ZONING AMENDMENT (REGULAR) – Trust #7541207 Land Service Corporation Trustee– Change in Zoning from an A-R Agricultural-Residential District, A-C Agricultural District and a C-2 General Commercial District to a C-2 General Commercial District and an I-1 Light Industrial Park District – Northcentral Pasco County – on the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Interstate 75 and Blanton Road – Containing Approximately 89.074 Acres (PC 1/7/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting; BCC: 2/9/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting; Continued from PC: 12/10/20, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting and BCC 1/12/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting)

8:18Okay, we'll move on to item P3.

8:21Okay.

8:28Item P3 is PDD 217506. It's for Trust No. 754-1027, Land Service Corporation Trustee, for a change in zoning from AR, Agricultural Residential, AC Agricultural District, and C2 Commercial District. uh general commercial district, sorry, uh to a C two General Commercial District and an I one Light Industrial Park District. Um the property is located in um On the northeast

8:58corner of the intersection of I seventy five and Blanton Road in in the northeast part of Pasco County. It contains 89.074 acres and is undeveloped. The applicants propose to develop the site in conformance with C2, General Commercial District, and I1, Light Industrial Park District. The applicant has also volunteered to record. uh deed restrictions restricting uh limiting the uses on the property. This surrounding area is characterized by residential uses and

9:28agricultural pursuits at the moment. The future land use on the property is EC and AG. On December 8th, the Board of County Commissioners approved a comprehensive plan amendment for the future land use on the site from EC and AG to IL and COM. And if the zoning the subject zoning is approved, it will not take effect until such time as the appeal period on the Companion Comprehensive Plan Amendment has ended. As stated previously, the applicant has volunteered a deed

9:58restriction for the C2 portion of the property, limiting the uses as follows, limiting the square footage on C2 to 140,000 square feet. Prohibiting multifamily apartments, prohibiting auto-towing and connective storage of vehicles, prohibiting yard trash disposal facilities, prohibiting construction and demolition debris disposal facilities, prohibiting truck truck stops. The applicant has also volunteered a deed restriction for the I-1 portion of the property, which basically uh limits the uses

10:28on I-1 portion to 500,000 square feet. Prohibiting towing or connected storage of vehicles, prohibiting yard trash disposal facilities, prohibiting construction and demolition debris disposal facilities, also including a 25-foot setback along an adjacent parcel, which shall remain as a natural undisturbed area except as necessary for fence installation and maintenance. tying property to grade and installation maintenance of any required landscape buffer. The subject site is located in the

10:58Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Overlay District, Land Development Code 604. Although right now there are no design standards for commercial development, they have not been adopted as of this time. The lack of standards does not preclude the property from developing commercially. Here's the surrounding zoning, a stated, you know, agricultural districts, AC and AR surrounding it. Some of the property does have a C2 general commercial district designation.

11:25The land use right now, as stated, is it's EC, but it was um uh cha uh um changed to IL and COM, but the appeal period has still not passed.

11:37And this shows the access to the property. And the recommendation on this item is approval. And um We do not have anyone at the public comment kiosk at the moment. Um and the applicant and I am also here for any questions that you may have.

11:57Okay. Alright. So any questions?

12:06Yes. Who is that? Is that Robert?

12:16So was somebody who spoke at the last

12:18last meeting on this, I think the output is going to have an opportunity to rebuff what was set at the last meeting.

12:27Yes. Would the applicant have anything to say?

12:30Hi, Barbara Blue High. I've not been to R.

12:34Okay.

12:36If you raise your right hand.

12:39Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to hope you got?

12:45Thank you.

12:4927 Ramble of our new working for the applicant. This is our uh fourth public hearing uh on law property. We had three public hearing on the um comprehensive plan amendment as uh as Denise has explained, was adopted by the board on the eighth of December. Um change to change the COM plan to I L and COM. Um the this body heard the Complant amendment sitting as the LPA and found the requested compliant amendment um or

13:19consistent with the comp consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended that the board adopt it, which they did on December eighth. At the last Planning Commission um hearing we requested a continuance, but one of the neighbors, Mr. Dukowitz, you'll recall. Um, was that your um kiosk? and was, you know, asked if he wanted to speak at that hearing um or the continued hearing which is today, and he did speak. And I think that's what David's referring to. Um We

13:51have reviewed I reviewed multiple times now. Mr. Dukowitz's Um allegations, positions regarding the comprehensive plan and the like. and staff has as well. We have had them in both The Planning Commission he had a written What he would call a brief And um as well as at the board, we reviewed his brief. He's not a land use attorney, but he is an attorney. And he ha he happens to own adjacent property. And so we've reviewed those and um He

14:22has what I would call cherry pick the comp plan. Um doing comp planning for as many years as I have, twenty years. um and actually being uh writing most a lot of the Comprehensive Plan in two thousand six, I'm very familiar with the Comprehensive Plan. And I would kind of characterize what he's what he does as cherry picking and then misapplying language. People do that often, but don't understand compliant construction. He is not a planning expert or a land use attorney. Um For example, he

14:52referred you to a transitional land use chart. that applies to comprehensive plan amendments, but you have a rezoning before you today. um not a comprehensive plan amendment. And that chart that he refers you to on its face specifically doesn't apply to the Northeast Pasco rural area. The proposed despite his assertions and if you have any specific questions from staff and I, we could go through those. But um I I would say that the zoning districts are consistent with I L and COM. They I won. is the

15:22zoning district that is compatible with the IL land use designation, and C2 is the zone district, the including zoning district that is compatible with the COM land use designation. Land use industrial and agricultural districts our adjacencies are An interstate. an interchange, Blanton Road. and agricultural districts. Light industrial and agricultural districts are compatible. The Com plan only prohibits heavy industrial adjacent to residential areas and residential

15:53area is not defined to include agricultural districts in any event. The Land Development Code sets out standards, performance standards and buffers for light industrials next to agricultural districts. We'll have this project will have to comply with the performance standards in that in the IL district, storage and waste disposal, coverage regulations, yard regulations, height regulations. In addition, it we'll need to comply we'll have to comply with the Northeast Pasco overlay, which is additional level of regulation dealing with the corridor,

16:23Blanton corridor or the scenic corridor, quarter buff additional corridor buffing requirements, building buffer requirements. and I understand staff is working on a commercial um aspects regulations relating to Northeast Pasco development that would apply to this project as well once those are adopted as we go through the development review process. In addition to the land belt regulations for IL and C2, as well as the special regulations for Northeast Pasco as currently adopted and as

16:53proposed be adopted. We also have agreed to some deed some deed restrictions that are very noteworthy. Um, we had agreed to limit the amount of square footage on both the industrial property and the commercial property Under the I1 district, we could have had 1.2 million square feet of industrial. We have um limited that by deed restriction to 500,000 square feet. And I could also tell you that under EC EC would have allowed heavy industrial

17:24uses and light industrial uses at a 300% lot coverage. under I L and I one we're limited to a fifty percent lot coverage. and commercial Um the C2 district would allow 239,000. We've deed restricted that to 140,000. And again. under EC, the commercial aspect of EC would have been allowed to develop at 300% lot coverage and and under C2 were limited to 50%. So

17:54not only have we limited any potential for heavy industrial uses that would have been allowed under EC, we've also limited our ability to do industrial. We've agreed to deed restrictions as staff has went as uh Denise Hernandez has gone through. You've you've seen those. And noteworthy is that we did specifically look at the adjacency to Mr. Dirkwitz's property. And the buffer there. Now I think you might have had a reference in your agenda packet to an email from a a

18:24citizen. My client um has did clear the timber on his property, but purposely left existing vegetation as a buffer to Mr. Duke Dukowitz. And while we are under code would be allowed to remove those trees. and do a type B buffer, which is a fifteen foot buffer, we've voluntarily deed restricted the property so that For twenty five feet, we're gonna keep what the client had already kept. and keep that

18:54natural buffer which exceeds the code requirement.

18:59With that, um we appreciate staff's work on this. We oh actually we actually one other thing I want to note that's also noteworthy is Although there are no design standards for any commercial industrial development at this time in Northeast Pasco, we did agree to some addition some design standards in our deed restriction for the industrial property. for buildings that are gonna f uh front I seventy five. So we've worked hard, you know, to t with staff um on this and I think it's a exactly

19:30the type of development that we hear the county needs and wants. We actually removed the residential component of EC when we took away EC from the property. So unlike a lot of other interchanges that had been and in if you know had been developed with residential uses, we took the ability to do and actually the mandatory requirement in EC to do residential. And so this property is purely non-residential. Um and we'd ask that you also like staff uh support the rezoning for the property.

20:06Okay. Uh any questions?

20:09Sure. Yes. So I don't know if this is for staff or Barbara. Barbara, you mentioned this is Chris Williams. You mentioned and just this is my curiosity. So you mentioned um design standards in regards and I saw that um things that were facing I seventy five couldn't have um overhead doors facing I-75, etcetera. What's what's the rationale behind that?

20:37One bike. We worked with staff. Staff had pointed out that This property is visible from I seventy five. We have over What, a mile and a half of frontage on seventy five? And our property goes all the way to the Hernando County line and then for a mile and a half down to this interchange. And so staff wanted to work with us to see how we could um Have our buildings present to seventy-five as opposed to backing up with maybe an overhead

21:07door, we would present it in a in a manner that had um it wasn't the back of the building, it was a front of a building and it was a a defined front of building that would face I seventy five. And so we worked with staff on that. That's actually what caused our continuance. was so we could have time and it was the holidays as well. Um, so we can have time to work on that with staff.

21:29I guess my only concern about that and a and again, I don't think it applies probably in this case, but maybe y'all can tell me. you know, is is it gonna look better from seventy five than it does from the other way? And on the other side, are there houses or something that it would be more beneficial for it to look better to the houses? You understand what I'm asking?

21:51So the only adjacent residential is Mr. and it's it's um a residence, not residential because residential is defined not to include agricultural districts, but there is a residence and that's where we added the buffer. But we kept the natural buffer there. So the other adjacencies do not have um residences.

22:12Okay. Thank you.

22:15All right.

22:18No, sir. No. Mr.

22:21J. There's I understand there's nobody there to raise concerns or object, so Uh

22:28Mr. Chairman Mariano.

22:30Yes.

22:32I do have one quick question. Is there something in this package? Yeah, is there something in this package or is there something that shows what the limits of the C two and what the limits of the I one are.

22:45I could probably go back and deduce that from the land use amendment, but I didn't see anything in the package.

22:51the the sub property is gonna be C two and this portion's gonna be I one.

22:56You know the answer to that, Barbara?

23:00I do not. My client probably remembers the dimensions. Um Larry Guildford is on WebEx here. We can probably tell you how b how many feet back uh the um C two goes before the I one picks up.

23:16All right, Larry, are you there?

23:17I am. Can you hear me? Yeah.

23:20Yeah.

23:21Okay. Uh you wanna do I have to swear in or Yes,

23:25sir.

23:25Okay.

23:29So if we'll actually do

23:32Do you spare affirm that the testimony you brought to give is the truth, so hope you got?

23:36Yes, I do.

23:38Thank you.

23:38Um the original uh acreage I believe was 14 acres across the front. And it was a depth of approximately 450 feet. And there were two separate legal descriptions given to the county. at that particular time. So the frontage, the front 450, frontage uh to a depth of 450 would be across the whole frontage, which is about 1,320 feet quarter mile across the front on Blanton Road. The rest of it would be the I one. And

24:09as you can see, the property goes up and some of this acreage is uh is in, you know, in natural. It'll be kept that way. So Um But and then and actually it's probably only and then we're also giving up some frontage uh some additional property for right-of-way. So it's we we lose that of the 14 acres, it's probably gonna be more like 13. So Okay. Very

24:33good. Okay. Sure. Thanks for the clarification. No problem.

24:37All right. Thank you, Larry.

24:39Thank you, Larry.

24:39Thanks, guys. Okay, any other questions? If not, we hear a motion.

24:51This

24:51Michael Cox, I'll move for approval. Thank you, Michael. Do we have a second?

24:56Jamie Girardi all second.

25:00All right. We have a motion, a second. Okay, any further discussion of the motion? If not, all in favor by roll call, signify by saying aye. Opposed, negative.

25:14Jamie Dorothy.

25:15Bye.

25:18Michael Cox?

25:19Bye.

25:21Peter Hansel? Roberto Saez?

25:25Bye.

25:27Christopher Poole? Chris Williams? Chairman Charles Gray.

25:36Okay.

25:39So