Evans County Line 80 MPUD PDE 257738 zoning amendment

24:33Okay, and the last item that we have on the agenda today is a zoning amendment in the name of Evans County Line 80 MPUD, presented by William Vermillion.

24:43Janna, before you start that I wanted to just note that when I pull up a mapper, I still see the rural area within the urban concentration area that's there. I I assume there's a lag in getting the GIS updated, but I know that's been pulled out of the you know, we had the issues with the uh the the rural area in the urban concentration area.

25:03Yeah, correct.

25:04Right. Yes, sir. That that rural urban air service area has been adjusted. There may be a lag at GIS, but it has it has been noted and it's in process. Okay, good. Right, thank you. I'm not Will Vermillion. He's handsomer than I am. My name is David Engel. I am the Planning and Economic Development Director for Pasco County. And what I'd like to do is provide you with a 10,000 foot uh s sight line to what's occurred uh with the Evans 80 project since the commission last deliberated on the uh project.

25:35Uh the applicant and I have had extensive meetings, and we've come up with an alternative MPUD that will be presented today, and the details will be discussed by Mr. Vermillion. But I just wanted to give you a broad overview of what's transpired and what's changed. The Evans organization has agreed to at least For 20 years to eliminate multifamily housing as a component of this project. They've also agreed to modify the land uses

26:05on the property to be more business-centric for the local community. Originally there were 300 multifamily units. There was 150,000, 1.5 million square feet of warehouse space. So the new MPUD plan does not have any multifamily included. The warehouse distribution has been capped off at 500,000 square feet. There'll be a million square feet of other types of um commercial and industrial development, um capping the retail that'll support

26:36the business center to a hundred thousand square feet. So you're gonna have approximately um nine hundred thousand to a million square feet of small business flex that serves the local community. The applicant has also agreed and included in our documentation modifications that they are going to provide the appropriate setbacks off of the scenic roadway called Lake Iola Road. And they've also agreed to architectural review standards for the

27:06buildings that are visible from Lake Iola Road. We'll be using different types of treatments, whether it be brick or other facade elements, so we don't see pre-cast tilt-up concrete from the roadway. Uh there is going to be two um additional modifications that'll occur between now and the Board of County Commissioners meeting. One is there is a specific reference in the EDA to the O6 Employment Center and the Comp Plan and the O6 Settlement. Since

27:36there is an elimination, at least now in the MPD plan, removing a residential, the County Attorney's Office and Counsel for the applicant are going to clean that up. And then there since this has been pending for several years now, the variation for the uh lack of an interconnection on the uh one part of the property that has to be updated to the current code, and that'll be done so also also. So after the board or the commission renders an opinion and

28:07decision today, the recommendation is brought to the Board of County Commissioners. There's going to be a companion piece which will include not only the MPUD but an economic incentive agreement to incentivize the construction of $11 million worth of infrastructure to support the business part. The reason is is that we're we're creating a new market up here and we want to have it done in a manner that is uh compatible with the existing Northeast area. And in the event that after 20 years and

28:37we default back to having a multifamily residential component,

28:43there'll be a clawback provision that they have to pay back a proportional share of the incentive agreement. uh any incentive dollars. So that's in a nutshell. Um if you if you have any questions I'll be here and I'd like to have Will present the details of the amended application. Thank you.

29:02So David just one other major change. I think staff has now changed the recommendation from denial to approval. Oh

29:11yes, yes, very much so, because it's been substantially modified to the extent where there's been an elimination of the multifamily and the commercial industrial component is serving the local community and not just uh distribution, you know, uh queuing off of the I-75 location because the warehousing and distribution doesn't employ a lot of jobs. and it's it's not a real tr uh traffic it's not a real tax generator and lastly and most importantly it doesn't serve local business people in the Northeast area.

29:40To be clear though it's not an elimination of multifamily, it's a moratorium for twenty years.

29:45That's correct. Um and the reason is is that we have an O six court settlement that the county executed allowing uh three hundred multifamily apartment units. I feel confident that with the incentives and the momentum of the project that we'll never get to the point where you have to consider apartment construction on this property.

30:04Are there other components of that economic incentive agreement or is it really related to that the infrastructure improvement?

30:09It's purely um eleven million dollars worth of infrastructure.

30:13Are you able to talk about what

30:15excuse me?

30:16Are you able to at a broad level talk about what that entails?

30:20Uh as far as what sir.

30:22Infrastructure improvement.

30:23Oh yes, I I have probable costs that have been generated by their civil engineer. And and might I add, you know, if there is a clawback after twenty years, um I I just wanted to make a point that that clawback will add to the cost basis of the apartments and make it more market difficult. No, I just mean what type of

30:41infrastructure?

30:42Well there there's there's uh you know there's sewer I I mean not sewer but there's uh storm sewer, roadways, uh pad ready construction, laterals going into the industrial properties.

30:54Can I ask the question a different way, David? One of the reasons you staff recommended denial originally was because of the utilities. Mm-hmm. Is any of are is the county having is part of this money going to go to extend utilities to the site or

31:08will not. There's a specific stipulation in the amended MPUD conditions of approval that in unless the county provides utilities at one point in time, all of the individual individual parcels will be served by well and septic.

31:22And when I read that condition. Am I correct in interpreting the language that it must be well in septic that that precludes any type of package plant out there?

31:34It does, and in fact we had to adjust the language to preclude a package plant on that property. And why? Because county policy is we don't want to have any more package plants in the in the county.

31:46I don't understand why. Why would I want Why would I want a septic system? Which is not capable of reducing nitrogen to the same levels as a packaged wastewater treatment plant. Why would that be a preferred option?

32:02Well the type of uses that'll be employed on the property, the the waste will be domestically related and not process related.

32:09Well, domestic waste is a nitrogen generator. No, I

32:13understand

32:13why I'm asking. I just don't understand why we would want to use low level tech instead of uh higher level tech.

32:19Well again I I just, you know, implement county policy. I don't have an answer for you, but that's the policy of the county at this time.

32:27That's a question I'm gonna be asking, so you might want to get someone from Utilities to explain that.

32:32I I had that same question too.

32:36Okay,

32:36so Thank you very much, Mr. Vermillion. Thank you, David.

32:48Good afternoon. William Vermillion Planning Development Economic Growth. Before I get started there have been some exporte communications provided to the clerk's office on this project.

33:01Thank you.

33:11Perfect. Dramatic pause.

33:14I didn't have to fill the time too much this time.

33:18This is the Evans County Line Road ADM PewDie of course, PDE 257738. We'll breeze through this uh this early stuff. Every everybody here knows where this is at.

33:30Of course the the entitlements requested. the location map, the zoning map, and the future land use map reflecting employment center. Here's an overall context map, and this shows the area in terms of what's planned in terms of the future land use of the area. The subject site highlighted in red, that purple area which encompasses the subject site is all employment center. from the subject side at Lake Iowa all the way to the I-75 interchange. To the south immediately, residential

34:01nine dwelling units per acre. Across Blanton Road there's the old mixed use flu which is more intense in the wilds for more density than the current employment center. And then as we get across the interchange Light Industrial Employment Center and some some commercial future land uses. Showing that this isn't just a a standalone parcel with employment center in the Northeast Rural. It's characterized by the whole area. Here's the new master plan that David was speaking to

34:33you'll notice the uh the green space there is that that fifty foot uh buffer on Lake Iowa Road. The applicant has agreed to both the the scenic corridor buffering as well as the the building buffering and facades that are in uh LDC 6045 and Northeast Rural from the scenic corridors as well as the buffering requirements of the Northeast Rural Overlay.

35:00Vit of course uh David spoke about this uh this variation changing The what was in your agenda memo spoke to the possibility of an interconnection to the north Uh previously we had worked with the applicant to try to get a possible stub out to the north, but after after talks with the community and talks with the gentlemen that live up there There's no requirement for an interconnection to the north and that's spelled out in condition nineteen, specifically the northern connection. The eastern connection is there's still a variation for.

35:30There's a large category one wetland that the applicant doesn't tend to impact.

35:37A little bit of an overview of what what David just went over, talking about the Companion Economic Development Agreement that's being drafted and will be heard concurrently with this MPUD. which speaks to the period of time and which multifamily can't be applied for. per that EDA and condition thirty one of your your new agenda packet. There is a rural cross section which is being adopted for Lake Iola Road as well as enhanced buffering and roadway features. That condition is in condition 16 and if I could take a pause from the

36:07presentation, I have sent that cross section over to Patty. Patty if you don't mind pulling that up just to illustrate. The the rural cross section it's a hundred and thirty five feet, but a majority of that is is a clear space and um there's a twenty-five foot buffer of trees along each side of open space.

36:30And where does that extend from, William? From where to where, roughly?

36:35It it's any um scenic highway per the

36:39project where we're the

36:40so this this is the frontage but as well as that that southern road bland is also a portion of this as well. Okay. And so once it's the frontage.

36:57Okay.

37:06Is that is that sufficient time for the typical? I didn't wanna I didn't wanna take it away from you guys if you were if you were studying it too hard. But uh I'll go back to the presentation now.

37:16I'd seen it before many, many years ago.

37:20It does it does look like one of the the hand drawn types. Yes, it it appears so. And that that of course is within the um condition sixteen.

37:31Basically fifty five feet from the travel lane, so it looks like

37:39Thanks,

37:39uh perfect.

37:42Condition thirty-two speaks to the additional building buffering and design features that David touched on with those facades and the specific industrial buffering requirements as well as the maintenance responsibility of the applicant. This uh this is specifically talking to the the fifty foot setbacks as well as the possibility of a six foot wall or the option of a berm. To support commercial acreage again was reduced from a total of ten to eight acres in condition thirty-three and as well as two conditions speaking to the first, uh when

38:12we last spoke we talked about the employment Center master plan, the comprehensive plan that was uh was contemplated to be adopted in this area. Condition thirty five speaks to this MPUD acting in good faith when that m master plan is contemplated in the event that it is developed, that there'll be a portion of that master plan in the future. And condition thirty-six speaks to the improvements at the interchange of seventy-five, even though they're well away from the the project applicant is willing to work on that I-75 County

38:42Road 41 interchange with the applicable parties when those those improvements do happen as development comes with the uh the future land use that I showed on a previous slide.

38:54And this comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions. I'm here for any questions.

38:59Any questions for Will?

39:02So I d I do have one. Um look at the Romanodes. So we're worried about the buffering from Lake Iowa Road and and other areas, but what I read through the uh

39:15The allowances we're letting them go sixty feet high on building heights for both I understand the multifamily is gonna be delayed for twenty years, but the industrial is also or the commercial piece in industrial pieces sixty foot high?

39:31Yes sir it is important I believe to note, and Joel can correct me if I'm wrong, the where we last stood was that the multifamily component was Yeah. was largely restricted to townhomes, so there'll be nowhere close to sixty feet as well as condominiums. But as far as the condominium restriction goes, we don't control Platting for condominium, so we may need some Help with David Goldstein on how the enforceability works for for condominiums in that condition. But for for the industrial, yes, sixty

40:01feet. Okay.

40:02If I recall that's that's a specific comment that was pretty strongly um suggested by the public as far as the height of the structures and and looking into neighboring properties and the like so I just wanted to bring that up for consideration. I mean most industrial buildings are thirty five, forty feet clear right. So

40:20Correct, and I'll let the applicant speak on if they're willing to reduce that or not.

40:24Okay.

40:27William, can you leave that plan back up just for a second? 'Cause I have a question. I don't if it was best to answer it 'cause it's dealing with the E DA, but the eleven million dollars that was quoted is it Is it basically funding the on site roadway network and stormwater plant ponds? I'm not I just wanted to get a general I don't think we need all the details, but I'm trying to figure out to Mr. Moody's question earlier what is it

40:54Well we we don't have an E DA at this time.

40:57What was discussed? How about that?

40:59What was discussed was the roadway improvements on Lake Iola, the internal collector road and service roads, uh regrading of the site, balancing the the fill on the property, and also creating pad ready. Locations to promulgation by the industrial market.

41:16So it's the horizontal infrastructure the county funds wouldn't be used to put in the buffering or any of that stuff. Is that what you're advising?

41:30Okay. So as general it's the it's The road rate improvements on Lake Iola, the on site roads, site clearing and stormwater. Is that

41:40generally accurate? Yes, sir, it's generally accurate, that's correct.

41:46David, um so if the if this entire area is built out according to the future land uses that are there. So the employment center, the um multi um uh multi use, the um light industrial and so forth, do you guys foresee the need for Additional improvements to Lake Yola and some of the roads around.

42:09Well, I I think we need to have a master plan for that area of the county. It

42:12is

42:12an employment center area. There is some currently high higher density residential and commercial areas there, and we have to we need a sub-area policy that will govern the future development there. So our next phase is since Evans is not part of that, they'd cooperate, but they're already here. Um we're gonna we're gonna come forth with a uh area plan and bring it forth to the Planning Commission for review.

42:35'Cause that was kind of um I'm looking at the buffering for this particular project, which we've improved the buffering from the last time we spoke, obviously, but if we end up having to make improvements to Lake Yola Road as the rest of the area gets built out over time, then that's gonna erode into that buffering, uh, obviously and it's gonna reduce some of the setbacks from where the buildings end up getting built. So

42:55Well we're going to maintain consistency with that cross-section through future development there in that area of the county. Those those two roads, Lanton and Lake Iola, are designated scenic roadways, so there'll be uniformity to the cross-section that we showed you.

43:10So question about the master plan. When we last discussed this item, one of the issues I was not comfortable with was that for this EC, the comp plan specifically called for a stepping down of the intensity of the uses as we get towards the northeast rural area. I see the step down in intensity from east to west, but

43:41I don't see a step down in intensity from north, from south to north up against the the AR5 and AG flu land use category.

43:58Well, you

43:58know,

43:58it's it's it's it's really an east-west transect that we're working with on a north south. Um and one of the one of the reasons why this project's been laid out as such is is that the most Maybe unappealing visual construction is the distribution side and that'll be down in the low end of the property and invisible from the roadway. Regarding the north and south property owners, they'll they'll have to comply the uh Evans project will have to comply with our buffer requirements between industrial and residential.

44:31Why don't you feel there's a need to step it down only in the other direction?

44:37Um I d I don't have a com I don't have an answer for that. I mean

44:42you say it's an east-west transect will

44:45that's the way that the plan is designed now.

44:47Well I understand that. I can see that and so was the previous plan step down from east to west. I recognize that and I maybe my comment was misunderstood at the last meeting. What I was looking for is some step down in intensity to help ease the impact to the residents immediately adjacent to the north.

45:07Um okay so

45:09they're they're not separated by a roadway like Lake. No, no, no, I no I I understand what you're getting at right away. They gotta they're gonna have a six foot berm according to the conditions of approval with potentially sixty foot high buildings.

45:23Well uh that that we can open up with the with the applicant at this point. Okay. Thank you.

45:31Yeah, I understand that it's um it's gonna have to conform with the the buffering that's associated with industrial, but um you know, that's that's what applies to the rest of the county. This is northeast rural protection area, so

45:48Well and the issue is the comp plan didn't buffering's required and I appreciate the buffering, but the comp plan specifically calls for a step down in intensity.

45:57Well intensity and

45:58buffering

45:58aren't the one.

46:02But we we did put um a uh automotive access driveway between the property line and the industrial uses to provide additional setback. It doesn't answer your question, but you know, we did try to address it through design. Uh I'm

46:18talking about on the north side. I see on the south side. Yeah, the road's on the south side.

46:22I don't have an answer, sir, and and I would hope that the applicant could have a discussion with the Planning Commission on that matter.

46:28Okay. So let me ask this too in one of the conditions of approval about The master plan says that the county part designed this, so what was the county's involvement in designing this and when did the county get in the business of designing master plans?

46:45Well i we we didn't design the plan, we designed the appropriate land uses for the property.

46:53And I didn't we didn't we didn't we didn't prepare the consent plan. They did it under our direction in our in our negotiation.

47:04Okay. Good catch.

47:10Okay.

47:13Anything else from up here for the applicant? Right. The applicant present?

47:23Yes, Mr. Chairman. Joel II, Development Consultant, 4700 Ridgeview Road, Palm Harbor, Florida, and I represent the property owner and the applicant, Evans Properties, Inc. Um Before I get into the uh revisions that the applicant has agreed to with uh Planning staff. Um I do want to just to perfect the record just in case there is a challenge by anyone down the road to this

47:53proceeding to specifically incorporate by reference all the documents and the prior testimony that we submitted at the February 6th, 2025 hearing when this was continued. The other Bookkeeping item is after that February sixth hearing where For the first time we heard some discussion about comp plan consistency Uh you'll recall a lot of that discussion. Uh we asked our

48:23planning consultant, Ronald F. Pianta, AICP from Coastal Engineering and Associates, To prepare a written consistency analysis that I won't bore you with all the details, but we would like permission to submit that for filing and into the record just so the record is perfected on any consistency.

48:45Move to receive the file. Second.

48:49Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

49:05Thank you for indulging the procedural niceties. I have been authorized by Evans Properties Incorporated, as I said, the property owner and applicant. To acknowledge that the applicant now agrees with the proposed revisions to the conditions of approval and the revised conceptual master plan. And I emphasize the word conceptual because that of course is what the MCU MPUD

49:35master plan is. We concur and appreciate staff's recommendation of approval with these conditions. One item which was addressed a moment ago by the Planning Commission, the proposed building height on the industrial uses. To my knowledge, that was just a standard building height that's been approved repeatedly by the county and it's authorized in the Land Development Code of 60 feet. However, in consultation with my client

50:06and our engineer, we're happy to reduce that 60-foot height to 45-foot building height. Our engineer assures us that that should suffice for either the flex space or any distribution space. So we're happy to make that reduction and we'll stipulate to that change in that. Condition. Um As to the other two items I was going to address.

50:33Before you leave the height issue, there's also a sixty foot height for I realize it's only potential use is the residential are you Sticking with your wanting 60 foot on that one?

50:47No, in the event uh in the event that there does become a residential element, which I think we all acknowledge is extremely unlikely if this is approved based on the current conditions, because obviously once we start the site development. and invoke the economic sin of agreement. We're probably going to hit the point of no return very quickly in phase one, would be my guess. But to answer your question, Mr. Goldstein, the same 45 feet would certainly be adequate on the residential element. So we would agree to that.

51:17So you would agree to forty five feet for any use basically.

51:20Correct. I think across the board forty five foot height limit is perfectly acceptable for the the corporate office park, the flex space, uh even if there were townhomes or anything of that sort uh twenty one years or later from now.

51:37So those those two changes would be fine. Um on the Lake Iola frontage, I just wanted to point out that it's not just the fifty foot buffer landscape setback area, that that is in addition to the additional right-of-way that we're providing. So there was some comment that future improvements to Lake Iola could somehow take away from that fifty foot buffer. That's that's not correct. because we're using the full right-of-way width that the Master Roadway

52:07Plan, the County's adopted long-range plan has for the ultimate build-out improvements. So we're we're not only dealing the additional right-of-way. for that future road improvement, but still have from that 50 feet more set back with the landscape buffer and quarter. Um On the north boundary uh I think our position on that is uh is pretty firm and let me explain why. Um I think when the county

52:38designated employment center on this property Um everyone knew that that meant that this was going to be an employment center within that overall Northeast Rural Protection Area, and we discussed that. So I think it's patently unfair to say that somehow we can't use that. I think Evans offer to provide when the code only requires a fifteen foot Set back on that boundary. And we're offering

53:08not only 50 feet, more than three times the setback, but committing to either build a six-foot berm with landscaping or a solid opaque wall, no PVC. I think that setback transition clearly fulfills the intent of any buffering, transition, step-down, whatever you'd like to call it. And I point out, not to cast stones, but now that we've looked further, that one adjoining property to the north that has a home. It actually has five structures on that

53:38property, some of which are literally right on our property line. So it's not like we're doing something that isn't done there. I don't know if all those are permitted. I don't know if all those are in compliance, but there are like five structures. on that parcel. So I think we're being very generous here to set back 50 feet, landscape, buffer, berm, build a wall, and we're agreed to do that for our full northern boundary, which is quite a run. So Respectfully, that's really all we can

54:08do there. We're taking quite a shot here given what Evan's opinion of its vested rights are. Uh and I think this is a very fair compromise. And as I said, I appreciate Mr. Ingall and his staff. uh coming to terms with us on this prop proposal and we greatly would encourage you to please uh recommend approval if you can see fit. We're happy to answer any questions.

54:34Trying not to ask you a law question without making you practice law. I asked the question about the intention.

54:40I'll punt that to the lawyers.

54:44There are there's a condition in here about when the MPUD becomes effective and expirations of appeal periods and it's almost like there's an anticipation that there may be litigation following this. That was the reason for my question. I was looking to try to figure out do we have something that's defensible if this is appealed.

55:04Well I I can address that by telling you uh what Evans Council. Uh they they participated obviously in drafting that provision. Mr Goldstein has reviewed it. Um you always hope you don't have a third party challenge, uh consistency challenge, but obviously For Evans to give up its 2006 vested rights that its attorneys firmly believe they have, we need assurance that either we get this package

55:35resolution uh approved or we don't. And if we don't, the attorneys insist that we go back. To ground zero and be able to stand upon those existing rights. So we have no knowledge of any third-party challenge. This is just in an abundance of caution in case someone sees fit. Obviously, if you recommend approval and the BCC feels sees fit to approve it, we're hopeful that that will be the end of it and the 30-day period will run. Uh

56:05with no appeal being filed. And we can proceed with the project and do our best to implement the economic development agreement with Mr. England.

56:15Is there any

56:18development advantage to you having the ability to have a package plant versus the second such

56:23okay I appreciate you bringing that back up. Um we are in agreement with what staff has told us is the administration's strong preference on how utilities be dealt with. Uh that's been county utilities and county administrators policy for quite a while here. Yeah. Uh we all know that these specific comprehensive plan policies in this case appear to authorize something more, such as a package plant.

56:55And and again, we're trying to make peace. Uh we're willing to do it the county's way. if that gets this resolved. But if you notice even the redraft of that particular condition, it does say there in the red line part, unless otherwise agreed between the county and the applicant. So In the event, the county engineer public utilities and or the county administrator decide that they get comfortable with something else, that condition would allow us to do that.

57:25But if they don't change their mind and agree that that's a better solution, then obviously we're authorized to go with the Wells Inseptic. So I think that's to be addressed and our capable engineer may try to do, as you know, exactly what you said. He may try to convince the county engineer that there actually is a better solution. and that's more environmentally friendly and doesn't really hurt the counties. Business position. Uh clearly we're not getting utilities business, we're

57:56just trying to provide for our own project.

57:59And I I'm not I don't know where you know I I don't understand what the reason for that particular policy David alluded to was. What I'm looking for is what's good for the environment and you know we're trying to get some kind of thing.

58:19The underlying concern is that the county has had to go out and acquire a number of private utilities at great expense to the taxpayers of Pasco County and utility ratepayers, and I think they're trying to avoid having to go out and acquire another private utility. But I but David Engle could tell me that.

58:39Well I will tell you I in absolutely no way support the creation of a private utility, but using the highest and best technology for the environment. I don't think we should then be ruling out a technology because we're scared of a utility. That that's all. I I in no way would support a private utility here.

58:59I I concur with Mr. Goldstein's characterization of the why of that policy. Um we just don't want to inherit a failed package plan and have to take it.

59:09Well I don't think you want to f inherit a failed industrial septic system either. That's a lot worse for the environment.

59:15Well sir, I I don't you know, that's that's the direction I've had since I've been here for seven years to avoid package plans. So I can only tell you that and I'm

59:23I'm just saying Whoever makes such policies, there's a difference between having a package plant and having a private utility. There's lots of mobile home parks out here and RB parks that have their own package plants that aren't private utilities that aren't a problem for the county. And I don't see here anybody proposing to create a private utility, so I hope they'll rethink that policy. But the applicant appears to be in agreement. I'm going to let it go, but I I'm just telling the powers that be, you might want to

59:53rethink that.

59:54Yeah, I I agree with Mr. Moody on that. I never read that condition as being a private utility condition, but using the highest and best technology in a package plant that's available. So hopefully they will reheat their line. Yeah.

1:00:09Okay.

1:00:11Any other questions from up here? I think just from a procedural standpoint, um Joel, I guess while you're up here, uh probably a question for you. I know at the last hearing we had closed public comment, but I believe there's been some discussion and since this the county's position changed, etcetera. I I I think it's probably best to reopen this for public comment. Do you agree?

1:00:34Yes, I was asked that question and I conferred with uh Evans Properties Legal Counsel and also with Evans Properties and we agree that at least on the subjects of the conditions which have been revised and the revised master plan, namely the new changes that it'd be appropriate to offer any member of the public who wishes to address those new points, uh the opportunity to speak again. We have no objection to that. I think it's probably the correct thing to do. Okay, thank you.

1:01:03And Joel and one more thing while you're up here and you might need your conditions of approval on it, but it's thirty-two D, it deals with the northern uh buffer. And appreciate your efforts there. It's it's really great to to see that added, but I did notice in there that parking is a permitted use within that buffer area. Um Um you know it's however that landscape drainage parking, perimeter wall berm, similar features to be allowed within the uh fifty foot building setback area. Um so are we saying that parking

1:01:34is gonna be allowed within

1:01:35Well my thought was that if we're required to do a six foot berm with landscaping on top or a six foot opaque wall that cars parked there will not be visible from the adjacent property anyway because of that required screening. So and you know, I didn't think there was any harm in having, you know, a roll of parking behind the building for employees or something if if that's what the site we have obviously laid out these lots, but I just don't see what the harm is of uh flat surface

1:02:05parking.

1:02:08That answers my question. about a step down in uses. Okay, parking is a reduction in the intensity of the use. Okay.

1:02:16Would you be agreeable to vehicular parking? Parking could be trucks and maybe not

1:02:21true trucks. That's a very fair comment. Yes. Yes, sir. We would be happy to stipulate that along that northern um buffer area that it had to be just vehicular surface car. Yeah, vehicular passenger vehicle parking.

1:02:35What condition number is that? Thirty two feet.

1:02:40Just so we don't lose track, can we just get a motion for that change now? So mo

1:02:46Motion and a third? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.

1:02:52Well we'll we'll work that condition out with Mr. Ingall and Mr. Goldstein since we have a couple other things to tweak here before uh BCC. Do we

1:02:59want to do that? I also wanted to address briefly address Mr. Moody's question. Yes, I do think it's nobody asked me whether I thought it

1:03:05was

1:03:05defensible, and I'm the one that probably would have to defend it. But it was interesting that you asked Joel.

1:03:13But yes, I think it is subject to us making a tweak to condition one related to the applicability of the comp plan. But Joel and I have discussed that that can be done and Uh but I do have one question before we do open it up to public comment, um related to condition twenty-five. And it's based on the discussion Planning Commission just had. I guess my question is I'm wondering whether the unless meet you agreed otherwise by the county and the MPD owner might be in

1:03:43the wrong spot. Like I'm wondering if it belongs after It says shall be required to utilize wells, water, storage tanks, and septic tanks. I'm wondering if that should say unless mutually agreed otherwise by the can because that's a sentence dealing with

1:04:02Yes,

1:04:03I I I agree with you just in case public utilities and administrator decide that a purely private technology plant that isn't for public customers and isn't a private utility would be a better solution. So yes, David, I do agree that just moving that qualifier up. would probably remove ambiguity 'cause that's what I'm talking. I'm saying that if the county insists, then we're committed to do well in Seth. But I would at least like the opportunity for

1:04:33our engineer when we get into specific site design to be able to have a sit-down. with the county engineer and utilities and and hopefully convince them to do the best the best solution.

1:04:46But, you know, we understand we can't commit the county to that because as of this date that's contrary to their policy.

1:04:55But moving that qualifier is a good idea. We can do that in the uh touch up for BCC.

1:05:02If we could get a motion on that one too. Motion moved. Do we want to do the building right while we're at it? Yes. Yes, let's uh and also reduce the building height to forty five feet for all the uses. So moved again.

1:05:15Is there something else we missed besides those two? Okay. That's it.

1:05:21Okay, motion a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Did you all get all that? Yeah.

1:05:31Oh so th just to clarify what we just approved, it was the the modification of the building height to forty-five feet for all uses. For all uses. And it was the revision to condition twenty-five to move that unless mutually agreed upon language up to the discussion on the septic tanks and wells.

1:05:53Okay.

1:05:57Um okay now we'll we will open this up for public comment. Is there anybody here to speak on this item?

1:06:04You want to call them an order, Gianna, that that everybody signed up?

1:06:11So we'll call that person and then we'll go through Co open comment.

1:06:15Uh Ryan Sleiner. Sliner.

1:06:18Sorry.

1:06:22Uh hello again. Uh Ryan Flynn, uh [address removed]. Um here representing my family, uh my in-laws, my wife and my children. I first want to say thank you to all parties for migrating away from the original concept to the 300 apartments, townhomes, whatever you want to call them, and the 1.5 million square feet of warehouses. While this is a great step forward, as a directly affected party, I still have a lot of questions, concerns, and seek insurances.

1:06:54I have read the Northeast Pasco Road Protection. Overlay district over and over again. And the one line that sticks out more than any other is in the intent and purposes section. The provision of this section is intent are intended to assist in preserving and protecting Northeast Pasco County's existing rural and agricultural character for existing residents. while providing for the areas of order orderly and appropriate growth to allow future residents the opportunity to enjoy this its rural lifestyle. Um

1:07:24I'm not against, I want to make that clear, I'm not against the Evans' right to develop their property. I just want it to be compatible. with the area and being directly next door to the north um It means a lot to us. So Uh that said, my questions and concerns lie in how will this MPUD adhere to them to that mission statement. My questions and concerns are based on the understanding I should not be visually intruded upon by developments next to my rural residential property. We

1:07:56already talked about a little bit, but what is the maximum what is the set maximum building height? You said 45 feet. Mainly I asked that because I don't want something towering over me.

1:08:07Uh number two, we request assurances that the individual lots outlined in the master plan cannot be combined to backdoor their way back into additional large warehouses. Uh the buffering, um I appreciate that you guys are including us in the buffering, um but we request that it be the six foot burn with irrigated landscaping on top to provide additional height uh if you're going um to prove this.

1:08:39And number four, per F future Land use 2.1.9. We want restrictions on lighting to protect our night sky. I do not want to be intruded upon by bright lights at night. It's nice and dark and I can see the stars right now. I don't want to lose that. Um we very much like the idea of a business park, keyword park. We envision small offices in a l in a landscape setting s serving our local businesses and

1:09:09residents. Again, I thank you guys for all the meetings we had on this and the you know that it wasn't just a run through, so thank you.

1:09:21Thank you, Ryan.

1:09:24Uh next. Nancy, you're gonna come next?

1:09:34Wow, I'm amazed. Nancy Hayswood, [address removed]. I'm amazed at the jobs that y'all have done working on this. I see so much improvement and I wanna congratulate staff and planning on what they have Suggested. We're on the way to doing something much better than what was originally conceived. I want to point out that even though it's been asked quite a few times before, the county never came

1:10:04up with a plan on how the EC was supposed to fit into Northeast Rural. We did ask. We wanted special conditions for it in there. So that's why we're at this point today. And thank God you all have Finally worked it a hell of a lot better. I would like to, as I was talking about earlier, pervious surfaces would be perfect in this area and ought to be a condition

1:10:35all over Northeast Rome in order to help sustain our natural resources. Also, as Ryan said, lights. I was just looking at lights in different um commercial areas in Tampa. And if you think about Igor City and the lights they have there, those round things up there that don't affect the whole neighborhood. Because yes, right now we have dark sky. And we all like it there and

1:11:05appreciate it. Having some type of big overhead light is just not gonna get it. What we need is something smaller that fits in. And so I'm hoping that is something that we can come into. Thank you for your time and attention and any other suggestion that you can do that can help keep us a community and a small community, I'd appreciate it. Thank

1:11:34you all. Okay, thank you. Okay. Who's next? Yep. Come on

1:11:41up.

1:11:45Hi, my name is Judy Maddox. I live on [address removed], just down from the development area. And my concern is the traffic, and I know you've reduced it s by several hundred cars, um, with uh just a smaller amount of uh families going in there. But Lake Iola and Spring Lake Highway are getting very popular with people deciding that they can get through to going to Brooksville. Um from

1:12:15I seventy five and the County Road forty one exit and which has increased a lot of the traffic on there. And I'm afraid that there's going to be a lot of accidents because of that curve between Lantinham Road and Lake Iola Road. And I would like to see if we could do something about that intersection. And I know there's been several um studies done on it and Right now we have the RB park going in. and is gonna

1:12:45cause a major, major problem in there. So I'd like to see maybe a possible light in there or a roundabout of some not a roundabout. You don't want a roundabout with R B R Bs. Sorry. Um, but something that will help that intersection because it's the the road itself is getting very, very um crowded. And har sometimes it it takes a while to get out from Hawkeye Road onto Lake

1:13:16Iola Road. and I would like to s see a just a possible Uh um rearrangement of that intersection. Thank you.

1:13:32Is there anybody else here to speak?

1:13:35Mr. Chairman Mariano.

1:13:40But I or Joel can answer. I I don't know because I was not involved in the discussions of this. So The comment about the plan and whether it's subject to change, there is a condition that talks about it, that's conceptual that it's subject to change as long as the substantive intent is achieved. Is is the substantive intent for the purple area of the plan that it's going to be smaller

1:14:09office slash light industrial buildings and not large warehouses because it's showing Sort of more individu smaller lots for that area. And so I'm I just want to be clear because the the concern was raised that that area might become large warehouses as well, but I don't I don't know whether that condition necessarily prohibits it or not. I don't know what the substantive intent was for the purple area.

1:14:33Well, if you also look at the color coding on that, the intent and the discussion I had with Mr. Ingall, which he made pretty clear to me, uh was the answer to your question basically is yes. The intent is uh that any large flex warehouse distribution would be in the yellow area, just on the eastern part. That literally goes the elevation change almost a hundred foot drop, literally, where you would not even see. those

1:15:03buildings uh from either the west or the south. Uh and that the front half of the project, if you will, will be a corporate office parks slash smaller flex space on smaller individual lots. Now obviously the reason that both Mr. Ingall and I need a little bit of wiggle room is uh he's passed along Leeds with a couple very credible uh light industrial corporate park developers who are looking for that type of smaller flex space, but without having

1:15:34one of them actually on board. To come in and help design this, we don't know exactly what it will look like, but the intent is absolutely what you said, that the western half will be committed to those smaller, more individual local uses, and that any large use would be put on the back 40, if you will. In this case, literally the back 40, since it's an 80-acre tract. So yes. And that's why we color coded it differently.

1:16:02Yeah, I I read the color coding but it just says it says office slash light industrial. Light industrial could include Distribution. So But if if we

1:16:13we I'll be happy to work on the terminology and the coding on the master plan with mister with Mr. Engel, but that that's our intent.

1:16:21Are you looking for like

1:16:21a a

1:16:22square

1:16:23footage limit?

1:16:23Well I think we don't know until you get

1:16:26users. I don't I'm not necessarily looking for anything. I I'm I'm trying to be there's an existing condition that says that this plan is, I guess you could call it somewhat binding. It it's conceptually binding. But as long as the substantive intent is achieved, I was just trying to clarify what was the substantive intent for

1:16:45Well the subsequent tit is you're going to have this grid system. That's why we defined those roads. It was critical to have that one common road along the south boundary, for example, because if everything south of this does also E C. So we want the ability to integrate this with other corporate park, other uses. So there there was a method to the madness that Mr. Ingall and I went through to come up with what we did. We've got as specific as we thought we could be without having a user in hand. And

1:17:16I think in all fairness we need to have some trust and confidence in the planning staff to implement this uh when we get a user. We can't we can't plan and design something that doesn't exist.

1:17:30I I don't disagree with you. I was just trying to figure out to Just so it was on the record. Yeah. Because that condition doesn't say what the substantive intent of the plan is.

1:17:45The intent is that the larger users will be pushed to the rear part of the property. Smaller users would be pushed toward the front, along with any support commercial, with the intent being that we create something that looks like a integrated corporate office park look on the front with smaller flex-based users that are potentially office or clean light industrial or support commercial, and then you would transition on the rear

1:18:15half to either more Substantial industrial users or warehouse distribution, depending what the market is.

1:18:22I was gonna suggest you can make a modification to the color coding description that says, you know, office light industrial excluding warehouse distribution.

1:18:30That's a good idea. And office commercial industrial

1:18:33excluding

1:18:34warehouse distribution. But I I think as David pointed out, that is something that's allowed in the I-1 light industrial park. type zoning and distribution doesn't necessarily have to mean million square feet

1:18:48may not

1:18:48be huge. It could be

1:18:49uh Yeah, so I so I think look, I'm comfortable with Joel just said. It just it's not documented anywhere. So maybe staff William, are you listening? You could repeat what Joel just said somewhere in your agenda memo so that it ten years from now when somebody wants to know what the substantive intent of this plan was that it's documented somewhere.

1:19:10We can even add a note on the master plan. I think it's easier to verbalize it than it is to draw out specifically something that you don't have.

1:19:17Yeah I I'm not trying to lock anybody into anything. I wanna be clear. I just that there's a phrase in the condition that talks about the substantive intent of the plan and I didn't It's not stated anywhere. So I just want it s stated somewhere as to what The it clearly there's a different intent for the yellow area versus the purple area, but somebody needs to Explain what that is.

1:19:37Well it's just colors that I like.

1:19:42My new new my new power subsite.

1:19:44So Joe, could you speak to the the first gentleman that came up and spoke for public comment? He mentioned um the idea of a preference to a berm with some landscaping up top of the berm to add some height to it. Would would you be opposed to something like that?

1:19:59Thank you for bringing that up. That was my little asterisk right here by this item. I spoke with my client and our engineer, and because of the quantity of dirt that we need to move. on this typographically uh challenged site. Uh we will We will agree to delete the opaque wall option along the northern boundary and commit to doing the landscape burn. We're going to be moving a bunch of dirt anyway. We'll just move enough to burn that up and landscape it and irrigate it. It'll be a

1:20:29more attractive solution long term. And frankly one that we can maintain easier than maintaining a wall.

1:20:35Yeah. Excellent. And then the second part to that too is uh talking about um lighting at night. So

1:20:42now my understanding on that and William or Gavin or Mr. Ingall can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the L D C already requires directional light, right? I mean ought to be required to use directional down light.

1:20:58I think I think it was more directed towards um if now we've already reduced to to forty five feet so that's gonna help some but I think there might have been some concern even with directional lighting if you had a at the top of a forty five foot structure that can still create some light pollution. So

1:21:12as we all know you gotta do enough to be safe and not have liability and not have Right. Assaults

1:21:18in the parking lot. Maybe reducing the the lighting height down further on the building to still accomplish what you're trying.

1:21:33So you know we'll work with staff on that but we have no reason or desire to have robust lighting beyond whatever the code requires or can be approved on the construction plans.

1:21:44I do recall there have been some MPDs in the past where staff has imposed a dark sky lighting requirement, but I don't know if that's something that would apply here or not. Um maybe William or Terry, who knows what I'm talking about, but I mean if I've all seen that condition in other M P D If there's any

1:22:02place they have it, it wouldn't be within the rural protection

1:22:05area, but One of the things you have to take into consideration, and I agree with Joble, there's a fine line between I've got to have enough light for safety and security, and yet we don't want to disturb neighbors. But if we're going to have a six-foot-high landscaped berm, assuming there's trees and shrubs, and then I've got this tree canopy along Lake Iola Road and I've got an additional buffer along the frontage of Lake Iola Road. I've got

1:22:35lots of trees. that those things over time you know, over twenty or thirty years are going to get tall and they will provide an adequate light screen in and of themselves. We've got to keep that in mind. Maybe on day one they won't, but over time they will.

1:22:53Yeah, I mean i it's probably gonna be anything that's a it's around the edge of the property where the lighting may be an issue in the beginning and it especially if you do if you do do a parking area there along right behind that burn and you have parking lot lighting there so I could I could see that potentially being an issue for the neighbor of other neighborhood.

1:23:14We're happy to work on a condition with staff prior to BCC where where we try to work with what they're comfortable, they have parameters to do, let's say, on on any any perimeter areas adjacent on the west or north. Because the south is going to be employment center and the east is nothing. So we have no problem on the west and north boundary on the perimeter. Working working, working or being sensitive to to

1:23:44directional lighting and minimizing external light impacts. That that's not a problem. We'll come up with something with uh Mr. England. Mr. Vermillion on that.

1:23:55So has a cleanup item if somebody can make a motion there's condition yeah the thirty-two needs to be modified for the northern north side buffer. Somebody can make a motion to for that change.

1:24:08Yeah, to eliminate the opaque wall option.

1:24:11So moved. Second.

1:24:14All right, motion a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries.

1:24:20Um

1:24:23We also need to make uh somehow document, so I don't know if we need to make a motion to document this extent of the t intent for the areas to the east.

1:24:34It means the substantive ten of the the M P D plan. Yeah. I think if you just make a motion for staff to update in their that and their agenda memo, I think that would suffice. So move. Second.

1:24:45Uh motion and second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed.

1:24:49Motion carries. And then uh I don't know about the lighting if we need to address that at all in the motion. I know he's on record saying he'll work with staff on that, so

1:25:00Unless you have something specific that's I'd probably just let that lie until staff can figure it out. Sounds good. Yeah. I thought staff was gonna offer up a dark sky condition, but it barely

1:25:11Well that this is why I'm here willing for my explaining economics. I dropped the gun. A couple things for the record um before Barbara left our friendly neighborhood, Barbara left. Uh She uh she let me know that we did approve a task order In uh twenty twenty four for that intersection at Lake Planton and Iola for improvements there that was on the CIP. So we do have funding allocated for that that the citizen talked about. And uh Dark Skies is already required as a portion of the land development code in Northeast

1:25:41Rural.

1:25:42So the intersections in design or where is that?

1:25:45Uh we we have funds allocated for it and it's being designed and permitted by the the contractor.

1:25:50So let me get to your second comment though, William. I'm aware that it's required but I thought that was the section of the code that only applied to residential.

1:26:00Mr. Chairman Mm-hmm.

1:26:02Is that accurate or um

1:26:04Nicaragua's Petos Playing Development and Economic Growth? Um that is true that uh part of the code belongs to the residential, but I believe Lake Iola is residential rural. As a scenic road it would apply.

1:26:18Well,

1:26:19in an abundance of caution,

1:26:20can you just uh put it in your M P D conditions? Yeah. Yeah, we can't applies along Lake Lake Iola but not a shot along. Northern Boundary.

1:26:28Uh correct. But I I I don't disagree with the conversation that's taking place that you can put it into the conditions of the Joel's noted.

1:26:36Right. We we'll work on that condition that applies that gliding condition on the west and north boundary of the MPD. Terry,

1:26:43can you use a laboratory on what what does that mean? I mean what I don't want to do is give them a vague something that's a completely vague standard to meet. Of course

1:26:55unsafe. Th there's two classifications that appear in the comprehensive plan and the land development code. Scenic, rural roadway, and uh No, I'm talking about a dark sky. Oh, uh the dark sky. Uh one second.

1:27:14Yeah, I was

1:27:14curious too what that's right.

1:27:15I think it's in section six oh four of the football. Yeah, basically it provides um for outdoor lighting.

1:27:21Is there like a foot candle or a lumen restriction or something or

1:27:24Yeah, it's the based on the Illumination Engineering Society of North and Mary, the IES standard. Okay.

1:27:30All right. So there's a standard. All right. Fair enough.

1:27:36And I I think basically Joel just said he he acknowledged that he's gonna work with a condition for the B O C C meeting. Chris, did you have something else?

1:27:43I was just curious what that intersection if they knew what that intersection was gonna look like, yeah. Very good.

1:27:51It's anticipated to be a three way stop currently, is what the task order contemplated for the design and uh permitting. Okay.

1:27:58Thank you.

1:28:02Okay. Um any other further public comment? No? Anything else from the dice?

1:28:07Did we get the vehicle parking only change? I think we've

1:28:10got to do that.

1:28:12Okay. Yeah.

1:28:13If anybody wants to know what the dark sky requirement is six or four point five F of the code. But it talks about for subdivisions, that was my point, Carrie, is that it it doesn't clearly apply to And the office industrial park.

1:28:32So you'll create a condition that kind of mimics that are the same thing.

1:28:38It refers to the standards that are created by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America.

1:28:43Should have the Illuminati.

1:28:48I'm assuming that's a reputable organization if it's in our code, but I I can't tell you that I've ever read their their material.

1:29:01All right. I think we've closed public comment at this point.

1:29:05Joel, are you one guy?

1:29:06Did

1:29:06you want any more rebuttal or you're done? Okay, all right.

1:29:12Does somebody want to I mean

1:29:14we close Just Just as a reminder, if you take more public comment you're gonna get more rebuttal too but it's a question. But

1:29:20I like Joel too, so if you can't

1:29:23come forward please and

1:29:24I don't know,

1:29:25I need to be sworn in anything.

1:29:27Okay. You can't just raise your right hand and the clerk will swear you in.

1:29:31from the testimony you're about to give you so if you are

1:29:35My name is uh James Navarro Sr. And uh I have a question regarding your address, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh [address removed].

1:29:48Thank

1:29:48you. Um I have a question regarding the part of the commercial end, the back end of it. Can someone uh theoretically buy a a portion of that or are they renting a portion of that where they could have distribution or would that be denied? Say yeah the uh Evans uh folks said that the first uh the uh I guess the e east

1:30:18part of that commercial can be small units, but what about the back? How much of the back are they gonna buy and then say you know we need all uh this distribution and then we

1:30:31got the

1:30:31same

1:30:32problem sir sir if We can pull up the side plane so we know what you're talking about 'cause are you saying back and I don't know what you're talking about. Which part

1:30:39Well, the back and this back

1:30:41Which color which color? Yellow?

1:30:43The yellow, yeah. Okay. The yellow yeah, that portion, but the back half I I believe it's designated for um some kind of uh industrial

1:30:53area? My understanding is the entire yellow area is allow would be allowed to have distribution.

1:30:59Industrial distribution. Yeah. Where are we?

1:31:05is in the pur is in the purple area.

1:31:08Well I think what we're talking about is scale, right? Yeah. Right. We mean large, large scale distribution and warehousing. I mean

1:31:17How many acres? So he's he's talking about forty acres in that yellow area. So I say somebody comes along and wants excuse me. to buy the whole thing or to rent whatever their you know their agreement is, they can conceivably put a distribution center there. In the yellow area, am I incorrect?

1:31:36Yes, that's accurate. In the yellow area, correct. But not in the pink or purple.

1:31:40But I think what he's asking is could they buy the whole thing and turn it into that? And then I I think the answer is is no. Yeah, I think it's yes. It's yes. But yeah.

1:31:53where it doesn't meet the spirit of this plane. Exactly. Then they'd have to come back for a modification and there would be more hearings

1:32:00like this. This this is why I asked the question, what was the substantive intent? And what the answer I got back was that the yellow area was available for distribution. It was the it was the purple area where I was unclear, but But I think Joel's statement and unless David Engler tells me I'm wrong, the intent of the yellow area is is potentially for a single user distribution center.

1:32:23Mr. Navarro, just to clarify, I think the reason why they wanted to locate in those heavier or larger uses towards that portion of the property is because of topography. So there's a huge drop in that part of the property, which will make a large building like that less visible from outside. Yeah.

1:32:38But uh following up on that, uh there still would be uh the large uh semis going through and and and as such affecting the interstate as well. Is that am I correct to assume that? Correct. Yes. Yeah and I don't know. Doesn't sound good. from a persp um a landowner's perspective in my opinion. Thank you.

1:33:04Well I think a lot of that traffic circulation too and and the the applicant can probably speak to this, but I think that's par partially why or probably why the driveway to the project is on the south side of the of the plan, to keep the traffic further away from that northeast rural area to the

1:33:17north. But is still they would at some point have to go uh down I seventy five there, wouldn't they? But one of

1:33:25the things one of the things where that's difficult with this is we have to remember that this is only one parcel within a much larger employment center designated area. Yeah,

1:33:37but what's one excuse me for interrupting you, but what's one grain of sand? Nothing but you put it all together and you got What

1:33:45you didn't let me finish.

1:33:47You brought 'em up here.

1:33:49Yeah. That's all right.

1:34:02Master plan along with the applicant for the and a sub-area policy for the overall EC. The county has acknowledged that it has not done so and now recognizes the need to do so to plan this. And I think that's why they have these red arrows up here where these properties to the south are included in this EC area. Yeah. And The plan is that this will be one cohesive development. So you may see some of that

1:34:33traffic coming through those other properties, not necessarily all the way out to Lake Iola and down the center drive of the of this park. I think And it's hard to see it with just this parcel, but there's going to be a larger plan for the area. Could

1:34:49we go back to that slide?

1:34:57While we're pulling the slide up, Mr. Chair, I would also point out that we are capping distribution warehousing 500,000 square feet, where it was a million and a half square feet when the original proposal was submitted. That will ameliorate some of the heavy semi-generation on the site.

1:35:13Oh that's good to know.

1:35:17Well thank you folks, appreciate it.

1:35:23Joel, do Joel, do you want to offer any more rebuttal?

1:35:27It's okay.

1:35:30Very good.

1:35:30Very good. They were just pulling that up. I was want you know, that might be helpful for the gentleman to see uh the overall view of the future land use. Was

1:35:41that the map you're looking for, Derek? Or

1:35:43that was I think that's what they were it was

1:35:45The prior one.

1:35:48Um no it wasn't one that was assumed out in before there had color codes. Um

1:35:54There you go. So that kinda gives you an idea with

1:35:59Yeah, so the so the purple is all E C, this is E C this is E C on both sides of the the interstate here. And that's expensive. This is this is industrial here. So

1:36:10I think Commissioner Moody's point was that there might be a direct connection from Blandon at some point from those properties to the south. Is that what you were trying to say? Yes, that's exactly the point.

1:36:20Okay. All right, no uh anything else from up here or do we have a motion?

1:36:26I I will make the motion to approve and I'll say that uh you know I appreciate Mr. Tool's efforts on this. It's been I was a hard no on this before. You guys have come light years. Mr. Evans, thank you for your your work on this. You've come light years in what you proposed to us previously, so I will approve Mr.

1:36:45All right, there's a motion and a second. Any other discussion?

1:36:50And I will I will echo Mr. Poole's thoughts when everybody left here a month ago. I was not sure everybody was gonna get together to play in the sandbox, but I'm glad they did and uh No further discussion?

1:37:07Um units from that plan for twenty years, that's gonna substantially reduce uh some of the traffic impact as well.

1:37:14Yeah, right.

1:37:17Sorry we can talk about the audience.

1:37:21Okay, uh no further discussion. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries?