our plan what's proposed.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
That's but that's McCabe Road, right?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Yes.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
It's McCabe, not Clinton.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Yes, I believe the streets I'm saying.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
McCabe goes from the interstate all the way across till it hits Prospect at Clinton.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Yes.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
Okay.
Jack MarianoChair
So I'll just say it would seem to me if we're gonna be looking at these and approvals and we're we're trying to like time when infrastructure's gonna be in place. Around the core is one thing because on the core everybody's gonna get on McCabe and be able to move quick. When you get all the traffic coming up on Curley, that's only two lane road with a big development beside it that could be Anyone coming in from there on the Southern. western side is gonna circle at La Murata and come back down curly and go out. If we don't have
infrastructure in place, how are these people gonna get around and what's the traffic gonna be like between that intersection and the one at prospects?
Kathryn Starkey
Well what's the plan for widening curvature when someone goes when it's going to get white?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
I don't represent the project the MPUD that's gonna come to you all later today. I do know the curly is eventually planned to be six lanes. Um you know you have the improved intersection at fifty two and the new intersection at Overpass, so there'll be two different ways for people to get to the interstate, north and south.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay. Any other questions you wanna ask Christian? Well uh I wanna go back to Steph out of the
Kathryn Starkey
going back to what we're doing. We're we're We're actually taking away density from a means. I
mean
you wanna go we should go back over what this amendment is that we're looking at, right? Um
Gavin Covey
Is there anything you would propose?
Kathryn Starkey
I just think you should sub sub uh say state again what it is that we're voting on.
Gavin Covey
Yeah, I'll just go to the very first time.
Jack MarianoChair
Well before we get to what we're voting on, we got we
still
got public comment. I want to ask another question as well.
Gavin Covey
Okay, do you want me to wake up?
Jack MarianoChair
Well let me let me ask you a question. So it's been said before and I I still haven't got the answer even uh for for the past week or two. When is Curly gonna get improved to the sixth lane? Are there sidewalks gonna be going on? What happens at prospect? Who's gonna be building that and is it funded?
Gavin Covey
So I just I don't know when Curly is gonna be built exactly, but I do know that on the financial plans for connected city and for V OPH they they need to allocate funds and and and build those portions of the road for Curly.
Jack MarianoChair
So right now we don't have an actual funding in place or a timeline.
Gavin Covey
Exactly. I don't have any timeline
Jack MarianoChair
And the
Ron OakleyVice Chair
reason is impact fee coming in on these units. That money's not available to bill curly until that comes in. So th there's no timeline on how that's built out.
Jack MarianoChair
So in in the past we've done we've had a developer put in infrastructure and get reimbursed from their own things back. Right. Uh I know you've hesitated on certain things on Shady Hills, et cetera, to go do that, but this is like a a a prime time where you need to go do it because you if you're gonna approve the development. and you don't have the infrastructure, I'm going to tell you the people aren't going to want to wait for you to get it.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
Well I've d basically we did that with Connected City 'cause you didn't have Curry Road being four lane and six lane back then because they hadn't developed that property and as it developed and the money becomes available and you see it changing. The road's width is changing.
Jack MarianoChair
Right. And and if if they don't have the funding available even with the build out then where you where are you gonna be? And and like I said, with the if you just allow the all this density and you got a two lane road with no way to get in or out. And when I say that just with constrain, um, you're gonna create a big issue there. And I mean especially up at Prospect with all kids heading to that high school or even to Wesley Chapel. Yeah. So it's it's it's it's it's something that's and it's tricky because especially right here you've got connected cities and these are these are two great things, connected city and V OPH. But
now we're we're just we're getting these little struggles coming in and how we're gonna make this all work. And it may take some more county involvement to to make these things right and and even if we gotta get reimbursed for down the road so be it. But somehow we gotta look at what's coming and when it does come how we're gonna be ready for it. Right.
Mike Carballa
So Mr. Chairman Mariano you can correct me if I'm wrong, there there is a financial plan within V O P H that Um thinks this through actually. And they have various impact fee that I believe are are set up and set aside and there is a fairly robust system of credits by which a developer you know can get repaid over time through future development for investments in infrastructure. I think that's the general the general way and I I don't want to get the risk of screwing it up. I don't want to say say more about it.
But but that mechanism exists. That was part of the V OPH plan to to build the infrastructure and to get exactly what you're talking about in place. Okay.
Jack MarianoChair
All right so just for The public um go ahead and uh do the present uh answer Commissioner Starkey's question about show shows exactly what's going on and then we get another public comment. So
Gavin Covey
just go further. Quick update again, increasing land area, conversions, you know, transferring from the edge into the center. Like I said, um brown and red area is gonna be increasing by ten percent in just villages B and C off of McCabe Road, um, six and road in the future. Um here's the proposed one like like we've talked about previously. Here's the proposed one um in the future if you choose to transmit and and adopt this in the future. And
then here is just a quick overview of the entitlement again. You know. Getting more of that entertainment stuff if you want it, more options for commercial and retail. Um and then again just density wise from the outer ring into the center ring, becoming more densified, having more people be able to walk to those village centers to get coffee, to get you know, wine, whatever they choose. And then design principles again, densifying walkability, all that good stuff. And then just comes with a transmitter or something.
Kathryn Starkey
Can
Gavin Covey
can you put that
Kathryn Starkey
again to the little pictures that were on that one?
Gavin Covey
This picture.
Kathryn Starkey
Can we get zoomed in on that?
I can't really Is it possible in a right hand column?
Gavin Covey
I think Sonya's gonna try and see if she can zoom in on
Kathryn Starkey
Oh yeah, see like see the number one, two, three, the the fourth one down? And then um Yeah, so interesting. Those are all T and D. Those are all re loaded. Seth We looks good. Um, that's what ages well. And then is that commercial, the second one down? The second second from the top.
Gavin Covey
Yeah, I think the first two are gonna be the commercial, like the centers.
Kathryn Starkey
And the third one is also commercial?
Gavin Covey
Yes.
Kathryn Starkey
Maybe residential top. I just wanted a better look at what you were showing here.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
It was just stated this is transmittal. This is not adoption. It's confusing because it was pro se it its title is for ordinance which would be adoption. And it's on the ordinance section of your agenda. But this actually you actually will have another hearing on this for final adoption once it comes back from the Department of Commerce.
Jack MarianoChair
Uh let's go finish we'll go finish back in the public comment. Is everyone from the public who liked to speak to this item?
Ron OakleyVice Chair
Mr. Chairman signed up in no one on WebEx for this item.
Jack MarianoChair
Um I would say as we go further with this one, I would like to see when it does come back to us that I would like to know the details of when the road's gonna come in, uh how we're gonna deal with that infrastructure piece uh as it does flow. Um I'm okay with doing some changes along the way, but I wanna make sure that we're not gonna just gonna burden everybody until the fees come in place. We need to have a I'd like to
Ron OakleyVice Chair
see that before we final adopted, but
Jack MarianoChair
yeah.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
Move it forward. I make a motion we approve it. Uh
Jack MarianoChair
does no one on WebEx either for public comment?
Ron OakleyVice Chair
No one's on WebEx for this item.
Jack MarianoChair
Uh closing public comment, Commissioner Oakley?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Your m you're moving staff recommendation to transmit. Yeah.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
Stamp recommendation.
Okay. Roll
call vote.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
District One, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District two, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, moving.
Ron OakleyVice Chair
District five, Chairman Mariano.
3Jan 9, 2024
Board of County CommissionersP57Public hearingAdopted
Approved minutes
Approved to adopt by a roll call vote with Commissioner Bradford absent from the vote.
Open this item →
16m
Kathryn Starkey
P-57 is advertised in the Tampa Bay Times August 2, 2023, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.
Ron OakleyChair
Uh this item is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Conference of Plan providing for tax and table revisions for the villages of Pasadena Hills, DOPH, conference and plan goal flu six, allow increase of land area in village cores of villages B and C, increase maximum residential conversions, and add conditions to transfer unused den cities to village cores, and providing for additional tax amendments as necessary. For internal consistency, providing for repealer serverability and an effective date. This comes to the the Port of County Commissioner
with recommendations for approval and adoption of the ordinance by roll callboard.
Jack Mariano
Yes.
conditions that might not generally be put in place to make sure they're gonna be in place. Like trails out in front and other transportation issues. And kind of work those in. So if you're gonna stretch that density out somewhere else, then you've got the capacity to stretch out the trails and whatever else to connect.
Ron OakleyChair
Yeah, the uh the con the typical conditions that we would have for development for trails and making sure that they have the capacity to service the development, they'll be there. These these uh amendments here are to essentially increase the amount of allowable land designated as village center. So your the The DOPH plan currently constricts the village center to be 25% of the whole village, and then this will increase that village center to 35%. And so yes,
those uh that infrastructure will also uh expand into that additional 10% we're adding.
Ron OakleyChair
Okay. I don't have anyone time. I have some questions.
Kathryn Starkey
Hey I'm I'm I'm all for, you know, the increased entities to help the villages be viable, but I I have a a question I asked this uh the administrator when we were meeting yesterday. My my fear Is that we're gonna have An apartment complex. Then an apartment complex, and then an apartment complex. And they all have their own entrances and you can't get it's just Apartment complex apart instead of I i is it designed
so there's a road network and and there's just density in front of those roads or is it just little self contained apartment complexes lining the roads? Because that's not a really a village.
Ron OakleyChair
Well uh it's hard to speak to it theoretically, um but we have worked on projects in the county where we line the roads with the multifamily apartment buildings.
Kathryn Starkey
And the road's contiguous and you and so You see what I'm I'm nervous about?
Gavin Covey
Yeah, so a lot of that is covered in the MPUD negotiations that we uh that we do. Identify yourself for the record, please. I'm so sorry. I'm Gavin Covey Planning and Development. Um so a lot of that is handled during the MPUD stage. Um we negotiate with the uh applicants to make sure that we're getting our village centers and not just apartment complex, apartment complex, apartment complex. And our uh master roadway plan makes sure that that we have our village centers have those uh large sidewalks with the zero setbacks and all that stuff for the commercial buildings and stuff as well. So yeah, all of that is kind of handled at
the the zoning phase.
Kathryn Starkey
Um
We worked on this with um Mr. Two when we did the Odessa Village Overlay Plan or whatever we call it. Um the apartment complex has road like interior roads going through it. And the apartment buildings are pulled up to the roads. Uh and they're they're not, you know, busy roads, they're int interior neighborhood roads, but we designed it so it's It's
um more like a a a town feel than a apartment complex, apartment complex, apartment complex. It'll be to our detriment to do to not have them have that feel. So just really want to call that allergy.
Okay.
Seth Weightman
Of course. Yes. I know back in twenty nineteen this program that fulfilled the T and D D aspects the V O B A. Does the T and D aspect does that accomplish what Commissioner Starkey's describing?
Ron OakleyChair
It can. Yeah. Um We are currently revising the T and D ordinance that is in our land development code. So we actually have a revised draft that we received uh shortly before the Christmas break. So we're working on that right now. But it it's possible that T and D can accomplish that, yes.
Seth Weightman
So it's it's no secret I have concerns with how these villag these villages are built out. So What's I heard Gavin, but what's our assurances that The the quality of the villages aren't eroded away and we don't have examples of what Commissioner Starkey has described. There's not walkability. It's just you know cloggy, it's not aesthetically pleasing.
Ron OakleyChair
Yeah, we have the condition well well we have the provisions of the land development code to rely on. And we also have the advantage that a lot of the entitlement that are to be m given or made in V OPH they have to come through as M PUDs. So we have the ability to condition and negotiate like Gavin was uh discussing. On top of that, we are, like I said, uh revising the TND code itself, and hopefully we'll be bringing that back to the board soon,
uh, such that the TND ordinance that we that we have can be more user-friendly and applicable to the current development that we're seeing today.
Kathryn Starkey
No one has ever used it, it's so bad.
Yeah, it's really bad.
I don't think anyone's ever used it. We didn't do it, use it. We built long leak. We had the we got a million different um what's the word? Um variances or I don't know. The
Unidentified speakerVoice A
old the old term was variances, the new term is alternative standards.
Kathryn Starkey
Alternative standards. It's one million dollar alternative standard after another.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Right,
Kathryn Starkey
right.
Ron OakleyChair
So when when the when the new code is brought forward and approved by the board, that then will be in the Land Development Code. And then it's there's a uh for V OPH at least a policy question as to whether or not the TND mandate would return to VOPH. Yeah.
Kathryn Starkey
Well we can we can achieve these things without putting that ordinance back in just on how you I mean it does require some kind of interconnectivity and can't we have some say on the locations of where the parking lots are and the buildings are in relation to each to the lot to to each other.
Ron OakleyChair
Yeah, we can. Um and we're currently working on draft provisions to the Land Development Code itself to to do exactly what you're describing, Commissioner. Um and that those can be negotiated into various MPUDs as well, particularly from D OPH.
Kathryn Starkey
I think that should be our direction.
Ron OakleyChair
So this come up basically when we go to the zone. I'm sorry. Go to zoning and that's when this is gonna Yeah. Come to force. Okay. We'll do some studies before we get to there.
Okay. Uh I have no one signed up for this item for the public. Um Is there anyone in the audience wish to speak to this item?
Kathryn Starkey
Do we need to do anything to this? to achieve what we just said or is this not related to that? Just give it more density. Not necessarily how it looks.
Ron OakleyChair
Okay. Mr. T wishes to come forward and speak.
Yes, sir.
Joel
Joel 2, [address removed]. Um this particular amendment really has no impact on the issue you're speaking to because all this amendment does is allow us to not lose. In other words, recapture density we're losing outside the village core where we're not achieving the financial plan density and being able within the same village to To make sure that could be transferred
to the village core. But this amendment in no way affects design requirements. I mean you already have cross-connection requirements for every MPD, and of course you get in construction plans, and if you're not happy with the internal grid system and the cross connects, you're not going to prove those plans. Um so I think what you're talking about n is a design issue. Um Just to refresh your recollection. You already did ask that staff initiate
kind of a V OPH review. uh about what density is being used, what are these villages looking like, where do we stand. And we actually have our first organizational meeting this Friday based on your direction. For the outside consultants and planners to start working with staff to try to get their arms around this. So my suggestion would be that you have staff add that to the discussion list of that review process is what controls
do we really have on how the village centers are going to be laid out. and address that to the extent there there are requirements already in the enabling documents for how you have to design these villages. But if uh you're not comfortable that they're sufficient enough, that's something that could be looked at there. But but it really has nothing to do with this plan amendment. that simply allows us to use density that otherwise is going to be left. on the table and then
we're not going to achieve the financial plan. density to pay for the roads and the infrastructure. That that's the concern.
Ron OakleyChair
So uh Mr. Stu, the um The villages as they sit, they all have certain entitlements. So when we come to that plan And say there's not room or it can't be designed to be in that village, what happens to those units you can't use there? Do they
Joel
charge
Ron OakleyChair
the financial?
Joel
Right. Right now they go away and get lost and we we will never get paid those development fees. So we won't that's the problem is we won't have Um the assumed density to generate the capital budget funding that's gonna be required at the end of the day. And that's why we're doing everything we can within the bounds of reason to try to ground truth and achieve the intended density. in each village, but doing it the way you have mandated, which is concentrate that village in the center
and then feather it out as you go to the village edge. You know, don't get it too far out on the edge. You've got to transition and have lower density at the edges and concentration in the middle. Now the question you're raising today, what I'm hearing, is has to do with okay in that village center where we're pushing the density, what is that center going to look like? Yeah. Is it gonna be designed with a with a grid street system to the extent you can given wetlands? But but subject to wetlands and other issues, are
we getting an internal grid system and are we getting interconnects to make these things look like villages? Right. And I think that's a fair a fair comment.
Ron OakleyChair
Yeah. And those items in that are those uh units inside that village. When they get close to that village edge, they stop. They can't go past the
Joel
cannot go to another see all these.
Ron OakleyChair
If you lose them, then
Joel
it's a
Ron OakleyChair
recalculation of the numbers. You may have to pay more if you're an A.
Joel
Exactly. And all of a sudden your your mobility or development fees could end up doubling. And then you stifle the market because you can't be competitive at delivering the product. Right. So that's a there are a lot of moving pieces out there. And that's why I suggested in November when this came up that that rather than just making isolated, unrelated decisions, it would be prudent, I think, now twelve, fourteen years after the fact, is let's kind of look at where we are, ground truth where you are, and get you comfortable
that there is a design process moving forward so that as these things get built, they will actually look the way you envision in your minds you want it to look.
James Johnston
Right.
Joel
But we are having that first organizational meeting on Friday with Terry's team. to get started, it would be very easy to add village centered design concepts to that to-do list.
Ron OakleyChair
Right. I think that's why it came up to the board because we're getting more happening in the village of Pasadena Hills and the Board sometimes wonders if if those um units that are gonna be in those villages are approved or did did who look at it to say it's fits 'cause we didn't necessarily know, but when it's approved by uh the Board of Villages Pasadena Hills, they're supposed to make sure and and I think Gavin has said that to me before, that they do fit.
Joel
They do and every individual zoning, as we've said before, every individual zoning in a village has to also bring forward the overall village plan based on the prior approvals and demonstrate how what they're doing makes sense in relation to what else is already approved. So it is it is a continuing uh holistic approach to what the village looks like today as compared to yesterday. Right.
Kathryn Starkey
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Joel
Yes.
Kathryn Starkey
I think one of the things we asked staff to show us too was, you know, what have we approved? I'd like to know. where we are so far and I mean I'd like to see like a conceptual Okay, here's this and then next to it is here's that, as far as things that have started to move through. I um Wha who's the gentleman that bought a whole bunch of the villages and is doing T and D?
Yeah. I'm not so worried about his neighborhoods, but um I'd be very curious t I'd I'd like to know what the heck we've approved 'cause For me it's a little confusing. We do one here and one there and so How how's it working? Are we are we achieving what we hope to achieve?
Ron OakleyChair
I think what she's alluding to is the fact that we've asked to have um a workshop or something along with the villagers of Pasadena Hills Board. so that we're all on the same page knowing that when they approve it it fits and it's gonna end up like they say it's gonna end up. So I think that's just a reassurance this board is asking for and we've sent that message out. So I don't know when that's gonna be but uh in the near future that's that'll help us all I think. Okay.
Any other questions? Is anyone here to speak to this item?
Kathryn Starkey
I do not have anyone signed up.
Ron OakleyChair
All right, no one signed up. Mr. Tu spoke. Okay.
Kathryn Starkey
Second.
Ron OakleyChair
Got a motion to approve and a second. Uh by roll call vote.
Kathryn Starkey
District two, Commissioner Weightman. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford. District 5, Commissioner Mariano.
Ron OakleyChair
Aye.
Kathryn Starkey
District 1, Chairman Oakley.
Ron OakleyChair
Aye. Motion passed 4-0.
Uh move on to P.