P11 CPAL 1904 Central Pasco Employment Village text amendment
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, Jul 11, 2019
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jul 11, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 13m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 86% of 407 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Erica Marlin's Planning Development. Item P eleven, PDD 191121, is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAL nineteen zero four, Central Pasco Employment Village Text Amendment. I do have changes to the sub area policy since uh the Agenda was published on SIRE just and I would like to pass out There's changes.
The only change that was made was
was reference to the State Road fifty two uh right-of-way requirements and the stormwater requirements that are no longer applicable. We had talked to F D O T and we uh was assured that we could take it out with the sub area policy because it was no more applicable to the site.
On June 20, 2019, the local planning agency held a public hearing on the proposed comprehensive plan and text amendment. And the comprehensive plan amendment was continued to today, July 11, 2019.
And also on March 12, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners, I'm just gonna give a little bit of background, directed the Planning and Development Department to expedite a staff-initiated comprehensive plan tax amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village sub-area policies. The staff-initiated comprehensive plan tax amendment was a result from a previously submitted comprehensive plan map and text amendment.
The intention of the staff initiated text amendment to the CP sub area policies is to facilitate the process of development within the CPEV by eliminating and modifying development provisions. These provisions and modifications include eliminating the requirement for one ECMPD for the entire sub area, eliminating the financial plan requirements, removing provisions regarding the rural transition area north of State Road. two and addressing the use of well inseptic tanks in low density areas when utilities are not available. The
subject property is located on State Road fifty two and west of Bellamy Brothers and east of Aaron cutoff.
Again, these are the provisions as to why we moved forward with the South and Asia Comprehensive Plan Amendment. And in addition, there are minor updates to the CPEV sub-area policies to remove requirements that have already been met or that are no longer applicable. For example, this the widening provision by FDOT and the stormwater management plan that are things that are no longer applicable because there are engineering plans that already and stormwater plans already address those design features.
In addition to the sub-area policy, we are now incorporating the master plan graphic as a map. And this just goes to show that the different land uses are laid out. Here's the sub-bury map indicating the E C flu. And again, the EC the CPEV sub-area policies require a mixed use development with an emphasis on employment centers. And by requiring by eliminating a requirement of one over one ECMPUD, it will pers it will um
Allow for individual property owners to proceed with development without having to coordinate the financial planning with other property owners within the CPED, hence the one financial plan would not be feasible anymore.
And reside, planning and development recommends approval and to find the comprehensive plan amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. And you guys will be acting as a local planning agency. Thank you.
That's a fast question. Sure, absolutely. Um there's uh in section E1. Well section E is central pathway throws public facility requirements.
Paragraph two of that contains a statement info proximity component order results limited to the level of generate 604 net external PMT card trip.
can't hear you on the mic. I'm sorry, I don't have my mic. Undo it. Sorry about that. The the first sentence of the second paragraph contains a statement Central Pasco employment village development is limited to the level that will generate six hundred and four net external P PMP car trips. There was language struck after it that Allowed you to get out of that if there was determination that fifty two
met acceptable level of service. I'm not understanding why we're not going to be able to do To me we either should have left the whole paragraph in so that you could get out of that cap. Or we should have destrucked it entirely. I'm not understanding why you only left the first sentence.
I'm going to look at the sub-area policy that I I handed and I didn't leave a copy for myself.
How?
Erica.
Here's some up here.
Erica, there's some up here.
So I'll start by asking why was the rest of the paragraph struck?
The rest of the paragraph was struck because in discussions with the MPO they had said that it it was viable that I could strike that language, but to keep the six of six hundred and fortunet internal peak hour trips.
Okay. What was their rationale for striking the second part of it though?
They didn't want to strike the six oh zero four in case it was they said it was because at the time that this was created that the number was important and as to why I kept that number
in. I get okay. My my concern is
leaving in the first fence without having the rest of it because the rest of it says Okay, 'cause otherwise they're just stuck at the six hundred and four trips. Okay, like there's no way for them to get out of it. And the intent of the rest of that sentence paragraph was That you could get out of get out of it if a determination was made that the segment of fifty two from Bellamy to Old Pasco meets the adopted level of service.
I get okay. So we're gonna have to strike that first sentence to me.
That way we can strike the entire thing. I
mean uh I guess I need to understand what was the 'Cause this is news to me that you were even doing I mean this is not This is not what I thought was happening with this text amendment. I didn't think you guys were touching any of the Traffic stuff. So
No, this was language I thought that could have been applicable. So when I took the language to the MPO, they had said that I could strike that language. If not then we can leave it in. But that would be have to that would have to be an answer from someone from MPO that I had discussions with.
Is anybody from MPO here to answer why this was struck?
Okay. Just no matter.
Well
To me, either the entire thing needs to be struck or you need to leave the entire thing in. I I don't understand the thought process of only leaving in the first sentence.
Because you're basically saying you're capped at six hundred and four trips and there's no way you can get out of it. That's that's what that language says.
Uh Nicarios Pitos with Planning Development. I'm looking at the proposed amendment and it seems innocuous if we just leave the language as it stands and not delete it from the text.
Yeah, if it if it if you leave it the way it is it it It it shows that there's a concern about the number of trips, but it also says you can get out of it if if there's a
Yeah.
The there is a s statement about including things in the long term concurrency management system which we don't have anymore, so that may have been why some of that was struck, but I guess is the thought process that you guys are just gonna look at traffic as each M P D comes in through timing and phasing now? Yes. Then you should just strike the whole thing.
Okay.
And just rely on the the first the paragraph above it says that you're gonna time development to make sure the infrastructure's there and meets our level of service standards. So that supports your ability to time and phase it under time and phasing. If that's the intent, then you don't you can just strike the entire second paragraph. Yeah, it'd be the normal MPUD process. So timing. Then you never should have left the first. Sentence in of the second paragraph. Noted. We'll take it out. Okay.
We're gonna take the whole
Yeah it's a
entire second paragraph starting with central Pasco important
what I had said to strike that first sentence that would make sense.
Can we get a motion to do that so we before we move on with anything else?
Is that the only thing?
That's the only qu issue I have. Or question I have. Do we need to resign files?
Well, I was only gonna ask him to make a motion on that one change and then we can move on to whatever the next issue is.
Okay. I'll make a motion to re remove the first sentence of sorry, I forgot the E one
E one.
Second paragraphs.
Second paragraph and E one.
Okay. Second. We have a motion to second any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed?
Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have a cons a question. Yes. So as I understand it, and I have a question from kind of a similar thing to traffic with schools. So as I understand it before it was going to come in as a whole MPUD. And so when that happens I get to I get to look at the number of residences and and make a determination on what we need for school sites. So I understand why we wanna
change it so that we can have individual property owners come and develop and I understand that. But here's my fear. So I need an answer on how to protect The school's interest. Because I can see what's going to happen. An individual property owner is going to come in. And they have whoever, DR Ordin, wants to build 200 homes. Okay, so they come in, get their MPD for 200 homes, and they say, I'm too small for a school. 200 homes
get built. The next property owner comes in and wants to build 500 homes. Okay, I'm too small for a school. They built 500 homes. Before I know it, I got 2,000 homes out there and there's school site. 'Cause everybody's too small. So the question is how do how can I ensure that as this progresses I can get school sites without people saying, Eh, I'm too small, sorry, can't help you. You know, and the other fear is so I let two people go by and develop and then I try to ding
the third guy when I do need a school and that guy says, Well, you didn't get it from those guys. So I'm just trying to think through how and maybe it's a Maybe it's like E One where we have something that says, you know, you don't go beyond I'm just I'm trying to think through what that looks like to uh make sure we get what we need.
Right. So we have to take into account that the employment center future land use still governs the entire site, even though you'll have multiple MPUDs. And that requires a proportionality of land uses to be distributed throughout the Central Pasco Employment Village area. Then you have also the Central Pasco Employment Village Area Plan, which is also making prescriptions with regard to land use as we saw in the previous Slide. And third, I would say that this is pretty much much like every other
sort of development scenario in the county where individual properties can come in at the at their time for an MPUD. So it doesn't create a special situation, but it does enable us to track how much residential is happening. Happening within the EC flu. It does enable us to track how much residential is happening within CPEV so that we can accurately assess the thresholds that would trigger A
school acquiring. Because EC requires that kind of tracking area wide.
Okay, I get that. I understand that. But what happens when the first two guys come in and I don't need a school and the third guy comes in or whoever you know, whatever. And he's got five hundred homes and he triggers I need a school now but he says, Huh uh too small. If you get a school site you're gonna take a third of my a third of my development. I don't wanna do that. So how do how does that work?
They're subject to the E C flu proportions. So if if other property owners are coming close to that threshold and the third property owner comes in and he's hitting that threshold, well
But the EC Flu is establishing those proportions uh to track Um the overall intensity of residential land use with the I
don't think the E C flew It has percentages but it doesn't say how much of it needs to be schools. Right.
Right. I it's on it's based on the percentage of residential.
I understand that, but I think Mr. Williams' point is that It says how much you can have residential you have, but it doesn't say how many schools you need to accommodate. So
it
I think the the the gist of his concern is previously there was a financial plan requirement for this, sort of like Connected City and Pasadena Hills, and as part of that financial plan they identified a funding source and locations for school sites. And so there was an ash at least in the case of Pasco Hills, that they actually be a surcharge and in Connected City to help make sure those sites get reserved. And so that's since you're you're eliminating
the financial plan requirement here
I'm not sure there is a mechanism to do that here. Now, the the simple solution would be you have you designate this the school sites now. I mean you actually put 'em on that plan you showed up there.
I mean, you could just designate where they're going you determine you do a level of service analysis now and you designate on that plan where the school sites will be. Because then then he doesn't have to worry about where's my school site. 'Cause I think the thought was when this was originally approved that the financial plan would address the school sites. And so now that there won't be one
In the original financial plan I'm not as I'm not familiar with it. Um in the original financial plan did it identify uh within which category the school sites would locate.
Well no, it actually but if you look at what struck from the financial plan requirements, one of the things that was supposed to be addressed in the financial plan was school side acreage.
Yes. Okay, so it was
never
determined.
No. Uh
but there was a plan the requirement to do a financial plan to determine it. That's I think Mr. Williams' point.
And also talked about co location with parks and things like that.
So the
question is if you're not gonna have a financial plan, how are you going to ensure You can make the same argument for parks too. I mean how are you gonna ensure those things are properly located.
Yeah.
Yeah. One other because it's more highly interesting.
I mean, yeah. There i there is a way to solve it maybe because uh my understanding is the reason me reason you're doing this is because you have a piece that wants to come in where the one of the office commercial pieces wants to come in, right? Right. So
And the office commercial piece is not gonna trigger a need for parks and schools, right, uh I'm assuming. So I mean you could add a requirement to the sub-area policies that prior to the first residential MPUD that the location of the Required school and park the acreage and location of the required school and park sites will be identified on the master this larger master plan.
And I'd be fine with that. 'Cause again, yeah, I don't wanna if somebody's coming in for an office or yeah. Industrial, I don't have an issue with that at all. So
So sexually point.
We can add it under um letter E, Central Pasco Employment Village public facility requirements.
Yeah,
you
can make it number three. E two or e part of e one?
Yeah, well I I guess it would be E three.
Okay.
Since the current E3 and four are being deleted, we could just substitute and add some language there that basically identifies that when the first uh residential MPD comes in, we uh we make sure that the acreage and the uh park sites are identified. So what language
are we suggesting?
So I think it would be see if I can rephrase what I said. Prior to The approval of the first EC MPUD or MPUD containing residential entitlements.
The
C P V master plan shall be amended to identify the location and acreage of Any required
School or county parks, or it's Does that sound okay? Yeah. Sounds fine to me. I say county park sites because that's different than neighborhood parks. We don't Usually we require that level of specificity for a neighbor of park. And
I'll make that as a motion that we uh insert that language.
I think you should take public comment before you before just to make sure you That is a pretty significant change. We gotta make sure that there's nobody opposed to that.
I'll uh withdraw my motion for now.
So would that happen as the applications come in?
Well if it's a if it's uh officer
No, not not if it's if a residential what it Yeah, what it would require is specifying a resident before you get a residential MPD in here, this map you're seeing would have to be amended to low to s say where the schools and parks are going to be. Assuming there are any requirement. I mean we'd have to do a level of service analysis to figure out whether it triggers a high school or an elementary school or middle school. But there are forty five hundred units. units approved. Which is a lot. And that's probably enough to trigger at least an elementary
school, right?
Oh at least.
Okay.
I mean if it's and I don't remember the uh breakdown, but that potentially could be all three.
Yeah. Would that be affected if you had a you know fifty five and over development? Oh yeah, that affects
that. 'Cause we're just saying
residential,
we're not. Yeah, so we we again as David said we would analyze it based on the number of units that are being and type of units that are being projected. So you would set aside
a proportion of the amount of space depending on how many units there is.
Yes.
As they come in. Mr.
Chairman?
Yeah.
Um I just Overall I have a concern about this whole Request.
The county back when this was originally approved, took the approach of instead of doing these fifty, hundred, five hundred acre developments that it would be better if we planned areas. And
This came about Back then Pasadena Hills came out where it was more smart growth. In fact, I think the county even won an award from the Regional Planning Council for either this or Pasadena Hill because of a smart plant, right? This is on the same Same notion as that. It's concerning to me that now, you know, we have done a whole area, this is
how we want to see this thing develop and now We're seeing a property owner wanting to pull out of that. And Go back the way we used to do. And that's very concerning to me. Uh the other thing that's concerning me is that We don't really know what's going to be built there because we don't have the MPUD ordinance sitting in front of us to tell us what is allowed there or not allowed there. So it feels
like, you know, they're we're just m moving the ball a little bit further down the road or towards the goal line and at some point they come in with M P D uh ordinance that may or may not be a good plan overall. I personally think it's a much better situation if that whole area is is planned and it's adhered to. than going back the way we used to do it and peacemaking.
Just some comments, uh start off.
Crash Waves. Well, I mean I I agree to to to some d I mean I agree with that and then I think at the practicality, you know, if I'm uh trying to put myself in uh one of those landowners. And so I'm I'm kinda you know, I'm not necessarily opposed to the the particular amendment, but I'm just trying to guard against again, if they come in and they're planning this whole area, then they have to take care of
things like schools and parks and they have to make sure that's all a master plan. You know, I like that. Um but I also understand
you know, how do you get that those group of parcel owners together to do that? I
don't know how feasible that is or all of that. But you know, my point to to that is is that They've already done that. Yes. You know, they did it and they they agreed to it, and there's a plan out there in place. Yep. Um and
I don't know this to be fact, but I believe that the current applicant is maybe a new owner there. to a piece of property. But the fact is, he knew what he was buying, or she knew what they were buying. What they're a part of.
So Well and we just had this issue in Bastinian Hills where somebody bought a piece and all of a sudden they were objecting to a school site because they they kind of ignored that when they bought that piece of property. So I I agree with you.
Mr. Chairman Mariano, just a clear point and clarification. So um this particular text amendment that's before the planning committee. Commission is actually a county-initiated text amendment to the sub-area policy for Central Pasco and Plymouth Village because the Board of County Commissioners requested us to make it easier, I think was the exact terms that they used in the in their meeting, for development to take place within within CPEV. So the amendments
that are before the Planning Commission today are in attempt to look liberalize the uh requirements so that development can actually happen within CPEV. I think it was generally recognized that with the single MPUD governing the entire site and with the multiplicity of uh property owners within it, that it was found to be uh difficult to uh come together to develop all the the entire property uh uh or
the entire planning area uh at once.
So so then I have a question and if if the BCC wants us to be done Now why is it before us? If they've already made the decision that it needs to be done, then why why are they doing why is it before us? Okay, let me let me know.
First of all, legally you're the local planning agency, so you it has to come to you, okay, so that's one thing. Secondly, is the board's direction was more general in nature, which is he's right, make it easier, and it was specifically directed at things like remove. The requirement for the financial plan and the and did it be one MPD. There's um there's other stuff like the stuff that Mr. Williams has brought up and that I brought up that the board never said waive all that stuff. Okay, but so there's other
more specific things that are being addressed in here that the board never gave any direct directions to handle. The staff is changing at the same time. So Mr Williams made a good point. Hey, if you're gonna eliminate the financial plan requirement, what are you doing about schools and parks? So I don't think the board said ignore schools and parks when they said expedite this. So that's the job of the L L PA is to make sure things weren't missed as part of that expedited process. So Mr Williams is doing the job of the LPA and making sure things don't
get missed.
And and it was a text amendment too. Pardon me? It was a text amendment, not not any map amendments. Right. It's a text amendment.
So y that's your job is yes there may have been some general policy guidance by the board, but it doesn't mean they had dealt with every specificity that the L P A would typically look at.
But y you know, in my mind By removing the financial plans, by removing a lot of these restrictions off this, we're going back to the way it was before. without having smart growth. And I I just I really have a problem with that.
'Cause easier doesn't necessarily mean better.
Well, I guess it depends on who's looking at it. That's right.
Well you're right. So it it comes down to perspective.
Who you're wh what player you are?
But to m to Mr. Williams' specific comment, I don't think there was any board direction to ignore schools and parks and most of the board direction was focused on the non residential part of this, not the residential, and so I do believe that Mr. Williams comment is appropriate to address and I don't think it's inconsistent with the board's direction.
I agree. Okay.
Okay.
Anything else from up here or from anybody?
All right. Anything from the public?
George Southworth, I'm the landowner that initially proposed that we change that we go with individual MPUDs so that we could develop the industrial piece at the corner of
State Road 52 and Bellamy Brothers Road. And the reason for doing so is I did buy the property after the process was started, but I was active in the process. And I was active in promoting the fact that the financial plan, the group of landowners, would go together and continue to produce that. Unfortunately, we do have a number of landowners that have have acquired the property whose goals and objectives and wants or needs or desires aren't what
the original landowners were. But our point is we need to do something with the property. It's a perfect place to create jobs for the county. Right. It's not related to residential Rooftops. But We're not going back to the beginning because we do have a plan. And we're not changing the overall plan. We're just saying that the individual units can now be developed
by individual property owners within the same plan. I think the idea to address the schools is a great idea. Parks, it's a great idea. And I have other properties within that that are in those areas that if I ever choose to develop them that way, I'm happy to participate in that. But I think the changes that we've suggest that you've suggested are good changes. There's a way to address it. But we're not starting from scratch with just everybody out there like the Wild, Wild West, saying,
I want to build homes on this corner, which should be a commercial corner. Um yeah. You know, there is a plan and we're sticking with the plan and the appropriate land uses that were identified and approved by the county in that plan. We're just saying that now we can move forward one landowner at a time. Or two or three, whatever whoever wants to work together. Otherwise we're just stopped dead in our tracks.
I
know.
Excellent. Could you name
an
address, please?
Andy Joe Scaglione, [address removed]. I am um one of the the owners uh within this uh M P DU D and um And when I bought the property, I knew what was in here. I was comfortable with it. Now I wouldn't have bought it. And it gave certain protections. Some of the points you made been excellent. This has gone when the board mandated um for the fast track
on this they did not know that there was serious concerns among other property owners. All they were hearing from was Mr. Southwood. Mr. Papello owns the property 133 acres next to my property. I have 133 acres and uh Mr. Bissett has 425 across the street. Um
I think we need to slow this down. This is twenty four hundred acres on Highway 52. I mean this is uh very, very valuable property and this is moving way too quick. There's too many questions um and and Let's look at also some of these heavy industrial uses because that should not be allowed here. Let's not make the same mistakes that you go down the Restarky Ranches and and years ago those heavy industrial uses y didn't stick out, but now
they stick out like a sore thumb. And that's what fifty four, fifty-two is gonna be fifty-four. Um and and and not too long. And let's just let's move slow on this. Let's get it right. Um And and let's also look at the uses and also some of the concerns you have. I think this is way too fast trying to improve this today. Uh thank you very much for your time and all your time volunteering. Thank you.
Yes, sir. I'm Joe Propella at Gator Creek Ranch right next to Andy. Um I think there's some concern with you guys, I'm hearing you. Um it's moving awful fast. Uh we understand it's a a mid uh industrial zoning, but what are the uses in it? And uh as far as future planning, I agree with you. guys, we need to have a little better idea of what who's gonna give up the school and who's gonna make
the park. I got the creek so the park's there I guess. Which is fine. But I think we need to slow down, understand and I think all the owners should have the right. Thank you.
Thank you.
Here I can say that please.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Into the m into the microphone.
[address removed]. Is that correct? That was a question mark.
I've I've had to have it on my phone to know it.
I think it's twenty six one.
Good afternoon. Terry Schrader, [address removed]
[address removed]
[address removed]. Mr. Chairman, uh appreciate you allowing us to have a meeting with staff, postponing the meeting two weeks ago, which we were able to do. Uh we met with Erica and two other staff members. Terry was Not available at that particular meeting. So after we we had our meeting, we got some great progress. The only big concern we have is this terminology industrial. We thought we had something worked out. After the fact, Terry came back and he explained to us prior to the meeting today their
concerns. We still are a little uneasy with that. That's our biggest concern, is the industrial. So we can address that at some point in time. fashion if it you know I I don't want to delay this any longer than it's necessary, but I think we i everybody agrees it needs to get done right the first time. Thank you very much. Thank
you.
Yeah. Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Rialli, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Um I represent one of the property owners and what I would like to say today is that we we would object to a change based on schools and parks. Of course we're not objecting to the concurrency needs, but to to change it here without being able to uh figure out w what that would look like and how we would estimate what those uh current future needs would be so that the first applicant
would be only burdened with the proper amount. Uh I think that's unclear and not something that we can uh effectively do here at the meeting. Um so at the same time Can I
ask you a question? Yes. D isn't your client the low density residential piece?
Yes.
Well I guess I would ask Mr. Williams, w the condition that we talked about, if it was tied to the first MPD within the medium or high areas, would would you be okay with that? I don't know how many units the low density can Do. I mean does anybody know how many units you could do max in that low density area?
Yeah, I believe it's two dwelling units per acre.
I don't know how many acres that is, that's what I'm asking.
Well we don't have that calculation right now, but we can find out.
I guess my question for Mr. Williams is if the low density unit count was low enough Would you be okay w tying that trigger to when the first M P D comes in the medium or high area?
Yeah, I'd want to see what that unit number was. Okay,
can staff figure that out while we're figuring it out right now.
Well the the concern here would just be uh estimating what that future low would be now.
No, what I'm saying is the trigger for when the school and park sites would be identified wouldn't be until an MPUD came in the medium or high density ratio. Residential area, not the low. Assuming the unit counts low enough, I don't know, but I'm asking. If that change were made to the proposed condition, would your client still object?
I j I wouldn't want to um to agree to anything without being able to to look at this and and see how it would affect any potential site plans that we would have. I mean I I understand that it should be a simple answer, but I just don't want to commit to anything. And and if the council thinks that a change is needed, we would just recommend uh voting no. and and having this move along rather than to delay and and and try and and rehash these things. Voting no on everything? Uh yes, sending it to the to the board.
Okay, that's an unusual request, but okay. Yeah. We just want to we just want to keep this moving. Thank you.
Uh Cynthia Speidel, Ardura Group, 492 on Memorial Highway, and I have been sworn. I just wanted to um address some of the um concerns. I represent um 3KS, 3KS Family Limited Partnership, Mr. Southworth, who spoke earlier. This is a Com Plan amendment, this isn't a zoning, this just gives people the right to come in and ask for zoning. Um Uh there are no changes to the to the um maps being proposed. Um staff has smartly included this
area map that was approved, already approved by the board, and every I don't think anybody's asking to deviate from that. Um we're in support of Mr. Williams' language suggestions about the residential and I think David's idea to um make it hooked in the medium and the or the high
Um however I respect um the the affected parties' right to to object to that. But this is a comp plan amendment, this is not a zoning, this just gives people the right to come back with a zoning. Um right now nobody can do anything. So Um You know, this got approved in two thousand eight, it's twenty nineteen, and I think you know all I can ask is that you c allow people to at least come back with a zoning to um develop the properties. So Cynthia,
you can ask you a question? Yes. Is that okay, Mr. Chairman? Um The concern over the industrial I I think I s I suspect that Some of that could be alleviated if in the phrase where it talks about type of development that says corporate business park target primary business and says industrial uses. Would your client object if that got changed to light industrial uses?
As long as there isn't a target industry out there that's gonna cross that line.
Well See targeted primary business is a different category. So you can be targeted primary business and still be heavy, but I view this as three different things. Corporate business park
Yeah.
Targeted primary business and then industrial. So I think if you added the word light before industrial, it probably we would address some of the concerns that we're hearing.
So yes, we were okay with that.
Staff okay with that?
I'm not sure that that T E C allows heavy industrial uses anyway unless they target primary businesses.
Right. It would be the EC flu that we would look at.
Right. Well the ECM PUD as far as my reading of it, it does not allow any heavy industrial uses that are not targeted primary businesses. The
ECM PUD?
Correct. Yes, right. So but the concern is, I think, if I'm reading between the lines with the effective third parties, is we're now saying it can be either ECM PUD or MPUD. So there's no such restriction in M P D on correct on heavy industrials. So given that change, I'm wondering whether we need to change the comp plan to say, in terms of type of development, put the word light in front of industrial.
Am I making sense?
Which part of the sub area policy are you in?
There's a table in three. Okay. It's got type of development. It's got three uses listed there. Corporate business park. Yes. Targeted primary business. Industrial uses. And my suggestion is to add the word light before industrial.
Because I don't think EC allows any heavy industrial uses. that are not targeted primary businesses.
If you look at the ECMPUD criteria.
And I suspect if you add the word light it would address some of the concerns that we've heard today.
I'm asking if staff has any objection to that.
As long as it's qualified targeted industries that
No, I'm okay. That's not what I'm saying.
The type of development that's listed there, there's three things listed, right?
Yes.
Corporate business park and maybe it would help if we numbered them too. So this this is it's clear these are not these are three different things. So my suggestion would be to l to put one corporate business park two targeted primary business three light industrial uses.
And I'm asking if staff would have any objection to that change. I'm seeing some heads nod in the audience like that would help address some of their concerns.
Mm-hmm. David, I wouldn't. I wouldn't be supportive of doing it any other way. I think uh I I'd be concerned if it just said infestrial uses because I think it leaves the door open to heavy festival. I like I think it's better to specify what we're talking about. And Because it says targeted primary businesses, what does that mean exactly?
So there's a list of
Well there's a list of uses in the E C M P U D section of the code that says but they're generally businesses that manufacture products that bring in they they sell their products outside of the county. In other words, they're the types of businesses that our PDC typically tries to recruit to the county because they're manufacturing some product that is sold throughout the United States, for example. The world. So like a Metler Toledo. Okay. A Metler Toledo manufactures
Food equipment that they sell throughout the world. That's a targeted primary business.
Is that
but it but it's also a f a form of manufacturing operation. I don't think t Mother Toledo is heavy industrial, but there are you could have something that would technically meet the definition of heavy industrial, but it's in a building and it's
I don't I don't think that if you're worried about something like a concrete batch plant that would never be targeted primary business. Okay. Um there's a list in the code and we could pull it out, but I don't have it memorized. But um it's
All I can say is that it's if you read the list it would be all businesses that you'd love to see in Pasco County. They're not obnoxious smoke producing, dust producing businesses.
So
But because some of them do some fairly intense manufacturing within their buildings, they could technically meet the definition of heavy industrial.
So could you say targeted primary businesses uh such as are identified in XYZ?
Yeah, I mean we could put targeted program businesses the target the the it's in there's a code section that repres I could
I actually like to have 'em identified because I just I don't want heavy industrial there personally. I just think
it's not a
good question.
And also if you look at the the definition of light industry, there's things listed there. E C that U D I would not want to see there. Yeah. And I understand that it's it's more towards the targeted industry list, but it doesn't say that. And you know, a concern that I have is is that
You have to educate me. You have to remember I'm just a a lowly financial planner. I don't have the the level of uh expertise that the attorneys and the engineers and such in the room have. But Yeah. Why? Can't we see the M PUD at the same time as this text amendment? Because here's what concerns me. We approved a text amendment. The train has left the station. You're never gonna get back in the station. Because we've already approved The text amendment. And
it's on the track. Now we come in with an ordinance. M PUD saying what can be done and and here. Well what if we don't agree with what's in there?
Okay,
so a
couple things. In this particular case, they can't even get an MPUD submitted for your review until this text amendment is made. There's one of the requirements in the current text is that it be one MPUD for the entire area. And I understand you'd like to see the MPD for the entire area, but but if you wanted to see an MPD that says the specific list of uses for one of the areas, They couldn't even submit that currently today. So But I also say you have to remember
the difference in Compline and Zoning, which is Compland has given you a more general range of potential uses. And I understand the fear with heavy industrial and that's why we're trying to Tighten that up a little bit so we but I don't think you're ever gonna see a comp plan list that has the level of specificity that you're looking for because that's only in a zoning. So You have the right when that zoning comes through if you don't like something in the list to say, I don't think that's compatible with this
area. Now, but I get the concern the residents or that the neighbors are raising, which is they don't want anything that even sounds like it could be heavy industrial on this list. Because that opens the door for a whole range of uses that could be noxious, etc. Light industrial is different though. Light industrial, yes, there may be a few uses in light industrial that you may think are not compatible. But as a category, it's it's light industrial is one
of the things that EC allows. I mean, that that was its intent. With still outline industrial uses.
So light industrial is allowed today under EC. It's not it the thing what I'm hearing the concern is they don't want anything that sounds like it could be heavy industrial being allowed in there.
Which is a very different list of uses.
My concern is that that It's more targeted industries than it is Okay,
so let me give an example of targeted that DC allows that's light industrial that isn't a target industry, which is light industrial flex space. Okay, so the county actually has a need for light industrial flux space in in the county, and it's not a it's just flex space that various light industrial users might use, but it's not a Not any specific target industry. So EC was not trying to preclude somebody
from bringing in a light industrial flux space into but staff is pulling up the list here, so can you zoom that in so they can see the title of what this is?
Okay. So
This is all like your BC and D.
Okay, so we can probably skip over the corporate business part part because I don't think anybody here is gonna object to a corporate business part. Okay, so let's let's let's go down to where does the where does the list of either light industrial or target private
industry? Right here, right here. Let it be industrial. There you go. And then it from there it defines the types of industrial uses within the EC M P U D.
So okay. this torque targeted primary business to that part of the code. Yes you can. Then then
we know. I think that's what we're we're we're heading to is to somehow clarify that and then add that table that David was after
industrial
uses.
Well what you'd put in here as you could put Yeah you put light because that's all that section of the code allows. Right. Okay. Then you could say as defined in section five where where's the first part of this whole section of list of uses? Right there. So it'd be five twenty-two.
What is this BY22?
Yeah, so M twenty two point five point B
Yeah that's it. That's it. 522.5 D. D. Right?
Could that
We would want to identify the E C M P U D land uses.
So this would that be that's the targeted list.
Yeah, so you would say as described in section five twenty two point
Five D has a land development code. And then the word light and wanna support
Light in front of industrial.
Industrial I mean, yeah. Yeah, I mean that would be to me that would be the thing I think would make sense.
What was the code section again?
522.5. Point one, point
two.
Well th that's that's only the target industries or
the industrial part that we're seeing here is in front of us.
Well, what I'm suggesting though is just make it D because that also describes corporate business park and you might as well just it's it's everything.
Yeah. Yeah.
So it's 522.5 D? Yes. Okay.
Because the app well I guess we are there.
Yeah, we're there.
Um untethered to the E C M P U D. So if we're referencing the E C M P U D here in this table, I think we're good with that.
Okay, so we're gonna add the word light in front of a Destrial and then say as Somewhere in this little bubble we're gonna say as described in section five twenty two point five D of the LDC.
Yeah.
Okay.
Can we get a motion for that change before we move to anything else? I'll move for approval on that.
We have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right.
I if I may to answer the question that was posed previously by David regarding the uh Low density areas. Low um so I don't have an accurate um assessment of the acreage because the shapes are a little uh irregular on the area map there. However, um by rough calculation it's about two hundred and ninety to three hundred acres. So two dwelling units per gross acre. Comes to about hundred and fifty.
How many units?
One hundred and fifty. Right? I did the math right?
No, that didn't sound right. How many acres did you say it was? Three hundred.
Two hundred three hundred?
Divided by two. On either side of the green color? Is that the one you're looking at?
Am I doing that correctly? You said there was two hundred acres I didn't I three hundred acres. Three hundred acres. So two units an acre, wouldn't that be six hundred units? Six
hundred
units.
Oh yep, you're right. I did it backwards.
Two units per acre, six hundred acres is I mean it's three hundred acres is six hundred units. Yes, yes. Okay.
So now I guess I'll pose the question back to Mr. Williams.
Do you have any If they could do up to six hundred units in there, do you have an issue with
It might. Depends on what I mean, potentially that's over a hundred elementary kids. That's not counting middle and eye.
So, you know, d just depends on what what my schools are at surrounding that. So I'd be hesitant to
How many homes did you say two hundred?
Six hundred. Six well six hundred in that area, the total number allowed for the entire thing is four thousand five hundred.
Yeah, forty five. How important is the dwellings in that area? How important is rooftops? Uh we uh is that important Let me see how it works. is the onus the property committed to building rooftops out there. Or would they ri feel that the more profit would be obtained profit's the wrong word to use. Would it be more advantageous for them to put light industry out there in the entire area and figure the rooftops?
Yeah, let me try to answer that 'cause Mr Petos wasn't here when this was approved.
This project was approved primarily to generate employment. Okay. However, the property owners that were trying to get it entitled We're unsure whether there would be a market for that much employment in this area of the county. And so they wanted the ability to do some residential and retail uses as well. And it that makes sense to have a mixed use project because the people who work there also need a place to live and shop too. So it I'd
say it's important in the sense that it makes ensures that it's a mixed use project. However The county's main goal for this area was to designate an area for employment. The residential just I would call it a necessary evil um that came along with it, if that answers your question.
Yeah. And I would say in my opinion Remove the necessary evil and just make the whole industry out there. You know, because 52 is going to be widened between Sun Coast and I-75 anyway. And just south of that area is is uh uh a number of residents that could seek employment in that northern part of the area, or you could bring people from Hernando County down. So that's just
bicep. Well that that be a pretty substantial change to this plan if you just said there was no longer gonna be any residential and that probably affects property owners who are not here today. So I my only concern with that is this was this plan was negotiated You know, there was a lot of time non negotiation that went into who would get residential in this area, who would get retail, who would get light industrial and He would effectively be
taking away some of what they bargained for. Okay. And so I'd I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm just saying that I
I'd wanna if if that was the goal of the Planning Commission, we'd wanna start over. 'Cause that's not what they all negotiated.
I mean it's also an an idea of the Central Pasco and Plummit Village to have people live near where they work. So
Is there a map that shows the subjected property on top of this master plan? I mean I know it's generally the fifty two and Bellamy Brothers remote area.
Well I'm just trying to f s on this map it's here now. Can we see
which piece of property it actually affects.
It's pretty much all pasture land right now.
No, I understand that, but so right now there's a there's a plan for the whole twenty four acres. So how many acres are coming out of that twenty four hundred?
I I don't understand the question, I'm sorry.
There's none I probably don't understand what I'm saying.
Because you're a
financial
plan.
There's nobody proposing to remove themselves from this plant. At one point there was. That that's what started this effort was to pull out. We got an application from two different properties that Wanted to pull out of it. Yeah. Okay. Which staff didn't want because they liked the plan. And so They said we need to do something to tweak this plan to make it easier for these properties to develop in accordance with the plan. That was the reason we're here today. So currently nobody's proposing to pull
themselves out of this plan. Now, if we don't approve these text amendments, we probably will start getting applications for people to pull themselves out of the plan. I'm just being honest with you. Okay.
Um but I think I know what your question is and um the EC MPUD that we would like to for staff to consider and we would like to come back to to consider has to be consistent with this. So um in in trying to work with staff, we did send it to Erica and Terry to look at and they did come back and confirm that the EC MPU to plan that we would like to proceed with is consistent with this.
I mean you
know it's kind of hard to do that.
I guess maybe the better way to ask is is what area of this map will the M P U D that we'll be seeing at some point
cover.
Oh.
Oh gosh, see, I knew I did something wrong. Oh okay, right there.
Just the corner.
Just the corner. Yes.
It it is the purple and the red.
The purple and the red. Okay. Okay. Okay.
It goes up to that vision road. It's bounded by the Vision Road to the uh west and the vision road to the south up to Bellamy.
Okay, I just wondered how far west I guess it was.
Yeah, it goes to that vision road. Approximately just east of that vision road.
Okay. Okay, so we probably need to figure out how what to do with Mr. Williams. Was there any more public comment?
You do with me.
Okay. Uh Kevin Riale again, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa, Florida. Um just to uh respond to uh your last comment. The the idea of trying to make this work as the whole planet is the reason that we're we're delayed. And to score clarify my point earlier, um trying to get all the properties owner owners together to have one MPUD to show you all is the reason that this hasn't worked for the last decade. decade and uh trying to get everyone to agree to get past this stage is
is delaying things again and we're we're just seeing the same problem. It's a it's a well-intentioned plan and and we like the plan, but the the the act to make everyone work together is just inhibiting anyone from making any progress. So to my point earlier, uh we Our position is that we either approve it the way that it's been negotiated to this point or or vote no and and move forward just so that we can we can keep this process moving because trying to get everyone to agree doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.
Uh uh Outlaw Ridge, which is the property owner to the the southwest corner there is the low density residential.
Correct. Yes Mr. Chairman Mariano
So Mr. Williams had a proposed addition to the sub-area policies dealing with schools and parks. Um
Hmm.
The and I I guess we need to take action on that because it sounds like well the only concern we heard was one of the the property owner and the this the he owns part of the low density residential area. And so we need to decide whether I didn't hear any major objection to the concepts, but the question is whether you tie it to the first MPVD The first residential MPD, or do you tie it to the first residential MPD in the medium and
high density areas?
And that's really up to the Planning Commission.
Well I'd be I would want to tie it to the first residential MPU
D. At this point. The the beauty of this whole plan is is that there's a financial plan supposed to be done over all of it. So it all works. Right. But part of this is removing the financial plan. Correct. And that's the biggest concern that I have, is it If you're back to impact fee and and the like. Well I wouldn't conversionally uh paid for themselves.
I will say that the biggest concern in terms of infrastructure probably is schools and parks for the reasons that Mr. Williams said is that Everybody nobody there's no one property owner that ever wants to take the school or the park. That's the issue. Right. Roads and utilities generally tend to work themselves out because if they don't have road utility access, they can't develop anyway. I mean it just it so we have other L D C requirements that ensure that there's adequate road and utility facilities. So The
the road and utility components of the plan is probably something we could live without, but
Th I agree with Mr. Williams, the the fact that we could have a problem in schools and parks though if we don't know where those are gonna be located, because he's absolutely right, that it's not just a school issue, it's a park issue too, where no one landowner wants to take the high school or the large park where i it it it requires some level of collaboration on a project this size to identify where the schools and parks are and we discovered this from Pasina Hills. I mean there was a reason in Pasina Hills
where we got together and all the property owners decided where that massive superpark would be. And same thing with the schools in Pasasena Hills because we knew there was no one lane
So It is a legitimate concern and I I
David, where would we insert that residential requirement in here into this?
Well, I I think Mr. Mr. Williams' motion to add it to make it to a to have this plan be amended to show the location of the schools and parks before the first residential MPD cures the concern. But we've heard an objection from the guy who's in the low density part because he knows he's Be caught by that. Okay, and that's why I asked, or but
he's also arguing to keep the plan in place that says you ought to do a
Well he's also saying he doesn't want to coordinate with the other people he'd have to coordinate with. So that that's that's the issue. It doesn't affect the non resolution people at all, which is why Cynthia's not objecting to it. That's right.
Well he withdrew it just because so we could hear a public comment, but I'm gonna make the motion again. Well why don't you just
do that?
I will. So I make a motion to add the same language. We can hopefully you have record of it, but if we need to rehash it, we can. But for uh section E three. But I
believe the motion was that prior to the
first
and the
approval of the first residential.
Prior to the approval of the first PC M P D or M P D that contains residential entitlements, the CPV master plan shall be amended to show the location and acreage of the required of any required school and park sites. Is something like that? Yes.
So I'm I make that as motion. All right, we have a motion. We have a second. Oh sorry, go ahead. Okay. Any further discussion for the motion?
So under discussion, um So what about transit? I mean so I see there's a notation here about um uh transit-oriented design features when appropriate. But so what got scratched out here was there being a a a plan for transit. So is it the same situation? It get that gets kicked down the road until the next person comes in and Well m let me say a couple things
about transit for this area.
Unlike the 54 corridor or the I-75 corridor or some other what I'll call the more urban areas of the county Uh there are no regional transit plans. There may be some local transit that serves this area, but there's no regional transit facilities that we are currently envisioning that would come to this area. So That being said, we do have local bus service that likely could serve this area, but that's typically addressed at the time of site plan approval for the commercial or office
entitlements that come in. So the MPUD could address how they provide transit infrastructure for their MPUD. So I'm not and we have a standard condition in all of our MPDs that says you have to work with our PCBT to have appropriate transit infrastructure. So I don't think if this is an area where we're planning for regional transit, I would I would absolutely agree with you that we may need more than a bus shelter. But in this particular area, my understanding of the future transit
plans of the region, they don't there's no regional transit plan for this.
But originally there was there was a call for a master transit plan for the whole thing. Correct. And and that's being s uh stricken out of this. And and it's just it's going back to piecemeal.
I get that. And and what I'm saying is the reason I I wouldn't personally be concerned with it is because I believe the MPD process and site plan process is f are sufficient to deal with the type of transit that would be appropriate for this area. I wouldn't say that I wouldn't make that same statement if we We were talking about wiregrass or you know the Mitchell project on one of the urbanized areas where we are planning for more heavy transit oriented development. This is not
in one of those areas. I'm is am I saying this right, Mr. Pitos?
Yes, I would agree with that.
So I don't think yes, I think there could be some local transit serving in this area, but I d I believe that the MPD process and the site plan process are sufficient to make sure that infrastructure is in place.
It doesn't require you know, I d when Connected City came in, their financial plan did have a transit component to it. Okay, so But it's right off
the edge. Because it was part of a bigger
Yeah, it's part of a bigger regional system that may be coming up in the connected
state. And and originally when this came in They viewed themselves as a bigger
bigger project and they needed it.
Yeah.
Alright,
you know I'm not s disagreeing with you that there's a possibility bec it could become an attractor, but it's kind of in the middle of I wouldn't say the middle of nowhere, but it it it's
Well today it is.
Today. I understand that. But I'm even looking at the transit plans of in my mind that are forty years out. Okay, the ones that are even the pie and sky plans of T Bardo don't have any facilities going to this area. Okay. So I that's that would be my concern with trying to
I think part of the reason that it got approved as mixed use is because we wanted to make sure that people lived, worked and shopped in this it didn't have to go get out on a bus and go to Tampa to work. That was the whole idea of this was supposed to be
No, I don't understand that, but the reality is is that you you're not gonna govern where people wanna live. You know. I I mean this this isn't uh it's not factory houses. In a perfect world we gotta live there.
In a perfect world we'd bring regional transit here too, but there's limited funds and I don't I'm just being honest with you that No, I I get it. All the plans I've seen for transit don't include this particular for regional transit don't include this property.
All right, any further discussion on the motion? So we have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion. Aye. Opposed? Okay, mush carries.
Okay, so now you also need to take action on the rest of the proposed amendment.
The amended amended amended
Okay, you've made three motions so far. You you you changed the transportation stuff to strike that paragraph, you clarified the type of development and referred to the code for the corporate business park, targeted primary business and industrial use. And then you added Mr. Williams' new sub-area policy about schools and parks. Um but you still need there's other changes that are being made that you need to take action on.
Okay, so um I'd like to uh hear a motion to approve the plan as now amended. And any discussion on that motion. So do I have a motion?
So moved.
Yeah, I second. I'll second it. Okay, so do we have any other discussion on uh the plan that we have not previously discussed?
Okay. So all in favor of the motions? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
By the way, I'd like to congratulate you all because this is the first real planning you've done in a while. There
you go.
The BCC probably won't listen to it, but you know.
You were truly operating as a planning commission today, so I'm proud of you.
Okay. Thank you for coming.
Make that.
All right. Any need for a break before I dig deep?