PDD-227585 Eagle Two Employment Center MPUD rezoning
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jun 16, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jun 16, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 44m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 64% of 563 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Thank you and now we'll um tee up item P two for you.
Okay.
Uh good afternoon. If I could enter this into the record. All right, do we have a motion?
Motion received and file.
Second. Motion second, all
in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. William, do you mind describing for us what you're entering into the record?
Yes, uh that's the uh rough draft for Eagle One nonsub. It hasn't been signed yet.
Okay. Okay.
All right. This is item PDD 227585 Eagle Two Employment Center M Pudy.
So, William, you just state your name because I don't think
you're William from William Planning and Development. My apologies.
Uh this is the location map. This is the same as last time, south of State Road fifty two. Mm-hmm.
This is the current zoning. Again, same as last time. To the north is AR, to the east is M P U D, to the south is AC, to the west is AC. Future land use on this site is Employment Center. To the south you have Res III, to the west you have EC, to the north res one, and to the east employment center as well.
The proposed request is a rezoning from AC Agricultural to EC MPD Employment Center Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the development of two million square feet of corporate business park, target business and light industrial uses, and 150,000 square feet of support commercial office use on approximately 321.13 acres. So that number for support commercial has been reduced in half from three hundred thousand from last time?
This is the master plan. The only thing that's changed on it is a thirty foot easement to the south being shown, which is for uh future trailway to the south that'll run along Eagle One and Eagle Two.
This is the CPV sub-area map. Uh the top one was prior to this uh ECMPUD coming into CPV and to the bottom is the proposed changes. And you'll see that that also includes the Eagle One non sub that I passed out. Which effectively move that support commercial from Eagle One to Eagle Two to share the support commercial for both properties.
The proposed development is within the C P V and the parcels are currently vacant and being used for agricultural pursuits. Effective August twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-one, landowners within this Eagle II EC MPUD entered into a certain exchange agreement for the CPV master plan use designations for portions of Swope and Coca-Lacus East parcels, which is now recorded in the OR book. Ten forty two six, page four sixty-one of public records, Pasco County, Florida.
The applicant is seeking the same variations from eight o five and nine oh two point two as last time to maintain stormwater ponds and wetlands in open space without having to plant them as separate tracks and convey a separate entity for maintenance. All activity maintenance or restrictions in such areas shall be accordance with requirements of environmental resource permit.
All right. So these are revisions from last time. Like I said, um changed the support commercial three hundred thousand to one hundred and fifty thousand. Uh that resulted in changes to conditions thirty-six, thirty-nine, and forty-one. Condition 44 was added to reserve those 15.64 acres of high density residential entitlements for future land swap at time of MPD for 3KS Air and Cutoff MPUD or another MPUD if pursuant to land swap with another landowner in accordance with the sub-area policy flu 7.112.
The applicant and abutting landowner met to resolve Vision Road S alignment. And no compromises were made by the parties, condition twenty-five was added to address this issue. If the property to the east or west has an approved PDP PSP or is built out, then prior to PDP PSP submittal development, the developer shall supply evidence that it is coordinated with developers, engineers, surveyors of adjoining parcels to identify and provide the location of the required interconnecting
roadway.
The applicant has also submitted the non-sibst standual modification before you for Eagle One to the SR 52 Industrial Employment Center Master Plan Unit Development to revise the entitlements to be solely light industrial and increase square footage from 482,780 to 700,000 square feet square footage will be added to Eagle II from 300,000 square feet to 150,000 square feet of support commercial.
The proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County L D C Chapter four hundred, subsection four o two point two zoning amendment, master plan unit development within applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan.
These are changes of the conditions of approval for the record that will be made. in the conditions prior to B C C Dimensional standards and principle permitted uses shall be in accordance with five twenty two point five D B and five twenty two point five D C of Pasco County L D C pursuant to sub area policy flu seven point one twelve of the comprehensive plan. Provided uses
uh activities that are prevented pr prohibited by section eight oh eight point seven of the L D C shall not be permitted uses or activities of this MPUD. At the time of PDEP PSP approval, the County may require owner and development to comply with LDC Section eight oh eight point eight Best Management Practices within Wellhead Protections.
The P D D recommends approval to the BCC with conditions. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman Mariano William. Um actually two questions. So William, this on this what you just handed out I'm not sure. Entirely clear. It may be because this is not a true strike through an underline and condition twenty eight and thirty Former condition twenty eight and thirty are just blank now. But I can't tell We're either reducing the commercial or eliminating the commercial. So
New condition twenty nine talks about
Industrial entitlements
But I'm not I guess.
Again, this may be because it's not a true strike through an underline. I can't tell how how they're they are or are not eliminating the commercial in an Eagle
One. Right. Uh I apologize. I I just printed out the rough draft prior to it being signed, just so you guys could have something in front of you. Substantially for Eagle One.
But I guess the whole purpose of having Eagle One was to know I think the main purpose for n having Eagle One in front of us was to know that they were giving up their commercial entitlements in Eagle One. And I can't tell from this that they are. So is there going to be a different version of this at some point that you can do that?
Yes, prior to B C C uh staff just completed the review of it last afternoon. So I wasn't able to move forward any past that. Prior to this meeting.
Do you know what condition twenty eight and thirty used to say? Uh I don't have
it in front of me. I gave you guys all my copies.
Those were left blank unintentionally.
My my apologies. Um I guess did there used to be a condition that dealt with their commercial entitlements?
I'd have to see the original to tell you for certain, David.
Cynthia, do you know?
Cynthia Spidel Sterns Weaver 401 East Jackson Street. I have been sworn. I haven't seen this yet. All I know is what we've submitted. Um I think that we're gonna have to do some work after Eagle Two to clean up Eagle One and make sure everything matches each other after today's hearing. So Yeah, I I haven't seen it so I don't even know what he's talking about. I'm sorry.
Okay.
These were just the conditions that were submitted by the applicant, put straight in. I haven't made any changes.
Well but I suspect the applicant did something to the commercial entitlements to reduce them.
Right.
But okay.
Yes, what we submitted deleted all that. So that might be why it's blank. Uh but I don't know. I'd have to look at it. But we did remove all the we removed all the com references to commercial and what we submitted and we just left it all light industrial.
So I think I think your issue is it's not in strike through underline so you can't see that we actually deleted it.
Right. So
okay. I guess I'm are you saying you have no commercial entitlements?
In Eagle One, he's talking about the neighboring parcel, which we're not even really here to talk about today.
Which some of that concern goes away if they've given up all their commercial entitlements in Eagle One.
Yeah.
And so I was looking I was hoping this would evidence the fact that they were giving up their commercial entitlements
I think it does because there are no commercial entitlements listed anymore and there are no permitted uses for commercial. It's all industrial now. And that's why twenty nine and thirty are blank, but it's just not redlined. But that's my guess, just looking at it. Okay.
Didn't it say that they aren't?
Well normally this would be a strike normally we'd have a strike through it's just confusing because there is ad there's additional text underlined but there's no strike through of the what
So that's the confusing part. So I'm assuming at some point staff and the applicant will make this
What's being deleted, but it it this doesn't do that. So We'll have to Anyway. Sorry about that. Um so my other question is somewhat related to Eagle One and Eagle Two And that relates to the trail. So I think you said something about the fact that there's Eagle two is reserving a thirty foot. Right.
There there's a thirty foot easement to the on the southern portion and that's gonna be added to Eagle One as well. It whenever they the master plan is revised so they match.
So are you gonna add a condition dealing with that trail on equal one also? Yes. Okay. And are you gonna add a condition on eagle two? I mean because I don't think just showing it on the site plan is It's sufficient. You need to have a condition that deals with When are they gonna dedicate the right-of-way for it? You know It there should be some Just like if it was a road dedication, there would be a condition that talks about the
deadline to dedicate the right-of-way forward and things like that.
So Right. Um you we can make those changes in between now and BCC for that condition to Eagle Two.
Okay, does somebody have a graphic that shows where this trail is anticipated going? D this one of the full PD release then. Okay.
Uh she has one in her presentation that she'll speak to.
Okay.
Any other questions for me, gentlemen?
Well just the one we're talking about, I think that's the big question because I I'm reluctant to approve anything that's where it's not Spelled out. You know, it's just l sort
of left the chance. Well we still have to deal with the roadway alignment issue, but I I'm just trying to get a little bit more.
I wanna see.
Where everybody's clear about what what's being done with the trail.
Mm-hmm.
Because there's currently nothing in these can either c set of conditions. So I want to know. Where is the ch where is the trail supposed to go and Is thirty feet sufficient for the Yeah.
Mm-hmm.
I had Brad Tippett, Planning and Development. We are lucky enough To have Sam Bennick here who has some of the background of the trail. So he can probably speak to some of the expectations of where that's anticipated to go and how it might impact either one of these projects. Okay.
I'm Sam Bennick. I'm with Pasco County Project Management. Uh our anticipation so far has been that the the trail would follow that collector road S alignment. We're in the early stages of a P D and E study that would set the final alignment. But certainly when we were laying out alternatives, scoping the project, working with the consultants, we had those approved maps which showed Collector Road S where it was, showed I believe a twelve foot trail along Collector Road S, and so that
was part of our assumption going into that study and the change to move collector road S to the north. uh w we just need to have some kind of an understanding or or some kind of a path to either get back to collector wrote S or, as you say, David, right away some some mechanism um to to continue uh otherwise I mean we'll we'll honor whatever is approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of County but uh our study to date had had
been based on on the expectation that there would be a roadway here?
So Are you okay with the
Proposed new alignment of c of collector Rodas?
I can't really comment on the alignment of the collector road, but I will say that the by not having a connection between the South property line and the collector road alignment. it no longer works to have the trail along that collector road. There's no way for the the trail to get from the south property line to that collector road.
So is your preference that the Right away for the trail B. Follow the alignment of the collector road. I
I do not I don't have a preference there. As long as there is a a right of way that is available to us and that works with the applicants. project and everything else. Uh We the the new alignment of the collector road really precludes the inclusion of a trail on it. So we we would ask that either something else be provided or or just make the
Okay, I guess I need you to explain that to me, Sam. He is that because The trail's coming from the south, sir. So the fact that it was moved north
I'm trying to figure out which part of this new alignment makes it inconsistent with the
The the trail is coming up out of the Cypress well, the the anticipated alignment would come from the south from the Cypress Creek preserve. And Uh the the collector Odes concepts that we've seen in the past. Cypress Creek preserved preserve had frontage on collector road S. That's no
longer the case. I think you might need to show us graphically what you're talking about because this is confusing confusing. Do we have a pointer? Yeah, d if you can show where you're where you thought the trail was gonna come into this project, That would be helpful.
That's the bill grant application within that.
Is that it?
It's it's a top several button. Okay. It's she doesn't have the software on there, so it's
not
the top button.
You want to put the alignment that we have?
Um Well just to describe on on the figure, uh the the existing rail alignment i is visible where Mr. Tippen is pointing there along the south uh property line. Okay. And um the properties to the west are uh generally owned by Tampa Bay Water. They include the Cypress Creek Preserve, the west and to the south, I should say. uh and there is an existing paved trail through that Cypress Creek Preserve. which uh
comes up and and connects to a gated service road, gated private service road in this area. Um so our our anticipated alignments as again as we are getting underway with the study and and I should Yeah, make sure that you're not going to be able Entirely clear that that we have not selected an alignment. The board hasn't approved an alignment, but our study was moving forward assuming that at some point that trail would transition from the Cypress Creek Preserve to the Collector Road. And
its entry point into CPV, is it about where the Eagle Two Does it does it answer
just west of that wetland that's visible there?
So is it is the entry point? Within the Eagle Two MPUD or is it west of the Eagle Two M PUD?
Um I believe that it is within the Eagle point two M PUD.
line that we're about where Brad's finger is.
Mm-hmm.
So the trail the entry point from the south is somewhere east of that line.
That's my understanding. Yes. Yes.
So this doesn't affect the rest of CPV. It really only affects the right-of-way. It's only these two portions of C P V were the road of alignment shifting is causing an issue. So If it shifted the western part of this road doesn't affect you any.
Uh it it does not if if we have connection from that south right-of-way line, if the decision is made that we're not to connect there, then we're gonna have to find a different way to get to Collector Road S.
Okay, and then I'll just ask you. So I'm clear.
Could is it feasible to build the trail independent of the road? Or is that not the goal?
Um Feasible too, barring right of way.
Well let's just say that the applicant were to give you all the right of way you need from the trail along the old roadway alignment. Could you build the trail independent of the road?
Based on what we understand today, yes, sir. There is an eagle's nest in the vicinity, but it appears that we're outside of the uh critical three hundred and thirty-foot circle. So I
guess what I'm asking is if the applicant I realize there's no conditions here now. Yes, sir. But if there were conditions that required the applicant to provide Is it thirty feet sufficient?
Uh thirty feet uh should be treated as a minimum. If you're building a twelve to fifteen foot trail, you're you're looking at very little on either side. But it is a little bit of a few.
Ideally we would have a fifty foot corridor a as a um that would allow for landscaping and and slopes. But
I guess if they gave you a fifty foot right-way along the southern boundary of Eagle Two and Eagle One Is that sufficient to build the trail? Yeah, sir. Commissioner Starkey, if you're gonna comment, you probably need to come to the podium.
Okay, because
I don't think they're gonna pick up you shaking your head. I'm sorry.
And I and I and I was sworn in just in cases came up. And for a little history on this trail, some of my staff people have heard this, but this is Um a trail alignment that I put on the state opportunity map when I represented Governor Bush. on the Greenways and Trails Council or I don't know, Bush, Scott or Chris? Um And it is the old Orange Belt Railroad line that the Pinellas Trail is built on today. Some of the portions of
this trail, this uh abandoned railroad quarter were auctioned off on our courthouse steps, sadly. Commissioner Schrader owns the little piece over here, um, just south of what we're talking about today. Um but this is one of the most important trails, if not the most important trail in the county. It starts at at Frank in Trinity. And it it goes up tower, which we're gonna call Range Dance, gonna go over the Sun Coast. When I got elected Um my first MPO meeting was a meeting with DOT
was talking about the Um re the fix at fifty-two and seventy-five and um they had taken out they were taking out the old railroad line. uh underpass and um Frankly, we got them to stop doing their design. They spent a million dollars, redesigned that interchange, and we have an underpass. Uh north of fifty-two to get this trail to the other side of 75. So it's a very, very important trail. It connects to the With Lacuchee State Trail. We are up
we have applied for a build grant. And we have a contract out under w we have a route study for it underway right now. Um it's my preference that these trails not be smooshed up against the road whenever possible because that's Really a glorified sidewalk. Um, if you've ridden the upper Tampa Bay Trail or the Coastal Anklow Trail, which is an absolutely beautiful trail, the Starkey Trail. it they're great experiences. So My preference would be that it stays on the southern
boundary. Um And it's even better if there isn't a road next to it. Uh You know, we're not going to be able to do fifty feet is much better than thirty for the reasons Sam said. I do want to say I'm very disappointed to hear today that this trail is not mentioned in any of the the product that you're looking at. Because we have asked at the count at the board. that any time there is a pr uh project coming near a major trail. that it be accounted
in all the planning documents. So I mean they've got to have ways that the people in that neighborhood can connect to this trail. And it's gotta have a little bit of a You know, it it's an um it's an important part of the future of this county. So If it's not even mentioned in here, David, I'm I'm really disappointed. But those are my thoughts. I don't know if you have any questions, but
The planning commission commission can make sure it gets mentioned.
But gosh, I've been saying that for how long have I been elected? Ten years. I'm in my tenth year.
I don't disagree with you that it should have already been in there. I'm just saying that We can correct that mistake today.
I appreciate that. That's why I came here when I heard this was coming up. So
You've answered my main question which is can the trail be built Independent of the roadway and the other.
It's a better extent of the easy.
So as long as we had fifty feet of right away along the southern boundary of Eagle Two and Eagle One, the trail could be constructed.
Yes.
Okay.
Can I ask a quick question? When you talk about trail, you're talking hiking trail, bicycle trail? This
is a multi-use trail. So it's hiking, um, biking. And um who knows what
but not motorized fit biking.
You know, um there's different rules on different trails on the state. If it becomes part of the state Greenways and Trail System, you can't have any well I don't know Tina's not here and I don't know if you know other rules. You can have some some motorized, but maybe it's up to a certain speed. Is that right? Like a electric bike, like I have an electric bike, you can ride an electric bike on that. Pedal assist.
And there there is new guidance um ADA related. Uh the that that guidance is really evolving. Um if your question is specifically are we targeting golf carts?
No, I'm just asking general.
Yeah.
I I just when you mentioned trail, I many things come to
it's just like the Penales Trail. Trail. Okay. It'd be very similar to the Pinellas Trail.
Yeah, and I know you tried to connect all these trails together
and you've done it. And this is the master trail of the county. This is the master, Not the Sun Coast. Sun Coast Trail really provides us very little economic benefit. This trail should have a lot of economic benef benefit. And if I were an owner of the property there I would be making sure that I was putting some kind of commercial retail opportunity along that trail and it will be a very big selling point for any residential that comes in there.
Well the particular rezoning in front of us are primarily industrial, just so you know.
Yeah. Well people will be able to use that to get to work. So
I have a question. So you have the fifty feet right-of-way. How much is pavement and then what does that look like as a cross section?
Well it's a t it's a twelve foot wide trail, and so then we have a The idea is to have it meander, as Jamie knows I like to say. Not wiggle. Meander. And um are you a cyclist? Yeah. Yeah, I thought you were. So you know when you're cycling in a straight line and you look up If all if it's a straight road, all you ever see is pavement because you have to be looking straight, right? I've had many accidents where I look to the side and I go to the side and then I crash. So you want to have a little bit of movement so when you're
looking up, you know, you get a little variation and it's just it's just a more pleasant experience. The really premier trails have a little bit of movement in them.
And it's the intent to to go uh coast to coast on this is this trail part of that coast to coast trail?
It will it will um provide another access point to that coast to coast trail. It
or you can go across and come down the Sun Coast. But also um trail users are very big into loops. So this makes a very big loop um in the county as well. And this trail will be going through Conerton. Um and so you'll have that downtown um opportunity like you have in Dunedin. and I keep trying to get anyone who lives in the Antalakes, I keep telling them, get organized. And get yourself a little downtown on the edges of this trail. So uh it's a great
opportunity for um entrepreneurship.
Thank you. Just going back to to my question, should there be limits on what type of vehicles go on this bicycle walking or should we just leave it open?
It's a continuous trail, so I think the issue of what can go on it is something that The county should be dealing with outside of this MPUD.
Yeah, that's you can't do that.
I don't think we can be limiting what does we can certainly require the dedication of the right-of-way for the trail.
Okay.
But I don't think you should be getting into who can or cannot because that's dictated by state law. and m potentially county ordinance. You can't you don't want to have a different rules for this part of the trail versus the entire trail.
I I just would
hate to see motorcycles on it.
Oh no no the motorcycles cannot use them. Okay. Yeah. That's no.
But it it's figure out Richard. But it
can use that road that's gonna come. It's a trick to figure out how that works.
Because there are some bikes that look almost look like a little motorcycles that are allowed. And so I don't it's This is not an issue you want to get into in this MPU.
That's kind of a state issue.
Okay, well while we're on the subject of the trail Can we get the applicant? To state whether they agree with providing fifty feet of right away along the southern boundary for the trail?
Cynthia Spidel. 401 East Jackson Street Surns we have evidence sworn. What we offered was the 30-foot easement at the boundary of the property. This is the first time I heard about 50. I think we would view that as an extraction. Um that's not proportionate to um what we're asking for, but we're willing to work with you. And I think that my claim is willing to allow you to have that 30 feet that he's got to reserve anyway at the southern boundary of the property. But obviously, if you're talking 50, that's like a road. roadway. So and considering we're also providing a 12-foot path along with Vision
Roadway S, we would um you know request that that additional twenty feet if you want it, that you would have to that the county would have to actually pay for that.
Well, We can give you mobility few credits for it.
Uh Jessica Eiserman.
Jessica Eisman, Stearns Weaver, Miller for One East Jackson Street. I have also been sworn. I do want to point out Vision Roadway S, which was the intended co-location area for this trail, has only a dedication right away of eighty feet in total. for the roadway and the trail. So at most we are required to provide eighty foot of ride away for a road and a trail for Vision Road S. So providing an extra 50 feet separate and apart from Vision Roadway S is extreme. We
ha are agreeable to co-locate the trail on the an existing 30-foot easement on the southern boundary of the property. Anything beyond That we will work with the county and get them the right-of-way they need, but there would be mobility fee credits or compensation as we would agree to at a later date.
Well, we have to deal with I mean we're talking about a condition of approval that we'd be putting there now. So If you want mobility few credits for the additional twenty feet I think we could agree to that.
W we're not in a position to agree to the compensation for additional right-of-way, especially for an alignment. We don't know where it's going. The PD and E study is not yet complete. So it would be a little futile for us to dedicate right-of-way and negotiate that compensation if it's not actually used because the alignment is determined to be better somewhere else.
Well but I what I'm hearing staff say is that this pretty much is their alignment.
Unless it goes into the middle of your project.
I'd like to ask staff if they are doing a PD and E that will have alternatives for County Commission to consider.
Will you please explain?
Yes, there are other alternatives. Um and they do as you say, Mr. Goldstein, include Purchasing of new right away from existing landowners. I believe that we'll be looking for at least three alignments in a no-build alternative for anywhere that we go.
Well through this area of the Yeah.
What would those other all alternatives be? I'm talking about for this particular area that goes through Eagle One and
Well we mentioned earlier uh finding a different way to collect a road S wherever it ends up. Uh D the you're you're looking at a a small area here um in this M PUD but Uh certainly we have the latitude to Um move uh beyond this area if that's what's most appropriate. Um we don't We are not required to to go through the Cypress Creek Well field. Uh it is a
large and and we think very uh beneficial trail that is already existing. So it it certainly made sense to us to use that as a a logical termini of of a segment of the project and uh an amenity that we wanted to incorporate, but Yeah, we could we could move to the north and to the south and and the alignment study, the P D and E study will consider those other alternatives.
If I may I have one follow up question. Is it possible for the trail to actually be not even located on this property and be located on the Wanda Management District property directly to the south? Is that a possibility?
Or the Tampa Bay Water property?
I'm sorry, Tampa Bay Waterworks?
Yeah, that I understood the the Tampa Bay Water public utility property actually terminates south of this and and there is a separate private owner.
Well that's the so m ultimately my question is is that is there a chance that the alignment will not be
gonna have to speak into the microphone, please.
Is there a chance the alignment of the trail will be south of this property?
Yes, there is a chance, but it's not uh Swift Mud or Tampa Bay Water property in this area, we couldn't entirely connect through to State Road fifty two or to Bellamy Brothers without crossing some privately owned property, either yours or or Cedar Hammock, yes sir?
All right. And and guys. I'm George Southworth and Bob George Southworth and I have not I I walked in just as you were completing swearing, so I'd be happy to be sworn. Please
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is a true sahabad?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
Right, sorry, thank you. All right. perfectly happy. to dedicate thirty feet of right away along the southern boundary of my property for the trail. All right, I know that it might not be as much as someone might desire, and I do understand that they'd like the trail to meander, but this is a very small portion of the trail that might not be wide enough to meander. I'm already dedicating the eighty foot ride right away for the road that includes
room for a trail. I would also, as an alternative, give a thirty foot right away Up. D. west edge of my property to connect to the road, But as Catherine said, that's not exactly the ideal She knows it's not really what they planned is to have the trail and the road right away right beside each other. She'd like the trail to be independent. So I think is Yeah. I'm
not asking you to condemn it, I'm not asking you to pay for it. I'm willing to give you thirty feet voluntarily I believe they're wrong that I believe that the Swiftma trail actually comes up west of my property, so there's an interconnect problem there. It might require Andy Scaglione to give up a 30-foot easement when he develops his property to let the the trail connect to my 30 feet. There's probably a disconnect at Bellamy because I think Cedar Hammock owns a
little tiny piece. at that end. So it wouldn't necessarily connect to Bellamy. So you'd have to solve that problem. So there's still problems. Okay, and they're not resolved by fifty feet or Or thirty feet. Now, if the county came back and proved that they could not, for drainage purposes or some other reason, Physically get The Twelve foot right away. or twelve foot trail within that thirty feet. I I'm open to for discussion,
but I don't think that it's fair for me who is voluntarily willing to contribute an additional thirty foot for the trail in addition to the eighty foot for the road. D to require That that be a fifty foot right away without compensation that I'm certainly not in a position to sit down and negotiate today. Not to mention that it would You know, there are wetland issues. There's lots of other issues that the alignment has to consider
before anybody can make a decision whether this is the proper Place for the trail or not. But I'd let you come up the s the west boundary and connect to the road. Wherever that vision road ends up. Division Road S ends up being located on the property. I'd let you have the thirty feet along the south right away. And I'd work with you if it if that created a hardship. But I think that's a good thing. you know, as as much
as is realistically or you know, should be required. Thanks.
I I've just got a quick question. I mean uh and well first off, first statement. It seems like This is a pretty big detail we're trying to work out on the fly here at this meeting. Um I guess. To my opinion I think this probably needs to be resolved and and and brought back to us. But my question and I'll get right to it, on the eighty foot right away for the roadway itself includes a twelve foot path. Since we're talking about in the middle of industrial commercial property, does if that path or the multi-use trail is gonna go somewhere else, does it need to be here and does
that, if not, does that reduce the right-of-needed for this roadway?
Well I don't you probably still need sidewalks of some kind. Next to the road. I'll have to ask staff whether the eighty feet could be reduced
If it's just a sidewalk, not a trail.
Uh this is Brad Tippin, uh planning development. We can look at that. Um
Certainly limit that option. Um I don't know that it's going to make a substantial difference unless you were to remove all requirements for for sidewalks and trails within that right away and exchange them for the fifty feet on the boundary. Um I I don't know that the math works out. You know, you're gonna you're gonna save a few feet uh on the road right away and the the couple of feet or whatever isn't really gonna
So Brad, I'm gonna ask you a question. I don't want to put you on the spot too much, because I know this project changed hands from Jessica to William midstream. So I'm not gonna blame you if something got missed, but to Jamie's point and Commissioner Starkey's point about the fact that this probably should have been resolved well before I got here
Was this project submitted to Tina and M PO for comments? Did we get any comments? I mean what What was the breakdown in terms of Why this wasn't resolved before today.
Uh I'll I'll look into that and see what the breakdown actually was. Uh but the the main situation that occurred was that the original alignment of this road uh was on the southern boundary and therefore it wasn't gonna create any issue because the trail could always incorporate itself into the road right-of-way that the county was going to have as of what was previously uh uh thought for this area. Uh when this road alignment has since changed as part of this, uh that's when all of this kind of came up because there's there's some different situations. The Cedar Hammock
property and the Swift Mud property, that's not all public property on the south side. There is a portion that would need to be addressed. And then there's the question of do you actually use this particular situation uh where that road right away was already considered and contemplated as the location of the trail. So that's what we were bringing forward. That's what we were bringing for.
Well I guess to play devil's advocate though, weren't they proposing to move the roadway alignment with their initial application? Cynthia's shaking her head, yes. So I would think that if the initial application showed the roadway alignment being moved
That if it was submitted to M P O that they would have said, Well what about our trail or, you know I'm just trying to figure out how we got to this point where we're
probably We we would have to do that through some discussions and and understanding of of what was going on with those reviews. But uh the uh when we're talking specifically and solely about Eagle Two, they're showing a thirty foot easement on their southern boundary plus the road in the middle. So that looking at Eagle Two is a reasonable solution, I think, uh, with the information that a fifty foot is preferred, that's understood. Um but the thirty foot easement still being shown on Eagle Two made their project okay. What happened was when they're
bringing in the the resubmittal the modification on Eagle One, it didn't show that same location. The road right-of-way was there previously, the entirety of it was switched into the middle of the site and that easement wasn't there, so there would be a gap. So that's what bosses are.
The conditions of approval don't address
Right. And Eagle One was brought up at the the previous hearing uh to to be requested to be a part of this.
is my understanding. Correct. The roadway was moved because of Eagle Two.
Correct.
So I actually understand why it got missed in Eagle One. It's Eagle Two that I'm not understanding How it got missed. Because that's where they were moving the road.
There's a provision of an easement for Eagle Two on the southern boundary.
Okay, maybe I missed it. Um there's a required dedication.
It's
Is it in there now?
Is it a What what's the question?
Is there an actual condition of approval in Eagle Two that requires a thirty feet? Dedication.
I think we have agreed to add that if your PDE study shows that this is the preferred alignment of the Orange Trail. that I will agree to dedicate
up to a thirty foot right away for that road within that south thirty feet of the property to accommodate the Vision Road and I'll do that for both Eagle One and Eagle Two. I can't resolve your issues of how you connect to Bellamy or how you connect to the you know, the Swift Mud Road that I believe comes up to the property behind Mr Scaglione, not behind me, but Yeah, I I'm happy to provide the cleaners more than you would have had along
the edge of the road, too.
I'm very clear about what you're willing to do. I'm trying to ask staff whether there is already a condition dealing with it.
I
think we banned it as a condition.
I didn't
Okay, so it's not in there now. Okay. want to make sure I wasn't dreaming something up because I didn't see it. Okay.
And
we've
agreed
to modify MPUD modification for Eagle One to do the same. Okay, so my final question on the trails I'll ask Sam and Tina. Can you live with thirty feet? With the understanding that if You need more, you might have to buy it or provide credits of some kind.
Yes,
sir. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman M Yeah. At some point I need to make a statement regarding uh communication with a citizen on this subject.
Okay.
Um
Well you could probably go ahead and do it now. You talking about an ex
party
communication?
Yes. Okay. If you I had uh a communication from a citizen, uh Mr. Scaglione, uh called me uh yesterday and we spoke on the phone concerning the project.
Anybody else have any exported disclosures they want to do? I did.
I spoke with Andy too.
Okay. And I did too.
Okay.
If I may, Mr. Goldstein, inquire and as to the content of those ex parte communications?
Sure. Go ahead. You all want to explain what you discussed with Mr. Scaglione?
He shared with me concern over uh the uh vision road and how that might impact the viability of certain portions of his property from a commercial perspective.
And Mr. Poole, did you provide any response to those comments?
No.
Okay.
That's not Mr. Poole by the way.
I'm sorry.
Sorry. I knew that.
Um uh in Mr. Gray did you say you also had ex parte communications?
The same conversation and uh basically the same, you know, let's see what they say at the meeting.
Okay.
I understood that you our our whole purpose, uh one of the main purposes of d this delay was to come to an agreement on the movement of that vision road. And I was told that there was no Nobody came to an agreement. So here we're right really right back at the same spot we uh we were then. So I It seems like we have an awful lot of unanswered questions and th and I'm really uncomfortable with it. I would just answer a remediate question.
Okay. Same conversation, no additional Okay.
Regarding the road and it was a one way conversation.
Okay.
Mr. Tanello, did you have any conversations?
I did not. Mr. Skaglon, I did speak with Chris Williams, who is my supervisor.
And do you know the content of that?
Similar uh conversation.
Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.
Okay, so I don't know where we are procedurally. William, were you done with your presentation? I'm I'm done, David. Okay.
Sindy, do you have anything else before we See if there's anybody in the audience that'd like to comment.
Yeah.
Cynthia Spidel, Stern's Weaver. Yes, yes. Cynthia Speidel Stern's Weaver for One East Jackson Street. I have been sworn. And we just have a brief presentation. I apologize, I forgot to ask you, Mr. Chairman, for any additional time yesterday, so I'll keep it brief and uh hopefully if you have any questions then I can go back and revisit that. So uh we were continue as we've discussed, we've been continued s from May 19th to kind of talk about some some uh outstanding questions that came up with regard to the uh Vision Roadway S alignment at the last hearing. Which button do I press? I press the middle button, right?
Like that one. Uh oh. Okay, good. So uh we have our uh whole team here. Uh some are present uh virtually, the rest of us are here in person. Mike Razor cannot be here today, so but it doesn't sound like we have a lot of transportation questions right now. So uh May nineteenth at Planning Commission, the alignment of Vision Roadway S was discussed extensively. Um at that same hearing, uh you all voted to continue this item to today. to allow us some time to meet with Mr. Scaglione and his engineer, Mr. Bergen. We held that meeting on
June 7th. And I actually I should precede that with on June 1st they sent us a follow-up meeting summarizing their concerns. And we did went through all of those six items on at the June 7th meeting. So taking a step back here, there's a lot of terms that are being thrown out and we got really quickly into the weeds on the orange trail. So I thought I'd just give a take a step back and just talk about what's equal one, what's equal two, and how d how did we get here. So the current CPEV master concept plan is before you right
here. Oh, and should we enter the binders into the record? So we uh will uh request permission to enter into the record. We made some binders so you'd have some maps uh and a copy of this presentation. So
motion
to accept
that.
Second. Thank you.
I opposed Mr. Garrett.
Thank you. So this is the Central Pasco Employment Village Master Concept Plan. And this master concept plan was adopted at uh upon the original adoption of the Employment Center Future Land Use Classification. And I just want to emphasize it, it's a guiding document that manages the long-term vision of the project. It's not the regulatory part of it, is when the MPV comes in before you today. That actually places the land uses in their locations. So this was our starting.
concept plan post the Dale Swope conversion that um that happened earlier this year. Oh, was it last year already? So anyways, Eagle One is the property all the way to the east, which is along Bellamy 52, and then Eagle 2 is right next to it. And then um here, which one do I press for the uh for the um the pointer? Oh it doesn't work. Okay. Uh so at any rate, it's a concept plan. So as you come in, it's
it was based on uh data and a base model from back in 2008. Obviously, um those numbers get finalized as you go through the development review process and the MPD master plan to actually start to really locate those land uses and you know the MPD master plan is basically then has more engineering data available in there. And that part, but this is the starting document. It's a vision map for the area. So why the name Eagle? Because we have an Eagle's nest on Eagle
One and you can see it right there. It's on the its right smack in the bottom portion of the Eagle One project. And that is sort of what precipitated a re-evaluation of the alignment of the Vision Road. The tree was dead, or at least we the owner the landowner thought it was dead, but the eagles returned and raised an eaglet, so we decided to uh that this needed to be addressed with these MPUDs, and that was sort of the initial impetus to moving the roadway.
Um, so just to give you a little history of Eagle One and Eagle Two, Eagle One was rezoned from AC to MPUD on October 7, 2019. It was approved with 200,000 square feet of commercial entitlements and a million square feet of light industrial. Fast forward through the pandemic and the online retail sort of macroeconomic environment that pushed a lot of uh retail sales online. Amazon comes in and they put in a Non-substantial modification to Eagle One, which essentially moved the commercial entitlements from
the northern parcel to the southern parcel, and basically allocated 517,220 square feet of industrial on their northern parcel, and the remaining light industrial was also then moved to the southern parcel, which was retained by 3KS. The CPE. Master concept plan was not revised with this modification. So part of what we're doing here today is we're cleaning up all these items and bringing everything in conformance and looking at the two projects together collectively. So on
February 2nd, Eagle One MPD modification number two was filed by us, 3KS, to correct some of the incorrect parcel acreages from the original non-substantial modification. We're converting entitlements 36,000 to light industrial, and the results effect is elimination of the commercial and just retaining 1.2 million square feet of light industrial on the Eagle One's. site and to David's point, that was what I think William was trying to show you with the uh the non substantial modification conditions that were passed out earlier.
Before you leave that point, just want to clear something up. So it says Eagle One Which originally approved for two hundred thousand commercial This is you're converting thirty six thousand to light industrial. What's the other
Would go back to the pot.
Is that w the is the remainder of what's being moved Eagle two?
Well, I mean you can look at it either way. Either way it's going back into the pot 'cause Eagle Two's only asking for one fifty. Right, so so I I you can look at it so I think you've got land use colors and you've got pots of entitlements. So the land use colors are moving and the entitlement request is being amended as well.
But the end result is that equal one will no longer have commercial.
Correct.
Once we get a corrected version of the one.
So today, Eagle Two ECMPD proposes revising the CPV master concept plan to reflect the Eagle One modifications and that and that non-substantial modification. We're effectuating a land use relocation of the red, the commercial from Eagle One to Eagle Two. We're effectuating a land use swap within 3KS parcels to basically what we're just trying to do is create one large light industrial parcel. So the light industrial users, they want lots of big, they want hundred-acre lots, they want big lots. So we
just basically use the mechanisms available to us to in order to facilitate a three this a large light industrial tract. So uh the request is for 150,000 square feet of support commercial and two million. Now that was 300, but after meeting with Mr. Scaglione and his team, we it was volunteered by um my uh applicant by my client to reduce that to address some of his concerns.
So hopefully that kind of puts a little bit in perspective. So here we are with the the current map and the proposed map. And basically all you can just see here is that the red is moving from Eagle One to Eagle Two. It's being relocated within Eagle Two, and we're really effectuating that big purple uh land area. If you can see that I can't point to it right now. So um so during the neighborhood meeting Um oh I'm sorry. Number six is supposed to say starting
position, condition number twenty-five and twenty-one. And current position is condition number 25 and 21, because those both address the alignment issues. So we talked about the alignment of the Vision Roadway S, and I think at the end of the day, what we're asking you to do is to, if you would like us to construct the road, we would like that road to serve and to be best serving to the light industrial development. Light industrial buildings are really large, you have truckloading areas. You have large parking areas, they're not as easily movable
as, say, like uh residential housing, which can more easily be planned to ro move around uh roadway alignments and and wetlands and that kind of thing. So we're looking we really want to have the ability to have someone come in and Design and construct a road that services the site as a priority. And we are offering up to construct those roads, whereas in Eagle One, all they had to do was can convey that 80 feet or right away at the southern boundary. There was no requirement to construct
it. So what we're doing here today is asking you if you let us have an alignment that serves that the property best, we'll we will construct it in conjunction with the development. Yeah. So item number two is to clarify some of the land use swaps, provide the MOUs, provide the summary, and in the agenda item, a full response included addresses all those things. We provided a table to discuss the Acreage movements. And again, it's really important to delineate
that the concept plan is a different map than the master plan. The concept plan is just, it's uh it's the base data is completely different. It was created back in 2008. The master plan is based off of survey, wetlands, and better information that we have available to us today. Those two maps are never gonna match exactly, but uh the CPE V sub-area policy clearly states. That the concept plan is a concept plan and the vision and the general location is then guided through the regulatory process, which is the MPUD. Letter item number two was the amount
to support commercial office. We agreed to reduce it from 300,000 to 150,000. Um and just looking at that hundred and fifty thousand over the Just with respect to the light industrial entitlements for Eagle 2, that represents 7.5%. And when you're looking at Eagle 1 and Eagle 2, it's 4.7%. So as a general rule of thumb, support commercial is generally around that 20% range. So we are well below that. Oop, did I just move
that? So okay, so then going back to um letter item number three. Um The uh neighbor was concerned about contingencies regarding whether the BCC lifts the cap on light industrial. So we amended condition number forty one. We just figured, you know what, we're willing to reduce the uh we're willing to reduce re uh the um retail up front, we're comfortable that the board has given staff direction that the cap on the entitlements will be lifted. So we're just going to trust that that will happen and therefore
we're okay reducing that commercial support that commercial entitlements now. So then moving on to the acreages. Again, this kind of goes back to the differences between the concept vision plan and the MPD. They're just two different documents that acreages are never going to match exactly. We stand by the acreages on the MPD plan. And then the agricultural activity, it's under agricultural exemption, it's green-belted, it's been for more than five years. So We don't really have any more to say than that other than my time's
up.
So uh in conclusion, we staff's found the application to be consistent. We have letter support. There's also another new letter support that's in your binder that was entered directed today. So we have support letters from Keith Swope, Dale Swope, Jason April, Mr. Kokalakis. We kindly recommend uh recommendation of approval, and I have a bunch of backup slides for if you have any other specific questions.
All right. Any questions? Thank you. The applicant?
No questions. All right.
Have time for responding later. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, is there anybody in the audience who'd like to speak?
Okay. Can you state your name and address, please? You've been sworn.
Hi, I'm Chris Rodriguez, uh one of the landowners, uh Albert Henry Rodriguez Family Trust on the uh west side. Okay. Raise your right hand and be sworn.
Please wear burn the testimony about the adventures that help you bother.
Could you give your address too please? Yeah, [address removed]. Thank you. Um Some yeah, we're we uh our family uh is in approval of this. There's been some back and forth on w commercial and And square footage and as you all know this it's it's proposed or it's gonna be changed or it's you know. So it's been given a couple of ups and downs and whatnot, but we are in approval of it as long as those things do happen. Yeah, it comes down from three hundred. Yeah, and doesn't It was at two hundred
and now it's a hundred and fifty down. So all if those things do happen And we're in favor of it. So if I may and your properties where sir so if you look back at the map on the west side. on the corner of Aaron and fifty two.
So you're The northwest. Northwest corner.
Correct.
The red and purple area on there?
Okay. Anything else? Okay, thank you.
All right. Anybody else like to speak?
Good afternoon. Andy Joe Scaglione. [address removed]. Uh my attorney Matt Maggard is um is on um zoom. He just got out of hospital yesterday and uh my engineer Dan Bergen is under the weather and he's also on um on Zoom. Um they asked me to uh enter this into the record
and I've made copies for everybody.
Okay. Make a motion to accept the material.
One second.
All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye.
Opposed, like signed. Could you describe briefly what you're handing out to the Planning Commission?
Actually that is the um these the realignment that at last meeting um Y off uh had had recommended and thought was reasonable. Um um There was conversation on that and
So this is a graphic showing the proposed realignment of the road?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
And I'll let uh Mr. Bergen and then um Mr. Magger and then I'll speak last. Thank you so much.
All right.
Uh Mr. Maggot or Mr. Bergen, whoever would like to go first.
Uh I'm available here if you can hear me via Zoom. Is um is it coming in clearly? Loud and clear. Okay, great. Uh I was not born in um I just Just missed it, so
Okay, so if you raise your right hand and be sworn.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give as a truce to help you God?
I do. Thank you. Uh just for the record, Daniel Bergen, 3802, Ehrlich Road, uh Suite 312, Tampa, Florida. Um representing D D Ranch uh and Mr. Scagliani. Uh just uh we To recap what Ms. Bidel and the applicant had said, we had met with them. Um and had discussed multiple items. Most of them have been addressed. We are support
of the hundred and fifty thousand square feet of support commercial um that they're applying for providing which uh You know, the applicant did say on record today that All the Additional hundred and sixty-four thousand square feet of remaining support commercial for Eagle One is transferred back into the pot. So that is um We're on board providing that's the case. Um really That I want to speak to Is
the um It would be the interconnecting driveway or the point of interconnectivity between Eagle One or Eagle Two and D D Ranch. What Mr. Scatlione showed me there is a proposed um alternative alignment that we had provided the county and the applicant Um showing something that we feel is reasonable and fair to both sides. Um provide
Provide sufficient um development area for a high density residential for uh D and D ranch, but also allows them um opportunity to develop their partners. So But you know, we just they've been adamant that because they're the first table, they're allowed to pick and choose where that alignment goes and It's our opinion that that's not the case. And she's citing condition twenty-five as as
the um condition that allows them to do that, which it doesn't. If you read condition 25, it's specific to engineering. It basically is something that would be used for the plating and design of the roadway. It doesn't say this is this is me We as the applicant get to pick and choose where the roadway connects. Two. uh the adjoining parcels. That's not the case. This is done here, a mutually agreed upon location between both sides, which
we feel we provided, should be uh settled on. And so both sides can plan appropriately and move forward with their development. Um condition 25 does not allow them to unilaterally place the inner point of interconnectivity. Um that is something that we vehemently oppose and disagree with. Well um And we build a concept plan. Uh and the MPUD should be uh should be modified to something that that works for both.
It should also be noted that we do not have any objections to the industrial entitlements that they're applying for. We're completely on board with that. So from an entitlement perspective with support commercial and industrial, we support their application. Um But our issue is is the point of interconnectivity. And we feel that we provide a reasonable and fair alternative that should be accepted.
Okay. Uh is that it, Daniel?
Uh I'm yeah, I'm available for questions. Um
any questions?
About the alignment that we provided. I think it's clear that you can see how It um if you look at the land use entitlement plan How it shows the developable areas north of where that alignment is, how those areas increase in size. to allow D D branch the opportunity to develop that high density residential in an effici efficient and effective manner versus Having splicing
through entitlement areas that wouldn't leave as an effective development uh potential.
All right. Thank you, uh Mr. Bergen. Is there any questions from up here?
I don't hear any. Okay, so uh I think you have one more person to speak.
I have a point of order question.
Uh Jessica Iceman for the record, I'd like to cross-examine Mr. Bergen, but we can do that after we hear all of the witnesses at your at your discretion. We can do that now or after that we hear the witnesses.
You can do it. I would let Let the opposition do all their speakers and they can cross examine them afterwards.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, I think did you say Mr. Maggard so on?
Matt, are you on?
Matt Maggard for
representing D and
D Ranch.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, right.
Okay. Um I'm not gonna reiterate everything Dan said, so what I'm gonna My position and our argument from my side is is more procedural in nature than that. Um it it appears that the Um the plans that were submitted to you today, which I don't have a copy of. were uh insufficient in that they uh don't have all of the conditions that the county's gonna require. Um They're vague, they're hard to understand
what was what was removed, what wasn't. Um Yeah. you know, our argument is that it it'd be improper to to approve this at this point going forward with without all the appropriate conditions laid out in writing so everybody knows. um e exactly what the requirement's gonna be. for the applicant. Um I don't um just scared with their uh has uh more to add, like you said, I've been in the hospital so
I didn't have a a large time to prep, so my my statements are brief, but it With object to uh an approval based on an incomplete uh applicator.
Okay, thank you. Any questions?
Okay, I see none.
I'll make this real quick. Again, just uh um upset that that the this would actually affect my property, uh the the line that the the proposed uh alignment that they went through. We adjusted it for what we heard at the Planning Commission last time we were here based on what they thought was reasonable. That's what we went with. Um a uh the the my I I uh um But I'm gonna another subject is a very, very big concern of mine is is what's happened
with the environment over there. I am very protective of the environment. I think it's one of the best investments you can make. Um besides that animals rely on it and they rely on us to protect it. And in in a Zoom call that we had when I asked about, you know, um W wetland issues The um Uh we had a uh with my attorney, their attorney, the uh response was uh Mr. Southward said that that he could nuke uh whatever wetlands he wanted to. Um
So that that's a personal issue with me. um that I will be staying um very, very uh Um very active on um because we can't let this to happen to the environment and and hopefully that w um policy of of Pasco County gets tightened up where this cannot happen. So um Thank you very much for all your time. Okay, thank you.
Any questions?
Mm-hmm. All right. If not, is there anybody else that would like to speak?
All right.
State your name again for the record.
Jessica Eiserman, thank you for the opportunity to cross examine. Um Mr. Bergen, are you still on the line?
I'm here.
Um again this is Jessica Eisman. I'm the attorney that represents the applicant today. I have some just some quick questions for you. Um First of all, you had mentioned that there was no that the proposed alignment did not effectively didn't leave your client's property with effective development potential. Is that Did I summarize that correctly?
W takes portions of the property and makes them le less efficient to be developed.
Okay.
Portion of that.
Okay. So
it takes portions
of your client's property and makes it less effective for development in your opinion. Is that correct?
Correct.
Um have you performed an analysis to confirm that?
Which as in site development analysis? I mean this is from a planning perspective. It it's the same reason why you are trying to propose where you're interconnectivity goes. I mean it's It's taking the smaller blocks of property you have, the less efficient they are to develop. And if you look at the plan in my Years of doing development work and engineering work. it is not as efficient as having a larger piece of land from a flexible
standpoint. For for flexibility purposes alone, it's not as efficient. It limits our options.
Could we bring up the applicant's presentation, please?
So Could you I I don't think it's in like s slideshow mode.
What are you trying to accomplish here?
I am trying to pull up the master plan. Oh thank you. I'm trying to pull up this map. Okay, so the top, mr. Bergen, can you see the the two um CPEV concept plans on the screen?
Yeah, I can see them.
Okay. So I wanted to point out so the top Map shows the configuration as it exists in today's current CPEV master plan, and that's conceptual. Again, these are conceptual plans. The bottom map shows the proposed alignment within this MPUD application. What we can see is, and the presentation is in your binders, so you can look at it more closely, Commissioner. Yeah. So what we can see is that the roadway
has um as proposed with our alignment on um your client's property, you can see the roadway has some uh brown area to the north between i the roadway and the um wetland area. Is that correct?
Are you talking about the proposed or the current?
The c the proposed.
Correct. Yeah, the the area between the high density residential land use. Between The Vision Road S and the Wetland is our area of concern.
Okay. And in that area of concern, do you um have you performed an analysis to determine what that acreage is?
What would be your definition of analysis?
Have you determined that acreage?
We took some we we roughly scaled it up. Again, this is a concept plan, so we can't tell you exactly where that wetland lies because we haven't gone to that level of an investigation of our property. So Well I can say is if that wetland shifts closer to the road when we do our um when we set our J D then we really have less. So So precariously close, please, on the concept plan as it stands.
Is it fair to say that you do not know where the wetland is and you do not know the acreage of the brown area between Vision Road S as proposed and the wetland area?
It's not Satan's Day, it is. That is the case.
Okay, so to summarize
approximate ideas, we don't know what the exact numbers are.
What is that approximate idea of the acreage?
Well it's not just the acreage. The acreage in the gross doesn't matter, it's the dimensions. The dimensions vary. So you could have Could stretch the acreage out, but if it's only a certain width and it's and it's It's obtuse and it it's Non
Mr. Bergen, I understand.
Mr. Bergen, again my question was what is the acreage of that area?
I don't have the exact acreage.
Okay. Do you have an estimate?
You've already a asked that question.
And he has explained without actually providing me a number or saying yes or no. He said he doesn't have an exact number, but he has an approximation and I'd like to know what that approximation is.
I'd have to go in and approximate. I I mean we went back in and we looked at it, we pulled dimensions, and if that line shifts further south to the north, it just squeezes it up. You know, it was a couple hundred feet and I'd have to go in there and retrace it. But I don't know the acreage because guess what? There's a lot of unusable acreage that's created by this proposed alignment. You And that's
the
adjusted the alignment on our property. By moving the road.
Okay, Mr. Bergen, I'm trying to
deal with beneficial. That's that's the answer. So our property is our concern.
Okay. So from what I gather, we do not know the acreage amounts, we do not know the exact dimensions, we do not know the jurisdictional determination of that wetland. in the area of concern. Is that fair to say?
I think we've already answered that question. Yes, we don't know those because we haven't gone through that planning process yet.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Did you want to ask anybody else if they're here to talk or should I start rebuttal?
I think uh I think I've asked and nobody's shown themselves. Okay. So go ahead.
So I just wanna
Are you gonna both speak?
Uh probably yes. I'll go I'll be I'm really quick. I just want to show you the well these are the Easement graphics, but we've already discussed that. So um So we just conducted an so this is, let me go back. This is what um this is what the applicant has handed out, uh the the neighbor has handed out. And we just did an exercise to show you how hard it is to place a light industrial building. versus a residential
and we cannot set an alignment based on the neighbors' speculative assumptions and we we are asking you to n to prioritize the industrial development over residential development due to the flexibility that's needed in placing industrial uh industrial buildings. So this next one is, and again, this is not a site plan. We don't want to make it seem like we're submitting a site plan with this. It's just an exercise that we asked to place some, if an industrial user were to come in and use the site, how would those
buildings look? And this just is basically to just show you that it is very difficult to place large buildings with large truckloading areas, large parking lots. The areas that you need for industrial are larger. And therefore, it is very important that the site plan be the determining factor on how these roads service the site. And so what we're asking you to do is to prioritize industrial, this industrial development, we're asking you to allow us flexibility to have
this alignment set with the site plan. goes to develop and we're asking you to not realign or force an alignment on a road based on speculative assumptions by the neighbor. And with that I'm gonna hand it over to George.
All right. Uh just a couple of things. One, I don't necess I have some pretty strong opinions that I believe the industrial property should be located east of Cypress Creek and that the residential property should be located west of Cypress Creek. That a better use of Mr. Scaglione's property that he's concerned about at this moment. probably should be industrial. I really don't even believe there should be an interconnecting road because I'd I hate to encourage industrial traffic through residential neighborhoods or residential traffic through Through
the you know, industrial neighborhoods. I think it's a bad a bad mix. So I'm not sure that this proposed vision road is necessarily beneficial to the overall development of CPEV. But To that end. If it if Andy wants to eventually do what I think is right and make that portion of his property industrial, He will be much more
better served if that road was like in this plan that an engineer actually prepared. All right, and that road would come in parallel to the back of Amazon, go across, and intersect even further north, because this other alignment is partially what we showed in our conceptual plan before we had done any and still haven't done any real engineering. But I ad did ask an engineer for one of the developers in the area to kind of lay out an industrial park there. And this is what he came up with. He
wants the road to go along that north edge. and it actually creates larger areas on Andy's property. The the bottom line is small areas are always you're always impacted by a road. Small areas may not be able to be buildings. But they can be retention ponds, they can be You know, the You know, if it's is a multifamily residential, it can be where the clubhouse goes or the swimming pool. I mean I think for Andy to say we're negatively
impacting his property. is entirely speculative, where I can guarantee you that that meandering road through the property is going to dramatically impact the ability to maximize the industrial job creating uses on this property. And I do not understand why in the world. My property should suffer when it's bringing jobs and taxes to Pasco County. to benefit a residential development that m probably
can work around the road. Just fine. Further, I'd like to say that Andy Scaglione claims he's concerned about the environment. All right. I've been conservation. Land O'Neill. of the year in in Wyoming in two thousand twelve. for my wildlife habitat development. and my stream protection. projects out there. I have been belonged all my life to Ducks Unlimited
and the Wildlife Turkey Foundation and the Mule Deer Foundation and contributed to multiple environmental organizations. I just sold six hundred acres of in extremely environmental sensitive land in in Hernando County and Arapeka to Swift Mud. Andy Scaglione's concerned about the environment because I'm clearing trees. legally as an agricultural exempt activity on his the property next to him. That's his only concern with the environment. And I did
say in the meeting that under an agricultural exemption you can nuke wetlands. Right. And I and I could. But I'm not touching a wetland. I've had all the wetlands delineated and jurisdictionalized and my t clearing is staying outside of those areas. Am I clearing? I'm clearing. I'm an agricultural. I own thousands and thousands of acres of agricultural land. I have
Uh You know, I understand my rights and if if I'm in violation of any Ordinance, regulation, Law. I will Correct and comply but I do not believe there's any activity I'm doing that violates anything of any nature. May not be What Andy Scaglione wants to happen But it is my property, not his.
All right. And last but not least. I as the applicant Am not requesting a continuance. I'm requesting this board to vote on this project today. Okay.
If there's a that the normal procedure is if the applicant thinks there's going to be a negative vote, He may ask for a continuance that you may or may not grant. But I'm not I do not want this continued. I want this board to vote on this project today. Thank you very much. Thank you.
I I have Jessica again, Jessica Iceman for the record. I have one final comment and um we'll turn it back over to you guys. Um
I just want I just wanted to make sure it's clear that since I've given so many of You on one side a chance to speak. I'm gonna ask the other uh party if he'd like to re uh comment again. So
that's fine. However, we would like the opportunity for rebuttal at that time because we are the applicants.
Um we uh with respect to the continuances, uh we believe that um well under Florida statutes currently there is a shot clock provision under the Florida statutes that a decision has to be rendered within 180 days after an application is deemed complete. We are well past that already at this point. Final decision means city or uh county commission decision, not planning commission decision. So We are be at this point under Florida law, there no more continuances are available. Uh
okay, I don't agree with your interpretation of the statute. We've already passed the the deadline He must have agreed to that.
We have not agreed to that. We have agreed.
We yet we at the last continuance objected on the record to the
continuance.
We have objected repeatedly to that continuation.
Show me where you objected to Prior continuances.
You to get written approval to extend that hundred and eighty D's has to be in writing. So you show me where I have given you permission to extend that.
But did you object to the original date this was set?
We objected at the last planning commission to the continuing when
the date was originally set for this the original hearing. Did you object to the date?
Not no. We are waving.
it clearly states that it has to be waived in writing. We did not put anything in right. We are willing to work with the county. We love we are we have been working for with the county for months.
Go ahead. I'll be happy to defend that.
I disagree. And um I also wanna
we need you to do a continuance and do a deck action. Yeah, let's go ahead Is that you want to play this?
Sir, I am trying to give you a
motion, please. If you really want to play it that way, we'll do it that way. We'll do a deck action and we'll see if you waive your rights under the statute. 'Cause you did not object to the original hearing date for this matter.
Mr. Chairman M I'd recommend that we deny this currently. There are just too many holes in this document that I read here.
I'd like to see a continuance is what I'd really like to see.
Well do a continuance and be tcause I have to fill in t some of the doc uh like things on this document. So For
the record.
I've already given you a span chance to speak. Okay, so I'm done.
I am entitled to object.
We're done. You did object.
Did it if you you put your objection on the record.
I'd like to state uh We have
a second
another objection based on the Pasco County Code.
We're done. What what is your objection based on Pasco County Code?
Pasco County Code.
I'm not going to call it motion. I made a motion. Let's hear what our objection is, please. I want to go to the Penny for Pasco.
Pasco County Section 307 allows the Planning Commission to grant an approval at their discretion. No continuance has been requested. The Planning Commission does not have independent discretionary authority to continue without the applicant's consent. That is my objection. Thank you.
I don't agree with that interpretation
of the code.
Just a quick question. David, are Are you you just just I want to get your uh comments on this if As far as a continuance.
Well, I think you have the power to continue the matter, but I If you but if you're gonna continue the matter, it should be for some For some reason. So if it's
I mean you've already continued this once because under the theory that He wanted the applicant and the objector to potentially agree on an alignment. It's very clear to me they don't agree. So if you're continuing it for the sole purpose of hoping they're gonna reach agreement I don't think that's going to happen. So If you're not going to be able to If the agreement if the continuance is because there are certain conditions that are not in the conditions of approval you could just impose those conditions. I mean you have that power
So For example, the roadway alignment, the I mean the the trail, you can impose that condition. You've routinely approved projects with or you've added conditions. So I do think you have the power to continue it. My only concern is I'm not sure what The purpose of the continuance is because if you're expecting staff to Miraculously come up with some agreement between the property owners I don't think that's going to happen. I'm just being honest with you. Mm-hmm.
you all are just gonna have to decide which alignment you like better And
Again, I disagree with the applicant that that you don't have the legal right to continue. However, I'm also m trying to be realistic here. I i don't think You should put staff in a position to continue this for And then not give any direction to staff as to what they're supposed to do. Because You tried that last time. They agreed on some things, such as the reduction of entitlements, Yeah. You don't like if the to me the main issue here is the roadway alignment. And I
actually think you all could decide which roadway alignment you want to vote for. You could if you think that the the The southern alignment, the one that goes farther south is the alignment that you like. You could have You could approve it with a condition that they move the roadway alignment. But I'm not sure what the purpose of the continuance is. That's my concern. So Again, I don't
know.
Mr. Goldstein, um this is Daniel Bergen. I I was gonna um respond back to their comments on on the roadway alignment. if that's gonna be part of the
chair, but if you do that then they're gonna have to give the applicant another chance to rebut it. So Yeah.
Okay. Let's just get on with the uh with p possible.
At some point Mr. Chair, you just need to close the public hearing and bring it to the Planning Commission. And that's what we're doing right now.
Mr Chairman Mariano Brad, I know you you're standing at the podium so I'm gonna ask this question and and maybe this is for you not Uh on a I say I wanna say it on a project like this, but I know this is not the common project, okay? I mean but as far as roadway alignment alignments go and cross access and where they make sense At some point does county staff ever provide feedback on what looks feasible, what looks constructable? 'Cause I when I look at this and I
voiced this last time, I I I ha still have concerns with the proposed routing of the road on their proposed land use swap exhibit.
Yeah, Brad Tippin, planning and development. This uh this is a very different situation. As you know, when these roadways were originally contemplated, uh this was going to be one MPUD over the entirety of CPEV. Um when that changed the roadways were retained, uh, but it didn't necessarily allow for the flexibility to negotiate to r uh reroute the road, you know, once you have some more idea of where the uses would be, what size the uses would be, and things of that nature. Uh to reiterate uh Mr.
Goldstein's point, um This is a deviation from what was originally in the plans. Whether this deviation is the the location the applicant suggested or the app location the neighbor suggested, uh the county really can't offer an opinion on. We we aren't doing an economic analysis, we aren't doing that level of analysis on this. So it does end up being a decision that a body like this would need to decide which alignment they feel would be preferable given their understanding of comprehensive
plan and and what you think you would like to see in that area. A recommendation.
Well I I I guess I'm I'm gonna take the opposite uh approach that I took last time in in saying that they could move it on the south side of the wetland. If the applicant came in and wanted that cross access to tie into the parcel to the west. all the way to the north side of their industrial piece, the Purple Piece, which is dead ends right into the wetland on the adjoining piece. Would the county object to that?
More than likely someone at the county would object to that.
Uh in a situation like this where where you it's not a direct wetland impact, uh there is going to be a category one wetland impact crossing uh the DD ranch property somewhere. There's there's no way to avoid that. Uh The location where that happens typically it's uh on in any other MPUD in the county uh first come in sets the alignment generally uh and others that have to connect to the various local roads or collector roads or other roads uh they
essentially come in and and when they come in later they have to design around where those locations were previously set. This is a situation where there's nothing there. You know, the road, there's been a lot of changes in this. So the road location has not been, you know, fully contemplated with the actual uses in the area. The applicant does have, from my understanding, users. I don't know that they have conveyed exactly who those are, what those are, but generally I believe they
are correct that industrial uses tend to be larger. Difficult to place. So a roadway that does weave and meander can create some issues for siding. Um so to the extent that we would consider that argument from an applicant that has allegedly done that research on their own property and is able to give us that type of information. uh we tend to agree with that more so than what might be affected at some point in the distant future nearby. Right.
Again, direct wetland impacts may be different. if this road were going to go directly into a wetland. Right. I gotcha.
So I guess to sum up what you're saying, Brad, you're saying staff would be okay with either alignment.
Either alignment, we we don't have any tools to justify one of these alignments over the other. So uh referring it back to us to try and negotiate would simply be us acting as an arbitrator between the two parties, which really isn't the county's role.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is again Don't agree with them on the law. I think you have the right to continue it. I just I'm not sure what additional information you're gonna get if you continue this for thirty days.
One of the issues I have is we've been given all this information. At the last minute there's things that are blank that are missing. We don't know
How much has been approved? How much has not been approved? There's a table in there of has general uses which is percentages. I'd like to know how much percentages are Have been approved and not approved. I just feel like almost we're doing this blindly and this is supposed to be a whole development that you were doing. The C PAV was supposed to be developed together and now that's coming in M P D O M P D is okay, but we need to have a big picture of the entire project. I don't have that. I
don't know if any of us have this. So it's it's almost like a blind approval.
Are you talking about for the Eagle One application or the Eagle Two? Or both? All of 'em, both of 'em.
Since
Yeah, because Eagle One, just to be clear, the one he handed out. Is approved administratively approved by staff. It never comes to you period. Now do I think there's some Things that are not clear in it? But I want to be clear that you would never vote on the Eagle One changes anyway.
And it is still under review. It's not completed yet.
Um But as it relates to Eagle Two
To me the biggest ambiguity is there's nothing in there related to the trail.
And then a decision needs to be made on the roadway alignment. But other than that, I'm not sure
that eagle two is missing anything That crucial.
Mm.
I just I see it as a a large Development, the whole thing. And I don't know what's been approved, what hasn't been approved. I don't know the square footage. And j I mean I read through the sub area and it just a lot of the sub areas just It doesn't seem like we're following the sub area. So Since things started been passing out to us this afternoon. It's just been okay, we're gonna prove this and we don't we're getting this today.
So Okay, Mr. Channel, but I wanna I just want to caution you that I don't think you vote on this, to be clear. Correct.
Unless
there's a tie. So I I'm not saying your opinion doesn't matter, but to a certain extent it's not a good thing.
Just providing comments and at this
point. I understand that, but it's there's no residential entitlements in either one of these MPUDs.
Okay.
And I don't believe the any of these roadways serve a school site that I'm aware of. Not at this time, not that we know of. So I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just saying I understand. No, but there are concerns I think we all have. Right. But Just keep it in mind that you d I d you were talking as if you were gonna vote on this and
And we do have th there could be a school in this. There is, you know, in the comp plan and in the
M P V
yeah,
so there could be a school, but I don't think these two particular MPDs would be where they would be. They're all industrial or commercial entitlement.
So again, uh to be clear, I'm not opposed to you continuing it, but I think if you're going to continue it There needs to be some direction to staff about what you want to see when it's continued. If you're expecting them to resolve the roadway alignment issue I think Brad's been pretty clear that they will not do that.
And y if that if that's the main reason you're continuing, you might as well just pick the alignment you like and vote on vote it up or down.
Well are you willing to uh withdraw error. Of course. It was never seconded anyway.
Okay.
So is there a Is somebody else like to make a motion? If I c what specifics.
If I could reiterate something that uh Brad said. Um A couple of things. One is that in situations like this Um It's generally the first party to the dance that gets to decide what the dance step will be. Um is is that an accurate Statement of what you said, Brad?
Yeah, that that is generally the case. We we tend to have a vision road layout that will tell us exactly where something would be. Uh but in this case there are
There's it's a blank.
Either w neither one of these would follow that original route, so we have nothing to No tools to choose one over the other. Right.
Yeah, my Point is that is Whichever property you look at, mister Scagliones or Yeah the property it's all speculative at this point. It is. Yeah, so
Well condition I think it's condition twenty five says that the It's it pretty much says in writing what Brad just told you, which is Did whoever comes in with a site plan approval first is effectively gonna set the alignment. Is that what it basically says, Brad?
Yeah, is that what that says?
Yeah.
So I mean I guess to your point. If Mr. Scagliona came with a site plan first, he in theory could set a different alignment.
Yes sir.
Well, I I'll be happy to make a motion. I'm I'm not particularly Happy. Yeah. With it right. I'll offer it up and if it gets a second we'll see. Um I would follow the uh
the plan that's been determined uh by the two commercial or the two uh light industrial properties. to use the uh roadway that they're suggesting. Um despite the fact that it may impinge upon Mr. Scagliones. Okay. property and development prospects around housing.
All
right.
We
have
a second. Can I get a clarification to the motion? Does that include Adding the additional condition for the thirty foot for the trail. and the additional conditions that William read into the record about The well had protection areas. Was the applicant in agreement with the Wellhood Protection Conditions?
Cynthia Spadel, uh yes, we're in agreement because it just says we have to comply with the code and it says that in uh condition three A anyway, but we agree to it.
Okay.
And another reason. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Do we have a second? No. I don't know. Yeah, a second. Do we have a second?
If not, then that motion dies for lack of a second. We have another motion.
I I just personally I'll I'll go ahead and I'll make a motion for denial and and my whole reason is I I think this is just Way too incomplete, way too there's way too many unknowns here. Um I I don't th I at first today w today was the first time I heard of the trail. Um there's still a lot of ambiguity and I'm still a little bit troubled by the alignment of the road and and the configuration of the road going through the wetland. That's ultimately gonna cross the wetland on the west. Um I I mean m my recommendation or my understanding is if
if this denial is approved this is gonna go to the board but I I think what would probably help is is have an understanding of what You know, I know that the applicant asked, you know, their other engineer how much acreage or what's the calculation of the acreage. It'd be nice to know under his alignment. how much acreage of industrials down there. 'Cause I find it hard to believe I mean I still think you end up with five, six, seven hundred feet of depth. I still find it hard to believe that you can't find an industrial user on that southern piece, so Overall I I make a motion for denial.
I'll second that. I tend to agree with the Okay.
Then we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion?
All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed to the motion. Like sign. Okay, motion carries.
Okay, application denied.
Yeah, I have to say planning ambition for both, I appreciate it.