Zoning Amendment (Regular) – Renner MPUD – Darrell A. and Karen J. Renner – Rezoning Request from A-C Agricultural District and AR-1 Agricultural Residential District to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to Allow 108 Single-Family Detached Units on Approximately 50.15 Acres – South Central Pasco County, on the South Side of Bexley Road, Approximately 1 Mile West of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Wisteria Loop
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
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, Nov 18, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Nov 18, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-22-7526 in full →PDD-22-7526 was taken up 4 times between Oct 26, 2021 and Jan 25, 2022, continued 2 times — this is appearance 2.
- Oct 26, 2021BoardP67▶Continued
- Nov 18, 2021PlanningP3▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Dec 7, 2021BoardP124▶Continued
- Jan 25, 2022BoardP68▶Approved
What was said
Machine transcription of 41m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 53% of 221 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Good day, Commission members, Chairman Messica Cole with Planning and Development Department. Item P3 is PDD 227526 in the name of Daryl and Karen Renner for a requested change in zoning from AR, Agricultural Residential District, to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for 108 single-family detached units on approximately 50.15 acres. Next slide. The property is located in south central Pasco
County on the south side of Bexley Road.
Can I stop you real quick?
Yes, absolutely.
Since this Planning Commission has already heard this item twice. I'm not sure you need to go through your full presentation. It was continued for a very specific reason, which is to deal with the roadway
Correct.
Maybe you could just summarize for us where we are on that issue. Rather than going through unless the Planning Commission wants to hear this all over again.
Excellent.
Yeah.
So after the Planning Commission heard this item on September thirtieth and it was continued to the November fourth meeting, the staff revised condition sixteen in accordance to the discussion that was had regarding the realignment of Westeria Loop to be in accordance with more of what the vision roads were showing in our PASCO Mapper tool. After the November fourth Planning Commission hearing, it was continued to this meeting. meeting, staff added condition seventeen to allow the applicant to seek mobility fee credits for the difference in cost from the substandard road improvements
to the realignment of Westeria Loop. I believe that's where we're at today. Staff is still recommending approval.
So Jessica just to be clear.
Staff is still recommending that the applicant build the vision road For credits.
Correct.
Okay.
I know that our transportation planners are on the line and they could probably speak to it a little bit better perhaps after the uh applicant's presentation, but they have been in discussion with the applicant to discuss some of the things that the applicant will be presenting as far as their solutions to the concerns over Wisteria Loop and the realignment.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right. The applicant's present.
Thank you. Shelley Johnson, 6400 Madison Street, and I have been sworn. I'm not going to take up too much time and rehash everything, but um we did go back as we were requested at the last hearing and reviewed trying to straighten out that intersection on the existing Wisteria loop alignment. Um through that review we did determine that we've got about we thought it was a $914,000 worth of improvements on that road. We've got it's actually more closer to about $1.4 Um when you do the intersection over site and and Mike and Razor
and uh our engineers Mike Razor and Paul Skipmore are gonna provide more detail on that in a moment. Um we're talking about about $91,000 of additional improvement for the intersection to smooth that out. And so we're about 1.5. The client stands ready to do that improvement. I think it'll be a great improvement. Um so we did actually have some suggestions with regards to revisions to uh condition sixteen, but we'll talk about that a little later. And with that being said, I'm gonna turn it over to Mike.
All right. Do we have a an aerial of w what you're how you're talking about doing it?
I think Mr. Razor has a plan. Okay. I believe. I know he submitted one to staff.
I'm sorry David.
Well, the Chairman was asking whether you have a depiction of the PowerPoint. We do.
We have a PowerPoint and they're working on putting it up right now. I'm sorry. Um Mike's gonna go through Yeah, we have a lot of detail. No, I'm I just was letting you know we did go back and look at it, but Mike and and the other engineers obviously they're the experts, they're gonna get into the details on it for you. But we think it can be done. So
Denise at the very end, I think it's two eleven and twelve in the last slide that means.
Uh good afternoon for the record. Uh Michael Razor, 19046, Bruce B. Domes of Olivar, Tampa, three three six four seven. Unfortunately, I came a little late and I have not been sworn.
Mm
mm mm.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth so help you God? I do. Thank you.
Excuse me. Thank you.
So at the prior Planning Commission meeting we had heard uh a lot of iterations obviously about Bexley Road Wisteria Loop. Um upon the conclusion of the very last Planning Commission meeting, um there was a suggestion that uh we have evaluated, which was uh involving the intersection of Bexley Road and Wisteria Loop. Um there was a discussion regarding SKU of the intersection, safety, and and things of that nature. So we went back and we
took a look at it. And the diagram that is shown up on the screen is a conceptual improvement that will uh work to improve that intersection. Um Currently uh the through movement at the intersection is along Wisteria Loop. Um which is shown I'll generally uh is there a point is the pointer work? Top button. All right, perfect. So the the current alignment brings through movements generally along this path.
There's a stop control for for Bexley to turn left. And it there's a skew at the intersection. It's somewhat difficult to see on this particular graphic because of the new alignment being darker, but that skew is at about forty-five degrees. Requiring the motorist that is turning left from Bexley Road onto Worcester Loop North to look approximately 135 degrees over their shoulder to view oncoming traffic. Intersection angles less than 75 degrees should be avoided for traffic and safety, traffic
safety, and operational reasons. The improvement here creates a traditional 90-degree intersection, significantly reducing the potential for adverse. traffic and safety or traffic safety and operational issues. Further, the improvement uh makes Bexley Road to Wisteria Loop North as the through movement.
So with this concept the through movement is here, which will take you out to 41, which will tend to discourage traffic intrusion into the southerly neighborhood, further enhanced, of course, with the with the signage to US 41, with the arrow to follow the curvature of the road.
The support Four, the modification to the intersection lies within the uh F DOT plans uh design manual, rather, they change the name of that. Um FDOT indicates that the intersection angle between two roadways has a significant influence on the safety and operation of an intersection. Intersection angles that are close to 90 degrees as practical should be uh constructed. Intersection angles less than 75 degrees should be avoided for For the following reasons. Heavy SKU angles increase the intersection crossing length, exposing
vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists to conflicting traffic streams for longer periods of time. The road user's sight angle to the crossing leg becomes restricted due to the SKU, making it difficult to see conflicting vehicles and to perceive safe crossing gaps. Turning movements are difficult because of the SKU. Turning movements or positioning may be confusing, and increased open pavement areas of skewed intersections increase maintenance costs. So the intersection improvement. here can be constructed with an existing right-of-way.
meets applicable site distance requirements, and provides for additional landscaping areas as shown in green. Here.
Um The the intersection improvement is currently being proffered to discussions held at prior planning commission meetings. However, um for the record I'm unaware of any documented safety and or crash issue at this intersection. It didn't surface in any of my prior discussions with county staff. Um Uh with that I'd be happy to answer any traffic related questions regarding the intersection improvement and my prior comments at the my comments at the prior uh Planning Commission uh hearings in regard to the traffic
study and its findings of course still stand it'd be happy to answer any questions regarding that as well. Thank you.
Yeah, so we have a question.
So Mike the I know you said that you can do this with an existing right away. I'm seeing that there's it looks like you have to make some adjustment to a driveway. That driveway is entirely within County Rideaway?
I'm going to ask Paul Skidmore to come up and uh respond to that question specifically. He put this uh this diagram together. Uh I believe I know the answer to that, but I'd rather have Paul answer specifically.
It's
all
right.
Paul Skidmore with Florida Land Design and Permitting, Three Thirty Thirty Trinity Boulevard, uh Trinity. I'm sorry, Starkey Boulevard in Trinity. I have been sworn. The improvements will fit within the existing right-of-way. The dark, heavy lines on the outside are the right-of-way lines. Um
And so that's right away the
driveway presently ties into the sweeping movement to the south. and it would need to be extended over into the new uh lane that would be the T intersection.
And so this is right away that the county owns by deed or maintenance or how I mean,
uh it's uh either by plat or by deed. Okay. In this area and it's uh I believe it's a sixty foot right away right now. Uh as you get closer to forty one I believe it jumps to seven. So
what is this landscaping that you're proposing? 'Cause you're showing the
light. This landscaping was going to be put up uh for people traveling uh west to east. When they're making the turn, headlights then would not be able to we could put landscaping high enough to prevent headlights from shining into the adjacent properties.
Well, I'm only asking for clarity as to what you're proposing because landscaping could be just be grass. I don't know what you're I mean, I don't know what you're proposing there. So what are you proposing?
We can put up shrubs, we could put up trees. Uh but landscaping is not just the grass. So it's some type of buffer that would prevent Headlights from shining into the people's homes. And those homes that are in there right now are more almost six hundred feet off of that right-of-way line. So there is a very large distance that would uh prevent these lights from reaching there.
So should we have a minimum height?
first of all I'm not sh I don't know whether Planning Commission is going to agree with this or not, but I if you do I think it needs more specific spor specificity about what landscaping is being installed and that
It doesn't address verbally What this landscaping is going to be. So Again, I Probably need to hear from the public before you make a decision, but
All I'm saying is that if you agree to this you probably need you c you can't just refer to this graphic 'cause the graphic
It's a generic graphic to show you, but we can you know, the buffer that we put in there can be of some type of opaque type type uh uh vegetation.
So Paul, I guess the Chair just asked me a question which I will ask you. The southern on the southern part of this graphic
It looks like you there's a piece that's outside of the right of way, or
am
I
the existing road presently is outside of the right-of-way.
In mi in uh several cases.
Okay, well let's back up though. Is it is it a county maintained road?
That is correct.
Okay, well then the county would own it by maintenance. So I guess when you get south of this point, you're just gonna be building within the You're still within the are you within the area that we're maintaining? Is that what uh
all of the road this all of these roads are maintained by Pasco County?
Okay. You're not doing any construction outside of any right of way we either owned by Platt Or by maintenance. Okay.
Did I answer your question?
Yeah. Yeah, I just wanna. Looked like it was going right into somebody's heart. Right. Okay. Do we have any questions up here before they What we hear from the uh cup public. Yeah. Oh okay. Thank you.
All right, is there anybody that like to come up and ask questions, have a concern, or like to speak?
Mr. Chair, you do have some folks signed up signed up to speak on this item. You've got Mr. Chris Knocko, Mr. Jeremy Couch. Um some of these are very difficult to read, so I apologize. Miss Debbie and Miss Shannon.
Town. Pennys, do we have anybody on WebEx for this item?
We do not have anyone on WebEx for this item.
Okay. So Mr. Nacko would you like to come speak?
Chris Nacko, [address removed]. I am here as a private citizen. I want to make sure private citizen of the county. So I I'm standing here on objection to this project. I I don't believe they should not they should be able to build homes one day. I I think one day they should be able to build homes. But not today, not with this. in place for several reasons. This is part of a bigger project the the Angeline. If you look at the whole Angeline project, this actually will tie into it because of Bexley Road. If we don't address the Vision
Road, how these roads are gonna impact the entire community. We're creating more micro problems that create macro issues. So this is a micro problem for us people who live in that area. It's going to create keep constantly creating micro issues. Right here, if you don't mind, I'm gonna step over for a second. second.
There's a
there's a pointer.
Can we give it a power sophisticated?
Yeah, Chris. What's that? No, I use this. Oh
that's right. So at the bottom of the screen right there. Thank you, Chair. At the bottom of the screen where it stops That goes in with steering gardenia. Those roads. This area right here is wider than that area. That's gravel. R I didn't realize the county maintains it. There's potholes everywhere, but I don't think people who care live there care. This will absolutely impact it. So As we're looking at this project, I mean at first there was discussion a couple weeks ago about building that vision road in there. That vision road would have helped The macro issues, because
we're planning ahead for the Angeline project. It will be coming through. There's train tracks, there's a legitimate place where CSX will allow people to pass. If we ston't don't address those issues now. We never will. All it's going to do is create more congestion, more heartaches. It's going to continue to address and be an issue for people living at in that area. So that's why I object to this program. I don't object to building houses, but build the houses when the roads are in place, when everything is ready to go. because this when the Angeline project comes before you and we're
talking about roads, this is gonna be impacted and this is a band aid on a gashing wound We gotta deal with the gashing wound first before we address it before we put it try to put a band-aid on it. So is that? I appreciate it. Thank you all very much.
Thank you.
So Are you saying you're opposed to the project or you're only would support it if you're not going to be able to do The Vision Road is built. I was
trying
to figure out which which which is it.
I I I I don't agree with this project as it is right now. If there were if there were other issues that would take care of the Vision Road and then also would address where it goes with Stiria and then addresses into Gardenia, that's another problem that needs to be addressed. So my my thing would be Let's have a master plan for the entire road system. That will address up through Bexley, especially where the railroad crossing is. If you if please, I would say if you're going to take a field trip, take a field trip out there to see it. Because as a county and
I know federal funding just came through is gonna be coming through through the state of Florida. We should use that money to address from the Ridge Road extension all the way to 41 to see how these things can all connect together because if not, we're just gonna keep doing little band-aids that are gonna ruin communities, but in reality we can plan ahead. And create roads that will be sophisticated enough to handle all this traffic and to handle everything going forward.
Just wanna be clear then. 'Cause staff that's why I asked staff the question, what are they recommending? Staff is recommending That the vision road be built. You're saying that even with that condition you'd still be opposed to this project?
I would be opposed to that project. It would be a positive step forward. But even with that I I would disagree because I think there's other issues that need to be addressed first.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you.
Hmm.
Members of the commission, Jeremy Couch, [address removed]. Um You know, my main opposition to the project. Um is not the neighborhood. It's not that Mr. Renner wants to develop his property into a neighborhood. We want the right road. You know, when you look at the section there which I didn't hear any evidence that that was a good idea. Construction is actually on property that the county owns. It looks like it's off. Um But
If you look at the eighty foot wide vision road, You know, this planning commission made a decision two weeks ago. that recommended on Clark. Clark gave the right of way. the ponds are there, the path is there. If you look at the eighty foot typical section. That's what our county needs. Not a twenty foot b twenty two foot band aid. Um What's gonna happen is if if the road's not built now The county's gonna have to pay to build it. or some
other applicant in some future time period will be here. saying, hey, why should we build the vision road? Let's just use Wisteria. and it's not going to be the right improvement. So I support the project with them building the Vision Road. Thank you.
So I'll ask you the same question then. So You support staff's recommendation then?
I support staff's recommendation. I mean you guys have given them mobility fee credits. You know, if you're gonna build so you know the argument for this neighborhood is that it's res three. They come up and says res three. Urban infill area, this is where the county wants to grow Res III. That's fine if you have the infrastructure to support that. And doing a substantial road improvement's not enough. It's not like this is on 41 or on a collector road. It's a little teeny tiny road. And so we're gonna widen it to get back there. That's great.
I'm gonna give you some other evidence, uh testimony. Immediately south of where their improvement ends, I'd say A month and a half ago. A tractor trailer. came up from the south, hit the corner too hard, doing a big delivery, and it got flipped over in the ditch and had to be get pulled out the next day, and then the county had to come in and patch the road. So There is absolutely a safety issue south of here. Um I come up from the south and a lot of people come up from the south. That's not been addressed. If the Vision
Road is built as shown,
I don't think you're gonna have those issues coming from the south. Really it just needs to be built. I mean let's do it the right way. Let's not put it on the county. You know,
thank you. Yep, thanks.
Anyone else like to speak?
All right. Shelley, do you have uh there's
two other
speakers.
There are two other people that are signed up. Um Ms. Debbie, last name starts with a K and Ms. Shannon and I cannot tell what the last name starts with.
Yes, and we were
Tanglewood. Okay. Is is Shannon also for Tanglewood? Thank you. That's a
All right, thank you. Uh Shelley.
Denise, if you could put up the last slide on the PowerPoint, I think that's has our proposed condition.
Oh I'm sorry. I forgot about that. There we go. Thank you. Thanks me, sorry. And I have a hard copy too, but this is the proposed r um revision that we're suggesting to Our actual proposed conditions, we're going back to the original condition that staff proposed, because as of you recall, staff's original recommendation was that we build it in the existing alignment. So we are going back to that original condition and then we're adding the intersection improvement to that that we're agreeing to make to actually make it even better in terms of the improvements we're making to the road. Um and
then there's a condition 17 that deals with impact fee credits, which obviously when we looked at the other alignment, you know, that didn't work from a cost perspective. So Um we would look to have that deleted because there we don't, you know, we're not we're seeking impact fee credits for the additional uh improvements that we're making. But we'll be happy to answer any questions.
Okay. Are there any questions?
Uh having seen that
I've got I mean I do have several questions here. Um as far as the mobility fee credits go, I mean Is there a can you quantify the amount of mobility fee credits that would be available and then how many would be used by the project?
So the the improvement project on the on the vision road, which I m my understanding too is there's no route study. So I don't know if that the actual alignment's gonna change on the Vision Road once a route study's done with that class one wetland, but the original cost estimates we came up with was $2.8 million to build that road. Um and we have 108 units. So we would be able to take down maybe less than, you know uh about a uh less than a million of 'em obviously, 'cause that you know, it's probably about a million. Um and then we had talked to Clark about taking some
down and you know, hadn't had an agreement on that which we discussed last time. So Um There's not enough there, yeah, in terms of what's in the benefit district or otherwise. So but on this we still have another additional five hundred thousand dollars of improvements that we're adding because we've got we're up to I said I think one point four on this, um and then when you add the intersection improvement, which is additional, um that's another ninety-one thousand is the rough estimate on that. So we're up to about one point five million to do improvements to the existing line.
The difference between the two point eight and the one point five would be the amount that's creditable? Correct. Is that right? Correct. So there would be so you wouldn't be able to use up that whole one point three?
No, and we uh as we discussed last time, you can only use them in the benefit district and right now there's nothing on the horizon immediately that we would be able to say, okay, we can make this work. So
Mm-hmm. Yeah, I mean I Yeah, I know we We've heard this multiple times and and the idea or everybody's intent I think was not to rehash and go over everything but I mean just to summarize going all the way back to the first meeting The concerns that I heard were The substandard road portion of Bexley, the substandard road portion of Wisteria Loop. both to the I'll call north, but I think it's east and west or whichever direction going both directions from uh Bexley. Um D the diversion of traffic
going to the south and that that was substandard, there wasn't enough width there? Um I think in my opinion I think a lot of these are addressed with this proposed condition That they're not going to be able to do improve and bring up the standard Bexley and Wesley loop out to forty one. They've diverted the traffic to where less traffic movements and and
route to send people to the south down um Wisteria Loop. Um I just I think these people are I mean it's a hundred and eight units and I think they're getting saddled with a huge burden to do a vision road that hasn't even my understanding even been fully planned and vetted. as far as a route study goes and to saddle them with the full brunt of the improvements is is asking them to take a big bite of the apple for something that in my opinion should be done by the county.
Mm.
Well could I just clarify one point though? You don't necessarily need a route study to build a road within an M P U D. So The M P developer could establish that route as part of their You do a route study when the county's going to build the road. if the Clark M P D or the Renner M PD were building the road they can help design that route. It doesn't necessarily have to be a route stuff.
Yeah, I I guess my point here is is we don't really even know and I don't think they know fully what all of the Ramifications and implications of putting the road through the class one wetland. um through the through the area that they're gonna be tasked with putting the road through. I just think it's a big burden to ask of them and that that's it's my opinion.
Anyone else? I don't know. On the other hand, sometimes I see a lot of times with the counties the last one in is the last guy in is usually the guy that's gotta fix everything. So there's like two sides of the coin. The first guy, I mean, do you want to do it up front or do you want to do it at the end? But it seems like well a lot of times we just do it at the end and the last guy in is the guy that's a good idea. Bayon the Brun.
I believe that we cannot expect to do it at the end. I believe we need to have the right infrastructure in order to approve this type of development. What I see is that we don't have it. We don't have a clear path of how the road will be or how what we need it. I see the the road that is planning is the efficiency. Um Honestly, I don't against any c type of uh apartment complex, multi use. Uh I totally support those when they are well planning and we had infrastructure that can cover the minimums and
safety is one of those issues that we have here. I hear that the road will be done enough that will provide a lot of traffic, no just Cars. people who walk and I don't see how we can Approach this.
Yeah, I I guess my my only point on that is i if if this is the only project and this is the last project in in this area using these roads. This discussion of the vision road would not even be out there. The vision roads being discussed because of all the other future and potential uses, the Angeline project Vexley, all the other things that are are gonna in the future use this road.
So I mean th they're making an interim improvement to that intersection to address today's concerns with the loading that they're gonna produce on that road.
Any comment?
I guess well how do you get there then if
But they're not gonna pay for it. I guess that's the question, how do you get there?
Well well, I I mean to me I think that comes back to The question of I mean how do Vision Roads get built? I mean they do they get built with people paying mobility fees that are using them?
So I would say in general. Vision roads get built. either by developers or the county. So the county does its best to as development occurs Ensure that developers build the portions of the vision road that that development should be responsible for and then But sometimes we have gaps that then the county has to come. A good example would be Tower Road. Okay. Tower Road's a vision road. There's portions of Tower Road that the Bexley has built. There's portions of Tower Road
that the Starkey Ranch M P U D had built. But there are gaps that that will likely need to be built by the county, but eventually you'll have a continuous roadway Yeah. So This road is very similar. I mean you could have parts of this road that are built by Bexley up to the railroad tracks. And then when you get over the railroad tracks Did it we we try to get development to build as much of it as we could, but to the extent we couldn't, the county would eventually have to fill
in those gaps. Does that answer your question?
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
And the funding source we would use would be mobility fees. So That's why the county was willing to gr give mobility fee credits for this road if it was built because It is saving us money that we eventually would have to spend mobility fees on.
Okay.
Chris, anything? Don?
Okay. But what's the dude and so how what's the window to use the mobility fee credits? I mean is there when do they sunset? Is it a five year old? No, but
as long as they're being used, there is no sunset. If they're If they lay dormant long enough, and I think it's twenty years, then they would expire. But but if they're being actively used, they don't expire.
So the growth in that area obviously they're gonna be used within that within that window.
Yeah, I mean, I know that Ms. Johnson said there they may not be a market for them Мирилы и бэ. I'm not sure it's accurate to say there's no future growth plan that could use them in this area. I mean Lynn Angeline is a huge project that could buy credits, Clark M Puty. There's there's a number of projects coming in this area that could be bu potential buyers of credits. So it's not like it's an area where there's No growth occurring.
Okay. Uh So we've had discussion? There's no further discussion. Uh we have a motion.
I move a motion to deny it P three.
Are you move a m move a motion to deny it totally or go establishing
conditions? We can have conditions and those conditions is to improve the road and have a clear plan of how the road will look. How it is right now, I don't see that can
So to be clear, staff's clear about what staff's recommendation is. Staff's recommendation is to approve the project w and require the construction of the Vision Road. Four credits.
I understand that, but do we have uh clear plans of how the the road will be designed, built, with
Well that would be between the developers of the Renner MPUD and the developers of the Clark M PUD. The Clark M PUD does show a proposed alignment for this road. But if the Since Clark MPUD has to give the right away for it and and Renner M M P had to build it. they can jointly agree on a revised alignment, Um So that'd be done through the design process. The condition as written, according to staff's recommendation, simply requires the construction of the road. It
doesn't require a specific alignment. Mm-hmm.
All right. Are you look please clarify your motion?
Again. Yes, they clarify I keep my motion and I can say that can be flexible, it can see exactly how the road will be built. If I have a master plan that is consistent with the number of units and the future of the area So That is my position. And I don't have it.
So you you so that your motion's for denial?
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Okay, we so we have a motion for denial. Is there a second uh motion?
Not hearing a second, then do we have a a new motion? That motion died for lack of a second.
I have a question on so condition seventeen is is that the building of Division Road?
So Jessica, do you have a PowerPoint or something that you can show us? 'Cause we Shelley's showing what she proposed. Do you have something that shows what staff is recommending? Because they think that would be helpful.
David, while she's pulling that up, just for my clarification, as far as mobility fee credits and if they're unable to use the mobility fee credits, I think we already established and talked about last time. that they can sell those mobility fee credits, correct?
Yeah, in fact the condition says that. Jessica could put it up, it but I think it's the condition that's also in your packet. So
does does that does the onus of selling those go on the developer or is that something if somebody else comes in And the county says, hey, there's mobility fee credits out there, go see Renter.
It's generally on the developer. There's one area of the county which is villages villages of Pasadena Hills where we do have to tell them to go see somebody else 'cause it has a credit registry process, but that's a unique to Bas Pasina Hills. The rest of the county would be on the developer to find a buyer. But it's possible other developers would approach them, but I but we don't require other developers to approach them if that makes sense. Mm-hmm.
So
But do you have a depiction of it?
So Sixteen and seventeen are what staff's recommending and the difference is that between this and what the applicants proposing Is is letter B and sixteen. It says construct new real line with stereo loop section of the roadway within the Clark M PD. And then condition seventeen talks about credits for that realigned Roadway. So B is a vision road essentially. B is the sixteen B is the vision road. Right. Now but it doesn't say I
mean we could show you the proposed I mean I don't know if we have it, Jessica, the proposed alignment that Clark MPD showed for that road. But it doesn't necessarily have to follow that alignment.
Jessica, do you have a graphic that shows where the Cork M P D showed that road?
Our PowerPoint had it in it. Yeah, if you if you can go to the applicant's PowerPoint, they do have um one of the f it was like the second, I believe, slide. Shows the alignment through the Clark and PUD.
And you might yeah, it's this next one. It'll be on the
last
three.
Yeah, that's it. The yell if you look at that yellow section of the roadway. That's where the Clark I believe where the Clark M P D shows the road going. If Clark MPUD and Renner MPUD wanted to come up with a s different alignment that achieves the same goal. I don't think the county would object. Do you Brad, do you have
Oh yeah. Okay.
Okay.
Yeah, I think that helps to clarify it.
But essentially to bo to boil down all those cr the that language it basically says They'd have to build the yellow road. for and they would get credits for the difference between the cost of doing that And improving the existing alignment.
So the credits would be specific to B, not A or C in that condition sixteen essentially.
It's specific to B. Right. Because that 'cause the other segment the other parts of the road they have to improve anyway. Anyway. They're not they're not nobody's disputing the other segments of the road because There is no different alignment. Those just need to be improved, if that makes sense.
It does. Yeah.
Alright, so We have a good understanding of that. Do we have a motion, please?
Okay. Yeah.
Motion. in light of a lack of second. I'll make a motion to um accept the proposal and recommendation of the staff. to include division right in the uh
Okay, so we have a uh a motion to approve staff's mic recommendation. with their conditions. Gotta have a second.
I'll second it.
Okay, we have a uh proposal to approve SAS recommendation with conditions and we have a second. Any further discussion of that motion?
Yeah, I mean I I guess just before we vote, I mean just I I I guess in essence what what I'm hearing or the way I'm interpreting this up here is that This project essentially gets penalized because it's not big enough. And if it was a bigger project, they could absorb the cost as mobility fee credits. Um unfortunately just due to the size of the project it's it's not big enough to absorb those mobility fee and the impacts and and all the costs associated with the construction of the Vision Road. So I mean it's a This is a hard one because
I mean
We're usually up here to say whether we're for a project or against the project. I don't know that I've Ever voted? against the project 'cause it was too small. Um So that's right.
Well I will say that.
I understand this may be unique.
for Pasco, but i part of the reason the legislature changed the law to make it So that you have to be able to sell The county has to allow them to sell any excess credits in the same benefit district. So part of the reason the legislature changed the law was for this very reason. There there are small or there are some projects that weren't big enough in the state to absorb all their credits and so the legislature wanted to make sure that they'd get some use of those credits, that they'd be able to sell those credits in their s in the same benefit
district. And or an adjacent benefit district if it provides benefits to an adjacent area. So
It It may seem uncommon to you, but I wouldn't say it's uncommon in the state of Florida. Otherwise the legislature wouldn't have changed the law the way they did. Because there wouldn't be excess credits to to sell. So
Yeah, and I guess along those same lines if I mean really what the way I look at it is personally I I I have trouble burdening them burdening them with the costs of constructing the Vision Road. However, if they're approved without having to construct the Vision Road, they don't have to pay even what I would consider as their proportionate sh share or their fair share to the construction of the vision road. So Um
my point of thinking on this isn't right either. So
the other thing the other thing I would add just You know, I can understand why Mr. Couch is taking the position that he is because
If you don't You have to understand that if they just paid us 'cause they don't get credit, build the road and get credits, they're just gonna pay us mobility fees. And that means it's just gonna go into the county's general pot of mobility fees. That's probably not the road we would build in the from that general pot. I'm just being honest with you. So it is it is a way to do it. If you're Mr. Couch it is a way to ensure that He gets an improvement that's been gonna benefit this area as opposed to a going Somewhere else in in the benefit district.
But I understand your point too.
I'm just yeah. I'm just telling you that that the the facts.
Yep. I don't disagree with Jamie's comments. The economics of it for a hundred and eight units. To bear the the burden, but I don't see a way to reconcile.
Right.
what we want in a future site.
Mm-hmm.
All right, so if there are no further comments, we have a motion and a second. And if there's no further discussion. Uh all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Aye.
Are you opposed? Aye. And opposed?
One. Yes.
Okay. So the motion carries one one nay.