Comprehensive Plan Amendment – CPAL 20(14) Central Pasco Employment Village – Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village Subarea Policies, Policy FLU 7.1.12 (Public Hearing: LPA: 3/25/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 4/20/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid)

1:32:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Niktarios Pitos, Planning and Development. Item P six on the agenda is a comprehensive plan amendment. In the name of C Pel twenty fourteen, Central Pasco Employment Village, it's a comprehensive plan text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village sub-area policy. Policy flu seven dot one dot twelve. So The proposal that's before the plan the local planning agency today, as you're sitting as that, uh is to amend the sub-area

1:33:08policy flu seven one twelve. Uh to enable initial residential development, to increase the number of single family detached entitlements, to remove the affordable housing provision, and enable case-by-case review at the MPD level school sighting. For school sighting. The the location, as we'll see in a second, is on the south side of State Row fifty two between Aaron Cutoff. Alternity some alternatively sometimes known as Collier Parkway Extension and Bellamy Brothers Boulevard. And the resolution uh

1:33:39that's uh before the the body today is to provide it for a text amendment to the sub-area policy as as it was as I noted. Um next slide please.

1:33:58There we are. So before I get into the uh overall presentation, I do want to talk about some of the uh items that are before you and what what's in your hand uh to m to make clear for the public. So what was in the agenda memo for today, or what was in the agenda for today was a placeholder memorandum. Um and I was going to bring the Uh a copy of the agenda memo to the planning commission as well as the sub area policy itself. And so those handouts have been provided to the Planning Commission.

1:34:28Uh what you have is a version of the sub area policy as it appears today in the comprehensive plan. That one is th um the clean copy that you that you might have in your packet in front of you. The date at the bottom says July twenty five, twenty thirteen. Um the second uh attachment that you've got in your possession is the draft version. Which illustrates all of the edits that we're talking about today. And that one will say

1:34:58draft 325-21 at the bottom right corner. And you'll you'll also see the edits in um in the in the actual text itself. And I'll go through and we'll walk through those today in in uh in short. So the amendment uh to the policy that you have in front of you today um is consistent with policy flu 7112. It's consistent with itself. Uh it's also consistent with policy flu 813, which

1:35:28is the central market area uh future land use policy. Uh and of course it has the EC Employment Center future land use designation uh to be consistent with, as well as the CON or conservation future land use designation that it must be consistent with as well. Next slide. Uh the map is showing you where Central Pasco Employment Village is located within the county. It's pretty much uh right in the center. And this is a m

1:35:59uh the master plan of the Central Pasco employment village. And uh I want to point out a few of the land uses that are present on the um on the master plan there. The different colors represent different land uses, so red represents uh the commercial support uses um and which include commercial and office. The purple represents target business, corporate business park, and light manufacturing. So three three uh uses

1:36:30there in the purple. The yellow is representative of just corporate business park. The brown is representative of the high density residential area. the orange is representative of the medium density residential area and the Peach color. uh is representative of the low density residential area. So you can see that there's a a gradation or a step down from east to west, uh contemplated in terms of densities

1:37:00within CPEV.

1:37:08So the the existing sub-area policy supports employment generating land uses with workforce housing in close proximity. Uh the mixed use nature of the current policy is essentially to achieve a job to housing ratio of one to one with the purpose of phasing requirements, uh, to ensure residential development does not preclude employment generating uses from locating within the planning area, to make provision for the residential to not outpace provision of the needed non-residential infrastructure. That's a that's an existing. component

1:37:39of the policy. Um to not restrict the establishment of multimodal transportation network and to enable critical wildlife habitat preservation in central Pasco County. The proposed sub-area policy maintains these same objectives, but with a change in emphasis on the residential build-out thresholds located at the end of the policy. And we'll get into that uh when when we're at that point in the policy review. The applicant or the petitioner is requesting a num a couple of amendments to the sub-area policy.

1:38:11The first is to enable residential land uses to precede the development of employment generating land uses. And we'll talk a little bit about that in just a few minutes. As well as to establish a service-ready sites initiative in the sub-area policy like Connected City, like Connected Cities service ready site acreage requirements. The second is to authorize the increase in the number of limited development. Uh and limited development of up to 1,500 single-family detached

1:38:41homes, which increases the percentage of single-family from 20% to 33%. The total residential units allowed in CPEV remains constant, however, at 4,500 units. The third is to remove the Department of Community Affairs, which is a state agency that was disbanded, I believe, in 2010 or 2011. Remove the DCA mandate to impose affordable housing requirements in CPEV, consistent with the elimination of the provision from other similar projects in Pasco

1:39:12County.

1:39:17and other MPUDs. And the fourth is to enable a case by case MPUD level review to determine the appropriate timing and location for the establishment of Pasco County school board facilities such as schools.

1:39:32Next slide please. Oop. Yeah, a little too far. Yeah, I I apologize. Yeah, yeah, no, no, I apologize. Um one more. Yeah, yeah. So I wanted to put that out forward first so that we can take a look at the future land use map in consideration of what is being proposed here. So the future land use map, the pink is the EEC Employment Center of Future Land Use, and in general. that constitutes the boundaries of the C

1:40:02P E V planning area. There. It's very similar to the master plan map that I just had on the screen. There are agricultural flus to the northwest, planned developments to the north, directly across from CPEV is the Palmetto Ridge Plan Development. Conservation lands to the south and west, Res1 is to the northeast and to the southwest. Res 3 is to the southeast, and you have IL that is directly to the east, sort of at the nose

1:40:32where Bellamy Brothers and SARO 52 are. Intersecting.

1:40:36Excuse me for a second. Could I get a copy of that document? I didn't get a copy. Yes.

1:40:44Uh next slide.

1:40:47And this is essentially the zoning map for the CPEB area as it stands today. um in general. I'm not gonna go entirely through the zoning uh classifications because Um this isn't really a land development proposal so much as it is a policy change uh in the comprehensive plan. But the zoning in C P E V right now is mainly AC. And AR5, as

1:41:18well as MPUD, at the very far eastern limits of CPEV.

1:41:26Okay, so um what I really wanted to do uh today with the planning committee or the local planning agency is to illustrate that you have a copy of the existing sub area policy um before you to compare to the proposed uh changes. Now the proposed changes are gonna have the edits plus the existing language in there. But I wanted to make sure you had an existing um copy of it as well so that you could uh refer to it without any of the

1:41:57additional editing that was taking place. Um And what I'll go ahead and do now is I'll walk through Next slide please. I'll walk through the actual amendments. So what you have in front of you, uh to be sure, is the official version of the edits. And what I'm showing on the overhead is kind of the behind the scenes version of how the document was edited. So you could kind of see what what kind of negotiation was taking place. But the actual edits are cleanly

1:42:27provided to you in the uh

1:42:31So In the first edit that appears is not covered on my slide, but it's on A four. And that is essentially the affirmation of the preservation of land and area for employment generating uses within CPEV. Uh and then later on you see in that first subsection A, item number nine. There's a provision that's added to the sub-area policy to include home occupation as a potential uh for the residents

1:43:01that will live in the employment village itself. Um

1:43:08The first major edit to the sub-area policy itself takes place in section B three. That's what we have see showing on the overhead. And I I won't go through and read the entire um paragraph there, but essentially the main points are to establish a service ready sites initiative within CPEV and we'll talk about this later on in subsection F of the uh sub-area policy. It's also to emphasize uh the construction of infrastructure and preparation

1:43:39for the employment generating land use is to make sites that are serv serviceable that that are ready to to uh construct. uh buildings, and then also to allow initial development of residential This is an affirm affirmative statement here. Actually, if you look at the existing sub-area policy in the very end of that document, you'll notice that there's a table that's called the jobs to housing ratio at one job per 450 square foot average. Um

1:44:10the original Sub area policy always uh considered the establishment of some initial residential within CPEV in order to uh build the square footage requirements that are outlined in that table. So there's a threshold associated with building square footage or building area in the current uh sub area policy.

1:44:41So in this first section B3, there's uh confirmation that uh some initial development of residential is possible. And also uh importantly, as we'll find uh in subsection F, that we keep ex those same existing thresholds that are currently referenced in the sub-area policy. Next slide please. The next major change that's happening uh within the uh sub-area policy is uh related to section

1:45:11C4. Uh, this is the removal of the affordable housing. provision uh in the uh central Pasco Employment Village sub-area policy. The main points again here is that The language itself is not inconsistent with state statutes. uh the language uh does appear to be very consistent with the the statutes. Um there are, however, local precedents to remove this language and in the in

1:45:41the agenda memo I go through and discuss um what some of those precedents were to remove the affordable housing uh language then. Uh Because despite the state statute and the potential for a strategy to define whether costs might be might be offset fully. Uh there have been a number of board-approved DRIs and MPDs that removed the same affordable housing language from the regulatory documents. The last one was the Wiregrass Development Order, which was adopted by the

1:46:11board in January of 2019. Um and in that case the affordable housing mitigation was eliminated. until the county could adopt an applicable countywide affordable housing mitigation ordinance. Uh since affordable housing was not being required across the board.

1:46:28Um having said that These are the precedents that are invoked to remove the same language from the Central Pasco employment village. However, we do have uh comments uh from the community development department that are not in agreement with the removal of the affordable housing provision from the sub-area policy. Uh noting that affordable housing uh is a future or potential component of a ending Pasco County strategic plan. Um This provision is before the planning

1:46:58commission and the board of county commissioners. The county may either strike the provision consistent with past precedent or retain the provision, it is not in conflict with the state statute, and that can be done as a policy decision. Um next slide please. In section C5, we find the next major uh change within the sub-area policy. This is uh the main point of this uh particular section is to increase the single-family detached entitlements to not exceed

1:47:28more than 1,500 units. So again, as I noted earlier, it's an increase from 20% of the residential entitlements to 33%. Uh and also the main point of this paragraph is to put is to have the potential to introduce a master land plan allocation formula for single-family detached. Now the Discussion point here that I that I'd like to make is that um there's only a limited supply of single family detached

1:47:58uh available within uh the Central Pasco employment village, even with the increase from twenty to thirty-three percent here. And so allocation of the single family detached is important for the uh fairness of all the various property owners and the development. There are two types of ways that this can be approached. The first way is to consider these on a case-by-case basis and review them each according to the ECMP or ECMP or MPUD that is brought in.

1:48:30This is no different than what might occur elsewhere in the county outside of the C P E V area. You'll look at it on a M P U D by M P U D basis and determine entitlements at that time. And of course in that uh

1:48:47public meetings involved in which uh neighboring and neighboring r residents or even neighboring property owners may come in and provide their input at that time to uh Yeah. The second way of doing this is to establish a master land plan formula where one might say that no more than 45% of the allocation may be allowed in high density, in the high density area of CPEV. That amounts to about six hundred seventy-five units. Um across approximately

1:49:17570 acres. No more than 30% of the allocation may be allowed in medium density areas. So that's about 450 units and approximately 370 across 370 acres. And no more than 25% of the allocation may be allowed in low density areas. which amounts to about 375 units and approximately 200 acres. So the important thing to note here is that the low density designated area of CPEB is the most sensitive to the allocation of single family entitlement. Because it's limited to the two dwelling

1:49:47units per acre that the master plan was indicating to us. And so it's important uh to consider that um That type of product is available for that low density area. If we follow a formulaic allocation like this, you could get very close to the two dwelling unit per acre single family entitlement for the low density area and still offer or afford single-family entitlements to other other property owners. It's

1:50:17been argued previously that uh this method may be um harder to accomplish via a comprehensive plan amendment in other uh cases. So I do want to bring that up t uh to your attention. Um The next slide will show us uh some of the if we do want to provide a master land plan formula for single family entitlements, this is the kind of language that you would add within uh subsection C

1:50:48four. Of the sub-area policy. And what this is basically illustrating is language that talks about what I just explained. Up to 45% of the single family detached entitlement may be allocated to the high density residential area, up to 30% for medium, 25% for the low. And the allocations may be incrementally calibrated to increase up to a maximum of 5%, additional allocation on a case-by-case basis. This this is so that you can make sure that you reach a balance and that there's some wiggle room involved.

1:51:19Um And then at such time that the C P V V planning area is fully zoned with E C M P Ds. Any unused single family entitlements could also be added beyond the allocations uh since they may be left over and avail and uh available for u for for use.

1:51:38And so this language, like I said, could be added to C four. The next available next slide. Uh the next uh major change within the sub-area policy is section E3. And what this is basically a text uh clarification that's taking place. The the the language is basically being cleaned up. It's essentially saying the same thing. Um actually it's i I didn't really consider it a major change, but it is a change. Next slide please.

1:52:10All right, and so then this is the next major change within the sub-area policy. It's section E6. Here, E6 is talking about school siting, and the main thrust of this uh provision here is uh that school sighting should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in MPUD reviews. It's currently not called out how that would happen in the existing sub-area policy other than to amend the map to illustrate or to identify where the school might be sited. or where the facility might be

1:52:40cited. Um Elsewhere in the county, this is typically determined on a on a MPUD by MPUD basis until such time where thresholds are exceeded for the school district to require a facility from a development. And so this is basically aligning with current practice in terms of what's being done elsewhere in the county. Next slide please.

1:53:06And then finally in section F here, uh there's a couple of edits. The whole the whole section has essentially sort of been redone here. Um this is the section that's talking about how infrastructure ought to be developed um in support of the building areas. Needed to house the employment generating land uses themselves. Now, before I get into this section, I do kind of want to go into some of the history of CPEV. The Department of Community Affairs originally

1:53:36imposed uh this section here to require jobs to housing. Uh ratio. And at the time the landowners, as I understand it, uh understand the history, there was opposition to the DCA imposition, uh and then there was an attempt to mediate between what the state was uh working to impose and the what the landowners were resisting. And so the um County Attorney proposed a middle ground uh to

1:54:07establish pad ready sites.

1:54:12In keeping with that previous uh effort that the county had to mediate, um we're we're we're bringing that forward into this proposal such that the thresholds are not entirely deleted from the sub area policy, but they are reworked to include uh infrastructure to support rather than building uh the actual shell buildings. And so what you have in the in this section F is

1:54:42to uh preserve the economic development potential of those employment generating land uses identified on the master plan. Uh by establishing a service ready sites initiative that's modeled after the service ready site acreage requirements of Connected City, which is one of the more recent ways in which the county has provided for uh economic development and essentially creating or a prepared area to accept uh industrial as well as off it cor office,

1:55:12corporate business park and

1:55:17The Service Ready Sites Initiative and CPEV is outlined in um on the on the slide, it's outlined A through H, but in your packet it's one through eight, renumbered. But uh similar to connected city, an MPUD or an EC MPUD would establish the specific requirements for each development, but it would have to meet the the criteria outlined in the sub-area policy. So CPEV service ready sites would be flexible, shall be flexible, and enable a mix of non-residential

1:55:47uses in support. This is to capture those red areas that you saw in the master plan. Uh it's gonna require a minimum size of a land parcel that will qualify as an SRS parcel. It'll establish limited and prohibited uses within SRS parcels, so every MPUD will be doing this. It'll require the construction of adjacent infrastructure for roadways and utilities to serve the service ready sites parcels. It it'll also facilitate expedited development permitting for them for

1:56:17mass for mass grading of service-ready sites for future or by future employment users. It'll restrict by deed to service ready site parcels for the reservation and preservation of their economic development potential. This sub-area policy is mandating the posting of identification signage on service-ready site parcels, clearly noting the site is going to be a future development for light industrial uses and employment site and require residential users to be notified of those nearby SRS

1:56:47parcels. And also it'll establish compliance with the provisions of the land development code as a prerequisite. for any kind of incentives or credits for that infrastructure to the SRS parcels.

1:56:58Mm-hmm.

1:57:07Next slide please. Oh, you got it. It's up there.

1:57:17Now on this slide you can see that the thresholds are st that are present in the existing sub-area policy are still present within the uh proposed uh sub-area policy. But what uh this slide is actually uh talking to now is that rather than requiring a shell building to be constructed, um, or a or a Mm-hmm. a prospective building or a speculative development

1:57:47uh occurring um When a residential development moves into C PEV, it must extend the utilities of course uh for itself, but also provide the utility extensions and the roadway access to the SRS parcels. uh in exchange for the dwelling units that are going to be authorized according to these thresholds. So at seven hundred dwelling units um in this case, uh the initial development would have to would have to build the infrastructure

1:58:18to support a building or buildings that would amount to three hundred fifteen thousand square feet of uh service ready site. And then at two thousand they would have to have infrastructure to support nine hundred thousand square feet and so on down the the table. So the thresholds are still there to achieve what um CPEV was contemplating originally just not with the construction of s of speculative or shell buildings, but

1:58:48actual pad ready sites, which is similar to and consistent with other parts, other economic development initiatives in the in the county.

1:59:08Next slide, please. So the recommended motions uh that are before the planning or the local planning agency today are on the overhead screen. Um You have before you the recommended agency action to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village Sub-area Policies, Policy Flu 7112, which removes the affordable housing provision in keeping with the precedent. the precedents that have been uh set previously. There

1:59:39is also the alternative agency action to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village, Sub-area Policies Policy Flu 7112, keeping the affordable housing provision. There is an optional agency action also to recommend including the master land plan formula language in the that identify that is identified in this agenda memo uh for single family detached entitlement allocations. If you don't want to include the master land plan formula,

2:00:09you don't have to have an extra motion because the default would be that those allocations would be reviewed on an MPUD by MPUD basis regardless. And then there's other a other action that is also available to the local planning agency, which is to recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed text amendment. to set to the Central Pasco Employment Village Sub Area Policies, Policy Flu 7112. or to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to direct the Planning Development Department to another course of action regarding

2:00:43Uh this will complete my presentation, but I would be uh happy to take any questions now or or after um you may have heard from Other stakeholders.

2:00:57Okay.

2:00:58Uh

2:00:59are there any questions from the day at s at this mo point?

2:01:02Uh Terry's Jamie Girardi here. Um Just Out of curiosity, I mean is there a reason why Nobody on this board saw any of this information before like one minute before the presentation. I mean they you threw a lot at us. I mean that was a very thorough presentation But I mean, we don't sit up here and hear twenty or twenty five minute presentations very often of stuff we're expected to vote on, not at least having seen what we're gonna vote on before the meeting. Yep.

2:01:31Yes, so that's kinda why I wanted to walk through on a point for point and not do the the typical three minute uh presentation that we generally have because we didn't have the opportunity to provide this information uh to the Planning Commission sooner. Um This was a uh this is a uh difficult project that has taken us to the wire to um provide the information uh before the um for the local planning agency. It's uh it's occurred in other projects too.

2:02:02This wouldn't be the first time that this this sort of uh difficult project has come before the county and gone all the way to the end. Um You know, a similar project was Project Arthur that that that happened like that. Um But Uh Other than to say that this is a very this was a very difficult and challenging uh project to this point and it was taking us quite a bit of time to work this out and negotiate it um with uh the various

2:02:32stakeholders.

2:02:34Okay, I mean I I I just we continued this item three weeks ago. Um so I mean this item was originally advertised to be heard three weeks ago. Um so then we continued it with uh thought the assumption that we would at least know what we were voting on. I mean I know just in as you were going through your presentation, I've got a list of questions to ask you, but that's without even reading the the page after page of text of the agenda memo. I mean, I'm not even sure I could vote on this thing today and and have any idea what I'm voting on.

2:03:00And Mr. Chairman I would agree with Mr. Giordy. We haven't had a chance to read all this stuff. It's a lot.

2:03:05I agree too.

2:03:06I mean I guarantee if John Gallagher was here at DRC he'd be jumping up and down.

2:03:11Well let's give John a call.

2:03:20I agree with what has been said. This this is I can read reasonably well, at least at the grade level that my wife teaches at and uh and I tried best I could. Two questions I have. Basically Over the years I've sat here and I mean literally over the years, I've heard nothing about We need jobs, jobs, jobs. And on your chart up that I wrote down here 'cause I have a short memory sometimes. Basically in section F. Proposed

2:03:50text text change. is to remove jobs for housing. Why would we wanna change our jobs for housing? And don't ask me what page that's on. It's way back there. It's it's in section F I guess. That that's my my problem is you want us to change Jobs. For housing? When that's what I've always heard about these job centers. In fact it was a couple of months ago. that we had an argument not an argument.

2:04:15We

2:04:16phrase that. A discussion about job centers and creating jobs versus I still don't know what low income housing is. One of these days I'll have the courage to ask what that is. But But that's where I'm at. If we want j 'cause I see in this community, in this county. Housing popping up. And we say, Well we need to bring jobs here. Because we don't want everybody to drive to Hillsborough County or Hernando County. or whatever county that they drive to. We want them to stay here in

2:04:46the community. So that that's my dilemma.

2:04:48Yeah. I'm not sure why the tables referring to a jobs to housing ratio, other than that the Department of Community Affairs approached it in this way, but the net effect of what that table was doing was establishing Establishing a housing to building square footage ratio, not necessarily jobs per se. But I will say that um You know, identifying a job to housing ratio within a comprehensive plan is typically not done. Um When such ratios are

2:05:19offered as regulatory requirements, which is pretty much what's in the existing sub-area policy. um they're often articulated in specific development agreements. That are the right-of-way. Related to a particular Project. you don't really see jobs to housing ratios within comprehensive planes because these are aspirational. um uh concepts and not uh specific. Um what would happen at the end of the day if a project Did not have the

2:05:49jobs to housing ratio that the comprehensive plan is calling for. Is it a bad project? Is it inconsistent with the comprehensive plan at that point? Uh so that's one reason why you w don't see uh a jobs to housing ratio specifically in comprehensive planes, do they exist out there? From time to time they do. But in this case

2:06:09This is this was really a housing to building square footage

2:06:13I wasn't fair to you. Basically, what I thought this this map that that I ran off at home before I sh came here today. I thought this was gonna be like a jobs location. And I know the when you said jobs to home ratio, I meant like outside of the series. Well you s the way I interpreted what you said was that they were going to be homes replacing jobs in here. Uh but I see people I see homes being developed throughout the county. And so I see people can drive to work

2:06:43or if there's public transportation to this location, that even works out. Well. But the other question I have too, and I I I wrote it down and I have a question mark on it. What did you mean by homework in here? Does this mean that somebody will have a home in this community and then they do homework there? I I'm not sure what kind of homework they would do. Not homework like studying. I mean they would build things or develop something or create a particular product. Home occupation. Home occupation, it could be You know,

2:07:12Right. Home occupation. Um there's a and the land development code identifies a number of different types of home occupations. Um but it's basically those small very small business operations that people can do outside of their house.

2:07:25Uh

2:07:25either through special exceptions. In some cases they get special exceptions, in other cases I suppose they're they're permitted. Uh it just depends on the use.

2:07:32Yeah, minor home occupation, which is basically they're just uh using um the internet or there's no foot traffic to the house, that is allowed by right in all zoning districts. Uh some of the times you see them here before the Planning Commission is when there's trip generation. Um so there's there's traffic, you know, um either through uh um specific uh um you know

2:07:56deliveries.

2:07:57I understand not deliveries by um uh appointment service to the house. Yeah,

2:08:02I can understand that type of thing. But if you get there's a a book that Department of Labor puts out that describes jobs and that type of thing. But I I I would have a hard time

2:08:13Putting a home business in this type of community. Because what you want is you want manufacturing or you want some type of Or some type of business that would create jobs. That's what the county needs is jobs and decent paying jobs.

2:08:32You know, it's it's called the Central Pasco Employment Village. The idea being that you live in close proximity to where you work. Part of that employment village concept. And then of course in in in a post COVID nineteen world Um where pretty much any and every house has become a local home occupation because people have to work remotely. Um where better to uh insert home occupation than in an emp mixed use employment village. I suppose that would be

2:09:02the argument. But to clarify some uh one comment I made earlier, Mr. Chairman, um Right. I was talking about jobs to housing ratio. I I do want to point out that as I noted, it's a it was a housing to building square footage ratio. that that the sub-area policy is actually talking to. Um but the ratio is still there. The thresholds we as I just illustrated um on the in the presentation are still present. So the ratio of single family homes to the number of square

2:09:33feet of building is still present. The difference is rather than having a shell building constructed by, say, a r a residential developer, you have a padready site. That enables a employment generating land user to come in and construct the building of their choice. Or a speculative office builder, for example, to come in and build what they want to build on that particular site. So the ratio is still there. We haven't eliminated the ratio, it's

2:10:03just changed in in the in the way It's being articulated.

2:10:09Okay, and uh are there any other questions for for Terry right now? Or I think we have some other people that wanna speak, right? Let carry off the hook for a minute, huh? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay.

2:10:23All right.

2:10:23Yes, Mr. Chair, we do have someone who is at the public comment kiosk, um, Mr. Scaglione. Okay. And then I'm going to make you

2:10:31Mr. Chairman you should hear from the applicant first.

2:10:34I'm sorry, what did you say?

2:10:36You need to let you need to give the applicant an opportunity to speak first.

2:10:41Okay.

2:10:45Yes, Mr. Chairman Mel to Two and Associates, Palm Harbor, Florida. Uh and along with my colleagues at Height Design, uh we represent the property owner uh who is the applicant. Uh this is a property owner of a portion of the Central Pasco Employment Village, albeit a a large portion. It is the Swoke family, their various family entities. Dale Swoke is their family representative. He's

2:11:15on business, legislative business in Tallahassee today. uh but we're speaking on behalf of his family. And if I may, uh let me just address the concern that the Planning Commission members have expressed. Uh Obviously, we don't disagree with you. about asking you to vote on something uh that has this many pages um and of this significance that just hit your desk. Um so I I want to proceed here today with your permission,

2:11:45but I would I would say uh that I think it'd be prudent for you to hear the applicant. uh for you to hear any public members that are here to speak. Uh but we're certainly not going to resist if you decide you need to then continue this to the next meeting on April first to give you time to go through the documents. Perhaps we reconvene then and you ask any detailed questions. But I think there are already some misperceptions from just the comments I've heard. So before you

2:12:15go off in the wrong direction, in our opinion, we would like an opportunity to present. um the matter. And just as to the predicament we're in, um PDD needs to plead me a copa a little stronger here. As Mr. Girardi pointed out, we were on the March 4th agenda. We had a recommendation of approval. We had received no we thought that we had complete agreed sub-area policies, that there were no questions. I was called very shortly before that meeting

2:12:46that there were some late last minute questions. Uh we agreed to that continuance. We've worked feverishly. We've agreed on revisions. This application's been pending for eight months. And then all of a sudden there's this flurry at the end to get things in PDD's view correct. So what I'm saying is please don't hold it against the property owner or the applicant. This is not his. doing um as to predicament you're in, but we certainly

2:13:16understand it. Um, but with that said, I I I want to stress one thing and then I'm gonna turn it over to Pat Gasway to present the application. But getting to Mr. Hanson's point, and this is what I was concerned about, if this isn't approached historically and properly, the first conclusion is: wait a minute, you're replacing jobs with housing. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's simply not factual. Yeah. This land was master planned and approved

2:13:46by the this commission and the board, uh, and it has specific land areas that are reserved and allocated exclusively to the employment jobs. It has specific land area that is exclusively committed to the residential portion. This proposed amendment does nothing. It does zero to alter the land that is absolutely restricted for employment versus housing. All it does is recognize that the Department of Community

2:14:16Affairs, which has since been abolished. At the time this was originally approved, it would not approve this plan. Without literally tying home construction to someone going out there, investing tens of millions of dollars building empty shell office buildings, having no user, and hoping they would eventually show up. Well, that requirement has left us exactly where we are with a vacant piece of cow pasture out

2:14:47there and not the first bit of development. So all we're saying is that that is not been required a connected city. It's not been required in villages of Pasadena Hills. It has never been required by Pasco County anywhere in this county to go build a speculative shell office building before you can build a house. So just to get everyone back on track, we're not changing, we're not increasing any housing density. There were 4,500 units approved here originally. We still

2:15:17will have 4,500 units. All we're doing is taking a portion of those potential multifamily units. This thing was heavily tilted toward apartments and multifamily. We're taking a portion of that to allow more single family, which at least one of your county commissioners is gonna be delighted about, and probably more. We're not changing the total residential units. We're not detracting any from the employment job. We're simply saying that you're not going to build empty speculative buildings,

2:15:48but we are going to require that residential developer that comes in to start just on the residential portion, just with the previously approved units. He's going to have to upsize and build the roadways and utility infrastructure so that we have lines and roads adjacent to those. Industrial and corporate sites so that if you do then find a user, they don't have to wait and bring that utility. So that's what's going on here. I just wanted to provide you that background

2:16:19so that we don't get off on the wrong tangent. But if you're willing, I'll shut up. I'm gonna ask Pat to give you our overview and then My suggestion, obviously it's your prerogative, is that we hear we hear the public comments and then we we continue this to the next meeting if you need time to digest documents and then possibly come back and ask follow-ups to Terry or to us because obviously we need to get you comfortable with this. And I don't want anybody going off half-based

2:16:49with with inadequate information. That's certainly none of your

2:16:55All right. Um thank you. Thank you, Mr. Two. Uh we have uh Pat Gasway then to speak.

2:17:04Good afternoon everyone. My name is Pat Gasway. I'm with Hype Design at uh 5904 Hampton Oaks Parkway in Tampa, representing the applicant. Uh we uh we were actually the uh the the authors of the uh of the first comprehensive plan amendment when we were representing over a dozen property owners uh within this particular area. Back in 2008, the history is uh it

2:17:34has been properly recounted by uh by Terry, even though he didn't have the luxury of going through the agony of dealing with DCA. Um the the original um See if I can uh give you a little bit of info here.

2:17:54Ah, blue good. Looks like I'm Oh could could I share my screen with the uh with the rest of the board?

2:18:05Yes, it's fine with me. If you know how

2:18:09to do that.

2:18:10I I think I do.

2:18:17I think I'm gonna go over here to the

2:18:27Okay. Yeah does everybody uh does everybody see my screen now? It's the uh Central Pasco Employment Village Illustrative Plan from the original uh comprehensive plan amendment that was approved back in uh in uh 2010.

2:18:45Yes, I think.

2:18:47Everybody see that? Okay. Um great. The the idea um back then is exactly the same. That the notion is to be able to bring uh light industrial, target business, uh office complexes uh here to this particular location and close proximity into this landmass wedged between State Road 52 and the Cypress Creek well field to

2:19:17be able to have various types of residential units to provide close workforce. Um in in that regard the uh the the land plan was structured uh in a way such that the major infrastructure, this east west um collector road, as well as these two north south Collect erodes. would be able to provide the requisite infrastructure and

2:19:48utility corridors to support to support the entirety of the development plan. The area was very complex to attempt to plan because of course the Cypress Creek well field has a bunch of wells in it. And those well fields have five-year and ten-year travel times that that radically affect the allowable uses within it. You'll see on these land plans these dashed lines, those are the five

2:20:18and ten year travel time envelopes for the most closely located wells. Inside those areas, you cannot build industrial uses, but you can build office uses and residential is an allowable use in all of those well-field exclusion zones. So the the nature of the land plan was was it's simply put to create a parallel

2:20:48reliever to State Road 52 and have the the residential uses where residential uses were allowed. And to force it. Yeah, uh light industrial and the office uses into those areas that would not adversely affect the the well-field protection zones. uh all of those acreages associated with those uses are preserved by the mandate to

2:21:18have all of the MPUDs that will subsequently come. they must conform to the master plan.

2:21:27This is a wildly important thing to understand because this ends up with hundreds of acres. of uh target business and uh light manufacturing. uh as a preservation area inside this landmass. In other areas like the Connected City, those are not mandated, they are negotiated on a MPUD by MPUD basis. Here, very differently, all the MPUDs

2:21:58must subscribe to this master plan. Consequently, we can predictably expect in on the on the screen, those purple manufacturing areas and those yellow office building locations are going to be what the future development plans provide. That is extraordinary and I can I can tell you that this is an extraordinary amount of acreage that is dedicated from the inception to those job growth building

2:22:28uses. So All of those things are solidified. You know, the in this particular example, this is where we've brought the uh the uh overall master plan into GIS to be able to do some of these calculations. You see outlined in yellow here the perimeter of the swoke property. In essence, it's about 30% of the land mass located almost in the geographic center of the C P E V Land Mat land mass.

2:23:00So when when we think about the the things that Terry talked about, and by the way, that that was uh an extraordinarily well thought out and well presented uh summary of the application. I think the key points are well articulated in Terry's presentation very, very briefly, you know, the idea of having 1,500 maximum

2:23:31single-family detached units within all of the residential areas within. CPEV is an item that is included here. We believe that that's an important part of providing a variety of mixed use residential product to support those that will want to live in close proximity to their jobs. Um When when we look at the uh the affordable housing language

2:24:01to to me that's uh that's really uh quite a relatively um minor point since that language has been taken out of almost all of the large DRIs that I've worked on in Pasco County and we've taken it out of the villages of Pasadena Hills and the it it is um it's specifically not included in the the connected city language that we most recently adopted in January. So I I think it's a very common practice to to eliminate

2:24:32that language from these large entitlement approvals. Um and then lastly, you know, when when it gets to the uh to the notion of you know jobs to housing, the the most important thing that we need in Pasco County is not empty buildings. The thing that we need are pad ready sites with roadways and utilities such that the users can come in and have

2:25:02exactly what we want. Imagine if we had arbitrarily 10 years ago Built a building that was the wrong size for Amazon. We would have certainly not seen any activity there. They have very specific uses, and the uses have very specific needs of those buildings. We'd never anticipate them, and we'd never properly plan to have those as enticements to have those companies come. They'd have to pass. the buildings wouldn't meet

2:25:32their needs. A far more thoughtful consideration is to say, let's blend the residential and the non-residential and have the residential precede it such that it allows the residential development to bring those roadways, those water lines, and those sewer lines that will ultimately serve all of those non-residential. residential job growth uses. In fact, in this particular application,

2:26:03we actually have a chart that allows the residential developers to understand the thresholds by which they need to accommodate those non-residential uses with the master planned infrastructure that will ultimately support all of the uses in the CPEV area. The the the only thing that that Terry suggested to you that I would I would caution you about is the notion

2:26:33of a formulaic methodology for determining how much single family detached is in each of these land masses. Um in Terry's discussion, um, I mean, we've been working on this job since 2008, so I'm pretty familiar with it. Um at two units per acre for low density, 12 units per acre for medium density, and 24 units an acre

2:27:03for high density, we would probably more than double the allowable residential units. So the the notion of um of trying to look at the overall at densities that um that he was you know uh alluding to I think is very dangerous. Because what we've discovered is there's a lot of floodplain and a lot of wetlands and a lot of infrastructure

2:27:34that has to be fit within these individual specific sites. So I'm a much uh a much stronger believer in being able to look at the specific constraints of each NPUD. as they come in. by the way, as the applicant can afford to do all of the detailed investigations that are necessary to to properly allocate the uses. and still conform to that maximum 1500. and uh and subscribe

2:28:05to the maximum 4,500 units of residential development as a part of a cohesive mixed-use master plan on all 2,400 acres of the CPEV landmass. These things were contemplated back in 2008. We argued with DCA for a couple of years, and I can safely say it's the only time that David Goldstein and I were actually arguing in the same direction against someone else. Um the the

2:28:35necessity of of thoughtful contemplation as each MPUD comes along, I believe is the wisest move. I mean, I I recognize it's not a matter before the board today, but you know, when we look at at the MPUD plan that is coming to in support of this comprehensive plan, you can see here on the screen, let me blow it up just a bit. I mean, the the non-residential manufacturing uses here that are in accordance

2:29:06with the the master plan, the support retail and office, and the high density multifamily are all consistent with the master plan. When when we look further, we can see that Um l this is an illustrative plan. Uh one of the things that come in as a byproduct of of the MPUD at at the next step. But you can see, you know, we have a lot of uh of wetlands on these sites, we have a

2:29:36lot of floodplain on these sites, and managing those things are the things that can only be thoughtfully considered when we get to a more detailed level of information at the MPUD level. Just as as a precursor to what will be what will be coming in the future with this MPUD, you see the non-residential uses all in conformance with the master plan. These vision roads that support the entirety of the development pattern would be the things that are

2:30:06constructed to access this the residential uses that are located south of that east-west master plan roadway. So I guess in in summary I'd say um Terry got it right. The uh the summary is on point. Um the the master plan that controls the development pattern preserves these job growth uses.

2:30:37and the table that that Um ties residential to the square footage of non-residential is is a marvelous guide to the amount of master planned infrastructure that must be accommodated. as these master plans for these M PUDs uh come before you in an incremental way. Um in in um you know it it in in

2:31:07rough numbers, you know, these kinds of densities that we're talking about, you know, the the swap property as a subset of the CPEV, you know, it it's about thirty percent of the land mass and they're and they're talking about you know about thirty percent of the uh uh of the single family detached and they're talking about thirty to thirty five percent of the single family attached. You know, in in my

2:31:37world, you know, Pasco County has three types of residential. You've got multifamily, you've got single-family attached, which are everything from duplexes, triplexes, quads, newer product that you're seeing, as well as the good old standard townhouse unit. And then above and beyond that, we drop down to our lowest density single family detach component. So when we think about an overall strategy of being able to attract

2:32:08the people who are going to want to work in close proximity to these job growth uses, we'd like to make sure that we have the flexibility on an MPUD basis to be able to be able to incorporate all three types of those residential uses in the smartest way to appeal to the market.

2:32:28I know that's a lot all at one time. Um but Uh I I think Um if if you if you have any questions, I'd I'd be happy to uh to attempt to address them at this point.

2:32:44Okay, are there any are there any questions?

2:32:48So I just I have a question, Chair.

2:32:51Is that you, David?

2:32:53Yes,

2:32:54it is. Okay, I can't see you, so all right.

2:32:57So can you see me now or not yet? Yeah

2:33:01Pat if you would start stop s sharing your screen, please.

2:33:06Oh, I sure can. Let's see. So then Over.

2:33:13Okay.

2:33:14Okay, we got it.

2:33:19it's a question for both Joel and Pat. So To sum up everything you said, are you in agreement with all of the text amendments as presented by Terry? Except for the language that allocates the single family By formula, is that an accurate statement of what you support?

2:33:39Yeah, let me let me clarify that. Yes, we are in 100% agreement with Terry on the actual text of the Subberry policy amendments that he has provided to the LPA today. But if you look if you look at his recommendation page in his PowerPoint or in his memo. What we support and agree a hundred percent with is what he has labeled as the recommended agency action. So his

2:34:09actual recommendation, we agree with Terry. What we don't agree with, Terry, is we don't agree with the alternative agency action, which would keep the affordable housing provision that has been deleted in every other project I've ever worked on in Pasco County and everyone else's. So we don't agree with this alternative agency action. And we do not agree with the optional agency action that recommended this predetermined land use

2:34:40allocation formula because as Pat said, nobody's smart enough right now to know what that formula should be. And the only way to figure out that allocation is to do a site-specific MQD. So in short, we support the recommended agency action, which is exactly the proposed sub-area policies that Terry gave you, because he did not include the alternative agency action and he did not include the optional agency action in those SAPs.

2:35:13Okay, so Well I guess I need to ask Mr. Pitos a question then. Did is he making a recommendation on I mean it's pretty clear that he's he's is recommending removal of the affordable housing provision. I can From the language. Is he making any recommendation whatsoever on the Entitlement allocations for single family?

2:35:38I'm illustrating Mr. Chairman Mariano Spito's Planning Development. I'm in the agenda memo I'm illustrating how one might approach single family allocations. I provided two options. One was to do it on an MP MPD by MPUD basis. Another way where it's been done is This master land plan formula language. Both have their limitations. One is preferred more often than the other. Um I added it as an optional action. if

2:36:09it was the pleasure to to the local planning agency to make that kind of consideration. Um If I uh the recommendated agency action is the first one that's on the list because it's consistent with way uh with past precedent. And so if I'm consistent with past past precedent as well in the case of the allocations. I it would be with the first option, the M P U D by M Pud review basis. All right, Gary, thank you.

2:36:38That that answers my question, thank you.

2:36:42Okay. Um is anyone else here to speak for the applicant? I think we still have a

2:36:48We do uh Mr. Chairman Joel too again. Uh if you'll indulge us for just one or two more minutes. We have uh we have Bill Eschenbahl who as you know is a uh um uh reputable and experienced uh land broker here in Tampa Bay and specifically in Pasco County. I've asked Bill to provide his market and industry insights on this job to housing uh speculative empty building um item.

2:37:17All right. Bill.

2:37:19So just for the record, there's eight minutes left.

2:37:22Okay.

2:37:27Is this your last speaker?

2:37:31Yeah, sir, and after after Bill we will reserve any time for rebuttal after the public comments.

2:37:38Okay, we have a total of about seven minutes left.

2:37:42Yeah Bill's only gonna take a couple. Thank you.

2:37:45Okay.

2:37:50Yeah. Well.

2:37:53That's what I'm gonna read.

2:38:00Bill, are you there?

2:38:06Cool snap. Yeah, I said.

2:38:09Is Bill William Eschenbaum or Esch

2:38:12Hash and Ma.

2:38:19Joel, we need to promote someone. Is it William Eschenbah?

2:38:24Correct.

2:38:36Mr. Escherm, if you would uh provide me for the record

2:38:40Oh good. I'm William Eschenbach. I was panicked because I thought I wasn't ever gonna get on. I'm president of Eschenbaya Land Company. We're at 304 South Willow Avenue, Tampa, Florida. And I was sworn early on this afternoon when I was on the screen. I I've had the listing on this property since January of two thousand twenty. Uh first couple of months had some activity and then we went into the COVID period. During that first couple of months it was all residential either builders or residential developers. Code shot us down March, April, May, June, July.

2:39:11The home builders start to show up in August to September a little bit. Had a contract presented in October. Uh I couldn't quite get it done. Got another one done in December and was able to announce in January this year, a year later, I had an area under contract with order subject to all the approvals required. And Since then I've been able to quantify my materials and go out to the market to look for that User and As an example, yesterday I had a user in here who spent ten years with Amazon. He was a lawyer, was on

2:39:41their staff in the real estate department. Yeah, but wow, well I kinda like this. It's close to the interstate. Have others who've been here and driven from the interstate back and forth to determine timing. But the one question that keeps coming up is where's the housing? Yeah, are the houses coming before the here so we have people to support? the machinery, operate the lift forklifts, operate the trucks and so forth that we might have in distribution or work in the offices and we get out here. And I I've shared with the rest of my team. I have another one in Wildwood with a landowner that has three properties, all distribution

2:40:12from a hundred to two hundred and seventy acres. We've actually taken one of those in and rezoned it for half residential for the same reason that our people show up and they look the turnpike. Uh I-75, 301, and County Road forty four and it's still the same question. We don't have any housing here other than the villages near Wildwood. So it's it it's a pretty heavy dynamic driver to have the Um have some housing close by so we have these workable, walkable communities. So that's I'll turn back to Joel here and uh I

2:40:42didn't say hello, Mr. Chairman, and good to see you again. Haven't seen you in a long time. But you

2:40:45too, very good.

2:40:46Nice to hear him. Thanks for the opportunity.

2:40:48Okay. Thank you very much.

2:40:52And uh Mr. Chairman Mariano it is Joel. I'm gonna close my initial presentation by reading a brief statement from my client who, as I said, is on uh legislative business in Tallahassee, but Dale Swope asked me to tell you that, and I quote, on my industrial land, I have no greater aspiration than to find an end user to build it for jobs. But for the past thirty years, I have solicited those industrial and office users and I've had

2:41:22no interest. But now that we have a contract with Lenar to start some residential and to bring the roadways and the utilities Beside the industrial sites, we now get an inquiry every week from people who have end users to create jobs. We can wait another 30 years or we can proceed with the residential portion, get Lenar to build the utilities and roads,

2:41:53and then find us a job producer in the next 12 months. Those are our options. Thank you.

2:42:01All right. Thank you very much. Okay.

2:42:08I believe we have some other speakers, do we not?

2:42:11We do have a speaker. We have Ray Gadd who's on WebEx. I also do have two items to that were requested to be readed to record. Okay. I do also want to say that this room is re needed at four o'clock. For a Citizens Academy. Um, so we're kind of you know running on time. So just just wanted to put that out there.

2:42:32Well I don't think anybody else has requested extra time, right?

2:42:36That's correct.

2:42:36Okay, so well let's keep close track of time and We can maybe get to the end here.

2:42:46And that's right, we do have Mr. Scaglione, I forgot to mention well I did mention that earlier, he's at the kiosk as well. So just let me know which order you want to do and that way we'll get folks uh through the process.

2:42:58Why don't we uh hear from the people that are here?

2:43:03With the available time left we'll read into record.

2:43:06Okay, let's have Mr. Scaglione, please.

2:43:17Of the

2:43:18chance.

2:43:20Andy Chicks. Good afternoon. [address removed]. Uh excuse me, early. I've been sno. Um I'll hit the high points and and um make this kind of brief. The two main contentions here I have here is the um planning, the timing of the jobs. and allocation of of residential entitlements. So um I have not been involved in any of the negotiations as of yesterday. Uh was

2:43:50the first time I had talked to Terry. Um so I I would have liked to been involved in that early on after especially after this application was um uh filed back in August. Um and the first time I heard about it was when I got a letter on on uh dated February seventeenth. Um But Anyway, um The property

2:44:16I have 211 acres. Also, um, the abutting property owner couldn't make it because of COVID. He had to abutt com uh cancel at the last minute. D easy. E DC has this site rank as number one. And it's a very, very unique site. Being right off on Highway fifty two, the amount of land you have And being ran out the inter uh out of seventy five.

2:44:42I think it's very, very short sighted. Two Highland residential before the the the D. Jobs come in. Right now currently Uh seven hundred houses and you look at the phased on the last page, seven hundred job but seven hundred units are allowed to go in before At the next level is 315,000 square feet. That is not a very high threshold, 315,000

2:45:13square feet. This these properties in 208 since the last We were in the Great Recession. None of these properties have been listed until 2020. Um So to say that that there's been no activity, Pascoal County's on fire, especially when it comes to distribution. I've been in the state uh for thirty five years now. Yeah. Pascoal County is on fire. So Um A corporate business park create

2:45:43close to eleven thousand jobs in this area. And as Tampe Business Journal said, let's let's shade the the shed the the bedroom ministerial type. of the past years because we've been hep so heavily focused on residential. Um Pasco time has a come of of of age. So um Again, where I'd like to really hit on Is that um On the last page. You have infrastructure to support. That is a very, very

2:46:13huge a big problem for me because infrastructure i is actually It's a joke. Because that just means you have a pad. What what we need is some buildings to go out there. Um And and once you have the buildings Because if the if the residential comes in, you allow all the residential to come in. These buildings will never come, the square footage. Um again Haskell deserves better, especially for our children and for jobs. And um I thank you for serving and

2:46:44taking times out of your family and business. Thank you very much.

2:46:46All right, thank you, Anthony. Appreciate that. Who's next?

2:46:51Mr. Chairman while we're waiting for the next speaker, is does they notice public hearing and so If the Citizens Academy needs to wait, they just need to wait. I don't want you cutting off People's public comment because this room is needed by the Citizens Academy. So you need to complete the public hearing.

2:47:09Very good. Thank you. All right, next.

2:47:13Next we have Ray Gadd.

2:47:18Uh Mr. Chair, thank you for um uh uh giving me this opportunity to speak. And if I may, um, Bill Cronin is not able to be present and I would like to read his statement and then make a comment about it. Um Regarding agenda. Uh number six, comprehensive plan amendment. Central Pasco uh Pasco Employment Village, uh comprehensive plan text amendments to the Central Pasco employment village sub

2:47:49area policy FLU 71.12, the Pasco Economic Development Council is not in favor of the proposed text amendment to master Plan which would allow for residential entitlements to be used prior to the fulfillment of employment center requirements. The Central Pasco Employment Village was the highest ranked site for industrial development in the Pasco Ready Sites Program. and activating the site with residential development prior to the industrial development with deterr. industrial

2:48:20developers and site selection consultants are including the site in their selection process. As the official economic development agency for Pasco County, it is important to mention that there are over 16,000 economic development agencies in the US. and they are all competing for these projects simply by h by having residential Already in place at CPEB may be justification for Pasco to be cut from the project candidate pool for fear of public

2:48:50protest or encroachment. Slash buffering issues. It is also important to mention that residential development has a negative impact on property. Property tax rev revenues if we do not have the industrial and commercial tax base to offset the loss. Please deny the request for text uh text amendment to ensure that employment center entitlements are satisfied first. Thank you, Bill Cronin. Um my final comment. about this. Uh in my position as dep deputy superintendent

2:49:20of schools. Is that the school district? Supports policies. That ensure when kids graduate from high school That they can get jobs, or when they return from college, that they can get jobs. And we support policies that uh ensure robust economic development. Thank you for your time.

2:49:46Please.

2:49:50Mr. Ray, were you sworn?

2:49:54Oh.

2:49:56He's still on.

2:49:59Or he's muted or uh Still.

2:50:03Yeah.

2:50:05Ray Gad, are you there?

2:50:11Okay, well.

2:50:13Mm-hmm.

2:50:15Ask him again, sir.

2:50:17Ray, are you there? Yes. Okay. Have you been sworn Ray? Oh, I'm sorry, I have not. All right. I thought you were getting sneaky on us. Raise your right hand.

2:50:31Do you s do you swear or affirm the testimony that you gave was the truth? So help you God.

2:50:39Uh uh I do. Thank you. All right.

2:50:42Thank you.

2:50:45Okay. Uh is anybody else?

2:50:49No, but we do have two letters to be read interact. One of them was writ writ read by Mr. Gadd, but I do want to say that that comes from Bill Cronin, who is a president CEO of the Pasco EDC. And that's 16506 Point Village Drive Suite 101, Lutz, Florida, 33558.

2:51:07Mm-hmm.

2:51:08The following one, if you would time me, um is from Rob Park. [address removed]. Good day for this project, even the whole corridor from the Suncoast Parkway to I-75. I would like for all of you to try to envision something different. I am no artist. I wish I could draw something up for you, but for now imagine this. Look in front of you and see the box. The box that has the employment center, the retail, the apartments, etc. Now look outside the box and see State Road

2:51:3852 running one way eastbound on the south of the box and one way westbound on the north of the box. On each side of Aaron Aaron Cutoff and Bellamy Brothers, envision long sweeping U-turns far enough apart to allow merging. Think of you of the U-turns as rotaries on steroids. Now see that there are no stoplights. There would be no need. All the connecting roads would turn right and then follow a U-turn as needed. Inside the box, there could be a central corridor from one end to the to the other. For

2:52:09people to move People mover of type. The possibilities are endless, but if you proceed with the proposed plan, you are just going to have another State Road fifty four and fifty six. What is the planning of that? Rob Park.

2:52:23All right. You made it in the time allowed.

2:52:28All right. Was there anyone else that needed to speak?

2:52:31That's all we have.

2:52:33Okay. And I b think the applicant was out of time, right? And about five minutes left.

2:52:40About five minutes the applicant has.

2:52:42Okay. So Joel two, do you have any rebuttal?

2:52:48Yes, sir, I will. I'll be very brief. Um, we are not adding any residential units to this project. If Mr. Cronin and Mr. Gadd or anyone else had a problem with there being residential next to Industrial Incorporate, why did the county approve the Central Pasco employment village by definition to be a mixed-use community? Everyone always knew the whole concept was we had a live, work, play village, as

2:53:18Terry said. And Terry will tell you, ask Terry if he thinks you need this residential adjacent to these employment uses. He will tell you yes. All we're doing is in the original approval, out of the 4,500 residential units, only 900 of them could be single family. All the others had to be multifamily. We're simply asking to make an adjustment there, which, as I said, is certainly going to make your county commission happy if some of the multifamily is shifted to single family. We

2:53:48already know that story. So, point number one, that's all we're doing. That's all we're doing on the residential side. Flipping to the business side, I would like Mr. Gadd or Mr. Cronin to tell me with a straight face, because I know them well and they're smart men, tell me with a straight face. That they know anyone, including themselves, who's going to reach in their piggy bank and go build these Spec industrial buildings without having a user. None of you on this commission are ready to pony up in my LLC

2:54:18to go make that investment. І і вас реклама from the state. Mr. Goldstein, if you ask him, I believe Mr. Goldstein will tell you that that imposition was forced on us. The county opposed that imposition with us. The county disagreed with DCA. The county has mandated infrastructure and no other project is setting aside the quantity of land for jobs. And now if you approve this, we'll be obligating the residential developers to pre-build

2:54:48that infrastructure to support those jobs. No me suele. There's things that short sighted to have residential before employment, the employment jobs always follow the rooftops. That's always the case. You heard Bill Eschenbahl tell you that. Those of you who are in the real estate business, you know that. So the long and short of it is, I don't know why Bill and Ray are opposing this. It makes zero sense to me. Mr. Cronin

2:55:19has had over 10 years. If he's right, then why hasn't he produced users out there? If you don't need residential, why hasn't he located those users and put them on this site? The answer is because there's no infrastructure. He doesn't have residential. Roads and utilities. He's not gonna write the check to build them. The county's not gonna write the check to build them, but we have a residential developer who will start writing the checks to build them. So unless Ray or Bill or Andy Scaglione

2:55:50want to build that infrastructure, their great idea is dead in the water and going nowhere as it's gone nowhere for over 10 years. So that's all we have to say about their objections. Other than being very, very disappointed in all their objections.

2:56:09Okay. I think a strong letters to follow on that one. Yeah. we anybody else. Ray

2:56:15Ray will get his let Ray will get his letter tomorrow. Yeah.

2:56:20Okay. Any any anything else?

2:56:26That's all we have. Okay.

2:56:30All right. Having heard the presentations of all the parties. Um, do we still have a recommendation for continuance?

2:56:39Yeah, it's this is Jamie Gerard and I I think that a lot of valid points have been made on both sides. Again I just go back to the fact that we we only got this thing right before the hearing, so I mean with that in mind and I I know the schedule's kind of complicated things in my opinion a little bit here. I don't I don't even know if Continuing I'm gonna make a recommendation for continuance, but I don't know if continuing it to the next meeting, which is only seven days from now, is even adequate. Um I mean Joel would you be in opposition to if I

2:57:09made a motion to continue to the I think the next meetings on the twenty second of April.

2:57:15No, Mr. Girardi, as long as Terry promises me, because we've also filed the MPUD, as long as he promises me that staff will continue the MPD review, then your deferral to April 22nd won't affect us at the end of the day, because obviously we're not done until we get the MPUD done. So if you feel like you need that time, I want I want the commission to be comfortable with it so we we don't object. Yeah.

2:57:41Um Terry? Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh we're we're sufficiently far in the sub-area policy discussion where the MPUD can be submitted. Um I'll I'll I'll uh coordinate with staff on that aspect of it. Okay. Thank you. Very good.

2:57:58Okay, yeah. I mean with that with that in mind, I would like to make a motion to continue this to the April twenty second meeting in Newport Ritchie.

2:58:04I'll second that motion. Do we have a motion and a second? Any further discussion of the motion?

2:58:09Uh Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a point that I you know I can speak for Mr. Gadd somewhat. I can't speak for Mr. Cronin, but Mr. Gadd is not uh opposed to having residential here. The issue is that they are changing. The text amendment to allow residential prior to any employment uses. Um connected city Epperson Ranch is supposed to do that, and I uh I don't really see a lot of those kind of uses out there either. So I think you could argue both sides. And I would love to and I

2:58:39hope we have Mr. Cronin here on the twenty second to hear his viewpoint. I'd like to hear that.

2:58:44Very good. I I with all respect, Mr. Chairman, that's not factually correct. I would like David Goldstein to answer the question of whether residential already is allowed to proceed before the other elements. Ask David that question.

2:59:00Well I think we've had everything everybody make their presentation, so I don't want to go back and and rehash something. We have a motion on the floor. And I believe we have a second, is that correct? Correct. Yes. And uh uh we've had discussion from the dais. Any further discussion from the dais? Yes. Okay. Uh okay, so we have a motion. The second. No further discussion. All in favor or opposed by roll call. Signify by it by roll call vote.

2:59:30Jamie Girardi. Aye. Peter Hansel. Aye. Roberto Saiz.

2:59:36Hi.

2:59:37Christopher Poole. Chris Williams. Aye. And Chairman Charles Gray.

2:59:42Aye.