LARGE-SCALE COMPREHENSVE PLAN AMENDMENT – CPAL 19(04) S.R. 52 Industrial – Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (2-15 and Sheet 13) Changing from EC (EMPLOYMENT CENTER) to IH (INDUSTRIAL HEAVY) on Approximately 138.65 Acres of Real Property Located South of S.R. 52 and West of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard; and a Text Amendment to Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.12 – Central Pasco Employment Village; and a Map Amendment to the Future Land use Map 2-9 Amending Subarea Map 2-9(12) Central Pasco Employment Village
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionApproved
Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Feb 7, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Feb 7, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-19-0539 in full →Heard once. PDD-19-0539 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Feb 7, 2019PlanningP10▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 20m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 99% of 94 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
The PC will now the Planning Commission will now be acting as a local planning agency. Erico Winland Planning and Development. Item P ten is a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of uh CPAL nineteen oh four State Road fifty two industrial. It's a large scale comprehensive plan amendment From EC Employment Center to IH Industrial Heavy.
The subject property is located on 138.6 acres and is located on the south side of State Road 52 and west of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard. The septic property is currently within the C PEV, the Central Pasco Employment Village. The applicant has proposed to amend the Slibberry Policy two nine twelve C P e D. Here uh the um It's located on the South Road on State Road fifty two and west of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard and here's a locomation map.
The subject property is comprised of four parcels and the applicant is proposing to develop the site as an industrial generating land use. The applicant is requesting to remove the subject site from the CPEV area plan that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in March of 2010. Here is the existing future land use as E C Employment Centre and the proposed future land use as IH. Here's a map of the C P E V
The subject side is predominantly surrounded by REST one and ROR to the north, RES III to the south, and IL to the east. The subject property is predominantly surrounded by vacant and agricultural land. Here's an aerial oh. Aerial shot.
The applicants proposing to a company's appointment to IH and the CPEV called for industrial uses. However, the applicant has now Um decided that with the Euclidean rezoning that they're gonna do a development agreement that would get rid of the noxious uses that are allowed. uh in IH industrial heavy. Due to the residential surrounding the uh the subject property. The IH will give them more flexibility to do what they want to do. However, with the development agreement with the Euclidean
rezoning, it will strike through all the noxious uses that would usually be allowed with the IH industrial heavy.
So can I ask you a question here? Yeah. Um so D C The way I read the code, it allows light industrial and target industries.
Yes.
So
Well it I thought it with targeted industry and industrial.
So did you read section five twenty two point five of the code as to what is allowed in an EC M P U D?
Yes.
And tell me where where does it say you're allowed to do heavy industrial that is in a target industry?
I was under the assumption that the applicant was using a targeted industry.
I agree to law it's targeted
industry. That's what so what we're we're gonna do is go back and do the development agreement that would allow for the targeted industry and then get rid of the industrial heavy noxious uses.
So I guess my question is if EC already allows target industries and light industrial, then what's what's the need for the change? Wha why? If EC and part of my concern is EC has restrictions such as you can't put metal buildings right on the road. E IH doesn't have that, so you know I'm not understanding why we're moving from EC which is target industries light industrial to IH which is heavy
industrial and doesn't have any of the requirements of BC. So I I that's not clear to me, especially when this property fronts fifty-two and the staff supporting metal buildings on fifty-two? I I'm I'm not sure what why staff is recommending this change.
It was under my impression that the IH would give the applicant a greater flexibility to do more of what's needed for the county depending on the uses, because the IL is unfortunately it will limit the type of uses that we would see for that particular property, and the IL to the IH would give it more of that flexibility, and then that way the development agreement would get rid of any of the noxious uses that are associated. with the IH industrial uses.
You that's why you didn't go to I my my question wasn't about why they're not going to I L. My question is why isn't that staying in DC?
Could I refer to you the applicant as to
the right-of-way? Could you give your name and address, please?
Yeah, Cynthia Spidel, King Engineering, 4921 Memorial Highway, Tampa. I have been sworn. Um I apologize, David, that you weren't part of some of our initial meetings that we had with the county when we came up with the IH as a as a sort of the uh the compromise. The main thing that we wanted to do here was remove ourselves from the CPEV boundary. The applicant knows a lot of the people within the CPV boundary. A lot of them think that nothing's gonna happen for another 10 to 20 years. We just want to remove ourselves from
that obligation. We don't want to wait 10 to 20 years. And we want to go industrial because an industrial site does not need to be MPUD as well. My client is interested in just a standard Euclidean rezoning so that we can remove Ourselves from the boundary and actually develop the property and not have to wait for the surrounding landowners to sort of do an MPD plan and a financial plan. So fast, you know, uh go back a couple of months, we actually met with the county and we sat down with P uh we PEDC did
this whole Big Ready Sites program. This site was identified as a potential site for industrial. Um it just so happened that some of the people that were looking at this site would have needed heavy. Um so when we met with the county Um we had the uh economic growth department there, Melanie, and the new uh person I don't remember his name. They came and we started talking about the differences between light and heavy and what to do and we collaboratively came up with Heavy Industrial together as a team.
So um so as we were going through this and we had staff support, you know, today was the first time I actually heard that you objected to it. This is so this is news to me. I'm
not sure any people you met with have the history of CPEV that I do, right? So I don't know anything. Anybody you met with was here when C P V V was approved. And
and that's very possible.
C P was approved as a mixed use project which had an employment component, a residential component, correct. Um retail component and it was a collaborative effort of all those property owners. So um yes it is unfortunate you didn't meet with anybody who was here when C P V was approved. That being said, I understand your concern about not wanting to wait for the larger MPV. I I get that. But I'm not understanding why it still can't be
developed consistent with the vision, the original vision of CPV, which was target industries, light industrial. Right. Now, if what you're saying is you want an IH land use and you're gonna do a development agreement that that effectively makes it target industry and light industrial, like I that's probably okay, but I'm not sure if that's what you're saying.
Well, because I don't know. Because the target industry list changes, and my concern would be that there's an industry that Pasco wants to bring that might not be on that list. So I would I would typically
we want to bring in target industries. That's what I'm saying.
In fact, there's
one right on after you on the agenda. We're about to use it.
So one of the so as this objection came up, you know, I was just um talking quickly with Erica over potential solutions. And yes, one solution would be IL plus target industry. Um but we
Or we could do at the time of rezoning, the Euclidean rezoning, we could just go through a development agreement and we could sit down with you as well and just just cross through some of those things that might be concerning to you.
If you're committing, when you come in with zoning, do a development agreement that maintains the original vision of CPV, which this was going to be target industry and light industrial. Then I don't have an objection. Is that what you're proposing?
I I don't know exactly because I'd like to go through the target industry list and I'd like to sit down with my client to go through that. Like I said, this is the first time I've heard of an objection. So I'd really like to, you know, we are doing a companion rezoning. It has been filed. So I just would like to evaluate that further. before we actually finalize an IL or uh IL plus target or and I'm not sure how you do IL plus target in IL.
Well you could do it uh would I have to do repeat it? Okay. If let me repeat what I said. If what you're proposing is that when you come in with zoning, you're gonna do a development agreement that says yes it's IH But I'm gonna do a mere str more restrictive list of target industries plus light industrial and it staff has a finding of fact in their this agenda and ammo saying you made that commitment, I don't have an objection.
Okay, well that's good to know.
Because I do agree with you that there are probably some target industries that are not allowed in IL. Mm-hmm. Okay. That was the whole point of EC, which is that EC allows both tar heavy target industries as well as light industrial. Right. But if your real reason for this, which I'm hearing now, is that you don't want to wait for the larger MPD, I guess I can understand that as long as you're willing to live with the original vision of this site.
Okay.
I mean it sounds reasonable to me, but you know, like I said, I would want to sit with my client and go through the target list and just make sure we've got all our bases covered and address anything in that development agreement, which obviously would come back before you.
So you're asking for a continuance?
No, not asking for a continuance.
No, I don't think they need to continue. I but I think staff's gonna have to add a finding fact to this that contains that commitment that they're making.
Correct.
I don't have any more comments or questions, though.
Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions while I'm here or want Erica to finish her presentation?
Okay. Uh is anyone here that object?
Uh if you'll step forward and give your name and address.
Yes, my name is Judith Geiger. I live at [address removed] and I have been sworn. I believe rezoning the future land use on this piece of property to industrial heavy is very short-sighted. This is a gateway to Pasco County. You come off the interstate and if you hit and see asphalt plants, junkyards. uh whatever which is allowed in IH. I
think a better way would be perhaps to take it down to an I L which is to the east, Industrial Light. Uh uh let me just note an uh IH will not allow for, according to the comprehensive plan, will not allow for motels. And we we all know we need desperately need motels at this interchange. We do not have them. Um I think they've covered very you've covered very well on the uh let me just read in the comprehensive plan. industrial heavy is to recognize areas suited
for development and of all industrial uses which may have objectional aesthetics and be associated with adverse noise, smoke, dust, or vibration. And then you look at an IL. intent is to recognize areas suitable for light industrial for other uses without objectional aesthetic impacts and without adverse noise, smoke and dust. I I don't know why the EC would not work for these people. I'm just saying plan smartly.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions? Okay. Anyone else?
Mr. Chairman, this is uh Nicktarios Pitos with Planning Development. If I could just ask if staff could finish their presentation before the
Yeah. Did you finish? Looked like you were finished. That's what you're talking about. That's okay. That's all right.
Uh transportation needs assessment was not required. And the pro this is the uh the proposed amendment to the sub-area policy. So what the applicant had proposed in order for the CPEV to make their minimums and maximums of the industrial uses. The applicant had proposed that their industrial use could count towards the minimum maximum that's included in the CPEV. And on February 19th, a neighborhood meeting is scheduled for all the property owners within CPEB so that way
Although they were notified, we just wanted to make sure that the property owners within the CPED understood what was going on and what it meant for them if the four parcels were taken out. And with that, uh we recommend you find the proposed Logical Comprehensive Plan and MAP Amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you.
The end? Is that the end? It's the end. I think you still have more public comments.
Yeah, I know. Okay. Uh I know we had some more comments that wanted to be made. Mr. Schrader?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ted Schrader, [address removed]. I'm not here today to necessarily object, but I do have some things I'd like to clarify and possibly to give some answer to some questions. I'm the partner in Cedar Hammock Incorporated. It's an 800-acre piece of property directly south of this subject property. If you could ask staff to go back to the map. I'd like
to clarify Cedar Hammock has a perpetual conservation easement encumbering the entire 800 acres. And unfortunately the FLU map still indicates a Res 3 land use designation as well as some of the backup information that staff has presented today.
So you can go to the next slide look back the other way.
To the m to the r right there.
So the area you can see up the right hand corner was res three, it's showing that entire parcel is res three. And unfortunately, because we're not required, I guess, by the state to do the ear reports any longer, that probably should be conservation as opposed to res three, and I think that's important for the Planning Commission to to understand and recognize. I'd also, if you can go to the aerial uh portion of it as well.
If you notice there's a long narrow strip that is on the west side of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard, that's a 70-foot strip that Cedar Hammock owns fee simple, and that is not encumbered by a conservation easement. So I want you to understand that this the property that's before you today does not have access to Bellamy Brothers. It simply has access to State Road 52. So part of your documentation. says that indicates they have access uh to Belgium, but they just want to make sure that they understand they
do not. Um also apparently in the in the land development code a type B buffer is required uh a budding residential and because ours is a conservation easement we would respectfully request that they not be required to do a type B buffer and I've had conversations with the applicant and they're in agreement to maybe do something that's more natural and native as opposed to a type B buffer. I'm sh I know you can't condition the plan amendment to do that today, but I want to
go on record so that staff is aware of that and if there's some way that can be worked out in the future during site plan and then also if we could be notified of whenever a site plan is coming before uh Pasco County, we just want to be made aware of that. So kind of so Mr
Strader, I don't know if you heard the applicant earlier, but it sounds like they're committing to do a development agreement when they come in for zoning. So your request to deal with the buffering could be dealt with in that development agreement.
Yeah, and that's the first that I'd heard of that, and that's actually probably an acceptable way, at least to us, is that that uh we would be encouraged by that. We'd really like to see the language uh that's prepared during that development agreement. But uh I just want to make sure the Planning Commission as well as staff was aware of the in the errors in some of the documentation that was presented today. and hopefully go on record that we'd be notified in writing about whether it's a development agreement or site plan. That's all. Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else?
Okay. Um Anybody from up here would like to make any comments? Ask questions?
So can I ask Cynthia one more question?
Sure, go ahead please.
Cynthia, can you
So um when you come in for the development agreement are you is your client gonna be willing to address some of the other E C issues like not having metal buildings fronting fifty two, that kind of stuff?
I haven't really had an opportunity to talk to him d intensely about that, but I think that those are all things that we'd be willing to um you know to discuss with the development agreement. Absolutely.
All right. Do I have any more questions?
Okay. We have to uh insert any new language then?
Well it's I think The commitments that were made today about the development agreement and having more restrictive uses than what IH allows, I think staff's just gonna have to add that as a finding of fact to their you can't condition a plan amendment. But staff can add findings of fact that contain the discussion that we had today. So I think you could just move for approval with the with correct condition staff make those changes to their staff report.
Okay. All right.
But what if they don't do it?
Well so staff doesn't necessarily if they they still have to rezone it to something. I don't know what me ask, what is their current zoning?
Uh the current zoning is agricultural. It's
AC. Right. Um and we have a concurrent Euclidean rezoning application on file and the Com Plan Amendment adoption and the rezoning adoption are scheduled to come back together. So we will be coming back to the plan. commission with the Euclidean rezoning in the future.
So they could when the zoning comes back to you they could bring the development agreement at the same time. Yes. So you can make sure they do all these things. No they don't? Then you don't have to recommend approval of the zoning.
So it will move forward with there will be a development agreement that would move forward through the local planning agency, hopefully next month in March, together with the rezoning to I
too the good news is the Planning Commission is both the local planning agency that hears the development agreement and the planning commission that hears the zoning. So you hear both.
Okay. Were you gonna speak to it or no? Okay. All right. Uh so is there any further discussion from up here? All right for approval. With a note of changes to say that you have to do that. Yes, thank you. Yeah.
Second.
Okay. So we have a motion to approve and a second, uh, which is subject to you know you writing the things that we discussed in the plan. Okay.
All right. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.