PDE-26-7881

Every appearance2 of 2 are in a recording

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

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 87% of 60 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Oct 2, 2025
   Planning CommissionPC6Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 32:16
   ▶ 32:1610m

   Planning and Development staff

   32:16Good afternoon. William Premillion, Planning Development, Economic Growth. This is the Companion Item PDE twenty six seventy-eight eighty one. This is a substantial modification. to the Pasco Town Center M PewD. Part of the substantial modification is changing the name from Pasco Townsender to Double Branch. So From henceforth in the presentation when I say double branch, I mean Pasco Town Center and vice versa. Okay.

   32:48Here's the location map. Just south State Road fifty two, nine seventy five corridor in the exchange. This substantial modifical modification, like Joel mentioned previously, was mandated by the third economic development agreement amended, approved by the Board December of 2024. This specifically increases the industrial entitlements by two million square feet to a total of six million square feet. and increases the office entitlements from 725,000

   33:18to 1.725 million square feet of office. as well as changes the name.

   33:27Here's the location map showing just on the south side of State Road 52. It is within the connected city Special district boundary although not opted in. The current zoning reflecting MPUD and the future land use of employment center.

   33:48So For the context map. Here I put on the vision road layer for the connected city boundaries because in the GIS department they had the layer set as connected city as one MPUD, so the whole area is just green, which isn't true. However, on this map you can see several vision roads, and in the vicinity of this project you have the Abbey Crossing MP, Murata, Kinton, Aprile, Remington and then Nest Hockey to

   34:18the south.

   34:22Mm. Here's the MPD master plan, which shows the Vision Road Network within the MPUD plan. from north to south, which are obligations of the Third Economic Development Agreement. This is the connectivity plan. that Mr. Goldstein spoke about. Um You can see here the several trail segments that both run along the master roadway plan as well as meander outside of the right-of-way boundaries. with some starring to indicate

   34:52neighborhood parks and community hubs that are obligated through this MPD substantial modification. Could

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   34:57you also point out the bus stops since we discussed that?

   Planning and Development staff

   34:59Yeah, so there are also transit stops located with this within this MPD, which were uh a part of the original approval of Pasco Town Center that there were to be transit stops here to facilitate between the residential and the employment generating that's going on within this master plan unit development.

   35:20There is one variation that is related to the connectivity plan from 905-1. which um Parks Wreck and Natural Resources was kind enough to help out with. and facilitate uh in their recommendation of approval in this uh variation request This is specifically from the minimum size, minimum dimensions, and open plate areas within the mixed-use development. The specific requirements of this are found within conditions 12 and condition five.

   35:49the the justification overall being without reading you the three paragraphs of justification that are in the agenda memo. is that special consideration needed to be taken for overall park space due to the mixed use development and the residential typology that's found within the MPUD, as well as being supported by the overall connectivity plan to get people from north to south, east to west, employment to residential to support commercial.

   36:18This comes with a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners from staff. I'm here if you have any questions.

   Chris Williams

   36:24All right. Any questions for Will? I thought of one question. I'm not sure if it's for you or just kind of a side question. I drive through that intersection uh by seventy five and fifty two almost every day. I is what's the long term I mean is there any Plans by DOT to try to you know that that southbound I-75 on ramp is gets pretty backed up in the morning. Sure. I was just curious what the long term is for that intersection.

   David Engel

   36:53Thank you. That's a great question. So right now the DOT has approved the project. The flying J trip circulation is being adjusted, so we're gonna mitigate those conflicting tractor trailer turns. Movements across the highway and also DOT, I met with DOT two weeks ago. The the ramping to get on and off of uh I-75 is gonna be um is engineered and they're gonna implement a capital project there shortly.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   37:17Okay. Thank you.

   David Engel

   37:18Mr

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   37:19Engel, is that there also a planned parallel road to the north?

   David Engel

   37:26Oh well that's a good point too. It's on a DOT initiative, but with uh I-75 gateway, the Hines family, uh they just broke broke ground yesterday. They're gonna build what's called the Ozzy Murphy extension underneath I-75 and connect Pasco Road where the target facility is. So that'll provide a vehicular bypass to the congestion down on seventy-five and fifty-two.

   Chris Williams

   37:49Nice. When do um so they broke ground any other

   David Engel

   37:55three years or four years, but um they're they're they're in with DOT now getting approvals.

   Chris Williams

   38:01Is the uh the cross county trail gonna go on through that underpass

   David Engel

   38:06as well? It is, it is, and uh the alignment between 52 and getting up to that crossing is already um you know embedded in the I-75 gateway plan, and that's part of the cross section going underneath I-75. Okay. Two travel lanes for vehicles and the Orange Bell Trail. Yes sir. Thank you. Thank you.

   Charles GreyChair

   38:34Okay.

   Barbara Wilhite

   38:38I don't have anything to add for the applicant.

   Charles GreyChair

   38:40Nothing.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   38:41Okay. Did you Have public comment again or if you want to speak again or no.

   Charles GreyChair

   38:49Uh I think she's

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   38:50You done? Okay, all right. Well can I answer a question? If you ask her to come up to the podium. Yeah, she's gotta come up to the podium so we can catch her on the record if you wanna ask.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   39:01exactly.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   39:04Yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   39:05I was curious about the type of buffer you thought might be appropriate for your facility.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   39:12Um I'm thinking that natural buffer is always better. So trees, you know, obviously are more appealing. They absorb sound sometimes better than having like just a brick wall or something, but something that would be appealing and also just you know, I'm gonna say rewarding Yeah. If if that i the trees aren't in the budget, they don't grow quickly enough then probably a walls or a fence. So I think whatever would be the most appropriate that we could put up quickly, 'cause trees could take a while to grow, so

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   39:42Yeah. All right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   39:44Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   39:45Thank you. And then to staff, is there a buffer that's required?

   Planning and Development staff

   39:56So odd oddly enough, the the parcel that this lady owns when we talk about the future land use amendment actually isn't a part of the MPUD and it r will retain its current zoning. So the buffering requirements that exist today would still exist then until they came in for rezoning. Right, so the M Pud boundary actually stops to the north of the property, the Miller property which he's talking about. The M Pud boundary is actually the northern boundary of the Miller property, which is what this embutties obligated

   40:26to Buffer for that on the map so we can do that.

   Connected City

   40:33So I I noticed at least on this preliminary site plan that there was multifamily slated to border that property, but you know, I know this is early stages and I know Mr. Tube mentioned it's likely that's going to be retention areas, but at least on this plant does show multifamily bordering. So

   Planning and Development staff

   40:54well right, so that the property Mr. Two was mentioning would be to be to the south of that what's indicated as multifamily on the M Pud for the retention area. It's just actually not a part of the M P boundary. Okay, I gotcha.

   Joel

   41:14Yeah, Jules too again to clarify that. Because the current plan, as I said, is likely stormwater drainage. It's not even necessary to rezone that EC parcel that part yet because if it's just stormwater drainage, you can do off-site stormwater drainage. So back to my prior point is if for some reason that changes, they would actually have to come back through a zoning modification to add the parcel. So th you'll have a bite at that apple. uh so to speak, if

   41:44there's actually a use proposed for the parcel adjacent to her. Otherwise it'll just stay in its natural state or simply be stormwater retention and and no use really to buffer. It is a little confusing 'cause it's in the Plan Amendment, the parcel is, but that parcel is not in the MQD mod.

   Charles GreyChair

   42:02Yep. Gotcha. Right, thank you.

   42:09Okay, was that it for comment?

   42:15All right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   42:16Move to recommend approval of item PC six.

   Joel

   42:19I'll second. We

   Charles GreyChair

   42:20have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye, aye. Opposed, like signed. All right.

2. 2Oct 7, 2025
   Board of County CommissionersAP83Public hearingApproved

   Zoning Amendment Substantial Modification … Entitlements from 4,000,000 Square feet Feet to 6,000,000 Square Feet … in Central Pasco County

   Approved minutes

   Approved the Public Hearing Consent Agenda which included Agenda Item P49 and Agenda Item AP83 contingent upon Clerk review.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 7:23
   ▶ 7:232m

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   7:23Okay, let's take up the addendum. Um for me it's in the back of my book. It's A P eighty three.

   Madam Clerk

   7:34AP eighty-three proof of publication, Tampa Bay Times, August 20th, 2025, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

   Ron Oakley

   7:43Item AP eighty three is PDE twenty six seventy-eight eighty one. This is a zoning amendment, substantial modification to the double branch M PUD formerly known as Pasco Town Center M PUD. By PTC Boyot LLC et al. It's a rezoning request to substantially modify the double branch MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to amend the name of the MPUD to the double branch MPUD, and to amend the MPUD entitlements to increase the industrial entitlements from 4 million square feet to 6 million square feet, and to

   8:13increase the office entitlements from 725,000 square feet to 1,725,000 square feet. And associated infrastructure on approximately 966.87 acres located in central Pasco County. This comes to you with a recommendation from the Planning Commission and the Planning Development and Amar Department to approve the MPUD rezoning request subject to the attached rezoning conditions of approval.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   8:38Okay, uh board members this is on consent. Is there anyone who wants to see Anything more on this one?

   Ron Oakley

   8:45Also, Madam Chair, I'll note that there were ex partes that were received post publication. They've been submitted to the to the clerks.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   8:54Okay, and is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition to AP eighty three?

   Madam Clerk

   9:01Okay. And we don't we don't have this, so we'd like the item approved upon contingent upon the clerk review.

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   9:10That needs to be part of the motion.

   Jack MarianoVice Chair

   9:12So

   Kathryn StarkeyChair

   9:12make a motion.

   Jack MarianoVice Chair

   9:12Yeah, make that part of the motion. Yeah. I'll second.