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 continued; LPA: 4/22/21 at 1:30 p.m. at NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 5/18/21 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid; BCC: 7/6/21 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid)
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Other
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Apr 22, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Apr 22, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-21-0290 in full →PDD-21-0290 was taken up 9 times between Mar 4, 2021 and Aug 10, 2021, continued 4 times — this is appearance 5.
- Mar 4, 2021PlanningPC2No disposition in the minutes
- Mar 23, 2021BoardP51▶Continued
- Mar 25, 2021PlanningP6▶No disposition in the minutes
- Apr 20, 2021BoardP49▶Continued
- Apr 22, 2021PlanningP8▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- May 18, 2021BoardP62▶Continued
- Jun 8, 2021BoardP83Approved
- Jul 6, 2021BoardP76Continued
- Aug 10, 2021BoardP114▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 45m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 75% of 415 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay, um now this is item P eight. So on this item um we have some things to be read into record and um Mr. Two and his team have been granted twenty minutes time on this item.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. thank you. Would there be an opportunity for a five minute break?
Sure,
Absolutely. Sorry
about that. Yeah,
I shouldn't have thought about that.
that.
Thank you. Yeah,
sure. Thank you, Terry. Isn't there a restroom in there? Yeah.
That's for sure. Denise will be
my VIP part into it.
Oh wow.
Yeah. She's got the key, all right.
The troll under the bridge.
Yeah, you're allowed there or you're printing.
really good without the meaning up.
I'm I'm just glad those thirty five people out there didn't want to talk.
Yeah, right. I thought they were gonna come through the door there for a while, so
Yeah, I'm sorry.
That always annoys me when you're out there yelling and stuff.
Yeah we've got Bill Croan, we've got uh Sheriff's Office speaking, we've got more professional a couple of other people out there.
And then I have three items to read into record on this one.
Claro.
You see Barbara tells us she did a fantastic job.
that like three times one day and I I pulled, I went around, I found, I asked the screwdriver, and I unscrewed the drawer and I put it. It was still sitting on the side of my desk. We didn't open it as a lot of that's what I've been. One time. so
I'm not sure.
Bye.
Yeah,
that's what it is. Um
Yeah.
I'd say they need to make an accommodation
line.
Boy Terry, you took forever. Good.
I didn't realize you were stepping up to present right. And uh
turn the microphones back on.
Touch, test. Yeah.
I'm gonna go back to my hiding place.
Okay, Brad. Be that way.
Ready? Terry, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item P eight is uh CPAL 2014 Central Pasco Employment Village. this item was continued at the March twenty-five LPA hearing uh to the April 22nd LPA hearing which is today. I would like to note that the materials which were submitted for this meeting were the same materials that were provided at the March twenty five meeting And as uh was
indicated at the March twenty five meeting, um this project has been fairly fluid with negotiations and presentations and so some of the initial details from the original submittal of the project Um Since since the time of submittal from the very beginning of the project, not since March twenty-five until today, has been uh we've been working on them. So the memo uh that was given to you today was not updated in the spirit of continuing the discussion following the presentation that was made at the March 25 meeting. So I'm not
gonna go through and walk uh straight through the sub-area policy like I did at the last meeting. Instead, I'll just focus on four areas that I will briefly discuss in summary. Because they've already given the full presentation at the March twenty five meeting. So there are four basic uh updates, four main updates that are happening to the sub-area policy. The first one is to establish the Service Ready Sites Initiative within the Central Pasco Employment Village to control for residential development and ensure horizontal infrastructure is implemented per the proposed
phase build-out table. Um and I again I'm not gonna go through all that today. I presented all that at the past uh meeting. The second main update is to authorize the increase in the number of single family detached homes at the cost of multifamily uh units. So in short, we're going from a 2080 mix, 20% single family, 80% multifamily, to a 3366 mix, 33% single family, 66% multifamily.
The overall entitlements for residential stay the same, however, at forty five hundred. The third main update that's happening is to remove the Department of Community Affairs mandate to impose an affordable to imposing affordable housing provision on the on the sub area. Um the provision only called for a strategy and did not actually prescribe any particular type or number of affordable housing units. So we want to make that uh clear. And then the main uh the fourth main update
is to establish a case-by-case MPUD level review to determine the appropriate timing and location of schools. So as noted, I won't go through the whole presentation. But there, as I mentioned, there were some updates that have occurred. There were three particular updates that occurred to the sub-area policy since the March 25. So the version of the sub-area policy that was handed out to you today is a copy that includes the three provisions I'll quickly walk through right now. These were late updates to the sub-area policy that occurred through stakeholder discussions. So
in the slideshow if you'll just advance to the last three slides, or last two slides.
We have all of this here in case we have questions and wanna reference it. Um back one, sorry.
Oh uh Patty, did you add the Did we add isotherids uh
Yeah.
Well what I'll do is I'll walk you through it anyway if I can't show it on the on the screen. Um the three the three updates happened at the very end of the sub-area policy. You got it? Okay. So um it's uh in section F one
And section F four. So we'll show them up in a second here.
There we are. So in section F1, in section F, we're talking about service-ready sites and what the MPUDs need to establish within the CPEV planning area. And the first bulletin F1 uh we mentioned that these were imported out of the Connected City Comprehensive Plan and imported into the exported from Connected City and imported to CPE. P E V Um a late arrival to this provision is what I've
underlined on the screen there. It says however a mix shall not be mandated for sites dedicated to target business, corporate business parts, light manufacturing, which may be developed as a single use. Yeah.
Yeah. Since the corporate business or the target industry would generally encompass the entire service ready site. That's why you're setting them up. Um and in F four. Uh the added language is underlined again. It says require and encourage construction on of adjacent infrastructure for roadways and utilities to serve SRS parcels. For target business, corporate business park light manufacturing, this may include county and or state economic incentives to promote employment generating uses.
The only thing I'll mention is that while this uh language appears in the sub-area policy text before you and on the screen, we would probably ask that the words and encourage Be stricken. be pulled back out of the sub area policy in order so that we can remain consistent with the uh connected city comprehensive plan. uh the fact that we imported it from from that. But then also um When you require something you don't generally encourage it, it's
it's required as a little bit of an oxymoron.
Yeah, because
you would
say if you said require or encourage, that'd be different.
Right.
But here you requ it's implied that you're gonna require it.
Right. And then the last edit, which is I think is on the next slide. is in section G, um which is on page two dash ten and the copy that was sent to you. Um
Basically it remains the same with the addition of the last part uh of the paragraph G where it says, uh I'll I'll read the whole sentence, nothing in the phasing requirement shall prohibit non residential development from proceeding prior to residential development where applicable, nor shall any non residential development area be required to provide infrastructure to support any residential use area in order for the resid for the non residential development to proceed. So those are the three. uh
add ons or updates that occurred since the March twenty five. Everything else has s remained the same. Uh and that will I believe conclude my brief presentation for today.
That was brief. Yeah, did the big one last time, so Okay. So we have someone here to speak. Beneath.
Yes, we have several folks to speak, but I have been I have a have been asked by one of the speakers to actually read one of the um letters into record first before the speakers if that's okay with the planning commission.
Yes, whatever you think. That's fine.
Okay. And in that light, may I read everything? I have three letters to read into record. May I do that?
Sure.
Okay. Three minutes. The first one is from Sheriff Chris Nacko. I hope this email finds you well. I was made aware of the concerns of Mr. Cronin noted in the email below, and wanted to also share the concerns of the Pasco Sheriff's Office. As discussed when it comes to the pre-app review process, the Sheriff's Office is concerned about the continued growth, especially among key corridors in Pasco County, and this project raises those concerns even more. This is in regards to the fast growth
and the Ability to provide public safety services to the level that our citizens expect. The Pasco Sheriff's Office supports job creation efforts in Pasco County and believes this amendment would harm those efforts, as noted by Mr. Cronin. Thank you again for including the Pasco Sheriff's Office in the pre-app review process. We look forward to the opportunity to raise concerns such as this earlier such as this earlier in the process.
Yeah.
The next one is a a letter from Just a moment. Rick Narkowitz, and that's N-A-R-K-I-E-W-I-C-Z.
From Newmark. And it says, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Rick Markovitz. I grew up in Pasco County, returned here to raise my children 15 years ago, and have over 25 years of experience in the marketing of employment centers, specifically the sale of land and buildings suitable for distribution centers and high-tech manufacturing facilities throughout west central west central Florida. Currently, I'm a mark I am marketing over three million square feet of space in various stages of development, and I am represented I am representing end users seeking
over 1.5 million square feet of space in the region. Although I do not represent the property owner, I have presented Mr. Swop's development on State Road 52 to several of my clients who maintain interest in this property and are monitoring the development's progress. While I am a strong advocate for job growth. in Pasco County, this site is hindered by its access to state. Interstate 75 and the lack of infrastructure to the portion that would support the employment center portion of the project. The widening of State Road 52 will reduce potential employ employers' concerns regarding
its ex access to Interstate 75 and greatly increase the odds that a developer would construct buildings on a speculative basis. As you may already know, in most cases companies are seeking existing facilities to establish operations rather than Than construct their own or wait for a bill to suit. Most developers of employment center space throughout the county are seeking sites that are as close to going to vertical as possible. Therefore, sites that do not have utilities, roads leading to it, and entitlements in place are ruled out by the majority of parties that would
otherwise be interested in constructing speculative buildings, which directly leads to job creation. It is extremely important that a planning Is derived in advance to bring infrastructure to the land supporting the employment center of a of the project, and that those costs are not r the responsibility of potential buyers. Arranging for this portion of Mr. Swope's project to be developed as easily and as quickly as possible is critical to creating jobs. Thank you for everything that you do for Pasco County, especially as it relates to relates to forming a live, work, play environment.
I have served on a large bo public board for ten years and understand it can be a thankless position at times. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 813-453-0797 or R-N-A-R-K-I-E-W-I-C-Z at ngf.com if you feel I can be of help in the future. Sincerely, Rick Narkowitz. Last letter is from
Um Clay Witherspoon, it appears. It's it's signed and sign oh yes, Clay Witherspoon, who's the managing director. And principal for Avison Young. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Clay Witherspoon. I represent Avison Young and have 25 years of experience in the marketing of employment generating sites in the procurement of industrial corporate office warehouse distribution and other employment generating end users for sites such as your CPEV master plan area on State Route 52. I have looked specifically at CPEV on behalf of interested industrial users. The
proximity of CPEV. CPEV location to I-75 and the state FDOT's pending improvements to the State Route 52 corridor position the CPEV land as an excellent location for job growth in Pasco County, provided the terms and conditions for development of such employment-generating uses are favorable to the marketplace. In the case of CPEV, the primary obstacle to its short-term job creation is the absence of infrastructure support to support pad-ready sites. And primary access roadways and utilities in place. The state's prior mandate for construction of employment
generating buildings ahead of any other development when there is no infrastructure in place and no end users to occupy them is unrealistic and an absolute impediment to any job creation within CPEV under the current regulatory structure. As the marketplace clearly has demonstrated for the last dozen years, CPEV will not develop under the current regulatory structure. The solution now proposed by the applicant and supported by the County's Planning and Development Department, which eliminates the precondition to construct empty, speculative office or industrial buildings when there is no infrastructure and therefore
no end users to support them, is an excellent first step. In addition, the opportunity to allow residential development to commence on the residential portion of CPEV so that the residential developers can be incentivized to bring roadway and utilities. Infrastructure, which will also support pad ready sites for employment users, is a market-friendly approach which will immediately propel CPEV into a premier industrial office employment opportunity. I have personally marketed CPEV to employment use developers who have serious interest in CPEV, provided
infrastructure can first be constructed for pad-ready employment sites. However, none of the users are interested in CPEV.
I understand the County's Economic Development Council director has taken a contrary position on this application, which is very confus confusing to those. of us in the employment industry. A modification which maintains a substantial reservation of land for employment generating uses and provides a practical market mechanism for the residential developers to provide the critical infrastructure for pad ready employment sites is exactly the type of regulatory solution that should be favored and endorsed by the Economic Development Council. I urge the local planning agency and the Board of County Commissioners to support the CPEB text amendment
so that working to them together we can continue the path forward to generate more jobs in Pasco County. Sincerely, Clay Witherspoon.
That's it. Yes.
All right. So who do we have to speak?
Apple can
Mr. Chair, can you hear me, Joel too, for the applicant?
I do.
Good afternoon. Uh Ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna try to be uh as brief as Terry was because obviously we're very, very late. Uh, but since this is the third time we've uh been continued, we appreciate uh your time. Um, I would like to try to help clear up what I think was some confusion from the last Planning Commission hearing when unfortunately uh we kind of dumped this on you uh without an opportunity for you to study it. I know you've had an opportunity now uh since that hearing. But
I think the confusion, uh, frankly, was over exactly what are we asking to do here. I think it is assumed that we're asking for a lot more than we are. I think Terry has helped clear that up today. As the the important thing is we're not here on an MPUD review. This is an overall CPA text amendment for the overall CPEV area. And just by way of background, please remember that CPEV was created over a dozen years
ago by the county. This was a county-initiated area plan. So contrary to the sheriff's This has been on the books and plan for 12 years. The county approved this development. It approved this employment center. It approved this supporting residential. It is actually an adopted part of the comprehensive plan. So it's very late in the process to say, wait a minute, we don't want this area developed. We're way past that point. Um There was one prior
amendment to the CPEV that also was county initiated, and that was to remove the requirement for a single overall MPUD for these 20 plus separate properties. That was uh everyone thought that was a good idea at the outset. It proved to be completely impractical because we could not get 20 plus owners to do a consolidated. M P U D. So those have been the only two amendments. This third amendment is to clean up, as Terry said, really
only four substantive modifications. And I'm going to expound on those a little bit. Two of the four, which Terry mentioned, two of the four were the original result of the then State Department Community of Affairs, which of course that agency has long since been abolished, but at the time, DCA mandated two requirements in this plan. Um one was, as he mentioned, the affordable housing
requirement. The problem with that is there was never any implementing ordinance. Pasco County never adopted an implementing ordinance to tell anyone what that meant or how you would mitigate that or apply it. The other problem is that that requirement has since been deleted in every major DRI and every major MPUD in Pasco County, which has requested its deletion. To my knowledge, the county has never failed or declined to remove that requirement. So what
is what is being supported by the staff here and what we're asking is simply to comply with what the county has done uh with every other project. We're not asking for anything new. Now, if and when the county adopts an affordable housing ordinance that's applied countywide, of course this project will be subject to it, just like anyone else. So no one is saying there won't ever be any affordable housing program. We're simply saying that until one is adopted This
restriction makes no sense because it's not even defined. So that's point number one. That was a DCA mandate. The other DCA mandate, as Terry pointed out, and and again, this was at the time of the original county adoption, when the county adopted CPEV, DCA objected to the plan amendment, objected to the county's plan amendment. The county, together with the property owners, uh litigated and opposed
DCA. So the county at the time did not think that this mandate to require speculative uh commercial or industrial or office buildings to be built. uh as the first step. The county never thought that was a good idea, litigated it, and opposed it. So all we're asking at this time is to say, um, since DCA has been abolished and this is no longer a state issue, we're simply saying let's remove
that spec building requirement, which has never, I repeat, never been applied or required in any other project in the history of Pasco County. Now, the county has taken a very different approach as a matter of county policy, which is what we're trying to apply here. When we did the connected city, which Mr. Gasoway and I, of course, worked on that with County. When we did the Connected City, we came up with the service ready site. Requirement. And
we're proposing exactly the same concept that what is practical, and this was just alluded to in the Abbison-Young letter, what is practical is to provide the roadway, utility, and other infrastructure to get those employment sites PED ready. And the beauty of CPEV is it has virtual. All of the residential land lying on the south side of the employment center land. The employment center land is
between State Road 52 and those residential areas. So any residential developer who comes in will have to build roadways and sewer to get to themselves. They'll have to extend that down 52 and into the project. And fortunately, They have to bring it directly past those employment center sites. So asking that residential developer to upsize those lines and those roadways to take into account the future square footage in those employment areas
is a very practical solution that will get us the pad-ready sites that really are necessary to bring these employers there. So again, We're not eliminating any of the requirements. In fact, if you look at the very last uh section of the uh text amendment which Terry has provided, there was originally a chart that was required by DCA that had the specific square foot phasing requirements of how much employment
would have to be provided for in order for each phase. Of residential to proceed. Please look at that chart and note that we are not changing that chart at all in terms of what that square footage threshold is. The only change is where the chart said building square feet are the threshold. Terry has inserted, PDD staff has inserted infrastructure to support building square feet. So in other words, all we're doing is taking
away the vertical spec building requirement that never made any sense and has never been required in Pasco County and changing it to the infrastructure to support that quantity of square feet. In other words, those sewer lines will have to be sized to accommodate that. Uh and the roadways will have to be sized to accommodate that. So those are the first two items. Those were state mandated requirements that Pasco County itself as to the vertical building requirement, Pasco County
itself had opposed originally. The other two items, one of those is a cleanup item. The school siding process, as I said, the prior amendment that was done to eliminate the overall MPD requirement, that was a county-initiated amendment. Unfortunately, it created an issue for the school district because when there was going to be a single MPUD, the policy required that in that single MPUD a
an appropriate school site be designated if the school district determined that it needed one. Well that Single MPD was deleted without really addressing a concern, a legitimate concern of the school district of okay, what do we do now? So to address this, I met right off out the door, I met right away with Mr. Williams and Mr. Tanello. We discussed it, uh, and we said that you know it would have to be
handled on an individual MPD. Review basis. And what they asked me to do, and which I did, is I drafted a sub-area policy for the school district that put as much teeth in it as we could to make it very clear that you won't get an individual MPUD reviewed and processed without arriving at a satisfactory solution with the school district. And so that change is simply to help out the school district on
what was an unintended consequence from the county's last amendment. So that we're just trying to clean up so that there is a control process for the school district as it reviews these individual MPUDs. And finally, the fourth item is is is simply an item that uh we think makes sense, as Terry pointed out in the original approval. The split between single family and multifamily was twenty eighty.
And again, that's only was only twenty percent single family, eighty percent multifamily. So we are proposing to convert 600 when you do the math, when you go from 20% single family to 33% single family. That what that effectively means is you are converting six hundred multifamily units to single family units. Well it's no secret with the Planning Commission that certainly uh the
commissioners, given their more recent policy directives, are going to look favorably upon fewer multifamily units and more single family units. So there's nothing about this proposal that runs afoul of any current county trend or policy. So with that said, um, oh, and I'm sorry, the the three new points that Terry just brought up, um, just for clarification, those were requests made by one of the other property owners, not the Swoke family.
They were made uh by Mr. Southworth, who has the eastern parcel and his planner. Uh, and we agreed with Terry, we have absolutely no issue with those. We also think they're good ideas and in terms of that one deletion to delete uh the words and encourage we we do understand and agree with that and obviously that's a good idea so we're okay with those most recent tweaks to accommodate another stakeholder um and with that said uh that's really the essence of our request I'm gonna let Pat Gassaway
um handle any details also handle any questions uh and any follow up for us since he's our planner and has been from the uh original design and organization of CPEV.
All right, Pat. Thanks, Joel. I appreciate it. Um well I I think Terry's done a great job of being able to describe what is before the uh the Planning Commission today. Um I will add one thing. Pat um Can you hear
Pat can you hear
me? Yes.
Okay, I I'm sorry and I don't know if we did this with Joel, but I I know we need to always get uh your name and address and Have you been sworn? Sorry about that. It's been a long day.
I know, I know. I apologize. Uh it's even I'm tired. Um Pack Gasweg with height design representing the applicant. Uh 5904 uh Hampton Oak Parkway, Tampa, uh 33610. Um
And you've been sworn? I think the point by um
by Terry is um Pat.
Oh yes, I have been for one. Okay. Although it seems like days ago I that was Tuesday.
Yeah.
Um
The Um the thing that I did want to point out that that may not be um get completely clear. Um is uh is something that I think probably would benefit being seen on the screen. Would it be possible for me to to share my screen with you?
We're gonna do that.
Okay, great. Let's see.
There we go.
Okay, great. See if I can uh is everyone seeing my screen currently?
Yes. Yes, sir.
I can see it on WebAx. I I don't know if the commissioners can see it.
Okay, great. Um I'm going to uh but j just for for orientation purposes. Um this is the the Swoke property. Um the the northern half of the job is the target industry uh business park uh and some support uh retail here on the corner. Everything south. Of uh the east-west vision road is um is
high density residential. Um when when we look at at this overall plan outlined in yellow is uh is the limits of the swole property. Again, here on on this particular piece. the the purple is the target industry and the and the dark brown is the residential. The thing that I wanted to uh to to point out, here's something that
you'll see soon with the um as as this goes forward in the MPD process. This is an illustrative plan that reflects the the development concept. These red roads here are are the portions of the Vision Roadway Network that actually are within this portion of the CPEV master plan. Again, all of these uses on the north side are are the uh target
industry or support retail. Everything south of this red vision road here is the residential components that we're talking about.
This intersection of this Vision Road and State Road 52 is where the community infrastructure will begin. These red roads. That will be necessary to construct immediately to gain access to the residential components are over $11 million worth of infrastructure that Mr. Swopes Bayer is committing to be able to
construct in order to access and utilize the residential initial development. In addition to that, utilities will be constructed in these red roadways, along with about 1.8 miles of extension of utilities down State Road 52 to the east in order to get to their point of connection. When you add those dollars together, we add another $2.4 million worth
of utility infrastructure that will be necessary in order to be able to begin development in the residential portions of this community. But when you think about, you know, over $13 million of investment in infrastructure is going to be created here. And and you can see with its location in this particular portion of the site plan We'll not only have vehicular access along the north side in 52, but we'll be
creating collector road access along the east and along the south for all of the utilization in the future of these target industry uses. That is what I believe the letters were speaking about directly in that those missing infrastructure dollars are the things that are missing currently for the rapid absorption of those target industry uses. those things are going to be things that will be
fleshed out and detailed in the conditions of approval of an MPUD zoning if we can never get there. Uh if if anyone has any questions uh uh about those items, I'll be I'll be happy to answer them, but uh if if uh in in being sensitive to time, I'd I'd like to to to say i if there's uh additional info, I'll be happy to bring it forward to to address a specific question.
Do we have any questions so far?
Nothing yet.
All right, go ahead and continue.
Okay, great. Um a at at this point I'm guessing uh I can stop sharing my screen um and uh Terry can take it back perhaps to pr proceed forward with uh public comment.
Mr. Chairman we do have several speakers at the keynote.
Okay. N n n nobody on the presentation side. The people that want to speak to the in the opposition?
We don't have anyone on the WebEx other than uh Mr. Uh Two's team. Um
Okay. All right, then we'll uh we'll go to the kiosk.
And Mr. Two can uh have time for rebuttal.
It matters.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission. I'm Alexander Ahl, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer for the Pasco Sheriff's Office, and I have been sworn. Uh so unfortunately the sheriff was not able to be here today, but he did ask for me to attend in his absence. Uh as it is pretty late, uh I will be brief. Um So I just wanted to echo the concerns conveyed by the Sheriff in his letter to all of you as it relates to this item. Uh as the Sheriff mentioned, uh we are concerned
about continued growth in key corridors in Pasco County. Uh with the fast growth in the county, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to provide public safety to and services to our citizens at the level that they expect. Um and with the that said with the recent inclusion of the Sheriff's Office in the pre app review process Uh it is a positive step that would allow us to uh uh raise these concerns earlier. Um, but I did just wanna share that these concerns that we have and that
we think that this plan amendment could harm Yeah, potential job creation in Pasco County.
Thank you.
Um excuse me, let me ask you a question.
Um
I'm trying to crystallize in my mind Why you think this is gonna harm job creation?
Uh so I it's my understanding that I and I will defer to some other speakers on this, that they I believe that they're going to elaborate further on this. Um but it is my understanding with With this particular project, um the goal was to have Businesses come in first. to allow um to allow development in the area before residents come in. Uh and by by doing it this way and going in the opposite
direction, I it's our concern is that it would negatively impact growth in that in that uh uh But for this project. and per and perform potential future growth for uh um for business coming into this area. And again, as I said, I will defer to uh to other speakers on this. I believe they have some more details in that regard.
Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Nope. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening. It's Bill Cronin from the Pasco A D C. I've been sworn. Members of the Planning Commission, thank you for taking the extra time to listen to all the considerations about this important piece of property. It means so much that a lot of people have been sitting here for well over five hours to make sure that you hear these sentiments. There's a couple of facts and points that I want to mention. Uh first of all, all of the property owners of the CPEB agreed to the conditions of having phase development
to ensure that residential development did not outpace. the employment center component of that property. I've heard mentioned that the county was against this. The county was also wanting more employment center in the CPE being and settled for the amount of entitlements that are currently in that agreement. Also, another fact, and I've mentioned this several times in previous correspondence, this particular piece of property is part of that larger footprint
of CPEV, and CPEV was our number one site out of 67 sites that we surveyed in the county as part of our Ready Sites program for industrial development and growth. My intention has always been to make sure that we put forward this site in the best light possible so that we can recruit companies to create quality jobs in that area. The lawyers for this property would like you to believe that the
employment center requirement requires them to build a shell building or a spec building, which is not the case. The DCA requirement to go vertical isn't limited to shell buildings alone. But even if it was a requirement, it wouldn't be a bad idea. The county's already made significant investments in speculative building market and already created numerous jobs in this county. If you look at Aristida at um Asturia at 54, we're
on our third spec building there. It it already has a tenant, and even the expert
Go on, keep going.
Okay. Even the expert that uh Mr. Two had right in, Rick Narkowitz, uh is working with the county on four hundred and nine hundred thousand square feet of spec space going on county land at I-75. These are not bad ideas and the market out there uh needs it. We are turning away projects because we don't have buildings. Another fact is that employment center entitlements are not created to build shell buildings. They're
created to attract actual employers, creating actual jobs. Unlike residential development, industrial development requires us that we actually go after projects and not simply wait for them to come to us. The experts are correct. Infrastructure is really important. However, One of the landowners in this CPEV that mentioned earlier broke out, has their own MPUD, and I'm happy to say we already have a project that is committed to
putting 500,000 square feet there. Mm-hmm.
Um I think that's your time, Bill. But uh let me ask you a question. Um if they're not gonna put the residential land first, uh where's the uh Sewered water coming from. Who's gonna put that in? To get to their industrial builders.
developers often put in that that sewer and water. As a matter of fact, the project I was just getting ready to tell you about. uh will have part of that water already running to C PEV. And uh all the property owners now will be able to take advantage of of that because that's a huge complex going in there, five hundred thousand square feet. It also means that uh that triggers under the current agreement the ability for Mr. Two's uh client to build up
to two thousand units, far more than what he's asking for right now. So realistically, this portion of the agreement, the text amendment, isn't needed. The other things that he's asking for are not necessarily in our uh area of emphasis for economic development. However, if you do make a text amendment and grant the text amendment, I would strongly encourage you to look at our ReadySites program as an alternative to the service ready sites. The
service ready sites have not worked to date. There's not a single company that has looked at the service ready sites. If you go to the county's website and look at service ready sites, you will see coming soon, nothing there. Those sites are small, our sites are fifty acres or more, and we're going after big users. And the users that we have right now is proof that the Ready Sites program works. We don't need to plant this and and cobble it up into small
pieces for startup companies in the service ready sites program. Connected City doesn't have a single industrial user there and hasn't been marketed yet, nor has this property been marketed. If we market this for industrial, we'll get you a user.
Okay. Um we've known it's coming, Bill. I mean, why aren't we marketing it?
The landowner has to agree to market it as as well too. You take a look at the realtor that's currently listing this property, all you see is the residential mentioned on their website.
Okay, any other questions for
I'd like to ask one question. Um I read your letter that you presented to us the last time we brought this up. Maybe you can't answer it, but Are we are you or are we close to getting uh an organization or a company that will come in and give jobs away, I I concur with the philosophy that let's bring w a workforce or a company in before we start building these uh Homes. I'd rather see the jobs there first. Are you close? Are you close to
having
to come? Maybe I wasn't strong enough in my comments. We have a user that is committing to five hundred thousand square feet. in a confidential project within C PEV right now.
And they will provide their own and excuse me for interrupting, I apologize for that, but that or company that's coming in or Will put in its infrastructure in. As opposed to having houses put the infrastructure in is what you're saying. Is that what I hear?
Yes, yes, that's absolutely correct. That is absolutely correct. Uh that particular user is is showing us that without having the encroachment of residential, these are very attractive sites. My concern is putting that residential in first makes any of these sites less attractive and more difficult for us. You you've been here today and saw over 70 people. We're here for public comment and with concerns about changes in their community.
Once those those residents these sites We'll have a hard time bringing in another company. However, this company, because it's already an MPUD in place, they're probably gonna be up and running before we even get through the MPUD price uh process on Mr. Swokes Land.
Chris, did you have a question?
Mine was similar to um Mr. Hansels and that and basically what I'm hearing is you have a user Potentially committed. Without houses being there and without infrastructure being there. That's correct, right? That is correct.
Anybody else
have any questions?
Yeah, I I guess my only comment um on this and and I know that there's some language added to to the policies here, but I mean there I guess what I'm struggling the most with is that th the statements made that there will be problems getting industrial users and and and these job creators to come in I mean it it's it's clear by the conditions that are are written in in section F of the sub area policies that They're gonna put deed restrictions on it. There's gonna be signage up there. The difference here is between
this and what we spent several hours on earlier today was is nobody knew what was coming when they moved there. I mean these people are all gonna know when they buy a house that's what's coming there.
Yeah, that that's not necessarily the the the question. So there's sixteen thousand agencies in the United States that do what we do. We're all competing for these projects. So when an industrial user is looking for a site, and if they're looking in the Tampa Bay region, There's probably 200 different locations they can look at. Their goal is not to add us. Their goal is to cut us and get us down to two finalists and let us duke it out using incentives. Any type of impediments that are there, infrastructure,
the lack of infrastructure is clearly one. Resid residential growth that may be encroaching on them is another. So the Ready Sites program that we have actually is to put ourselves in a position that we are quote unquote pad ready. We know when the utilities will be there, we know how much it's gonna cost, how long it's gonna take. And those questions are answered and there's less uncertainty and less risk. So the site that I mentioned M CPEV where we've got
the user, that particular owner entered the Ready Sites program and in six months now has uh LAN under contract and doing due diligence. So These are the you know what we're doing here. In the if we end up Just um putting putting people there because we can or allowed to. uh in terms of residential it might be legal, it might be fair. But a user that we're trying to attract is just gonna say, you know what, we're not gonna take a chance of sitting for
five hours at the county commission meeting with protesters. Instead we're just gonna move to the next site.
I understand that. I guess is there is there a quick quick explanation of the difference between the your ready sites program and the the service ready sites program that's oh yeah
Yeah yeah service ready sites is nothing more than laying infrastructure uh next to the pads that are out there. If you go to the it it's very difficult to find in the county website their description of service ready sites, uh but they came in at four acres and look at the connected city footprint, it's a total of fifty. Ours start at fifty. So another component of that is that with Ready Sites program, with the Ready Sites for program of Pasco E DC. you no longer have the non-res
platning requirement. I'm sorry, the not yeah, the non-res commercial plating requirement. So these big users don't have to chop up Uh That piece of property And then try to market it. The developer doesn't have to go through that extra headache that sometimes is a year long to do plating. And then only to have a big user site, that's not what we have in mind. So these are big sites. We have a total of well over 2,000 acres of ready sites that we've been marketing in the last five years. We started
this program using the penny because we knew that we didn't have what the industry was looking for. We're one of the only places in all of Florida that has land and people, and we can go after these big industrial projects. My friends in Hillsboro cannot. My friends in Pinellas cannot. That's why we're able to get the big ones.
And and if if this goes through with these amendments that eliminates this property from being able to enter the ready sites program?
No, it does not. But I would urge you not to use the service ready sites program and I would urge you not to change the requirement to go vertical and create jobs. Employment center is not about putting in the infrastructure in exchange for buildings. Nobody says they have to be spec buildings, but we already have users out there that are willing to come and and and build factories as we know right now we've got one at five hundred thousand square feet just
down the road. It works. It's nice to see that that infrastructure will go through that property. Uh but I don't think that's the whole meaning of why C P E V was required. It is the Central Pasco employment village. It is not the Central Pasco residential village. Yeah, I agree with that one.
Ca can I ask one more question? Sure. Absolutely. Something was brought up about uh State Road fifty two. I I thought Wilton Simpson a number of years ago, he's the um It slipped my mind what his position is. He's the what? He's the president of the Senate. Yeah, Senate President. I was under the impression that he acquired uh sufficient funding to widen fifty two from I seventy five to Veterans or Sun Coast. Is that not correct? Because
Yeah, I don't think it's a few years.
I thought there was funding for that. Okay.
Yeah, that's a crystal ball that's not in my that's that's not in my shop. Okay.
Okay. Anything, Chris? Bill, just to drive the point home again, so you're saying that that new user that's that's coming online, that's under due diligence right now, is willing to extend utilities one point six miles. I I think Mr. Gasway mentioned it's one point six miles from the point of interconnect. to bring those utilities to to his location. I'm not uncertain where his location is, but you're saying they've committed to bringing those utilities to their to their property.
Yeah, I can't I can't disclose details of a negotiation of a project right now? Because there's job commitments, there's uh capital investment, things like that to consider. But yes, that is the that is the plan is that uh uh that Dell will be extending utilities. They are actually further east than uh the Swoke property, but it does get you halfway there.
Thanks, sir.
All right. So who's next? I mean thank you, uh Bill. Thank you. Uh who's next? Can I make it a comment?
My name is Joe Papello. I'm from Tampa, Florida. I've owned the property out right on Cypress Creek for thirty
two years. Joe, I'm sorry. What's your uh address and have you been sworn?
[address removed]. And you've been sworn.
I have not been sworn out, so
let's get to him sworn if you raise your right hand.
Go ahead and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God?
Absolutely.
And then listen, much respect to Mr. Two, uh I was uh part of the original group. that did the Landings change. And this is exactly the opposite of what we proposed you know, to do. Uh several years ago. And what we've done is now we're gonna Jump into residential. On Cyber Creek, which is a A
very
What share? Excuse me? From from Green Swall. Through Pasco. to Pinellas County Waterfields. Have been into Tampa. And you put As many hobes as they're talking about. Disturbed the traffic on fifty two. And uh
We're gonna say that. Well The unity that Mr Two's talking about We need Industrial. And actually right there is perfect. There is a five hundred thousand Square foot proposal. Well we're gonna get ahead of ourselves. And I think you guys are Looking at a problem. On the highway. I
think we're looking at a problem with Run off to the creek. I think we're just looking at You know, things we won't know about till later. All right, and I've been there thirty years. I've raised my family out there. It's a beautiful place. And we're about to mess it up. So Hello. Mr. Tube, with all respect Swoke family, all respect, actually went to kindergarten with this. With
the slopes. Uh it's a problem. with what they're proposing. They get the cart for the horse. So uh Do y'all have any questions for me? I'd be glad to talk about it, but
I don't understand everything. But I will take But we have a prestige property that we're about to mess up. All the runoff and The water table is as close to the quarter aquifer there. Is it anywhere in Florida? And uh we're gonna have some runoff. We have some bloom in the creek. It's gonna cause a problem for two counties. But uh And we have some opposition. And
we are a property that has been there for a long time. Swog's been great neighbors. News Daddy. But um I don't think I think we could Excuse me. We're killing the houses. Prior to To the infrastructure. I don't see it.
Well thank you very much. Uh your time has expired, but do we have any questions from the day as
No. No, we're good. Thank you very much for coming and speaking. I appreciate it.
Pleasure. Thank you. And my name is Joe Papello, I'm at T H N in Tampa. And we've been there seventy years, so we know about long long term business.
Okay, Joe. Thank you so much.
Hi everyone, County Commissioners. My name is Nathan Janera, [address removed]. I have been sworn in. I am opposed to the land use change. The possibility of what this property property could be reminds me a lot of what Sable Park is in Tampa, which is industrial job creating businesses surrounded by residential. As a speaker has previously stated, this site is currently ranked number one in Pasco County. That opportunity is lost by letting residential come in first. We are especially
missing an opportunity if we have businesses willing to b bring in infrastructure like he stated. Make no mistake that residents will resist large scale industrial development after the houses have been built. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions?
No, uh we're good. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Dennis Valdez. I live at [address removed]. I live right there at the creek. My property adjoins uh Mr. Hellows and it'll be right next to this place. I was part of the original plan that they were gonna do here. I would like to see that go forward. I I don't think that the plan you're putting you're putting forward to now is is what we discussed many years ago. Uh the infrastructure needs to
come first. The industry needs to come first. Too many people there.
It's just the traffic is terrible now. I don't know how you're gonna do it without the infrastructure.
Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Any questions?
I have one question. When you talk about interest industry. You're talking about jobs, correct?
Correct. Thank you. We have many people already in Pasco County looking for a job. So bring in a bunch of more people, that's just gonna make it even harder to find a job for the people that are looking for one now.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Andy Joseone. I've owned the h two hundred eleven acres of budding this property. I purchased it in two thousand nine and I read in detail The central Pasco employment village in detail wrote the sub area policies, the SAP And I was very comfortable With with what had been approved. To deviate from this would be a Not not Good for Pasco County. Um
I think it's working. The triggers that are in place Well uh with this five hundred thousand square feet will trigger Post of two thousand homes that can be built. Um, so there's no reason why I I don't even see why we're even discussing this today. Uh i i if it was me, I would have withdrew it. based on the the information that we got since the last meeting. But the great job. that um Bill Cronin and the EDC team have done. So in addition to that, the entitlements The
two uh options are not acceptable at all to me, especially because I'm in the Uh well head uh protection zone. But um The bottom line is is approving this today would be a short term decision With long term consequences and um I thank you for all the time you spend away from your job and your family. And I really, really appreciate it. Um and Pasco County I'm sure appreciates it. Thank you.
Can I one other question?
like to know, d are you in favor of the homes, are you in favor of the uh of the industry coming in? Uh you lost me.
Oh I'm sorry. Absolutely in favor of the industry coming in first. Okay, thank you. No I mean uh uh no doubt about that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Andy.
Okay. Anyone else? Here we go.
Hi, how how are you this evening? Thank you so much for being here so late in the day. My name is Rachel Rodriguez. Address [address removed]. I'm here on behalf of my parents, the owners of the property. We are absolutely opposed to the land use change to the single family home residence to be built there. This area was originally zoned for commercial. That's why they bought this property almost 30 years ago to keep it as a
commercial property. Right now we have a dirt go-kart track on that facility, which runs at 95 decimals or less. With residential being there, we had could have pushback from the families there to make us pull our go-kart track from there, and that is a major concern of ours. Um We would like at this time to say that we don't think that the timing mechanism of the residential before commercial property um
is great for our property value. We would like to keep it as commercial and hopefully um leave a legacy for our children. Thank you for your time.
Any questions? Thank you for coming on behalf of your parents.
Thank you.
No one else has made a public house on the side.
You ready for Joel?
Mr. Chairman, you are ready for applicant rebuttal?
Yes, I am.
I'm gonna let Pat uh Gasway start out on the issue about the utilities and roads so he can clear up the uh misstatement of facts. Okay.
Great, thank you, Joel. Again, Pack Gasway with Hype Design for the Applicant. I if you would um allow me to share my screen again, I think a graphic would be helpful at this point.
Yeah, he had three minutes left on his twenty, so
Okay, is everyone able to see my screen at this point?
Mm-hmm.
Okay, great. This is the master plan for the Central Pasco employment village. And um
Previously uh Mr. Cronin indicated that um the the applicant on the corner with the uh significant upcoming success um was um was providing utilities that would be of benefit. The the current point of connection for utilities is located at the northeast corner of that applicant's property. So the extension of utilities would be
associated simply with the development of the site. Is it is that i able to be seen here? This this purple here on the on the corner At Bellamy Brothers and State Road 52 is the current terminus of the utilities that are near the site. The 1.7 miles of extension goes from Bellamy Brothers all the way over to the swamp
property northeast corner.
Gotcha.
The other thing that I want to make sure that we understand is the significant difference between service ready site acres and the everything that's going to be located in the Central Pasco employment village. No matter what we do going forward, the sub-area policies require conformance to the master plan that you're looking at. So the yellow and the pink and the support retail that supports it are all
target business, corporate business park, and light manufacturing. And those acreages, those hundreds of acres, not four acres. are mandatory to be maintained within the development pattern as this master plan proceeds forward.
So the notion that there is a uh a a dramatic um Inferior circumstance with service-ready sites, I think it is inappropriate to even discuss in this particular regard, in that this has more acreage set aside for target industry and light manufacturing than every other application that I'm aware of along State Fifth State Road 52 corridor.
I'll be happy to share the the the time with Mr. K.
Okay. Are you finished, Pat?
Yeah, that's good. I'll stop sharing now so that you can un unless Joel you need a graphic.
No, I'm just going to conclude. I know our time is up and it's late, but Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, uh the bottom line here is uh there's no issue with three of these four items. So whatever you do, we need we need the three substance changes recommended if you see fit. Regardless of what you do about this fourth item, which are the vertical building requirement versus having infrastructure to support those uses. So
at a minimum, we need the other three recommended. I think it will be a grave mistake for the reason Pat just demonstrated. It's easy for Mr. Cronin to say that after 12 years, he finally Finally, as a user for a site that sat there for 12 years, he failed to produce any one for 12 years. And the only reason he has one at that corner is because the roadway and the utilities are already sitting there at that corner. That actually makes our point. If you have the roadway and utilities at
your corner, you can probably get a deal if somebody gets out there and markets it. In this environment. The problem is, even if he gets that deal on that corner where he has utilities, that does zero for every other owner in CPEV who has industrial target business designated land. The Swole family is going to sit there for another 12 years until somebody comes up with $13 billion to run the infrastructure down there. He has a residential developer. Who's willing to front that
cost? And I think it would be insanity not to take up that deal. I mean, this will be the worst business deal that Pasco County ever made if it runs off the residential builder who's willing to bring this infrastructure down there. Finally, we're not changing anything. The as adopted, the plan allows the residential to start first. Please ask. David Goldstein, your attorney, if that's correct. Under the current approval, you can start and build those 700 units before
you have to have any building or any infrastructure. Now, I hope Mr. Cronin gets that deal, and I hope Mr. Southworth gets that deal. But there are no guarantees in life. What do we do if you don't pass this amendment? That deal falls through, and we're sitting here right where we are. Started. There is no good reason not to make this change. But we urge you to approve all of it and recommend it up. Thank you.
Uh any questions? Uh from they as um The three changes you're suggesting are Uh not the service ready sites. You're not talking about that. Are you talking about the three you talking about the mix?
Yeah, the three that I think are no brainers because there's no one disputing them is getting rid of the affordable housing mandate that the county doesn't have, correcting uh for the school district, correcting that school siding condition so that Chris and and his team have control over that with the individual MPBs, and allowing the additional single family units. Units so that up to 600 of the multifamily can become single family units,
which clearly the BCC will favor. To me, those three are no-brainers. No one has questioned that. Staff recommended it. We've asked for it, and none of these people have said don't do that. The only issue that is being debated is this economic issue about how do you best get this employment. So that's the one that they're debating. I just wanted to clarify that. We still believe they're very wrong about that, uh as a as a business matter and as a as an economic policy matter. But
The others are not even being disputed.
Any other questions?
Mr. Chairman, you want to just get those three out of the way first? I mean
can we do those
with a separate motion?
I just want to make sure that we all understand what we're what we're trying to do. The I think uh One you know, one of the things that's obvious to me is that when this was originally laid out and I and agreed to it was always identified as an employment center.
Correct.
Yeah, the the the residential was a Was a secondary issue? Secondary. And what I don't want to do is I don't want to change that focus.
Absolutely.
Um And It's not up to me, it's up to all of us. But uh
modifications, potentially we can make those modifications, but I'd like to have Terry's input on or David's input on um how it affects the overall plan as we originally saw it. Terry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um with regard to the actual master plan. Um There is no land use change that's being proposed. It's mere text amendments at this stage. The master plan will stay the same. All the colors that you saw on the map that was on the overhead will remain in place. Um and as was noted at the previous uh public hearing, The thresholds that were initially in the jobs to housing ratio table and
that are now listed out in the what's called the we the name was edited to be changed to the f the proposed phased build out table, th all those thresholds remain the same. And It said in there that you are able to you're authorized to do up to seven hundred Single family r or multifamily, just any residential dwelling units. Uh In phase one. And then in order to graduate from phase one into phase two, you've got to provide the three hundred fifteen thousand
square feet. So that was a good one. um original to the C P E V. So they can start those
residential units at any moment, as long as they get their utilities there.
Yes, following the master plan.
Okay. And uh what about the uh the thirty three to sixty six mi or mix or the the of the forty five hundred units. Is that something that uh We need the mug. Change in incorporated in our change. Or is that something that's already in there?
Well what's in the current sub area policy is a twenty eighty m uh mix. So you have twenty percent of the residential entitlements are to be single family detached product. And eighty percent are to be multifamily product. Uh the proposed sub area policy indicates and suggesting an increasing the single family entitlement to thirty three percent. At the cost of decreasing the multifamily entitlement down to sixty six percent. So
it's a reduction in in multifamily entitlement.
So you don't see that as a conflict conflict.
No, I don't i i it's an overall decrease in density. Okay.
Um and about what about the v affordable housing aspect?
Uh as I mentioned previously, the affordable housing provision um it's in there. It's on the books currently. Um we've m we've noted that it has been removed consistently in other from other projects.
Right.
The provision itself uh does not mandate affordable housing for CPEV. nor does it prescribe a particular amount of affordable housing for C P. E. V. It says that you have to include a strategy for affordable housing. That strategy I I mean Not to show cards, but to be transparent in a sense, but that strategy may very well be that we're offering market rate at market rate, but naturally occurring affordable housing. Within our products, right? But
not man not mandated or
so the the strategy might be that the a developer comes forward and says, Well, you know, we're not gonna make any extra effort to do affordable housing because we're the housing product that we're building here today at market rate is naturally occurring affordable housing. It meets all the median income requirements and whatnot. um for affordable housing set. That's what a strategy could could say. Um it doesn't necessarily mean that in the strategy the d a developer would commit to a particular number of affordable housing
units. They could. It's possible that that can happen as well. But it's a strategy. And and that would occur at the M P U D level anyway. It would not occur because of or at the comprehensive plan level.
And
um
in in terms of the school site selection process, uh Chris, what do you have to say about that? We're fine with
that. I but I still have issue with this building houses first.
I understand that and I do too. What? according to what I'm understanding is They can build houses first now under the current p plan. Is that right or is that wrong? Because it's
not a good thing.
It's pending on that last text amendment, which is let's let the which is infrastructure to support. Yeah, let's let that
so the Mr. Chair, they currently could build seven hundred units Without building any buildings.
really the change that you need to evaluate is Are you gonna let them go beyond seven hundred units without having built without having employment builds? Pop. That that's the real issue here. It's okay. There's no issue.
having employment buildings currently. But right now it would be capped at seven hundred units. unless they also have employment buildings going up. So if you're asking sort of in English what's changing There is the potential now that you could have A lot of residential out there without employment. If the change occurs. Um you'd have service ready sites for employment, but you there is a potential you would have more residential out there. um
before you get employment buildings if you allow this change and More of it could be single family. Presidential. I mean if I had to sort of summarize the change in English. that's pretty much it. But Joel is right that they do get residential today. I mean that that's that's undisputed that There's some allowed today, but it's capped at seven hundred until you have buildings for employment.
In order to get those seven hundred they'll have to put the infrastructure in.
Well no without actually No. You could the seven hundred that's allowed now. is is really sort of A freebie.
They could go out and build seven hundred units now without doing any infrastructure, without now, there may be the practical problem that they can't build seven hundred units without extending some utilities and in road infrastructure. But but in terms of the the the text requirements They could build seven hundred units without building any employment buildings today. But the the major change is if you if you agree to the change, they could exceed
seven hundred without building any building for employment.
If I had to summarize it in a nutshell, that's the issue.
Okay.
So are are are there any items that on this list that I was going through that we need to address? Like f for the schools, you don't think there's a problem that And uh in the affordable housing s uh section just le you think we should leave it.
I mean it's deleted and every other thing, but I don't I don't really not sure I understand why that's even a Even in there.
Mr. Chairman
Mariano.
Because How do you It it is worth pointing out that Terry did try to mitigate some of the impact of the change because Currently if they built seven hundred homes there would be no requirement for them to put signage up their that says future employment or future light industrial. So they could build seven hundred homes now. And there'd be no real requirement to to Put up big signs saying feature industrial or feature employment.
So That that is one positive change about the amendment is that now they have to put that signage out there. I well whether that's enough to Put the residential on notice about the future employment is I guess uh You know, for the planning commission to decide I'm just pointing out that's a new requirement that Terry imposed that doesn't exist today.
But with that comes the ability to build more than seven hundred units. Correct. Gotcha. Okay.
All right. Did anybody have anybody else?
Pat or Joel, one of you will probably answer this, but under Under what you guys are proposing to construct the infrastructure to get to the Swap property, how much of this building square footage would that support? Is there a way to quantify that?
Yeah, Pat Pat can address that, but our intention is to be able to support uh all of the swap uh uh employment center land, I believe, right, Matt?
Yeah, that's correct. And you know, as as a practical matter, it uh it depends uh on what the additional uses would be to the east or west. Uh our infrastructure may support that as well. Depends on the requirements of those users.
Okay, but I I mean I guess from a square footage standpoint Would you guys be able to come in and say we've put in infrastructure to support one point three million square feet, therefore we should be able to build three thousand units? if this goes through.
Uh we we'd be able to quantify what we are providing uh above and beyond the eight hundred thousand that we're going to certainly accommodate within our property. Okay.
Chris, do you have anything?
Just trying to keep it all clear in my head. It's uh I
guess the the biggest thing that I'm struggling with if I can just continue is that I I'm I'm just having trouble In my mind coming up with why it's a bad thing to Have utilities and roads brought to the site to make them more ready than they are today. I mean the way I understand the way this is written today
Residential can go in up to seven hundred units and then it's up to somebody else to try to market and get buildings in there and the buildings have to be built before they can build additional residential units. I I I don't know. I mean I to me there's a benefit to providing the infrastructure of the roads, the utilities, to make these things more marketable. I I I just don't I don't understand how it makes them less marketable.
So to me I have a couple things. One I I find it interesting that here we're I guess they can build seven hundred units, but if you look at the memo Or if you look at section uh on page two eight They've added language to say initial development of residential uses and or support commercial office uses may occur within any individual EC prior to development of Corpus Business Park. So why are we adding
that language if they can already do seven hundred units?
Yeah.
Number one says enable resident this is petitioner's request, enable residential land uses to per proceed the development of employment generating land uses. So why is that a request if they can already do that? I think the problem
I'm concerned about the the this addition to the table. where it's seven hundred units and then it's building square feet. But now they're a adding infrastructure to support. So that to me is a big difference. I'm not in favor of that, adding that change.
Yeah. So
you know, the school district we want we want jobs and I'm concerned with what Mr. Cronin's saying about They can market it. And we got I got a graphic if we want to see it. There's plenty of homes out there that businesses can come and take advantage of. And so I get the fact that the struggle of infrastructure but I'm very concerned with um um potentially impacting this site for future jobs. with any changes we might make today.
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Mariano.
Yeah.
You know, since the comment is related to the agenda memo, if if I may um sort of help explain the situation a little bit. When the project was initially submitted, the original proposal was to delete Um the entire last section of the uh sub-area policy, including elimination of the thresholds that we've been talking about here today. So coming at it from a deletion standpoint, um it had to be a discussion about enabling uh the residential. However,
as we mentioned at the previous meeting, Um Right, because if you were deleting the table, Let me take one step back here. If you were deleting the table, then the table is what was already enabling the initial construction of seven hundred. By deleting it, you were not Able to get this going uh in the way that it was set up originally. So Um we pushed back and in the negotiation the table came back. The memo itself, the language, um, it didn't get updated
in that in the fluidity of those negotiations. Um, but we did say that that particular section that that talks about initial development may take place. In the in the March 25 hearing, I noted it as an affirmation that residential can indeed occur prior to the development of those 315,000 um square feet of in the initial In the in the existing sub-area policy vertical infrastructure, in the proposed sub-area policy of the horizontal infrastructure.
In any event, I I did want to point out that the the the petitioner did work with the county to establish a system for the service ready sites using the existing thresholds Through the phased build out table, which would ensure the horizontal infrastructure is established for the employment generating land uses. So I I I want I just wanted to clarify that uh because I know that that was a bit confusing in the in the agenda memo. and it probably should have been updated even for this meeting, but it I opted not to change anything, not to add uh
further confusion.
Thank you.
All right. Mr. Chairman a question? Oh sure, Dave. Yeah. Um because I never really heard their response about Mr. Clinton offered well I don't know if it's a compromise or not, but he did say if it were approved that it should be certified sites rather than service ready sites and I never really heard Whether that's something the applicants Would agree to or not. So I'd like to hear their answer to that.
Yeah, I'll respond to that because I'm I'm gonna be honest with you. I'm very upset about what's happened today. I had this discussion with Mr. Biles, the county administrator, who spoke with Bill Cronin. And I had been told that uh as long as we agreed to review with them the possibility of joining his Ready Site program as we went through the MPD level, that I would not hear this vigorous objection and argument today. So I had agreed to have my client look at that with
them during the MPD level, but based upon Mr. Cronin's uh uh failure to By that today, um, you know, I don't know the answer to that. Um, so uh we're always willing to look at it. Uh if it makes sense, we will do it. But I'll tell you right now, if this if this amendment doesn't get passed, what you're gonna get is you're gonna get 700 residential units under the threshold, not oversized to handle anything else, uh, and and you're gonna have one building. possibly down at
the Southworth corner where the utilities already exist. We've always known that one would get built and thank God it is. And you're gonna get nothing else. And and the rest of this land in C P E V is going to sit here for another 12 years. But we we will look, we will look at the Ready Sites program. We're happy to do that, but the the understanding through the administrator is that that was the direction we would go rather than what we've had to do today. And I I'm I'm not happy
about that.
Okay, well I guess that kind of answers my question. I uh
It was it was you did have that deal until somebody reneged and backtracked and ambushed us. So I've got to get over the smarting of that and then if it makes sense we'll do it. But we offered that, we agreed, and and he welched on that. That's all I got to say.
Any other questions?
Chris, do you want to make a motion? Do I want to make a motion?
Yeah.
Yeah. Sure.
Um
I'm gonna recommend I move we recommend denial.
I'll second that.
All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Just for clarity, is that denial of everything? I mean even the other three items that were no brainers? Or that weren't even up really for the right-of-way. Well,
there's a lot of stuff in there. I'm I'm worried about about About Jeopardizing and and making more Opportunity for our houses.
Well, I I I mean I I understand, but there was the the cleanup for the school siding process that needs to be done. There's the the allocation of the single family versus the multifamily that I'm I'm sure the board would be all for. And there's also the the affordable housing condition. Um that That kinda goes back to why I I asked. a while ago if we could knock those three out before we went into the other thing, but that that was why I was asking for the clarification.
Yeah, and so would you be willing to include those items in your the motion?
Well, I I guess uh we'd have to look at uh what exactly is getting changed, I guess.
Or we could vote on this motion and if it passes it okay. If it
doesn't then we can Dammy
can make a motion.
I mean 'cause yeah, I just want to be really careful about what exactly we change. Right.
So that so just with clarity, this is denial of everything that's being asked for.
No, I think that I think that's what you said.
That's what I said. Very good. Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Is there any further discussion on that motion?
Mr. Chair, can I make one comment? I'm sorry.
Yes.
So I gotta know that Mr. Cronin wanted to respond on the Ready sites issue.
I think it would be helpful to hear from him because I would like to understand what was negotiated or not negotiated as it relates to ready sites. Can we let him just respond to that one issue?
If you think it's important, yes.
Okay.
Back
this morning and still so so I did not make an agreement with Mr. Two in my conversations with the administrator. Okay. But we're basically in theory because Anything that you do with regards to ready sites or any changes to that. You can't roll that out to the whole site. That has to happen during the M PUD. And the the issue that we have at hand here is a trust issue. And uh I've already seen Mr. Two's behavior
towards me both this meeting and the last meeting. Uh I'm here to create jobs. This is about uh whether or not we keep that site attractive under the intention that it was made. Uh this is not a behind the scenes horse traitic type of maneuver. We are looking at how do we make sure that this stays attractive. I would love to have that infrastructure to that site. I don't think anybody doubts that the infrastructure to that site is a good move. But infrastructure is still
not a substitute. for Buildings and Employment Center. The Buildings and Employment Center requirement will be satisfied by the project that we're bringing. So everything else at this point should be a new point. Now he has to have faith and trust that we're gonna deliver on this project. Just like I would have to have faith and trust that he says he's going to talk about the Ready Sites program with the owner during the MPUD process. I've seen this behavior many, many times where he'll come
back and say, Well, no, we decided not to. So what you do today, the most critical part of it for me is that We do not allow for residential to outpace. the employment center. And if you take a look at the infrastructure deal that was done Uh out at the uh connected city at Epperson. There is not a single industrial user that is going there to look at. those sites and those path those service ready sites and the infrastructure is
not drawing people in there. I'd I'd urge you to take a hard look at what's been done previously and his comments that this is a county accepted policy is absolutely incorrect. It's lazy for tiny staff to consider. using this as a blueprint for future development when you don't have a single user going there. And also while I've got you, I've only worked at this job for five years. And if you look at what I brought in in the last five years, it's pretty
darn significant. And it came with the Ready Sites program that came with me. I've not been marketing this piece for 12 years, as Mr. 2 says. I don't welch on deals. I live by my word. And I've actually worked in several areas around the Southeast. All have been successful. And you can talk to any of them and look at the results, whether it's Boeing 787 facility, Google, Porsche's headquarters. We know what we're doing there. And just having the infrastructure to that
site is not going to make it sellable. I would love to see you have more MPDs that required an employment center creation before the residential, at least a phasing in to it. 700 units by themselves. No one's going to build that because they're not going to run the infrastructure out there. I'm not worried about 700 units. I am worried about 1,500 units and then no business is there to support it and then scare.
So so Mr. Crohn, so can I just clarify the question? It's my question is if if there's a currently a service ready site requirement in subway policies as recommended by staff. If that was changed to a ready site requirement. instead of service ready, well you know the connected city type requirements is changed to match your ready sites program. Would you still be an objection to the amendment?
Um If you have 50 acres of more of upland that can be used for industrial That would be a satisfactory substitution, but not all the landowners in the CPEV have that footprint. And I think it also is important to point out, too, that that that footprint that's drawn in that that current plan is not mandated to stay the same. We can go back and make changes with those. And you know it as well, too, during
their permitting, that they can do it as long as they're not substantial changes. But I think if you rolled that out as policy for this whole CPE V. For those those landowners that didn't have 50 acres of upland that was usable for a ready sites, then how do we address them?
Well yeah, my specific question though is if there was enough acreage of ready sites. Would you be okay with that unlocking the residential? Are you still saying there needs to be buildings? That's really what I my question is.
No, no. I think so so that's the same thing. So ready sites ready sites is putting in the infrastructure and getting the pad ready. It does not substitute having the employer there in the job creation.
Okay, that answers my question. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Mr Chairman Mariano, may I make one thirty second response to that? Sure. Since he accused me of mistrust for the record, I want to point out that I'm not the person who under oath in his first presentation misled you to believe that his bill on the corner parcel was going to somehow provide utility and roadway infrastructure for the swap parcel in the center of the project. He's the one that created that implication, which we all know it's not correct. I didn't do that.
All right, thank you. Think we're done with comment now unless there's somebody up here that has a question.
So uh we uh are we wanna m move forward with your uh motion, Chris? After what I just heard, yes, sir. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and I think Peter you're the second. Yes sir. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Neg.
Okay, so let's do roll call.
Jamie Giardi.
Peter Hansel.
Christopher Poole? Chris Williams. And Chairman Charles Gray.