[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] thank you thank you [Music] that's what I think [Music] [Music]
let's go [Music] [Music]
good something out there you know [Music] that's good [Music] [Music] [Music] is going to be like 10 minutes late
what is that you guys all ready all right good afternoon i'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting of April 3rd 2025 for this moment if we can please stand for a moment of silence in 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 okay madame clerk can you call the roll christopher P here johny here Matthew
Muns here Derek here Chris Williams chairman Charles Ray Vice Chairman Jamie Gerard here and Chris said he is on his way he'll be here in about five minutes okay so we are the planning commission
we're appointed by the board of county commissioners and we meet twice a month the planning commission holds public hearings and transmit to the board of county commissioners recommendations on resonings and conditional use requests the planning commission is the final decision-m body
for special exceptions certain appeals variance requests and certain alternative standard requests however final decisions may be appealed to the board of county commissioners the planning commission also serves as a local planning agency
and as the LPA this body makes recommendations in regard to the consistency with the adopted Pasco County comprehensive plan of proposed comprehensive plan amendments and land development code amendments if anyone is in opposition to any comprehensive plan amendment
development code amendment reszoning conditional use or any item where the planning commission transmits a recommendation to the board of county commissioners it is important that you attend the appropriate board of county commissioners meeting
okay um I think we have a set of minutes to approve move to approve the minutes from September 5th 2024 second all right motion and a second any further discussion all in favor i oppos motion
carries um at this time I guess one thing as a reminder I should have mentioned it earlier but if you have any electronic device please make sure it's in the silent position so it doesn't disturb anybody during the meeting and at this time we will um take
public comment for items that are not on today's agenda this is be for anybody in person or if there's anybody on WebEx that's pre-registered and are in the queue giana do you know do we have anybody
signed up on WebEx there we go thank you hey just testing we did have one person Oops we did have one person sign up in advance however they are not on WebEx we do have two individuals sign up for public comment in person okay so if
you're here to speak to anything not on the agenda oh I'm sorry you approve of publication please thems4 March 5th 2025 and March 19 2025 okay thank you so if there's anybody here to speak to anything that's not on today's agenda
now is the time if you can go ahead and please come forward um I will say and this goes for anybody that comes up in total we request that when you address the planning commission um please do not direct your comments to anybody
personally on the commission up here uh but rather directed at the issues at hand this provides mutual respect between the commission members and the public okay and do we need to swear everybody in now
you can either do it now or before the public hearing starts yeah let's go let's go ahead and swear everybody in now if you plan to give any public testimony today if you can please stand and raise your right hand and the clerk will swear you in you swear to affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth i hear
and before you speak um if you can when you come to the to the when you come up to speak please state your name address and then uh go ahead and and acknowledge that you've been sworn please my name is Ryan Flynn i live at 18526 Lake Idola Road um I just have a general
procedural comment uh before the hearing uh the anytime an NPU has a massive change in scope um I request or I suggest that we hold a new neighborhood meeting because there's a lot of
questions and concerns that can't be addressed in three minutes of public speaking um that and and I feel that a neighborhood meeting would allow all of us to get together and get a better understanding of exactly what we're looking at um that's my comment thank
you okay the next individual I have signed up for general comment is Nancy Hazelwood hi Nancy Hayeswood 34110 a nice place i'm going to get you all cheat sheets for procedure here you know like sign up and all
that okay so I've got about three different things to say and they're kind of relevant and they're kind of not thanks the first one is what I call Patel a cautionary tale you might have read this in Tampa Bay Times it happened
in Temple Terrace the city sold 20 acres of land land that's the Roerson Ranch to a group associated with Dr patel and it's Terrace Real Estate Holdings LLC that's associated with him they were
supposed to build a college of trade and technology they put a clause in the application that said in for this situation that they wouldn't have to do it if it was unfeasible so they did a
bait and switch now they're getting 360 units on 20 acres instead of a college of uh technical fields so y'all watch when Patel comes
calling okay anyways that's number one number two is Spectrum this is closer to home this is in the Nor Easter area plan they're working off Bayhead Road and Palamino and um some of the neighbors
were dismayed when they found one of the employees passed out in the car apparently he was dead drunk they called 911 and they aroused the guy and let him go the next thing that happened was a employee used a citizen's property
changed clothes visited the bathroom and then they were gone they were caught on camera that's how we know so the other difficulty to the neighbors with Spectrum is they're working at 8:30 on a Sunday when everybody's home and trying to
relax now on to the northeast protected area i have uh a suggestion an idea i'm hoping y'all will consider when you're working in the northeast rural area for anything i'd like to request all pvious
surfaces instead of asphalt all parking lots and northeast protected rural area let's go to pvious surfaces we are the Brooksville Ridge we are high recharge area this will help us save our water and look better in the
area so we have a dwindling water supply in the county and this is something that I hope will help with it and it will look better thank you guys all right thank you Nancy okay is there anybody else not signed up that wishes to speak to something not on
the agenda today please come forward good afternoon i'm Kathleen Schneider i live at 34553 Blandon Road in Date City it has come to my attention that there are
individuals in East Pasco that own nice pieces of property that they want to divide it for their family however when they made that application they were told "No you can't
do that you have to divide it into much smaller pieces to make a nice little subdivision in this case it's ongoing right now you guys need to be aware that there's something going on in the
background that is making it possible for people within the county to dictate what's happening with the land that people own it's It's not right if somebody comes in and says "I have 18 acres and I want to
get three six acre lots," they should be able to get that they shouldn't be told "No you have to divide it into 2 and 1/2 acre lots and do all kinds of crap it's not right you need to know it's happening we know it's happening and
it's not right and I hope you agree to watch out for it because it's happening okay thank you okay so nobody else here to speak to anything not on the agenda today
okay so we will move on to the public hearing portion of the agenda today we have um seven items in total on the public hearing agenda um my documents say two continuence items four consent items and one regular item
i believe it's four continuences so that's backwards four continuences to consent okay that's what I get for reading all right um so I guess as far as public procedures go inperson participants and participants attending through WebEx including the applicant
who are pre-registered for the planning commission meeting will be notified by county staff when they'll be permitted to speak applicants will be limited to five minutes and other participants will be limited to three minutes unless additional time is approved at least 40 24 hours in advance which I don't think
we have any of those today again once again inerson participants and WebEx participants please when you come forward please announce your name address agenda um item or title that you're going to speak to and then the
three or five minute timer will start um our agenda again is broken down into three sections there's continuence items consent items and regular items the consent items will be approved by regular vote unless an item is pulled from consent and once the motion is made on the consent agenda we'll call for a
second and the motion will be voted on so we want to go and start with the consent items giana good afternoon sorry continuous is first yeah let's Yeah good afternoon planning commission giana German Planning Development and Economic Growth um we're
going to get started with the continuence items and I'm going to go a little bit out of order today we are going to start with item PC5 since PC2 is its companion item for PC5 you are sitting at the local planning agency PDE-0144 development agreement for
Riverstone MPUD-KV Homes Tampa LLC and this is coming with the request to continue the item to April 17th 2025 planning commission at 1:30 p.m in Newport Richie okay is the applicant present
is there anybody here to speak on this item mr chair I have no objection to the continuence but um I do think that staff needs to fix the subject line for PC5 and PC2 because first of all they're doing the same thing so they should not
read differently um but more importantly the description of what's happening in PC2 is not totally accurate because they're asking for more than 66 homes not 66 homes and it's to complete a vision road not for substantive road
improvements so I'm not sure who came up with these titles but they need to be fixed okay so if you could just make your continuing subject to staff fixing the titles of PC5 and PC2 I'd appreciate it
okay noted want to move on to the next one the next item is PC2 and this is the companion substantial modification to the previous item PC5 PDE25-7838 a substantial modification in
the name of Riverstone MPUD and this is coming with the request to continue the item to the April 17th 2025 planning commission at 1:30m in Newport Richie okay is the applicant present anybody here to object
okay next item PC3 has a companion zoning amendment item PC4 for this item you are sitting as a local planning agency PTE25-0109 CPA2403 Elite 52P PD and this is coming
with the request to continue the item to the April 17th 2025 Planning Commission at 1:30 p.m in Newport Richie okay is the applicant present is there anybody here to object just a a question for
fellow planning commission members i I thought we used 41 as the dividing line between what was here and what was in Newport Richie anybody remember that or that's been the tradition yes traditionally yeah is there a reason this one continued to the
catchall meeting of April 17th [Laughter] barbara Bowl height 8627 Graham Boulevard um staff wasn't able to get the paperwork done for today and when we measured how far it is to drive here for
a neighbor versus driving to Newport Richie it's actually closer for them to drive to Newport Richie so that's the reasoning yeah I just noticed that in PC5 we specifically noted in that memorandum that anything west of that intersection would be Newport Richie but
then this one came up that's that's why I asked the question so everybody here okay with that i'm fine with it okay move on all right next item um the last item on the continuence
is item PC4 and this is the companion zoning amendment to the previous item PC3 it's PTE25-7811 it's a zoning amendment in the name of SR52 Elite-JP Elite Development LLC and this is also coming with the request to
continue the item to April 17th 2025 Planning Commission at 1:30 p.m in Newport Richie okay um I know the applicants present uh is there anybody here to speak on this item okay i think that's all the continuence
items motion to continue items PC2 PC3 PC4 and PC5 to the catch all in your report Richie on April 17th do you want to add um the subject to the staff corrections for the title for PC2 and five
Mr county Attorney that Yes if you could add that to your motion I'd appreciate it yes that's added to the motion mentioned okay motion and a second uh no further discussion all in favor i opposed motion carries all right I'm going to move on to the
consent items now uh this will be the last time I'm going out of order but we're going to go out of order one more time with item PC6 first or excuse me item PC7 first um this item has a companion reszoning which is item PC6 um chairman I would also like to
note for the record that both PC7 and PC6 we did receive a late exparte communications and it has been submitted to the clerk's office for item PC7 you are sitting at the local planning agency for this item
pte25-0174 is a comprehensive plan amendment CPA2320 SAV/Old Pasco town homes providing for a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use maps 2-15 and sheet 14 changing from res
3 residential three dwelling units per gross acre to res 6 residential six dwelling units per gross acre on approximately 18.36 acres of real property located at the northeast corner of Old Pass Asco Road and Hadlock Drive and we recommend the local planning
agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan okay is the applicant present is anybody here to speak on this item okay anything from up here anybody good okay next item PC6 is the companion
resoning to item PC7 PDE25-7776 a zoning amendment in the name of Old Pasco Road MPUD-SHV Home Property excuse me SAV Property Holdings LLC for a reasonzoning request from AR Agricultural Residential
Zoning District to an MPUD master plan unit development district to allow for the development of 106 town home dwelling units and associated infrastructure on approximately 18.36 acres located in central Pasco County and this is coming with the
recommendation of approval from the planning development and economic growth department okay the applicants present is there anybody here to speak on this item okay nothing else i think that's all the consent agend consent agenda it's a
motion anybody anybody wants to approve nobody wants to approve nobody wants to approve the consent agenda i'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda all right is there a second i'll second all right motion in a second any other discussion
all in favor i opposed motion carries okay and the last item that we have on the agenda today is a zoning amendment in the name of Evans County Line 80 MPUD presented by William Vermillion giana before you start that I
wanted to just note that when I pull up Mapper I still see the rural area within the urban concentration area that's there i assume there's a lag in getting the GIS updated but I know that's been pulled out of the you know we had the issues with the uh the rural area in the
urban referring to six and seven yeah correct right yes sir that that rural urban air service area has been adjusted it may be a lag at GIS but it has has been noted and it's in process okay good all right thank you uh I'm not Will Vermillion uh he's handsomemer than I am
my name is David Engel i'm the planning and economic development director for Pasco County and what I'd like to do is provide you with a 10,000 ft uh sight line to what's occurred uh with the Evans 80 project since the commission last deliberated on the uh project uh
the applicant and I have had extensive meetings and we've come up with an alternative MPD that will be presented today and the details will be discussed by Mr vermillion but I just wanted to give you a broad overview of what's transpired and what's changed the the
Evans organization has agreed to at least for 20 years to eliminate multifamily housing as a component of this project they've also agreed to modify uh the the land uses on the
property to be more business ccentric for the local community originally there were 300 multif family units there was 150 thou uh 1.5 million square feet of warehouse space so the new MPU plan does not have any multif family included um
the warehouse distribution has been capped off at 500,000 square ft there'll be a million square feet of other types of um commercial and industrial development um capping the retail that will support the business center to 100,000 square feet so you're going to
have approximately um 900,000 to a million square feet of small business flex that serves the local community the the applicant has also agreed and included in our um documentation modifications that they
are going to provide uh the appropriate setbacks off of the scenic roadway called Lake Iola Road and they've also agreed to architectural review standards for the buildings that are visible from Lake Iola Road they'll be using different types of treatments whether it
be brick or other facade elements so we don't see pre-cast tilt up concrete from the roadway uh there is going to be two um additional modifications that'll occur between now and the board of county commissioners meeting
one is there is a specific reference in the EDA to the '06 employment center and the comp plan and the '06 settlement um since there is an elimination at least now in the MPD plan removing the residential uh the county attorney's
office and council for the applicant are going to clean that up and then there since this has been pending for several years now the variation for the uh lack of an interconnection on the uh one part of the property that has to be updated to the current code and that'll be done
so also also so after the board um or the commission renders a opinion and decision today um the recommendation is brought to the board of county commissioners there's going to be a companion piece which will include not only the MPD but an economic incentive
agreement to incentivize the construction of 11 million worth of infrastructure to support the business park the reason is is that we're we're creating a new market up here and we want to have it done in a manner that is uh compatible with the existing
northeast area and in the event that after 20 years and we default back to having a multifamily residential component um there'll be a uh there'll be a a clawback provision that they have to pay back um a proportional share of
the um incentive agreement uh and the incentive dollars so that's it in a nutshell um if you if you have any questions I'll be here and I'd like to have Will present the details of the amended application thank you so David just one other major
change i think staff has now changed the recommendation from denial to approval oh yes yes very much so because it's been substantially modified to the extent where there's been an elimination of the multif family and the commercial industrial component is serving the local community and not just the
distribution you know uh queuing off of the I75 location because the warehousing and distribution doesn't employ a lot of jobs and it's it's not a real uh traffic it's not a real tax generator and lastly and most importantly it doesn't serve
local business people in the northeast area to be clear though it's not an elimination of multif family it's a mortorium for 20 years that's correct um and the reason is is that we have an 06 court settlement that the county executed allowing uh 300 multif family
apartment units i feel confident that with the incentives and the momentum of the project that we'll never get to the point where we have to consider apartment construction on this property are there other components to that economic incentive agreement or is it really related to the the infrastructure
purely um $11 million worth of infrastructure that's the reason for the are you able to talk about what excuse me are you able to at a broad level talk about what that entails as far as what sir infrastructure improvements oh yes I I have probable costs that have been generated by their
civil engineer and and might I add you know if there is a clawback after 20 years um I I just wanted to make a point that that clawback will add to the cost basis of the apartments and make it more market difficult no I just mean what type of infrastructure improvement well
there there's there's uh you know there's sewer i I mean not sewer there's storm sewer roadways uh pad ready construction laterals going into the industrial properties can I ask the question a different way David one of the reasons staff recommended denial
originally was because of the utilities yes is any of is the county having is part of this money going to go to extend utilities to the site or it will not there's a specific stipulation in the amended MPD conditions of approval that and unless the county provides utilities
at one point of time all of the individual parcels will be served by well and septic and when I read that condition am I correct in interpreting the language that it must be well and septic that that precludes any type of
package plant out there it does and in fact we had to adjust the language to preclude a package plant on that property and why because county policy is we don't want to have any more package plants in in the county i don't understand why why would I want why
would I want a septic system which is not capable of reducing nitrogen to the same levels as a package wastewater treatment plant why would that be a preferred option well the type of uses that'll be employed on the property the the waste will be
domestically related and not process related well domestic waste is a nitrogen generation no I understand why I'm asking i just don't understand why we would want to use low-level tech instead of a higher level tech well again I I just you know implement county
policy i don't have an answer for you but that's the policy of the county at this time all right well that's a question I'm going to be asking so you might want to get someone from utilities to explain that i I had that same question too okay sir thank you very much Mr
vermillion thank you David good afternoon William Vermillion Planning Development Economic Growth before I get started there have been some export communications provided to the clerk's office on this project thank you
perfect dramatic pause i didn't have to fill the time too much this time this is the Evans County Line Road ADMPD of course PD257738 we'll breeze through this uh this early stuff every everybody here
knows where this is at of course the the entitlements requested the location map the zoning map and the future land use map reflecting employment center here's an overall context map and
this shows the area in terms of what's planned in terms of the future land use of the area the subject site highlighted in red that purple area which encompasses the subject site is all employment center from the subject site at Lake Iola all the way to the I75
interchange to the south immediately residential nine dwelling units per acre across Blandon Road there's the old mixeduse flu which is more intense and allows for more density than the current employment center and then as we get across the interchange light industrial
employment center and some some commercial future land uses showing that this isn't just a a standalone parcel with employment center in the northeast rural It's characterized by the whole area here's the new master plan that David was speaking
to you'll notice the uh the green space there is that that 50-foot buffer on Lake Iola Road the applicant has agreed to both the the scenic corridor buffering as well as the the building buffering and facades that
are in uh LDC 6045 and northeast rule from the scenic corridors as well as the the buffering requirements of the northeast rule overlay that of course David spoke about this uh this variation changing the what was in your agenda memo spoke to the
possibility of an interconnection to the north previously we had worked with the applicant to try to get a possible stub out to the north but after talks with the community and talks with the gentlemen that live up there there's no requirement for an interconnection to the north and that's spelled out in
condition 19 specifically the northern connection the eastern connection is there's still a variation for there's a large category one wetland that the applicant doesn't intend to impact little bit of an overview of what what David just went over talking about the companion economic development agreement
that's being drafted and will be heard concurrently with this MPD which speaks to the period of time in which multif family can't be applied for per that EDA and condition 31 of your your new agenda packet there is a rural cross-section which is being adopted for Lakeola Road
as well as enhanced buffering and roadway features that condition is in condition 16 and if I could take a pause from the presentation I have sent that cross-section over to Patty patty if you don't mind pulling that up just to illustrate the the rural cross-section
it's 135 ft but a majority of that is is a clear space and um there's a 25 ft buffer of trees along each side of open space and where does that extend from William from where to where roughly it it's any
um scenic highway per the but but for this project where would that so so this this is the frontage but as well as that that southern road Bllandon is also a portion of this as well and so once it's that's the frontage okay there I I was just speaking in generalities not to what Joel is going
to be doing but just to the overall area bland will have the same typical section at the end of this as well Okay is that is that sufficient time for the typical i didn't want to I didn't want to take it away from you guys if you were if you were studying it too hard but uh I'll go back to the presentation
now i seen it before many many years ago it does it does look like one of the the handdrawn dug it out of the archives yes it it appears so and that that of course is within the um condition 16
basically 55 feet from the travel end perfect condition 32 speaks to the additional building buffering and design features that David touched on with those facads and the specific industrial buffering requirements as well as the maintenance responsibility of the applicant
this uh this is specifically talking to the the 50- foot setbacks as well as the possibility of a six-foot wall or the option of a burm to support commercial acreage again was reduced from a total of 10 to 8 acres in condition 33 and as
well as two conditions speaking to the first uh when we last spoke we talked about the employment center master plan the comprehensive plan that was was contemplated to be adopted in this area condition 35 speaks to this MPD acting
in good faith when that ma master plan is contemplated in the event that it is developed that there'll be a portion of that master plan in the future and condition 36 speaks to the improvements at the interchange of 75 even though they're well away from the the project the applicant is willing to work on that
I75 County Road 41 interchange with the applicable parties when those those improvements do happen as development comes with the uh the future land use that I showed on a previous slide and this comes to you with a recommendation of approval with
conditions i'm here for any questions any questions for Will so I I do have one um looking through my notes so we're worried about the buffering from Lake Isle Road and and other areas but when I read through the
uh the allowances we're letting them go 60 ft high on building heights for both i'm understanding the multif family is going to be delayed for 20 years but the industrial is also or the commercial piece in industrial piece is 60 foot
high yes sir and it is important I believe to note and Joel can correct me if I'm wrong where we last stood was that the multif family component was was largely restricted to town homes so they'll be nowhere close to 60 ft as well as condominiums but as far as the
condominium restriction goes we don't control pladding for condominiums so we may need some help with David Goldstein on how the enforcability works for for condominiums in that condition if I recall but for for the industrial yes 60
ft okay if I recall that's that's a specific comment that was pretty strongly suggested by the public as far as the height of the structures and and looking into neighboring properties and the like so I just wanted to bring that up for consideration i mean most
industrial buildings are 35 40T clear so correct and I'll let the applicant speak on if they're willing to reduce that or not okay william can you leave that plan back up just for a second because I have a question i don't know who's best to answer it because it's dealing with the
EDA but the $11 million that was quoted is it is it basically funding the on-site roadway network and storm water plant ponds i'm not I just wanted to get a general I don't think we need all the
details but I'm trying to figure out to Mr moody's question earlier what is it well we don't have an EDA and an EIA at this time what was discussed how about that but what was discussed was the roadway improvements on Lake Iola the internal collector road and service
roads uh regrading of the site balancing the the fill on the property and also creating pad ready locations to promate quick absorption by the industrial market so it's the horizontal infrastructure the county funds wouldn't
be used to put in the buffering or any of that stuff is that what you're It's It is not on It is not on the probable cost sir okay so as a general rule it's the it's the road rate improvements on Lake Oyola the on-site roads site clearing and
storm water is that generally accurate yes sir it's generally accurate that's correct David um so if the if this entire area is built out according to the future land uses that are there so the employment center the um multi-
um multi-use the um light industrial and so forth do you guys foresee the need for uh additional improvements to Lake Hiola and some of the roads around well I I think we need to have a master plan for that area of the county it is an employment center area there is some
currently high higher density residential and commercial areas there and we have to we need a sub area policy that'll govern the future development there so our next phase is since Evans is not part of that they're they cooperate but they're already here um we're gonna we're going to come forth
with a area plan and bring it forward to the planning commission for review because that was kind of I'm looking at the buffering for this particular project which we've improved the buffering from the last time we spoke obviously but if we end up having to make improvements to Lake Yella Road as
the rest of the area gets built out over time and that's going to erode into that buffering uh obviously and it's going to reduce some of the setbacks from where the buildings end up getting built so well we're going to maintain consistency with that cross-section through future development there in that area of the county those those two roads Blandon and
Lake Iola are designated scenic roadways so there'll be uniformity to the cross-section that we showed you so question about the master plan when we last discussed this item one of the issues I was not
comfortable with was that for this EC the comp plan specifically called for a stepping down of the intensity of the uses as we get towards the northeast rural area i see the step down in
intensity from east to west but I don't see a step down in intensity from north from south to north up against the the AR5 and AG flu land use category just to the north of the site how are we doing
that i understand there's a buffer there and I appreciate the buffer well you know it's it's it's it's really an east west transct that we're working with on a north south um and one of one of the reasons why this project's been laid out as such is is that the most maybe
unappealing visual construction is the distribution side and that'll be down in the low end of the property and invisible from the roadway regarding the north and south property owners they'll they'll have to comply the Evans project will have to comply with our buffer requirements between industrial and
residential why don't you feel there's a need to step it down only in the other direction um I I don't have a I don't have an answer for that i mean you say it's an east west transect well well that's the
way that the plan is designed now well I understand that i can see that and so was the previous plan step down from east to west i recognize that I maybe my comment was misunderstood at the last meeting what I was looking for is some step down in intensity to help ease the
impact to the residents immediately adjacent to the north um okay so they're they're not separated by a roadway like like No no no no i I understand what you're getting at right away they got a they're going to have a sixoot BM according to the conditions of approval
with potentially 60 foot high buildings well that that we can open up with the with the applicant at this point okay thank you yeah I understand that it's um it's going to have to conform with this this
buffering that's associated with industrial but um you know that's that's what applies to the rest of the county this is northeast rural protection area so well the issue is the comp plan didn't buffering is required and I appreciate the buffering but the comp plan
specifically calls for a step down in intensity well intensity and buffering aren't the one you will note that it's not only the buffer but we we did put um a automotive access driveway between the property line and the industrial uses to provide
additional setback it doesn't answer your question but you know we did try to address it through design talking about on the north side i see on the south side yeah the road's on the south side brian I don't have an answer sir and and I would hope that the applicant could have a discussion with
the planning commission on that matter okay so let me ask this too in one of the conditions of approval about the master plan says that the county part designed this so what was the county's involvement in designing this and when did the county get in the business of
designing master plans well we we didn't design the plan we designed the appropriate land uses for the property i didn't we didn't we didn't we didn't prepare the concept plan they did it under our direction in our in our
negotiation okay good catch okay anything else from up here for the applicant all right the applicant present yes Mr chairman uh Joel Tu development consultant 4700 Ridge View Road Palm
Harbor Florida and I represent the property owner and the applicant Evans Properties Inc um before I get into the uh revisions that the applicant has agreed to with uh planning staff um I do want to just
to perfect the record just in case there is a challenge by anyone down the road uh to this proceeding to specifically incorporate by reference all the documents and the prior testimony that we submitted at the February 6th 2025
hearing uh when this was continued um the other bookkeeping item is after that February 6th hearing where for the first time we heard some discussion about comp plan consistency uh you'll recall a lot
of that discussion uh we asked our planning consultant Ronald F panta AICP from Coastal Engineering and Associates to prepare a written consistency analysis um that I won't bore you with all the details but we would like
permission to submit that for filing and into the record um just so the record is perfected on any consistency move to receive second motion a second all in favor i opposed motion carries
thank you for indulging the procedural nicities um I have been authorized by Evans Properties uh Incorporated as I said the property owner and applicant to acknowledge that the applicant now agrees with the proposed revisions to
the conditions of approval and the revised uh conceptual master plan and I emphasize the word conceptual uh because that of course is what the MCU MPU master plan is we concur and appreciate
staff's recommendation of approval with these conditions um one item which was addressed a moment ago by the planning commission um the proposed building height on the industrial uses uh to my knowledge that was just a standard
building height that's been approved repeatedly by the county and is authorized in the land development code of 60 ft however in consultation with my client and our engineer we're happy to reduce that 60 foot height to 45 foot
building height our engineer assures us that that should suffice for either the flex space or any distribution space um so we're happy to make that reduction and we'll stipulate to that change in that condition
um as to the other two items I was going to address before you leave the height issue there's also a 60 foot height for I realize it's only a potential use is the residential do are you sticking with
your wanting 60 foot on that one no in the event uh in the event that there does become a residential element which I think we all acknowledge is extremely unlikely if this is approved based on the current conditions because obviously once we start the site development and
invoke the economic senate agreement uh we're probably going to hit the point of no return very quickly in phase one uh would be my guess but uh to answer your question Mr goldstein the same 45 ft would certainly be adequate on the residential element so we would agree to
that so you would agree to 45 ft for any use basically correct i think across the board 45 foot height limit is perfectly acceptable for the cor the corporate office park the flex space even if there were town homes or anything of that sort
uh 21 years or later from now so those those two changes would be fine um on the Lake Iola frontage I just wanted to point out that it's not just the 50 foot buffer landscape setback
area that that is in addition to the additional rightway that we're providing so there was some comment that future improvements to Lake Iola could somehow take away from that 50-foot buffer that's not correct because we're using the full rightway width that the master
roadway plan the county's adopted long range plan has for the ultimate buildout improvements so we're we're not only deeding the additional rightway for that future road improvement but still have from that 50 ft more set back with the
landscape buffer and quarter um on the north boundary um I think our position on that is uh is pretty firm and let me explain why um I think when the county designated employment center
on this property uh everyone knew that that meant that this was going to be an employment center within that overall northeast roll protection area and we've discussed that so I think it's patently unfair to
say that somehow we can't use that i think Evans offer to provide when the code only requires a 15 foot setback on that boundary and we're offering not only 50 ft more than three times the
setback but committing to either build a six-foot burm with landscaping or a solid opaque wall no PVC i think that setback transition clearly fulfills the intent of any buffering transition step down whatever you'd like to call it and
I point out not to cast stones but now that we've looked further that one adjoining property to the north that has a home it actually has five structures on that property some of which are literally right on our property line so
it's not like we're doing something that isn't done there i don't know if all those are permitted i don't know if all those are in compliance but there are like five structures on that parcel so I think we're being very generous here to set back 50 feet landscape buffer burm
build a wall and we're going to do that for our full northern boundary which is quite a run so respectfully that's really all we can do there uh we're taking quite a shot here given what Evans opinion of its vested rights are
uh and I think this is a very fair compromise and as I said I appreciate Mr engel and his staff uh coming to terms with us on this propo proposal and we greatly would encourage you to please uh recommend approval if you can see fit
we're happy to answer any questions trying not to ask you a law question without making you practice law i asked the question about the intent i'll punt that to the lawyers there there's a condition in here about when the MPU becomes effective and
expirations of appeal periods and it's almost like there's an anticipation that there may be litigation following this that was the reason for my question i was looking trying to figure out do we have something that's defensible if this is appealed well I I can address that by
telling you uh what Evans Council uh they they participated obviously in drafting that provision mr goldstein has reviewed it uh you always hope you don't have a third-party challenge uh consistency challenge but
obviously for Evans to give up its 2006 vested rights that its attorneys firmly believe they have uh we need assurance that either we get this package resolution uh approved or we don't and if we don't
the attorneys insist that we go back to ground zero and be able to stand upon those existing rights so um we have no knowledge of any third-party challenge this is just in an abundance of caution in case someone sees fit obviously if
you recommend approval and the BCC feels sees fit to approve it we're hopeful that that will be the end of it and the 30-day period will run uh with no appeal being filed and we can proceed with the project and do our best to implement the
economic development agreement uh with Mr engel is there any development advantage to you having the ability to have a package plant versus the sep Okay I appreciate you bringing that back up um we are in
agreement with what staff has told us is the administration's strong preference on how utilities be dealt with uh that's been county utilities and county administrators policy for quite a while here uh we all know that these specific
comprehensive plan policies in this case appear to authorize something more such as a package plant say it uses the word shall construct not may or and and again we're trying to make peace uh we're willing to do it the county's way if
that gets this resolved but if you notice even the reddraft of that particular condition it does say there in the red line part unless otherwise agreed between the county and the applicant so in the event the county
engineer public utilities and or the county administrator decide that they get comfortable with something else that condition would allow us to do that but if they don't change their mind and agree that that's a better solution then obviously we're authorized to go with
the wells and septic so I think that's to be addressed and our capable engineer may try to do as you know exactly what you said he may try to convince the county engineer that there actually is a better solution um and that's more environmentally friendly and doesn't
really hurt the county's business position uh clearly we're not getting the utilities business we're just trying to provide for our own project and I I'm not I don't know where I don't understand what the reason for that particular policy David alluded to was
what I'm looking for is what's good for the environment and you know we're trying to get the county off i may be speculating here and maybe David Engel got a better answer from utilities but I suspect the underlying concern is that the county has had to go out and acquire
a number of private utilities at great expense to the taxpayers of Pasco County and utility rateayers and I think they're trying to avoid having to go out and acquire another private utility but but David Engle could tell me well I will tell you
I in absolutely no way support the creation of a private utility but using the highest and best technology for the environment i don't think we should then be ruling out a technology because we're scared of a utility that that's all i in no way
would support a private utility here i I concur with Mr goldstein's characterization of the why of that policy um we just don't want to inherit a failed package plant and have to take care well I don't think you want to inherit a failed industrial septic
system either that's a lot worse for the environment well sir I I don't you know that's that's the direction I've had since I've been here for seven years to avoid package plants so I can only tell you that and I'm I'm just saying whoever makes such policies there's a difference between having a package plant and
having a private utility there's lots of mobile home parks out here and RV parks that have their own package plants that aren't private utilities that aren't a problem for the county and I don't see here anybody proposing to create a private utility so I hope they'll
rethink that policy but this the applicant appears to be in agreement i'm going to let it go but I'm just telling the powers that be you might want to rethink that and I agree with Mr moody on that i never read that condition as being a private utility condition but using the highest and best technology in
a package plant that's available so hopefully they will reconsider that highest and best treat technology yes okay any other questions from up here i think just from a procedural standpoint um Joel I guess while you're up here
probably a question for you i know at the last hearing we had closed public comment but I believe there's been some discussion and since this the county's position changed etc I I think it's probably best to reopen this for public comment do you agree yes
I was asked that question and I conferred with uh Evans Properties Legal Council and also with Evans Properties and we agree that at least on the subjects of the conditions which have been revised and the revised master plan
namely the new changes that it'd be appropriate to offer any member of the public who wishes to address those new points uh the opportunity to speak again we have no objection to that i think it's probably the correct thing to do okay thank you and Joel one more thing while you're up here and you might need
your conditions of approval on it but it's 32D it deals with the northern uh buffer i appreciate your efforts there it's it's really great to to see that added but I did notice in there that parking is a permitted use within that buffer area um you know it's however
that landscape drainage parking perimeter wall BM similar features should be allowed within the uh 50oot building setback area um so are we saying that parking is going to be allowed within well my thought was that if we're required to do a six-foot burm
with landscaping on top or a six-foot opaque wall that cars parked there will not be visible from the adjacent property anyway because of that required screening so and you know I didn't think there was any harm in having you know a
roll of parking behind the building for employees or something if if that's what the site we haven't obviously laid out these lots but I just don't see what the harm is of uh flat surface parking i'm actually glad he brought that up to me that answers my question about a step down in uses okay parking is a reduction
in the intensity of the use okay would you be agreeable to vehicular parking because parking could be trucks and maybe that's very fair comment yes yes sir we would be happy to stipulate that along that northern um buffer area that
it had to be just vehicular surface car yep vehicular passenger vehicle parking what condition number is that 32 just so we don't lose track can we just get a motion for that change now so moved second second a motion and a third
all in favor i oppose motion carries and we'll we'll work that condition out with Mr engel and Mr goldstein since we have a couple other things to tweak here before BCC we want to do Well I also wanted to address briefly address Mr moody's question yes I do think it's
Nobody asked me whether I thought it was defensible and I'm the one that probably would have to defend it um thought it was interesting that you asked Joel but um I'm busy but yes I think it is subject to us making a tweak to condition one related to the applicability of the comp plan but Joel
and I have discussed that that can be done and Okay all right uh but I do have one question before we open up to public comment um related to condition 25 and it's based on the discussion planning commission just had i guess my question
is I'm wondering whether the unless me agreed otherwise by the county and the MPD owner might be in the wrong spot like I'm wondering if it belongs after it says shall be required to utilize wells water storage tanks and septic tanks i'm wondering if that
should say unless mutually agreed otherwise by the because that's a sentence dealing with what happens until we have public water and sewer yes I I I agree with you just in case public utilities and administrator decide that a purely
private technology plant that isn't for public customers and isn't a private utility would be a better solution so yes David I do agree that just moving that qualifier up would probably remove ambiguity because that's what I'm talking I'm saying that if the county
insists then we're committed to do well in septic but I would at least like the opportunity for our engineer when we get into specific site design to be able to have a sitdown with the county engineer and utilities and and hopefully convince them to do the best the best
solution but you know we understand we can't commit the county to that because as of this date that's contrary to their policy but moving that qualifier is a good idea we can do that in the touchup for BCC
if we get a motion on that one too we want to do the building height while we're at it yes yes yeah and then we've got uh and also reduce the building height to 45 ft for all the uses so moved again second was there somebody else we missed
besides those two okay motion a second all in favor i oppose motion carries did you all get all that yeah you think oh so just to clarify what we just approved it was the the modification of
the building height to 45 ft for all uses for all uses and it was the revision to condition 25 to move that unless mutually agreed upon language up to the discussion on the septic tanks and wells
okay um Okay now we will open this up for public comment is there anybody here to speak on this item you want to call them in order Giana that everybody signed up i only have one person signed up at this time so we'll call that person and then we'll
go through open comment uh Ryan Fliner sorry hello again uh Ryan Flyn 18526 Lake Road um here representing my family uh my in-laws my wife and my children um I first want to say thank you to all
parties uh for migrating away from the original concept of the 300 apartments town homes whatever you want to call them and the 1.5 million square ft of warehouses um while this is a great step forward as a directly affected party I still have a lot of questions uh
concerns and and seek assurances um I have read the Northeast Pasco rural protection overlay district over and over again and the one line that sticks out more than any other is in the intent and purposes section the provision of this section is int are intended to
assist in preserving and protecting northeast Pasco County's existing rural and agricultural character for existing residents while providing for the area's over orderly and appropriate growth to allow future residents the opportunity
to enjoy this its rural lifestyle um I'm not against I make that clear i'm not against the Evans right to develop their property i just want it to be compatible with the area and being directly next door to the north um it means a lot to
us so uh that said my questions concerns lie in how will this NPU adhere to the to that mission statement my question concerns are based on the understanding I should not be visually intruded upon by developments next to my rural residential property
um we already talked about a little bit but what is the maximum what is the set maximum building height you said 45 ft um mainly I asked that because I don't want something towering over me um uh uh number two we request assurances
that the individual lots outlined in the master plan cannot be combined to backdoor their way back into additional large warehouses uh the buffering um I appreciate that you guys are including us in the buffering um but we request
that it be the sixoot burn with irrigated landscaping on top to provide additional height uh if you're going um to approve this uh and number four um per F future
land use 2.1.9 we want restrictions on lighting to protect our night sky i do not want to be intruded upon by bright lights at night it's nice and dark and I can see the stars right now i don't want to lose that um we very much like the
idea of a business park keyword park we envision small offices and a in a landscape setting serving our local businesses and residents um again I thank you guys for all the meetings we've had on this and the you know that
it wasn't just run through so thank you okay thank you Ryan uh next Nancy you want to come next wow i'm amazed nancy Hayeswood 3411 now a nice place i'm amazed at the jobs
that y'all have done working on this i see so much improvement and I want to congratulate staff and planning on what they have suggested uh we're on the way to doing something much better than what
was originally conceived i want to point out that even though it's been asked quite a few times before the county never came up with a plan on how the EC was supposed to fit into Northeast Rural we did ask we want special conditions
for it in there so that's why we're at this point today and thank God you all have finally worked it out a lot better um I would like to as I was talking about earlier per pvious surfaces would
be perfect in this area and ought to be a condition all over Northeast in order to help sustain our natural resources also as Ryan said lights i was just looking at lights in different um
commercial areas in Tampa and if you think about Eore City and the lights they have there those round things up there that don't affect the whole neighborhood because yes right now we have dark sky and we all like it there
and appreciate it having some type of big overhead light is just not going to get it what we need is something smaller that fits in and so I'm hoping that is something that we can come
into thank you for your time and attention and any other suggestion that you can do that can help keep us a community and a small community I'd appreciate it thank you all okay thank you
who's next yep come on up hi my name is Judy Maddox i live on Hawkeye Road just down from the development area and my concern is the traffic and I know you've reduced it se
by several hundred cars um with a just a smaller amount of uh families going in there but Lake Iola and Spring Lake Highway are getting very popular with people deciding that they
can get through going to Brooksville um from I75 and the County Road 41 exit and which has increased a lot of the traffic on there and I'm afraid that there's going to be a lot of accidents
because of that curb between Platinum Road and Lake Iola Road and I would like to see if we could do something about that intersection and I know there's been several um studies done on it and right now we have the RV park going in
and it's going to cause a major major problem in there so I'd like to see maybe a possible light in there or a roundabout of some not a roundabout you don't want a roundabout with RV RVs sorry um but something that will help
that intersection because it's the the road itself is getting very very um crowded and hard sometimes it it takes a while to get out from Hawkeye Road onto Lake Iola Road and I would like to see a
just a possible uh um rearrangement of that intersection thank you okay thank you is there anybody else here to speak mr chair I do have one question for
staff but or Joel can answer i I don't know because I was not involved in the discussions of this so the comment about the plan and whether it's subject to change there is a condition that talks about it it's conceptual that it's subject to change as long as the
substantive intent is achieved is is the substantive intent for the purple area of the plan that it's going to be smaller office/light industrial buildings and not large warehouses
because it's showing sort of more indiv smaller lots for that area so I'm I just want to be clear because the the concern was raised that that area might become large warehouses as well but I don't I don't know whether that condition necessarily
prohibits it or not i don't know what the substantive intent was for the purple area well if you also look at the color coding on that the intent and the discussion I had with Mr engel which he made pretty clear to me uh was answer
your question basically is yes the intent is uh that any large flex warehouse distribution would be in the yellow area just on the eastern part that literally goes the elevation change almost 100 foot drop literally where you
would not even see those buildings uh from either the west or the south uh and that the front half of the project if you will will be a corporate office park/s smaller flex space on smaller individual lots now obviously the reason
that both Mr engel and I need a little bit of wiggle room is uh he's passed along leads with a couple very credible uh light industrial corporate park developers who are looking for that type of smaller flex space but without having
one of them actually on board to come in and help design this we don't know exactly what it will look like but the intent is absolutely what you said that the western half will be committed to those smaller more individual local uses
and that any large use would be put on the back 40 if you will in this case literally the back 40 since it's an 80acre track so yes and that's why we colorcoded it differently yeah I I read the color coding but it just says it
says office lightnustrial light industrial could include distribution so but if if we we I'll be happy to work on the terminology and the coding on the master plan with Mr with Mr engel but that that's our intent are
you looking for like a a square footage limit well we don't know until you get users i don't I'm not necessarily looking for anything i I'm I'm trying to be there's an existing condition that says that this plan is I guess you could call it somewhat binding it it's
conceptually binding as long as the substantive intent is achieved i was just trying to clarify what was the substant of intent for well the substantive intent is you're going to have this grid system that's why we defined those roads it was critical to have that one common road
along the south boundary for example because if everything south of this is also EC so we want the ability to integrate this with other corporate park other uses uh so there there was a method to the madness that Mr engel and I went through to come up with what we
did we've got as specific as we thought we could be without having a user in hand and I think in all fairness we need to have some trust and confidence in the planning staff to implement this uh when
we get user we can't we can't plan and design something that doesn't exist i I don't disagree with you i was just trying to figure out to just it was on the record because that condition doesn't say what the substantive intent of the plan is let me
see if I can word it this way so you can play the tape back one day uh the intent is that the larger users will be pushed to the rear part of the property smaller users would be pushed toward the front along with any support commercial with
the intent being that we create something that looks like a integrated corporate office park look on the front with smaller flex space users that are potentially office or clean light industrial or support commercial and
then you would transition on the rear half to either more substantial industrial users or warehouse distribution depending what the market is i was going to suggest you can make a modification to the color coding description that says you know office light industrial excluding
warehouse distribution that's a good idea excluding warehouse distribution but I I think as David pointed out that is something that's allowed in the I1 light industrial park type zoning and distribution doesn't necessarily have to
mean million square foot right may not be huge it could be Yeah so I So I think look I'm comfortable what Joel just said it just it's not documented anywhere so maybe staff William are you listening you could repeat what Joel just said
somewhere in your agenda memo so that 10 years from now when somebody wants to know what the substantive intent of this plan was that it's documented somewhere we can even add a note on the master plan i think it's easier to verbalize it than it is to draw out specifically something that you don't have yeah I'm
not trying to lock anybody into anything i want to be clear i just that there's a phrase in the condition that talks about the substantive intent of the plan and I didn't it's not stated anywhere so I just want it state it somewhere as to what the it clearly there's a different intent for the yellow area versus the
purple area but somebody needs to explain what that is well it's just colors that I like my new my new passive site so Joel can you speak to the the first gentleman that came up and spoke for public comment you mentioned um the idea of a
preference to a burm with some landscaping up top of the burm to add some height to it would would you be opposed to something thank you for bringing that up that was my little asterisk right here by this item i spoke with my client and our engineer and because of the quantity of dirt that we
need to move on this topographically uh challenged site uh we will we will agree to delete the opaque wall option along the northern boundary and commit to doing the landscape burm we're going to be moving a bunch of dirt anyway we'll
just move enough to burm that up and landscape it and irrigate it it'll be a more attractive solution long term and frankly one that we can maintain easier than maintaining a wall excellent and then the second part to that too is uh talking about um lighting at night so
now my understanding on that and William or Gavin or Mr engel can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is the LDC already requires directional light right i mean aren't we required to use directional downlight so so I mean and the fixture requirements already in the
code i think I think it was more directed towards um if now we've already reduced to to 45 ft so that's going to help some but I think there might have been some concern even with directional lighting if you had a at the top of a 45T structure that can still create some light pollution so well as we all know
you got to do enough to be safe and not have liability and not have right assault in the parking lot maybe reducing the the lighting height down further on the building to still accomplish what you're trying i think they were any developer will be happy to do the minimum lighting the county will
require that keeps that keeps their lawyers and their insurance carrier happy so we'll work with staff on that but we have no reason or desire to have robust lighting beyond whatever the code requires or can be approved on the
construction plans i do recall there have been some MPDs in the past where staff has imposed a dark sky lighting requirement but I don't know if that's something that would apply here or not um maybe William or Terry knows what I'm talking about but I mean
they've all seen that condition in other MPD if there's any place to have it it would be within the rural protection area one of the things you have to take into consideration and I agree with Joel there's a fine line between I I've got to have enough light for safety and
security and yet we don't want to disturb neighbors but if we're going to have a 6 foot high landscaped BM assuming there's trees and shrubs and then I've got this tree canopy along Lake Iola Road and I've got an additional buffer along
the frontage of Lake Iola Road i've got lots of trees that those things over time and you know over 20 or 30 years are going to get tall and they will provide an adequate light screen in and of themselves you got to keep that in mind
maybe on day one they won't but over time they will yeah I mean it's probably going to be anything that's it's around the edge of the property where the lighting may be an issue in the beginning and especially if you do if you do do a parking area there along right behind that burn and
you have parking lot lighting there so uh I could I could see that potentially being an issue for a neighbor of other neighborhoods we're happy to work on a condition with staff prior to BCC where where we try to work with what they're comfortable they have parameters to do
let's say on on any any perimeter areas adjacent on the west or north because the south is going to be employment center right and the east is nothing so uh we have no problem on the west and
north boundary on the perimeter northbound working working or being sensitive to to directional lighting and minimizing external light impacts that that's not a problem we'll come up with something with uh Mr engel and Mr
vermillion on that so as a cleanup item if somebody can make a motion condition Yeah the 32 needs to be modified for the northern north side buffer somebody can make a motion for
that change yeah to eliminate the opaque wall option so moved second all right motion a second all in favor i opposed motion carries um we also need to make somehow document so I don't know if we can make a motion
at the document this extent of intent for the areas to the east you mean the substantive intent of the the MPD plan yeah i think if you just make a motion for staff to update in their that in their agenda memo I think that would
suffice so move second motion a second all in favor i opposed motion carries and then uh I don't know about the lighting if we need to address that at all the motion I know he's on record saying he'll work with staff on that so
unless you have something specific that's I probably would just let that lie until staff can figure it out sounds good yeah i thought staff was going to offer up a dark sky condition but apparently Well that this is why I'm here william got through that here I am i jumped the
gun a couple things for the record um before Barbara left our friendly neighborhood Barbara left uh she uh she let me know that we did approve a task order in uh 2024 for that intersection at Lake Bllandon and Iola for improvements there that was on the CIP
so we do have funding allocated for that that the citizen talked about and uh dark skies is already required as a portion of the land development code in northeast role so the intersections in design or where is that uh we we have funds allocated for it and it's being designed and permitted by the
the contractor so let me get to your second comment though William i'm aware that it's required but I thought that was the section of the code that only applied to residential mr chairman is that accurate or am I wrong narosto's playing development economic growth um
that is true that the part of the code belongs to the residential but I believe Lake Aiola is residential rural as a scenic road it would apply as one of the classifications of the scenic road well in an abundance of caution can you just put it in your MPD conditions yeah we
can't and you said that applies along Lake but not necessarily on the northern boundary uh correct but I I I don't disagree with the conversation that's taking place that you could put into the condition as Joel's noted right we we'll work on that condition that applies that lighting
condition on the west and north boundary of the MPD terry can you just elaborate on what what does that mean what I don't want to do is give them a vague something that's a completely vague standard to me or is unsafe
there's two classifications that appear in the comprehensive plan in the land development code scenic rural roadway and uh No I'm talking about the dark sky oh the dark sky one second
i was curious too that I think it's in section 604 of the Yeah basically it provides um fraud lighting is there like a foot candle or a lumen restriction or something or Yeah it's the based on the illumination engineering society of North Americ
okay all right so there's a standard yes all right fair enough and I I think basically Joel just said he acknowledged that he's going to work with a condition for the BCC meeting i'm good so I'm good with that chris did you have something else i was just curious what that
intersection is going to look like yeah it's anticipated to be a three-way stop currently is what the task order contemplated for the design and the permitting okay thank you okay um any other further public comment
no anything else from the DAS did we get the vehicle parking only change i think that was already part of the prior motion okay and if anybody wants to know what the dark sky requirement it's 604.5 F of the
code but it talks about for subdivisions that was my point Terry is that it it doesn't clearly apply to a office industrial park so you'll create a condition that kind of mimics that i think that was I think that was the intent yeah as long as there's a
standard it refers to the standards that are created by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America is that the Illuminati i'm assuming that's a reputable organization if it's in our code but I I can't tell you that I haven't read their their materials pretty good chance they
don't exist that's what they want you to think all right I think we've closed public comment at this point joel are you offering Did you want any more rebuttal or you're done okay guy with his hand raised does
somebody want to I mean well we close just Just as a reminder if you take more public comment you got to give more rebuttal too but question but I like Joel too so all right so you can come forward please and I don't know i need to swarm okay you can just raise your
right hand and the clerk will swian these were the testimony you're about to give yes my name is uh James Navaro Senior and um I have a question regarding Just need your address sir oh I'm sorry uh
34721 Blandon Road Date City Florida thank you um I have a question regarding the part of the commercial end the back end of it can someone uh theoretically
buy a a portion of that or are they renting a portion of that where they could have distribution or would that be denied say the Evans folks said that the first
the I guess the e east part of that commercial can be small units but what about the back how much of the back are they going to buy and then say you know we need all of this distribution and then we got the same problem sir sir if
we could pull up the site plan so we know what you're talking about cuz you're saying back and I don't know what you're talking about which part well the back this back which color which color yellow the yellow yeah okay the yellow yeah that portion but the back half I I
believe it's designated for um some kind of uh industrial area my understanding is the entire yellow area is allow would be allowed to have distribution industrial distribution warehouse it's it's the area we were talking about earlier where that's may not be allowed
is in the per is in the purple area well I think what we're talking about is scale right right we mean large large scale distribution and warehousing i mean how many acres he's talking about 40 acres in that yellow area so I say
somebody comes along and wants excuse me to buy the whole thing or to rent whatever their you know their agreement is they can conceivably put a distribution center there in the yellow am I incorrect yes that's accurate in the yellow area correct but not in the
pink or purple but I think what he's asking is could they buy the whole thing and turn it into that and then I I think the answer is and yeah I think it's yes but but it's yes but if it's a substantive change where it doesn't meet the spirit
of this plan exactly then they'd have to come back for a modification and there would be more hearings like this this is this is why I asked the question what was the substantive intent and what the answer I got back was that the yellow area was available for distribution it was the it was the purple area where I
was unclear but I think Joel statement and unless David Ingler tells me I'm wrong the intent of the yellow area is is potentially for a single user distribution center and Mr nvar just to clarify I think the reason why they wanted to locate those heavier or larger uses towards that portion of the
property is because of topography so there's a huge drop in that part of the property which will make a large building like that less visible from outside but u following up on that uh there still would be uh the large uh
semis going through and and and as such affecting the interstate as well is that am I correct to assume that that's correct yes yeah i don't know doesn't sound good from a pers um a landowner's
perspective in my opinion thank you well and I think a lot of that traffic circulation too and and the applicant can probably speak to this but I think that's part partially why probably why the driveway to the project is on the south side of the of the plan to keep the traffic further away from that
northeast rural area to the north but is still they would at some point have to go uh down I75 there wouldn't they one of the things one of the things where that's difficult with this is we have to remember that this is only one parcel
within a much larger employment center designated area yeah but what's one Excuse me for interrupting but what's one grain of sand nothing but you put it all together and you got a desert you didn't let me finish you brought him up
here yeah that's all right and I at the outset of this hearing Mr engel explained that the county staff over the coming months or year will be working on a grand master plan along with the
applicant for the and a sub area policy for the overall EC the county has acknowledged that it has not done so and now recognizes the need to do so to plan this and I think that's why they have these red arrows up here where these
properties to the south are included in this EC area and the plan is that this will be one cohesive development so you may see some of that traffic coming through those other properties not necessarily all the way out to Lake Iola
and down the center drive of the of this park i think the and it's hard to see it with just this parcel but there's going to be a larger plan for the area could we go back to that slide it was in the very beginning of the um county's presentation of kind of the overall area
view of the EC while we're pulling the slide up Mr chair I would also point out that we are capping distribution warehousing 500,000 square feet where it was a million and a half square feet when the original proposal was submitted that will humiliarate some of the heavy
semi-generational site oh that's good to know well well thank you folks appreciate it joel Joel you want to offer any more rebuttal no thank you okay very good
they were just pulling that up i always want you know that might be helpful for the gentleman to see the overall view of the future land use was that the map you're looking for Derek or that was I think that's what they It was the prior one
there you go um no it was the one zoomed out before had color codes um there you go so that kind of gives you an idea with you know so so the purple is all EC this
is EC this is EC on both sides of the of the interstate here that's industrial this is this is industrial here so I think Commissioner Moody's point was that there might be a direct connection from Blandon at some point from those properties to the south is that what you were trying to say yes
that is exactly the point okay all right no uh anything else from up here or do we have a motion i I will make the motion to approve and I'll say that uh you know I appreciate Mr tool's efforts on this it's been I
was a hard no on this before you guys have come light years Mr evans thank you for your work on this you've come light years in what you proposed to us previously so I will approve we'll second all right there's a motion in a second any other
discussion and I will I will echo Mr pool's thoughts when everybody left here a month ago I was not sure everybody was going to get together to play in the sandbox but I'm glad they did and uh no further discussion just a comment on the traffic to that gentleman too is you
know them removing the 300 um units from that plan for 20 years that's going to substantially reduce some of the traffic impact as well sir can't talk from the audience okay uh no further discussion we have a
motion in a second all in favor i oppose motion carries and I think that concludes our agenda for today we have a motion to adjurnn motion to adjurnn motion a second all in favor opposed motion carries
[Music] pasco County waterways and wildlife depend on you to keep them healthy excess fertilizer grass clippings trash oils and pet waste wash into gutters and storm drains when it rains storm water carries these pollutants directly into our lakes and rivers creating an
unhealthy environment for fish water foul and other aquatic animals storm drains are meant for clean rainwater most other discharges are illegal if you suspect an illicit discharge please contact Pasco County Department of Public Works at 7278-34-3611
[Music]
[Music] [Applause]
[Music]
[Music] hey hey [Music] hey heat heat
[Music]
[Music] [Applause] go Pasco and Pasco County Libraries are perfect partners perfect place to buy your bus pass i'm very excited to
introduce our newest library where you could buy bus passes we listened to your requests and you can now buy your bus passes at the downtown Newport Richie Library it's very convenient to come
from where I live to the library to pick up a bus pass before I would have to use two buses and now I can use one the Newport Richie Public Library acts as a information hub to the entire West Pasco
community we are thrilled to be able to offer the Go Pasco bus passes as an additional service for our community the bus passes that you could buy at the downtown Newport Richie Library are 31-day regular and reduced and the 20
ride and don't forget you can get your day passes on the bus the partnership between Go Pasco and the Newport Richie Library downtown is a great great partnership we've wanted this for many years i just love Go
Pasco find your way to Pasco County Libraries with Go Pasco at goasco.com [Music] hey everyone I'm Ryan Hughes public
information officer for Pasco County we get a lot of questions about our recycling program like what to do with everyday items like this little thing well let me walk you through it the same company that picks up your trash also picks up your
recycling once those items are collected the reusable materials go on a long journey from your home or office to Pasco County's recycling transfer facility everything that's recycled ends up right here in this huge pile our
county facility accepts recycling from all over the county before we send it to a private material recovery facility in Penllis then sophisticated machines go through every bit of recycling and sort it into the right spot from there it's off to other facilities where it's
broken down and eventually made into something new like this in Pasco County if you pay for curbside trash service weekly recycling is included just contact your hauler for a pickup schedule or order a recycling
cart thank you for helping make Pasco a cleaner greener community for more information on Pasco's recycling program visit my pasco.net [Music] today we're out here with PCPT and we
are training um our dogs our puppies to enter and ride a bus we are on the paratransit bus and the regular buses we've learned about ramps and stairs and lifts and um each of our puppies had an opportunity to go up and down and into
the bus and ride one for some of them it's the very first time there are a lot of sounds and feels of a bus like our fixed route you can feel the ground shaking there's a lot of movement you hear breaking sometimes you