PC-8 PDE 25-7615 Tall Timbers MPUD rezoning
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jan 9, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jan 9, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 2h 36m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 80% of 730 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Opposed, like, sign. Okay. Mr. Chair, P eight will be presented by my colleague Gavin Coffee.
Okay.
Good afternoon. Uh Gavin Kobe, Planning Development and Economic Growth. Um before we get started, I do wanna say that we do have an additional exhibit um that we would like to include for the record.
Yeah.
And we also I should say we also have uh printed copies for anyone that may want that exhibit.
Is that they're always here and you back there. is? All the people in the back. Oh I think.
Uh uh.
Gavin, is that the surrounding M P D exhibits?
Correct, that is the surrounding M PUD exhibit.
While we finish up, I am going to get started. So this is PDE twenty-five seven six one five, the Tall Timbers M PUD. And so this is a a rezoning request from AC Agricultural District to a CC Connected City Master Plan Unit Development. And this is for 380 multifamily dwelling units and 180,000 square feet of non-residental residential uses and associated infrastructure on approximately 38 acres. And this is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Kenton Road and Tyndall Road. Uh
here is a location map within the entire county.
Here's a location map within Connected City. As you can see, it's within the community hub, adjacent to the urban core.
Uh as you can see here we do have the SPA development patterns for the community hub up here. It's a little hard to read, but I'll I'll read some of them. The the standards within the community hub. It is medium density and intensity, recreation, cultural and educational uses, civic, multifamily and single family residential. There's prohibited industrial uses and the housing options also include single family detached courtyard houses and row houses.
Here's a location map for the MPUD.
Here's a zoning map, which is currently AC.
And then here is a context map for you. So we have the subject site in blue, the Maratha MPUD to the north, the Kenton MPUD to the south, and then to the uh West, I'm sorry, Pasco County's uh facilities. Uh and really quickly, just to recap on the entitlements in this area. Uh first we have Murata, which was approved for 285 single-family detached dwelling units, 1,500 single-family detached age-restricted units, 991 multifamily dwelling units, Uh
two thousand one hundred and sixty one single family. Uh attached, uh 421,000 square feet of retail, 186,000 square feet of office, 50,600 square feet of medical office, uh 50,600 of university, hospital, and 200 hotel rooms. Uh to the south, the Kenton MPUD was approved for eight hundred multifamily dwelling units, uh, and a one hundred and six thousand two hundred and eighty-six square feet of non-residential and then you can't see this uh on the exhibit, but
their Pasco Town Center was approved for uh to the west of the Pasco County facilities. It was approved for 3,500 single family attached and multifamily dwelling units, 400,000 square feet of retail, 725,000 square feet of office, and 4 million square feet of industrial and 300 hotel rooms.
Here is a picture of the master plan. Which includes the S R Site. And the mix use area.
And then here is the binding concept plan, which includes the mixed-use buildings, the office buildings, and where the townhomes will be located. Additionally, there are 41 required units to be reloaded within the townhome section, and there are requirements for vertically integrated apartments with non-residential, a minimum of 12,000 square feet.
There was additional language between the last PC hearing that that PDE worked on and included in this one with the applicant. And we thought that ensuring that the masquerading and infrastructure plans for the S RSA site be included with the residential to ensure that any wetland or Um floodplain mitigations would be put on the residential side and making sure that plans are are submitted for the entire site so that the non-residential could come in the future. And this comes under a
recommendation of approval with conditions to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Chair have a question.
Yes.
Um Gavin, can you put the con the binding concept plan back up? Yes, of course. So and this comment will not be a shock to you because I breathe it in other MPs. Um the binding concept plan is showing neighborhood parks. And Condition nine says the neighbor parks as depicted on the master plan have not been reviewed for approved for consistency with the land development code.
That seems like a problem to me. If be if we're saying that plan is binding, but then we're also saying that we don't know if they comply with complies with the land development code or not. So now I understand your position is that this binding concept plan doesn't deal with all the aspects of the neighborhood park, but Clearly it's showing neighborhood park locations and acreages that if we're saying that's binding, I don't know how we can say it's binding, but then we can change it all at site plan. So th there's got
to be a middle ground b if between saying a constant plan is binding and saying that we're deferring neighborhood park review to the site plan approval. So Um To me, condition nine need needs to say something like, except for the neighborhood park attributes that are depicted on The binding concept plan then th then that review will occur at site plan of rule. But you can't ignore the fact that there are neighboring parks depicted on
this binding concept plan, which condition nine appears to do. So
In my opinion, nine needs to be changed to create some exception for the park attributes that are shown on the binding concept plane.
Absolutely. And I I believe we're working through this exact problem through other MPUDs, so if we could transfer that language that we agree to and that in other MPDs into this one if that's acceptable to the applicant.
Okay, well before we get can we get a motion to m fix paragraph condition nine to reflect that. Change. I understand I'm not suggesting that you're gonna need to approve this project. I just need to get this issue fixed if we're gonna move forward with this MPUD at all.
Okay, so do you need the you want to restate the motion that you're
the motion would be to amend condition nine to say that to add a phrase that except for the except for the park attributes depicted on neighbor park attributes depicted on the binding concept plan
that to neighbor parks depicted on the master plan not going to review to approve consistency with the later moment because you're just adding that exception for what's depicted on the mining concept plan.
Okay.
Some of
So we have a motion. Do we have a second?
I'll second.
Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay. So that's been modified.
Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Any questions?
Can you Gavin can you go back to the you showed the different SPA zones?
What is staff's Hmm, such your argument. How does staff support that in the mixed use area that this plan meets the objective of the mix of uses that support recreational uses, cultural destinations, and educational facilities? mixed use areas serving as neighborhood centers. So what's on this plan What's shown on this plan that you say you can support that it
meets that objective?
Yeah, so I would say that the mixed use center, inclusive of the apartments and the non residential uses, could be a potential neighbour neighborhood center, including um the neighborhood parks as well for the neighborhood.
I'm not sure I understand. Can you put the plan back up?
Yeah.
Has done. Master Clan.
Sorry, technical difficulties.
So if you see my mixed use area to the bottom and actually it's probably easier to see on this this pine right here, the mixed use building here is actually intended to bring be brought up to uh Kenton Road. um and align those buildings and line that street which is has a sixteen foot um sidewalk on it so people in the neighborhood could access that without actually entering the development. People who are on Um the actual public roadways on Kitchener.
I I will say that not every project in Every MPUD isn't gonna have every attribute of everything that's in the community hub. Because there's also uh provision in there for
the right-of-way. Yeah. If this project doesn't include it and the other MPUDs didn't include it, then how do we make sure it gets included?
So we can include it in the future. Again, it's up to negotiations within the MPUD and what the developer will accept in those negotiations. Um I would love to include a cultural amenity in every single MPD that I do, but it's really up to the negotiations that I have with the developer.
What if they all say no?
There's really nothing else within the L D C that would require me to handle that. Then something's broken, isn't it?
I think what Mr. Moody's suggesting is there needs to be an overarching view of all the projects that are going on here to make sure that if this project doesn't include all those elements that that that gets included in some of the projects that are going on and there needs to be accountability for all of course of course that needs
a vote.
land development code requirements so that they're applicable to all and not on a case specific technical.
Yes, David. I I think some of the confusion is that the Connected City plan wasn't exactly translated into the underlying zoning. So the plan is aspirational, provides guidance, but the the actual applied zoning for this area doesn't mandate this these features and these uh components. Well
isn't the zoning what we're here doing today?
This is an MPU D. Which is the zoning, right? It's to create a new zoning, but I'm the
Yeah. Right. Well I I thought we were here to create that though.
Well yes, but I'm just telling you the zoning doesn't provide exact guidance on use of property relative to the connected city plan.
That's why I said something's broken.
Well I'm not disappointed.
I'm not w pointing blame, I'm just saying something from okay.
Yeah, I mean we have the same issue with schools. If we have all these small M P U D's and they I can't extract a school out of there. So If we have all these small M PUDs that come in and they all say no, where do we get a school? Well, I mean we figure it out, but it's not an easy task. So what's the solution?
Well the difference with schools is that at least with schools in Connected City there was a surcharge developed to help fund the acquisition of school sites. So um I understand Mr. Williams' concern but at least it was addressed. Agreed. And and there are some school sites in yes in Connected City, so it's not quite the same level of problem is missing cultural centers. Now, I will tell you that most more recently, and this was evidenced at Starkey,
the cultural centers of many of these areas tends to be where libraries are located and we tend to our libraries are morphing into sort of libraries slash cultural centers. So to me the real breakdown here is Why was there not a library plan somewhere in Connected City? Because that could have that could have functioned as the cultural center for Connected City. And we have a library impact fee. Um And has libraries commented at all on these MPDs and
said, Hey, we'd like to have a library in one of these MPDs that could function as the cultural center.
No, not not since I've been processing the connected city MPUDs.
Uh we do have a a library of water grass as state aware and that's they didn't opt into Connect and City, but it's inside Connecting City.
Actually Watergrass is in B O P H. But in
D O P to not point Terry Pito was planning to develop economic growth offline. Um there is a library on the outskirts of Connected City that has been identified as a need to service this area by the library's department. It is on the what amounts to the northeast corner of Overpass and Curly Road. In the um In the old town center. Um, It's on it's near Epperson, but it's The
Promenade The Promenade which is by the same developer that Watergrass is. So we've worked that out in a recent uh MPUD update.
So so staff's position is that will effectively function as the cultural center for this area?
B based on conversations that I've been included in with libraries, uh they needed that particular site to serve this this part of the county.
Yeah,
okay.
Does that answer your question, Mr. Moody?
No.
Okay. What's what do you recommend?
I don't.
No.
I just Making an observation and I want to hear the rest of the public's comments, but I that was an issue that was brought up. during the first airing of this case and I haven't seen any argument to show that the MPUD meets the goals and objectives of that SPA zone within Connected City.
And maybe maybe maybe when the applicant gets up they'll have some argument for that. I don't know.
Uh uh Terry Pitos again, Planning Development, Economic Growth. From a cultural asset standpoint, it's important to note too that within Connected City, but also I think countywide That parks play an important role in the cultural asset establishment across the continent. So we do have uh local parks, neighborhood parks that the individual MPUs are required to set up. In this case there's two
they'd be required to set it up if they were building a regular subdivision. The neighborhood parks is a land.
And Terry, in rebuttal to that, I mean We're gonna give 'em credit for the parks here, but the the parks they're showing here are less than fifty percent of what the code requires for park area. Just as they lie today. Three hundred eighty units of one point seven acres.
Um Connected City does have a varying parks requirement. Um the point of the parks requirement in Connected City and smaller parks is that they're supposed to be amenitized. So there is a table that says all the amenities that should be in the park and they get to pick from those amenities.
Well maybe that goes back to, you know, the point that David brought up earlier was you know, we w we make a statement about the parks and and the com combination of the binding concept plan versus M P D plan and all that kind of stuff, but
So has staff reviewed these neighborhood parks to confirm they comply with the connected city land development code and le at least in terms of acreage. The answer is yes? I believe the yes, the answer is yes. Okay.
Okay, any
other questions before we hear the applicant? I was just gonna make another point to Mr. Moody's comment and and I agree with what David said also. And I mean what's that forced the school district to do is have to I mean yes we get a surcharge but it kinda ha it forces us to be a little more proactive and we have to go out. and find a landowner who's willing to sell whatever amount of acreage we might need. to build a school, which is fine. We've done that before, we continue to do that. Um
V OPH was nice because they had a more structured approach to do it, but in connected cities case, maybe the op maybe the answer is the county has to be proactive in working with landowners to try to find a library site.
Well what I'm hearing staff say is that the library the primary library site in this area will be at the Watergrass the Promenade Town Center. I guess if that's sufficient to cover that size area. I guess that that's that's that's a policy decision for everybody to decide. But yes. What I'm hearing staff say is that that will be the cultural center for this area. I'll come I'll come back l let
the applicant. But I swear I remember some discussion about what the central amenity of Connected City was and I don't think it was a library down Waterrat. Okay.
Hi.
Hi. Chairman, thank you. Shelley Johnson, 6400 Madison Street, and I have been sworn. Um I do have my team available virtually today. They weren't available at the last meeting. Um if there's any questions in regards to traffic, we have Libby Rodriga Elizabeth Rodriguez who is our transportation planner and then we have Eric Milberg who is our civil engineer that can answer any engineering questions that come up. We are we have been working with staff uh since November to um address some of the concerns and questions that were raised at the last Planning Commission meeting.
Um we are in agreement with the revisions that um were were uh voted on with regards to um condition number nine. We're good with the revisions to condition number twelve in terms of the LUM and we're also good with the um additional language that's been added to condition fifty. Um but I I think they've gone over that well uh very well. I'll be happy to answer any additional questions on that stuff. I know my My uh team is also likewise available to answer any questions of that stuff. I do want to get to Mr. Moody's point because I do think um I I can add to some of that discussion.
I put up on the the location map you can see connected city This particular parcel is in the northwest corner of the community hub. And if you look where that red star is, that's that property. That's the property we're dealing with. The three other sides of this particular property are bordered by what is now Murata, the North Innovative Zone. the urban core which is one of the heavier densities within the connected cities and that is in an adjacency to this property. And
then also the business core which is supposed to be more business oriented, a little bit heavier in density. So this property is kind of at an apex. It's in a transition part of the connected cities overall play, you know, overlay. When you look at the individual policies and objectives of Connected City, and I've read through it all twice, unfortunately, and you've looked at the Land Development Code and all the implementation procedures or mechanisms that they put in place to make those policies come to life. The one thing that it continually says over and over again is every single
SPA zone area. including this hub, they want mixed use in that hub. So even though it says These are the kinds of things we're looking for because and the reason this is a community hub is because of King Lake. So I think the idea is around King Lake from a planning perspective you're gonna have some recreation, you know, parks, nice things like that. As you move further away towards the North Innovative Zone, which is Murata, as you move further, you know, away from the lake towards um the the urban core and the business core, you know, you're you're moving
your you're moving into more more of that mixed use element. So if you were gonna put mixed juice on this property in the community hub, you can have mixed use it in it it literally in every single It it says it so many times in the objectives and policies that they want it in every single zone. That's why this particular zone specifically only excludes industrial, because they want to encourage this in every single zone so that every zone has its own sense of place, sense of community, all that good stuff. This particular one, which they were mentioning earlier, you see the vertical
mixed integration, the apartment, you see the um town, not the townhome. Which is in the back, but the office uses. What they're what the intention is along that is when Kenton Avenue is actually built, it's gonna have that sense of community. It's gonna have that corridor, the streetscape, and that kind of stuff, and then you'll have the vertical integrated, the apartment with you know retail office, whatever underneath it, and then you'll also have the the site ready service site, the um the office site. So where this particular property is, is in the community hub. It's doing exactly actually what the planners
have done with the county and and and the beacon team have done exactly what is called for in your comp plan. So you know I think that's important to point out because it gives you a little bit, I think, of you know more of an overall perspective of what this property is doing, where it's at, why it's being planned this way.
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
But I will be more than happy to answer any questions.
So Shelley, this may be a question for your engineer, but and you know this came up at the last meeting, but if we could put the buying concept plan back up
Let me get that. Oh no, I'm not good with these things. Hold on a sec. I might be able to do it this way. There we go.
So one of the major issues that was raised at our last meeting was well you went past it.
Oh good Lord. Hold on yes. Okay, I'm sorry.
Well the question is if we can ever get it back up. Is is your engineer confident that given the wetland and floodplain mitigation constraints on the site, that that plan is actually permittable? And so I'd like your civil engineer to get up and explain. How that's permittable given the wetland and floodplain mitigation constraints on the site.
Yes, and he is available virtually, so Eric Milberg, he can definitely answer those questions for you.
I assume he'll need to be sworn.
If we did not swear in when we swore over the L C will need to be sworn in.
What do you say is you say Da Derek? Is that what you say? Derek Milburg,
yeah. He's the civil engineer on the site.
Eric, if you can speak you are unmuted, so you should be able to talk.
Okay, can everyone hear me okay?
Yeah.
you haven't been sworn, so I'd ask you to stand and raise your right hand and I'll just trust you on that one. Yeah, repeat after the the clerk, please. Sure, thanks.
testimony you're about to give is the Trinity so I'll be back.
I
do.
All right, thank you. And could you give us your name and address?
Uh my name is Eric Melberg. I live at um [address removed]. Um, I'm actually in Tampa. Um [address removed].
All right, thank you. Eric, did you hear the question?
Yeah, um so the question was uh how can I am I confident that this layout will work um based on the floodplain patterns? Um So I've looked into the watershed model that the site resides in. We're in the Cypress Creek watershed. And the only off site flows that we receive is from the north. Um, so I can accommodate those offside floats and have them discharge into that into pond one on the north there. Uh So I do and with regard in the the side only outfalls to
the southeast. Um I I can I can you know put a series of pipes in there probably very near to that Multis path. Um here that mixed use building. Who uh Two on a half one.
So this this comes that plan should be, you know, this is super
What about the wetland impacts?
So these are all category two and category uh wetlands. Um We uh you know, we will have to mitigate for any kind of well impact uh or land development code. Um So yeah, I mean we're it the only thing you really can impact is a category one. Nothing not a category one. Category one's are a hundred acres or six above six full. That's not the situation we have out here. Uh so you know just
I don't know about everybody else, but I'm having a real hard time understanding what you're saying.
Uh.
The
w
w how you're dealing with the
wetlanded backs, if you could repeat that.
Okay, so
slow down a little bit and speak right into whatever you're speaking into.
Sure. Um So the onsite wetlands are all category two and category three wetlands. Um those are allowed to be impact per the Pasco County Land Development Code. I think it's under Chapter Uh A eight oh three, I think that's a section. Um So we we uh we will be allowed to pack those uh wetlands if we go out to mitigate for 'em. Um But you know, I don't I don't see any issue with impacting these existing wildlands.
Well y let me let me clarify my question. It wasn't so much whether the impacts were allowed by the Pasco County Land Development Code. The question was really Are you confident that the other permanent agencies such as Swift Mud Will permit those impacts and if so Where where would you mitigate for the impacts?
Uh in all likelihood we would mitigate for the impacts off site. They have mitigation banks that you pay into. Uh during Swift Mud permitting, they're gonna make they're gonna have their environmental scientists go out and uh ensure that the wetland limits are uh or or correct Um They they typically it depend it depends on the quality of the wetlands. If it's a very high quality wetland that's like sort that's that's uh that has a lot a lot of wildlife living in there against
uh um app developers who Reserve as buttons I was in. Preserve as much of those as possible. I don't believe that's the c here. Um
Uh I think these are all those cowpons. Um so I don't
know.
Please.
Can you repeat that? I'm sorry.
I said you're fading out again. I don't know if you're getting further away from your source. source, or what? But you need to slow down and speak more clearly.
Okay. So The wetlands that are on site are category two and three wetlands. Um They're low quality made in they're not serving there's there's not a lot of wildlife in there. Um, so I don't believe Swift Bud's gonna object to impacting the existing wetlands.
And your plan is to mitigate for those impacts by offsite mitigation bank?
Correct. That's what I assume we'll end up doing.
Doesn't that conflicts with condition fifty now then? The Sud What um mitigations will be a little bit more. uh be located within the residential portion of the MPUD.
Yeah.
No, I think what that I I don't want to interrupt but what that condition is saying is that none of the
the site ready site, the office building, you know, where the office square footage is gonna go and or the apartment. site which is again along Kenton which will be the vertically integrated is required to have that Um it's it's required to have vertical integration period, but then the you know, it has to be at least twelve thousand square feet if it has to serve off site. But well that's what that's applying to. It's just saying you can't do any of the mitigation on those sites.
I think he's technically right. It does say If your intent is to locate it either in the residential portion of the M P D or in an off site litigation bank, it probably should say that. Right now it just says Any mitigation required for these areas shall be located within the residential portion of the MPD. Your engineer is saying that is not your intent, that your intent is to locate it in an off-site mitigation bank. So if that
I hear what you're saying.
If that's your intent and if everybody's okay with that, I don't know if they are. We would have to add or offsite mitigation bank.
Yeah, and I'm fine with that. I think what we intended when we wrote it was just to make sure that we were preserving as much upland, you know, developable acreage for those up.
Staff have an objection if it 'Cause you all wrote this condition, i i do they have an objection if it said shall be located within the residential portion of the M P U D or an off site mitigation bank?
No, P D E doesn't have it doesn't have an opposition to that language. Okay.
Shelley is the wetland exhibit that we're seeing in our the survey, is that actually been verified by the Ward Management District yet? Is that a formal
Yes, it's a wetland it w it is a wetland delineation. There's a class two on the site and there is a class three on the site. Um both I guess are fairly low quality. We did have Jackie Jordan who's a senior biologist with the county review them and review the wetland delineation. Um and she confirmed it's a class two and a class three, so
But this is formally verified, so this is a
this is
a a SWIFT Mutter survey?
Um I don't know if it's a SWIFT Motor Survey, but it is a it's a survey. It's And the s the county uh senior biologist has looked at it as well. So
Well Shelley on those lines, I mean condition seven specifically says the categories will be finalized at the time of swift motor. So if they've already been determined and classified I I would when I read the conditions I didn't think they the classifications were set yet.
Well typically at this level you don't get this
detail. I get it, but that's not what you misrepresented. They had been determined by Jackie to be twos and threes.
Jackie Jordan, yeah, she sent an email out that had had looked at the wetland delineation, the survey that was submitted by our survey who did the wetland delineation, showing a class two and three, submitted those to Jackie Jordan, the senior biologist. She reviewed them and she made a determined that um I believe she made a determination that A, I have it right here if you want me to enter it into the record.
Shelly just just to clarify. Sure. Swift Mutt doesn't care about classifications of wetlands.
Right.
If Jackie confirmed, that was my question. Did Jackie provide you classification of the wetlands? Because this says that she didn't.
Yeah, she actually sent an email that said she classified the wetland A as a category two and wetland D as a category three. And I can enter the email with the right-of-way. Jackie's
online and raising her hands, and maybe we should hear from Jackie directly.
Yeah, obviously, yeah.
Right, let's take it. Let's do that. Jackie.
We have a approved Swift MUD survey. It did, however, expire in July of this year or this past year. So I informed them that they will need to have a new updated survey that's valid when they submit their site plan. But based off of that survey, we did make the determination that they are category two and a category two and a category three well-in.
But we have not revised the um conditions since we reviewed their application originally and we did not have that delineation at that time. So that's why we use our standard, the categorization when we determine when we receive that approved um wetland boundary to me.
I answer your question, Dan?
Yeah, I David can I ask a question and Shelley maybe it's of you too my understanding of condition of approval number fifty. Does this condition condition insinuate that you need to go in and basically get a Swift Mug permit. for your the mass grading of the office building area and the mixed use building
area when you attempt to develop the town home. Property.
I think that's exactly stabs and ten.
Mm-hmm.
Staff I think staff's intent is that they want to make sure that if this project gets developed that the service ready site and mixed use area are actually become developable up ones. Because that We heard some testimony at the last meeting that it that was the important part of this project to staff and so they didn't want to see it become wetland mitigation or floodplain area.
So condition number fifty prevents the developer or a future developer. from parceling off what's shown as town homes on this plan and attempting to permit those by themselves without taking care of the wetlands on the two, the office and mixed use area.
Yeah, I to be clear, can I could get Patrick up here to clarify. I think they could permit the town homes And a site pl from a site plan perspective Independent of the the mixed use in office buildings, but not without making sure that those areas were basically uplands. In other words, th this speaks to mass greening and stormwater infrastructure, so it doesn't say that they have to get plenary site plan
approval for the entire thing at once.
Well how do well then how do they accomplish that?
I
guess
I'll get Patrick up here to explain it, but I I read it as they're gonna have to do a mass screening stormwater plan for the entire site, not necessarily polymer site plan for the entire site. Is that accurate?
Accurate. Uh sorry, Patrick Dutter, Planning, Development, Economic Growth, accurate. And you've been sworn. Yeah. Do I need to be
sworn? Yeah, sir. And what guarantees that they finish it?
finish the masquerading? Yes. Well they wouldn't receive a um earth work permits unless they, you know, went through the review and approval process. Um and I think there's certain timelines for work to be completed on mass grading activity. And I would think with that condition they probably couldn't move forward with With a preliminary plan, construction plan, whatever for the residential component that mass grading piece piece is not completed.
Alright, I
do it. Yeah, okay. So I guess while we're on the subject of condition fifty and I don't I'm not gonna say whether you all agree or disagree with it, but can we get a motion to add the or off site mitigation bank to the end of the Um second sentence. It's all moved. Second.
But I'm sorry, that's the end of the third sentence. End of the third sentence.
Further discussion? All in favor should be fine by saying aye. Aye, aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay.
All right. Uh is anybody here that wants to speak to this? Are you on who's ever on the list? Feel free to come forward.
Chairman Mariano. Michael Pultorek, I'm on record. Can you put up the um second PowerPoint? We didn't use the first one.
No, the other one. Thanks.
Yes, ma'am. Thank you. This is the comprehensive plan amendment for Connected City. This is what it was adopted in 2017. This is the playbook. This is the handbook. I'm smelling another bait and switch, and I'd like to show you why. This is what this originally came in as 380 multifamily dwelling units, 180,000 square feet of non-residential uses. This is what's actually in it. And specifically it
says 216 apartments. That's key here. This is the school impact analysis which confirms there's going to be a minimum of 190 apartments in this mixed use. That's the plan we've looked at. Specifically if you look at the pictures to the right here by height design that are included with this plan and this is their other pictures from mixed use. Our first hiccup here is the community hub zone, if we look at
housing options, which this is in the community hub. Single family detached, courtyard houses, and row houses. Down here we call 'em townhouses. In the business core, in the urban core, you can have apartments. There is not to be apartments in the community hub zone per your comprehensive plan amendment. That was not the intent. Now I understand LDC does not state a threshold on R3 versus R4, medium to high density. So
we've got to use some common sense here and we've got to take some intent on the process. project itself. We're not supposed to have apartments in the community hub. I keep hearing the words recreation, recreational, and parks. A little side note is we have concluded the county never etched out areas in the connected city or the community hub for the parks and recreational area. There's none. The parks and recreation has been moved east of Hancart Road, outside
the Connected City, east of Pasadena Hills. It's all been moved out to the new super complex. There is not parks, there is not recreation, there is not trails in here. I'd like to point out here, if you look at the open space options for all five districts here. The very first word of each of the districts starts with parks. Parks. Large District Park. Parks and parks. A neighborhood swing set
inside a townhouse community is not parks for the master plan. That is for the individuals in the hundred and sixty four townhouses and the umpteen apartments, 216 in the latest one. That's for those people to go out in the backyard and have a swing set. That is not parks for the Connected City. That's my first issue here I'd like you to consider.
The second is This site plan.
The access and egress to this is going to be based off of where Utilities is brought in, which is based off the April and the Kenton MPUDs. It's going to be Kenton Road coming in from the south. you have a two-lane dirt road from McKendry all the way out to almost GovRow of unpaved area. Everybody traveling west to the interstate, all the service vehicles coming in for our town center and distribution
center, everybody traveling in and out to the Eatertainment is going to be traveling a two-lane dirt road. Everybody traveling to the east to come to Dade City in San Antonio is going to be traveling a two-lane dirt road. This road cannot handle it even though Kenton Road will be the access and egress to this project. Natural resources and conservation. Natural resources serve as a significant asset to a community. Wetland serve as a
natural flood control resource and house a diverse ecosystem for animal and plant life. When I left on Monday morning to meet with staff, I drove past this property. There was a bald eagle in a tree. That told me we're fighting the right fight. And this is ridiculous at this point. This site plan does not have any wetlands listed in it. There is no wetlands that are protected. Here's your TAPO map that's been submitted with the site application. All
of those pretty colors for everybody standing behind me are all wetlands. This is a cattle bottom. This is a basin where the west, the north, and the east drain into it, and this becomes a watershed. Now, what's unique about this survey right here is if you look at where the pretty purple stops, it's almost as if. The water doesn't go anywhere. But I'd like you to see some different maps that might tell a different story. Here
is your flood maps from GIS and even Google's smart enough to say there's a lake in the middle of this. You're gonna put townhouses and 180,000 square feet of office space on that portion of the lake. This flood map comes from the GIS with Tapo. This is the aerial so everybody can see where the water holds.
If you look well this is a pretty picture with the bus station in the urban core too, but if you look here, these floodplains all come out to the southwestern corner of this property.
This was pictures a month after the hurricane where they're all still holding water. And if you look at the GIS mapping here, I had to take a snippet from the computer, but underneath that envelope on the bottom left there, you can see that blue continues down past where their survey is. That's important because It continues down, that's the east side of the county land, and there's a swale there. So even though the top of map doesn't show it,
underneath all of those trees, they're nice and healthy because they get plenty of water into the soil. There's a swale that goes north and south on the west side of Tyndall Road there. This map you can see the swale comes all the way back down to Tyndall Road and where it crosses. And where it crosses there you can see the topo map shows 101 feet. This is that road. This is that road,
and you can see your marker for your underground water discharge.
You can't refute the water that's sitting right there. It took a jeep to get through there. Now, as we back out a little bit, you're gonna see that this also backfeeds the class one wetlands that's on. In that portion right there.
This, if you look at the picture on the left where it says Kenton Road, you can see that class one extends south where it says Fussel Drive. This is Lakeside Estates. Those are all homes in there. They were almost flooded out. With these storms. This is a zoom in of Lakeside Estates. You can see how close the homes are to the flood area. This is the topple map. There was homes within six inches
of flooding out. this summer because of the discharge that starts at this parcel of land.
That's all of the flooded areas, class two, class three,
This is what it back feeds and that to the right is the road we're talking about.
This is where we're putting progress.
Progress.
This is where it back feeds to. That's Kenton Road.
Kenton Road had three feet of water on it. The watershed starts on this parcel, whether or not the current maps show. The east side of the county-owned land there has a north-south swale that allows all the water to get off of this property. If that land is taking water from the west, the north, and the east, it has to hold it to allow it through permeable surface to get down into the ground. If it is shedding, the
all of the water that's supposed to land on that parcel, that water is going to end up in Lakeside Estates. Gentlemen. The community hub is not designed for apartments. It is not designed for vertical integration. The community hub is the center point of the entire connected city to have parks. recreation, and a place people want to live. Every rezoning project so far has turned
into another subdivision. With a play set for the people that live in it, there is no amenities. The community cannot get to King Lake. The two fancy swimming pools have turned into pay-to-play operations where the developer is taking the money from it. They're not Mennonites. We can't use 'em. There's not a single park. There is not a single recreational area. There is not a single amenity. That's in the
connected city, that's accessible to the community hub. If the town center builds it into its plan west of McKendry, Fantastic. But so far I've heard eatertainment is the best we can do for amenities. How can we get kids off of their phones and tablets and off of the video games in front of their TVs if they can't go out here and have some open space to run away run around?
What happens when we take slices of grass around retention ponds and we call them parks? What happens is the CDD for liability reasons has to put signs up. No fishing and no swimming, so you don't get eaten by alligators. The problem is When the boys try to get out in these neighborhoods and they try to go put a line in the water and catch a bass or do something away from technology. HOA Nazis run out there and say this is private property.
You can't be here. So we cannot take slivers of grass through the community, call them parks, when we all know The boys aren't allowed to go play on it. We've gotta have some space to be a community. That's the very definition of every one of these districts is to have parks have a healthier lifestyle. Thank you.
Thank you. Any shot.
So Mr. Chairman Mr. Engel or Mr. Petos a question? Yes. Mr. Engel or Mr. Petos. Well if we get the comp plan back up there that that was referred to with the Different uses.
Come on up and wait and Yeah, he just he's gonna ask a question first before you start.
There was a slide that was shown by the power speaker that had various uses by district and had the parks language in it.
If we go back. There you go. So my question for Planning Department is
When the Parks Master Plan was developed and the park impact fee was a park impact fee that went to this commission, um, and I realize this commission voted against it, but but it was ultimately adopted by the board, but that parks master plan did not include a district park in Connected City. So my question is So there really is no funding source to develop a large district park in Connected City and my understanding is a lot of the Connected City impact fee
actually going to the V O P H superpark. And the stats plan was that the VOPH superpark would become the district park for both BOPH and Connected City. My question to planning is when that all of that happened, probably after this Connected City plan was developed Why didn't we go in and fix this reference that says there's gonna be a large district park and the community hub zone if that was never
the parks department's intent or planning department's intent? Because I it's a it's a legitimate point. I mean every other zone it just says parks, which presumably are neighborhood parks. For some reason this one says large district park. That may have been the original intent, but the parks department never never developed a funding plan or master plan to actually put a district park in connected cities. So when that happened Why didn't we go in and fix
this reference in Connected City? Or does that need to happen still?
Victorious Pito's playing the home in economic growth. Um
I don't know why. Well I can't speak exactly to why the copyrights of Plan for Connected City was not updated with regard to the large district district park reference. I think it may have to do with the fact that it's aspirational in the sense that one could still be established, but also one was being sent to V OPH. So, in in some sense, the large district park is being established, it's just not within the connected city geography. Now, the reference is under
the community hub zone, I get that. And you could run a comprehensive plan amendment to make that change. But the net effect is still that the large district park that was envisioned aspirationally within the connected city comprehensive plan. is now in the VOP in Supermarket.
I get that, but I the my concern is it becomes misleading to the residents of Connected City if we're saying that the community hub zone is going to have a large district park when we all know that the parks department has not developed any plan, funding plan, any plan whatsoever to develop a district park. In Connected City, and that they're fundling all the money in this area to the VOPH superpark. And my my my recollection is that part of the reason that Connected City and
VUPH were required to have this entire golf cart network of you know infrastructure was so that Anybody could take a golf cart to this large district park and VOPH, and that was going to be the in fact some of the connected city money. um roadway money went to VOPH to build the road to the superpark. So I my question really is when the board took all of those actions, adopted a master plan for parks, didn't include a park in Connected City, funneled
all the money to the VOPH superpark for this area. And It just seems like at that point we should have said That's not happening anymore in Connected City. Let's take it out of the plane.
Sure.
'Cause i i to me it becomes misleading it becomes misleading to the residents of Connected City because it is a very valid point that every other zone is just saying parks and that one says large that doesn't imply that they're gonna get something different in the community hub zone. than just normal neighborhood parks. So Sure. I think at this point it's because of other board actions it's probably too late to get a large industrial park and and there's no funding source identified for it. I'm not sure that ever could happen in
Connected City anymore. But we shouldn't continue to have references in the plan as if it's going to. Understood.
Okay.
Terry Terry, could you also speak to what the gentleman brought up before about um the use of apartments within the community home zone, even though that's I understand this is aspirational, so
So the Connected City Comprehensive Plan doesn't identify the specific um dwelling units per gross acre ranges, similar to the rest of the comprehensive plan. The overall comprehensive plan will say three dwelling units per gross acre and the rest three and so on and so forth. In Connected City, the comprehensive plan was more flexible. It identifies medium density and intensity. What is medium density and intensity? That has been debated over
the years with Connected City. Some of the industry standards identify medium density to be on the order of 12 to 18 units. Dwelling units per gross acre. That's medium suburban density essentially. Here in Pasco County, that's traditionally been viewed as more on the higher end of the density spectrum. So when the connected city was put forward, medium density was identified, you could get a 12 dwelling
unit per acre project and And read it as medium density. If we were to take the more common approach. Password county specific common approach. Uh medium density would probably read as eight to dwelling minutes per gross acre, which would the which could be interpreted as Telmholm density. So
Terry to to follow up on that question, so when it says housing options in this plan Is it your position that those are just one of many options? They're not they don't preclude other options? I'm sorry.
The point was made that under the community hub zone, it lists specifically lists single-family detached courtyard houses and row houses. Okay. As housing options. Correct. Are you basically saying that Those are options, but they don't preclude other options. Correct. Right. As long as those other options were medium density and intensity. Correct. Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, because courtyard houses they there isn't the prescribed density to a form of multifamily, which is the courtyard house. House you can often get a corner yard house to fit in at equaling in this. Why is the word apartment
specifically excluded? It's included in the business core zone and the urban core zone, it specifically says apartments. Because
dens density and housing options of community hubs. Density and housing options are two different things. So we you know we we understand it's medium density based on the density Line item at the top. But the housing options, you know, that again, that's that's it's kind of like having large district park when we know there's not going to be one there. It's it's kind of misleading for people to think, okay, these are going to be the type of building types that we're going to expect in this area, and then to have a completely different building type that's not listed.
option. But, you know, um in in theory if that's the case and you can have you know something in the north innovation zone that's mostly supposed to be single family, you can end up with apartments there as well because all of your uh property's taken up by wetland in impact and you have to you know, you can still be within the lower density by having a one apartment building on a big piece of land that's Taken by weapon. So
I guess the other question Terry is did staff ever consider if if staff's argument is this is effectively an extension of the urban core, which I understand it's immediately adjacent to it. Was there any thought about just amending your urban core map to include the the S R S A and the mixed use areas part of make it part of the urban core where High density apartments are specifically allowed.
I think that was the intent of when the original interpretation when this project first was born.
In terms of amending the actual map, I don't think we've ever considered um moving the urban core onto this onto the subject parcel to cover the mixed use areas.
But I think that was probably some of the original interpretation that this was a boundary area between community hub and the urban core.
And mixed use doesn't necessarily mean vertically integrated mixed use. It just has to be a mix of uses. Right.
Although the particular conditions of this M P D I think does require it to be vertically integrated. For this particular I'm not I agree with you in general, but I think this particular MPD. And is that for traffic reasons? I'll let Gavin explain why they required it, but I believe there is a requirement that this mixed use be vertically integrated.
Sorry. Gavin go be playing development and economic growth. It's not for traffic reasons. They studied normal apartments. If they would have studied the mixed-use apartments, they would have gotten a lower trip generation. So they did do a conservative estimate with just regular apartments. In terms of the vertically integrated apartments reason, it's just the design standard for the the extension of that urban core. But that goes to my point, which is well. And and it also matches the the roadway network that's prescribed in the MRP. So
I guess that's really the root of my question is if you were mandated in a form that was consistent with urban core
Why not just amend the Com Plan to make the that the western portion of this project part of the urban core?
I guess we just never thought about it, we just thought it as a as an extension throughout the through the M P D rezoning process.
What does it do in the core?
But okay, I get your point, Gavin. I'm just I Mm.
It seems like you have a little bit of a compliance consistency issue here if you're I mean, I g I I understand Terry's argument, but
you're you're demanding a form that's very consistent with what urban core is showing, but you're not actually making an urban core.
Patrick, you gonna help save Gavin on this?
Um
I mean in hindsight it probably would have made sense to label parcels in these transitional areas as transitional as a separate transitional parcel. So I I understand the transition between the two zones.
Yeah and and as I mentioned earlier, um the road that's going through here is an urban urban road with a sixteen foot sidewalk, so to have one side not be frontage and the other side fronted or having frontage with apartments or retail, um, isn't really something that would make sense.
Yeah. I think the bigger issue is is holding this out to the public as this is what it's going to be and going, oh we're we're just kidding. We're we're really we're gonna do it this way because this makes more sense. You know that's we this is the effort of being transparent to to the citizens of Pasco County.
Well let me ask I think let me Jerry, let me ask you uh I think you haven't a question. How much work would it be for a staff to initiate a compliant amendment to Number one, fix this district park issue. So that we're not telling the world there's gonna be a district park in the community hub zone. And also fixing this either Adding apartments, community hub if that's your position, or extending the
urban core zone to include the Or how about let's get 'em a park.
Well that raises a different issue which which
the commissioners have the ability to direct where funding goes. They they can make the decision whether they're gonna send money over to some B O P H superpark or if they wanna put a coup a park in Connected City, but the public got sold a park. So what I'm hearing the suggestion is is well here let's just change the documents to make it all better now rather than actually fix the other
Mr. Mitty, I don't disagree with you if we had money to do so. The the issue is that the parks master plan that was adopted by our board and evalues this commission.
Well then they can go fix that document. Yeah.
It it it would likely require them to increase the impact fee. Which which can be done. I'm not saying that it can't be done. I'm just saying that That that's more than just a um we're gonna add a park to our you you it's I don't want to promise these folks a park and then have no money to build it. Well we
don't have the ability to promise them a park. I'm just suggesting that maybe if the problem is that there's no park, let's not just doctor the comp plan to make the park all the way in the comp plan. That's what the public got sold. Let's figure out how to get a park. And unfortunately that's not the planning commission's purview do, but
Right.
Right, all I'm saying is we we need the parks department to weigh in as to how much of an impact fee increase that would cause to add a district park in this location. I have no idea without running that by our parks department and our impact fee consultant. Because I what I don't want to do is just say, Oh, there's a park we're gonna promise them a park and then never allocate any money to do it because that's an empty promise too. Because you're again that's not in
the the Planning Commission doesn't have the power to promise a park. I'm just making the suggestion that Maybe. That's something the commission should take and and discuss. Rather than Prodding the staff.
But I guess whether
it's a good thing.
Mr. Moody, I I don't disagree that's an option. But I guess where I'm going with the suggestion is maybe this application is premature until we fix the comp plan to have it mirror whatever it is the board wants to see in Connected City is in terms of parks and apartments and and this boundaries of the urban core Maybe we need to have the Compound mirror what the board really wants to see in Connected City before we start approving more rezoning
match that.
Well, I'm not going to disagree with you about that and I you're actually jumping ahead to something I was saving for later so I'll ask the question now and we got a couple of the land use attorneys in the audience too because I'd like to ask them that have been involved in Connected City.
I if I can provide an answer to Mr. Goldstein. Mr. Chairman Gold. Go ahead, Gary, then what's the other thing? So on the question of the com making a comprehensive plan amendment, um I do want to go back uh h into history a little bit with Connected City and note a few things. One, Connected City was identified as a place where flexibility would be key in terms of the development review process. The North Innovation Zone and the South Innovation Zone include Eperson
or Murata and Epperson respectively. In each of those MPUDs, particularly Murata and Eperson, there are places where there are apartments. Although these densities in the in the table up there will indicate lower density and intensity, lower to medium density and intensity in each of these.
I want to draw attention to common uses, where it says that residential uses and mixed uses shall be provided in all zones. And furthermore, in the document, it also talks about what mixed-use areas ought to have, mixed-use neighborhood centers are something that have been in That are something that have defined uh what the mixed-use areas of Connecticut City ought to be. In this particular case, as I'm sort of researching this on the fly and kind of going back in
the notes here, uh I think what the initial interpretation was by the special districts manager at the time was that um
Mixed uses would be allowed in the community hub zone, and the answer to that was to provide vertically integrated mixed-use buildings. So they would mix the commercial land use or the non-residential land use with the higher intensity residential, similar in concept to what had taken place in the North and South Innovation. Results. So there has been some precedent in other parts of Connected City where that's where that's been sort of laid out
in that manner, which probably influenced how this was being organized initially. But to answer David's question, yes, we could go back and do a comprehensive plan amendment, although So the common uses section of this table seems to cover the existence of mixed use in all zones.
So I guess it does say in community hub and their predominant uses, it does list multifamily as a use.
Mm-hmm.
It's just odd that the um down in the housing options section it didn't include apartments. D to Mr. Moody's point and I think others point is that why did we specifically put apartments in Business Corps and Urban Corps and not the other three if that was our if our intent was to allow apartments in those other three?
Yeah. I mean I I I'm interpreting the comprehensive plan and I'll the author of this section of the comprehensive plan, but to me it it appears that these areas were identifying particular standalone forms. versus mixed use forms.
Okay. Well it's not my job to interpret the complain, I'll defer to others on that. But it seems to me at a minimum if you're not intending to provide a large district park in the community hub zone That needs to be removed from the compoint. And
we could take a look at that um going forward. I just I would note too that this area was previously served by and currently is being served by Onesa District Park that exists at O at Over Pass.
I I understand the serving part of it, Terry. The concern on is that it says there's gonna be a large district park in the community hub zone, not outside of it. So So this is gonna be
recreational areas associated with the lake. And so to clarify what you said before, David, the the BCC has already um allocated funding from some of these impact fee towards
the OPH of the OPH. And I realize I'm some of you may not have been here when we the parking factory came to the Planning Commission. I don't remember if you were on the Planning Commissioner Yeah. Um What was different about the last Park and Back Bay update is that it was a plan-based fee, in the sense that it was a fee that was developed to develop a discrete set of parks. They actually listed all of the parks that would be developed using that fee. So Unless they're going unless
the board wants to remove one of the parks on the list and build this one instead, they'd have to raise the park impact fee to build additional parks because the fee was developed to create to build that specific list. So to build a park here and I'm not disagreeing with Mr. Mooney that is a possibility. But we'd either have to get rid of a park that was already promised to somebody else in the county or increase the impact fee. Both of which are options. I'm not saying
they can't be done, but that's probably above your pay grade. You know, uh that's above above our pay. Okay. That's that would be up to the board. The point is if the board's gonna go with the the master plan that was already adopted and the impact fee that was already adopted, it would not allow us to fund a district park in Connected City. We'd have to amend that. It's not as simple as just saying we're gonna give them a park. We'd have to amend our park master plan and amend our impact fee.
Which is a b which is a possibility. Um But I don't think the Parks Department has any intention of absent board direction. I don't think the Parks Department has any intention of pursuing that because they're already getting enough brief as it is for their current impact fee. Some of that grief came from this planning commission, by the way.
I remember that one.
So I'm not sure this planning commission would be too receptive about a park impact for the increase given the way you all treated the last increase.
Yeah. Well I sort of uh you know, as hard as it might be to swallow, I sort of uh agree with uh Commissioner Moody because um you know, I'm never in favor of promising something and not delivering it. And, you know, a debate and switch routine is never a good thing. You know, I think it in in some fashion it's incumbent upon the county to come up with an idea or a way to to
resolve this issue. I mean I'm thinking Yeah.
had promised a part in my development that I could take a golf cart to or whatever and Suddenly they ne never developed it. I wouldn't be too happy about it. And uh even if they developed it in five miles away in some other area and they called it my park. I wouldn't be happy about it. So You know, sometimes We have to pay for our sins in some way to to to make it right. And right now I feel like it's
not right.
There's other ways to fund parks or to acquire land for parks other than through impact
fee.
Yeah, even if it's at a technical level not against the comp plan, you know, from a thirty thousand foot view what most citizens see. It's It is kinda it does look like a big switch even though if it's not technically a big switch. So that
means I I don't know what money we can take from where. I don't that's not my expertise, but I do know that we have things like bed taxes, where we have lots of money in bed taxes that we collect every year. you know, maybe that's some of that money can be moved.
I'll be clear, yeah to be clear, I that would be difficult. Um that that is a restricted revenue source that can be used for tourism. And a tourism as a tourism funding source it has to to be primarily usable by tourists, those from outside of the county.
developers and connected city to
put up the land for a park no different than they put up land for rights of ways and roadways and that that that takes somebody being on the wall but
so so the answer is yes and in fact that that was exactly what happened in BUP H. Right. In B O P H They did do negotiate with the developers that all the developers would pay a surcharge on their park impact fee to that would go to fund the superpark and V OPH.
I can't tell you all the reasons it occurred but that did not occur in Connected City. Okay.
But it is what it is. I just I understand that. this could be a bigger discussion for the board on the next
day. Maybe Mr. Chi wants to speak to it. If he can he was involved when he was here when I was here too, so if he wants to add to it, I'm I'm welcome to please welcome to speak up too.
Joel did you want to speak, Joel? Yeah. I think there was another fellow back there that wanted to speak. Uh actually I don't want to miss on that. He's been waiting patiently. Yeah. Uh Jack Mariano.
Thank you.
Uh Joel II, 4700 Ridge V Row, Palm Harbor, Florida, and I have been sworn. Um I do have another question and comment on this particular MPD, but on on the question about the district park. Solely because I was a consultant obviously for the VOPH, POG, and the Connected City Special Area Plan. And I'm not I'm not here to say that the decisions were right or wrong, but to give you some of the history on that. Originally, when the special area
plan for Connect City was done, you're exactly correct. You're reading what the original contemplation was, was that a district park site. would hopefully be located from a willing property owner and it would be purchased. to provide your standard eighty acre district park. That was at the beginning. By the time we got to the point of the county adopting the financial plan for Connected City and saying how
we're going to fund the roads, the utilities, the schools, the parks, by that time the county had already acquired, I believe, the second phase of the VOPH superpark. It was acquired in three phases. And just so you understand the concept.
was thinking at the time, to my knowledge Is your standard district park's 80 acres? Your standard regional park is 160 acres. This VOPH park is about 240 acres. So it literally was three times the size of a standard park. So the board was hearing from the Parks Department that, well, it takes a lot of money just to acquire the land. And more importantly, we have zero funding to build park facilities. The Parks
Department had multiple park properties, but no money to develop any of them. And so obviously to the citizenry they were worthless until they had facilities. So the financial decision that was made, as Mr. Goldstein points out, is at the point that we were trying to do the funding. for connected city. And the park impact fee, a conscious decision was made that yes, they recognized that Connected City contemplated a district park. in the minds
of the board, they were voting to approve that district park. They weren't not providing it. They were saying we're going to commit funding from Connected City to supplement funding from VOPH. It still has taken tens of millions of dollars more in county funding to actually finish the acquisition of the superpark and more importantly to construct the improvements which are now funded and in the works. So You're probably
correct when those decisions and now those were all made at public meetings. I mean they w they were published connected city meetings where this subject was discussed numerous times. And I'm not saying anyone here was there or not there, but this was publicly discussed at length. And all of that collective funding was put on one large park and part of the other rationale was we've required this alternative vehicle network, we've we've required this connected trail system, we're connecting
connected city to VOPH. So the idea was that they would also make it relatively easy and functional for these people to use it, even though as the Chairman points out, it is three, four miles. to the east. But any park of that size is typically more than three or four miles away from the area that it serves in the county. So it wasn't that it was an unusual arrangement. In hindsight, probably that plan should have
been amended to acknowledge that that park element was being met through a cooperative funding of the Superpark site in order to actually get it constructed. So that's the history. And again I'm not saying that was a good or bad decision, but it it was one that was consciously made And the belief was that they would be providing that need and that promise, although admittedly clearly outside the geographic boundary of
Connected Cities. So I believe that was the board's you know, expressed public intent. And I I was at those meetings and obviously participated in that process for what it's worth.
Alright, thank you, Mr. Jill. I appreciate that update.
Yeah. Do you do you want me to go ahead and address my I have a couple questions on this particular zoning?
This
is a public
comment, so yeah, go ahead.
Okay. And again, these comments are I'm also the consultant for Pasco Town Center for Columnar Holdings, uh, the large town center to the west of this. And really, this is certainly not an objection. Uh my client would never object to another project, but I have a couple questions. If we could go to the binding concept plan again. Um, we just did an economic development agreement amendment that Mr. Engel and Mr. Goldstein are familiar with, and I just want to be sure I understand. what this how this
road network relates. I believe that future Tyndall right-of-way on the north side of this project is the future realignment of Tyndall that in fact heads west and comes directly into the center of that town's center. at Pasco Town Center. Which essentially is providing the town center for connected city. that otherwise hasn't been provided. Um so I just want to be sure I understand because
as Mr. Engel knows, uh right now that's an off-site uh Unconstructed, uncommitted obligation. So I'm curious as to how this access and this road network. ties into that in the big picture because my client has to construct all of our on-site roadway network but is not responsible for that off-site segment of Tyndall headed east. So Uh you know, it looks to me
like I haven't read these conditions, but I assume that this owner is going to provide their southern one half of that future right away. But I'm assuming there's no construction obligation in here for that segment. And I just want to be sure that that interpretation is correct.
But you're correct about the construction obligation. There is no construction the this project's construction obligation is mostly Kenton Road and to the south.
Okay.
Their their representation to the county was that Kinton would be their primary access, not Tyndall.
Okay, so I just want to make sure, and this particularly is to you, Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Ingall, you know, that the county's comfortable. with that and that you're getting the right away because we all know we're gonna have to buy some right away off site there. So I'm I I assume you're getting what you can get here with a dedication.
I'm gonna need staff to come up and confirm this. But the the yes the intent was that we were getting the right away we need for Tyndall Road for the ultimate B U P H cross section. Okay. It's needed for I mean sorry connect the city cross section for is needed for Tyndall, but I'll let staff confirm.
Yeah, I just don't the only reason I'm bringing it up is I don't want this to bite us you know where in that off-site missing link we call it for that east Tyndall segment uh to get to our town center.
I understand the point, but it's if we didn't get the right-of-way we need for Tyndall, I need staff to tell me that.
Yeah, so in the bottom concept you can see the pink highlighter color. Uh it does say seventy one feet of right-way dedication on there. So that's half the right-of-way for the Tyndall Road.
What is where's the other what's the northern half coming from?
I it might be from Mara. Murata is located on the other side I believe. I can double check their uh dedication or something.
I think ultimately what Mr. Two was asking is between these two projects, are we getting all the right-of-way we need For ten for the Feature conveyance of Tyndall.
Yeah. I was asking whether the handout map, because this gives you a better idea of how our our town center relates to that final road extension. I'm just trying to understand how the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle will fit.
Mr. Chairman, while the map is being put up, I just wanted to give you an overview on Hasco Town Center. Hasco County is obligated to secure the right-of-way and pay for the design and facilitate the construction of that missing link that we're talking about.
Right, but I think Mr. Two is asking David is
Did we make life easier on ourselves by getting all the right we right-of-way we need for Tyndall from this project and presumably the project to be able to do that?
You're absolutely correct. Every every inch of right-of-way we can screw through dedicated. uh will make the project less expensive for us.
Cause there's no question that condition twenty four requires them to dedicate seventy one feet along the north boundary of for future Tyndall Road. And they have to accommodate the necessary drainage for um
That word I believe.
Yeah, yeah, it it's condition twenty four, Joel. It does require them to dedicate seventy one feet along the north boundary for future tendle and provide accommodate the drainage for future tendle as well. I what I don't know and um this is the reason I asked the question of the staff is is that sufficient to
Is that right-of-way combined with whatever we're getting from Marahada sufficient to for that segment of Tyndall?
Yes, we we
have
the right of way from Marahda seventy one feet from that seventy one feet from this one, that'll make for one forty two.
Okay.
Okay,
great.
Is that true for the whole Murata project, all the way out, going east?
Excuse me Mr. Chairman I do just want to note um on record that we do have one person signed up for public comment virtually, Tara Castro. However, all your other items today Novi have signed us signed up virtually. For this on this topic? You only have one individual for this item, yes. Okay. And we haven't finished getting regular public testing.
Uh to answer Mr. Pollens' question, um, at least from Pasco Mapper at the moment, there there does seem to be a gap in front of the Remington MPUD, which is at Govro Road. Um, but I have to research that specifically. Uh right now, uh to the west we have the 71 feet from Murada and to the east of Govro. road, um there is Murata constructed. So um for that one little segment I'd have to research
it further. So I don't have the answer to that right now. Okay.
I would assume that that would have been part of the conditions where Murata was approved to uh get that right of way.
Okay, you wanna come up now?
Thank you for being patient. Jason Baker, I've been sworn in at [address removed]. Alright, talking about this topic here on the parks on that tail end. If you actually read the comprehensive plan for the connected city, pages 62, 63, 64, 65 are pretty elaborate as far as the parks and what was going to be built and what was expected. They call it a premiere park. So it's not just on a table. That's that's all I'm gonna say about the parks. I'm gonna echo
uh Mr. Michael's comments regarding the apartments. You know, we already went through the tables. I don't believe it fits. If you read the LDC, you can read 522.9, it doesn't have apartments listed under mixed use. Um so that's my second comment. Then I want to get into some stormwater and civil engineering comments. The two ponds, pond one, pond two, you get about ten acres of stormwater. What did Eric use for design calculations on those ponds? Was it a hundred-year, twenty-four-hour rain
event? Do we know that? That's how I want to get a qu uh confirmation on that from the civil engineer. Also, if you look at the wetland survey that's provided in this NPUD proposal, note number 40 uh note number 11 actually states they didn't even do a wetland limit survey. They were using the data from a May 9th, 2019 survey from another firm. So now we're proposing somebody else's work to the board. So how
are we gonna go forward with you know a survey that you didn't even really do? You're just re-stamping it, and then number two, in 2019, Errata wasn't there, Epperson wasn't there, half a dozen of these MPUDs in the area weren't even around. So I'm sure the wetland you know conditions on the ground are a lot different today if you were to redo actually. Do a wetland limitation survey again today. And then also, if you go through the Connected Cities Comprehensive Plan under Table 4.2,
there's language that states: quote, all SPA zones shall include strategies related to wastewater recycling, stormwater capture, and reuse. So my question is for this particular MPUD, we have about 10 acres of storm pond. What are we doing or how is this project going to reuse? stormwater and support this initiative in the comprehensive plan. Thank you. All right.
Do we have somebody from staff to help answer some of those questions?
Well
to be clear, th I don't know the staff can answer the engineering question. That that was directed to the applicant's engineer.
Well I'm just wondering if he's here. Your engineer. Virtually. Okay. We spoke before. So w while it's a h the subject is on our minds, let's see if we can get an answer. Is there?
You guys air, can everyone hear me okay?
Yes.
Okay. Um
survey that was done by D
now I'm losing you again, so I don't know if you're moving around or what, but just try to s be consistent.
Okay. Um With regards to the wetland survey, that was done by DC Johnson. We they they were subcontracted to uh D to determine the wetland delineations. Uh, we're not a licensed surveyor f firm. We're not like stealing somebody else's work and restamping it. Um and he is correct that we will need to get another wetland survey prior to getting a Switch foot permit. Those wetland delineations are uh they expired back in July twenty twenty four.
Um But you know, I don't expect it to change to be at the end of the But regardless of sizing Um without uh I don't have geotech society that's um if we don't we typically don't know we have uh the group for but we will be analyzing the twenty five minutes. Uh twenty five year, twenty four by R Should reset, as well as four hours for
Twenty four. To me it's just not sufficient the communication here. So um I I only s understood about half of what you said, Eric.
Well I think that's on his end because we've had plenty of people speak on WebEx and we've understood them perfectly fine. So I don't know what's going on
So I it's not a sufficient answer to my my my mind because I don't understand what you're saying. So I'm sure if I don't, nobody else does either.
So um
Can't do better.
Keep talking and I'll tell ya.
So with regards to the wetland survey. That was uh we well need
to slow down. Slow down. Okay. Thank you.
With regards to the wetlands survey. We won't be able to do that.
W with regards to the wetland survey, we will be ordering another one. prior to receiving our Swift Mutt permit. And that Swift Bud permit additional approval prior to starting construction. The storm analysis? That I will run. the twenty-five year twenty-four hour storm event as well as the one hundred year twenty-four hour
storm event. I haven't started a deep dive into the drainage analysis. because I do not have geotechnical information for the site. We typically do not order the geotechnical information until the P D plan is approved.
Okay, why didn't you say that time?
Okay.
Anything else you want to add to that? You have anything you want to add to that? Um
yeah, I just wanted to address the address to comment that um that those are the compine policies. Um I'm not familiar with the stormwater L D C section of Connected City because I don't usually review that, so I'd have to do some research and get back for that.
Okay.
Well I can I ask him a question. Yes. He says he intends to run the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour event and the hundred year twenty-four hour event. Are you designing the project for the twenty five year event or the hundred year event? In other words, are you designing this as an open basin project or a closed basin project?
So reside the Siphis Creek watershed, Watershed, which is an open basin watershed. That watershed model It's what determines the FEMA flood element. I will be referencing that book heavily for my greatest design. And I will revise that. to incorporate the first development.
Okay,
thank you. Will be included in that analysis.
But yeah, but I understand, but For instance, our regulations If this is an open basin, only make you mitigate for post-development versus pre-development flows for a 25-year event. If it's a closed basin, then we need to mitigate for the volume for the 100-year event. But you're telling me this is a you're telling me this is an open basin. I don't know. I'm going to ask the gentleman that just spoke if he has an opinion on the matter as well. But
I understand, thank you.
Jason Baker again I've been sworn in. Um the only follow-up comment, those are exactly my questions, Mr. Moody, is you know, are we gonna use a twenty-five year for the design or the hundred year? Um I will also point out in the county's comprehensive plan section five point one point four, table ten point four, uh under item buildings D, if you're gonna have uh employment slash service centers, uh you have have to do the hundred plus one year storm for a 24 hour rain event. That's what it calls for. That's in the s in the county's
comprehensive plan. So it kind of defaults you to the 100 year plus one.
No. Well that regards the elevation of the building. I'm more concerned about the storm. The gentleman, Mr. Poltorek, showed pictures of a flooded site. It's this engineer's contention that this water has an outlet, it has some place to go. What I wanna know is does this site drain or does it hold water like a bowl? Yeah. I would agree with that.
Yeah,
that was essentially my
question. Does that ultimately get to King Lake? Going the other way. There we go. It actually
goes towards me. I live in Lakes.
Stop, stop. The clerk cannot pick up everybody speaking from the audience, so we need to have one speaker here and one speaker at the voting. Thank you.
You've answered my question. Thank you.
All right, thank you very much. Alright. And who's next to speaker? Anybody else have questions?
Once you come up and get up to the front here so you can get a jump on it.
My name is David Torino, I live at [address removed] this morning. Ah, traffic. Traffic is terrible coming down Elam Road. When you turn on the Canton, I try to get the county to get that straightened out so you can turn off faster because there's a bunch of holes there. They're not gonna touch it. So you take a chance of getting killed on that road all the time because people go sixty miles an hour down that road. It's a thirty mile an hour road. Now you're talking about putting all
these apartments in? All these We're supposed to be single family homes. Let's be honest. Did you just wanna Dump it all on us. I had to have twelve acres to build my house. He's got twelve acres. Well, it's probably everybody that lives on that lake's got twelve acres. Now you want to stick a big apartment building so I can look at it. and talking about watershed. Let's talk about it. My land? I bought it. I mold it every year.
Every year I mold my property. My property has been flooded ever since they started the lagoon. That's a long time. You know why? Because they're dumping all the water on my land. My land was for flooding only. When the hurricanes came, Yeah, it went through. Three months later. Try the bone. My man, you can't even dig a hole anymore. You guys are killing me. And now they want to start a
new development right across the road from me. But they're gonna build that up too. They're gonna end up flooding these guys. I know they will. Because the water's gotta go somewhere. They've already flooded me. You seen that nice picture of that that road where where all that water was? Me. Yikes. You're not right. Somebody told me I wouldn't get a drop of water. Is it commissioner? I could mister who comes after. Somebody got the ball? The guy that come
out the that developed the the proper he said, Yeah. I can help you. You know what happened? The developers told him to shut his mouth. That's what happened.
Guys gotta you gotta think before you doing the stuff. You kill on us. And as far as parks. Let's talk about parks. We corpian. The other side of all this beautiful stuff. Like the parts they sold when they were developing Epperson Ranch. Not for us. They're not near for us. I'm an older person. I gotta go way down to the park down there instead of having to park in my own community. Y'all, you give me a dirt road, you give me twelve acres to build on, and then you tell me you're gonna
do all this on the side of me and you're gonna kill me. Does that seem fair? I mean I was all right with single family homes. She got it. You're overdoing it.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, ma'am.
Lisa Moretti. Yes. And I'm not Swarm, so I'll swarm.
Do you swear or from the testimony you're about to give to me, so help me God?
So help me God. Thanks. Thank
you.
One of the things that I was thinking about as we were talking through this that I think has kind of gotten lost in the Mishigosh is that this project was actually sort of like a demonstration project for the entire state. And I know the legislature's about to have a report card on the Connected City project as a model. And I think it is really um short sighted. to then say, Oh, guess what? We forgot to make a bunch of changes. And yeah, you guys go ahead and talk about that as
a model that other counties can then follow that model. But we're just gonna go ahead and change almost half of what we talked about. in terms of how this rolls out and what we designate as different portions of those connected cities. So While it's easy for us to look at, oh yeah, let's just make quick solutions, I think that there are larger implications to what you're doing that should be considered as well. And so I hope you'll take those things to heart. And really look
at what's going on. I also think that um
We have a problem with vigilance in our county. And a lot of things get permitted and then we just sort of out of sight, out of mind. And we don't pay attention to whether or not those things are being implemented as you all ask for them to be. And we have a large problem of that ongoing both at the county level and in our municipalities. So I would encourage you to maybe look at putting in some guardrails. as we go forward and move into how we are going to continue to develop this
county. Thank you.
All right, thank you very much.
Nancy Hayswood, [address removed]. Mr Moody, you're on the right track. I think you all do need to go ahead and give these people their part. This goes along with what I was saying earlier. You're up here approving things that the developers are not doing, so therefore we are losing. You shouldn't be They shouldn't have to be a little bit more than a little you shouldn't be approving things and then letting the developers do something else completely. You're taking
away from the people. Again, how can we trust our government if it's proving Lies, basically. Thank you.
Okay. Yes, Jerry.
Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission, I I didn't want to bring it up today because it's uh the cart would be ahead of the horse. But we are having internal leadership discussions on providing a park for this area. I don't have any official capacity to make an announcement, but I don't want the public nor the planning commission to think that we're just sitting sitting uh on our hands, we're we are working on something right now. Very good. Thank you, David.
Okay, uh who's next?
Anybody?
Mr. Chairman we do have somebody on WebEx that you would like to take them next.
Terra Castro, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak.
I think probably can you hear me?
Not well. Not well, then yeah, go ahead.
Let me try to think. Um sorry, I've been feeling kind of under the weather, so I'm would best be home than to be in your presence. But I do appreciate you giving me the time. Well what I hear on this meeting today is a bunch of doctors.
No.
Okay, let's get here to that.
Do you swear from the That's what you
Yes.
Okay, thank you. And your address is what?
[address removed].
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Today just watching this meeting, it's definitely a dog and pony show of who's running this government in our county. Just a disgusting makes me frustrated. I wanna touch on a few things 'cause I only got a few minutes. But I want to bring your attention to the document from the Pasco County impact study that was submitted with this plan. Did you see at the bottom where it says the percent of of the school and at the twenty we were over max capacity
in 2023 to 2024 for the elementary, 152%? Middle school was a hundred and thirty-eight percent. And West of Capital High School, 127%. They wanna add more and their mental it appears their mentality is just a few percent more won't matter. Again, it boils down to the money and the greed and not anything else about the infrastructure. Is this really fair to max the kids out at the builders
revenue? What about infrastructure? The road. We already touched on that, we're can't handle it. However, it makes me wonder what type of traffic impact study is being used. She's reading this. Who's understanding it? The number of fatalities here in Pasco County just in the last month. That should have woken you guys up. The roads can't handle it. When was the last fire station? School proposed to you guys.
I haven't seen one of those requests come across for planning. Where are those impact fee going? Do we need an independent investigation or an audit? Wouldn't it be nice to have a fire station that could t service these places in a more timely fashion than tw twenty, thirty minutes? Wouldn't it be nice where schools can handle the increase in population expansion of growth? Yeah, because we might know 232.
Again, the planning and development thought of the applicants and they don't think of the infrastructure.
These guys in planning and development are making calls. And are they are they or are they being bullied by these lawyers and these builders to approve and to send them up? Wait. The bottom line is you guys are the ones that are looking foolish in our eyes because you're the ones that are approving all these. And these guys are the same people that think we're playing acts but they can push on a picture and it's gonna just move a bit appeared. This is the dog and
pony show we're got going on here in Pasco. I just also want to touch one more thing. The layout That's not a lot.
I'm sorry. Sorry, Mike. But the infrastructure, I'm just gonna go, the infrastructure used to be prior to any more building. And if you've also watched the story on channel thirteen just last week, it talked about the housing market being oversaturated. Now you're gonna add more home and microcompany has valued more than fifty percent in the last two years and you're gonna have more homes. Is this the Live Life Act that's supposed to depreciate my values?
I'm sure that my taxes go down. You guys have a good day. Thanks so much for taking me.
Okay. Um Chris, do you have any comments about the schools?
Sure. So uh this current school year we just opened Kirkland Ranch K eight, which is helping the uh capacity out in the Wesley Chapel area. Uh it's actually a Magnet K8, so it's pulling from that whole area and has reduced the overcrowding at watergrass. Elementary, West of Chapel Elementary, Summit Weightman Middle. take a couple of years for that to um come to full fruition. Mm-hmm.
Uh certainly that hasn't fixed the whole problem, but um
We are currently looking at, you know, what the next high school Okay. Um will be in the area um where we the good thing is we have quite a bit of land that we've already secured. Mm-hmm. And so we're we continue to work through uh where that uh high school capacity will be. Uh we've added um capacity to West Seth Hills Elementary, which we're in the process of currently remodeling. And
so probably in the next couple years we'll be doing a rezoning to help help uh balance some of those populations out between West Zephyr, Woodland Elementary, probably New River Elementary. Uh which is in the Wesley Chapel area as well as Chester Taylor. And so Yeah, I think that's uh where we are. It's certainly not always timely where we where we meet it exactly and we don't have any over capacity, but um You
know, a lot of folks may not realize, but back prior to the penny for Pasco in 2003-2004, almost every school in Pasco County was over capacity. And we had some schools were that were double their capacity. And certainly we haven't fixed everything, but currently overall, if you take all of our schools together, we are operating. Operating at eighty to ninety percent of capacity. Um and it also might be surprising
that we only grew by about two hundred students in the entire county this year.
I
mean certainly we see growth going on, mm, but it has not resulted in the number of students. Certainly we have schools in in high growth areas that are growing, but um overall countywide. Yeah. Um It's a bit surprising. So Yeah, that's shocking. Yes. But anyway, to answer the question we we um again Kirkland Ranch Cade is the newest school there which has provided some relief, but we're working on what the next schools
will be in the area. Okay.
Yeah.
Okay, so that's uh Not as bleak a picture as it was painted. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. I know you guys do a good job over there.
Thank you. And as uh David mentioned, um in addition to the impact fee both in uh Connected City and V OPH there is an additional sur proper surcharge to help us. um acquire land and make those improvements. Right.
Okay. So there was no one else in there to speak?
Yes, sir. Yes. You need to come up to the front here.
Uh so we need you sworn in yet. You haven't been sworn?
Square up.
Yes.
Okay,
and we need your name and address. Yeah, I'm Charles Carey, C-A-R-E-Y. My address is [address removed] Laman Incorporated. Thanks. Just need you being up to schools. I'm a substitute teacher here. Often go to Weightman Middle. It's been there, I believe, 30 years. You believe it or not, it's had 11 portables for 30 years. Still has 11 portables that are falling apart. The county is ignoring district, this school. And
and I understand that. the high school at uh Wiregrass Ranch. That's seven hundred students in portables. at high school alone. This gore situation. out of control and over the crowded. We need to do something about it. But those are two schools that I'm familiar with. Uh also sub to K eight, which is a real very nice school and they don't have uh eighth graders yet so they moved to expand. That's a very nice school. But what about Wake in the middle? Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Chris, any comment? Sure, just in addition to that, um Weightman Middle has had some relief with the K eight. Well again, no eighth grade this year, so as the students move up it'll get an additional. We don't believe that'll be Um totally undercapacity with that. So we are actually meeting later this month to talk about the possibility of adding wings to some schools. You mentioned Wiregrass Ranch High. We have over the years
reduced that boundary by building new schools such as Cypress Creek. And have reduced that capacity, but it's still over capacity. So we're again, as I mentioned earlier, we're looking at another high school in that area to help. Solve that problem. And or build a wing. Are we able to
do anything about improving the portables or?
Well what's
the situation
there? We have portables all across the county. Um sometimes we don't Once we provide some relief, we don't automatically remove those portables unless we need them elsewhere. Um None of our our maintenance department does a very good job of maintaining them. And so if there is a problem at a portable, the principal needs to report and our maintenance department will go out and fix them.
Okay.
Um accordingly. We don't we don't we're not gonna have our students in spaces that aren't aren't kept up to date or at least kept in good working order.
Okay.
My name is Don Leplow and my address is [address removed]. Live over in Lakeside Estates, where we're talking about. I have just one clarifying question to ask in that as it relates to the Tall Timbers MPUD. And that is with the Canton Road construction in that. That's been identified as the main ingress and egress for the tall timbers M PUD, I believe. And
if so, is the Kenton Road construction development going to go all the way down and extend beyond Elam all the way to Overpass as is shown in the road overviews.
Sorry, would you answer that please?
And the reason why I asked that is because Elam Road, which I live on Fussels, right off of Elam, Elam has turned into a highway. And it's a two-lane road that's really not engineer to handle that. So my question is, are we going to get some relief by having Canton Road built properly and extended all the way down over the fence?
That's it. That's what I'm saying.
All right, thank you.
Uh Terry Pito's planning development and economic growth. With with regard to Kenton Road, there are projects that are going to build Kenton uh all the way south to Overpass. There's a couple of MPODs. Um the road is currently under design at the moment. And we are working on having the developer of the Kenton MPUD also construct the segment that is between Elam and Overpass. The existing
Kenton Road, both on the south end, which would be on the east or west side of Kenton. And the existing Kenton Road that will be on the north end, which will be on the west east side of Kenton, will continue to exist and provide frontage road access to the residents that are along King Lake along the front or along the north leg of Kenton and residents that are uh just north of the Elam Road area Elam Kenton
intersection area on on the west side. So they they should continue to have access um Through the front of trucks that'll be there.
So Terry, just to clarify the answer to the question, 'cause I'm looking at the conditions of approval, this project at Purley and Kenton M P D are required to build it to Elam. According to the conditions. I think the question was From Elam to Overpass. Those three MPDs do not appear to be responsible for constructing it south of Elam.
I think I think he's asking about the gap between um Elam and Overpass.
Which which I'm reading these conditions do not this MPUD and Kenton and April are not responsible for that south going south of Elam.
That's currently being worked into the Kenton DA for the Kenton M PUD development to build the segment between Elam and Overpass.
Okay, so that's a upcoming Yes. So we're gonna figure out a way for Kenton M P E to extend it south of Elam?
Yes.
Focusing
on that.
I just want to make sure because if somebody only read these conditions they would not know that.
Right, because that we've been working on it this last literally these last three weeks.
Okay.
All right.
Does that answer your question? Okay.
Alright, was there anybody else?
Okay.
Pardon me?
Mm no, we don't break rules here. All right. We could go on and on forever if I did that. So you know, everybody want a third chance.
I think we've done that. This applicant.
Thank you. Shelley Johnson again, 6400 Madison Street, and I have been sworn and I have been listening to all the comments. Um I know that um our civil engineer is on the phone and would like to respond to some of the stormwater questions and comments in the discussion that just um was going on. Um outside of the fact that, you know, obviously this is an open basin and it's gonna be designed um in accordance with Swift Mud and County regulations in order to get its permits. Um but he can, you know, add whatever additional you know information questions there there are to that. Um I did want to focus traffic. Um
this development won't go in unless Kenton Avenue is developed because there's no access unless Kent Never goes goes in, whether it be they do they ultimately build it or um you know the three M PDs participate and get it built. Tyndall's not proposed as an access for this site. It is being realigned to the north, as Joel was asking about a little bit earlier, and you know that's going to create that east-west connection over to Murata and further west the other way. I did want to focus a little bit about the community hub because
I did hear several times comments from the residents saying that apartments are not permitted in the community hub. If you look at the actual schedule of uses that was had been up for a while this afternoon, it specifically does permit multifamily, which is apartment and townhome and town.
Proposing The apartment is vertically integrated use. John had asked if that was required. It's pursuant to condition 49. It is required to be vertically integrated, so it's not just going to be a bunch of apartments. It's going to be apartments with uses underneath such as home occupations. Um, you know, entrepreneurship, the type of things that, you know, Connected City is trying to encourage through job growth. That's really what Connected City is is Pushing for. So those will be vertically integrated. They're not just going to be your standard, you know, standalone apartments. And some of that
vertical integration, you'll see you know in the conditions of approval, it actually requires that a minimum of 12,000 square feet of that vertical integration space, whether it be office or retail, actually serve off-site. Um it can't serve on-site. So um the conversions, the conversions uh you know are in accordance with the the comp plan. They actually permit Only conversions from residential to retail or office and and and not a conversion back, again going to that you know job growth element. Um I did just want to quote a couple
policies because I do think it's important again to reiterate that what is being proposed. I understand you know there's some confusion with regards to how it's set out and identified in the uh um you know in some sections of the of the plan um with regards to the park and all that I've listened to all that but it it does permit what we are doing. The goals and objectives do permit it. We are permitted to do the mixed use, the vertical integration, the multifamily, the apartment, the townhome. Those are all permitted uses under the under the current comp plan for connected cities. Policy LUD 4.5,
which is the land use and design section of connected cities, asks that there be an encouragement, it's supposed to encourage flexibility and promote a mix of uses in all of the zones. And it is, you know, it's it specifically says you should establish a performance-based zoning for the connected cities overlay. Policy LUD 4.6, which is again the land use and design policy for connected cities, says provide mixed use. Areas within all SPA zones of Connected City, not just one. And that's why when you look at that, and I understand the confusion, but
when you look at that list, the only prohibited look use on that list is industrial. That's the only thing you cannot do in Community Hub right now. Outside of that, you know what we're doing is permitted. So I just kind of wanted to clear that up for the record. I don't again, I don't know if my Um civil engineer wants to comment any further on the stormwater, but we're here to answer any further questions. questions.
Shelley I got a few questions. I don't know if they're for you or for staff, but I'll go through 'em here as we go through the approval conditions, approval conditions sixteen and seventeen. What I heard you say was is that Kenton Road would be constructed. As part of this project prior to any Units, is that correct?
So it has the standard condition that the rest of the MPDs have on it, which is the the only access to the site is gonna be through Kenton Avenue. So in order for this development to go, Kenton Avenue is gonna have to be in. The way it's set up right now through the various MPD conditions and the development agreement that they're working on for the Kenton MPD, which is south of this site. The goal is all three of the developments actually participate in in putting in that road from um you know, all the way down to overpasses they just discussed. Um but This site specifically says that if those sites
don't come in and they don't build that road, you know, you're gonna build the whole thing. Um and that's what our conditions call for. So
my I guess my question th there's a or they can shall construct or bond as part of the language. Yeah,
the standard language.
So So if you bond the improvements, how are you getting access to your development?
Yeah, I mean at the end of the day you have the right because it's the standard it's the standard I mean that's the standard condition. At the end of the day, this this couldn't be I mean it is, it is the standard condition that you see in all of the M P
D. 'Cause it's it's prior to their plat so
Yeah, it's prior to platform. Is that
uncommon when they get their plat approval that they're bonding they're doing the construction of the infrastructure Sort of after they've gotten their plat approval pursuant to a bond. That's not an uncommon scenario.
Okay.
They
can't sell the lots without
And My next one and again this is questions I don't know if this is for you or for staff but in condition eighteen where it talks about the signal and the warrant study and if not warranted and it starts to talk about proportionate share. Is is that proportionate share for this project, is that determined or is that to be determined? When does that get determined?
It just looks like it's pretty open ended condition. That was my question.
Well I mean i it's prior or concurrent with issuing the third the three the building permit for the three hundred and first dwelling unit. Um Yeah, they'll have to do a c conduct a signal warrant study to see if it's warranted to have an actual signal at Kenton and Elam.
I follow that and it says if the signal's warranted you'll construct it. If it's not already there. Right. But if it's not warranted, you're gonna be responsible to pay proportionate share funds to the county.
I mean what is that standard that those proportionate share funds aren't established and and why why do we have to wait?
Um I can I can ask Mr. Cluel if he wants to weigh in on that, but I suspect it is because
There's two other developments that access that signal and so their proportion share is gonna be dependent on the proportion share of the other two.
Which are already approved, right?
Yeah, I I don't know why there's not I mean I have seen this condition where there's a specific amount inserted, but that being said, I don't
Okay. If you if you calculated it today, by the time the signal is built it may cost twice that.
Yeah,
I'm not
saying dollars, I'm saying percent. I mean
Oh you mean the percentage. Okay.
Unless at some point if the applicant's comfortable with it, it just seems like it's an open ended condition. Well and you could get to the end and they could say you're ninety percent.
Well, I think staff is rel usually fair about this. I mean I think they do do the percentages based on We've never we've never had major disputes about proportion of share, okay? But if Mr. Clear wants to weigh in on that, I'm happy to have him add to what I just said.
David uh said it correctly. Uh if it's not warranted then we will, you know, have a c uh pause in there. We can do that at time of site plan as well when the traders is because they're still supposed to do an access management analysis when they come in for a site plan. So the study that they did, which is a timing and phasing study, a time of zoning, it really Um it's not the finality. So the finality is when they do an access management, other things may come up at that time which
they will be responsible for. But if it's not warranted at that three hundred and first trigger. then yes, we do uh assign a percentage based on the number of trips that each of those projects generate.
Okay.
All right. Um again Essen you're probably the one to answer this anyways. Condition twenty four talks about right of way dedication. Where does the right of way for the Kenton portion adjacent to this project come from?
It was a hundred and fourteen feet of right of way, where does that come from? 'Cause that's outside of the limits of your property, correct?
Yeah.
And I just don't I don't see it identified on the maps.
I do have our transportation planner also available if she wants to
answer that question.
Uh I I can also answer that really quickly. It's up coming from the the facility site on the west. Uh we talked to them prior to this MP even coming to public hearing and they agreed that they would dedicate the full portion for that road.
Okay. Alright. The next question, condition 49. Item C and the mixed use standards, there's language in there that says the maximum setback from a proposed Kenton Road and Timber Road shall be ten feet. It's talking about the apartment buildings. So that's saying the building setback for those apartment buildings can be no more than ten feet?
Yes, um that is correct. Like I mentioned earlier, this is an urban typical that has a sixteen foot sidewalk on it. So we want to get those buildings as close as possible so that office ground floor is fronting actually on Kinton for people to walk and access.
I mean I know we we're starting to get into the weeds here in MPUDs and I get it, there's binding concept plan. The binding concept plan also includes it shows a ten foot landscape buffer. Has that been determined that that's the landscape buffer?
Mm-hmm. Um I my question and where I'm going with that is I would think that would probably be a fifteen foot buffer on that road. So this this condition is gonna cause a problem.
It could correct, it could. We could do an alternative standard for the landscaping to make sure that or a variation for an MPD to remove that right now, but then That would allow for the building to go in. And when you
go back to the binding concept plan, the binding concept plan shows the building much further away than ten feet in the road because there's a line there for a ten foot landscape buffer. So that's that's where that question was coming from. I think there's some conflict there.
Okay.
How do you I mean is there a way to resolve that? I mean do we need to propose some kind of
I mean my understanding and I haven't looked at it in detail is that the the typical section that and and the way it's been laid out is in accordance with whatever the connected city design standard is for the roads. I mean if there's an issue with regards to something on the binding plan versus getting continued, you know, whatever the the Commission's decision is today, obviously we'll you know we'll take a look at that, you know, before the Board of County Commissioners and address it to make sure there's not any conflict.
But We're probably not sure what staff's intent is. Did they do they want a landscape fifteen foot landscape buffer from this road? Mr. Jardy's point is if you have a fifteen foot landscape buffer, it's almost impossible for you to have a ten foot building setback
setback. Or a maximum setback.
So we y Planning Commission could direct one of the two change. Yeah, I but I don't know what staff's intent is.
I mean again if you want to put up the binding concept plan. The binding concept plan does show a lant ten foot landscape buffer, so maybe that's the intent. But then again it shows that building Significantly behind. There's a significant space between that ten foot landscape buffer and that building. That real tiny print there to the left side of the building says ten foot landscape offer.
So m my engineer of mine wants to say that that building is forty feet. If it's if it's the scale, yeah. It it's not showing right up against the landscape often.
I'm sorry, I was talking to Patrick for a second, so um can we just give a quick recap to
Yeah, to the to the left side of the mixed use building there, there's some real fine print that you cannot read at this scale. It's it says if you zoom in it says ten foot landscape buffer. Is the intent to provide a ten foot landscape buffer on that parcel?
It is not the intent of that. That's not the intent.
That it's in the typical for the Ken Road.
I if if this project was to come in, what would be the landscape buffer required on that parcel?
Uh so just Connected City has its own land development code and it has its own buffering requirements. Whereas our uh regular code is an A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H buffer. Connected city is one, two, three, four. Um and I can't pinpoint off the top of my head what those are just because, you know, bouncing back and forth between them. Um but I think generally what the feel they're going for here. Is a more walkable street as opposed to, you know, most of our basic land development code talks about is is
separating uses, right? We our regular code is suburban. It talks about, okay, between residential and commercial, we want a certain buffer to prevent these from really interacting with each other. Uh this intent again is to bring the building closer to the frontage, uh have it more walkable, so a ten foot or fifteen foot or or a an intense landscape buffer doesn't get us there. So I think the intent is to not necessarily have a buffer that you would normally expect in a suburban environment.
So it sounds like the correction is that the landscape buffer needs to be removed from the body concept plate. Sure. Where does it say then?
It's in it's a real fine print, a real small print there to the left of the building. Doesn't that say ten foot landscape?
It says ten foot building setback.
Oh is that what that says? Okay, I thought it said temporal landscape buffer. When you zoom in and it gets blurry, that's why I well I mean i if if that's the max, why isn't the building showing on that line? Can't be any further back than that. Why isn't that building shown on that line on the binding concept
plan? 'Cause it's uh the binding plant concept plan is intended to be a general layout. I think if if they came in for actual engineering site plans we'd ask them to bring that as close as possible.
Well that contradicts the first word of that sentence.
So I had this fight with staff about the binding concept plan. Um because the my mind binding means binding. Their mind is means something slightly less than binding. But um it's
an oxymoron,
really.
I think Planning Commission could if you want to approve this, and I don't know if you do or not, you could impose a you could You could approve with the direction that the building be moved to match the setback to to to to the to the limits of the setback line.
I'm fine with that and I understand the intent. I just wanted to make sure we're creating conflicts, that's all. So I'm okay with it, but I mean staff okay that the binding concept plan doesn't show what the conditions reflect?
As a c it's it's a concept, right? And you're bound to the concept. There are l thresholds that we can make uh uh adjustments to at the preliminary site plan stage to make sure that the final site plan, once it's been fully engineered, is true to the concept plan that's being demonstrated at the public hearing. Kinda
like a comp plant.
But Yeah. Notwithstanding that, if the Planning Commission wants to approve this with a requirement that that building be moved, you have that authority to make that request part of your recommendation.
I don't care. I just feel like there's I feel like there's varying definitions being thrown around for a binding concept plan and what it's to include.
They're Those terms are antonyms, so okay that's all I got. That's the issue.
Johnny next.
I don't have any more questions.
Yeah.
Just just one for the for the engineer. You you mentioned you know twenty-five year, hundred year storm, hadn't done geotech. What assumptions did you make to size those ponds for this? Concept plan.
Yeah, certainly.
Is your engineer available?
He was on my bags. Here,
can
you
hear me?
Yes, thank you.
So the pawns are the question.
Did you hear the question, Eric?
Yes. The question was Asking why the ponds were placed where they are placed. The pawns. are located at the existing wetland locations. We feel it's best
Eric and Eric that w Eric stop. That wasn't the question. The question was what assumptions did you make. I think you want to repeat the question. Yeah,
the question was what assumptions did you make to determine the overall size of those ponds?
the sizing of the ponds Isn't final. It's a preliminary Concept without having Geotech I can't finalize drainage.
Preliminary concept, why isn't it five acres? It's five point one seven uh Seems like there was some math in there. Probably with the cat programmers.
We quantified the pond areas
If it's just if it's that's just the area that was left there, um that's what I'm wondering, is just what how we got to Some assumption of size if it's a little bit more than a little bit. Where that came from.
Yeah. The pawns were maximized. uh to create to to provide the most amount of uh runoff storage. Um they are not final.
They were placed And they're given locations
Because that's where the wetland limits are, roughly. They're subject to change.
There was no Deep thought. There there's no magical formula that I created. You determine the pond sizes.
Okay.
Does that create an issue with our binding site plan again? Well this goes back to the issue of the
calling it up with
the
So there's there's a condition that deals with the bindings concept plan. I think it's condition seventy, which talks about the fact that Staff can approve deviations from the binding concept plan as long as the substantive intent and purpose is achieved. So I think that's what staff is referring to is that they can approve small deviations from that plan based on final engineering. So
that's probably why they would argue that
you know, the building being ten foot, they can fix that when site plans come in or the the size of the ponds as long as this general layout is achieved.
Okay, you okay, Matt? Yep.
Anything else from up here?
Derek, Chris, Chris.
Alright?
Nothing further. Is there a motion?
You just gave the gavel back, you wanna make one?
You didn't ask it too good.
Let me just tell you where I'm at with it. And we'll talk and we'll maybe maybe we'll make a motion.
What I see is a special planning area referring to connected city.
that got done on a piece by piece by piece basis rather than a regionalized planning exercise. And then the overall scheme of things. I think the mark was missed.
All that being said...
I don't think you can
punish the applicant for the sins of the past.
And I see that a lot in government sometimes too. I think we need to be real careful. I know there's going to be discussions this year about stormwater regulations. And I've watched this in Pinellas County and if they're listening. When Pinellas County's ninety nine percent developed, telling the last one percent of uh undeveloped landowners that they need to triple the amount of stormwater retention on their project isn't going to solve the sins of the past. And
so I don't think denying this project is going to solve the problems, the the overall large-scale planning problems of connected cities.
And I don't know how you fix those. I have a question for David. I gave a little bit of thought before I came here about that.
Connected City has its own land development code.
Can that land development code be Tweaked, changed, fixed, to come back and address things like district parks and trails
Is is is that doable is that doable at this point in time or is it too far gone?
So a land development code can be amended. There's no question you process land development code amendments all the time. The issue you have is making them retroactive to projects that have already been approved. Now if they only have a zoning approval Right, and that's what I'm talking about. Um and they haven't been don't have a s if they have a site plan approval it's probably too late at that point to be changing their regulations. Um if they only have a zoning approval, yes in theory you could amend the regulations where
you do have some issues though and we saw this when we did the car wash changes is that what happens when you have an M D that has something that's in it that is contrary to your new regulations and then you get to reconcile that conflict. So um But that aside, as a general rule, you can amend you can make your land development regulations more stringent and maybe what the zoning originally
Permitted, if that makes sense.
Does that open up the county for lawsuits from those who have already been entitled.
Okay, that's a difficult question for me to answer. I mean the the Harris Act does does have does create a potential cause of action when you basically, you know, take away somebody's uses. Um but there's
Here. I don't think that that case law is is developed enough for me to say that definitively to you that that it's gonna result in liability just because you change the regulations. It it's a it's a case by case scenario and I can't really answer that until I saw the actual regulation that we were changing has applied to a particular piece of property. But even if it did The Harris Act has a mechanism where the property owner can submit a request to the county and say, What you've done in this new regulation is enormously
burdened by entitlements and we can then we have an opportunity to address it, fix it, give them a variance, give them something to address that potential impact.
And they don't like what we propose then they can sue us. So th the Harris Act is a process where we can try to address the situations you're talking about. Okay. So as a general rule I don't I don't think the county should
not do new land development regulations out of fear of liability. Where where you have the the biggest risk of a herasat claim is when you basically Down zone somebody's property. In other words, you say your property was entitled to thirty units and we're now giving you one. Okay, that that's probably the clearest case of a Harris Act diminution. But where you get into things like new parking regulations or new stormwater regulations, that's less that's that's clear.
Let me tell you where w w what I'm thinking where I'm going to go.
In Connected City.
This
is a special planning area. And although we've developed a special connected city land development code,
maybe connected city is where a form based code would have made more sense. Here we are arguing about whether a building should be up on the street Whether a a mixed use should be vertically integrated. In other words, what the form of development should look like. instead of our text-based land development code, which is more applicable to our run-of-the-mill suburban development, which this wasn't intended to be.
Uh
My thinking. And I'm sure Well, I can safely say it. Mr. Two's left the building, so he won't attack me on the way out of the building, but He's waiting. He'll just get me next meeting, that's fine. Um
Seems to me like maybe there needs to be a moratorium in Connected Cities. Well we figure out how to fix the land development code. to better achieve the ultimate goals of Connected City. All that being said When it comes to this case I find no reason to deny it just because the goals of Connected City have not been achieved. I don't think it's this applicant's fault that those goals
haven't been achieved. They're they're surrounded by other much, much larger approved MPUDs.
Which? I don't know whether it was the Planning Commission, the County Commission, the Planning Staff. Wasn't paying attention.
didn't achieve all of these objectives. But I don't think we're gonna fix the problems of Connected City by denying this application. So I will make the move the motion to approve this application and then when we're done I'd like to make a second motion. Can I assume the motion is with the prior amendments that we made to the commissioners? Yes, that would include all the prior amendments that we had during this discussion. And my second motion won't
have anything to do with this discussion.
Let me ask a question about the conditions real quick. We and I'll refer to you all who do more site development than I do. We changed condition fifty, that last sentence we changed any floodplains stormwater compensation and or wetland mitigation required can be off site. Can they can you do
floodplain mitigation off site? Well, to be clear, the change we made was as you say shall be located within the residential portion of the MPD or an off site mitigation tank. So it's either it's or
I have seen instances where floodplain mitigation has been done off-site. However, the Water Management District is very particular about that issue in that
The mitigation could happen off site but it needs to be in the same hydrologic watershed because the mitigation in a in another watershed isn't going to mitigate for fill of this watershed. That's a rare occurrence. Does it happen? Yes. I think a combination of the two? I think what the intent of condition fifty is, is that the service ready site area needs to be pad ready. You need
to be able to build it And if that means they've got a next ten town homes out of their town home development to make that stormwater pond accommodate additional floodplain compensation then that's what they need to do and I'm satisfied with condition fifty.
Yeah as long as it says both that
that makes sense as well. So I think the motion we added an or to that but could it be an ad or could could be a combination of two. So we have some mitigation on site as well as some credit added to the
Do you want to change it to and or uh or I think d wasn't the motion or I think the motion was or, yeah. Just in the grammar whether you wanted to say and or I don't think that's in into the world. If you want to I don't remember who made that motion, but if you want to remake the motion to say and or an offsite mitigation area. I will happily amend my motion to approve that. Can we get a second for that amended motion? Yes. I
think
I seconded the
I
think I think.
Clerk's having a hard time following what's going on.
Right.
No, no, this was that was for the mo the motion for the project. This was earlier we made the motion to amend that language.
The motion that I put on the floor I am willing to amend in what Mr. Pond has said.
He's amending a prior motion he made previously.
Right. This is a sub motion. Yeah. So we have a motion and a sub motion. Second. Uh all in favor? Aye. Aye. Yeah, I seconded
it. Okay, so to be clear now is a motion to just amend condition fifty. Now
yes, now back to your original motion.
Let's get to the point here.
Okay, back to your
Now we have let's go back to his original motion, which is to approve the project as amended previously.
Right, and then we were looking for the second and I think Matt had a question. Matt, did you get the answer? I did. Okay. So d are you seconding the motion, Matt? No.
Do we have a second?
Well then I'll second the motion because I think we need to move on with this motion. We have to come to a a way to solve this problem. And I think your next motion, if I can just assume that your next motion is gonna have to be a have to deal with the You know. Amending that the issues, yeah. The issues that we talked about. So So we have a motion, we have a second, any further discussion?
Yeah, I guess first I mean Uh John, I I completely agree. I mean I to to put the burden on this property owner and this developer to fix prior sins is is not fair. My problem with this one is is I think there's a lot of things that are outlined in the land use that are not necessarily met with what's proposed here in the zoning. That that's that's my opposition and that's why I'm ig I'm in that's why I didn't second the motion in the first place. So
Okay. Yeah, the discussion on the motion.
Okay, so we have a motion and a second, no further discussion. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Pro call.
Do you need your Rarty?
No.
Christopher Poole? Hi. John Moody? Hi. Matthew Mines? Matthew. Jared Matlitz? Chris Williams.
Hi.
Chairman Charles Gray.
No.
All right,