LARGE-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – CPAL19(09) Project Canopy – Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (2-15 and Sheet 20) Changing from ROR (RETAIL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL) to PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) on Approximately 72.6 Acres of Real Property Located on the Southwest Intersection of Sunlake Blvd and State Road 54; and a Text Amendment to Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.1 – Long Lake Ranch; and an Amendment to the Future Land Use Subarea Map 2-9(4)

32:30Hey.

32:30Hello. Amy Heiler with Planning and Development. You are still going to be acting as the local planning agency in this case. Item P11 is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment in the name of Project Canopy. The applicant is requesting a large-scale amendment from ROR to PD to allow for light industrial research, corporate parks. And target industries included into their general range of potential uses. They are also doing a sub-area

33:01policy amendment to Long Lake Ranch, it's a text amendment, to also add the light industrial, distribution, and logistics, research corporate parks, and target industries to their general range of potential uses. We did take this opportunity to remove any language that was uh pursuant to the development or the DRI, the development review or I'm sorry, the DRI development of regional impact language, rescinded in uh from the BCC back in July 10th

33:31of 2008. So we ended up doing that in conjunction with this. The subject property is located in the South Market area at the uh southwest intersection of Sunlight Boulevard and State Road 54. As stated previously, the amendment is re or the applicant is requesting an amendment from ROR to PD to allow for those general range of uses, as well as a text amendment. The subject area or this this inset depicts the existing

34:02land use of ROR. And this inset uh depicts the proposed flu of PD. The site characteristics, the subject site is located within the Long Lake Ranch MPUD master plan. It is identified as parcel A and B within that master plan, as well as a part of Sub-area Policy Flu 7.1.1 Long Lake Ranch. It consists of Category 1 and 3 wetlands, which

34:32will be mitigated pursuant to policy flu 1.2.3, and in accordance with that, stating that there's no industrial uses permitted in or around Category 1 wetlands. And there is also a wellhead protection area with this in accordance to policy flu 1.27. and 1.2.221, the industrial light uses will not be allowed in conflict with this policy or section 808 of the groundwater

35:02protection in the LDC. This is a depiction of the site plan that shows you where parcel A and B is located.

35:13The surrounding area is predominantly vacant with residential and agricultural uses. The subject or the comprehensive plan amendment is consistent uh with the intent of PD as it provides a variety of land uses and intensities with the development and encourages large-scale employment opportunities within Pasco County. It is also inconsistent or is consistent with uh policy flu 1.2.3, category one wetlands, um,

35:43as it will uh mitigate and provide adequate buffering with no industrial uses adjacent to the wetlands. It is also consistent with policy flu 1.87, economic development, as the amendment is Uh propose to attract future high-paying employment generating land uses and target industry employment opportunities. And also policy flu eight one eight point one point two within the South Market Area establishment as it's consistent with the vision

36:14of the South Market area by attracting a broad spectrum of employers and businesses. The transportation needs assessment was exempt pursuant to LDC Section 901, as it has office industrial and corporate park uses, those are exempt from time the transportation needs assessment. The non-residential uses that are not exempt from the transportation needs assessment are either at or below the maximum allowed. The there is

36:44no um Uh Comments with utility needs assessment that is sufficient as well as no concerns with schools or emergency management. The only request was emergency management stated they have no concerns but at the time would like to review the project design. With that being said, we recommend that the LPA find the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and a recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. I would like to also include with

37:14this there is no residential increase in this request. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer.

37:21Any questions?

37:23I have one. What will be the impact on the schools in that area? I noticed on uh page five oh six that you indicate that police fire schools, but you never there's no comment regarding the school attendance.

37:34Correct, because there is no residential increase. So there's no increase to the density, so they said that there was no comment since there's no residential increase.

37:45We've been in touch with this as it's been going through and so we've um Just look through it all and you know, there is no increase so The one thing I did want to mention though is I noticed on the The rezoning that was continued There was a mention about amending condition sixteen regarding the multi-use trail along the southern boundary. And we would as that m moves forward, we would like to be involved in that because that's boundary does go to one of our school sites. It hasn't

38:15been developed yet, but we do own the site and that's a very important corridor to get the kids that live in Long Lake Ranch to the school. if that ever is to be developed. So I didn't see it in here. In the comp plan, but I did see it in the rezoning, so I'm just wondering and make sure that we uh stay involved in that.

38:33Yeah, that should be covered in the MPUD. So we'll address that there.

38:39Okay.

38:41All right. Anybody else here to speak to that?

38:48Miss Barbara?

38:49Good afternoon. Barbara Wilhite, 2523 Permit Place, New Port Richey Florida, 34655 for the applicant. I think staff has done a very good job of presenting the application to you. And yes, Mr. Tanello, we know that's a very important uh trail, and Mr. Goldstein's done a great job on your behalf. It was just some language tweaking and it will be presented to you on the 21st when the MPUD comes to you. Okay. But I can guarantee that we didn't get out. Yeah. And by the development of this property moving forward we'll actually start developing you

39:19know the our piece of it. So thank you.

39:22Thank you, Barbara. Alright, anybody else?

39:32Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen. Joel to Palm Harbor, Florida. I am land use counsel for the Jurassic family who own parcel C on the east side of these parcels, and also they own parcel D on the west side where the multi-use trail goes across. I also am representing Madam E. Holmes. They're under contract to do the residential development in Parcel C. Obviously, we're all part of the same

40:02MPD as a consolidated MPUD. So I'm here to do two things. Number one is to state that my clients presently have no objection to the plan amendment portion of this. We did have a concern. Which we think we've resolved, and that's why I don't want to put on the record. And this is a lot like your CPEV discussion. Generically in their plan amendment they desire to use the very broad term light industrial which would include a whole lot of uses that would be a problem for my clients

40:32with the adjacent project. Uh my clients also have a private deed restriction on parcel A B because they sold that to T-Row Price originally as the economic development parcel. So some of the uses that theoretically could occur under this plan amendment. would not be permissible under their D restriction. What we've agreed with Ms. Wilhite and the applicant is that we will address the tightening of those permitted uses in the MPD portion, which you continued. And we agree

41:02with them. It's probably smarter to use the broad provision in the plan amendment as long as they tighten up the MPD provisions. Ms. Will Hight sent me the last version of those by email this morning just before I got here. I haven't read them. So we will also be back in two weeks when you consider the MPUD portion to deal with the multi-use trail, as Richard said. and also uh narrow in on those uses because we are concerned. We we we we love the fact that they have an employment user. And they have a prospect now of getting something going.

41:33We also have an employment user on our corner of Sun Lake Boulevard, a large healthcare employment user. uh that actually this morning sent me a letter of intent to expand what we had told you when we did the approval back last year. They want to buy a second parcel for more healthcare related employment. which would actually use up our multifamily parcel. So we would reduce your impact on the school that we discussed last July. So we have a lot of good things happening at Sun Lake Boulevard. We're anxious to see

42:03it go, but but we do need to monitor and stay in touch on the MPUD to make sure that we get a better definition of what their use really is and make sure that that it conforms and I'm sure it will. So no objection to the plan amendment but just we'll stay in the loop on the MPUD. Mm.

42:20Yeah, we'll talk about that more when it comes back.

42:22Thank

42:23you. Thank you. Anyone else?

42:43Are we done?

42:47No, no, I thought you were coming back up to say something.

42:54Do we have a second?

42:55Second.

42:56Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

43:04Okay.