I didn't hear the wasn't paying attention to the first part of the presentation So this house bill 399 basically allows modulars and mobiles in any single family zoning district. And there's this whole issue of It also prohibits us from
as an issue. If someone comes in for a rezoning and it's an infield development that's like 100 acres or less and there's already another development next door or then you're not allowed to cite compatibility as a reason not to approve it.
And they have to amend the comp plan to include standards for what constitutes compatibility. Oh, I already know how to go around this law. I've been meaning to talk to the county attorney about it. But it's due to restrictions So let's say for instance the legislator
says you cannot require a setback greater than 5 ft. Okay. However, we do require in a subdivision a 15-ft wide drainage easement down all side lines. >> [laughter] >> That's how you deal with it.
Really, it just seems like everything that the legislature's been doing is just to seize control from municipalities. I mean it's So on this compatibility you're you have to approve it with no public hearing. So my take on it is we just change the
land development code so that all alternative standards require a public >> [laughter] >> So we're not having a zoning We're having alternative Yeah, there's And it's just a big cat and mouse game we're playing already. I don't know.
Again, I feel like these laws are being drafted in Tallahassee to address very isolated issues throughout the state. And there's a lot of collateral damage to go with it.
Yes, they're not well thought out. I mean the the whole property tax thing is another example. So that's They're going to supplement the revenue from somewhere and it's probably going to come from the state. I'd like to call the meeting to order, please. We'll get started by standing for a
moment of silence and the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
We have the roll call, please. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. And the proof of publication?
All right. And approval of any minutes? Move approval of C1 and C2 minutes. Second. Okay, motion and a second. Any further discussion? Now, all in favor signify by saying I.
I. Opposed like sign. Approved. And I think we can begin. Um I'd like to welcome everybody today. We're the planning commission. We're appointed by the board of county commissioners and we meet twice monthly.
We we serve as a local planning agency and we hold public hearings and transmit to the board of county commissioners our [clears throat] recommendations on comprehensive plan amendments, land development code amendments, rezonings, and conditional uses.
The planning commission is the final decision-making body for special exceptions, certain appeals, variance requests, and certain alternative standard requests. However, decisions may be appealed to the board of county commissioners. If anyone is in opposition to any land
development code amendment, rezoning, [clears throat] uh conditional use, or any item where the planning commission makes a recommendation to the board of county commissioners, it's important for you to attend the appropriate board of county commission meeting.
So for those of you who aren't familiar with the meetings, we have three sections that we deal with. These There may may be requests for continuances from the uh from the applicant or from uh the staff.
If so, it's been our custom to approve those continuances unless there are extenuating circumstances. Then we have consent items. So we'll go through those items. If you hear something read out on consent and you'd like to have it heard today or discussed, raise your hand and we'll
pull it from consent and put it on with the regular items. And we'll go through the regular items and uh have opportunities for presentations and discussions and questions. Applicants will have 5 minutes to make their presentation
and uh the questioners will have 3 minutes to uh bring up their concerns. And then the applicant will have an opportunity to come back up and respond to those concerns. Um We also um
have a public comment period. If there's anyone here that wanted to speak on something that's not on today's agenda, this would be the time to let us know so we can give you an opportunity to speak. Um And is there anybody requesting
additional time today? Okay. Just a reminder to please, if you have your cell phone with you, please put it in the silent position so that it doesn't go off when somebody's trying to speak.
And uh So if you're planning to give testimony today, if you're planning to come up and speak, I'd like you to please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn. Okay, I think one we got one late, but I think it's I think it's stuck. Is that all right?
Okay. If we're ready. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and planning commission members. Kurt Sieverson of planning, development, and economic growth. We do not have individuals signed up for general public comment, but I was asked to provide a letter of opposition.
I'm sorry, could you just speak in that microphone a little bit louder? Thanks. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Mr. Chair, we do not have individuals signed up for non-agenda items, but I was asked to provide a letter of opposition for the
densities proposed by the 2050 plan, which I've printed. This one we're just asking you guys to receive and file that. Yes, sir. Motion to receive and file. Second. Okay. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed like sign. Can I ask a question? Yes, sir. How
would they know what those are? We haven't been presented with them yet. It's a fair point. Is there an answer to that question? There is not. I was asked to provide this as part of the public comment for non-agenda items. Okay, who's asking?
I can still receive it. Who is asking? Just a resident by James Bandy. I can't I can't understand you. Speak plainly in the microphone. Who is it? A resident named James Bandy provided a letter of opposition. Okay.
Any other questions, John? No, I just I don't know what they are. I don't know how he could know what they are. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Thank you. I apologize for the unusual introduction there. >> That's okay. You ready for the
continuance items, Mr. Chair? >> Yes, please go ahead. Yeah. Agenda item PC3 is PDE 26-CU10, a conditional use request in the name of Vildesta for a short-term rental in a MF1 multiple family medium density
district in Southeast Pasco County, approximately 160 ft east of the intersection of Sandalwood Way and Vildesta Court. This is coming with the request to continue the item to a date uncertain. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Is the applicant present?
I don't see anyone. Is anyone here to object? Okay, so um we'll go to the next one. Agenda item PC4 is PDE 26-0455, an appeal of the a determination by the development review director,
appeal-2025-00005 for Meadow Point 2 Community Development District. This is coming with the request to continue the item to a date uncertain. Is the applicant present? Anyone here to object?
Can you give us like an update on that? For a date uncertain? On On the item itself. What's going on with it? Anything? I'm unfamiliar with the item. Is anybody on staff here familiar with
the item? Patrick's not. It'd be a question for Patrick Gutter, who'd be the one that's most familiar with it. I don't know if he's here. 6 months ago. Exactly. He's online? Yes. Okay. Patrick, are you available? I can not hear you.
Patrick, are you available? Can you hear me? Patrick. Patrick. He's I can hear him talking. I'm sorry. I just I just texted him. Yeah. He's talking, but we can't hear him over the speakers in the room. Okay, I'll give it a few minutes.
Or at least a minute. Patrick, can you hear us now? Patrick, 1 2 3, Patrick. Mr. Chair. >> Test testing testing. Testing. Yeah. Finally, I thought you were on your way back from the moon. >> [laughter] >> He's on the dark side.
All right, Patrick. I guess we had some questions about PC4. Could you tell us what's going on there? Sure, that's the continuance for the alt standard. Um so, we're still working through items >> Suddenly, your volume is way down.
>> Now we can't hear you. Still can't hear me or not? That's better. That's better. Okay. Start again. We're still working with the applicant through the alternative standard for um the potential gate. Uh they're
continuing to pursue the gate, uh but staff has some additional concerns on it. We're still working with the applicant through those issues. Okay. That's sufficient response. I guess that's the best one I'm getting. Okay, that's all you got for us then,
that Patrick? Um if you want some specifics, you know, we're concerned with the turnaround. The gate was placed at a location where there isn't a an easy way for if if that gate were pursued, um there's no easy
spot for a turnaround. Um we're trying to work with their project engineer on some potential solutions. Um I believe planning commission also requested that other methods of traffic calming be looked at for the stretch of road. Um and we have yet to see anything
proposed. Um so, we're again still trying to work with the community through those items. All right, Patrick. I seem to recall, too, that we discussed um allowing resident access to that gate as opposed to it being accessible only
to emergency vehicles. Is that still >> Yes, and last we spoke Yeah, last we spoke to them, I think um the CDDs were I think willing to work together on that. So, I think they were planning on providing access, assuming the gate would was going to be allowed, um to
provide access to both CDD2 and CDD3. Um but like I said, those other items we're still trying to to flesh out. Um and we just don't have that quite ready yet to bring it back to the planning commission. All right, Patrick. Thank you. >> All right, thanks.
Yep. All right. Move on. Agenda item PC5, you will be sitting as the local planning agency. This item does have a companion item, which is PDE 26-7877, Palmetto Ridge MPUD.
PDE 26- 0033 is a small scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPA 25 {parentheses} 01, Palmetto Ridge MPUD. PD, excuse me. Providing for a comprehensive plan text amendment to subarea policy FLU 7.134,
Palmetto Ridge PD. This is coming with the request to continue the item to the May 7th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 in Dade City. Anybody have any questions about that? Anybody want to speak?
Okay. Next. Agenda item PC6 is PDE 26-7877, a zoning amendment substantial modification in the name of Palmetto Ridge MPUD by Palmetto Ridge Cattle Company LLC, EPG Palmetto Ridge Holding LLC,
rezoning request for an MPUD master plan unit development district MPUD master plan unit development district to allow for the development of 2,800 residential dwelling units and 100,000 square feet of commercial uses and associated infrastructure on approximately 3,536
acres located in north central Pasco County on the north side of State Road 52, approximately a half mile east of the intersection State Road 52 and Ehren Cutoff. This is coming with the request to continue the item to the May 7th, 2026 [clears throat] Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 in
Dade City. Is the applicant present? Anyone here to object? Mr. Chair, on PC5, I have no objection to the continuance, but when it comes back, if you could just put if staff could just put a location in the title for PC5.
I realize I realize it's the same location as PC6, but normally we have a location for the plan amendment. Got it. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> That's the last continuance, yeah.
Do you have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve to continue PC3 and PC4 to date uncertain and PC5 and PC6 to the May 7th meeting. Second. You have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not,
all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, motion carries. All right. We're on the PC8. Seven, I mean. Excuse Excuse me. Agenda item PC7, you'll be sitting as
the local planning agency. That is PDE 26-0479 is a first amended and restated development agreement, Wiregrass Ranch Development of Regional Impact, an amended and restated DA between Locust Branch LLC and Pasco County to include
the signalization of Wiregrass Ranch Boulevard and Chancey Road and other consistent revisions within the Wiregrass Ranch DRI located on the east side of Bruce B. Downs Boulevard extending from the intersection of State Road 581 and State Road 56 north to the
intersection of State Road 581 State Road 54 on the south side of State Road 56 in South Central Pasco County. This is coming with a recommendation to of approval of the proposed development agreement consistent with the comprehensive plan recommend approval to
the Board of County Commissioners. Okay. Is there to speak on this one? Okay, I see it. It's on consent, so Okay, I didn't see that marked. Okay, so it's on consent. Do you want to speak or Yeah, okay. Anyone here to object?
See no one. All right. See you. Mr. Chair That's you want to approve the consent agenda? Um There's another item. Oh, there's any more PCA is on consent. Yeah. Mr. Chair Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I didn't
see that. Sorry. It's going to get pulled though. We have a individual signed up to speak on item PCA. We ask that item PCA is moved to the regular agenda. Okay, we'll pull that one. Move approval of the consent agenda consisting of PC 7.
Second. Have a motion and a second. Further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those like sign. Okay. So, we'll come back to PCA. Let's go to
PC 9. I mean P9. All right. Item P9 is PDE 26-7858. It's a zoning amendment in the name of SAV Property Holdings LLC New Horizons MPUD master planning development to be
presented by staff. I'm staff. You're staff. >> [laughter] >> Welcome back. I'm sorry, I'm not following you today for some reason. You're supposed to put a different hat on. Hey, speak slower, plainer, something. I don't know. I don't have any hearing aids, so
Good afternoon, planning commission members. This is the New Horizons MPUD. Okay. Here's a rough location within the county. The proposal is a rezoning request from an R2 low-density residential district to an MPUD master planning development
for the maximum development of 31 single-family homes. The project is located within the South Market area abutting south of the Wells Road extension approximately 625 ft west of the Wells Road and Boyette Road intersection.
Here's our site location. This is a relatively unimproved portion of Wells. Zoning map. The subject site was rezoned to R2 low-density residential in the early 2000s with a maximum density of 20 units. An ordinary R2
district would allow 46 homes on 10 acres. So, the petition today is 11 additional homes less than the R2 maximum, but more than they could pursue the current time. The future land use
designation of the site is residential 3. The maximum entitlement being 31 units by three units per acre 10.33 acres required of the site. It's a context map. The subject site is
less than 1 mile south of the Wesley Chapel District Park and approximately a quarter quarter mile south of the Wesley Chapel Elementary School and High School. Here's our MPUD master plan. Although faint, there is a 10-ft
right-of-way conveyance along the project frontage and the vehicular access points. The access ingress egress of the project will be on Wells Road and then stubs east and west for potential redevelopment of the neighboring properties.
This is exhibit one, the binding concept plan. This also visually demonstrates the improvement to Wells Road. The roadway typical will be shown later in this presentation. The residential areas are in yellow and the dark green on the south end is their
open space requirement. Exhibit two, this is a non-binding concept plan to visually demonstrate the 31 homes. All 31 homes shall have a minimum width of 55 ft. The lot that is. Now, here's the proposed 60-ft roadway
typical to improve this segment of Wells Road from Boyette to the project access. There's an existing 50 ft of county-owned right-of-way to which the applicant proposes to develop as part of this project without reimbursement via
mobility fee credits. The Excuse me. The only portion left for future development of this typical would be a second 10-ft multi-use path. The 10-ft multi-use path to be developed as part of this project
will go on the north end of that right-of-way. The developer has conveyed the second southern 10 ft via right-of-way which would require right-of-way conveyance of neighbors to ultimately build out to Boyette Road.
Okay. Uh Patty, could you move to the next slide? This thing's frozen. There are two variation requests as part of this project. The first being from LDC section 901.6.B.11 and this is to not provide a vehicular
connection south of the project boundary. That's given the existing residences immediately south of the project in addition to New Dutch Lane's inability to support additional vehicular trips.
The second variation request is from LDC section 901.2.I. This is a reduction of the corridor width for Wells Road. This was originally contemplated at 80 ft. However, the typical the 60-ft typical
would provide sufficient vehicular and pedestrian facility of the proposed density and existing density on this segment of Wells Road. That PDE recommends approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the zoning amendment request with conditions.
I'm here if you have questions. Quick one. You said the concept plan was non-binding. The concept plan is binding. The second one here is a non-binding illustration. The only difference being
a visual demonstration of the 31 homes, whereas the binding concept plan denotes those areas as residential. Okay. I got it. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Applicant present?
Marla Hite, 6327 Grand Boulevard, New Port Richey for the applicant. We were here a couple months ago. Um I was just looking to see if anybody signed up here cuz we just did a presentation, but um we were here a couple months ago and we had a bunch of neighbors that were interested in this project. Um
they were all of our neighbors to the east, the Boyette family, member members of the Boyette family. Um they were very interested in the Wells Road and how that was going to be constructed. They have a business of um a Let's try to describe their business.
They sell fruits and vegetables. They have food trucks, kind of a community gathering area. People come, have coffee, they eat. So, they wanted to make sure that how Wells Road functioned um in the after after it was improved would also work for their business. So, we went out one afternoon drug your
county engineer out with us and went out on site and met with them and we happy to say we worked out um everything. I worked out a solution for everyone. And it works with the developer, the county, and the adjacent property owner. So, perhaps that's why nobody's signed up. Maybe there was somebody here to speak,
I don't know. Um but uh that's why you've seen this on your agenda a couple months ago and it took us a little bit to get that done and we're back today and we hope we have your support. That's great. Thank you, Marla. Any questions from up here? >> [cough] >> Okay, is anyone here to speak on this
topic? Looks like there isn't. So, any comments from up here and any motions? No. Except to be curious why it may not have been on the consent agenda though. Move to approve item P9. Second. Have a motion and we a second,
any further discussion of P9? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed, like sign. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Next. Agenda item P10, you'll be seeing this the local planning agency for. This is
PDE 26 And what's Why are we doing PC8? Say that again. PC8. Uh I don't know. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Okay. Okay, back to PC8. Item PC8, you'll be seeing this local
planning agency for. This is PDE 26-01-10, a development agreement in the name of Morris Bridge Road and State Road 56. Okay, Robert, what's up? >> Hello. Good afternoon, Robert Irving, Planning Development and Economic Growth. Let me first note this on the record.
There was letters of opposition submitted to the clerk's office prior to the agenda being published. Mhm. Anybody here to speak on this one? Just looking for a count. Mr. Chair, we do have one individual pre-registered to sign up to speak for
this item. Okay. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Just waiting to pull it up on the screen here. All this anticipation, I better do a good job, right? That's right. No pressure. Perfect. This is PDE 26-01-10,
the Morris Bridge Road and State Road 56 development agreement. And here's the general location in the southeast portion of the county. And here is the physical Morris Bridge Road DA improvements that are within the actual development agreement, and
the proposal is to widen the road to four lanes uh with a roundabout including a right in, right out shown in the center of the screen to achieve a ultimate right-of-way width of 124 ft, and these improvements will span from just north of the intersection
of Morris Bridge Road, Colston Road, and Oldsmar Avenue to the intersection of Morris Bridge Road and State Road 56. So, this right here shows the southern extent of the improvements proposed with the stormwater pond on the north side of
Morris Bridge Road to account for the widening. And then these right here are the site access improvements, which are not reimbursable as part of the development agreement. These Both of these shown here. Um let me go back for a second here to
do this one. Just also to note as well, there is plans to improve Morris Bridge Road north of State Road 56 within the CIP spanning from State Road 56 to just south of Chancy Road to widen to four lanes as well with 124 ft of right-of-way, which are
proposed or expected to begin construction in fiscal year 29. And this comes to you with the recommendation to find the proposed development agreement consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. All right, Robert, thank you. Any
questions? Up here, I I understand that there are some questions public that may not specifically relate to the this application, but touches on those subjects. Okay.
Barbara Wilhite, 6327 Grand Boulevard. Um for the wouldn't say the applicant, but for the the party that's doing this agreement with the county. So, my client is the developer of a commercial project at the intersection of 56 and Morris Bridge pursuant to a
2019 MPUD approval that approved commercial at that corner. As they were working through the specifics of developing their project and the site access improvements that they have to make to access their project, the county said, "Well, while you're out there, would you make the improvements that we need to the road?"
So, that's what started the development agreement. Um and we as we worked through the development agreement, there was a lot of work on behalf of staff to make sure that we weren't being reimbursed for anything that we needed for our commercial project. So, my client's paying for what they need for their commercial project, and
the county's paying for what they would like to have improvements to the road. So, they ultimately can be done at the same time, which creates an efficiency um all the way around for the traveling public, so you don't tear up a road twice. It's cheaper a lot of times to do it when other groups are already
mobilized. A lot of times developers can do it less expensive than the county contractors. So, that's how this came to be. Just wanted to give you a little background. Thank you. So, Margaret, um it's not doesn't show anything on here on this aerial case people are looking at. Where is the property that's uh you have
the subject to the one you're working on? The development project pursuant to the approved MPUD is at the uh northwest corner of Morris Bridge and 56. Okay. By the way, Commissioner Moody, this is an example of
something that we talked about during the mobility fee discussion where we have the developers build it while they're out there doing their construction on their projects, so. And you raised a concern during the mobility fee discussion that we weren't getting the roads built fast
enough. This is an example of us trying to do that. Yes, it is. Good. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, thank you. All right, is there anybody here that I think there's some people here that want to ask some questions. Mr. Chair, we have >> Please give us your name and address
and state your concerns. All right, good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission for hearing us. My name is Shamond Culbert, and uh I live at 3425 7 Carinae Road, Wesley Chapel. It's in the
River Landing Townhomes. All right. Um I'm the president of the homeowners association, and [clears throat] with the our secretary, and uh so, I'm here basically um I we represent 250 townhomes, right? Uh that's
directly adjacent to the building of the Walmart and the road construction that's being planned and probably will be approved. Uh So, we're here uh our boundaries are State Road 56, Balmoral Road,
Morris Bridge Road, and uh also Oldsmar Road, where all the construction is going going to go on. Uh-huh. So, I'm just here as a matter of record, Mhm. okay, to uh to present our concerns about the construction and development.
Uh We all purchased our homes brand new with Telamorison as a residential Right. We never expected such major expansion. So, while I think we're most of us or probably all of us are not are not uh
against any development, but we are we do have concerns about the impact it's going to have on our community Okay. with the road expansion and also with the uh building of the Walmart. So, uh we really really we I'm here to
see what the commission can provide any assistance uh to us. Especially uh with the road expansion, the inconvenience, and everything that's going to happen because of that, and also the building of the Walmart.
Uh is there anything that the commission can possibly do to assist us when we go and we probably will try to negotiate with Walmart some of our concerns and see what they're willing to help us out with. Can you identify your specific concerns?
Specific concerns, number one is uh additional traffic, Mhm. uh pedestrian and vehicle traffic, noise, uh sound barriers. That's uh we are we going to request sound barriers be built
mhm to to uh to prevent the extra noise coming in. And also um one of our concerns is the safety of the community. Uh being that we we are open The townhomes is open. It's not a gated community. Right. So, uh anybody can
walk in. Mhm. All right? Uh we don't have a security patrol, which we if we do, we are a uh nonprofit, so, you know, we The only money we get is from our dues.
Yeah. Added expenses, added security, added fencing, added anything mhm is going to require us to raise our dues to provide for that, which was not planned for. Mhm. So, I'm basically here just as a matter of record.
And if you can the board the members of the board commission rather Right. could provide any assistance, we'd be most grateful. Thank you. Thank you very much. Before you sit down uh David, do you have any comment on that what we can
I mean, I think they need to I think they need to engage in a conversation directly with Walmart. I mean, this is the application that's before us is a development agreement to expand the road. So, um it doesn't sound like any of his
requests relate directly to the road itself. It sounds like his concerns relate to the Walmart site. Um I mean, I think that he probably needs to
you know, I think Patrick's still on the line. I don't know if he's still there, but we could probably get staff to send this gentleman a copy as as they I don't know if Walmart has submitted their application for the site plan or not. Um Barbara, shaking your head yes. So,
um Hasn't been approved or not? No. So, it seems to me what this gentleman needs to do is get involved in the site plan approval process for Walmart and get a copy of that site plan and take a look at it, see if the way they they designed their site addresses any of his concerns. If it
does not, he probably needs to have a conversation with Walmart directly. Um and with our site plan staff to see if there's anything that could be done with the site design for Walmart. Robert >> I just don't think this application
that's before us today is there's not much we can do on this particular application cuz this is an application for the road, not for the Walmart site. Mr. Irving that presented this uh just a minute ago. Right over there, Robert.
He could be the point person for you to con- to stay in touch with on that because you know, he's he'll be involved in that segment of it. All right. And uh But if you could get your contact information to staff, we can make sure that
they get it to Mr. Gutter, so Mr. Gutter can get you a copy of whatever Walmart has filed today. Then you can better tell what issues you may have and maybe they can deal with it, help you deal with it. That way you can at least see what
they've submitted. Right. Excuse me. That way you can see the site plan they've submitted. And then you know exactly what they're trying to put there. Great. Okay, thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Happy to help. Yeah.
Thank you for coming. All right, anybody else? I just have a question. You can please come forward. If you give your name and address I'm Andrea >> just for the record, we need to keep it on the record. Andrea Gatewood, 2312 Alee Lane, Wesley Chapel, Florida. Just
a quick question. Um with the road widening, has there been a traffic study to basically prove or hopefully all the additional traffic that's going to im- come into that area with um two
rivers, I understand there's two. I know there's um Kayla Morrison [clears throat] is building something further down Morris Bridge and there's two other uh I believe there's another apartment building on the get my bearings north Mhm. east That's west east side. Uh-huh.
That's going to be So, I just want to know, do they do traffic studies just to make sure that that roundabout that they're going to develop will help ease the flow of traffic Yeah, they from emergency vehicles and Yeah, they would do a traffic It's very
extensive traffic study and uh before they would take the take on a project like this. Do we Does staff have any comment about that? Thank you. Sure. We're happy to help. William from William Planning Development Economic Growth. Uh
the traffic was studied in two different phases here, 2019 timing and phasing, studied the original 250,000 square feet of commercial that was allocated inside of this MPD as well as the residential. And then additionally, the access management analysis was submitted for
this particular parcel. Okay. Good. In addition, I believe the Two Rivers project is going through a substantial modification and they're doing a traffic study as well, isn't that right? Yes, sir. We have the revised traffic study for the
modification for Two Rivers as well, which takes into account the entire area's traffic. And before you sit down, William, I think she has one more. Yeah, I need you to come up to the microphone. So, that includes the hospital, too? All right. So, that include the hospital and all the You need to I'm sorry, we
need your name again. Andrea Gatewood. I'm sorry. Go ahead now, ask your question. No problem. So, that also include the hospital as well. Yes, ma'am. And anything on the Okay. So, 56
It'd be yeah, 56 and Fusion Manor. Okay. So, the So, the study area for Two Rivers Right. goes all the way from County Line Road up to 56, intersection of 541 up to Chancy, and then River Landing, then further south.
Okay. So, if we if I'd like a copy of that, is that possible? Just the study to Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you again. Thank you. Appreciate it. That cover everybody? Okay.
All right. May be in the case I have a motion. Um Move approval of PCA8. Have a motion to approve PCA8. Second. Have a second. Further discussion?
All in favor, signify by saying I. I. Those like sign. Okay, motion carries. Thank you, everyone for that. Now, back to 10, I think. We're still on 10, right? >> [clears throat] >> Agenda item piece P 10 you'll be seeing
as the local planning agency for. This is PDE 26-0475, an ordinance by Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code Section 1104, flood damage prevention, Appendix A definitions, and other sections as
necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability, inclusion into the land development code, and an effective date. This will be presented by staff. Okay. Hello, good afternoon. Brian Junker, Planning Development and Economic Growth
Department. So, today the purpose of the ordinance is to implement the required the required revisions to the Pasco County Land Development Code to ensure compliance with the Section 163 .31
295 of the Florida Statute concerning the Hurricane Relief, Recovery, and Response. >> 3121 31295 or 31795? I do apologize. I will read it again. 163.31 795. Right.
Okay. Also, the purpose of the purpose of the ordinance will align county definitions with the definition of the Florida Emergency Management. Also, address the scrivener error from prior amendments to
create consistency with the code. These changes will not impact the county's current participation in the National Flood Insurance Program nor the county's rating system score. A summary of changes,
the LDC 1104 Section 163 .31 795 two of the Florida Statute prohibits local government that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program from
adopting or enforcing community substantial improvement periods, also known as the look back ordinance. The duties of the flood plain administrator has been revised to remove the role evaluating previous
permits for improvement and repairs. The Appendix A definition were amended as as follows, the market value, the removal of the language previously identify the building
official as the entity responsible for determining the final market value, aligns the definition with the Florida Department of Emergency Management. Substantial damage to update the scrivener error that failed to revise
the percent market value damage from 50% to 49%. This has now been revised to 49% in alignment with the 2022 amendment from substantial improvements. This does not change legal effect as the
county currently enforces 49% for both substantial improvement and substantial damage. The substantial improvement removal of the language referencing period of accumulation and cumulative cost to align with
the Florida statute section 163 .31795 two. Chapter 18 of the Pasco County code code of ordinances will be revised to align the land development code definitions of substantial improvement
proposed for this amendment. The recommendations come to you today, accept public comment, find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm here you have any questions. All right. Any questions? Okay, do we have any public comment?
See none. Have a motion? [clears throat] Move to approve item P10. Second. Have a motion and a second. Further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying I. I. I. Who's like signing? Okay. Thank you.
All right. So, we need to conclude this meeting before we begin. >> to adjourn and then start the Yeah, you have to adjourn this one before you start your workshop. All right. Motion to it. You ready for that? >> Second. Motion to adjourn.
It's first thing I've heard out of you today. Well, I >> [laughter] >> There wasn't much for me to vote on today. We have a second. All in favor? I. I. Okay. Can we have a couple minute recess? Yes.
You may. Huh? Yeah. My bug in the meeting. So, it wasn't my imagination. What is it? >> What is it? Some kind of beetle or something. I'm like, "What the heck is going on?" Flying around. A beetle.
It's not John Paul or George or Ringo. He's dead now. Must have brought him from lunch. >> [laughter] >> Beetle O'Grady's. Yeah, right. I got a feeling it crawling up my back. I'm like, "What the heck is going on?"
Yeah. Yeah, that's not good. >> [snorts] [snorts] >> Chris, how's the team doing? Up what? How's the team doing? They're doing great. Yeah. Yeah. Liam's over in England right now.
Oh, that's right. He told me he was going to go there. Yeah. >> Yeah. He combined it with spring break, so he's been over there a couple weeks. My old stomping ground. Yeah? Yeah, we had an office over there for about 10 years. Did you really? I didn't know
that. Yeah. Oh. Yeah, one there and one in Switzerland and one in Germany. Wow, I did not realize that. Yeah, we used to do a lot of international stuff. Yeah? Yeah. You get over there and spend a lot of time over there then? Yeah, I did. I
traveled quite a bit over Okay. I left some pretty good friends. Yeah? Have a uh niece and actually grand- grandchild who's just starting at Oxford there. Oh, wow. Yeah.
One of six people that were chosen for law school. That's That's impressive. Yeah. I would say it'd be cool to go there. Yeah. It's a beautiful place. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They're uh
culture culture's changed there with all the illegal immigration. Yeah. That's the bad problem. Yeah. They're losing control Yeah. Right. But, it's a beautiful place. Yeah. Yeah, I've been to England a couple
times, but I haven't made it to Oxford yet. I'd like to go. I want to look at that. Yeah, we had our We had an office just about maybe 20 minutes from there. Okay. Yeah. Wow. We used to do a lot of international
real estate shows. Okay. Yeah. And in Hong Kong All right. You were You were all over. Yeah. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, I know. That's why I travel on is not back today. It's time to meet you. Got you.
Yeah. I got it all in early. Oh, I got to get mine in now. >> [laughter] >> We use the restaurant. While I have the opportunity. I want to see it over. Yeah. Yeah, we
Just let me know when you're ready. Oh, this is okay with David. Sure. Got to keep David happy. He's my neighbor. Mhm. Mhm. Here is an interesting Yeah, we're going to go back there. >> [snorts]
[laughter] >> Thanks for sharing. That was pretty That's pretty terrible. That's good because it's so bad. David, did you hear about the origami company that went out of business? Did you hear about the origami company
that went out of business? They folded. I think we should open up every planning commission meeting with a dad joke. We'll probably lose Yeah, and we'll immediately lose viewership online. They asked us to go away. >> [snorts]
>> Mhm. I didn't know about the St. Joe extension. That's it. That'll be a huge one. Said go look and see where it crosses. I'm sure the county to the south of us will have something to say about it. Yeah, there's a lot of well fields up there.
>> [snorts] >> Ready to go? Yeah. Okay. There you are. All right. All right. I think we have to go through the whole introduction again, right? I'd like to call the meeting to order. Would you stand for a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance?
Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And roll call, please. Jamie Gray. Here.
Christopher Poole. John Mioty. Here. Matthew Munz. Here. Derek Dattoli. Here. Chris Williams. Here. Chairman Charles Grey. Here. Okay. So, we can start.
Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, uh my name is Heidi Mizell, Planning Development and Economic Growth, and we are back again with Pasco 2050 workshop. Today's workshop is going to be discussing the chapter
number three, which is Pasco Moves. Pasco Moves is the transportation element. This This chapter, uh just like all the other chapter of the Pasco 2050 comprehensive plan, has been worked on by numerous stakeholders, the county attorney's office, and county
departments, including the Planning Development Economic Growth, of course, the MPO, Go Pasco, and the Transportation Engineering Department. All of these departments had significant um participation and contribution to um the updates of this chapter. So, for
today's session, we will be focusing specifically on updates to table 7-2, which is the corridor preservation table, and the associated transportation maps, including existing map 7-35, which is the transportation corridor
preservation map, and existing map 7-36, the highway vision plan map. And these materials were sent out to the Planning Commission um in advance so that everyone had the opportunity to review the tables and, of course, the map updates uh prior to today's to today's
workshop. Uh they're also available on our Pasco 2050 project's website. We will come back on April 16th to walk you through the goals, objectives, and policies of this chapter. We have intentionally divided this chapter into
two sessions um to make sure or to make the review more manageable and to ensure that the Planning Commission has um adequate time to focus on the technical updates first before diving into the policy framework.
Before we begin, I want to acknowledge Nick Yuran, our Pasco County Engineer, who has done the heavy lifting on this portion of the chapter. He uh Nick personally updated the entire corridor preservation table and the corresponding transportation maps, ensuring accuracy,
consistency, and alignment with both the conditions the existing conditions on the ground right now, and also the long-term mobility plans and mobility needs. So, Nick will walk us today through um the updates made to the corridor
preservation table, to the um and how these updates translated onto the maps, and uh with that, I'll keep Pasco Moves on the move, and I will hand it to Nick to walk us through all these changes. All right, thank you. Thank you very much.
Welcome, Nick. Well, good afternoon. That also means uh Nick Yuran, County Engineer. Uh That also means that I'm responsible for the mistakes that you will inevitably Yeah, undoubtedly. Um so, just giving you a brief overview of the
table updates. We've got four different types of changes that we made on this slide. We We looked at the number of travel lanes that we are ultimately identifying on a segment by segment basis, and we we amended those for consistency with the MPO needs plan. That's the
unconstrained, not the financial feasibly feasible or cost affordable version, but the how much should we build if we wanted to accommodate all the growth and all the travel that we could possibly envision in the future. Um and then we also wanted to ensure that we were updating
the number of travel lanes to um reflect that that demand level. If there was any discrepancy between the needs plan and what we thought was necessary, we wanted to ensure that those facilities reflected the needed investments. Uh we looked at right-of-way width, and generally speaking, and I don't know if
you heard this even this um past Tuesday at the Board of County Commissioners meeting, the conversation has been, "Let's make the right-of-way widths as compact as possible." We have generally established pretty wide corridors in Pasco County that allow for a significant amount of green space, and
we're trying to make sure that we balance that to allow land to remain in private ownership for development wherever possible, and to ensure that we've protected enough right-of-way to construct the ultimate transportation facilities in the system that we need to let people move around. Um
I do want to mention that while we are standardizing and right-sizing the corridor widths, we are not proposing typical section content in the comp plan. Meaning, I'm going to tell you how wide these corridors are, but I'm not going to get into the detail of exactly what's going to be in those corridors as part
of the comp plan update. That will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at a future point once the comp plan has been adopted, so they can say, "Yes, build roads that look like this within the footprint that you've established in the comp plan." Uh we did do some realignments, and I'll
show you some examples of that on some succeeding slides to ensure that the alignment of roadways are compatible with uh development approvals and are constructible. Essentially, trying to minimize or eliminate environmental impacts wherever we could. And then we
did delete some roads that are in the comp plan map currently because they are not constructible and or not necessary. So, that's kind of the big picture categories of of changes that we've made to both map and tables. And then some structural notes on the table.
Previously, and in our currently adopted comp plan, we have a segment a portion of the table that shows the state roads and a portion that shows the county roads. We did away with that, converted it to a column. So, the column now says jurisdiction and identifies for each segment who is the responsible jurisdiction for that facility.
We also removed a notes column from the existing table. Essentially, that was being used to say, "Even though the table has content, don't pay attention to it. Go look for a study somewhere else." And we said, "Let's not do that any longer. Let's let this table reflect the intended outcome for each of the
segments in the in the comp plan." Um some updates to the road names. We had a lot of placeholders that were established until development came in and proposed names of particular segments, so we just updated the table name table, rather, to reflect the road names that have been established.
And then we're also going to propose a um an intersection footprint for a preferred approach that we would like to see roundabouts constructed. This also came up at our Board of County Commissioners meeting on Tuesday. We'd like to prefer roundabout construction
where feasible, but if we don't do roundabouts, then we also want to identify the width of the road necessary to accommodate turn lanes and traffic signal apparatus uh if we go that route, the turn lane plus signal. And then last thing we we added a couple of new roadways, and we are identifying
the planned future interchange locations, any grade separations that would that would have a required footprint associated with them, so that if development comes in along those areas, we can protect the land needed for those future interchanges. Um Here's an example of the table. I'm not
going to go through all What did we end up with? 125 pages or so of of table content. So, I'm not going to go through the individual table by page by page, but we did it This is And I'm sorry, I'm highlighting State Road 54 that was transferred to Pasco County as a result
of an executed road jurisdiction transfer agreement between the state and the county. So, that now has become Wesley Chapel Boulevard for these segments of road. The jurisdiction has been updated from state to county, and then we've also updated both the number of ultimate lanes. You can see a couple
of segments there had shown an ultimate eight, and we said, "Consistent with the MPO needs plan and the forecasted demand and for the area, we can we can get by with a six-lane road in that in those two segments at the bottom, Curley to Zephyrhills, Zephyrhills to Meadow Point." And then we reduced the right-of-way footprint to correspond
with the number of travel lanes. So, that's an example of the kind of changes that we made throughout the table. And now I'm going to touch on some of the map components. First one is the intersection footprint, and what I'm showing you here is a footnote in the right-of-way
um protection table that says we would like to build roundabouts whenever possible. And what I'm What we said in the footnote and what I'm showing you graphically is if we have a two-lane road connecting with another two-lane road, what we essentially need is a 150-ft
diameter circle in order to accommodate a two-lane roundabout, one circling lane, one in, one out on the approaches. If we have a bigger road, a 2x4 or a 4x4 lane road at an intersection, that that footprint increases to 250 ft
because we want we now want to have two lanes circling the roundabout, we need the larger space to accommodate the radius associated with the turning movements of the larger vehicles going around together in the roundabout. If we don't need that, and I I did this on purpose to show you kind of relative
scale, if we don't do a roundabout, we can get by with really only about 150 ft on our biggest roads on each of the four approaches. Because we're only going to need two left turn lanes, three two or three through lanes, depending on whether it's a four or a
six-lane road, and one right turn lane. And those lanes, along with the departure lanes, the bike facilities, and the multi-use pathways, only need about 150 ft. And the point I'm trying to make in this graphic is the roundabouts at the intersection themselves will require additional
right-of-way to be protected. We actually had this conversation also on Tuesday with the with respect to the Kenton Road Elam Road intersection. The question was, can we accommodate a roundabout at that intersection? The answer was, we don't have the required
250 ft of diameter for a circular roundabout because we didn't have this policy in our comp plan that said, please protect it. And so we didn't we didn't get the land for the development as it came in. So the approach that we're trying to to go down now is to ensure that we give ourselves the option of building the
roundabout and express a preference for that where feasible on two- and four-lane roads. Six-lane roads are always going to be turn lanes and signals. I want to touch on some a handful of map amendments to ensure that you capture the sense of what we've done on the
overall maps. So in this graphic, I'm showing you in Northwest Pasco the addition of a new vision collector road, Bolton Avenue. And that's this uh Give it a second. I don't know if that's going to work for me. Ah.
Okay. So, we're saying Bolton Avenue from US 19 all the way over here to Coyote is the proposed additional road, and that again that gives us a collector road network in the Denton New York area. And we also recognize that the parallel road to US 19 in this area, diagonal, is
an unconstructible alignment. It creates all sorts of havoc when you when it comes to the intersections with crossing streets, and the right-of-way acquisition, as well as the value to the network as a on a regional scale, is minimal. So we're proposing to delete that road. Wanted to give you an example of that
that that's good good example of an addition and a deletion. Looking at the Suncoast Parkway area north of State Road 52 within the vicinity of Hudson Avenue, handful of changes that we're suggesting in this area. First one is Hudson Avenue
constructing over the turnpike or over the Suncoast Parkway, rather, is of minimal value on a regional scale because we have that existing connection to Softwind Lane that goes between Hudson and Shady Hills. And because it's very expensive and difficult to build a
bridge over the Suncoast Parkway, as we're demonstrating with our work on the Ridge Road Boulevard corridor. We're also suggesting that Hayes Road, based on predicted future volumes, is going to be busy enough to warrant the wider footprint and a four-lane
investment, not just a two-lane road with turn lanes. That's reflective of development approvals in the area, and we're saying that that kind of capacity investment is needed. And again, these are examples that illustrate the point of some other changes that have happened in other parts of the county as well, but I'm walking you through how we
thought about the the analysis of these particular types of questions. And then on a bigger scale, we're we're suggesting the addition of an interchange at the Suncoast Parkway and Caldwell Lane because essentially we have had conversations with the the
Turnpike Enterprise, the folks who manage the Suncoast Parkway, who said to us, Hudson Avenue might have been a good idea, but you didn't protect right-of-way for ramps, and it's going to be expensive for the county to build, and then the turnpike will not have the the land necessary for the interchange
ramps because we gave development approvals on the east side and allowed for construction of stuff where we would put the ramps. They said Shady Hills is no good because of the curvature of the road passing under the Suncoast Parkway, and again, the lack of land associated with or
necessary for the ramps. And so the third option on the table was Caldwell Lane, and we said, we'll take it. This is about halfway between 52 and County Line Road, and it gives us another opportunity to access both the Shady Hills corridor and the Northwest
part of Pasco County from the Suncoast Parkway. And then we're also suggesting that north-south road that is in the current comp plan between Shady Hills and Caldwell on the east side of the Suncoast Parkway is not necessary or constructible, and so that that's an
example of a facility that's coming out. Moving over to Connected City and Villages of Pasadena Hills, the green line on the left side of this map is the I-75 corridor. >> Okay, cool. The uh the blue line is the State Road 52 corridor to give you some orientation.
And what we're suggesting in this in this area is that we should re-align roads to be to the to their constructible locations. The following four roads that are listed there, Marada {slash} Hartman, which is the portion north of County Road 52 that would give a connection around the the Target
Distribution Center. And then also the Curly Road corridor, aligning it to be more compatible with and consistent with the constructible location in the vicinity of the Prospect Marada intersection. We're looking at the Kenton Road corridor. This just came to
to you I think last month and was approved by the board just last uh just earlier this week for the development agreement to build Kenton Road on the light teal alignment shown here. And then lastly, the north-south road C, which is over on the eastern part of the Villages of Pasadena Hills in the
southeast or lower right corner of your map, re-aligning that at the overpass road intersection to reflect again a constructible alignment. In addition, on this same map, we're showing the yellow lines are existing county vision roads, primarily
collectors, that are being removed because they are either unneeded and or unbuildable. The two south of Kiefer Road are the area within the South uh Southwest Florida Water Management District property acquisition. They are being removed because it will both be difficult to construct roads
through that area, and because with the construction of Curly Road and the extension of Old Bridge and the widening of Handcart, we have adequate north-south capacity in that portion of the county, so we don't need those additional two roads. Same answer when it comes to the road just west of
Handcart Road south of State Road 52. That will still be constructed as a development access road, but it will not go all the way to Prospect, again, because we don't need the north-south capacity, and we can rely on some of the local facilities to support that area. So again, examples of
additions modifications, rather, and removals in the eastern part of the county. Southeast part of the county, I have two items uh where we are re-aligning roads, Golflinks Coats, and then the southern southeastern portion there, the State
Road 56 alignment. What we're showing is a concept alignment. They're actually doing what they call a alternative corridor evaluation study. They like to say it's an ASIS study to figure out where they think that State Road 56 can be constructed east of US
301. Today it it roughly terminates at the 301 intersection. There's a small local facility on the east side at the um Oh, what's the name of that? That the the vehicle shop there that auction site. So there's an auction site on the east side. It terminates roughly in the
auction site. What DOT is trying to figure out is how can they get State Road 56 to go not just from US 301 east to State Road 39, Paul Buckman Highway, but all the way east to the US 98 corridor that connects down to Lakeland. That's because they're
looking at it on a regional scale. What I've done is I've shown you the portion of the of the corridor within Pasco County because I I wear blinders, and I stop thinking about the world when I get to the county boundary. Uh and and likewise, where we when we're re-aligning State Road 56, we're also
removing the existing yellow line in the comp plan, which is an unconstructible location for that extension. In recognition that it was passing through wetlands and land that we've now allowed to become people's homes. Um mentioned that we are adding to the comp plan the grade separations that are
planned for the county, and so these are um there are four being shown here. And I say four because this is the State Road 54 corridor here, and what I'm doing is I'm showing you the proposed grade separation at the US 41
interchange, and then also, consistent with the MPO's long-range plan, I'm showing you the planned grade separation at the Collier Parkway intersection, and what the ramps at that location might look like. This is conceptual at Collier. It's farther than conceptual,
but it has not yet moved into full right-of-way acquisition at 41 because this is I'm I'm essentially showing you the location of the ramps that the DOT has established as their preferred alternative for the overpass at 41. We're also suggesting a a grade-separated interchange at I-75
and Saint Joe Road in northeast Pasco County, which would be equidistant from the existing interchanges at State Road 52 and Blanton Road, and it would provide a direct connection into Dade City via a Joe, which is which connects to Meridian
and goes straight into the heart of downtown. It And we're also suggesting, as I mentioned earlier, the Shady Hills Caldwell Lane uh area of proposed interchange with the Suncoast Parkway. Now, these are all, apart from the US 41 at 54, these are
all conceptual in nature. They would require consent with consent of the state for the portions of I-75 and or the Suncoast Parkway, but they do allow us to protect right-of-way for the future potential interchange that we've
identified as needed in our transportation system. What what's the cost share on that with um the state in a situation like that? So, it it depends. It quite heavily depends. If um
it's almost like a question of who goes first. When we went to the state and said, "We desperately want to open up the Villages of Pasco Hills, northern Wesley Chapel area for development, and we want Overpass Road to connect to I-75." They
said, "Great idea. You pay for it." And we paid 100% of the cost of that interchange. But if they come to us and say, "Hey, county, we are desperately looking for ways to relieve the I-75 State Road 52 congestion, and we have done all we can at the ramp terminals.
Is there any way we could construct with your corridor on Saint Joe Road that would give us another way for people to to access the interstate without having to go to State Road 52?" If they come to us, then they pay. So, it it's it really does significantly
depend. And to revisit the since we're on this slide, the interchange at this proposed at Caldwell as opposed to the existing overpass over Shady Hills Road. I understand there's not a lot of land there, but there is an overpass
there, whereas with Caldwell, you'd have to build something from scratch. So, what Can you talk a little bit more about the logic behind cuz I understand it's Yeah, let me jump back to that slide and um One point of clarification, Caldwell
actually does have a bridge over the Suncoast Parkway today. Okay. So, it it's a two-lane bridge. It's not an adequate bridge for an interchange to connect to, but but there's an existing structure over the Suncoast. So, it's sort of getting your foot in the door, if you will, with respect to the ability
to go over the Suncoast and have the landing space on either side. Yeah. Uh the and I'm going to paraphrase, but essentially we we didn't protect land at Hudson Avenue for the extension, the the yellow line, and the turnpike said, "We didn't
protect land, and the curvature of the road under the Sun Shady Hills Boulevard, Shady Hills Road, rather, under the Suncoast Parkway makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to construct an interchange on Shady Hills itself."
And so, our thought was we'd really like to support industrial development in this area. It's a targeted employment center for northwest Pasco County. We want the regional connectivity that an interchange provides. If you have to go a half mile, quarter mile north on Shady Hills to get to Caldwell and make a
right turn and get right on the the Suncoast Parkway in that way, it provides most of the connectivity value and has the benefit of being constructible. And I I'm going to say interchanges in general, like this one is a good example. These are placeholders that
suggest it in a desired future vision. If that vision were to change, if we were to do a feasibility study and say, "You know what? You really can build it at Shady Hills, and here's how." We we could we could satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan identifying a
connection in this vicinity without formally going through an amendment process and saying, "Let's move it from here to here to there." I I think this is more more than anything, this is intent This is demonstrating a desire to connect to the
to their limited access facility, not specifying the precise way in which it will connect. So, Nick, where you identified those future interchanges and kind of reservations of the property, etc., how I mean, if somebody comes in and owns that property and wants to develop, how
do they do they follow along the same parameters and criteria that's followed now? They do. And I'll use the um and probably the Saint the I-75 at Saint Joe is the best example. Should we have an application that receives favorable consideration for development on the
quadrants of that intersection, what we'd like to be able to say to that applicant is, "I'm glad to see that you want to make meaningful use of your property. Please set aside the this amount of land for the ramp uh connections and potentially the drainage facilities
associated with those ramp connections, so that we can protect our ability to build a future interchange in this area." So, yeah, so How was that area identified, though? I mean, like if I take some If if I have a piece of property that's adjacent to a roadway corridor and it says 124 ft, I can
easily do the math, but how how does the property owner know? Do they go meet with you individually in the those specific areas? Well, the So, the centerlines that are drawn on the on the map in general are the approximate locations where we think roads either where they either where they already exist or where we think
they will likely exist. And then we identify in the in the table a width as well. And the these facilities have an 80-ft width attached to them, suggesting that that would be enough for a two-lane off and on ramp with a little bit a little bit more of a
footprint for an additional turn lane at the intersection when it connects with the crossing roadway. Nick, question. This goes to the deletions from the map. It ties a little bit into Jamie's question.
So, what happens when the next county engineer comes in here and decides, "Ah, well, first off, that interchange is in the northeast rural area, and the politics of building an interchange in that area probably aren't
going to really blow your way, at least for now. And now you've exacted that land from whatever developer there was, and then you decide you don't want to build it." And I'm looking at I'm thinking about diagonal road over on 19.
Okay, so now we've we've been exacting land from those property owners for the last 20 years along that corridor, and now we say, "Well, now we're not going to build it." Are we giving that land back to those people?
We can, but it Are we paying them for the lost use of their land that we took and decided now we're not going to use this? Well, we are required to give them mobility fee credits. If they ask for them, we have to give them mobility fee credits for the land.
Are you going to be sending notices out to all these people? I mean, I went and looked at your I appreciate the idea of narrow corridors, and I think whoever created the last table, I wasn't involved in that, got a little greedy.
But now there are people who've had their land exacted from them for roads that we have zero intention to build, and they've lost the use and the rights to that property.
What do we propose to do about that? So, >> Cuz you get up here and talk about it, we're protecting it. It's not your land. It's the property owners' land, and we also have a property rights element in the comprehensive plan, too. I agree. >> get me wrong,
I understand the need to plan for future transportation, but we can't do this willy-nilly. Well, I got a vision that we're going to do this, and the next guy comes in, and his vision is different, and now it's
cost people. It's cost people their property. I I was looking at Darlington Road this morning before I came in, and I saw that the corridor's going from 80 to 60, and I said, "Huh, let me go look and see how many people had to give 40 ft from the centerline
along Darlington Road." What are we doing about those people? There's no intention to widen Darlington Road. So, now the county and I I've got a project right now I'm working on that's finishing up. It's on Trouble Creek Road. It's the only parcel that's had to give
right-of-way along Trouble Creek Road. It's been in the county's comprehensive plan now for 20 years to have 80 ft of right-of-way along Trouble Creek Road. For what? When are we widening this? What's the impetus to widen it? There is no impetus
to widen it. But yet, we've taken these people's property and denied them the use of that property. Well, I think we need to think hard about how we protect lands for transportation. And
don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't plan. That's what this whole exercise is about. But we need to be very careful about what we're doing with other people's property. And to that same end, I'm looking down
at Mr. Williams at the school board. What if the school board decides to use this same exact tool to plan for schools? Well, you know, I think 5 years from now I'm going to need a school over there and I'm going to need a school over there and I'm going to need a school over there. So, let's just put a map or a table in the comp plan and if
somebody comes in well, we'll just exact that land from them for a school. But, you guys don't do that, do you? Well, they'd have to give credits or cash for that land, too. No, we don't do that. And the real- But, the reality is is now the legislature is looking at
some land that we have bought for the future and they're saying, "Oh, we think the school board has too much land. You guys are going to have You know, there's been legislation. Fortunately, it hasn't passed. >> say I agreed with that, either. >> No, I agree. I know you don't. But, I
mean, there is legislation that floated around, but fortunately didn't pass about, "Hey, you need to offer it up to charter schools or affordable housing or whatever." But, you know, again, there is a balance. And I thought the same thing, John. I'm
thinking I'm looking at some roads where there's empty land in there waiting on additional lanes and I'm thinking, "What happens when that doesn't get built?" I think there does need some methodology >> But, same thing. I'm looking at some of these realignments. And don't get me
wrong, I'm not saying that the realignments are not without merit or that it doesn't make sense to realign or that the previous alignment made any sense. I'm just thinking about what about the people that came in here for an MPUD and they get hit with, "Well, we've got this
vision road map over here and you need to give this right-of-way." Cut your development For this Yep, that cuts bisects your development. And now we've decided to realign the road and we're not actually going to use that land. So,
I think any First of all, any one of those developers could come in and say, "You've now changed it. We want to develop that piece now." And we would let them. Yeah, but >> can. I mean, I don't realize that It's their land. The problem is you took the
opportunity from them. I understand that, John. I mean, but mist- There's Yes, did you Did John Gallagher and Jim Widman make a lot of mistakes? Yes. I mean, they they probably took more land than they needed to. >> for to have a blame game for Mr. Widman.
>> do you want me to do? You want me to bring them in here and you can shoot [laughter] them? I don't know what you want me to do. >> No, I'm not. What I'm Like we're saying, we need a mechanism to be able to deal with Well, and Mr. If I could, I I I agree with what you're saying, but there are mechanisms to address every
one of the many hypothetical situations that you identified. >> Okay, so I'm asking. So, I don't know which one you'd like me to speak to first. Start with the shooting, I guess. >> [laughter] >> Oh, no, I'm not looking to I actually like Mr. Gallagher and there's some days I wish he was back
here. Um unfortunately, we can't bring Mr. Widman back. So, to your point, >> Um I I I can take a shot and then you can tell me what The next county engineer may come in and say this isn't feasible. There's one map There's one line I see on this map that I think may not be
feasible. I'm going to ask about that one after, but go ahead. >> So, generally speaking, if I'm changing an alignment, it's because we have not granted a development approval in that area and the line that we would have to exact
from someone is not constructible. Otherwise, if I'm changing an alignment because it's adjacent to or within an approved development, it's because we actually approved a different line through the administrative process of submittal of an application through PDE
and granting of approval through the Board of County Commissioners for a rezoning or land use change. They were allowed to change the line because it was more advantageous to them to put it where they requested and not where our comp plan showed it. And we And we granted that request and
now I have to amend the alignment adjacent to that approval so that I can provide continuity. If you ever If you want an example of that, look at the Old Woods Avenue corridor in southeastern Pasco. We have essentially granted an approval here and an approval here
and they don't meet they don't meet in the middle. So, I have to figure out how to navigate the S curve on the unapproved the parcel that has not yet been entitled. Same answer with respect to Wells Road in central Pasco County. We have approval to the north along um
Oh, this is I said Wells, it's Wilson Road. We have an approval to the north along Lake Lake Patience and we have an approval to the south where Wilson hits State Road 54 and they don't match. And our job is to figure out how to make them match in the unentitled parcels in the middle. So, if I'm doing an alignment shift, it's not because I'm
trying to undo an approval, it's because I'm trying to reflect and be consistent with approvals already rendered by the County Commission. Generally speaking, if for some reason someone comes in and says, "Hey, you exacted land from me and I would like to build on it now because
you've identified I've identified a different way to provide that or your comp plan through this amendment process has identified a different way to accomplish that objective. >> It's not that I want to build on it now, it's that back when I wanted to build on it and I wanted a 100,000 square foot building and I was forced to build a
60,000 square foot building cuz you made me give this right-of-way that you never needed. And I I'm going to submit to you without knowing the details that you may be overstating some of the severity of the hypotheticals.
If there are examples that you would like me to investigate, I would be happy to do so. I probably could show you lots of conceptual And And frankly, for the point of And we generally have responded favorably. I know because I sign most of those alternative standard requests to reduce
the right-of-way foot width. We respond favorably to those questions. >> In my tenure, Do you do you have anything I'm going to join in? It's just because we're not going to use our right-of-way for road widening does not mean we don't need the right-of-way. I mean, I don't know if you've been to our board
meetings lately, but how many times we've had commissioners ask us to widen paths and sidewalks and have right-of-way for utilities and landscaping. I mean, we we make use of our right-of-way for purposes other than road pavement.
So, I wouldn't just assume that it's not going to be used. Yeah, but if it's a street that didn't exist before that is now, you know, a vision road. For instance, the US 19 thing. You know, and and I guess I guess to
John's point, you know, it's the stuff that we don't know about. So, if it's a piece of property that maybe someone could have sold to a developer or someone could have developed um that they that that window expired and nothing
ever happened on that property, it's different from you know, "Hey, we've already built on it and now we want to add to it." or "Hey, it's still in planning and we're going to utilize now." >> But, I mean, if the to answer your question, if it truly is not usable by the county anymore and somebody wants it back to add more parking,
add more landscaping, yes, we would try to find a way to give it back to them. I can't promise you that it's going to be used to be able to used for that more square footage, but maybe they could add more parking to it for their building. Maybe they could add more landscaping. Maybe they could add some put it to some usable purpose. I
don't but that's something we'd have to look at on a case-by-case basis. Yeah, I think he's speaking to the damage that's already been done. But, I again, I can't give you Unless you want to bring Mr. Gallagher back in here and shoot him, I don't know what you want me to do. I mean,
Mr. Gallagher wasn't king of Pasco County. He had to have a Board of County Commissioners that But, but But, I know who I know who I know who instructed Mr. Widman to come up with those cross sections. It was Mr. Gallagher. I don't know that we can do anything about what's done in the past. I mean,
all we can do I think I think this is a move in the right direction to right-size the right-of-ways Oh, absolutely. I do, too. >> we're headed. But, but if the question is, are we willing to give the right-of-way back cuz they if if it's truly not needed anymore, I don't And again, I think Nick's right,
we don't know. It's case by case thing we'd have to look at see do we truly not need it anymore? Yes, we could look to give it back and maybe they could use it to add some more parking or landscaping or something some usable purpose for that business.
But, they'd have they'd have they'd have to come to us and say, "Hey, we we'd like the right-of-way back now." May I ask you this question? Does Hillsborough County have corridor tables that require dedication?
Does Pinellas have them? Does Citrus have them or Hernando have them? I don't have an exhaustive awareness of all 67 counties, but all the ones that I've worked in have them. Okay. Because especially in fast-growing areas, if you don't know where you want
your road network to be, you won't have a road network. Well, no, I believe in visioning roads and then un- and and designing or you know, contemplating a future roadway network.
What I don't believe is exacting people's land before we have plans >> Well, I can assure you that we're not the only county that does does it. Otherwise, the legislature would not have imposed legislation requiring us to give credits when we do it.
There's a reason the state legislature came in and mandated that we give credits. And when we exact right-of-way I really do want the commission to understand that the administrative experience we've had is not the experience that Commissioner Moody is describing. We're We're not lashing a whip over developers saying,
"Give us land whether or not you like the location. It's what the comp plan says." We're incredibly flexible. When people come in and say, "The comp plan shows a road right through the middle of my property. Can I move it to the edge so that I can amass the developable area?" >> suggesting >> absolutely accommodating to
>> I'm not suggesting that you aren't. But you you I've been here. I've got a lot longer history here than you, and I have seen that whip cracked over these people. And that land exacted from those people.
And now I'm seeing it undone. And don't get me wrong. I actually support what you're doing. But I question the wisdom of a process where this can happen to somebody. That's all I'm saying. I just want the commission to understand
that we view development as a partnership. We're all trying to construct a regional transportation network. And if they're building pieces of it and we're building pieces of it, we're pursuing the same objective ultimately, which is to create a thriving community where people want to live, move, and play.
We're We're here for the good of our community. Trying to figure out how to do this together. Nick, have you finished your additions and deletions or no? I believe Would you show the one that goes from Caldwell to St. Joe?
>> We need to talk about one more slide. Yeah, that that's the one. Um So we need to talk about this slide. So, brief background to this. This is a proposal to add two roadway segments, Caldwell Lane from the Suncoast Parkway
to US 41, and Bowman from US 41 to Bellamy to connect across from Johnston. This is essentially a request that we heard when we presented when we did our mobility fee workshop and really ins- it
throughout several discussions with board members regarding development along the State Road 52 corridor saying, "Why don't we have an east-west corridor in Pasco County that runs between 41 and Bellamy north of State Road 52?"
So, this is the proposed location of that two-segment corridor that would give continuity from 41 to the Suncoast support [clears throat] and and really add value to the potential Suncoast interchange at Caldwell.
And it would allow for a connection from US 41 to Bellamy. If you wonder why does it have the weird kink in the middle, it's because the road essentially follows the northern boundary of the Tampa Bay water parcels. within that area. This is And this is
this This is different from the version that is in the map in your packet because of conversations that have continued to occur in the >> [clears throat] >> of this alignment. And so that was >> What's the name of that road up here where it intersects? The
If you're talking about this teal road between 41 and Bellamy, it intersects to the west with Bowman at US 41, and it intersects to the east at Bellamy and Johnston. And Johnston. Okay.
So, this So, the map I'm sorry, map moves three that I'm looking at cuz I looked at that and said, "What the heck is this road?" You're saying this supersedes This supersedes that. So, the reason you couldn't bring Caldwell straight across
is because Because that's Pinellas County's well >> through the Pinellas County water parcels. And I assume Tampa Bay Water had concerns with it. It can't can't be mitigated? We um
We received concerns from our representatives on the Tampa Bay Water board. >> I can't imagine why. They So, we have not approached the Tampa Bay Water staff because we did not have the support of our
delegation on the regional water board to run to run the corridor as shown on your map, which is why this map differs from the one in your backup material. So, does this run through some someone's ranch or something? It runs on the north side of the water parcel along primarily
existing farm roads, but it would encumber portions of existing ranches. I don't know this area well enough. Nick and I, I'm sure you probably looked at this, but is that not a road just south and west of that kink? It's a
It's an old farm road. It's an old farm road. >> And it If I If I were to turn on the um the natural You So, you're talking about this area, right? >> in there. Yeah. Well, up north of that. Yeah. And if I were to turn on the the
natural features layer, you would see that this is all Ever- everything to the south is pretty wet. Difficult to construct through, difficult to mitigate for. Um Not impossible. I mean, we built Ridge Road over to the Suncoast Parkway. So, it's not
impossible, but it did not And what I what I said when we when we showed the alignment in your backup material was this would be essentially planting a seed that someone else would get to water and watch it grow cuz it wouldn't happen in my In light of
this discussion, Nick, what the road that Now that you sort of moved this road further north, is there Is that Bowman that goes across? That is. Why not have your interchange at Bowman
instead of Caldwell, then, with the Suncoast? It's too close to the County Line Road interchange, which is at the top of the map. It It would never get approval. And it would have minimal value because of its proximity to the County Line Road interchange. Yeah.
That's why the road from Caldwell across to St. Joe would be a lot more valuable even though it's through more wetland and the Tampa Bay water cuz it's somewhat more equidistant between State Road 52 and County Line.
And that funky curve you have, it's kind of It's essentially following the northeast corner of the Tampa Bay water land. And trying to get get down to the horiz- to the latitude, if you will, of Johnston in order to go due east from
the Tampa Bay water parcel. Yeah, that's not ideal, either, just from a traffic flow perspective. >> I'm just I'm skeptical that somebody's going to drive on a controlled access road that's got those kind of curves. Well, again, the comp plan is
conceptual. We could We could straighten it >> Not ideal curve. quite a bit with just a I I could make it into a sweeping S-curve. >> Then back to the point >> point of property acquisition, I have to develop the land. >> you this right-of-way, and oh well, yeah, this is not really feasible, and we just need to bring it straight
across. But But you're right. If I'm trying to make this a relative even a moderate speed uh controlled access facility, I'm counting on some significant super elevation with the curves that I'm showing. Well, in in in Nick's defense, though, if somebody came in with
development in that area, I'm pretty sure he would ask somebody to look at the feasibility and the alignment of that road coming through there, and that may be a case where they suggest an alternative alignment that he says, "Yeah, that makes more sense." Of course, you have to stay in your position, you know.
Can't quit. I I feel like if it's not in alignment with Caldwell to St. Joe through the original connection from 4- If Let's just say you didn't have the Caldwell interchange at all.
Is there merit to having a connection from 41 to I-75? A controlled access connection from 41 to I-75? I'm asking. I don't know. >> I'm not sure I followed your question.
Let's just say that the road stopped at 41. Like it didn't Well, I guess it doesn't cuz it's it mean or it's cuz it is Bowman. But let's say it never it Say you you removed the Caldwell part of this
from the map. >> [clears throat] >> Does the road still have merit is what I'm asking. I I think yes. And I I think in part because you you've got Milepost just east of the Suncoast Parkway that gets you from Bowman um up
to County Line Road, and that gives you a regional connectivity. It becomes a a meaningful way to move east to west if you're in western Hernando County or or the Shady Hills Road corridor sort of northern and west of the
Suncoast Parkway in Pasco County. It gives you a way to get to eastern and southeastern Pasco County without having to rely on State Road 52. I I think the Caldwell Lane connection has its own set of significant obstacles to be overcome. It
is running through the eco corridor um and it And then it there's a large resident- a large-lot residential community on the west side of 41 that we would need to find a way to traverse with as little impact as possible. Um
The The point of the Caldwell connection to 41 is we we have a We have seen development applications and and seen the board grant development approvals to projects along the 41 corridor that would not be able to avail themselves of any investments in Shady
Hills or access to the Suncoast Parkway if that connection didn't occur. They they would they would be forced to rely on the State Road 52 US 41 corridor which is the the segments of road that this concept
is seeking to relieve. So you're just trying to get all that development and other connections to the Suncoast. Yeah. While you're thinking, I just want to say I appreciate this discussion. Yeah. Thank you for engaging. Yeah, I had I mean I my only concern with it, Nick,
is that I just don't it just seems odd to me to show a controlled access roadway with that kind of curvature. Mhm. I I don't it just doesn't seem like it passes the straight face test. I can fix the curve if John won't get too mad at me.
I understand that you're trying to follow the boundaries of Tampa >> have to fix it. It's I I understand that you're trying to follow the boundaries >> take this guy's land. Well, I understand you're trying to follow the boundaries of Tampa Bay Water's land, but it seems to me that if you're
now north of their land as long as you're now north of their land, you might as well just make do an alignment that makes sense. >> I could cut some corners both on Tampa Bay Water and on the private parcels to the east of the Tampa Bay
Water parcels. I would in order to stay within affect Tampa Bay Water in a negative way. I mean, unless there's a well in the corner of the parcel, which I doubt there is, it's right? It shouldn't. Yeah. So the the premise is that
the investment in of a in the investment in a transportation corridor of any magnitude in an area that's serving as a well field has the potential to introduce contaminants to the well. The the hydrology is not
it you know, there's a lot of layers between where that well is drawing from and where the contaminants would start. So they have to, you know, you got a long penetration to get down to the point where the well is pulling. Run all the drainage to the north side. And and that's and there are I mean,
yeah, to Commissioner um Boy, I'm going to mispronounce your last name. Pallets. Pallets. To his point, can we mitigate for the adverse potentially adverse impact? Yes. Will everyone agree that the mitigation is sufficient? Never.
Well, yeah. And I went through that before we drove here. You're not going to agree on anything. You're going to get never, you I mean, we have the we have this almost an identical issue not ident- not identical, but we have a similar issue with the potential extension of Ridge to
the overpass interchange because there's a huge well field that's through the middle of that area, too, which would be a nice connection to make to get cuz Ridge sort of just stops at Conerton. Right. And it'd be nice to be able to have it extend from Conerton to the new
interchange and overpass road. But there's a giant well field there. Same problem. Similar. The the solution in this case is to go north of the well field. That's why the line is where it is. We don't have that option with the Ridge Road extension because we can't build a
meaningful connection south of 52 and north of the well field. You can go over the well field. Well, that that deals with the you know, how do you mitigate for it? If you've ever driven I-10 through Louisiana, you can build an elevated
limited controlled access facility. It's not cheap. And and it does not necessarily guarantee that contaminants that are introduced to the environment along the corridor are captured and disposed of without entering the sub area below the road.
Well, the original proposal was from Caldwell straight across the St. Joe which did go through a lot of traversed a lot of wetland there, obviously. But is there a possibility to kind of split the difference and jog a little bit north with that, still come from Caldwell across the St. Joe, but go
a little further north? The I I think the problem I have is that Oh, wrong button. That is a problem. Here we are. So the problem I have is that everything to the south [clears throat] in this area is all controlled by Tampa
Bay Water. Right. So I don't really anything I do to go do east, even if I try to get north quickly, it will traverse portions of the Tampa Bay Water well field. Yeah, but I mean, again, as long as it's not going over a well. That's that's the line that I started
with in the map. Yeah. And this is the this is the line I've been asked to present today. Yeah, cuz you can get up you can still get above those wetlands. Cuz it just makes them so much more sense because of the you know, the the the
the proposed interchange there at Suncoast and then the interchange that already existed St. Joe at 75. Those were all the points that I articulated when I was being asked to Cool. present this one instead. Question. So you say you're
following the boundary along that curve. Why not just extend whatever road this is, Bowman, to the east a little bit more and el- eliminate one of the curves? Yeah, I know I think
to the extent that the the double hitch S curve is the obstacle, we can address that. And are we in a wetland where we're making this curve back to the east? We are not. This area is is upland.
Where's the Old Bay Road in association with where it connects up there? I'm going to need somebody with more experience than my 3 years to answer that. Bay Head Road? Bay Head Road, yeah. Yeah, a little bit north. It's a little north of that. So, Nick, I let me ask you cuz
the whole this this entire conversation is premised on a comment made at the board meeting that 52 be with all the development that's occurring that 52 is likely to fail. Is that
premise accurate? I mean, I I assume we're doing all this cuz we're trying to find a solution, like a a parallel reliever to 52. Sure. So and that there's nothing happening in Hernando
with County Line that's going to solve that problem, and so we need to come up with something sort of in between that will. Do you agree with that premise? I need to give a few points in response.
Uh point number one, there there is an MPO there there the Tampa Bay regional planning model, rather. So not just the MPO for Pasco, but the regional planning model predicts a significantly high number of trips significantly high, like 90,000 daily trips
based on the anticipated development and um the trip trip making characteristics of that land use pattern. That's a big number that a six lane road cannot accommodate.
That that being said, um the regional planning model does not seem to accurately represent the roadways on the north of what I've labeled as Collier Parkway on the south side of 52. So the the gray roads that
are proposed to be constructed north of State Road 52 between the Collier Parkway Bellamy Brothers area, the regional planning model network does not seem to have incorporated those links. So an update to the model that incorporates those links might show less
trips on State Road 52. There is also a question regarding the entitlement assumptions. How many homes were proposed to be built in the model north of 52 that we have not run to ground? They may be overstating the number of
houses in that area north of 52 that is also contributing to a very high forecast. So point number one, maybe the network is inaccurate. Point number two, maybe the predicted number of houses is inaccurate. And then point number three, I'm going to say the DOT is currently
performing a an anal- a feasibility study of the extension of what's called Ayers Road in Hernando County, which will connect from County Line Road at Suncoast east to some point along the I-75 corridor with the Blanton Iola
corridor being a potential eastern terminus. So there is there is a study for an additional east-west connector road underway that is primarily within Hernando County. So, is you asked is this is this
absolutely needed and is it the only way to address the need? So, my first two points say it is predicted to be needed with some investigation to be done. And my third point is it may not be the only way to address
predicted future east-west travel. But, it is a way to address the east-west travel that is within Pasco County and therefore within our control. Not dependent on adjacent jurisdictions. Thank you. And that really gives even more of a
reason to try to move this south from what you have here because of the potential errors road connection just to the north. But, the other thing that we um that's important with this whole thing is hurricane evacuation routes. You know, we've been
especially as you continue to develop out the Hudson area and Shady Hills and all of that. You know, that's that's going to become more and more needed as well. It's it's been needed you know, already. We've seen that with some of the hurricane evacuations we've had
recently. But, that's another important reason for this. Yeah, I mean I think it's definitely needed. Sure. You're making all of my points. I love it. Very good. How we doing at least like you wanted to tell us too?
Again, I appreciate your engagement and I I think you're you're wrestling with the trade-offs that I wrestle with myself. Right. Question. What are we what are we doing if any? And I'm not saying that we have to.
This is the year 2026 and we're now looking out to the year 2050 and beyond. And we're planning our transportation around turn of the century and I'm not talking about the 20 20th to the 21st. I'm
talking about the 19th to the 20th century transportation modes. We're in a world where we're now ready to put into commercial use air taxis
and the like. Are we doing any planning or thinking about other modes other than just roads? Well, and how does public transport fit into this as well? I mean, is that part of this
section of the Pasco Moves sec- section? Talking about That So, I I've been asked to present just the roadway Right. corridors. There there are goals, objectives, and policies addressing mass transit investment as part of the Moves corridor
or Moves chapter rather. Okay. So, who's planning those things? I Do you want to come back up? Hi, Miss Zilly, planning and development and economic growth. So, on 416 we'll come back with those policies to discuss
them a little bit further as far as who's planning the policies for the transit. Is that what you asked, Miss Zilly? Yeah. We're all planning including uh the MPO and uh
Yeah. Yeah, and Go Pasco, exactly. Mhm. Okay. Okay. But, I will tell you that even in the most urban areas of Tampa, the modal splits like the diversions that we get for mass transit
are not significant. Yeah, I I know. I mean, even you take the I mean, unless you get to like uh New York City level of mass transit, you're not going to get significant diversions off of the roadways. Now, >> I'm not suggesting you are.
>> Moody's talking about air that's a whole 'nother and different mode. >> Yeah, that is what I'm talking about. I'm I'm no, I'm not talking about buses. I'm tired of sitting behind empty buses and passing empty buses that are blowing diesel smoke in my face
all the way home with no people on them. And I actually think that's a dumb idea. But, you know, I'm looking towards the future. What what are we looking at along those lines if any? Maybe we're not. I don't I don't know. I'm just asking the question. We are.
Human sized drones. It's basically what those air taxis are. At the Consumer Electronics Show this year, they had a human drone that you could buy for less than $40,000. It doesn't require a
pilot's license. Right. Okay? That's pretty attractive proposition. Cuz right now I can't even buy a car for $40,000. But, I can buy a flying one for less. I think about that. What happens when you have 20,000 of them in the air at the same time? That's
[laughter] why exactly why I'm asking the question, Chris. That's why I'm asking the question. That's why we have an app. Hi. Well, [laughter] somebody needs to be thinking about these things. Yeah. Yeah. When somebody gets to into a midair
collision over my house. Right. I I can can't tell you the number of people that laughed at me in 1982 when I got my first 8K computer. Mhm. Why was I wasting money on a stupid technology like that? Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. Okay, is there anything else? Well, the logical thing would be if you are going to allow those to still confine them to your roadways, just make them airable. higher, you know, just create space. Make them higher up on your roadways so
that you don't have them everywhere. I don't claim to be an expert in air traffic control. I don't know whether that's logical or not. Geofence or something. I'm sure the people at the FAA will have something to say about it. Okay, all right. What do we have now? Uh
so, this concludes our discussion of Pasco Moves or at least this portion of Pasco Moves. Do you have any questions about the maps that were included in the package? >> Well, so clearly this maps Moves 3 is going to be revised. >> Yes. Is that the only Yeah, that's the
only So, we will just change it to um to reflect the new realignment or the the new alignment. >> Well, assuming that's what's ultimately decided on cuz I think we've well, raised our concerns as a planning commission. Right. Say there's nobody in here today that is going to be happier that that map is
going to get changed because literally just before this workshop started, I said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what are we doing? Who drew that line?" Okay. I'm happy to to see that that's moved. That's good. Okay. All right. So, with that that's
the end of uh Pasco Moves uh workshop. We will come back on 416 to keep things moving. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much for your engagement and for the feedback and uh we'll see you on 416. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Hi, just real quick. Is that stuff for next week? Cuz that's just next week. That's next Thursday, right? So, is that stuff coming out like tomorrow? I will send it out tomorrow or tonight. Okay. Our next meeting >> something to do in between the commercials of the Masters.
I don't want to overwhelm you with everything at once. I was just trying to pace, you know. >> Very good. Okay. Air motion. Move to adjourn. Second. Second. Third. On favor. Aye. Aye. Aye.
Thank you, everyone. David, quick question. I have to go to the planning for the 30 something. Did I understand you or you saying that I'm on a planning for the 30 on Yeah. I was not looking at my book last night. It's a lot It's a lot different
Yeah, should do that. I can cuz every time I'm in the car, I got my phone on something on TV. >> [laughter] >> Well, look, it's right here. That's right. Next Thursday. Week from today. Week from today. right away component of
our mobility fee. So, do you credit against the right away component of the So, that you're entitled to that. Yeah. Okay. Against the right away component I want to give the credit. Yes. Right. Nick, thank you. See you, David. Yes, thank you. project that is going to be finished.
You don't have anywhere to go. Thanks, Nick. >> [laughter] >> So, that's on the on the map or that's the well protection zones and the wells. It's only against the And the wetlands and the water. There's nowhere to go. So. Yeah. Cuz they're cornered, but Yeah, the
value has to be determined by real estate appraiser. Yeah, you were told told that in the presentation. I thought Yeah, there's nowhere to I don't know. Barbara Thank you, Nick. Straight to St. Joe anywhere that probably once every two or three weeks. You can ask her. She can tell you how
she does She sends a request and they'll say same value, same acres.