PDE 25-7615 Tall Timbers MPUD rezoning multifamily and commercial

48:01Mm. Okay, so we're back to uh PC two.

48:12Good afternoon. Gavin Covey, Planning Development and Economic Growth. This is PDE twenty five seven six one five the tall timbers M P U D. And so this is a zoning amendment rezoning from an AC agricultural district to a CC MPUD Connected City Master Plan Unit Development. to allow for 380 multifamily dwelling units and 180,000 square feet of non-residential uses and associated infrastructure on approximately 38 acres. This is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Kenton Road and Tyndall Road. So

48:44here's a general location map uh within the county.

48:50And then here's a location map within Connected City. You can see that it's in the orange area, which is in the community hub, but directly adjacent to the urban core, which is uh intended to be a downtown area in the future.

49:02Looks like north is to the left.

49:03Yeah, the way that the exhibit is made is a horizontal, so that's correct. Uh here's a location map for you.

49:14Here's the current zoning, which is AC.

49:19Here's a context map. To the north is a portion of the Murata MPUD. To the west is a Pasco County facility. And to the south is the Kenton MPUD, which was referenced earlier during discussion.

49:36Then here is the MPUD master plan. And just to note a couple of design features that have been included with the MPUD, if 41 of the townhomes are intended to be reloaded, there is a maximum 10-foot setback in the mixed use area to make sure that the building orientation is along the future Kenton and Timber Run with parking in the back. And then in the mixed use area as well. twelve thousand square feet of non-residential uses are intended to be vertically integrated and mixed use with the apartments.

50:07And then lastly this is the binding concept plan.

50:15And P D D is Asking for a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Board of County Commissioners.

50:21Captain, can you go back to the binding concept? Absolutely. So we haven't seen this before. a bite in an M P U D wherein they provide a

50:35binding concept plan with this level of detail and I'm not saying I'm opposed to that. But what does that mean? What? What are the obligations of the developer in this binding concept plan?

50:50Yeah, so I think the intent is to show some of the negotiated building conditions that I described earlier and to have a general idea of what the development will look like in the future. Um PDE understands that N not everything is gonna look exactly the same as in this concept plan, but we do wanna have a general idea of what the development is gonna be looking like in the future.

51:09So let me ask this question. So

51:16This part of Connected City has requirements for mixed use?

51:22Uh so part of Connected City is requiring a distance requirement between a certain amount of uh uses within a certain area. So that is It's correct uh in terms of a distance requirement, but not necessarily specifically said that this area must have vertically integrated mixed use apartments.

51:39Is the amount of Traffic. in this M P U D in other words, I guess the question is the traffic study requires certain improvements and that's predicated on having a certain amount of office and a certain amount of mixed

52:05Correct. So the uh in the tra transportation study they base it they didn't use a mixed use uh analysis, they just did apartments. Uh the mixed use is actually a lower trip generation than if it were just standard suburban um retail or commercial or office even.

52:18That's it. And is there any requirement on the developer to Build the mixed use or the office before the townhomes or vice versa?

52:30Nope, there's no

52:31uh requirement like that. And what if they can't build the mixed use or the office?

52:37Um then they would come in for a substantial modification. We could talk about, you know, modifying the binding concept plan and the conditions of approval at that time. Okay.

52:49If I could just answer I think Gavin's mostly answered the question, but on a binding concept plan I think the thought process is that if what they end up building or coming in for site plan approval if it's materially different from what you see here, it would have to go through the substantial modification process, basically the new rezoning process. Come back to the Planning Commission, come back to the Board County Commissioner.

53:15trying to get at and then I'll explain later as we can.

53:19Now there is a condition, I think it's the last is the last condition. Correct, it's the last condition. That says that staff has a certain amount of delegated authority to approve minor modifications to the plan, but it has to substantially comply with the with what you see.

53:36Okay. Otherwise it's basically coming back through the zoning process. Which is a departure from some historical practice where We tended to get more bubble plans. Right.

53:49there would be no need to go back through the zoning process because it's just a bubble plan. This isn't quite a bit polymeric site plane level, but it's getting close to polymeric site plane level of detail. Okay.

54:08That's all a the great explanation of it. Thank you.

54:13Yeah, real qu real quick. Sorry. Look down and you'd walked away. When when stuff like this comes on on these bigger plans that are part of like some of the bigger community village of Pasadena Hills, Connected City, et cetera, is it possible to get some of this detail that's in your presentation included in the agenda packet? And the reason I'm asking that is is I mean we're we're kinda looking at Well I saw the agenda and I saw this. I kinda see that the snapshot of here's this project

54:43but not anything really in relation to overall connected city. So I mean if I know it would help me personally if we could include some information on, you know, the surrounding I mean some of these maps and stuff you had in your presentation are good. We can just include that information in the agenda, that would really help. Of course.

54:58Yeah, I can absolutely do that and provide a general connected city kind of

55:02description, at least a little bit. That's right. A little background. Thank you for.

55:06So one other question too. the wetlands on the property

55:12How is the classification

55:15determined? I believe in their in their natural resource study th they are all found to be category three. Um I think d is that what you're asking Bull?

55:28I understand that, but how how was that determination made?

55:33I believe through the use of Pasco Mapper in our natural resources department.

55:37So I'm not trying to

55:45Do we have here what the definitions of the different categories of wetlands are in our comp plan? I believe they're in the LDC. Well they're no, they're in the comp plane. But do we have those available? Is there someone that can pull those up? There's some on here that I believe are class three. wetlands or category three wetlands. There's others that I think might meet the other definitions of code.

56:16I see that there's connectivity of wetlands here, that they're not just isolated.

56:24And that gives me some concern. Yeah, of course. The other thing that I have some concern about will ask the developer Yeah. in the MPUD master plan that's in our packet.

56:39It lists the acreage of wetlands. It lists them all as category three. I'm not sure I agree that they're all category three.

56:48But there's no wetlands in the post development condition. This developer is proposing to blitz. all of these wetlands.

57:02And I understand that under our code you might be able to nuke a cat three wetland. I'm not sure you can nuke a cat one or two wetland. And so how do we get verification that all of these wetlands are actually category three wetlands? And the other thing I'll say is this. although our comprehensive plan may allow it. I'm not sure you're going to get a permit

57:32from the water management district to do that. Okay, 'cause there's some tests that you have to meet when you have a wetland impact. Right. And the the water management district rules recognize that sometimes I may need to affect a little corner of a wetland. or that a wetland may be so small that it has no substantive environmental or biological or hydrologic value. But

58:03somehow I'm looking at this aerial photograph and I'm not thinking that these wetlands have zero Hydrologic value or that someone's actually gonna get a permit to be able to just blitz these wetlands. And that's why I asked about the binding concept plan. So the binding concept plan so shows that I'm going to attempt to turn these wetlands into giant stormwater ponds I'm not 100% sure that someone's actually going to get a

58:33permit, so what happens if they don't get a permit to do that as far as this entitlement goes because that binding concept plan shows those are going to be stormwater plans. Or ponds, I'm sorry.

58:49Excuse me. We do have Jackie Jordan from Natural Resources online. I I don't know if she can answer some of those questions about whether category one, category two, category three, and we did pull up the concrete section for you.

59:01Okay. So the categories talk about isolated wetlands. I mean I can see in the aerial photograph the hydrologic connections. I'm not sure these wetlands are isolated. Do they are they less than five acres?

59:21Because I think about twenty or thirty percent of this site was wetland when I looked at that table.

59:29According to Pasco Mapper, they're all category three.

59:32That's somebody entered something in a GIS and that doesn't mean they were a wetland expert.

59:41Okay.

59:43Yeah.

59:44Jackie, are you there?

59:46Yes I am. Can you hear me okay?

59:48Yes.

59:53department. I was a The MPB resign, we tell the people have to improve the weapon line, it's not a requirement in code, it's required as I don't know. So we did do some historic era reviews and it looks like some of those systems were ditched together. So that's kind of how we make our determination. It's not an it's a man-made connection versus a natural um historic connection. So we did make an initial determination that they were all category three wetlands, um, which would be anything under five, five acres or less.

1:00:24But Jackie, just to clarify further Analysis and consideration will be given to those during The site plan review, correct?

1:00:32Correct. We required the um actual proved swift mud delineation at time of site plan submittal. And per the LDC, Category 3 and 2 wetlands are able to be impacted as long as they receive their appropriate state approval.

1:00:47Yes. Yeah, I understand that. I'm just not sure they're actually gonna get a state approval to Like I said, I don't think anybody has a problem With a third of an acre wetland that's been highly impacted over the years versus something that's a two or three acre wetland. that actually does have some substantive hydrologic function. And I'm not seeing that the concept plan submitted by the developer recognizes

1:01:19that hydrologic function. I recognize it's gonna get reviewed later, but I'm hesitant to grant an entitlement for something that actually cannot be achieved.

1:01:34I understand.

1:01:35Okay. But if it can't be achieved, don't they ju don't they just adjust their Well, yeah, they can only do what they want. I mean do what they can.

1:01:45Well so that goes back to my question about the binding concept plan. So okay now they go to Swift Mud and Swift Mud says no, you're not gonna blitz that wetland and turn it into a s a stormwater pond, then is this entitlement that we're evaluating here still valid?

1:02:06So To a certain extent, staff has discretion, as I mentioned earlier, to determine what is a substantial modification from the binding concept plan. I suspect and Patrick can address this, but if if what was located in that area was a if it just remained a wetland and not a stormwater pond and it wasn't affecting the development layout of the rest of their site, staff may determine that's not a substantial change to because it's

1:02:36a wetland now instead of a stormwater pond. Um Now if that caused them to completely redo the layout of all their residential units, now they're in last month concerned. Then then it is a potentially a substantial modification, but that's something staff has a certain amount of discretion to determine. Right.

1:02:58And so this is all asked in the context of that there's Now it's something we haven't seen before and that's the binding concept plan.

1:03:06Yeah.

1:03:08Should we make a condition that it has to come back here?

1:03:11Well if it's if they change the binding concept plan, it's gonna have to come back here. That that was kind of the point, is that his now that's a substantial amendment to their MPD and they're gonna have to bring that revised plan back here and to the Board of County Commissioners or Patrick has something else he wants to add.

1:03:32Are we required to make the plan binding at this point?

1:03:35Well, there's nothing Okay. This is a little bit of a ducky subject. Um

1:03:43the board has expressed an interest and particularly with MPDs that the plans that are shown to them Pretty pictures, so to speak, end up being what actually gets built. Um and so there's been some concerns in the past that the developer shows pretty pictures and saying these are these are the this is my wonderful layout that I'm gonna do here, and then what gets on the ground is completely different. So um that's what I think the board

1:04:13is trying to achieve by requiring these concepts. Of plans to be binding, subject to minor modifications that may be made. It's like so um yes, there is the there is more of a risk when you have a binding concept plan that if somebody got the wetlands wrong or the stormwater wrong, or I mean they're gonna have to do a little more engineering on a But you know, make sure they got it right in a binding console plan or they risk having to come back to

1:04:42uh why

1:04:44would you have

1:04:44a example if if I might and Gavin, could you put the the oh you've got the plan back up here. Or can we go back to there there's in our packet there's a wetland and floodplain exhibit. There there was one in the developer's M P U D master plan. So in the northwest corner of the property, well were we able to bring that up?

1:05:15There's a there's a wetland and floodplain exhibit in the MPUD master plan. Do we have such a file? Yeah, I think it showed the acreages, right? Yeah, but I and I'll show you where I'm going with this if we can just

1:05:40Just while there's some some dead time. Uh Patrick Detter, Assistant Director of Planning Services. Uh I got up to say basically what David was gonna say, but he did it much more eloquently than I could.

1:05:51He he usually does from that job.

1:05:56Thanks for being here though, Patrick.

1:06:02I mean could could you condition it that the concept plan is binding, pending st state or sort of cloud approval?

1:06:10I mean so

1:06:13And I'm not un understanding what the delay is, it's in the agenda packet, but D. In the Developers MPUD master plan document that's attached to our agenda packet, there is a wetland and floodplain exhibit. And it shows a substantive amount of wetland and floodplain at the northwest corner and the southwest corner of the property.

1:06:42Mm-hmm.

1:06:42Yet their master plan shows those being a well, and if you look at that's

1:06:51That's not the exhibit I'm referring to, but

1:06:59This one. That one you're blowing.

1:07:04The dark blue line represents floodplain area. the light blue lines represent wetland area. So their master plan Shows. an intense office development and an intense mixed use development at the northwest corner and the southwest corner. Of the property. Alright.

1:07:33Well in order to accomplish that, that means I need to fill that floodplain and blitz those wetlands. They may or may not, and I doubt they will actually get permits to do that. When I look at the extent of the floodplain and then I look at the amount of stormwater pond shown on the master plan. I'm going, well, where are you mitigating all of these floodplain impacts? So that's why I was asking about if there was an obligation to actually do a mixed use and do

1:08:03a mixed office, because I'm not sure you're gonna get the approval to do these things. So And does that end up constitu end up constituting a substantive deviation from that binding concept plan? I'm not sure that they're gonna get a permit to turn

1:08:22Now the water management does uh allow you to use isolated wetlands for water quality treatment. That's something that's legal, but that's different than dredging out the entire wetland and trying to turn it into a stormwater basin. Well that was one of my questions. Yes.

1:08:41If we can you scroll to the sheet before that?

1:08:47I think the sheet before that's got delineated wetlands on a survey map that don't match what we was looking at.

1:08:53But it's not just the map it's not just the amount of wetlands, it's the amount of floodplain. Our code and the water management district rules also, the section 1104 that the gentleman referenced earlier, require compensation for impacts to floodplains. There's no floodplain compensation areas shown on these master plans. Maybe they intend to do that in the stormwater pond. And I'm not saying that it's a reason to deny a permit if

1:09:23they can't because you can't get a a permit to do this, or I'm saying I'm sorry, we it's not a reason to deny the entitlement because you can't get a permit to do this. My question is this asked in the concept of of in the context of a binding concept plan Well, is that a substantive issue that you can't get a permit to actually build that mixed-use building or that office building or to put town homes down the middle if

1:09:53you go back to their concept plan they had townhomes a row of townhomes going east and west that are going right through the middle of that floodplain and those wetlands.

1:10:02So I I'll let Patrick collaborate, but I'll try to give you But I think the answer is um.

1:10:10I suspect if they were generally in accordance with the Binding Concept Plan, but if there were portions of this project that simply just didn't get developed at all. Okay, because they were in the floodplain, in a wetland, but the remainder of the development followed the binding concept plan. staff may well determine that's not a substantial change because the in any of the built areas it followed the binding concept point and so so I'm not sure that you

1:10:40know unless Patrick has a different opinion. Now the one exception Would be If it's an employment site it was promised to get credits in Connected City because there is a requirement in Connected City that to get credits for the roadway construction you have to set aside a minimum four acre site for employment uses.

1:11:02Which there's this service ready site.

1:11:05Yeah, that's the service ready site acreage. If that entirety of that area was undevelopable and they never built it I'm not sure that it would be a basis to say that they departed from the Binding Concept Plan, but it might be a basis to say they wouldn't get any credits for their road construction. Now, in this particular project I'm not sure they're seeking any credits anyway. I don't remember if this one that's a gavin. Okay, so so they maybe that's not an issue, um, in

1:11:35this project. But That's the only time I could think of that if a site was sort of reserved for employment as a promise to get something, and then it that reserved site ended up being entirely undevelopable, it may cause issues that might be considered a substantial change or a basis to deny them credits. Because they never d they didn't give us the employment area that we were promised. That's but it but If it's not putting aside that issue I

1:12:06believe that if the rest of the project that was developable followed the binding concept plan and they left the floodplain areas and wetland areas as just blank or undeveloped, my guess is that staff would still say that's consistent with the binding concept plan. In other words, that the areas they developed, as long as that was consistent with the binding concept plan, they'd probably say that's not a substantial amendment. And that's that accurate, Patrick, or my tell me if I'm wrong.

1:12:33No, I I'd agree with you.

1:12:34Mm-hmm.

1:12:37Thank

1:12:37you.

1:12:42Okay. Um is the applicant present?

1:12:49Good afternoon. Thank you. Shelley Johnson, [address removed], and I have been sworn. I'm just here to answer any questions, so if anybody has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. But I we did hear you loud and clear and understand what you're talking about.

1:13:02It wasn't a statement or position. I was trying to understand the function of Of the binding concept. Yeah.

1:13:11Yeah, and we understand it, you know, the discussion in regards to, you know, if it's a substanti I mean we're gonna do whatever we're required to do, so Thank you.

1:13:20Thank you. Okay, now uh public comment. Um Anybody here to give public comment? I think Liam, do you want to Call 'em in order that they signed up or you want to let 'em come up?

1:13:32Liam. The first one signed up is Dave Vitorino.

1:13:38Yeah, told you. Okay. So then Michael?

1:13:43Dope.

1:13:44You're back. Yes, sir. This is the one that counts.

1:13:55And I understand the three minutes. There is a couple of points of uh information because the information on their application does not meet the uh grading plan for the adjacent property where the roads are gonna go, which will have an effect on the stormwater. So all of this is gonna be objective. I've got about twenty seconds of subjective, but there's uh a lot of objective here to share with you. So this is a picture of uh Of the site, you can see this is from all of these uh aerial photos are from this morning. So

1:14:25they're all current. There's nothing in the past. The aerial they used is actually in the dry season, and just to remind you, on this parcel, 380. Multifamily dwelling units and 180,000 square feet plus parking on 38 acres. This is the site plan they showed you. It's pretty. It's got colors. None of the wetlands. Here's your topo map. Now if you type into Google the address to get their directions, you

1:14:55can see on the left, that's a lake. You guys are way smarter than me. On the right is the topo map with your wetlands.

1:15:06That's the aerial that they showed us. The aerial they showed us. Here's your floodplain.

1:15:16380 multifamily dwelling units and 180,000 square feet plus parking on that floodplain. If we back out a little bit. You can see the top both from the west, the northwest, the north, the northeast, and the east all falls into this bottom. That should be very important because this bottom receives all of the water from Lorada from the county site. Your next development to

1:15:46the northwest which is twenty seventeen, eighteen feet higher than this piece of property, and then everything on the east side.

1:15:55These pictures are from this morning. Every one of those wetlands currently holds water. Every one of them. We haven't seen rain since the hurricane. They are all holding water.

1:16:08Again, the top of map with the Level three and the level one and AE on it. This water collects here and then it moves on to The neighboring properties, the adjacent properties. So if you look at the site plan, that office building with all of its parking is right on that lake. It holds water most of the year. The mixed use is on the southwestern corner. This is the adjacent property in the point of information.

1:16:39The grading plan from this project right here, which was submitted in July of twenty-four, here's a copy of it, does not show their road going at a southeastern diagonal across this property. That road's going to go straight to the east on the top or north side of that. Thick red line. If we back out What you see is this basin drains to the south on the left side of the existing Tendle Road. It then goes back into and pillows in the Kenton MPUD, which is the

1:17:09rectangle there.

1:17:12And if we back out again, you'll see that in the left picture, that basin where the red wetlands are, flows into the first level, and that encapsulates the Lake View Estates. If we zoom in on the right, this is your current flood zones, and you can see how close it gets to all of the residentials. Some of these homes flooded out in the last hurricane, but this is existing without pushing that water,

1:17:43without shedding it somewhere else, the level of risk for the entire development there for Lakewood Estates. That's the top home map for it. So the property we're talking about is 104 feet. These homes are at 104 feet, 103 feet. This is where the water is going to go.

1:18:04Michael, I need you to try to wrap it up.

1:18:06Yes, sir. So Let me give you just a little bit of the subjective here. This is the bottom for the whole connected city. This is the second most important piece of property for the whole development. This is the wall where the water pools and starts at for the whole drainage basin west of Kenton.

1:18:29The whole connected city what we've been given and that's uh looking to the north at this property. It would be irresponsible to move this project anywhere close to what it is right now on for the BOC to see. This entire piece of property floods continuously. There's nowhere for the water to go, and the wetlands have got to be protected. The whole connected city here, we're still not seeing where the parks are gonna go. We're still not seeing

1:18:59where any green space is gonna go outside of private parks for the individual developments. This would be a prime piece of property to put an actual connected city green space so that everybody can enjoy it. As a county, let's buy it from the owner. But to put an MPUD here where all it's gonna do

1:19:22and move the water on to flood the neighbors downstream is irresponsible.

1:19:27Okay.

1:19:35Mm-hmm. Next.

1:19:40Jennifer McCarthy?

1:19:46Hello. Hello. Jennifer McCarthy, [address removed].

1:19:53So this has been a long decade because I've been talking about the Connected City since 2013. I've gone through Matt Armstrong, Ernie Monaco, and Gavin, really nice guy. Didn't have a whole lot of experience. We need to get way more experienced personnel on this project. It's it's it's a gimmick. And it's been piecemealed, it's not a cohesive image. This should be a cohesive image. It should be something for the county. And it's not. It's not driving anything. You got Epperson with its sixty dollar a day to go into a

1:20:23lagoon. Okay, that's great. But there's nothing like Bonnet Springs Park. There's nothing that's exciting about it. And there's never gonna be anything exciting about it. It's all if all you guys do is have houses and warehouses here. So I mean I I live on Kenton Road, so obviously I wanted to see an area that we were able to live where everything with everything coming through, and now we're I I think on this parcel it said that there would be you know up to 60-foot apartments on that. Um I

1:20:53mean I I live on a 10-acre parcel. So you talk about okay, we have stormwater and we have this. I do Way less impact on the environment than any of this. And I pay for it. I pay a lot of money taxes on that land to not have the kind of effect that other that these areas are having. But I did want to talk about the flooding in the specific area that you now have the ability to control. We have evidence not just from the recent hurricanes but from the afternoon storms from the past couple years. Years,

1:21:23not just this year, year after year, because I run up and down Kenton Road during my lunch break and I am running through water. So I am gross, gross water. Um You know, I've I've tried speaking with Swift Mud, and they say, hey, we're following the state laws. So and earlier you said that hey, you're following the state guidelines. But here's my issue: We know that the Kenton parcel FASA that's already been approved and that timber pines flood. So you have the ability now to resolve this specific area of

1:21:53known concern before you approve the development and truly like have an everlasting. Negative effect on this area. When you're looking on Curly Road, on the east side of Curly Road, all the cow pastures, they look like cow pastures. When you look at Timber Lakes, when you're walking on that road, it looks like wetlands. So whether or not it says three, it does not look like a cow pasture. It looks like wetlands. Ten years ago, when I used to horseback ride through there, there'd be there's gators. So they're coming. mean this

1:22:23area ha i it it's been like this for for decades, it's had water for decades. Um I mean the other thing is just is just the connected city. There's there's no community, there's no innovation. I mean there was supposed to be a innovation area, community hub, uh this I mean there there's there's not. Um traffic is is beyond ridiculous now. So I mean for years everybody said Wesley Chapel is gonna be the new Brandon when it comes to traffic and it is. We

1:22:53are sitting in two lights for two to three times, my kid. because now there's no transportation to and from a lot of these schools. We are I am in she is in the vehicle almost two hours a day, going back and forth to school in one activity that's all located in the Wesley Chapel area. My six year old two hours a day in a car. I mean it's just not The life that I thought was gonna be here. Things that used to take five minutes take twenty minutes now. Um I I mean it's just

1:23:24it's it it it's really disheartening because I've lived in Pasco County for decades. And I'm I'm not old, right? I've lived in Pasco County for decades. And I've seen I remember with the JC Penny sitting there, Road to Nowhere. I mean I've I've seen all of this and in the last five years it is so sad what the what I've seen. It's just Not no nobody wants it that is is living here to the extent that is happening. So you know, like everybody

1:23:54else, I think we need to stop approving the new development until we already know that there's tens of thousands of approved developments in housing that are already approved. Why don't we let some of this happen and see what's gonna what what do we actually need here? I mean we're approving something where Kenton Road hasn't been approved. You have Kenton Road, you have the the property right here, you have the FASA, you have the you what you have five areas that are already approved that haven't been built. You have no idea the impact on it. And

1:24:25it's I don't know. So I I I just I I I don't believe that this should be approved. I think this is gonna have a negative impact on the on water, on flooding, on traffic. I don't see how that amount of homes is gonna only generate seventy students towards our school 'cause that's what it says in the in the amend in the in the agenda. I mean, I it just doesn't not nothing seems Okay. Nothing seems right. We appreciate

1:24:52you coming out.

1:24:53Thank you.

1:24:53Thank you.

1:24:55That was our last member of the public who has signed up.

1:24:58Okay.

1:25:01So no other public comment? Daphne you like to come back up?

1:25:06Yeah. I can answer a couple of the questions. Um as far as stormwater, obviously whatever regulations are in place at the time when this comes in for construction plan um and permits and that it'll have to comply with whatever those regulations are. If they're more stringent at the time, then so be it. I you know I'm sensitive to you know, I live in Pasco County, I have for many years, so I'm sensitive to what I'm hearing. I've I've had people that have been impacted by flooding, so you know I can appreciate where everybody's coming from. Um So I do know that that would be something they would have to do. As far as the actual plan itself, it

1:25:37is consistent with what this particular area, this community hub, calls for in regards to where this property's at. I think that's why planning staff has supported it because you know it does have that that mix of non-residential uses, the vertical integrated uses. There is non-residential on the property, but it's you know it's part of a a larger whole in terms of that that planning area and connected cities and and um you know I do I do know the plan complies with with the goals and objectives for that particular community have where it's located. So but I would be more

1:26:07than happy to answer. So

1:26:12Uh I get your point. I I might And I realize you're not seeking credits, but to a certain extent when the board approves a mixed use project

1:26:21Mm-hmm.

1:26:23The carrot for the board is the non-residential portion of the impute.

1:26:26Mm-hmm.

1:26:28They sometimes they only allow the residential because they're getting the non-residential and mixed use portion of the MPG. To Mr. M Moody's point. D yeah. Do you all really feel that that portion of the M P D is developable given the floodplain and wetland locations on this site?

1:26:47And I can't answer that question. There was a wetland delineation done on this site. Um Swift Mud has it was approved, inspected, it was flagged in the field. Um unfortunately one my understanding is these well ins and I I think that's maybe what the county um uh expert is like also kind of coming to the conclusion on is they're unfortunately already contaminated. Um and so that's why they've all they're all getting flagged as class threes by the the by swift mud, by you know, the wetland delineation that was done, I think by what the county is seeing. So I do think the property can be developed.

1:27:17Um but again, if it can't then yeah, I mean if we have a substantial modification and we're more there's something that they're proposing where it's gonna throw it out of consistency with the goals and objectives of the complaint, I think that you know they'll they'll they're gonna have to come back and revisit it.

1:27:31Let me ask the question a different way. Dude. 'Cause in theory you couldn't put the employment uses in the upland portion of the site, or the part that's clearly uplands. Mm-hmm. But you put the residential there. So I guess Did staff tell you to kinda orient the uses the way that it's oriented, where the non residential is all on the on the west side where the wetlands and the floodplain is, or is that something you all chose to do?

1:27:58I mean I don't know the answer to that, um, because I'm not I I'm not the engineer, so I didn't lay it out. Um my under my understanding is it's been reviewed by staff. This is, you know, what they're comfortable with. Again They're class three wetlands, so my understanding is you know they're they're gonna be impacted and mitigated for. Um now I'm not an engineer. What whether that's can be accomplished, I don't know. But um Well

1:28:20I don't think it's just the wetlands, it's also the floodplain you'd have to mitigate. Yeah. So W let me just ask staff the question. Would you support would staff have supported this MPUD Yeah. if the non residential portion ends up being not developable Because it's in wetlands and floodplain.

1:28:44So the uh SRSA site and the office site is actually not a requirement for this project. Th that was something that was negotiated for specifically. Um is just under the neath the threshold for that um office SRSA site. Um so I could see either way. Um staff is always just looking for employment generating uses whenever possible.

1:29:04So are you saying that even if only the residential portion of this MPD were built You would still support it?

1:29:14I personally would support it? Correct correct, yes.

1:29:17Yeah, but not you personally. Does the

1:29:20plan I'm asking, does the planning department support the I mean I I understand that you always want mixed use and you always want to point on that so my question is on this particular project, was that important to your recommendation of approval that they have this employment and mixed use portion of the MPUD.

1:29:38Uh Patrick Detter Planning Services, uh I don't think it was necessarily vital. Um of course it's great when we get mixed use development, we always look for that, um but I don't think it was necessarily vital for this area. This is in the commun it's still in the community hub area of right community. So what

1:29:52does that mean? What's what what what what's the function of the community hub?

1:29:57Um community hub was envisioned um higher density, so the core of Connected City, um What's that?

1:30:05Yeah.

1:30:06Oh, I can read the actual definition if you'd like. Uh the project is located within the community hub. The community hub is characterized by a potential mix of residential, educational, recreational, civic, cultural. and resort type uses centered on a central amenity, the King Lake. So uh I think the idea was that we have the Northern Innovation Zone, the Southern Innovation Zone. Uh

1:30:29and read that one more time.

1:30:30Sure. Community Hub is characterized by a potential potential mix of residential, educational, recreational, civic, cultural, and resort type uses centered on a central amenity, the King Lake.

1:30:50So, uh northern innovation zone at the top, southern innovation zone generally lighter densities, uh going towards the middle where there's a little bit higher density, multifamily type projects, moving towards the west to the downtown area, which was gonna be a little bit more.

1:31:07Well well no, he's saying King Lake is the central amenity.

1:31:12Sure. Not necessarily with commercial around the the lake itself, but I I understand that. So

1:31:21They're not

1:31:21gonna have

1:31:22access. They don't really need access. Hold on. But the question I have is where's the cultural. Where's the resort?

1:31:34I'm not seeing how you this fits

1:31:37with what you just described. Sure, so it's it's not each project is going to include all of these things. It's the the community Helberia is a large geographical.

1:31:46Have we approved any that have those things?

1:31:50Um but what specifically? Resort? Well. Read the definition again. Sure.

1:31:57Can we put it up there? Yeah.

1:32:00Patrick. I think this kind of goes back to my statement earlier of kind of getting an understanding of what w all is included here in this community hub portion and Connected City and and all that kind of stuff and seeing the surrounding. I mean, it it it's really hard for us when we see these one at a time and these one offs like this. Sure. Not knowing I mean For that matter ev everybody that comes in in the community hub on their individual projects should come in with nothing but multifamily.

1:32:26Right.

1:32:27And how do we know without Having a a bigger picture.

1:32:33So we've got this giant planning area and you've just described this function of this sub-area of this planning area. Sure. And we've got Around the central amenity, King Lake, where and I can tell you multiple times we've restricted access to the lake, so I'm not sure how that's an amenity to anybody. And I'm not sure we've approved any resorts around there. And that's why I'm curious to actually see the language up here. of this definition.

1:33:03So so I can tell you as somebody who reviews almost every M P D in Connected City. I do not recall any in Well, One might argue that the Crystal Lagoon is a quote resort, okay, but if you put that aside and the area where around the the Crystal Lagoon, I'm not aware of any MPD that has come in where we've allowed for Resort type entitlement. So it looks

1:33:29like that's part of the North Innovation innovative zone or they're looking at the

1:33:32Right, but if you're asking for the commun if you're asking specifically for the community hub area, I believe the only non residential entitlements we've allowed or required would be probably office or retail type entitlements, not Resort.

1:33:50That's from my

1:33:50recollection. I don't think

1:33:51it's a good thing.

1:33:52Right, and and you're there's tons of restricted access to the lake itself. I think the original plan had envisioned that King Lake would have a a boardwalk going along the length of it.

1:34:06But I believe those types of impacts were not necessarily feasible with any of the actual MPDs that came in after the community.

1:34:14Connected city is around all the way around that lake. Yeah.

1:34:18Generally around that lake, right.

1:34:19And this is in the upper northeast or northwest portion of week.

1:34:24Right. And it's supposed to connect into the uh downtown business core that is supposed to be established. So this abuts that um and that's why you see some non-residential right on that uh that side of this MPUD. Yeah.

1:34:39It abuts urban core, it looks like.

1:34:41That's correct. And uh Mr. Jardy, to your point, yes. So

1:34:46how do we Assurer. That there's a mix of residential, educational, recreational, civic, cultural, and resort type uses. So everyone that comes in here wants a multifamily they all want town homes, town homes, town homes, town homes. Where's the requirement for the recr the civic and the cultural and resort type uses. And I understand not every project will be a civic cultural, but if we just approve

1:35:16all town homes then we never meet the goal or the objective of the community hub zone because there was ne Nobody comes in to propose well I'm gonna do something civic or cultural.

1:35:28I mean

1:35:29sure what it's worth this is on the edge of the community hub zone. It's the very corner of the the zone.

1:35:35It's not a project I'm asking in general, 'cause this goes to Jamie's comment and I'm frustrated too with every time we get something in Connected City, I'm looking at this thing through with blinders on and I'm not seeing the whole zone and whether we've achieved the vision of the zone. And who's who's making sure that that gets done?

1:35:56So and I g I don't disagree with either of you. I think you both have very valid points that we could probably do better in our presentations to you to show the context of the entire

1:36:05area.

1:36:09goal, the intent, and the character. that's laid out is actually achieved.

1:36:19Sure, I I would think that would lean towards the planning department, um Planning Commission to keep an eye on that, the board to ultimately.

1:36:30Yeah, it's hard for us to see the context of all the different projects that are out there or you know, 'cause we're looking at the piecemeal as they come up on come up here to the diets. Sure, I understand. Um

1:36:41Well Patrick, let me just add to that comment. it appears as if somebody in planning was trying to make this sort of the logical extension of the urban core zone c which talks about having a mix of businesses, employment generated uses, um higher density, smaller block sizes. Which might make some sense. Sure. Okay, 'cause it's right next to the urban core. Sure. But then I heard staff say they don't care if it has those

1:37:11things. That it's perfectly fine if it's just residential. So

1:37:17Can you explain that?

1:37:19Well.

1:37:21Go ahead.

1:37:25Good afternoon, Waiver Million Planning, Development, Economic Growth. Um not to contradict any of my colleagues that have spoken today. But most likely what would happen is we would renegotiate based on a minimum square footage of those office uses if it wasn't achievable when they came in for site plans compared to the binding concept because of the proximity to the urban core.

1:37:51And th that means that th this body would see it again.

1:37:55Okay, so that is different than what your calling says.

1:37:58So correct. So I I came up I came up from the back. And uh

1:38:07So you're saying that the non-residential part is crucial to staff's recommendation of approval for this MP?

1:38:15Correct, because of the proximity to the urban core. What what you were just talking about the city was a very important thing.

1:38:22Correct directly abuts.

1:38:23So Then I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier then if

1:38:30Would you still re have recommended approval of this project if it did not include those things?

1:38:36No, we we would have negotiated some sort of non residential mixed use component along that road.

1:38:41So What bothers me when I look at this Is Uh and I'm sorry 'cause I'm looking at my own screen and that's back to that exhibit that I asked that we put up earlier that is the wetlands and floodplains.

1:39:01And I'm trying to figure out Why doesn't the concept plan Binding concept plan.

1:39:11follow the natural features of the land and it seems to me Then we can still achieve the objectives of the concept plan but also respect Mother Nature here. at the same time. For instance, up in the very north, and I'm sorry 'cause I don't have a pointer, Up in the very north. Why couldn't the office be up there? I think the townhomes generally do sort

1:39:41of follow the upland why can't the mixed use

1:39:48Why can't the mixed use be there? The office be there. We're we're showing an office blitz in a wetland, a mixed use blitz in a a wetland. We've got uplands that we can be used. Town homes can be located. In here. Instead

1:40:06We want to make this lots blocks and rows and blitz wetlands.

1:40:12All at the same time while the public is not exactly Thrilled about Stormwater drainage over the last couple of months here.

1:40:23And I understand this has gone on a long time.

1:40:28But

1:40:31At some point we have the We have the responsibility to recognize to develop in accordance with the lay of the land. And and that drives me nuts. I get clients that come to my office too that don't seem to understand water flows downhill. Here I wanna put I want uh they come in here with a layout and I wanna put a building down here on the low side of the site because it's convenient and I wanna put my stormwater pond at the top of the hill. I get that all the time. And

1:41:02I understand but engineers where that's what we're supposed to to make happen. What? Why are we f why are we fighting gravity here? We're gonna go

1:41:12So I think part of the root of Mr. Moody's concern, and I'll ask staff this question, is the root to me the root cause of the problem is you're basically saying this concept plan is binding. Because if it wasn't binding in theory the it would just be a group of entitlements in a bucket and they could put those entitlements p they could lay them out just as Mr. Mooney suggested. They could put them but to me the conflict is that

1:41:43we're saying the concept plant is binding but it may not be able to achieve some of what the county is looking for.

1:41:52Sure. So to to both points. staff has no issue with following the natural layout of the wetland nor the floodplain. If the applicant were to meet the conditions of approval for the build building orientation that were laid out, it would still be substantially compliant with that binding concept plan, even though it didn't match exactly. If the building orientations still remained the same as in the conditions of approval today, then PDE would deem that

1:42:22that would be substantially compliant because it would be uh accomplishing the intern intent and purpose that was laid out that you guys have were recommending.

1:42:30So that's why I was asking all the questions about what does a binding concept plan mean? And then how much latitude Does your department feel like it has in determining whether something is in accord with the binding concept plan?

1:42:48Yeah, but you said if the building orientation is substantially similar, but it looks like

1:42:52No if the building orientation is the same. Not not substantially similar. If the building orientation matches the conditions of approval as in the agenda packet, but the buildings were

1:43:04So William, but I I I think part of the concern is they're showing a building, say in the south. west corner where there may not be a building at all. So how maybe so how could the building and orientation be substantially similar if it just doesn't exist?

1:43:22I I I I thought we we had already uh covered that. If it didn't exist, we weren't gonna hold them hostage as it were for it not getting built if it was still.

1:43:34Then all I'm getting is a townhouse development. I'm getting sold a concept plan that says I'm gonna get a vertically integrated mixed use and I'm gonna get a office. And I'm gonna get some town homes.

1:43:47So circling back, I said because really what should happen is if it if more of it's consumed, then there ought to be fewer multifamily and then some of the office is in there, right?

1:44:01William, I think I I I I said

1:44:03that previously. I uh it would be renegotiated if there was no non-residential, in which case it would come back to you guys.

1:44:10How does that happen? And if I have, if if we approve this today, well actually we don't get the final approval, but the board if the board approves this, okay, and they come in here for a site plan, they come into Brad's department and they get a site plan approval for some townhomes, and he he says, yep, townhomes are shown on the concept plan, looks like the concept plan. They brought me a Swift Mud permit, go build your town homes. But then it never ever come back with A mixed use. Development or a

1:44:43So then I haven't met and achieved The goals and the intent of the community hub. I'm not even sure this actually meets and achieves those goals, but nonetheless I've never met and achieved those goals.

1:44:55What I'm saying is if they had no non residential and it was just townhomes? it wouldn't be substantially compliant because we're like like I mentioned with

1:45:03So are you saying that they're required to come and get a site plan approval for all of this at one time?

1:45:08No, I mean we c we could craft a condition today about phasing Right? If you guys want to see the first phase to be the non-residential component,

1:45:15we can do

1:45:15that.

1:45:21And and there's a lot of kind of moving parts here. One I think the binding concept plan and And Uh, first off I I think we've they've over asked for entitlements, but we don't really know that at this point and it's not that uncommon to ask for more entitlements than you can actually achieve on the property. Yes. Okay, that that being said I I don't see anywhere outlined where there is a phasing plan, where there is any kind of guarantee, where there are any minimums if that's important, which I think w what I'm hearing up here today and what I've seen in the community hub, that's an important component here. Um, I I

1:45:51agree with John's point that I mean there's nothing the way this is written today to stop this from a townhome project coming in, building out the townhomes. and then trying to negotiate the build out of the of the more difficult property. I mean there's a lot of restrictions in this property that from an engineering standpoint have not, in my opinion, been even accounted for.

1:46:11Sure. Uh and I don't disagree with you. Um and I think to what Will was saying, staff has no issue with any kind of condition that would require the non residential components to uh proceed or go along with the residential, but I think the applicant would need to weigh on whether or not they would be okay with the condition as well.

1:46:30And to I think some points made about the binding concept plan, um, you know, if they're not substantially compliant with the binding concept plan, you guys will see it again. So uh but still, your point about phasing still applies. Understand that.

1:46:46Mr. Tippin.

1:46:48It's been a fun discussion. And and quite quite frankly, every single person that has spoken on this is absolutely right. This is the inherent problem with binding concept plans. uh but there has been a commitment to go that route so and so we want to try and do that. And I think that the solution here and just to not create too much of a problem, I think it's a f a concept of phasing. But as you know, when you phase a plan at at my level, you have to everything uh has to be there. It can't be dependent on a future phase of development. So there's a level of engineering that has to be done. So

1:47:18whatever we put in as far as this phasing, it should also be kind of a conceptual phasing, a certain amount of uh of non residential has to be approved prior to going beyond this amount. Some sort of a generic thing like that rather than drawing a line. And the line may not work.

1:47:36I would tell you, Brad, I one hundred percent agree with you. Okay. that that's the case. I'm just not sure if this is the time and the place.

1:47:46Yeah, I mean it feels like, you know, if this has to come back to us, this kinda w you know, it should have been done right in the first place. You know, I feel like some of this engineering should have been done before we get into a binding kind of set of planet.

1:48:00But I think Mr Moody's point is that if there's going to be a phasing condition about non residential versus residential, that that's something that staff should negotiate. Before it ever gets to

1:48:10planning? I'm not comfortable my I'm personally not comfortable with trying to pull a number out of the air and say, Well you better build X many square feet of this and that before you build this many town homes or vice versa and I think that all needs to get looked at.

1:48:25Well and it d the other reason I think staff needs to do it is no offense to staff, but we've heard somewhat conflicting testimony on the importance of the non residential. So that would makes it which makes it even more difficult for Planning Commission to come up with a number because we don't know how important that non residential component is. So

1:48:45To to m to move this along, I mean, would would it continue to make sense to give some more time to Maybe

1:48:54so I I I would leave that up to the applicant and and the staff that are directly involved. But I know

1:48:59obviously you don't want to be able to do that.

1:49:00Yeah, it it is something that that there could possibly be some some solution here because I think the condition that would be added is is somewhat generic. in nature. It wouldn't necessarily pull the number, you know, completely out of the air. There would be some kind of ration.

1:49:13I I don't know that I agree, Brad. I mean what you're t what you're describing is basically a commitment that a certain amount of the non residential will get built. Approved. Approved. Site site plan approved, whatever, before They get to a certain amount of residential. How would is how would Planning Commission come up with those numbers? I mean I I

1:49:37the applicant may be able to provide those numbers today.

1:49:40If the applicant can commit to certain percentages of staff and the planning commission are in agreement with it, I guess that's maybe that works, but

1:49:51Okay, so the further the staff and the applicant.

1:49:56David, I have a question for you.

1:49:59We just don't need to be planning from the highest. Are you Well Yes, I agree with you, Gary. Are there any comprehensive plan policies that you can think of right offhand?

1:50:13That would attempt to either encourage or discourage the wholesale destruction of a wetland to accommodate a project. I understand. Don't get me wrong, and I'm involved in land development. I'm one of these bad guy engineers that does these plans for these land developers.

1:50:34And there are times when Where we come across an inconveniently located mud hole. A lot of times they're cattle waddle waddle holes. or they were some cattle watering pond dug a hundred years ago for a ranch. And we fill them in. and we mitigate off site and we create floodplain compensation areas to make up for that loss of historic basin storage and floodplain

1:51:05storage.

1:51:08But We don't. look at properties. And go, well, hey, forty percent of this property's wetland. We'll just fill the whole thing, dredge it all out, turn it into a stormwater pond. And I will tell you, and I'm not accusing all developers of doing that, the vast majority of them do come in here and protect and build around these wetlands and we show these wetland buffers. There's no wetland buffers here. We're just gonna dredge the wetland out and

1:51:38turn it into a stormwater pond. I'm just not sure. So my question is is do we have any policies that would encourage that, discourage that, require that?

1:51:48So I'll probably need Jackie to help weigh in on this, but my general understanding is that

1:51:55If it's a Category One wetland, we absolutely do have Complant policies that discourage and in fact basically say you can't impact that class one wetland unless there's no feasible alternative. I mean it th it's a pretty stringent standard on a category one wetland. Um Whether it's fortunate or unfortunate, I don't the the standard is certainly not as strict for a category two or three, but I'm gonna let Jackie weigh in on whether we do any kind of avoidance analysis

1:52:25on a category two or three Wetlands.

1:52:29So and Jackie, before you respond, I'll just say that if you apply to the Water Management District, one of your burdens that you have to meet if you want to fill a wetland is you have to demonstrate minimization and or avoidance and then you also have to demonstrate that this is in the public interest.

1:52:48But I think my my general understanding is that standard is more stringent than what is in our comp plan. Okay. So but I'll let you know. But I'll let Jackie weigh in if she wants to add to that.

1:53:07are only allowed to be impacted for, you know, access and linear utilities. But category twos and threes can be impacted as long as they get their state approval. So we don't really have a say in if they're minimizing and avoiding at our level just because the the code defers to the state for those.

1:53:24Okay, understood. Okay.

1:53:26Jackie can can you comment on how our uh and the comp plan policy on floodplain protection would apply potentially here?

1:53:36Um our department isn't dedicated that.

1:53:39That would come back to

1:53:40the section you're looking at, Matt.

1:53:41I'm looking at uh

1:53:42flu one point two can we put that up?

1:53:52Excuse me, what was that section again? One point.

1:54:05And then one point I don't know that one point two point six may apply as well to review of rezoning requests within areas of frequent flooding.

1:54:16Mm.

1:54:17But it's right there with it, so

1:54:23So it's the uh Oh it's it's future landings one point two point.

1:54:32Yeager and con.

1:55:21You have to scroll the other way.

1:55:26He said one point two point five?

1:55:28Yes. I'm sorry you should be above that. Wrong way. There you go.

1:56:01I'll wait for dinner.

1:56:07Well My general understanding, all that's uh we have stormwater staff they can give you a more detailed understanding is that this complain policy is implemented through our land development regulation. That was gonna be my comment. And so you the details of how we limit development within the hundred year floodplain are contained within our land development regulations in particular is it section twelve hundred Patrick

1:56:39you would know what is it where's our stormwater regulation?

1:56:41I don't know off the top of my head. Is it the twelve or fourteen? Then we have stormwater quality, which is nine.

1:56:46In other words, this this is setting forth a general policy to protect floodplains. But the details of how that is regulated are in the land development code. Okay. So if Shelley gets up and says we'll comply with the land development code She's arguably complying with this policy because it's the policies implemented through the land development board.

1:57:07Let me

1:57:07let

1:57:08me sound.

1:57:10But shouldn't there be a basic need? If you're gonna come in and you're gonna commit to a binding concept

1:57:19And I understand why the board would want this and I would tell you that I'm s I'm frustrated sometimes. I call it the bait and switch. We get presented a pretty picture and then that's not what we actually get in the field.

1:57:33But shouldn't there be some

1:57:38Some preliminary or basic cursory l evaluation of a project to see what if I would have just come in here and said, I wanna pave this whole thing. Well, I know you're not going to get a permit for that. So then what's the point of a binding concept plan if I know that I can't ever get that permitted?

1:57:58Yeah, I don't see how you can have a binding concept plan without having the Swift Munt approvals ahead of time. That's that's that was absolutely

1:58:05Well I'm not sure they need to, but I I think where I'm uh what I'm asking is shouldn't there be some kind of cursory review. I mean I I realize we don't want to put 'em through the site plan review when they're trying to go through the entitlement phase. But somebody to put some common sense on a plan and say, yeah, that looks doable. you know, within some reasonable deviation, which is the intent of this concept plan, right? The staff can approve some deviations.

1:58:36But if a developer came in here and said, well, I just want to pave this wall to wall, we know that's not doable. I'm not going to approve an entitlement to do that.

1:58:48So my personal belief is that I like the idea of the binding concept plan. I think this the the idea needs to the idea as a regulatory tool or an entitlement tool, but this needs to be thought through a little bit

1:59:01more. Mr. Muddy, I I think it's not a black and white answer to your question because I think It ultimately depends on what part of the binding concept plan is subject to not being built if they can't get these permits. So for example, if the area where they were showing if the areas where the wetlands and floodplains was all town homes and Maybe they can build less townhomes. I don't know that staff or the board really cares.

1:59:32Okay, 'cause they're just townhomes. Arguably we have a lot of those. Okay. So Th but if the area they're showing where the wetlands are f this is why I asked the question, how important are these non-residential entitlements to this approval? Because if that's where the wetlands and floodplain is where they're showing the the carrot to the county, which is the non-residential mixed use stuff. That's a little more problematic because to your point earlier, what happens at the first site plan

2:00:02in is just townhomes. They all get built. They show some conceptual phase two. with the non residential mixed use stuff and then phase two never comes in. Because it's got wetland impact, floodplain impacts and that goes to, you know, Williams' point, well they wanted staff wanted that to be non residential because it's right next to the urban core. So I I think

2:00:31Which may not be possible because what what

2:00:34I'm saying is I don't it depends on what what they're showing in that area. I mean if it's just more housing Maybe not the end of the world if it doesn't get built. To your point a lot of stuff it gets overentitled and so if you're asking what does the county care about, I'll just go by Williams answer. The the county cares about the employment generating Portion of the of the project. That's what helps our tax base. If we're going to impact wetlands, arguably that should be

2:01:04it should be for things like that. That improve the tax base of the county, not for more town homes. Because at least we're getting, yes, we're sacrificing wetlands and floodplain, but at least we're getting jobs. We're getting, and there's a need for economic development in the county. twenty two. So you don't want to stymie the economic development of the county because It might have some wetland floodplaining boxes

2:01:28that there are impacts. Like I said, it's not uncommon. I'm laying out a subdivision street and I turn a corner and I clip off a little piece of a wetland. That's not an uncommon thing in this business. That's done every day. We don't come in and generally just wholesale wipe out all the wetlands, whether they be category three wetlands or category one wetlands in the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. And I can tell you, when you go to

2:01:58get your state and federal permits for wetlands, there's no such thing as a category one, two, or three. In fact, we need actually whoever's working on the comp plan, we need to get rid of that. doesn't even comport to state and federal law. A in state and federal law a wetlands are wetlands a wetlands a wetland.

2:02:18Uh sure. I'd be more in favor of a continuance for them to come back with a plan that one provides some level of assurance that we're gonna get what we see. and then two, I'll ask them. I guess maybe we are Our comprehensive plan and our land development code don't obligate them, but I'll ask them to consider please being good stewards to the land. Listen to the people who got up and spoke

2:02:49prior to this hearing about their concerns, and I'm not telling you that I agree with Everything that was said. I'm an engineer and I've got my own views on some of the flooding and some of the causes and not causes and But I do hear them. Sure. I would hope that they would these people would hear them and understand that you're coming to this board and the county commission, you're asking for something, well,

2:03:19this is a negotiation. You don't get everything you want, you gotta give some stuff. So You give, you get. Well

2:03:27from what I've heard there's two different solutions possible. It's either continuation or some sort of a condition that uh delineates a phasing uh thing. And we were gonna ask the applicant if perhaps they had an idea on what phasing might work.

2:03:42Okay. Um I'm sure they might be able to answer they are fine with continuance, by the way. If you want to know that. Um if you want to answer to that one you could.

2:03:50Is there well then if that is the case, if they're fine with a continuance, Shelly. Is there a suggested amount of time you think you'd accomplish this thirty days, sixty days, ninety days, six months?

2:04:05Uh and I think uh an overall update on the connected city plan would be nice to accompany that if we're gonna look at this again. Sure would. Keep that in mind as far as time needed.

2:04:16So if I can jump in here just I I don't know what the timeline suggestion, but our next two date city hearings for Planning Commission. Um the next date city hearing is twelve twelve twenty twenty-four, one thirty in date city. City and then the one after that is one nine twenty twenty five, Dade Dade City at one thirty.

2:04:34And th they say

2:04:34they would like to shoot for twelve

2:04:36twelve.

2:04:38Does staff believe it can get that done in that time?

2:04:40Staff does believe that.

2:04:43Okay. Because I think we're gonna be here a long time on January ninth.

2:04:47So can I ask Hartley? Is your intent for the continuance to Create a new binding concept plan, or is your intent to just come up with a phasing condition? 'Cause I I But the reason I say ask that question is because I think it's gonna take longer to redo the binding concept plan then just write up a phasing condition. So I w wh wh what is where is staff going with this?

2:05:13So I think we're interested in in in doing the condition, right? So if if they have a binding concept plan and they say they can make this work engineering wise in time in terms of floodplain and that type of thing. So be it, if they can't do that. they'll have to come back in again if we have that condition in there that says that they have need a certain portion of non residential first. So I think we're more interested in getting that condition that guarantees us that non residential.

2:05:37All right. And then I would just say I think internally. You guys need to be thinking about

2:05:49how you'll actually administer and enforce binding concept plans and act I'm not gonna tell you how to run your department. I don't know whether that's a policy memo or a staff meeting or however you But I I think there's gonna be questions about that at the board too. Especially the first time somebody doesn't deliver on something that one commissioner's gonna say, Well that doesn't look like that binding concept plan to me.

2:06:20Yeah, we actually started um writing up what that might be. So we are in the preliminary talks of defining what a binding concept plan is because that can vary depending on project to project. So yeah, we're in the process of doing that.

2:06:32Yeah, I think that's a good idea, especially like the the minimum requirements. I mean 'cause I mean when I think binding concept plan my bind it automatically goes to you this is the general layout.

2:06:40Okay.

2:06:41Well general layout kind of goes to where your access points are and what's the what does the connectivity look like through the project. Well then I think there's a condition in here that the the the accesses are are conditional or or Yeah. not stuck at this spot. Well that contradicts what my mind goes to for a binding concept plan. So

2:06:58understood. I think that's a good thing. Yeah, we're gonna better

2:07:00define

2:07:00that.

2:07:00And and as Commissioner Mun said too, um it would be great to ha see what the overarching plan is and where this fits into the plan for connected cities for any of these future projects. I don't know if there's already a um procedure in place with internal Within your department to kind of keep track of these projects as they get approved and how they fit into the overall process.

2:07:24So I heard one of the commissioners asked for a comprehensive update or review of the progress of Connected City. Is there an effort going on to do that, to make a presentation to the board to show them here's what the vision was, here's what we've actually achieved. I've heard them ask this a couple of times.

2:07:48And you have little pieces that are dropping into place. But you know, we want to be able to see that what that picture looks like outside of that jigsaw puzzle. And you know, I think the commissioners just have

2:07:58some points to I think I was at that meeting and I there definitely was clear direction from the board. to have a workshop on V OPH. Oh I'm sorry. So but there may may have been some mention at the same board meeting about want something something similar for Connected City, but I don't No that that was a clear direction.

2:08:19That's my bad. I think it was V O P H that I think. But I staff can tell me if I'm wrong. But I'll ask the commissioners please ask for the same for Connected City.

2:08:27Sure, yeah. I I think uh there's supposed to be a board workshop to go over V O P H and Connected City to talk about development and where we're at with it.

2:08:35So are you intending to do both at the same time?

2:08:39Mr. Vermillion is part of the right-of-way.

2:08:45Okay. Sure. That wants to be part of the V OPH.

2:08:48And we'll have to split it up for that reason, sure. Okay. We'll we will be splitting it up, yes. They're ver both very large projects in their own

2:08:54right. I'll just ask. Sure. Since the V O P policy and Planning Committee asked to be part of the workshop on V O P H, have you thought about whether you should invite the Planning Commission to be part of the workshop for Connected City?

2:09:08In that they're all shaking their head yes. Yeah. Yeah,

2:09:11we'd like to

2:09:12see that.

2:09:12Yes, we will. Then the answer's probably yes, we'll probably invite them.

2:09:16Probably.

2:09:17We will definitely invite We will definitely invite them.

2:09:22Makes planning a whole lot easier.

2:09:28Right. So

2:09:29um I'll

2:09:29make a

2:09:30motion to continue.

2:09:32I wanted I did wanna to address the one lady, I think she stepped out. But she asked the question about student generation um with the 380 multifamily and how how can it only be 77 students? So I just want to respond to that because I get called by principals all the time. Hey this Huge apartment complex is going up next door to my school. I'm gonna have three hundred students coming out of there and I'm like, no, you you are not.

2:10:03Let me explain. So we do have student generation rates. We don't make up those numbers. We have um and we actually update it any every time we do the impact fee. So we do a study of all the apartment complexes, how many students live in 'em, how many And we figure out, okay, if they're gonna build 400 apartments, how many students would we expect? So that is what that number is based on and actually while we're sitting here I pulled three projects. Um in the Wesley Chapel area. So Bonterra

2:10:34down by um Northwood has two hundred and sixty four apartments. There are fifty-six K through twelve students in there. Um Delano, I don't remember where that is, but that's kind of the Seven Oaks area I believe. Two hundred and eighty eight apartments, that's fifty-eight students. Colonial grand, uh three hundred and eighteen apartments, that's about sixty-five students. And that's across

2:10:55all grades.

2:10:56Yes. It's across all all grades. I can tell you how many elementary, middle, and high. So that makes sense. I

2:11:01will also say that we get the same question on impact fee.

2:11:09Right. It's because of the student generation. Yes. But it also makes sense to me. because as somebody who one time lived in an apartment was when I was single, didn't have children. Um and then you apartments tend to also have those that are retired and they're they're right they don't want maintenance of their homes anymore. And so I can see why a single family detached home is going to have higher generation student generation. It makes sense logically.

2:11:35Yeah.

2:11:37Two I don't want to get into debate all of this.

2:11:45Shown on this plan. Are town homes any different than apartments in your numbers? Are those like separated out or treated differently?

2:11:53So we used to and uh David's familiar with this too when we re just redid our impact fee.

2:12:03study we went ahead and combined them because I believe the county tends to we had that discussion about multifamily versus town home.

2:12:12I know the county so that The county classifies townhomes as multifamily development, but townhomes are generally fee simple ownership. And I have no I have no idea I don't live in a town home and I don't want to live in a town home. I have no idea whether more families live in townhomes than apartments or vice versa.

2:12:37But I will tell you, I mean looking for these are our old these are not our newest um student generation rates, but the previous set of student generation rates. Um for example, uh multifamily was generating point two three five or roughly twenty-four students per hundred. Um and town homes were generating about sixteen or seventeen. So I think less. So yeah, a little bit less than town homes, but um similar.

2:13:08So we went ahead this time when we redid our impact fee and just combined those.

2:13:12If I could explain that sort of in general common sense terms. I mean d as the general rule of townhomes tend to be starter you know starter homes or the first move up out of the apartment into the town home. Typic many times they don't have the family established at that point. So then when they have a family, they outgrow the town home and now they need to be in the single family home. So I his data makes sense to me. Yeah.

2:13:38All right, and I guess one more thing 'cause we kinda we did get really bogged down on this binding concept plan topic. I did see reference in here to as far as conversion, um and and there is a limitation they're not able to convert from residential I'm sorry, from office to residential. If they do convert from residential to office, I didn't see is there a equivalency matrix or some kind of conversion rate that needs to be part of the package?

2:14:02So there was a condition written that basically maxes out at 194 total trips for the development, but I've already talked to the applicant about a loom and making that clear. So we can have that as well prior to uh the next hearing to make it a little bit clearer for everyone in the conversion rates. Very good. Okay.

2:14:19All right, I'll go back to my motion to continue. Uh PC two to the twelve twelve Dade City meeting. I'll second that.

2:14:30Right, there's a motion and a second. Any further discussions? Yeah,

2:14:33just one to the applicant I'd say w what I'm looking at too when we do to see this again, just looking at the s of this one's obviously got more wetland and floodplain impact than a lot that we see. Just looking at our conditions for evaluating and reviewing, rezoning I think some more discussion on I'm looking at item nine, whether the property's rezoned could be developed in a manner which would comply with other regulations. Just some some discussion on

2:15:03plans there. Um, whether the portion of the property are suitable for development, being that it's all floodplains. So I think there's some

2:15:11So I I was about to make the same point as you. I agree with you. I Shelley, I think next time you need to bring your engineer I think we need to see some expert testimony about how you're going to I I recognize that you got up and said that you think you can permit all of these impacts, but with all due respect you're not an engineer, you're an attorney. So so I think we need some expert testimony to support that position.

2:15:34Yeah. And and for me I'm looking just to give you numbers so you can look but you don't have to read 'em, but uh uh the R evaluation criteria is under four oh two point one, number nine, twelve, fifteen, sixteen, I think would We need I we need to see some of the engineering expert testimony would be good. Because as I I don't see how it's developable at that density to not impact the floodplain. It's it's just not.

2:16:05Chris, anything else? Nope. Okay. It's a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Continue to twelve twelve twenty-four.