PEG-247712 Katie52 Gateway Hub rezoning

1:01:08All right. Good afternoon, Amy Tull with Planning and Economic Growth. So the item before you is actually PEG 24-7712. It's an MPD rezoning in the name of Katie52. As Denise noted, there were expertise that were given to the clerk's office already for this item.

1:01:32So the applicant is proposing a rezoning petition from AC Agricultural District, R1MH Single Family Mobile Home District, NC2 Jibreal Commercial District, to MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District. That was too far. On approximately 785 acres, the applicant is actually, so this Katie with the name of KD52 is actually the second phase of what is called Gateway Hub over at the uh northwest intersection of

1:02:02State Road 52 and I-75. The first phase came in for single-family developments and non-residential uses in the name of Hillcrest. That was previously approved a couple years ago. Years ago. So this is the second phase coming in to implement the other various subcategories within the K the Gateway Hub future land use classification, including the mixed use, interstate subcategory, multifamily subcategory, and single-family subcategory. I believe there's all puts in there as well. So

1:02:33given that perspective or given that information. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop 190,000 square feet of retail commercial, 3 million square feet of light industrial, 500,000 square feet of office, 250 hotel room, 1,550 multifamily apartments, 150 townhomes, 600 single-family homes, and 27 single-family estate homes. Again, this is approximately on 785 acres. Located on the north side of State Road fifty two west of I seventy

1:03:03five. So as you can see the subject site's located in the South Market area and urban expansion area.

1:03:13Here's an aerial view of the proximity. There's also the Orange Belt Trail that's running through the post-development. There's various conditions within your MPUD, conditions of approval that speak to the maintenance, construction, and implementation of the Orange Belt Trail.

1:03:34This is a uh overview, uh probably about a one-mile scale overview of the surrounding area. So to the north of the subject site is rural area one, northeast rural. Um to the west is your uh rural area two, which is your transition area. Um to the south, you're gonna have an area that's uh rural area four, and then Connected City is going to be on the the South East Quadrant.

1:04:02So again, we did our one-mile proximity evaluation on the uh already existing MPDs within the area. Um here's just an overview of some of the approvals that came in with Connected City and CPEB and Hillcrest and some of the areas. Um this is capturing again the entitlements that are proposed within the KD-52. And then highlighting some of the already existing approved entitlements that fall within this

1:04:32the one mile proximity of the proposed MPD. And if you have questions on what those look like, I can give you some of those answers as well.

1:04:42So again, existing zoning is AC, R1, M H and C2, with AC to the north and existing MPUD to the west, MPUD to the south, and then at the intersection there's also various C2 and commercial zoning districts.

1:05:02The existing feature land use being Gateway Hub. There's Agricultural Residential to the north, which is going to be our Northeast Rural Area with Res Ones. Also to the south is ROR, Gateway Hub and Industrial, and then to the east as well as an employment center industrial. So the subject site is primarily surrounded by employment generating uses with some lower density and medium density. Yeah.

1:05:29This is the MPD master plan that they're proposing. In the shaded areas, those are going to be the boundaries of the quote unquote subcategories that are defined within your Gateway Hub Future land use classification. So the peach is going to be your interstate employment and mixed use subcategory. To the south, it's going the orangish burnt orange color is going to be your corporate business mark. The lighter yellow is Multifamily, single family in the brighter yellow, and then up at the top of north

1:05:59northeast corner is a single-family estate, which is going to be a larger pods of single family. This is the Orangevile Trail in blue that is going to run up from Old Pasco Road and State Road 52. It is going to head along the Interior arterial collector roadways to the east, and it is projected to be constructed under I-75. There's an accompanying EDA or an economic development agreement that

1:06:30will be presented with this at the time of BC the board hearing to ensure that the construction, maintenance, and implementation of the Orange Belt Trail is achieved in this area. then there is a green, the green star there is representing a potential additional signal that the applicant has stated in one of their conditions at time of development. Once they do another review of it and it's warranted, they will go ahead and provide that signalization there.

1:07:01So the applicant, due to the scale and the proximity and the uses of the site, is proposing uh variation requests to the code. Uh section 402.5D is just a variation requesting that they get a waiver from uh any alcohol sales if they propose alcohol based on its proximity to parks, churches, those types of uses. So that's just a traditional, just a just in case. LDC section 805.6. That is going to be your maintenance of the CDD and HOA,

1:07:32that traditional condition that we have in place. The maintenance of the wetlands and whatnot and open spaces will be under one entity so it still meets the intent of the code. Section 901.6 D11, continuation of streets. They are requesting a potential variation because to the north it is all Category 1 wetlands, and so there is a limitation to where that can occur. So they just wanted to go ahead and make note of that. Section 905.1E for the amount of land required. This is for your park space within

1:08:02the multifamily, so they are just asking. For a reduction in park spaces for the multifamily development. 905.25 site perimeter and landscaping. They're requesting to limit or remove some of the landscaping where your non-residential uses are adjacent to each other, which essentially is due to if you have commercial uses in proximity, we're going to remove those landscaping to make sure it's more walkable or environmental. And then 907.1 e parking

1:08:32facilities. They're requesting a reduction in parking for the multifamily to 1.7, and they're also requesting a reduction for 1.7 parking spaces in the corporate center for those areas where multifamily is to occur where it's vertically integrated.

1:08:50So with that, uh we recommend approval of the requested zoning request uh with conditions to the Board of County Commissioners, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have on the proposed site.

1:09:00All right, any questions?

1:09:05I'll have some

1:09:06after. Amy, did you cover the fact that the fire rescue condition is still

1:09:11being negotiated? There is a uh condition number sixteen is currently being modified. It does uh enable or have a uh condition that speaks to where fire would be a fire service site would be located um and the credits and fees that would be assessed at that. point in time, we're still kind of modifying that just to make sure that the fire services budget budgets adequately for that uh facility when that that site

1:09:41is needed. So and that is also a finding

1:09:44in your agenda number. Just letting you know that the language about that site is likely to change between now and the board, 'cause

1:09:53Yeah.

1:09:54It was the only condition where staff and the applicant were totally in agreement as of the date of this hearing, so they asked to proceed with that negotiation still occurring.

1:10:05Okay. Thank you, David.

1:10:07Okay, any other questions for Mr. No?

1:10:13Was the staff in s was the staff supporting the alternative standard requests?

1:10:17Yes.

1:10:18Okay.

1:10:19Staff was in support of this.

1:10:22All right. And the applicant?

1:10:30Mr. Chairman Mari Hobby, Hobby and Hobby, PA one oh nine with Rush Street, Tampa, Florida. Ben Sworn. Uh first wanna start off uh have been Sworn at many times here but I have been sworn at today. Uh uh I want to first thank staff. I was looking back at my files today. I think we had our pre application meeting on the comp plan amendment that led up to the MPUD on this thing. I wanna say it was two and a half years ago. So this has been something we've been working on a very

1:11:00long period of time with staff and it's a pretty complicated Complicated project because of the nature of the overlay that we're in the gateway hub. And so thank you to Amy, David, and Terry and Elizabeth Blair worked on the comp plan amendment stuff with us as well. So thank you to staff. So we're excited to be here today. If we could put that master plan back up, that would be great. What we've been working on these last two and a half years is to take the existing gateway

1:11:30hub policies that existed for this site for about 15 years and to really do two major things. We're trying to create a very large scale employment generated use along the interstate and then we wanted to significantly lessen the amount of multifamily area that could have been built in the previous subcategories. So the area that you see along the interstate that says interstate employment and mixed use

1:12:01area. We worked with staff, that area would have already allowed significant residential entitlements and we eliminated all of the residential in that area and what's gonna end up happening as a result is we're gonna end up with I think it's between somewhere between 375 and 400 acres of large-scale light industrial employment in that area. regionally significant not just for Pasco but really for the Bay Area. It could be

1:12:31a very large employer uh and employment node there, which if you look at the original uh policies for Gateway Hub, that's really what the county's been looking for in this area for many, many years. Prior to Gateway Hub, there had been ROR on a large amount of this property for a long time and then a portion of it had had employment center as well. As I said, the focal point is the employment area along the interstate, but there's

1:13:01a couple of other very significant things that we're going to do that we feel like is going to be great for the county over the long haul and great for the area. The first is to encourage the employment generating uses. We're going to build an extension of Old Pasco Road that you see on the map. And right out of the gate we're gonna build what I call like a north point style uh four lane road, a like a boulevard coming up all the way to the T in the middle of the site. that's in a first phase

1:13:31improvement and that's a major improvement and we're working with um economic development folks here to try to bring along an incentive agreement that will help us do that. At the same time as Amy mentioned, we're building a major extension of the Orange Belt Trail alongside that road and then alongside the east-west road. And we build under the interstate and the long planned extension of Aussie Murphy Over to Pasco

1:14:01Road on the east side of 75 to Lincoln over by the Target Distribution Center. So these are major county objectives, some of which have existed for 20, 25 years that the project's gonna be fulfilling. So we're very excited about doing that kind of thing. Uh as I mentioned, we also significantly limited not just the amount of multifamily, but the site has a lot less single family that could have been allowed on the on the site from the get-go.

1:14:32Uh and we did that purposefully. Um the master development company is Heinz and a an affiliate of Heinz and they while they plan on having you know some nice upscale um building in the single family area that you see on the map, What we didn't want to do is here to the previous plans which had a very, very large of only multi-family in there. We want the multi-family areas where it says multi multiple family and in

1:15:02the corporate center so that they're proximate to where the jobs and the commercial uses are going to be in the corporate center area. So again, a lot of work has gone into it and and the last thing I'd I'd point out when we started the project and and part of our partnership with the county that's something I believe is really good for a lot of the county. The county asks us to go back and look at where that green star is, right where it says Old Pasco Road. That's actually where the access point is to Tampa Bay

1:15:33Golf and Country Club. And there's kind of an existing unsafe condition in that area for the retirees who are living at Tampa Bay Golf and Country Club. Part of what we agreed to do is as soon as the signal is warranted, we're gonna go ahead and build a second signal there. So we'll have access to two signals at 52 and the folks at Tampa Bay Golf and Country Club will be able to get out much more safely than they do now. And go westbound on 52. So that's just a small smattering of what's all

1:16:03in this very long approval document. But there's a lot of good here for the county and and there's a lot of positive things for our client and we believe our neighbors. But I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

1:16:15Yeah.

1:16:17If not I'll hold my fire till we have any acceptance. Sure. Can well I'll

1:16:24wait.

1:16:27All right, is there anybody from the audience who'd like to speak?

1:16:40[address removed] really nice place. Um the my issue is the Northeast Rural. I would like to see a map of exactly what they've planned as a transition area. in between the northern part and northeast rural. And just and to have them explain how they're going to handle that. Thank you.

1:17:05Thank you. Anyone else?

1:17:11Sina One. Okay.

1:17:15Mr. Chairman Mariano, and I think I can answer that without having an additional map. Uh for the Planning Commission's benefit. The One of the members of the joint venture that is the developer of the site owns a significant amount of acreage north of this site. and they uh at I believe it's over a thousand acres and they're anticipating that that site will probably be in a mitigation area. In the short term, so it won't be developed, so

1:17:45there won't be any impact on the Northeast Pasco area. And the one portion of the site in the very northwest corner that says single-family estate, uh, that would allow for 27 units at one unit per acre over there. But as you can see, it's cut off by category one wetland. And so it's our intention to probably just use that. site for floodplain compensation. So there won't and and in the middle, I'm sorry, that's a big lake and peat mining area, the carve out in the middle that is owned

1:18:16by the same family. So there's not going to be any direct adjacent development next to Northeast Pasco at all. So that that's how we're transitioning down.

1:18:26Okay. At the northeast side of the site is the the venture joint venture partner that's owns property off site, is that a wetland today?

1:18:40You were you were saying

1:18:41that there was they were gonna make a

1:18:42big

1:18:43thing.

1:18:43North north of the area where it says Interstate Employment Mixed Use Area, the Cruzin family through one of their entities uh owns that property and they're intending to probably have a mitigation bank in that area. What I'm asking is is that proposed mitigation bank

1:19:00area. already a wetland.

1:19:03Uh there a portion of the site is a wetland and there's a fair amount of uplands up there also. It's a ranch. So there's it's a combination, but I think they intend on making I think it's a combination mitigation bank area, but they're probably gonna get some credits for uplands that are conserved and they may be doing some wetland creation up there. But the wetland you see on the very north boundary does go in. into a portion of their site.

1:19:30Okay.

1:19:32Question.

1:19:34PM twenty six. We've had a big debate since the Hale Collier case. about the minimum width of lots. And then there was an agreement with the Builders Association. To make 'em forty fives. And then we got this case. But all of a sudden they're thirty.

1:19:59If they're rear loaded. So I'm trying to figure out.

1:20:05How are we allowing thirty foot lots now or Proposing to allow thirty foot wide lots. Where'd that come from?

1:20:13Well Mr. Moody if I might, because I was a big part of the discussion with the Memo PM twenty six and the previous twenty-one. It was widely discussed at the board level that the board really does not have a concern about the width of alley loaded product. And it was you know Commissioner Starkey in particular during those discussions was encouraging us to have virtually any width as long as it's alley loaded. So there's been the the the two memos that have been adopted have all been about regulating

1:20:43the width of front loaded only single family detached and townhomes.

1:20:50Well, I'm not sure if I agree with that, but I mean that's why we agreed and we see this standard condition in almost every M P U D that comes through here that if More than fifty percent of the lots are forty foot wide, they'll be rear loaded. And I see actually that condition's in here, but that condition doesn't exig address thirty foot wide lots and I'm trying to figure out why why do we all of a sudden need thirty foot wide lots? I'm not sure that we I mean there was there was a discussion,

1:21:21there was a stakeholder group And the settlement was on 45-foot-wide lots, and today we're being asked to do 30-foot wide lots. Re whether they're rear loaded or not. Actually I'll ask you some questions about that too. I saw that the setback for a rear loaded lot's fifteen feet. So I'm trying to figure out if I put my GMC Sierra in the fifteen foot driveway, where's the back end of my truck? I guess it's hanging

1:21:51out in that alley. So I'm trying to figure out how Commissioner Weightman gets his garbage truck down the Down the alley of my GMC's hanging out with only a fifteen foot setback back there. I'm trying to figure out how that works.

1:22:04Well to get to the issue of the settlement, I do think Mr. Pito should address whether rear loaded lots were even subject to that requirement.

1:22:31Mr. Chairman Mariano I'm waiting for the PM twenty six memo to load on my computer here.

1:22:41Um

1:22:46Generally speaking, the uh rear loaded lots were uh exempted the from the

1:22:56Okay, small.

1:23:20Okay. To uh to answer the question directly, can you repeat can you repeat it one more time, Silent?

1:23:24I I was just of the understanding that the minimum lot size post PM twenty six was going to be forty-five foot. If they were gonna do forties they needed to be rear loaded if they were pre PM twenty six. Maybe that's a misunderstanding on my part, but and and you know, and I still to this day don't agree with forty and forty five foot lots. I said very publicly during the Hale call year, I'm done with forty and fifty foot wide lots. That being said, the boards decided 45-foot-wide

1:23:56lots. That's beyond me. But today that now today the proposal's thirty.

1:24:01Well, I I that's why I asked Mr. Pete just to clarify what was actually agreed to in PM twenty-six because there were exceptions to the forty-five foot law requirement. I just don't remember them all. I think there was one for retirement communities, I believe, fifty-five plus communities weren't subject to that requirement. And there may have been others.

1:24:19So I don't see any retirement community mentioned in the discussion.

1:24:24Well I believe Breur Loto was ex also accepted too, but again, Mr. Pitos can he's he's the author of that memo, so I think he should speak to it.

1:24:33It's actually a ten foot sit back in the room.

1:24:36Ten foot. So great. So my twenty-foot truck will hang ten feet into the alley that's twelve feet wide.

1:24:42It's a ten foot front, ten foot rear.

1:24:44Yeah. So the under the standards for the 45-foot-wide lot, the MPUD may propose other options to deviate from the 45-foot-wide lot requirement here and which shall never be less than 40-foot-wide lots with higher landscaping and green space requirements as identified in the MPUD COAs.

1:25:07The rear loaded lots, however, could be less than forty fives. There could be forties. Um because in the in the previous You said shall not be

1:25:16less than forty, right? Shall not be less than forty, yeah. So was thirty less than forty?

1:25:22Thirty is less than forty, but the key point of the memo is that the board had an applicability clause associated with that memo so that if an MPUD application that was already in queue had already received its first round of comments to conduct its review as of August eighth, twenty twenty three, they were being exempted. So this was a queue prior to that. Yeah.

1:25:48But we're under no obligation to recommend approval of thirty foot wide lines. That just says that they can still ask for them in their MPUD. You're under no obligation here to actually approve those. Correct.

1:26:00Yes, you don't have any obligation to Yeah. Recommend approval of anything. Okay.

1:26:10Material, I guess the question I had for you was I I distinctly recall an exception for fifty five plus communities. Was there a similar exception for either T and D or rear loaded lots?

1:26:24Yes, so developments with forty, uh accept in T O D, T M D T O D or Fifty Five Plus Communities. PEG will not support any front-loaded 40-foot-wide lots and will not support any project that proposes more than 50% 45-foot-wide front-loaded single-family detached lots. So

1:26:42I guess the question is I don't know if we're loaded enough as to make it T and D, but I guess the question was was it your intent or the board's intent to subject fifty-five plus communities T and D T O D to that minimum forty foot lot requirement?

1:27:05Yeah specifically the the the policy memo that the board um approved was stating that PDD will support project proposals that include 40 foot wide lots in 55 plus communities, age-restricted communities, provided the tree and landscaping requirements are met as defined in the tree and landscaping requirements of the memo. Additionally, 55 plus communities are subject to the driveway street type and parking sections of the policy memo. These communities maybe up to 100% of said lots and maybe front loaded. Okay,

1:27:35but what does it say about D and D? Yeah. That we would that uh we would support project proposals that include forty foot wide lots in T and D and T O D developments. They would include what size lots,

1:27:49I'm sorry. Forty. Forty foot wide lots. So I guess the quote I guess getting to Mr. Moody's question Is there anything in the memo that says that you would support thirty foot li wide logs in T and D?

1:28:09Um As rear moaded product, you mean?

1:28:12Or just in general? Well just let's just presume that TND is equivalent to rear loaded. Okay, I really understand that's an overgeneralization. Yeah. But my question really is, is there anything in the memo that says that staff would support lots smaller than forty feet in T and D or rear loaded?

1:28:32Uh that did come up during the conversations at the board meeting and one of the um uh expert testimonies that were given noted that a 30-foot wide lot that was rear-loaded could present just as nicely in a community as a 40 or a 50-foot wide lot might. Because the front lo the rear-loaded lot would have space in front of the unit that would have the green

1:29:02space that the board was looking for. It would have the pedestrian connectivity in the front, it would have the on-street parking capability. And so the argument that was being made at that board meeting was that the form was appropriate and scaled to the right-of-way. It wasn't that the lot width itself would solve or be the the sole factor um that would be

1:29:29I I'm I'm not trying to get into what was discussed at the meeting. I'm trying to figure out Mr. Moody's question and my question are both the same, which is what does PM twenty six require or not require as it relates to T and D or rear loaded locks. That's my question.

1:29:57Okay.

1:29:59I I was just gonna point this Clark Hobby again for the record. I was just gonna point out again, PM twenty six does not apply to this project. We are voluntarily complying with almost all of it anyway. PM ten applies to this project and it has the language about the forty-foot lots that Mr. Moody's rightly uh concerning himself with, but it also has the following statement Flexibility shall be given for alley loaded and rear-loaded development.

1:30:29And we heard the board say Rip and numerous members and again it's not maybe it may not have been codified in a later memo, that the board was much less concerned about the width of alley loaded product and and you know Commissioner Starkey keeps saying over and over again, I don't care how wide it is as long as it's alley loaded. So we did build thirty six the Hines Company built thirty six story 36 foot wide alley loaded

1:31:00product T and D. in Astoria and it was very successful and I think that's probably why they So

1:31:08Is it accurate to say just to Complete what BM twenty six. I understand you're not subject to it. Right. Okay. Understand. But just for a going forward basis so that the Planning Commission understands. The PM twenty-six explicitly blesses forty-foot lots per TND. It doesn't explicitly bless

1:31:28smaller than forty

1:31:30per TND.

1:31:31And I again think that's again this a good catch by Mr. Moody because I think he's raising a valid point. I think PM twenty-six do may not have carried over that flexibility statement either. So if you read it literally. it may not say that anything below forty is allowed. It does. Or does it? Okay.

1:31:52Well and you s you said High Hands built a thirty six foot wide product. Looking at this, you know, you can go to as low as thirty foot wide if it's rear loaded with a five foot side setback in itself. So that means a twenty foot wide product.

1:32:07Double wide mobile home is twenty four.

1:32:11So that's I'm sorry, uh uh

1:32:13right it's a thir it's a thirty foot lot with a five foot side setback, so it's ten feet. So it's it's makes for

1:32:20I'm I'm gonna get Brian Surak here 'cause he's the knows a lot more about the product layouts than I

1:32:25am. So it's really a rear setback of ten feet with a with the garage setback being actually eight feet. Um, so you definitely there's definitely no way of keeping anything in the driveway with that.

1:32:39Yeah. Maybe you can if there's a question if you don't want to read.

1:32:47Who's at this?

1:32:48Yeah, uh Brian Sarak with Clearview Land Design and Swarm.

1:32:52Okay.

1:32:55Brian, did you want to say something?

1:32:58It sounded like there

1:32:59were questions about the very specific stuff about the setbacks and stuff like that. So maybe if there's a lot of things, just looking at how

1:33:05s how small the the rear loaded lot is, you know, in in this particular approval. It's a it's a it's requesting a minimum lot size of thirty feet wide, ninety feet deep. um and with a side setback for detached. outside about five feet on each side. So you're you're talking about Forty feet. Well no, you're talking about you thirty foot w uh uh wide lot, you're talking about a twenty foot wide building that you can put there. I mean can you build something twenty feet wide? Sure.

1:33:35The T and D that's doable.

1:33:39The question is, do we want it? Mm-hmm.

1:33:44Well what about the setbacks? So whether it's a rear

1:33:47loaded What's the rear loaded setback? It's ten feet. And it and the garage setback in the rear rear is actually eight feet. So the garage can be as far as

1:33:55I'm trying to figure out how I take my GMC Sierra that's almost nineteen feet long and I park it in a ten foot driveway. Eight foot driveway. Eight foot driveway.

1:34:05Well I believe that specific project it w wouldn't be intended for cars to be parked in the actual driveway itself.

1:34:11Yeah, but that's what happens. Okay. That's what

1:34:14happens, I think it's messy.

1:34:16I can go to ninety percent of the houses in the neighborhood and their car isn't parked in the garage, all their boxes of things are in the garage and the car is in the driveway. That's how all this discussion and this debate got started. Because we had cars out hanging over sidewalks. Okay, so we want to have alley access? And

1:34:33if you have a

1:34:34back end of my truck there. And I'm trying to like said I figure out trying to figure out how Commissioner Weightman's garbage truck or the fire truck or the ambulance gets down the alley when I'm blocking it with the

1:34:44If you have a twenty foot wide building, how how big is that garage gonna be?

1:34:50That's

1:34:51Well I mean I presume a twenty foot wide house would have a one car driveway or one car garage.

1:34:57Right. So

1:34:59War 2, I mean I mean twenty-foot garage is a two-car garage.

1:35:06Yeah that it's a little bit more.

1:35:10I i if this will help, I mean our clients happy to go to the forty foot lot width minimum on it. The other setbacks, I mean our clients actually built a ton of TND product around the country and they feel like they can make it work and build beautiful communities with the other setbacks. I mean that's they know how to build it. They build them around the world. Yeah.

1:35:31Okay.

1:35:32But I but again, we have no problem with moving the out the alley loader to forty feet wide too. Okay.

1:35:40So the alt standard request 1.7 parking spaces per multifamily unit. The tradition in here for the last couple of years has been one point nine. This board just A month or two ago made a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners to change the code. to one point nine spaces per multifamily unit. That's the Alternative standard request that you And your compatriot oh she left

1:36:11already. Routinely ask for.

1:36:15Why one point seven on this project? What makes this project different that we can justify even less parking than What we've been asking for for all the other projects for the last couple of years that I've

1:36:25been here. There's a there's a couple of answers, but not the least of which is the area where the corporate center is is envisioned as a much more urban form of development than what we see in our what is the right-of-way. So how

1:36:38does that

1:36:39well so

1:36:39how does that

1:36:40make it less parking needed? We may have parking garages, we may have more on-street parking than we typically have. in the county. Uh it's could be a completely different form of development saying that you

1:36:51don't get credit for parking s on street or parking garages?

1:36:55depending on where they are under the code, you do and do not. I mean, we're likely to have a larger area. Right now I think there's a uh limitation on where the spots are versus where the use is right now in the L D C and in more urban form I don't think that necessarily If I live in an apartment

1:37:14do you think I'm gonna wanna park my car at the apartment complex I live in? Hm? If I live in an apartment complex, do you think I'm gonna wanna park my car at the apartment complex I live in? Not a parking garage in a corporate

1:37:27center half a mile away. Uh I I think it depends how approximate they are. I mean, some of these are gonna be very close to one another. Some of it that some of the condition applies to multifamily in the corporate center. We might have vertically mixed use buildings. I mean that's that's the answer. I mean honestly, Heinz again, we built a lot of this stuff around the country, around Florida, most of the areas that they build these kind of products in have one

1:37:57point five units. I mean one point five spots per unit. And so we're trying to create something So we didn't start building a sea of of parking lots where we're trying

1:38:09to make an urban area. That's what we're trying

1:38:11to do.

1:38:12Do you see where a lot of people that live there also work there?

1:38:19So winner

1:38:19study and

1:38:26Okay. Mr. Henry was just putting a bug in my ear and said that they've done ITE studies and it's significantly less even than the I think it'll lead to one point seven even for the kind of project we're talking about.

1:38:39So that was kind of the basis of my questions.

1:38:45people work where they live,

1:38:47you know, so that's there's maybe less driving going on where you need less than with a more

1:38:51urban form, you don't you know, you not having uh intentionally as much suburban form planning or living. You're trying to get people live in a more urban environment where they can walk to the uses. That's the whole idea. Well if

1:39:06I

1:39:06didn't theory would be. How many

1:39:09acres is this?

1:39:10That's gross, it's over seven hundred. So

1:39:13if I live on the far western edge and I live in one of those thirty foot wide single family.

1:39:18Doesn't apply to that. No, the parking I believe the parking relief is only for the multifamily and corporate center areas. Okay.

1:39:27We're not trying to change things that are more suburban in form. It's only to help us have more of a urban form. Again, we can build more and more parking

1:39:35lots.

1:39:37the idea that one might live close to their

1:39:41Work. I would tell you But I'm not expecting that you're building New York City over here and then I'm gonna come out of my high-rise flat and I'm gonna walk to my office two blocks away. Right, and not everybody that lives over there is gonna work in whatever light industrial job you have. They're still gonna get in their car and they're gonna drive to Tampa and work in their office at Wells Fargo Bank or wherever they work down there in Tampa. Yeah, some of 'em may do it but not all of 'em are gonna do it. So there's there's

1:40:11a need for parking. I don't disagree with that. I mean, I'm just not saying that there's a there's been a justification. It's been the norm of this board to approve one point nine Today it's one point seven. I'll just be really honest with you. I feel like we're starting to really push the envelope, okay? We come in here. We do 40-foot wide lots, now we want 30-foot wide lots. We agree to 1.9 all day long. Now we want 1.7. And then that brings me to the next one. Now we don't want any ent

1:40:41buffers between

1:40:44the the commercial blocks. And I'm trying to figure out the justification for that. We make it, everybody else does a buffer. What's so special about here that you don't need to do any internal

1:40:58landscape buffers? Well and I'll talk about buffers, I would but but as far as the parking is concerned, so there is the ITE sixth edition parking generation manual. And we've done multiple alternative standards in Pasco County and other municipalities where it's 1.5, 1.6, because that's what ITE has depending on they have broken it down into the different types of multifamily. So yes, one point nine because That was a kind of a gimme as far as that parking rate. But the reality

1:41:28is studies, but I'm saying, but as far as studies go, there are studies out there, and again, this is a brand new edition of IT parking edition that shows that multifamily certain multifamily have less than the 1.7 parking generation rate. So that's where that comes from. It's not just hey, it's arbitrary lowering it. is ITE has documented what that parking requirement is.

1:41:53Okay, well I'm not gonna get into that because I Came here last time. In fact I actually still have it on a flash drive here. the IT E. fifth generation manual, but I don't know, you know, they're It's not like they do thousands of studies. How many studies are those based on?

1:42:11I don't have it in front of me right now, but but there are multiple studies. And this is the sixth edition, which there are additional studies that have been done.

1:42:20I'm just I'm making the point that it's been our tradition over the last couple of years to give 'em one point nine, today it's one point seven.

1:42:28And I and I agree, Mr Moody, and that's why I don't ask for it typically, but this is trying to create a more urban style development and that takes I'm

1:42:35not opposed to I'm not opposed to that. I'm saying you haven't provided any justification for this any more than any other MPUD that's coming in here. And I'm curious about the justification to get rid of the buffers and I'll read to you because one of the problems is and the county attorney can help me, is you still have to demonstrate that your alternative standard meets or exceeds the intent of the code. So I wanted to that's an

1:43:03accurate statement.

1:43:04That's an accurate statement? Okay. So I wanted to read what the intent and purpose, right in paragraph A of 905.2 that you're asking for an alt standard for, it says, it's the intent and purpose of this subsection to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the current and future residents of the county. by establishing minimum standards for the preservation, development, installation, and maintenance of native and Florida friendly landscaping as defined in section three seventy three one eighty five Florida

1:43:34statutes. Such landscape and buffers are intended to improve the aesthetic appearance of public, commercial, industrial, and residential areas by reducing the visual impact of large building masses, by softening the visual impact of paved surfaces and vehicular use areas, and by screening conflicting uses from one another, and otherwise helping to establish a harmonious relationship between. Between the natural and the built. environment. The only justification I saw

1:44:04from staff to support the alt standard was one of incompatible uses. But what about all these other things? What about the relationship between the natural and built environment and the impact of softening the impact of paved spaces, paved surfaces, I'm sorry.

1:44:25I'm not seeing any justification to those. Those are the intent and the purpose. Uh what I I all I'm seeing I mean from where I sit, it's a justification to just make paving and have no landscaping like we require of anybody else. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against this development. I think this land is going to be developed. I think it's at a natural development location. It's at the intersection of a state road and an interstate highway. We'd be fools

1:44:56not to think about that it wasn't going to get developed. I just want to make sure that we get it done in the right way. And that brings me to the next point.

1:45:05Mr Moody, can I ha

1:45:06hold on Mr. Moody, can I have Mr. Surak answer because you're firing all of these off about all of them and we're not getting a chance to even answer the question. I think he has a response.

1:45:17Uh Brian Surak with Clearview Land De Land Design. Um The intent of the buffer alternate standard is more for um a company to come in and buy, you know, buy a piece of land and then he subdivides it subdivides it into three separate Yeah. Say it's a hospital and they want the hospital on one parcel and two medical office buildings on

1:45:44uh

1:45:45adjacent parcels. So um the goal of that alternate standard was would be to eliminate the actual buffer between his parcels, not to

1:45:56what

1:45:57an overall parcel to another

1:46:01I understand that.

1:46:03To what end?

1:46:05I'm sorry.

1:46:06To what end? Okay, so the hospital comes in and then they wanna make a couple out parcels for medical offices and you don't want to have a nice landscape strip To their parcel to what end? F to what purpose does that serve?

1:46:18Well they just they want to be able to expand the parking lot with all of the you know standard lands. So we want

1:46:23to have more parking.

1:46:25Well

1:46:25that we don't want to have something else I'd like to offer. Aga again, as is Clark Hobby again. If we're trying to create an urban form of development in in a corpor in the corporate center area, okay? Our code is predicated pr almost entirely on suburban form development. And so if I can't, I won't be able to. If we do this, I will not be able to in the corporate center to build the kind of development that Heinz is trying to build in the corporate center that they're building

1:46:55for the Rays in St. Peter. You can't do it with that kind of landscaping, Mr. Mardin. You know that. You can't it can't be done. Well I don't know that that's the case

1:47:04because we have industrial parks and we require a I think it's a five foot type E button.

1:47:11I'm talking about in the corporate center. It's not where the industrial parks are going.

1:47:15Okay. So that's fine. But that you actually are getting to the whole point I want to get to. I'm in support of this development. I want to make sure we do it right. But what I don't feel like is I don't feel like that you have all your I's dotted and all your T's crossed. Then So that brings me to The comp plan. And that's the guiding document to you. And there's paragraph six for those who are going to be looking up

1:47:45to check me on this. Gateway hub implementation. And the Gateway Hub implementation section says that this is all going to be zoned MPUD, which we're doing.

1:47:57And then it talks about that your MPUD will include the following. Site design elements and guidelines, general building placement, orientation, and character. Well I know where that's happening with single family lots. But I don't know where that's happening. with any corporate center. or mixed use development. I don't know what the character is. I don't know where your general building placement. And no no one's asking you to submit an engineered plan, but

1:48:27Says establishment of appropriate intensities and densities for the specific subcategory. I think you've met that. Any public realm improvements, street types, building lot types, park and open space requirements, if any. You've asked for an alt standard to reduce parking park space and you mentioned in the justification for the alt standard that you want to create some larger open areas, which is laudable. I I think that's great, but it'd be helpful to know kind of roughly what you're thinking, where, maybe a picture of those. What I got right

1:48:58now. is a land use plan. Can we put the land use plan back up?

1:49:05I got a land use plan with some shaded areas and four streets going. Four lines that represent streets. I don't know where any parks and open space are.

1:49:15The conditions required that we work that out with staff at the time of cycling. Yeah, but the comp plan says you need to include it in the MPUD. Yeah, and there provisions in the MPUD that say how we're going to do that. That was I mean yes, Amy and Terry know what we're we're getting. Says

1:49:32you're going to identify infrastructure needs and an implementation plan for the provision of that infrastructure. I haven't even heard from utilities yet whether there's adequate capacity, whether any improvements are going to need to be met. Made? And this one gets me to your old standards. Urban landscape standards.

1:49:56Where

1:49:57are those?

1:49:58You

1:49:59just said you didn't want it. No, I you want us to have the same thing that's in the regular code for some

1:50:04urban form. I'm not saying I think what they mean by urban lands, you want an urban form of development and I'm not opposed to that. I work in an office that's downtown. Okay, and so we have urban landscaping. If I look out the window of my office, what is it that I see? I see street trees there. I've right I've got these grates in the sidewalk with these trees growing out of 'em. We've got the city of Newport Ritchie was nice enough to supply the downtown businesses with planters and plant material.

1:50:35You know, um that's what I'm wondering, how we're going to do all of these things. That's up to you to propose the standards. Mr. Peppers, could you the other PDF file that I gave you.

1:50:49I think what I'm getting at Is this as an important piece? And again.

1:50:59I expect that it's going to be developed. I'm happy it's going to be developed in an urban form. I want this to be successful. I want it to be good. But I think you need to do a little bit more planning. And this is my expectation of what I would get with a plan. That shows me how we're going to do some landscaping, how we're going to buffer some uses. Next photo. Something like this. I'm sure Brian you've seen plans like this all the time. It's a little bit more, no, this isn't an engineered

1:51:29plan and I'm not expecting that every building that gets built when you finally build them are gonna look, but at least it gives me an idea, and it gives the public an idea what it is we're gonna get. Right now I got some shaded areas and I don't really know what I'm gonna get and I'm asking for a lot of Gimme gimme gimme's. that are beyond what we've been giving. And I'm not seeing any justification for those. And then one thing I want to make sure and I'm not saying your client is doing such a thing. But

1:52:02It's been a lot of hi there's a lot of history in this county. Where we give them these gimme gimme gimmies, and then we go out and we we have these economic development agreements and we go out and we build or Or fund infrastructure, and I'm thinking of one Sun Lake Boulevard, and I'm asking myself today, where's the T Row Price office? And we've had that time and time again. Where's the am where's that Amazon warehouse down on Sunway? And I'm not saying that your client isn't going to bring these jobs. They

1:52:33might. But let's see something a little bit more Concr Pardon to pun, concrete. here as to what we're gonna get. What I see, like I said, is a colored plan with four roads drawn on it. And I think that your client has the ability to come back here with a plan that can knock our socks off. And I think you're probably pretty close to it. I just don't think you don't that you don't have it today, that's all.

1:53:04I don't really have to

1:53:05do that.

1:53:05I I Mr. Moody, I I don't believe any of that's required by the code. It's not required by the comp plan. And just really what you're company requirements. I mean we're heading down a road where we're just going to lose this project over this. That's where we're headed. And that's really, really unfortunate that we work for two and a half years with staff to try to do this. It's going to create one of the major employment bases. I'm not suggesting anybody deny your project. I but it's taken me two and a half years to get

1:53:35here. Now you're asking me to go basically to create site plans for a eight hundred acre area. We don't do that with MPU decrees. We don't do it.

1:53:44Not ever been done. Show me where you're gonna put parks.

1:53:48We don't

1:53:50either review. The public screams at us. There's and they make some very derogatory comments about us daily on this Facebook Group. And I know they're out here watching this today. And I've seen the derogatory comments already about this development. In fact, they've made quite a few derogatory comments about your client. I'm not going to go there.

1:54:15I want to make sure we get it right. And that's all. I don't think you're far away. I don't think your vision is Off base is is I think your vision is what the comprehensive plan. I'm asking you to provide us with a little more detail. As to You you want to limit park space for multifamily with this with the statement, well we intend to Make some larger open spaces. Okay, well show

1:54:45me how you intend to do that. I understand these plans are flexible and they're a little rubber and they're not this isn't a final site plan. We're not asking you for a final site plan. I'm asking you to show us a little something a little bit more clarity. That's all.

1:55:11Maybe when you come back, maybe I'll be supportive of 30 foot wide. I appreciate your client's offer for the 40 foot wides, but maybe I'd be supportive of 30s if you could show me how they how it's all gonna work.

1:55:20I uh Mr. Mimity, we don't have the ability to do what you're talking about doing. It's not required by the code. It's not within we changed the code specifically so Planning Commission does not review site plans. And that's what you're trying to do. No, no, that's what you're trying to do. The code was changed for this purpose. We're not going to go out and spend half a million dollars to create a concept plan for this that the code doesn't require. I it's I mean, nobody's been asked to do it. The code doesn't

1:55:51require it. The comp plan doesn't require it. So we're no, we're not gonna do that. And I I'm sorry, I I just I'm completely mystified here. Where are the

1:55:59urban landscapes standing? Where's the phasing plan? Number seven says you're going to provide a development phasing plan with the MPUD. Is that in your MPUD?

1:56:08It says there are conditions that say that we're going to phase it as needed by development. Well, where's the phasing

1:56:15plan?

1:56:18There's not a plan to phase it. It says you might phase it. This the comp plan says you're gonna provide a plan.

1:56:27You guys are smart guys. You can come back here next week and provide me a plan. I'm sure Mr. Shirac over here is quite capable of doing that. The same statement. Same thing with the urban landscape standards. We don't want to have buffers. Okay, fine. Show me how you're gonna landscape around these buildings to do something that's meets or exceeds the intent and purpose of the code. That's your burden to get an alternative standard. I just don't feel like you've met the burden yet. Not to say you can't, and I think your team is quite capable of doing it.

1:56:59So staff supported the alternative standards. that creates a presumption that it was meant. Legally. You have a different opinion, that's your opinion. So now you have to prove to us cleanly how it's not being met. That's legally how it works.

1:57:28I mean I just I just as I said mystified that we may lose a project of this importance over these issues. I mean Well,

1:57:37you know, I think it's fair to say that you know the the developer's asking us for exceptions. and just take it on faith. And five for one I'm not willing to do that. I'm tired of getting in my ear all the time because we go along with the development plan thinking that they're gonna do something. I can give you a perfect example of what got approved on Little Road, the Lenar project. Looks like a piece of crap. Every nobody

1:58:07that drives by that. Thinks th thinks that we did the right thing there. And I agree with him. And I'm getting tired of standing up here taking the bows and arrows and just approving whatever comes along because it's inconvenient. We have a product, Pasco County has a product that's worth something.

1:58:29I agree.

1:58:30And we d we have to demand that these developers if they want to do development here, if they want to come here and make money and w and and leave the county with all that money. More power to 'em. But my God, we gotta get something for it.

1:58:44I I'm

1:58:45tired of driving by places that look like crap because we took it on faith. And I agree with John. It call it requires development. When I drive through Miami Beach, I see a lot of corporate development and I see a lot of landscaping.

1:59:03Can Mr. Chairman Mariano here? I I think there are two or three of these alternative standards that Mr. Moody is focusing on. Is that correct? I mean that's primarily what you're worried about. The parking, the parks, and I think there was one more,

1:59:18right? Well first of all, I live in a in a in Longleaf. And I concur with what he says. He says, You got some people with a with fifteen foot driveways Nobody can get by there if you try to pull your car and you can't get it in. You know, and that's not right. And that that problem is there from that day forward.

1:59:39On the alley loaded, Mr. Chairman Mariano. Well, I mean again, we can talk with I'll talk with Mr. Shurak in a minute, but can we focus because you've started reel reeling off stuff about the various alternative standards, right? So if it is the Planning Commission's recommendation that we We not have the one point seven, I think what you're suggesting is that we go to one point nine. on that issue. Correct I

2:00:06haven't suggested anything, but I'm I'd be more inclined to support 1.9 like we do in every other MPUD than 1.7 today. And I'd be more inclined to support 40 foot or 45 foot wide lots rather than 30 foot wide lots like we do in every other MPUD. But I still don't feel like that you've provided enough detail or met those implementation requirements of the gateway hub section of

2:00:36the comprehensive plan. In fact, you know, with the whole thing on the buffers, did you even there's a section on compatibility. It even requires buffers. But

2:00:46we but Mr. Moody we did require special buffers for our neighbors and for the and for the external neighborhood.

2:00:56Show us what you're gonna do so that we know what it is we're gonna

2:01:00get. I I

2:01:01I

2:01:01understand you can't tell me who's in this building, that building, that building, and I understand that that building may change shapes forty-seven times before it's sold ten years. I understand that this isn't all getting built next week. I'm sorry I keep pointing to this. This is not the developer's proposal, but something like that.

2:01:27I can look down Gam Boulevard and Main Street and see that there is a streetscape and I know what it is. It doesn't it doesn't have anything to do with the buildings. It's what the neighborhood looks like.

2:01:41Again, Mr. Chairman, the streetscape issues are addressed in there and we're not seeking relief in the regular single family detached area. I think there's a lot of people. Yeah, but you're

2:01:51not addressing it says you're gonna provide in the implementation sections, you're gonna provide urban landscape standards. Okay, so there's a whole section in your conditions of approval to talk about you're gonna have two trees per lot and so on. on and so forth but doesn't tell me what you're gonna do over in front of the hotel or the corporate center or along I 75 or along the Orange Belt Trail. It does

2:02:16say uh it does say along the orange belt trail.

2:02:18Have you ever seen a form based code?

2:02:20Yes. Well back to your question. So can you um Certainly your plan is going to have landscaping and you it says there's a code involved. So can you maybe highlight that or talk about that?

2:02:35Well there we said on the external boundaries of the MPUD we would follow the land development codes. That's first and foremost. We only have one group of neighbors and we've agreed to add additional, we stepped up the buffering next. to them. All the alt standard about is what the the alternative standards might be in the corporate center area. I believe it's just corporate center.

2:02:59Can we put his his plan back up? This I meant to use this as an talking example, but I'll ask you a qua a couple questions about that, Clark.

2:03:18We had a case in here I think was the last time we were over here in Dade City. where we had a big discussion about a concrete block wall versus a fence along Willow Bend Park. Mm-hmm. All right? And we talked about a type D two or D three buffer or whatever. So are you saying that we're not gonna have any buffers of s of the single family against any of these rights of way? Are the are there gonna be buffers between theoretically

2:03:48incompatible uses of multifamily and single family?

2:03:53He's saying he'll have the big perimeter buffers on the outside outskirts of here. What are we doing on the inside? Yeah, Mike and Area like River Crossing.

2:04:01Mr. Chairman, I I have a little bit of info input from the client. One thing we think we could do is we could remove the alternative standard on these issues altogether and not ask you to approve them on and it's on parking and the internal buffering. We feel like it's causing a lot of confusion here. that we didn't mean to cause with the overall project and we don't mind doing that.

2:04:31Right.

2:04:34Does that include the landscape? That would be the internal um first of all, we're doing more landscaping than the code requires in one area. We don't want to affect that. It was only the internal I think we asked for relief on the internal landscaping, so we would just withdraw for purposes of the internal.

2:04:54Right. You could just go through which ones you're

2:04:58going to do.

2:04:58With drawing and which ones you're still

2:05:00pursuing. Not the first one and not the second one. But so

2:05:04the first one you're still pursuing.

2:05:05Right. Okay. Second one we're pursuing. Third one we're pursuing. Uh it would be the fourth one amount of land required and the fifth one as it relates to the internal buffering. Right? I'm getting that right. So no, it's actually just the last was it last three? Yeah, and the la I'm sorry the last one.

2:05:28I appreciate that, but I think you're not In some ways I think you're misunderstanding the argument y that I make. I don't want to make it sound like

2:05:41one conversation. I just want to get on the record which alternative standard I you let you make your comments, but I

2:05:46want

2:05:46to get on the record which alternative standard requests the applicant is voluntarily withdrawing. Okay, so is it the last

2:05:53the it would be the last three on the list. So

2:05:56it's the neighborhood park acreage, the deviation for landscaping and buffer.

2:06:02Right. We still want to do more on the landscape buffering on the one area. But yes, the relief. Yes. But

2:06:08I don't want to. So so so I just want to get this clear. So you're not seeking any alternative standard. You would just comply with the code on those three issues. Right. Unless it's like plan you can convince staff. That's right. Okay. Now we've at least got that clarified now. Go ahead and make that up. Yes.

2:06:26I don't want to say that I couldn't be in support, say for a By way of example. reducing the park area for multifamily, if you can show me how you're going to do something that meets or exceeds the intent. of the code. I mean if you want to come in here and show me on the plan, well I'm planning to have a big park area here in the middle of the multifamily that'll address these ten apartment complexes I'm proposing on this hundred acres. I might very well support your alternatives

2:06:56to and I understand your point, Mr. Moody, and that's why I'm withdrawing it, because at this point I can't give you the detail that you need. At this high level on the MPUD. And so the only way it's the same

2:07:09thing with the landscape buffer, too, because it makes sense to not have a landscape buffer between say a hospital and

2:07:15you may need to see more detail on it. And again, that's the pickle I'm in because we're at a very high level on a very large project with the MPUD. If they if they get into building the corporate center in a very urban area and they can convince staff that they have a different landscaping package to your point. They should have the chance to figure that out with staff if they can convince staff that uh urban design is better and they have the details. The only point I'm just in a it's in a tough part at the MPUD level. I we don't have

2:07:45the kind of plans that that you want personally. That's my

2:07:48preference is it gets worked out here where the public gets a chance to participate in this. But not behind closed doors at the staff level.

2:07:55Well it's that's Again, that's why the Planning Commission's role is limited and and is not including site plan reviews at this time. And so, you know, I think we've got to be careful. That was the whole point why the code was changed ten, twelve years ago.

2:08:14Well to that point, have we taken public comment yet?

2:08:19I guess we did. We did it, did we? Yeah. Okay. So I again

2:08:24disagree with Mr. Middy's point, but typically when that's the case when we want the public to have input is usually when the public shows up. Then they have a comment about the landscaping or the parking or something that

2:08:40I I understand his point, which is you shouldn't be asking for the relief. He wants to see more detail to substantiate the relief. And I'm confident that if we get into building a very urban style development that we could convince staff later, w if we even do this. that it would be merited. But maybe If the Planning Commission's not comfortable and granting the relief now, I think it's better that we just withdraw the request for it and we'll have to comply with the code. That's as simple

2:09:10as that. Unless, you know, we can get the right-of-way.

2:09:13I think you're just trying to move the project forward so it takes to move it forward.

2:09:17That's right. And you're okay with this. We are move trying to move it forward, but not at the expense of our lifestyle. Wow, you know, and that's what we've been doing to a large extent. Mr.

2:09:26Gray, I don't want to do that and I I understand and that's why

2:09:29he was you you know, you grew up here, you know. I I you know, I I don't wanna I just don't wanna see it continue on. You know, I I that And Lynn Arfin deal was the last straw for me. I mean that's

2:09:42I understand Mr. Grey. One one thing I I would just point out for your benefit, and I'm really just more of a personal thing. The joint ventures that are developing this include the Cruzin family and they're staying in the deal and there's a family member here that's been hired by Heinz that works on this project. And they've owned this land, I think for a hundred years and they're going to continue being developing it for a very long period of time. So they're in this case, it's not being flipped off to next

2:10:12national home builder XYZ. That's not what's going on here. So

2:10:18so to summarize, what what I'm hearing the applicant say is on those three issues they will as it stands today, they're saying they're gonna comply with the code, unless they can demonstrate staff later that they meet the intent of the code. It's the same standard later when they seek an old standard as it is today. So as and now if you all don't like the code itself, that's a different issue that we probably need to be telling staff we don't like the way the the code is today on landscaping

2:10:49or parking and you all had that discussion on parking last time. Um so but as it stands today they're saying that that they're gonna comply with the code on those three issues. Right.

2:11:00Well and so I want to clarify I want to clarify that you'll have Opportunity though. Right.

2:11:11in between your and and enhanced landscaping elsewhere, I would love to see that. I mean and you yeah, and the same with parking. I just want to make sure you have some flexibility down the road if you're

2:11:24they have that the the same standard which I just talked about. Right. They can make their case to staff at site plan approval to do those deviations. Okay.

2:11:33I think I I in thinking about this and I understand where Mr. Moody's coming from and I know this some of these have been hot button issues very recently and this has been pending. Some of these conditions have been in there for like a year now. So some of these, you know, I just the temperature of all of our boards is changing. But I do appreci I do appreciate the fact that it's impossible at my level to provide maybe the kind of certainty They the county globally would want to see to grant the relief. And

2:12:03that's why I think withdrawing those three makes sense, but still allowing the project to pursue.

2:12:11Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that I mean it I I think this board vol of volunteers, I might add, right, you know, are just I'm not gonna allow them to keep taking it in a year for somebody to come in from you know, rubber ball Africa and decide they want to develop property and then beat feet and go somewhere else. Yeah. Yeah, that's to me We don't owe those people anything. They owe this county

2:12:41an opportunity to get the best we can we can have. Sure. Because we've gone the other way. We've been too taking it on faith for too long. And we need to start asking for more. Okay. And uh That's that's understood, Mr. Chairman. And I think I think it's fair to withdraw those those uh requests. I feel a lot better approving it on those on that basis. And uh He you know I have a lot of respect for

2:13:12you. Y you're a good attorney, a good language attorney, and I know you have the interest of Pasco County. For many years and your father too. So um

2:13:23can I just make one more comment about the comp plan consistency? Yeah. Which is the Com plan continues to apply even at site plan approval. I think there's I don't want

2:13:37they didn't deal with something specifically in the M P D. Now if the complex is it has to be dealt with in the M P D, that's a different issue. But Generally, staff should be reviewing site plans for consistency with the Comm Plan too. And the complaint continues to apply. So if staff is not doing that, that's a problem. But I don't I don't want you all to think that just because staff didn't dot an I or cross the T from the comp plan in the M PUD that somehow they've waived the comp plan. I don't think that's accurate. It still

2:14:08applies, their site plans have to be consistent with it. So And I think staff should be ensuring that happens.

2:14:16We we don't disagree there.

2:14:20Okay. Any other questions? We've had public comment, we've had the presentation. Any other questions from s from the dais?

2:14:30And just to just to clarify, so we talked about the forty foot wide on the rear loaded, you're you guys are okay with going in as well. So in addition to removing those three.

2:14:39That's

2:14:39right. Okay.

2:14:41Okay. Did we decide about the setback? I don't I don't wanna have his car hanging out on it.

2:14:48I uh I that I don't think let me I'll ask Mr. Surra we need to address that. Are you comfortable with the setback, the rear setbacks? I mean they I mean they believe they will work. So I mean I'll I'll say that I'll say this. I will meet with Mr. Moody after the meeting if if we're missing something and they're too small. Well we'll adjust 'em. Guys, this isn't rocket

2:15:15science. We all know how long a pickup truck cut is, okay. And we all know that it's longer than eight feet or whatever the setback is to the garage here. So

2:15:26I mean my my only response to that and I I completely understand clearly my eighteen foot or seventeen foot truck's not gonna fit an eight-foot driveway, but I'm also not gonna park my eighteen or seventeen foot truck in a eight-foot driveway. So I mean I'm not gonna there's lots of people out there. I agree don't we're trying to put common sense of the side of the side of

2:15:46Are you sure about that?

2:15:49But yes, we're fine on the forty, Mr. Pollett.

2:15:52Okay. Okay. So uh without further ado, do we have a motion?

2:16:02We're all looking at or do we just have emotion?

2:16:04I'll make I'll make a motion to approve with the um removal of those three variance items that were mentioned and the removal of the thirty foot rear load product in the residential

2:16:13I'll second. So the motion is have to clarify it's converting the thirty foot lines to forty. Forty is correct. That's right. Okay.

2:16:22Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, I'll signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay, motion carries.

2:16:36Thank you.

2:16:44Hey Mr. Nice.