PC5 Renner zoning change to MPUD 108 homes
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, Sep 30, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Sep 30, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 15m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 86% of 391 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Good day, Planning Commission. Jessica Cowall with the Planning and Development Department, current planning division. Item PC five is PDD 217526 in the name of Daryl and Karen Renner for a requested change in zoning from AR Agricultural Residential District to MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for 108 single-family detached units on approximately 50.15 acres. Next slide. The property is located in south central
Pasco County, on the south side of Bexley Road, approximately one mile west of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Westeria Loop. Next slide. The western parcel of the subject site reflects its original agricultural z AC Agricultural District, and on January 12th of 1977, the Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning request from AC Agricultural District to AR1 Agricultural Residential District. for Ivanar Estates, which is the subject site's eastern
parcel Of this application. Here is an exhibit of the future land use as it exists today. Next slide. The subject site contains a residential dwelling unit and agricultural pursuits. The subject site is in the central market area, yet is outside of the urban service expansion areas and rural areas. Next slide. The proposed request, as conditioned, is consistent with the Pasco County's Land Development Code, Chapter 400, Subsection 402.2 zoning amendment
to MPUD Master Plan Unit Development with the applicable provisions of the and the applicable provisions of the Pasco County's comprehensive plan. Next slide. Here is an exhibit of their proposed master plan. Next slide. And this uh app uh petition comes to you with a staff recommendation of approval as sc stipulated by the conditions included in your packet.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. Jesscope, one question. Have you done a calculation of how many units they could get under the existing Zoning. How do you know that information?
With its existing zoning as an AR district. It would allow for well it's AC and AR. I'd have to split up the data. Let's split it down the middle. We've got about ten acres at twenty-five, so maybe twenty with AC, and then another Twenty five at A R one.
So they could get forty five units total under the existing zoning?
Rough estimate.
Okay, if that number changes when you sit down and do your calculation, just tell me.
We'll do.
They get under res three, which is the future landings plan, right? Yes. But That's a different layer, obviously.
All right.
Thank you, Chairman, Board Member Shelley Johnson, [address removed], and I have been sworn. We have our whole team here today, our planner, our civil engineer, our traffic engineer, and we'll be obviously prepared to answer any questions or concerns that come from the board as well as the public. We did want to add a few more comments. I had an exhibit that I had prepared because we understand there may be some folks. um from the Wisteria Loop area, which is located, which is one of our access areas on this property. um that
are not too jazzed about us using that for access. So I kinda wanted to give the board and the public. Um a little bit more of a layout of really what's planned long term in that area, what developments, you know, online, what developments are coming online, and what the long term, you know, traffic and um planning vision is for that particular area. And I think it'll help with any of the concerns that come up.
Do you let me just ask you this question. I know you asked for extra time, ten minutes. Yeah. Um I want you to use up all your time w explaining something that isn't a concern to the neighbors. Okay. Do you do you think it would be better for the to hear what they have to say?
I'm comfortable with whatever if you feel that's the better way to proceed on this, then we'll I'll be happy to do that.
Just a suggestion. Okay. Mr. Chairman for her before she does does whatever she decides to do. Is the applicant in agreement with the staff conditions of approval?
Yes, we are.
Okay.
Yeah.
Um I I can use that for re you know if there's questions that come up because really it's just to explain where we're at from a transportation perspective. Um I just want to put it on the record that we are absolutely doing everything that we can and that the code requires us to do in terms of um you know doing the improvements to Wisteria Loop, which right now is our access. Um that's our way in and out to forty one. So but we're here to answer any questions. Thank you.
Okay.
All right. So I know there's some people here that have c have questions or concerns if uh You would like to come forward, state your name and address and What your concern is and we'll try to address those. Get them addressed.
Chairman, is there an Elmo that I could use possibly?
couldn't hear it. Oh, okay. We hold my time until he gets it started. Uh your
time's already
started.
It's way too fast. Clearly he's not a Golf eye grad.
That's true.
Like we are.
Thank you, Commissioner's uh Jessica Co. with the Planning Development Park. To answer Mr. Goldstein's question, um the AR portion of the site is a little smaller than anticipated, maximum 19 dwelling units under the current zoning.
So that nineteen total? So nineteen total. Okay, thank you.
Yeah, I can just hold it up a bit. submit it in if that's okay.
Um well how far away is he from getting here getting it together for you?
We're not sure.
In that case I'm gonna have to get my glasses on so I can see.
I wonder if it would actually be faster if you just took a picture of it and scanned it.
Mm.
Yeah, right.
Well to take a picture with your phone. Yeah, they're taking a picture. Take a picture with your phone and then email it to Craig, he can put it up there.
Mr. Chairman M can I make a suggestion while we're waiting, can we hear from any other members of the public while you're doing that?
Yes, that's a good idea.
I've been enthralled with this exercise. Mr. Mr. Gadd, Gadd, would you like to come forward please?
Please come on come on up and speak. Can you give give us your name and address? Since nobody knows who you are. Um
Ray Gad [address removed]. I wanted the group to know that I'm not here in my capacity as a uh representative of the school district, which sometimes happens. Um but I also have a disclosure issue. Um Uh Mr. Tanello works for me. Uh and this is a personal issue for me, not a work issue. So the attorney may want to opine on that, but I wanted to make sure that we disclose that uh he does work for me. Uh
yeah.
I am his boss four times removed, but nonetheless I didn't want him to be put in an awkward spot.
We don't mind putting him in that
spot. Well he I don't I don't think he
has
a conflict because he works for the district, not Mr Gadd. Um and Mr. Chanello, I assume, is not getting any gain or loss from this application personally, right? Correct. Okay.
Correct.
Nor is the school district getting any pain or loss from this application as far as I know. Correct.
Okay. Okay, Chairman, if you're ready. Yes.
Jeremy Couch, [address removed]. Um I'm not opposed to development or development in the urban service area, but I feel that the conditions that the staff has agreed to are completely inadequate for what they want to do. First of all, the traffic studying accurately predicts the eastbound right turns. on forty one at Wisteria. It does not take in uh Arden Preserve. into consideration. And so what's gonna happen is we're talking about Wisteria Loop. So a
lot of the traffic goes to the south. Um The applicant needs to include the south leg of Wisteria Loop in their substandard improvement. The applicant also states that they're going to perform substandard improvements on Bexley Road. However, they have not demonstrated that the right-of-way exists. Um
Shows the Clark parcel which is not gonna access on Wisteria. They're gonna access on Causeway to the northwest. the remains a piece of land that the applicant does not control and does not have evidence of. that they're capable of performing the substandard improvement to get to their access.
Um So when this right-of-way is gonna be dedicated in the future for their improvement How can the staff And the county go ahead and approve a zoning. without proof that access exists to get to the site. I'm not saying it won't be in there in the there in the future. It's just not there today. Um The applicant sent out a a mailing to widen the road to let the neighbors know what they were gonna do. Um They're showing a a widening. They're not showing that the existing structure
of the road needs to be rebuilt.
Yeah, Wisteria and Bexley. It's just a little chip top asphalt surface. and um you know what's gonna happen is They're gonna widen this road and they're gonna code it. And then my neighbors and I are gonna get a big fat PVAS assessment and we're gonna have to pay for their development. So they need to include that in their approval. Is that one minute left? Um The notice is awful. I went out there, the sign's on the ground, it's on the far west side. I mean they're probably out of order for that. The other thing too
is the substandard road improvement exceeds more than a quarter mile and the applicant hasn't demonstrated that they can actually do this and still meet state drainage requirements, considering they're so far into the neighborhood. I mean, I think that's a good thing Some day this is gonna be developed. It's just really premature. And if they want to do it, they need to pay for all the infrastructure required. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Before we hear the next speaker, can I ask we have transportation staff on WebEx
We do. We have several folks on WebEx. Who would you like to we we may have to promote a couple
a
few people. Essen is on. Can you please promote him?
So I guess I'll ask S in Condition fifteen says that They're going to improve they have to improve Bexley Road from the Project Driveway to Wisteria Loop and Wisteria Loop from Bexley Road eastward to US Highway 41. Is was the assumption that they would be building the realigned version that goes through the Clark MPUD or was the assumption that they would be building improving the existing alignment.
I believe the this is as in Kaleo with current planning. Uh the assumption was they will be improving the existing road.
As it is right now. So not The realigned version that goes through Clark M P U D.
Mm correct.
Okay.
I may have more questions later, but that was my immediate question. We can you can proceed.
Okay. Are
any
c are any questions for the previous speaker?
I I mean I I guess this is just a general question. I mean if if they cannot perform and meet the conditions of approval, what happens?
They would never get their first record plat. So Condition sixteen says that prior to the first plat they have to construct or bond all the improvements. So They'd have to either construct them prior to the first plot or Post a bond for the cost of all the improvements.
So if the right-of-way cannot acquire the right-of-way. then they would have to bond or c they have to bond the improvements.
They'd have to bond the cost of acquiring the right of way too, if they don't have the enough right away. That would have to be included in their their bond amount. It would be a pretty big bond if if they don't have the right of way.
Okay.
Very good. Thank you. Okay.
Anything else? Anybody else? I just had one question on your map up there. Bexley Road, did it that end at the uh or terminate at that particular Area at the If you put that map back up there, yeah. Coming in fr I guess that would be from the
Yeah. Does that terminate?
on the east side it terminates at Wisteria but it's like a Y intersection.
So it doesn't matter.
Some people go north on Wisteria Loop, but they also go south to Tower. When I go to my property I come up south from Westeria 'cause it's the fastest way to get there. versus going around the forty one fifty four interchange. If you look at that map, the long term plan is for tower. To be the major road that ties into Bud Bexley. So the bulk of this traffic is going to be going south on Wisteria in the future. But that road is is not included in the condition, that portion needs to be included too.
Thank you.
All right.
Good afternoon. Um I have something I want to enter into the record. So
Yeah, just uh g give your name and address again, right? So we know who we're getting. Ray Gad [address removed].
Do I hear a motion to
receive and file?
Second. Motion and second. Further discussion, all in favor? Aye. Aye.
What I'm entering into the record is a um uh a planning document that addresses specifically some of the concerns that I have and the neighbors have. But I'm not gonna read that document to you. It is intentionally brief so that you can take a quick glance at it and um it'll make some of the points that I'm not gonna make here today. Um my biggest concern is that when it when the Hagman MPUD came in, which is down the street, it was on that map. I don't know what you're looking at, but it's on Wisteria. Uh
we didn't like that when the
map I'm sorry.
We we didn't like that when when Arden Preserve came in with the Hagman MPUD, but it made a little bit more sense because you turn off a 41, 200 feet down the road. Um you turn into Arden Preserve. When you leave Arden Preserve, you go down with Steery, you hit 41, it's right turn only. And you're out of there. Now what we have is a situation where this particular applicant is gonna leapfrog. from the um Hagman development through our neighborhoods, which are all three, four, five
acre lots, has a rural nature to it, a pasture land nature to it. I have five acres on Lake Wisteria. Um uh Mr. Couch, who was just up here, has acredage there. Chris Nacko has acredage there, as well as many other people. And so cars are gonna come through what looks like a rural neighborhood, a lane, down to this um uh applicant's property. It's the first issue I have. Second issue I have is when we were working with the Hagman MPUD, we all showed up here. And
we met with the planning department and the planning department at that time, and we were speaking specifically to Aliatef. agreed that for future planning purposes because Bexley is gonna come over that railroad track someday onto Bexley Road. So Bexley development's gonna come over that railroad track. We're gonna have no success. Changing that access because the railroads aren't really excited about giving us access over their railroad. And
so the planning department realigned Wisteria Loop to make it a one-way shot. You would come over the railroad tracks, down Bexley, onto Wisteria. and out to forty one. And it i I mean no one guaranteed us anything, but the pl uh the planning department at that time said that makes sense because now it dead ends into a curve on Wisteria and you can go right out to tower. Or go straight. um to Highway 41.
Someday loads of traffic are gonna come down that road. And so all I'm asking you to do is add a condition that says that they have to negotiate, work with future developers or whatever it takes to make that vision road a reality, because that's effective planning. Uh you will be able to move traffic at that point. Let me point out that D.R. Horton has submitted a plan where they're willing to give up that right-of-way. um so that that vision road can
be built and they're gonna have no access on wisteria. Thank you for your time.
Okay.
Papa's driven.
Hello everybody. Chris Nacko, uh like Mr. Gadd, I'm here as a private citizen. [address removed]. I live in the general facility. I appreciate Ray. I have security purposes, so But my family are very big proponents of the second amendment. Just wanna put that out there too. Um, you know, I I go along with the fact that, you know, we know the Angeline will be developed. And I don't think anybody's speaking here because we're anti-growth. We're actually, you know, for development. We want the community of Pasco
within Atlanta Lakes to grow, but to grow smartly. And the fact when you see where the Angeline's coming in You know, it's going to be affecting from the south. You'll have numerous communities be affected from the south, but Sun Lake's going to be coming through. which will be a big one. Sun Lake's also gonna go north. To the east. uh go and it'll be Ridge Road, but there's also a lot some communities like this one on the map that will be affected. And as we start developing and we start looking at how we're going to plan our Angeline and everything else that comes with
it. It should be looking at what type of roads. And that was part of the vision process, having the vision roads. And so one of the things that you know we were asking for is that. We'll start doing the vision project first. Start those vision roads, because if we don't have those vision roads in place, all we're gonna do is destroy the communities that are already there. And it's not just those around wisteria, as you know, you heard i it's gonna affect numerous other areas there because People start realizing if I want to go out on forty one and Westeria and it starts getting
backed up because Aber you know the um art and preserve is there. Everybody's gonna start looking for different ways. I think we need to, you know, at least going forward right now on this project, let's make sure the vision road is in there put first. As we start building out Angeline, let's start seeing how it's gonna affect everything else. Because we don't want to destroy the communities already in place. We want property values to maintain high in Pasco County. We want people to keep coming here. But if people start coming here and they realize the there's just people driving on country roads and they're backed up 50,
60 cars deep to get out and make a right-hand turn. We're gonna be in trouble. And it's going to all it's going to do is back up into the Angelines, gonna back up into the Moffat Land. It's gonna keep backing everything up. So that's why you know, starting from the beginning If we could just start with that vision road and go back to it. I'm okay with growth. As long as it's done right. And if we don't have that vision road in place, if it's not done properly. All it's gonna do is start congesting everything up, going back into the Angeline. Well I appreciate it. Thank you all very much.
Thank you.
Anybody
have
questions? Wait, can I ask No, no not you, I'm sorry. I just want to have a question for staff. Um Do we have a graphic that shows division road And how it compares to the existing Bexley and Mysteria? Because we keep hearing about the Vision Road, but I'm not sure we've seen a graphic that shows It's alignment.
Well I guess the applicant maybe does, but I I'm asking do staff have it too or
Southwell.
Well anybody can anybody produce a graphic that shows the vision road? How about that?
That's it
there.
So where is the Bayonet then? Denise is getting it.
Yeah, it's a good one. It's a layer on Casco.
Yeah, I have the original layer. I just have to take the aerial off. That's what's making it too
too busy.
Yeah, it's actually this it actually comes a lot. Yeah, is this
There we we go.
Yeah.
It comes a lot further now.
This is our overlay from past the method. So it just it shifts closer to the levels.
No, what we're drawn to the division route.
I guess I'll just Maybe I need Ray to come back up, but when you were talking about the vision road, are you talking about the portion
That basically bypasses the T intersection of Wisterion Bexley, the part that goes through the Clark M P U D, is that what you're talking about when you say that? Build division road.
Yeah, when they realign the um the road, Wisteria Loop. They added a vision road to the north of Wisteria Loop. And what I'd like to point out about that Vision Road is it still comes through our neighborhood. But th what it accomplishes is it Есенчі мікс Бексли а континус род. so that people coming from the applicant's property, people coming from the Bexley property, or the future Angeline property would hit Bexley and have
a continuous route without a stop sign right to forty one where they would make a right turn. 'cause as it stands now, they come to the curve in Wisteria, and they can go right to Tower or out to a wisteria loop. And when you think about the amount of traffic that's gonna come through there trying to access 41. That problem would be alleviated if we just had a condition that said that vision road. um has to be built. I don't care whether the applicant builds
it, D.R. Horton builds it, Bexley builds it. Um and you know as an indicator here that we're not being entirely self-serving. Uh we want to protect our property, but the Vision Road's right across the street from my property. Uh what I'm concerned about is just this continuous um line of traffic that's sitting out there in front of our property and I don't think the current uh plan addresses that issue and I know that D.R. Horton has offered up the right-of-way for that. uh
vision road even though they have no intentions of accessing Wisteria Loop.
So so Mr. Gadd I Didn't want to give you lots more time here. I just had a simple question. I just want to make sure I'm clear. You're asking the applicant to build basically that the triangular bypass piece of the Vision Road, not the entire Vision Road network. You're asking them to build the piece that connects Bexley the that bypasses the T intersection. Correct. Not The re because you talked about the railroad tracks and everything else.
That's right. Okay. That was that's my that was my
concern is in the future Bexley's gonna come over the railroad tracks and they're gonna come to that T.
Okay. You answer my question. Thank you.
Anybody else have a question about it? Everybody have an understanding of the what
I just I have a question on the what's the right of way of that roadway? How many lanes would that be?
That's a Staff question. I don't know if the right of ways for four lanes or two. Two. Two. Mr. Gadd's selling applicant and Mr. Gad are both saying two, so
Okay.
Anybody else would like to speak?
You're speaking in opposition?
Give me your name and address, please. Absolutely.
Matthew McLean, [address removed]. I'm the um neighbor. Just to the east. We own three and a half acres. Uh we bought two years ago. Um I'm from Pasco, Land Lakes High School, right? Just just just north walking distance now. Um I love Pasco. I love what the community represents and I love its rural nature. And my concern is This will destroy that rural nature. Everything around it's agriculture, uh large lots. And now you're trying to throw It's
unconsistent. Uh they're saying 108 homes on the uh agenda, 107 homes in the MPUD master plan, and 111 uh single family lots in the conditions of approval, so it's inconsistent. So I don't know how many. And additionally, the 50.15 acres isn't buildable. Thirty two percent of that land is wetlands. So you're gonna cram a hundred plus homes on Thirty four acres. In a area where there's three, five, ten
acre Plots of land, it just doesn't make any sense. So that's my concern. Um I'd also like to just address that we are all on uh well and with this many homes and you know unfortunately the uh fertilizers and everything that's gonna be draining into our property, our our water quality will be impacted. Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
We have a person on WebEx.
Hi, I'm Ken Notstein [address removed]. I am the sixteen acres due east of The renter property.
Have
you been sworn
excuse me, have you been sworn?
Yes, sir.
Okay, thank you.
Yes. Um I have the same concerns as the rest of my neighbors. Um The Uh The planning is inconsistent. The traffic the roads cannot handle what's on 'em now. We have a you have a pothole crew that comes around once a month to fill the potholes on on Westeria Loop. And you even if even if you build the new your new neighborhood and improve from Bexley out to 41. You're you're gonna you're gonna kill the rest of the road. We're gonna have You're
gonna put all those houses at above floodplain elevations by building code, and we're gonna get wetter than we already are, which we're already seeing the effects of from your uh the uh Arden Preserve. Uh we've been here for almost five years and it's the wettest we've been just because The water has nowhere to go. Um I also my other concern uh Would be Um
let me check my notes. Oh.
Um why why can't we keep the uh current zoning? And we would be happy with 19 homes in there. Put them on three or four acre lots, five acre lots, whatever. But why do we why do you need to to to put a put a bunch of postage stamp lots in there? Anyways, that's my thoughts. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Anyone else, Denise?
That's all we have on WebEx.
Okay. Uh Shelley, I think we're ready.
Mr. Mr. Chair, I got one comment as the applicant comes up that I think is important to address. Mr. Couch made uh made a comment that the applicant doesn't control the access to do the subst the substandard road improvements. I think it'd be important for them to demonstrate to us that they actually have that access. Okay.
Thank you. Could you put that in these exhibit? I think the exhibit will help too, so we'll go through it. And address everybody's concerns and a mic razor. I'll I'll do a little bit of background that's gonna address some of the stuff and then Mike will get up and address some of the concerns that were raised about the traffic study. So if you see right now, um this is us, we are the runner. If I can get this thing to work, we're the little purple dot there, the runner MPD. Um we are 50 plus some acres, where it's a res six is the land use. And we're coming in, we're the small guy on the the block right now at 108
units. The Arden MPD that y'all have been hearing about quite a bit is over here, the green one. That's 129 units, I believe, single family. The Clark MPD, which is north of us, someone had asked some questions or had some raised some questions about big lots and things. That particular MPD is actually it's over 300 acres. I believe it's about 410 lots or units, and that is actually gonna be 40s. That's got a proposal for some 40s and then some villa and some townhomes. So um there's some
heavier density going in on the Clark MPD. As you can see.
Sure. The Clark MPUD is not approved, right?
The Clark MPD is in process. Um yes, it is not approved yet.
Correct. My understanding is that the the Arden is uh approved for 129. And then of course down at the bottom is Bexley North. Which everyone's pretty familiar with that in terms of it's got some heavy density. Um Sun Lake Boulevard, that's what you guys were looking at. Now the extension is this. This is the actual extension, the purple. I don't know why this is not working. But um you can see when you get to the Clark MP and R exhibit. There's a little yellow jog and that is the new realignment for Wisteria Lane. So what the realignment is, even though the
existing Wisteria Lane is a little south of that and comes up around Arden Court or goes by Arden Court, obviously, because I don't know if anyone th I I don't know that it's been mentioned, but All of the substandard road improvements in front of Arden Court have been done already. So part of the wisteri loop has the existing alignment has already been improved. for Ard and Court. So we would be doing an improvement from our development all the way out the existing alignment of Wisteria Loop out to US 41. Um and then you know, you
have that northern jog someday um that will happen. I my understanding is that the Clark MPD um has preserved the right-of-way. They've never approached us about, you know, doing some kind of a joint type of thing of doing the work on that versus doing what we need to do, which is the existing alignment of Wisteria Loop. Um but my understanding is that they they are not proposing to do any um to actually do any construction on that corridor that is on their property. They control it. We don't control it obviously. So I mean from our perspective, we're doing everything that we're required to
do, that all the developments do. I mean, when you have a road that's substandard. We bring it up to standard and that's what my client has agreed to do um in terms of the existing alignment of Steri Loop, which is the access. Obviously we're we're we're s we're pretty tight in terms of access on the south side, so Um but I do have Mike Razor here and he can answer some of the other questions.
Is that a uh in that yellow line that's a two lane road?
Um it's eighty foot of right away I think is what the it's ultimately gonna be the Bexley extension on out to forty one, I think as Mr. Gat had mentioned, and um it's eighty foot a right away, I believe.
Can I ask Shelly a question before Mr. Razor gets up? Hypothetically if The Clark M P U D gave you the right of way today.
realign segment in lieu of improving existing wisteria?
Yes, they will build one or the other, but not both. So but we don't want to be uh held up obviously. So we wanna be in a position to continue forward just like any other development and if we have to improve with Stereo Loop is existing alignment out to 41 then that's we'll finish doing that. Like I said, it's partially improved. If somehow, you know, there's the timing works out where we can build the actual realign portion, the portion that jogs north, which I know, you know, makes the neighbors happy, um, you know, that would be something we would be open to doing as well. And I'll let Mike answer the traffic questions. Thank
you. Okay.
Uh good afternoon. Uh for the record, Mike Razor, uh Razor Transportation Consulting, 19046, Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Tampa have been sworn. Um registered professional engineer with a specialization in traffic, uh prepared the traffic study for this project. Um Mr. Couch had indicated that the traffic study was inadequate. Um The traffic study was done pursuant to the land development code's requirements, consistent with the county approved methodology. The traffic study was performed on the existing road
network as prescribed by the Land Development Code, not the Vision Road Network. Um Just a couple specific points. Um, there was a mention about uh a lot of traffic, uh subjective number that would be heading east on uh Vexley towards Wisteria. Um traffic heading in that direction during the AM peak hour would be 63 vehicles per hour pursuant to the traffic setting ITE estimates. That's one per minute. In the afternoon, 41, which is one vehicle every one and a half minutes. So again, subjective when you say uh a a ton or
a lot or significant amount of traffic. In regard to Arden Preserve. The traffic study again was done pursuant to county methodology where we use growth rates rather than specific uh development quantities for Ard and Preserve. However, based on some hand calculations I did just now, that right turn onto US 41, even including the growth that we had already included in the traffic study, plus all of Arden Preserve units, we would still be at a volume to capacity ratio of 0.35.21 was the number in
our study, which is 21% of the available capacity without Arden Preserve specific units. Arden Preserve would add 41 additional right turns. More or less, which would bring that volume to capacity ratio to 0.35, which would still be a level surface C operating condition. And in regard to the percent split of vehicles that would turn left on Wisteria versus turning right to Wisteria to tower and then back to 41, our percentage split followed existing traffic patterns, which put about 90% to the north, 10% to the
south. And it's presumably due to the fact that that's much quicker route to US 41 to the north, uh 0.625 miles versus uh 1.46 miles to the south, uh a very circuitous route, 2.3 times longer to get the US 41 uh taking that route. Of course I'll be here for any questions. Thank you.
Before you move away, are there any questions? Uh Concerning uh what he has proposed or said? Anything from up here?
Okay.
Um excuse me I do have one question. Uh there was a mention made of uh some type of uh requirement If a if an improvement exceeds more than a quarter of a mile, what it can you tell me what that Referred to.
I think the mention was I feel it. Go ahead.
We're scratching our heads here as to the the basis for that condition. So maybe the uh opposition folks, Mr. Couch, can come up and clarify that for you.
Okay, that's such a harsh word, opposition, you know. Dare me. Do you have an explanation for me?
Jeremy Couch, Tampa Civil. Oh, excuse me. Jeremy Couch, [address removed]. Yeah, so there's a state exemption. which exempts a minor widening a quarter mile. So you don't have to account for drainage and retention and treatment. if your widening is a quarter mile or less. Um And that's
what this is.
This is greater than a quarter mile to get to their front door, but they don't control any land in this area to do retention.
Because they're gonna have to
And then they're gonna have this zoning entitlement that they can't do and they're gonna be back here. Asking to cut corners. That's my concern. I just want 'em to do what they're supposed to do. Thank you. Okay.
All right.
Could I I guess I'm gonna ask a related question. And I realize the clerk M P U D is not approved, but I don't know which planner's handling the Clark M Puty. Could somebody remind me?
DM me Um I guess that well I guess maybe Eston knows the With for the right of way for that we're requesting from the clerk Property for the Vision Road, are they providing all the necessary Drainage, floodplain mitigation, wetland mitigation for that.
road to two or just the right of way? Does anybody know?
I I'm not 100% certain. Uh I think we have Will Poon here. Maybe he can uh
comment on the Mr. Couch is saying yes. He's shaking his head yes, Mr. Gadd shaking his head yes. I just don't have those. I don't have those conditions memorized, sorry.
Yeah.
I don't know how they know. Maybe they've been studying the Clark MPUD, I don't know.
All right, since staff can't answer my question, Mr. Gadd, can you come up and
You won't be paid for this, Mr. Catherine.
Do I have to say everything again? Ray GAD [address removed]. Um I can't definitively tell you what D.R. Horton uh is or isn't offering because currently their plan is uh in, but I did speak with Clark Harb Hobby, who is the attorney. For D R Horton, who indicated to me that they will give up the land for all the right-of-way and for any necessary drainage that's needed as a result of that road going through. That's just a conversation I had with him yesterday. So
it is speculative, but um uh they're currently in the process of doing the planning. Okay. Thank you.
Did you have a question? Jeremy, if I can be heard, I I do have firsthand knowledge. I'm actually the Jeremy Couch, I'm on the development team for the Clark M P U D. And across the street on the west side of Westeria there's a eight acres. They're dedicating their MPUD dedicates both the right-of-way and two pond sites.
Okay, is there any floodplain mitigation or wetland mitigation required for that segment?
So any required drainage, wetland, or floodplain mitigation, the Clark MPD is providing it. It's provided within the
Clark M P U D for that vision road. So why are you concerned that it won't be done? What if the Clark M PUD is denied? Commissioner Yeah I say that. Without saying it in a disrespectful way.
I understand the timing issue, but I guess my question is if it were approved, you previously said there was inadequate land to provide all that wetland floodplain mitigation and drainage. For
the conditions that are proposed now, which are substandard road improvement
on wisteria.
That's not in the condition though.
I understand. But if it were the realign version, then there would be enough drainage, wetland mitigation, floodplain mitigation areas to build the road?
Yes.
Okay, that answers my question.
All right.
Okay. Uh Shelley, do you does your team have any comment, further comment about this?
Yeah, I just wanted to address um I know that my understanding of the conversations we've had with staff, um with traffic, you know, staff and our traffic engineer is that we have what we need to go either way. So we can either do the substandard road improvements to the existing alignment out to 41. So I'm not really sure where that misinformation has come out, come from, but we can also do the um if if if it comes to a matter of timing and it works and they're giving all the right-of-and-sur-free. That we need in terms of that right away on the Clark property, you know, we can build
that versus doing the other alignment. We just can't do both. And we obviously have to have the ability to do it on the other property if in fact that's the case. So And don't want to be held up by it. But
I realize you don't want to be held up by it. Right. You may be held up by
it
if that's the case.
What is the timing of the clerk and do you do do we
do
we know?
That is a good question. Does anybody know the answer to that? I think it's fairly imminent because I I know it came to me for review once, so it's
there's drafts already put together of conditions, but I don't have a uh an actual
Public hearing Dr.
Schedule, correct.
I assume that Mr Couch knows because if he's the engineer for the project he must know what When it's supposed to go to public hearing. Pardon me?
What did he say? He said ten years from now, which doesn't make sense to me. I think he's kidding. I can I
can I can only speculate, but Mr. Bobby told me that they were two or three months off.
Okay, well to quit speculating.
So in other words I mean if we want to do an alternative i if the timing were I don't w what the main thing is is I mean we and staff we can I I'm not sure where the misinformation has come that we can't do the substantive road improvements that we need to do. on the existing alignment out to 41 we can and that's all the traffic and the experts and I'm sure they'll get up and and re reiterate that if they need to but Um if in fact it becomes an option that we can do the alternative and that's what everybody would rather us do and it doesn't hold us up, then you know, we're open to that. Um you know, we're trying to be good neighbors,
we're not trying to bully our way through everything. We're trying to make it work for everyone but We only control so much of it. At this point, so And we have the access. I mean we can we can improve squisteria and the existing alignment, so
Shelly, just for clarification, I guess going back to the conditions of approval and that condition fifteen that's in the in the um approval approval. Hmm. I th I think what it says is I'm trying to get there but It says the the applicant shall improve these substandard roads to county standards. I guess first item of clarification, that is just more than an overlay, correct?
Yeah, it'll have to actually be designed. Yeah, correct. We are gonna have to b it's gonna be a million dollar improvement when we do the rest of the wisteria.
And then As far as bringing it to standard, does that mean making it full? What what all is included in the two lane I mean in the s in the bringing it up to standard requirement? Is it a full two-lane road? Is it a minimum pavement width?
I can let Mike somebody just clarify
it.
I think it's too late with showing it.
We need your name and address, please.
Paul Skidmore, Florida Land Design and Permitting, 3030 Starkey Boulevard, Trinity. We have looked at uh the right-of-way for Wisteria and Bexley, and the majority of it is a platted right-of-way. There is a small portion that runs through the Clark property that is a maintained right-of-way, and we've had staff provide us with documentation that there's a maintain right-way through there. We are proposing to widen that to a 22
foot wide pavement section. Right now it's only about 18 feet wide and we're going to be putting five foot unpaved shoulders on each side. and installing a water main, a force main, and a reclaim main also down through there to serve our property and probably any other future proper projects in this area. So and we're also looking to do uh some roadside swell to collect water.
And you believe uh you have enough right away. Now for the realignment, the existing There's enough right of way to put in drainage. Any drainage you need?
Uh there we would be real tight in the section that goes through the Clark property, 'cause right now it's only a forty foot maintained right-of-way. So if we widen the road to twenty two feet with five foot shoulders, uh on each side that's uh thirty two feet, so you only have four feet on each side. to the maintained right-of-way line. So that would be it's we can probably make something work as far as catching the water uh with inlets and routing them to the roadside swells where the right of way is adequate
width.
Is is right away width not part of the substandard road consideration? Nothing that's just probably a question for staff more than anything.
Well, there's a minimum width you need to Бел. There is a width, but it's a pavement width, I believe.
Okay. Right.
But it's their job to figure out how to fit that pavement in the ex in whatever right away we have.
And the twenty-two foot wide pavement width is obviously adequate for the amount of traffic that's gonna be put on that road. That is
correct. That's the uh exactly what Hagman had to do for their improvements along Wisteria.
Mr. Chairman M Brad Tippen, Planning and Development. I did get confirmation. Uh the Clark MPUD is tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission on November 4th and December 7th board meeting.
Okay, great.
All right, thank you. Appreciate it. Um Any other questions
from up here from the desk?
Yeah. I just can you have that on the Pasco map or the vision roads? And can you zoom out a little bit on that?
The Bexley property, Bexley North, Way of Angeline, which is north of Bexley North. And we have Ridge Road to get to Forty One, we have Bexley Road to get to Forty One, and we have Tower to get to Forty One. And I know Bexley North has about fifteen thousand units and I know uh I'm not sure about Angeline, but I would assume about the same. So I'm just going to do that. I'm thinking there's three roads and there's about Thirty thousand homes. So I
think we need to get it right when we do this to make sure that the roads are in place. And do the planning. So if if any of that was incorrect, just let me know. But I think those numbers are pretty On there.
Well Uh is a mirror on the Online or no?
Um we have Asin and we have Nima on.
Okay, well maybe then one c one of them can answer, but I think they models all these roadways when they did the latest modeling for the the Vision Roadway Network and they determined the number of lanes that would be needed for
Ridge road, et cetera And when they do that modeling they assume all the growth that's in Lin Angeline and Bexley and and Elsewhere. Maybe one of them can correct me if I'm wrong, but if they for example if they try to
That is correct, David.
So for example if they thought there was insufficient roadway network out there they would have made W Bexley Road be four lanes instead of two.
Right.
So I suspect that they do have determined that if this vision roadway network is constructed It'll provide adequate capacity for the area.
Okay.
Sounds like Custin agrees with me. I think what you're
indicating is that we need to make sure that Vision
Roadway is constructed. Yeah, and if I mean there's no sense in doing it one time and then say, Well this is we should have done this, you know, then change it and you gotta change it again. So if we're gonna do that Bexley Road, do it right the first time.
Yeah. Or Westeria or Bexley, whatever you know, whatever road that is. I'm looking at the map, it's got both names.
So Mr. Chair, I just want to make a comment. So I think you basically this all comes down to a timing issue. There's also a c potential compatibility issue, but that's up to you all to decide whether you think it's compatible. But In terms of the road. It's a timing issue because The Clark M P Mr. Couch is correct it there's no guarantee it gets approved. And if it's not approved, we won't have that all the right-of-way that they mentioned to build the
realign roadway. So The only way that's guaranteed to occur
This project waited until the Clark MPUD were approved. I understand they want to do it as an alternative, but in theory if the Clark MPD were denied or they refuse to provide that right away. then they they would have the right this applicant would have the right to improve the existing Wisteria and Bexley They wouldn't have to build a realign road. So
You know, that's up to the Planning Commission how do you want to decide.
Yeah, I think that's uh I think that's A good summary of the of our our of our predicament. And I think uh that's my That's my reservation.
But I think that's a question to the applicant if they'd be willing to continue until that understanding from Mr. Tiffin that there is a date specific.
Um okay. So Are you representing the applicant? I am ki the applicant, yes.
Okay, well you can't represent him. I am the applicant. Mike Dade with K B Holmes, I have been sworn in. Four one oh five Crescent Park. Riverview, Florida. Okay. Um, you know what I heard today is really a greater concern about twenty thousand homes that have already been approved, the Bexley DRI. The Angeline DRI, these have development orders. Those are trips that have been blessed for a long time. the Bexley Road Wisteria situation
is something that We can help be part of the solution. So I would beg to give us the opportunity for the alternative. and a recommendation of approval. If the clerk applicant puts forth this we would be willing to uh participate in a proportionate share manner. So um give us a chance to be part of the solution. This problem exists whether we are here or not. Thank you.
Well we want you to be part of the solution, but we also don't want you to be part of the problem or our further problem. Thanks. Um So Um
You know, it's the pleasure at the board. You know, what do you want to do from this point? But You know, I I I personally think that we need to make sure and I think it was well well stated that this when we do this, we do it right. We have the proper things in place. Um, we can't let an artificial date. Define. How we handle these neighborhoods, I think traffic flow here is extremely important. And uh you know, I'm I'm just one person
but I'm just Uh I think When we look at this whole picture and summarize what w where where we've come from and where we're going. Yeah, we we know we've all made mistakes in the past. We don't wanna continue to make Other mistakes. Just because we've made m mistakes previously, so Um We want to do what we can to help developers Come in here and do great developments. But we want to make sure that it impacts that
the negative impacts are as least as possible, so That's that's my opinion. Uh and uh I'd certainly uh I think this is And unless anybody has any further questions of staff or applicants or anybody else, you feel free to call them up if you would like to. Otherwise I'd like to hear a vote a motion. From somebody here on the On the board.
Well I'm not gonna make a motion. I'm just gonna make a comment, if I may. Yeah.
I eventually see Lana Lakes Boulevard. On the
B side.
The loop roads. Bakeley Road. All the way over To the West. I'm afraid what could happen there is that's gonna be a connector road between those two roads, those two major roads, uh fifty-four Atlanta Lakes Boulevard. Probably not. within my lifetime, but within lifetime of some of you. And that's my concern. And I think the residents out there in um that
that own that property on those large lots. do have a valid point. But so does the developer. And uh I wish that the county had been able to come forward with a A solution to this. problem that's gonna be down the road. I hate to see us go ahead and approve this road. In the presentation. situation, present present plan. And
Down the road it's and I don't mean down the road. time down the road will create a problem for Those are the right-of-way. that are in the Bex Bexley area, those that are in the Uh neighborhood. That Mr. Gadd talked about Uh that's my dilemma. Uh So I I'm not sure which way I would go on this particular situation. I wish there was a I wish there was a solid answer on that one, but I don't have a Crystal ball. So
That's
my comment. I'd I'll just say that certainly being respectful to the applicant's uh desires and their their timing again We all made that comment that we need to get the planning right on this and this is a this is a particularly uh difficult area that we're dealing with here and Again, I don't know if the applicant would have consideration to to see what goes on with Cleric M P U D now that we have a date specific that Mr. Tippins provided us, um, you know, which is only a couple of months out as it well to
the end of this year. We'll have a good understanding of where that goes and whether But you know, there would be the opportunity for doing the alternative or whether they do the substandard road improvement. So I I think But I agree that we need to get the planning right through this area.
So what you're asking is if they w they're willing to continue? If they would agree to a continuance, yeah, until until And being being understanding of of your your timing and consideration.
Thank you for the good suggestion. Mike Dadey again for the record. Um we've been working on this for a year and a half with staff. You know, we've brought up this vision road a hundred times saying we want to be part of it. If there's a prop share agreement with Clark. Let us join in and we'll be part of the solution. We met with the neighborhood twice. We've met with individuals. We've tried to address this, but we don't own the Clark property. We can't control it, but we're willing to step up. So no,
we're not gonna take a continuance. We're worked with staff for year and now we'd like our our uh chance to move forward. Understand. Can you fill in any blanks?
Yeah no I just wanted to suggest too I mean we can I mean if we can I don't I I mean I mean we don't want to take and continuous we want to move forward to the board. So I mean if we could get a recommendation of approval with some added condition With regards to the the issue that's r of arisen with the Clark property and the fact that the that segment of that particular uh improvement corridors on their property. Um, but move on to board and then we can have conversations with Clark Hobby and the Clark MPD and see maybe if we can't figure something out between all of us before we get to the
board meeting. But I mean we've been in process for so long at this point with the pandemic and everything and not to anybody's fault. It's just just the way things are right now. But Um so we'd like to move forward.
We we could agree at the board to a future developers agreement. So if this right-of-way becomes available, we'll agree to an either or can commit to entering into that agreement. It's a small project of 108 units. It's doing everything it can. We shouldn't be penalized for County issues that involve thousands and thousands of lots. We followed the rules and regulations as they exist today. And we can make that road a better road. We can improve it substantially to the
conditions that it are today. Give us a chance for an alternative recommendation and move us forward with an approval and we promise to do the right thing.
From from a compatibility standpoint, if the Clark MPUD was not even being considered Would would this Zoning change be compatible? To the surrounding area. I think that question's probably for staff. I don't know how this was looked at. I don't know the order that everything was submitted, but If I look at everything around there it's all A C E R A R If this was a a standalone MPD of of this size
What what is the compatibility matrix?
Jessica Cole with the planning department planning development department. When this project was looked at, the future land use is res six and it is in compliance with that. Um the traffic study identified the possible build-out of 111 units. The applicant, when looking at the conceptual design, identified that that was probably not a doable number, which is why we're seeing the 108 proposed with this MPUD. The area surrounding the proposed site have a lot of density but through the MPUD rezoning.
And that's why it was identified that this is in compliance with the future land use and the surrounding area. However, it is noted that the surrounding lots adjacent to this site are quite large. They still carry the same future land use which is a little bit of a conflict with this particular project. But it wasn't necessarily in compliance with the regional or the the bigger picture of the r the area considering the future land use and the other MPUDs approved in the area had similar or higher densities.
Yeah, well I mean i in the future land use there now are uh res three.
Six.
Six now.
I have a question. Did he say I don't know if this is still true, but When I was in the planning department there was you look at the zoning in the lane, you said it's the most restrict the least restrictive or the the most restrictive.
Yes, exactly. So in this case the most restrictive is what it's currently zoned today, which is A C and A R one.
Yeah, okay. That's what I thought. Because you don't automatically get res three if you have res three. It's
That's why we're here today. Yeah. So we're they're they're asking for an M P U D in an area that's has a res six compli comprehensive plan future land use. Okay.
And one one thing to confirm one of one of the Uh folks who gave public testimony. I'm sorry, sorry, I don't remember your name, but brought up the fact that There is an inconsistency between the conditions of approval with the number of units and the and the
Conditions as proposed, correct?
Again, Jessica Cole. Um I believe what the reference was is the timing and phasing application.
No, exactly the number of units.
Yeah, it's referenced in the conditions of approval, but the timing and phasing application proposes the maximum amount of trips, and that was proposing 111 units. However, that's why the request is less because during design they know they can't get that many units on the site. Okay. Thank you. The approval is not for one hundred and eleven, however, it's for the one oh eight.
So Mr. Chairman Ms. Let me just make one comment. So
First of all, I understand the applicant's not in agreement with the continuance, but The Planning Commission can continue it if they want to. You don't necessarily you can do it over the applicant's objection. But my main comment is if you have concerns about density or compatibility, that's not going to be solved by a continuance. The continuance is only going to solve the Potentially solve the realignment issue through the Clark property, it's not gonna Solve density compatibility issues. So If you have concerns about density and compatibility, you could Make
a motion right now to deal with that issue. I'm only pointing out that it only makes sense to continue it if you think you're okay with the density and compatibility because you'd be continuing it to resolve the roadway alignment issue. Right. Am I making sense? Yes.
Absolutely.
Can I
ask this? Could we approve it based and have stipulation that the Um The road alignment.
Those who are
Concerned. Well, so you you c you in theory could improve it With a requirement that they build the realign road. I understand that they don't control the right of way, but you could approve it with the condition that that's the only alignment that that's the only road they build. Um now And it would be their job to figure out how to acquire that right away between Before they get their first they'd have to figure out a way to do it.
Yeah.
So One solution to the timing dilemma would be what maybe what you're suggesting, which is Don't do as an alternative, just say you shall build the realign road. And then they'll have to figure out how to get the right of way it's between now and whenever they block.
I
see that's something I could live with. Excuse me, sir. You cannot keep coming up here every five minutes. Um w you know, we I gave you an opportunity to respond and now we're talking it
talking
it through.
meeting them halfway, we're meeting the residents who are live in that area and have concern about that road. at the present time. I can see down the road, like I said, beyond my lifetime. How the these two major roads are gonna be connected with that passage through that. That's gonna be a But anyway, that's a different point. I could live with that. Will we make a recommendation or a requirement that do they The developer.
Realigned. You said it more eloquent than I did. Develop the realigned road. Re make the realignment conducive to Uh, yeah.
We don't I don't know how to describe it from this graphic, but it's the The requirement would be to build the realigned version of Wisteria that goes through the Clark M P D. and that otherwise the the rest of the substantial route improvements would follow the existing alignment of Wisterion And Baxley.
Well Is that what you're thinking? Yeah, that's what I'm saying. But you'd have to do it to make it clear that that would be through right away to be acquired by the developer.
Yeah is that a motion? That would be my motion, yes.
So we have a motion. Do we have a second?
I'll second that motion. We have a motion and we have a second. Is there for any further discussion on the motion?
Mm I mean my only concern with that obviously is is tying them too directly to and they're basically held hostage to the Clark M P. Um I mean I Yeah. Peter, does it I mean if a con if that condition is revised to include an either or alternative, either they have to do that or they have to bring the current alignment up to sta you know, bring it up to standard. Does that do the same thing?
I believe so. Well well then. what I'm trying to to accomplish here, and Not doing a very good job at it. But I'm trying to try to meet their needs, the developer's needs. And at the same time to ensure that the realignment doesn't impact the community that's already in place. We've heard from them they're They're They're what I would call estate type of homes out there. So they want to maintain a certain Uh I think that's the problem is the
road itself. They don't want a road that's not gonna be compatible to their area.
And that's what I see. That's what I was trying to accomplish through through this process.
maybe never get access to. Um I that's that's part of my conversation of whether they would let the The the hearing process in the Clark MPUD play out. To see how that ends before we make a decision on this, 'cause from a compatibility perspective I'm okay with that. I'm just I'm I'm stuck on the the transportation issue.
Yeah, and you get I mean to me you continue it until they're both held at the same time. They're both here, they're both talking, they can agree and disagree and it work it out in a public hearing. And two months it's not that big a deal.
I
Yeah. I mean I I personally think that from what I've heard today, I I think they're they're gonna run into some problems even meeting the conditions the way they're written. But if they're willing to accept those, I I guess that's a whole nother story. So I I mean I agree. I I think that's a big the big issue here is timing. I think if this was after the Clark MPUD were held at the same time, I don't think we're even having this discussion.
All right, well we have a motion on the floor. We have a second. Let's vote on that motion and see if it passes or doesn't pass. Doesn't pass we'll get another motion, different motion. So we have a motion on the floor.
Can we restate it? Yeah, please.
Peter. David. I'll try. I believe his motion was and tell Peter f tell me if I'm wrong. to approve the project with the added condition that the build the realigned version a wisteria loop on right away to be acquired by the developer from the Clark M PUD.
Yes.
Okay,
so we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion of that motion? All in favor of that motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed?
Nee. Nee,
nee. Okay. So that motion fails.
Can I just uh confirm on the name this record we made for school?
Yes.
Jane Droid and Rick Good Snell. Correct. Okay, yeah.
Mr. Chairman did you vote? Yeah, I voted nay. Okay.
And Chairman Gray voted nay? Thank you.
Okay. Um okay, so Uh
I think I I mean in my opinion I think uh uh A resolution to this problem for at least for me, to get my vote. And uh e you all kinda have your own vote, but Um is that we're gonna have to I'm gonna ask for a uh another motion. What I would like to see is a motion to continue.
Because I I have reservations about compatibility but I can get by the by that, but I can't get by the The road issue. Um that's that's my problem. So
I'm open to any motion. I'm
just making
that suggestion.
Can you confirm the dates on the Clark M P U D again, the hearings?
Yeah, they are tentative dates. They are not uh official dates, but it is November fourth and December seventh. Uh and another potential option uh would be to include a uh a time certain for them to be allowed to use the alternative, that they need to obtain the right away prior to a particular date that can be after that hearing. uh but also a reasonable distance so that they're not bound and held hostage by the Clark MPUD like uh there was some suggestion.
You could set a date that it you know, if it's not resolved as of this point they're allowed to do the substandard road modifications they proposed instead.
I think that's the e effectively the either or alternative.
Yeah, but with a trigger that they have to at least wait out. the a reasonable amount of time to obtain that right of way.
I think that's hard to quantify. I think we I think we either wait to find out or we don't.
But Yeah, I I d I can't make a motion, so Somebody's gotta make one.
And it if it's the November fourth meeting, I guess if we if we're saying we Wanna make a motion to continue? Do we have to pick a date? This is my first question.
Yes, otherwise they'd have to readvertise. Okay.
And if we pick a date, November fourth, is that in Dade City? I'm assuming since the Clark M P D is being held in Dade City, this could be held in Dade City too?
Yeah, why is this one in Newport Ritchie?
Oh because it's on this side of forty one. So why wouldn't Clark be on the same?
That I can't speak to. I'm not sure why that that choice was made, but it's Planning Commission on the fourth, BCC on the seventh, and both of those would be Dade City. There's only one.
Right, that's right. There is only one uh
So since we have primarily three people in opposition, you all could I I've got to ask Mr. Gat, does the opposition care what side of the county this is heard on?
Yeah, that's right.
Mr. Couch, do you care what side of the county this is hurt on? Okay. So it sounds like you can continue it to whatever Side of the county you want to continue it on to?
Okay. So you're I'll make a motion to approve or to continue this to the November fourth Planning Commission meeting in Newport Ritchie.
Dade City.
So we have a motion to continue and we have a second. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. Aye. Or no. Motion carries.
This is probably I probably should have made this before, but I I guess Shelley and your team if if you guys uh my recommendation would be to try to d have the discussion with the Clark M P D folks before that Planning Commission meeting so everybody's all on the same page.
Okay.