Zoning Amendment (Consent) – Kokolakis West MPUD – SR 52 Limited Partnership and Jen Holdco LLC – Rezoning Request from an A-C Agricultural District to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to Allow for the Maximum Development of 155 Single Family Detached Dwelling Units (DU), 67 Single Family Attached Dwelling Units, 168,799 Square Feet (SF) of Support Commercial, and 125,000 SF Corporate Business Park/Target Industry/Light Industry and Associated Infrastructure on Approximately 177.48 Acres Located in Central Pasco County

2:46:06Item P55 is a zoning amendment. Coca-Lakis West MPUD, SR 52 Limited Partnership, and Jen Holdco LLC. This is a rezoning request from an AC Agricultural District between MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the maximum development of 155 single-family detached dwelling units, 67 single-family attached dwelling units, 168,000.

2:46:33and 125,000 square feet of corporate business park slash target industry slash light industry and associated infrastructure on approximately 177.48 acres located in the central Pasco employment village in central Pasco County. And this comes with a recommendation to approve the conditions and authorize the chairman to execute and there's a presentation if you so

2:46:56like. Can I I need to see some of this I need to see the map.

2:47:07Yeah. I think we can talk through the the easement and those things. Is that what you want? Your

2:47:13your mic's not on mic.

2:47:15Oh it's on. There it goes. Yeah, no, I think well just go ahead and give the presentation and go through the the various easements.

2:47:22So the presentation will be by Mr. William, Senior Plan.

2:47:26Okay.

2:47:29Good

2:47:30afternoon, waiver million, planning, development, economic growth. This is PDE twenty four seventy-five ninety-seven, Coca-Lacis West and PewDiePie. location map, roughly in the county just south of State Road fifty two in the Central Pasco employment village. This is a rezoning from agriculture to master planning and development to allow for that maximum development of 155 single-family detached, 67 single-family attached, 168,000, support commercial and 125,000

2:48:00square feet of corporate business target industry and light industry on approximately 177.48 acres. Just on the south side of State Road 52, 2.5 miles. Miles west of State Road fifty two and the Bellvy Brothers intersection.

2:48:15Here's a location map. The zoning map reflecting agriculture and the future land use map reflecting employment center.

2:48:25Here is a contextual map for you showing the entirety of the Central Pasco Employment Village. You'll see the Swope MPUD, Eagles 1 and Eagle 2, as well as Palmetto Ridge or Fort King just to the north of State Road 52, as well as the Orange Belt Trail that runs along the southern portion of the Central Pasco Employment Village on the north side of the Swift Mud property. You'll also see on this map there are two Vision Roads that occur on this property, Vision Road A and Vision Road

2:48:56S, both of these portions of which will be constructed with a subsequent development agreement submittable by the applicant. Here is the master plan. Showing both of those division roads as well as the black arrow to the south, which highlights the pedestrian connection to that orange belt trail. that that is covered in your agenda packet in condition 19, which specifies that the applicant will connect to the Orange Belt Trail

2:49:26with a 12-foot multi-use path. You'll see also that the red areas are support commercial, the purple is that light industrial and the brown is medium density residential. Uh uh I highlight those colors because s specifically this proposal is consistent with the currently approved master plan for the Central Pasco Employment Village. Uh

2:49:50Okay. Well I'm gonna stop you right there. Perfect. Because I I see uh I I'm looking at that map. Go back. Or go forward. See the where the road is, the interior road is? Yes. Okay, and I'll go back about three months.

2:50:07There. Where's the road on that one?

2:50:09Yes, so this uh so mapper that that layer is old. The alignment changed when we approve well when you all approved Eagle 2 to actually bisect up uh in this current alignment. So that is the

2:50:23correct alignment right there?

2:50:25Yes ma'am.

2:50:26Okay, because I was in a meeting and it showed the other alignment um which looked like the road was going So um Okay and I interrupted you so I feel better about that road and uh and I wanna see a road I wanna see a section of that road what it looks like. Um but keep going through your presentation.

2:50:47Absolutely. So as I was previously stating uh the proposed master plan is consistent with the Central Pasco Employment Village Master Plan, which now shows that realignment of Vision Road S that was approved in Uh two thousand twenty two Corresponding with the light industrial placement, the sport commercial placement.

2:51:07I'm sorry, let me ask you a question on this one. What's that turquoise down there on the bottom of that yellow map? And that

2:51:13I don't

2:51:14know turquoise. I don't

2:51:15have the key in front of me. Unfortunately I cut it off. Um I

2:51:19can

2:51:19pull that up for you.

2:51:21Because I see that it's there. And then I see the that it's green. And then I see that it's turquoise. Is that the swoke property? I don't know what that brown one is.

2:51:33Okay. So then then the swap

2:51:35So the the Swoke par property does go under this property to the south along the Orange Belt Trail. You can't see here, but if I was to zoom in and this was on map or I don't know Eric you can pull that off. Alright

2:51:50can you go back to that other map? The one with all the colors. Not that. There. You got turquoise there, so I need to know what that is. Then you've got this green thing. And then you have turquoise, but I see in the purple there is no turquoise, so what's going on there? Is is that turquoise and easement? Who can show me what that is? And where's the easement in the purple? This is what I've been trying to get answer from staff for about ten days now.

2:52:16Perfect. I can uh I can pull that out for you. I just cut off the key.

2:52:23Do you want me to continue or do you want me to

2:52:25Yeah, but someone I before I vote on anything, I need to know I just wanna know what's going on.

2:52:30Okay, perfect.

2:52:31Could that be swift mud publicly on that purple?

2:52:34No.

2:52:34No. So I know the the pur the Merple for sure is that white industrial that I was speaking to. I'm not sure off the top of my head the turquoise of the green.

2:52:45I know I just wanna know why that turf that turquoise stripe is not continuing and that's I know it's I know it's not got nothing to do with uh Coca-Lakas but I'm just talking to my planners about what the heck's going on.

2:52:58Absolutely. I I think it's a good question. So there is one variation associated with this MPUD from 901611 to not provide a vehicular connection to the south. As previously mentioned, that's where the Orange Belt Trail is, so vehicular access uh wouldn't really be feasible, but they are going to provide that pedestrian connection.

2:53:18And with that that comes to you with a recommendation of approval of conditions from Planning Development and Economic Growth as well as the Planning Commissioner

2:53:24Oakley, so I need to know what those colors are.

2:53:28Absolutely.

2:53:32Sorry guys for indulging me but I think we have a problem. Not on this one but

2:53:42Mr. Chairman M I take public comment while you're waiting. Yes.

2:53:48Okay, is anyone here to speak? Do we have anyone signed up?

2:53:51No one signed up. This would be again for

2:53:53consideration of the

2:53:53side.

2:53:54This is a consent item, so it wouldn't necessarily be anybody signed up. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this item? Seeing no one, so we have no public comment because no one signed up for it. It's a consent item.

2:54:12Do you want to? Pull it off of consent and do the well, there's only one other consent item.

2:54:17We got one more can say.

2:54:19Well, it's off the consent because I'm asking the question.

2:54:22Oh yeah. So that's normal.

2:54:25Hi uh Brad Tippen, Planning Development, Economic Growth. Uh the when the project next door came in and the the actual trail alignment was not fully confirmed yet, we had the Tampa Bay Water Easement that was along the south side of the boundary of CPE Weap, which I believe is that blue piece you're talking about, and right next to it from the MPUD that was there, we've got another sliver so that That could be wide enough if we needed to use it. And it would allow the trail to come in and cut down to that road if that was necessary

2:54:55in the future because we didn't know the alignment at the time.

2:54:57Okay, so um can you put that map back up?

2:55:02That shows the turquoise stripes? There. Um, so why is that not being shown on the property to the east?

2:55:11That strip. 'Cause I know we worked on that easement with Mr what's his name? And I had to get a letter from St. P. I'm just curious. I just want to be sure it's there.

2:55:22Yeah, I I can't speak to that with this particular one, just for the one the that it's next to.

2:55:29Yeah.

2:55:30Absolutely.

2:55:34All right, perfect. William Vermillion Planning Development Economic Growth. So on the original map that's shown as um Swift Mud Preservation, that turquoise color, just uh to circle back to where we were. But the the reason that the the easement isn't shown on this map because the original, like you said, that uh that Vision Road S ran along there which took up that space. Once they moved it, uh they didn't put that back on the Central Pasco employment village master plan per se. But the easement was granted to

2:56:04the county through the conditions of approval and then subsequently was sent to the county attorney's office.

2:56:10Okay, and um my understanding is we had one year to comment on either a sixty foot or a thirty-foot. Correct. And what did we say we wanted or did we comment at all?

2:56:22I'm guessing we didn't because we don't have a trail score sense. But so so what do we have? What was the comment? It was some someone told me in the conditions of approval We had one year to say if we wanted a sixty foot easement or a thirty foot easement.

2:56:37And a thirty foot easement was determined by the former county engineers staff to be acceptable. What a

2:56:48surprise.

2:56:49Um and that was presented to the county by Mr. Southworth.

2:56:54Okay. Because in my last meeting with Mr. Ern and the the uh the tr the transportation planner working on this, that's her title. Um, they said it went away. So I just wanted to be sure it was still there.

2:57:08Yeah. So uh good good afternoon. Yeah. Uh Nick you're end, county engineer. Um Commissioner Oak absolutely correct. There was an obligation of the property owner to the east to either convey to us a thirty-foot wide easement or to sell to us a sixty-foot wide strip of land for a half a million dollars, with the choice being Counties as to whether we wanted to buy the land or accept an easement. We chose to accept an easement. Okay,

2:57:38so we still that easement was not yet recorded. There was concern over some fencing issues at the time when the easement was presented for board approval. It is my understanding from our facilities department head that those issues have been resolved, and that easement is coming back to you at the the um we're targeting the first meeting in October so that that easement can be recorded along that property. Thank you very

2:58:02much. I'm glad very so happy to have

2:58:04that.

2:58:05Okay.

2:58:06Okay, so um if there was no comment from anybody? No. I move for move on. Oh oh okay, I have one more question. I'm sorry. Um do we want to use this I guess it's to us. I don't know we're staff. Um Do we want the div those those who are developing near her to build their portion of the trail or use put their mobility fee credits towards that trail so we're not having to ask

2:58:36people like Representative Steele over there to fund it? Why why are we not making it part of the condition?

2:58:47I don't know but take it easy on it. It just won't be.

2:58:51I'm just saying. I think we should be we should be having them build it. It's an asset to their development and um You know, otherwise we gotta go hunting for the money.

2:59:02It's fenced, right? Both sides. What? It's not just wide open for people to walk. straight out to it, is it or is it fenced?

2:59:11It's fenced on the south because that's the Schrader's um property. And their Swiftland property are expensive. We're north of theirs. We're north of there.

2:59:26The th I mean the the short answer Nictorius Pito's playing development economic growth, the short answer is that yes, we can have developers build their segments of the Orange Belt Trail in this case, and it can be done for mobility fee credits on the bike pad portion of the fee. From the background version.

2:59:45I think we should be doing that. Thank you. Okay. So we want We want them to be doing that.

2:59:54Go ahead. Mr. Chairman I just want to interject briefly as an engineering perspective to that question. We do wrestle with the question is should we have developers construct a portion of a pedestrian facility adjacent to their frontage? The challenge we have is that a lot of times what they're doing is conveying right-of-way to the ultimate footprint in our comp plan. And then constructing a pathway with it with a vertical elevation that has not yet been established for the adjacent parcels. So when we have them build a piece of it, we aren't

3:00:24sure at what height that piece should be so that it can be harmonized and compatible with the adjacent properties, which is why in some cases it's actually preferable to have them give us the mobility fees as a cash payment and then let us go in and construct a continuous facility from meaningful termini so that we can work out the design issues and provide connectivity to major. destinations at the same time.

3:00:47Okay, then what I'd like you to do is if that's the way you wanna play this here, be collecting those fees in a pot that said that it goes to their property And when you when the one when they come in and you build it. Then when you have all of them developing, we pay for it. We get it done. And you have the money.

3:01:08In this particular case, I mean we we are budgeting money and funds for for the trail. If you If you restrict them, right now you your mobility fees are restricted by zones. So that gives engineering services flexibility to execute the capital program where it's needed. If you want to start handcuffing that program, you you can. But I mean we're using a combination of funds, I believe, for the Orangevile Trail to include Penny for Pasco funds. I I I think in this in this case, while it's well intentioned, uh Mr. Byron's

3:01:39discussion of it's it's not designed yet, so to have them build it, it makes sense. Let's use those PED and mobility fee credits elsewhere in those mobility fee zones where we might actually need the projects. That'd be my recommendation. They're small relative to to your transportation capacity mobility fees.

3:01:58Okay.

3:01:59Hmm

3:02:03Just don't tell her that there's no money when

3:02:05Yeah, that's what you're gonna tell me there's no money.

3:02:11The beginning part of the orange belt is being is the sun trail is coming from the state with sun trail money. And it we fought. Hard and it took a long time to get that money.

3:02:21Pleasure of the board, we've got about forty minutes before this meeting's over. We have to start a new meeting.

3:02:27All right. That's a discussion for another day, I guess. Uh move to approve.

3:02:32Second. And a motion second. Is this real quick?

3:02:35No. You're in the you're in the straight vote section of the agenda right now.