Roman industrial MPUD PDE 267882 light industrial

1:05:49Okay. Good afternoon,

1:05:51commission members. Kurt Syrerson, Planning Development, Happy Growth.

1:05:56We'd have to have some silence back there if you don't mind. Prime for

1:06:00that.

1:06:03I should be able to do it. Good afternoon, Planning Commission members. I'm Kurt Saberson for Planning Development and Economic Growth. Presenting the Roman industrial NPD eighty twenty six, seventy eight, eight of that. Located in West Pasco County, the site's location is illustrated by the Red Star, or in Commissioner Yeager's district.

1:06:25Petition today is a rezoning request from a PO2 Professional Office District to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development for the maximum development of a 20,000 square foot building following the I-1 light industrial uses of LDC Section 528.

1:06:42In red, we see the MPD boundary located immediately east of Rowan Road, approximately 400 feet north of the Rowan Road and Plath Road intersection. This site is abutting immediately south of Alderman Lane, a private residential roadway. The development does not propose a connection or utilization of Alderman.

1:07:03The site maintains a PO2 professional on the zoning classification, the boundary illustrated in pink. The current future land use is Fres six, residential six dwelling units per gross acre, illustrated in pink, a change to the future land use by small scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAS twenty-four. Parentheses eleven, petitions to amend the site's future land use classification from Res 6 to I L industrial Mite supporting the MPU user. The comprehensive plan amendment has

1:07:33been given in a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission and heads to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption slated for the 12-9 public hearing. The Ron Industrial MPD has been conditioned that the NPD requires adoption of such comprehensive plan amendment by condition of approval number thirty-five, reading this MPD shall not be effective until the corresponding industrial IL future land use classification change is effective.

1:08:02Here's our context map. The surrounding built environment perspective, Ron Industrial MPD, is characterized by both residential communities and a non-residential development pattern. The residential users are primarily single-family detached homes, multifamily residential complexes. The non-residential pattern here is mostly comprised of commercial users. A budding immediately south is a business user. At the intersection of Ronan Plath is a gas station. East of the site, we observe the Cody River Elementary School. A quarter

1:08:32mile south is a Marine Corps facility, and a quarter mile north are multiple commercial users.

1:08:39Here's our MPD master plan. The master plan illustrates the site as one parcel, boundary red. which is inclusive of the total of 1.8 acres. Requested is a maximum entitlement of 20,000 square feet, and the SONT uses are the I-1 by Industrial Uses LDC section 528. Access of the subject of element as illustrated by the arrows on Roman road.

1:09:05variation has been requested by the applicant. From LDC section eight oh five, specifically eight o five point six, restrictions on post-development wetlands and upland buffers within residential lots and non-residential parcels. The request is to ensure parcel owner maintains and is responsible for the open space, drains areas, common areas, landscape areas, wetland areas, buffer areas, preservation, conservation areas, and other special purpose areas without. Pledding or conveyance to a C D D. PDE is amenable

1:09:35to this request as it accomplishes the intent of Vado 5.6, being that maintenance of this area takes place even without a C D D. In conclusion, PDE recommends approval of rezoning petition item PDE 267882. Thank you for your time and consideration. Eric, if you have any questions, do you want to address this petition that was handed out? Yes, sir. The Applicant has voluntarily agreed to remove uses

1:10:06of the I one Tony, if this trick. By approval of this MPD. I intended But yeah, okay, too. Explain this, but Yeah. Applicant has agreed on fairly to forego the following uses of the I one Sunny the story. Boat manufacturing, laundry or clothes cleaning or dyeing establishments, current thory, recycling operations, shooting ranges, medical waste disposal

1:10:36facilities, auction houses, construction and demolition debris, disposal facilities. yard trash disposal facilities, and wholesale storage of chemicals, gasoline, or liquefied petroleum gas.

1:10:54Any questions? Okay, present. Anyone answer Jack?

1:11:04Yeah.

1:11:05Good afternoon again, Barbable Height [address removed]. The change to condition 25 came as a result of our neighbor, Mr. Kohler, Mr. Dane Kohler, contacted the county. The county contacted me. Mr. Gerardi actually talked to Mr. Kohler, who's one of our neighbors, and he actually discussed these particular uses that are in the code as being concerns. So we took every one of those uses that were discussed between Mr. Girardi and Mr. Kohler and put them into the condition. That's

1:11:36how this came to be. And I did hand out to Mr. Kohler to him this this list and he's gonna speak. Um I know he has a few things he wants to ask still. Um but I think this is agreeable to him. But let's let him speak if if we could and then uh we'll do any follow-up uh after that.

1:11:52For clarity, can you explain why this came in as an MPD instead of a Well just including an I-1 district.

1:11:59Sure. So the I-1 district has uh 150-foot setback, which kills a lot of industrial industrial killing um Open yard requirement. The staff has had it on their list and I to update that requirement. But We had to bring it forward as an MPD. We actually our complaint came to you a long time ago. The complaint to industrial has been sitting while we had to come for an MPUD. I know staff is working on amending that section of the code because By

1:12:30definition, light industrial doesn't have adverse impacts. That's what's the difference between by code, light industrial and heavy industrial. Light industrial doesn't have adverse impacts or it wouldn't be allowed. It wouldn't have to be a heavy industrial. So you have this difference between saying that light industrial can't have advert adverse impacts, but then requiring very, very large open yard setbacks, which don't, in my opinion, have much of a purpose. So we had what we did in this case is we built Here's what this property is, here's how big it is, here's what's

1:13:00around it, and we built The setbacks, the buffering to the property into this particular project. And that took a while to bring forward and it was quite expensive for the client. Hopefully, you'll get where you'll be updating your code with staff so that we don't have these issues with industrial. I mean, we have a more um appropriate setback for light industrial. But that's the reason why you see this as an MPD. I'll

1:13:31have a variance I did a variance not too long ago regarding this issue and I have another one coming up. So Hopefully to work with staff to bring forward and fix the code so we don't have to do some of these things that take time that cost property code and money.

1:13:50Okay, any questions is

1:13:53Watching.

1:13:55Expectation five. We look at the end of the vegetable way we're involved in the kind of

1:14:05Sure.

1:14:20Ronald.

1:14:22So I think that's just saying that whatever association they create. First of all, they're having they have an exception at the very end of this that says they're not gonna do this for Hello. If it's all under one ownership, which which which they're probably going to do. But the reference to the school board just says that. Penny common association or C D not include school board property. This is that standard language.

1:14:55zoning conditions to make sure that you're not Subject to any C D D or HOA assessments. That's for your benefit.

1:15:03Yeah.

1:15:04Unless you want to start paying those. Yeah. Mm-hmm. But you're gonna pay on a road and get it? How do we take any money they can give us for

1:15:15the easy? Chris doesn't ask this

1:15:17question.

1:15:20Okay, I think we have one person I want to speak. Come forward please. State your name and address.

1:15:29Well Yeah.

1:15:33Good afternoon. My name is Dan Kohler, [address removed]. If it's possible, they can bring up to Globe a map picture of the said property. This will give you guys a little bit of insight.

1:15:42Sure.

1:15:49Yeah, can you zoom in a little bit? Okay, so if you see where the yellow dot is, you're gonna see that house right there. That's my house. Five years ago, six years ago, I don't know the exact date, deep construction was involved. They went ahead and got preliminary plans involved with a set of tension pond. That is my biggest concern, which I know it has nothing to do with you guys at this point, is in reference to the rezoning. I did talk with them, they worked with me. Extremely happy. They met my requirements. I'm extremely happy. My biggest thing goes out to Mr. Moody. I understand he's in stormwater. I'm only concerned is when I built my property. That

1:16:19wasn't there yet. They had a preliminary plan and set to put their retention pond at Alderman and Rowan. Problem with that is my Leechville is 75 feet from that said location. So I understand that's not your problem. I'm just concerned about the setbacks that they're asking for. If I understand correctly, I had wetlands on my property, I hate was not a lot of new setbacks. I just want to make sure it meets the building codes. The and then I want to make sure the land development code is going to be enforced and

1:16:49not given extra room to commercialize this because this is an investment, guys. This isn't their home. That wiped out my savings to build my home for me and my wife and my grandchildren. If they go with that said property and they're not held to setbacks or wetlands for drainage. What does that do to me? Does it take out my leech field? I have nowhere to put my leech field. My leash fail could not go in the backyard per the health department for the reason of setbacks due to wetlands. So I just don't oppose it as long as they're not given more room than

1:17:20what I wasn't allowed to have when I built and what I asked for room, because mine was a nightmare to get my house built on said land. And I had to jump through a ton of hoops. So I don't want them to be given extra room to maximize their profit and maximize their portfolio. at a work and man's loss. I don't have 20 grand to relocate. That's my only concern. But otherwise I don't appeal it. Uh for the growth, I'm for Development in our community, that's how we make money and that's how our economy grows. But we also can't maximize that lot. if

1:17:50it's gonna affect my law. Because we also have another big development that's coming directly behind it that just got funded. And that's gonna be the commons at Spirit Village. So we also gotta take that into effect. So I'm not opposed to. I just don't like the wetland setback to maximize what the building wise. So

1:18:09Which part is yours again?

1:18:10I'm the

1:18:10corner lot. So right there with the arrows, right there. Yes, sir. So we're going to be careful here because I think the preliminary plan that you're talking to was required by my colleague down here. So I'm gonna speak in generalities.

1:18:27Two things. 626, which is the section of the Florida Administrative Code that controls septic systems, doesn't allow a retention pond within 15 feet. High water mark. Of the retention fund in that septic system.

1:18:42Yes.

1:18:43And

1:18:43we're benchmarked, I think, at like twenty-something inches already. So that's my that was my only concern.

1:18:49Very common. I have to ask Mr. Girardi 'cause I think he was the engineer for that system. But it's not uncommon. Go to the water management district and get a permit for a retention pond if there are nearby septic systems that they ask you to provide a groundwater mounding analysis that demonstrates that the groundwater mound created by the retention pond does not intercept or inters interfere with the operation of the septic system.

1:19:20That's also common with wells, too. Yeah, because my wells also, I think a And that I can't speak to the

1:19:26specifics, but I think Jamie did design that. Yeah, so that's like I said, I'm pro it. I'm not against it. Like I said, my only thing I am gonna object to is the variance of them, so the maximum is a lot. Because I was held back because I'm wetlands, my back half my yard. My neighbor's wetlands half backyard. He had 37 feet of water in his backyard. I had 23 feet of my water in my backyard in the last storm we had last year. So I think we need to make sure it's going to fit that property before we okay and say, hey, they can maximize a lot. And then what does it do to

1:19:56the water coming down Alderman Lane and where does that water get directed to?

1:20:00One, we're in the zoning. Here. We're not looking at the site specific design. We're looking at whether the zoning is appropriate compatible with the area and this is an uh the right place to put this type of zoning. But I can assure you that Sure. They have a lot of Hoops to jump through to get approvals to build. We have a 1500 plus page land development code. And they have all of chapters 62 330

1:20:30of the Florida Administrative Code dealing with stormwater to deal with. You've got transportation issues they're gonna have to deal with, utility issues they're gonna have to deal with They're not going to get a license to pave the site from one end to the other and start building that tomorrow. There's going to be a lot of eyes that look at this before this is all approved.

1:20:53Which I understand. And going back to what you said, I understand it's not a site approval, but the approval they're asking for is also a zone variance, if I understand correctly.

1:21:02Well they're asking for some variations from the code, one of those being that they don't have to Put any wetlands on the site under the control of a homeowners association or CDD because this is intended to be a one-owner site, so there won't be a homeowners association or a CDD. They're not proposing, I haven't heard any proposal in here to fill any wetlands or Anything like that. So even though to

1:21:30clarify, because I'm a glass guy, I'm not. Build. Even rezoning is not going to change, they'll still be held to said land development codes, correct? Okay, good.

1:21:44So part of this process, the one markable deviation they're doing in terms of setbacks is the 150-foot setback, but I believe that's pulling to the east. Is that right, Staff? I don't think they're changing, somebody tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they're changing any Is it going back or parts of backs to the north. It is property to the north. Right. Yes, sir.

1:22:12Are the setbacks they're requesting for the north side of their property any different than what The code would normally require. No, sir.

1:22:19The variation would be to their eastern MF2 neighbor, which ordinarily applied by 528 would require 150 feet of open space for industrial.

1:22:33Or general

1:22:34notes.

1:22:36Because I I had my biggest car is my leech field. Otherwise they've been great to deal with. I just don't want to have an issue against build six months down the road after they build.

1:22:45I hear you. I do. Here yet. But I'm going to tell you this, I have 100% confidence in that gentleman over there who's the engineer for the site. I have known him for many years. And he's not somebody who's Who takes his job and his responsibilities lightly. Um He's not somebody that I've known has ever flooded anybody or

1:23:09each other.

1:23:12You're voting on something that's he thinks maybe happening. Yeah. He maybe doesn't want us to grant some deviations from the code. Yeah, you're granting any deviation from the code that wouldn't affect him because I think the only deviation that you're arguably granting is it's

1:23:29a setback to the east. Yeah, the two ejections the only the only two things I had to conditional the pre potal was the one which we talked, we agreed to they So that's the addendum. That was our discussion yesterday, which is amazing. And then my other two was the variance, just get clarification on the variance to make sure that they can't max out that lot. And then it ends up 65 feet from my leech field. And then I just wanted to make sure they're still gonna be held to the

1:23:55clear.

1:24:01And

1:24:01that was I'm not sure how that affects you. Yeah. We weren't given that information. I didn't see that. That's why I'm asking clarification on it.

1:24:07So I don't think they're requesting any

1:24:08aviation on the

1:24:09north

1:24:09side, but David, can I ask you for a clarification? Yeah. And maybe it's better asked for staff. The zoning map shows that the property to the east is MF two, which is a Residential type zoning. Yes. Okay. And the Property to the north that this gentleman lives on, according to the map that's in our agenda memo, is agricultural residential.

1:24:37It's my understanding that the hundred and fifty foot clear yard setback. applies to those areas adjacent to residential. So is staff considering that agricultural? Or is it being considered residential? I

1:24:52believe they consider it agricultural because they only identified but I'll let staff answer because they only learned to me that there was an issue to the east.

1:25:04All right, this is not this is a staff question. But the right-up only says that the 150-foot yard would normally only be required to

1:25:13the east.

1:25:18Or even the

1:25:19main button I cannot grow. The the code defines agricultural district to include AR agricultural

1:25:26residential. So it it's considered by the So you're not applying the 150 yard, 150 foot free clear yard setback to the agricultural zone.

1:25:38Correct.

1:25:38And

1:25:38so what Kurt and Miss Will High did was a type B buffer consistent with the 9052 matrix, the buffering in between industrial and residential. Okay. And that buffer is 15 feet. 15 feet and then a 25 foot setback. Is

1:25:54that from the property line? Yes sir. So be a total reason. Okay. Excuse me, but uh Jamie, you're the engineer for the project.

1:26:04Yeah. Can we just confirm? Yeah. Okay. Uh Jamie Girardi, Regency Design and Engineering, I 400, River Crossing Boulevard, Suite 102, New Port Richey. Just to clarify, a couple things just for the record, the yes, we did do the design. The original design was done in 2010, and clearly the conditions out there today are much different than they were then. That prior approval is no longer good. We're gonna have to go back in and repermit the project through. the

1:26:34county's land development code and with Swift Mont in the water management district of the state rules and John mentioned earlier. So This site isn't going to be looked at again. There's a lot of things out there that are different that we're going to have to take into account. And trust me, the agencies will give me plenty of hard time.

1:26:52Okay, but you're you're agreeing that the setback requirement is not affecting the norm.

1:26:58Mm-hmm. Well, I mean again the setback. I mean they they said the setback was from the property line and we're gonna be far enough away from his leech field that the building setback was not gonna affect his leech field.

1:27:10That's the only thing he seems to be concerned about. Well it's still stormwater.

1:27:14It's still storage. I I just wanted to make sure that, you know, that one, yeah. So we got the clarification of that. I'm good there then. As long as Which they did. They agreed to the addendum, which we did say for the conditions. I don't oppose as he explained to me and Mr. Mooji said there's still gonna be a held to the land development code, then I don't oppose it now.

1:27:34The

1:27:34setback on the north side. Is it the same setback that they would have had to comply with if this had just been a normal Including

1:27:44district.

1:27:49I I can't tell. So I think he said yes

1:27:52because the treatment is an agricultural

1:27:56I I I've accepted staff answered that doesn't require a hundred and fifty foot

1:28:01But I'm but I'm asking w the whatever subject is you are imposing, what is it consistent with what we would normally require in the code?

1:28:14This would be I1 just asking for stripes.

1:28:20Yes, it is consistent. The 25p is consistent with the 528 front setback, in addition to a type e buffer, which is also consistent of that five.

1:28:30Yeah,

1:28:30it is it's the same same way. To answer the gentleman's question, you're see your the applicant's not requesting any deviation from what would be the normally required set by fundamental system.

1:28:45And just To point something out to Reason that it's 25 feet on the north side is this is a corner lot, which has two front yards and two side yards. had Alderman Lane not been there, then it would have been a side yard setback of only fifteen feet. But because that street's there, it's twenty-five, plus he still has the width of the street. Which functions as a setback because Alderman Lane is unimproved and impassable.

1:29:14Okay, I think we're there. Yeah. All right. Was there anybody else that needed to speak? If not. Higher motion. Move approval. Second. Second. Motion is second for the discussion. Non-favor signifies next meeting. I

1:29:32would like sign. She carries. With the note that priority is abstained, of course. Well, can the motion we clarify that with the revised condition? Oh yes. Yeah. So I'll mend that motion to include the revised condition twenty-five. Still second.

1:29:49Still vote aye. Aye. All

1:29:51in favor?

1:29:52All right.

1:29:53It's just to go.

1:30:00Okay. Thank you.

1:30:09See that's

1:30:12Uh Chair, are you beginning PC six and PC seven, would you like to take a break?