##VIDEO ID:gJV3H2fpd3A## [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] CL she's making the mic hot [Music] you [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] right [Music] see [Music] [Music] right it's over okay and I'm not looking and I'm not predisposed I just have questions about it h i don't know Jo Bon ER we ask thought they had to tell you tell you we're can ask right should Bey how did f [Music] f waiting for Denise and soda that is just so that hor so I actually so they won't grow anywhere that's ever flooded do not like wet Fe don't like it either yeah I was going to say tells good history got yeah the continu I thought you g dirty something ready okay I like to hold the meeting to order please just stand for a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for which stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all all right Madam Clark we have the roll call jard here Christopher P here John Moody here Matthew Ms here hot here Chris Williams here chairman Charles Ray here and the proof of publication please the following items were advertised in the Tampa Day times on April 17th 2024 May 1st 2024 May May 22nd 2024 July 10th 2024 and July 24th 2024 and by certified mailing and site all right thank you very much do you have a motion to approve the minutes motion to approve the minutes from the June 20th and July 11th meetings second have a motion in the second for the discussion of the motion all in favor signify by saying I I oppos like sign okay so i' like to welcome everybody today we're the Planning Commission we're appointed by the County Commission and we meet twice monthly we serve as a local planning agency and we hold public hearings and transmit to the board of County Commissioners recommendations comprehensive plan amendments uh comprehensive land amendments Land Development code amendments resuming and conditional use requests the Planning Commission is the final decision-making body four special exceptions certain appeals variance requests and certain alternative standards requests however final decisions may be uh appealed to the board of County Commissioners F was in opposition to any development code Amendment resoning conditional use or any item where the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the County Commission it's important to prate attend the appropriate County Commission meeting those of you not familiar with the format of the meetings we have three segments we usually have continuances we have consent and we have regular items so it's been our custom to to uh approve request for continuances from the staff or the applicant unless there are extraordinary circumstances and we'll go through the continuances one at a time then follow with the consent agenda items those items are where we have not received any um comments from the staff or from the public uh and that we'll go through those each one at a time for any as we read them off there if there's any that you want to have heard today feel free to raise your hand and I'll recognize you and pull it off the consent agenda to go on the regular agenda and the regular agenda items are the ones that we'll talk about today and be fully vetted um applicants will have uh 3 minutes to make the presentation and obors will have or or concerned citizens will have 3 minutes to State their concerns and ask questions and following the presentation um uh and the responses the uh applicant will have an opportunity to come back have five minutes to respond and answer those questions if there's been a request at least uh 24 hours prior to this meeting and writing for extra time uh it may have been granted as there I don't think there has been is there no Mr chair no requests and nobody on WebEx yeah okay we don't have anyone signed in on WebEx but we do have applicants on WebEx okay all right um so uh for those of you who plan to give testimony or come up and speak today if you please stand raise your right hand and be sworn anybody wants to speak do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth so help you God very good so please uh take take a moment to silence your phones if you have your phone with you so it won't interrupt the speakers and before we start the regular meeting um this is an opportunity for anyone who's here to talk about something not on today's agenda if you have like to come up and make a comment or ask a question this is the time to do it is there anybody that has that okay I don't see any one so I guess with that we can start Mr Denise good afternoon Mr chair Planning Commission members Denise Hernandez Planning Development and economic growth Department we're going to start with item PC3 which is drd2 2436 this is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners um amending the Land Development code several sections uh to um to address um listed in to address invasive species this item is being withdrawn so there is no further action required however we do have someone who has signed up to speak for this item okay um well let's go ahead and make the motion do we want to make a motion to withdraw do we need to make a I don't I don't think there's a motion required just no who's who's here would like to speak I do have Miss Jennifer CI signed up to speak on that item okay um would you like to handle that at the end of the consent agenda yeah let's do that okay okay did you call for regular comment though yeah okay yeah I did so shall I move on to item pc4 yes item pc4 is Peg 24781 it's a zoning Amendment sr52 realy LLC sr52 realy the request is to continue the item to the September 19th 20124 Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 in newpt richening okay on this item the applicant is virtually present okay uh is going to have any comment if not is there anybody here like to speak on this one okay I don't see anyone or hear anyone next move on to the next item the next item is pc5 it's p24 7769 is the zoning Amendment me's 4 LLC the request is to continue the item to a date uncertain and the applicant is physic is um virtually present okay yeah would the applicant have anything to say on this the applicant is Miss will height if you'd like to promote her in case she has something to add Miss will height do you have anything okay hearing nothing is there any uh one here that's here to speak on this one all right then next following item is pc6 zoning Amendment sunos Lakes mpud master plan unit development r risk Florida JV uh the request is to continue the item to a date uncertain okay and that's a that's a staff initiated item okay anyone else here to speak on this one no public comment okay all right I think that's all the continuances right that's all the continuances okay so I hear a motion on the continu I'll make the motion to continue pc4 to September 19th and pc5 and pc6 to dates on C second motion and second any further discussion of the motion if not all in favor signify by saying I I uh likewise no or likewise okay motion carries Mr chair before Denise uh starts on the consent I want to let you know I've got a conflict on PC 10 pc1 and pc14 so I won't be voting on those I don't know want to call for public comment and see if any of those need to restructure the consent okay all right as as we come up with those we'll see if there's anything okay what was pc1 and PC 14 yeah 10 10 11 and 14 now move on to item pc7 that's Peg 24787 it's a special exception for Lakes Shore Boulevard LLC for freestanding commercial and recre recreational vehicle and boat storage facility in a C1 District this is a companion item to item PCA where they're asking for the resoning to be um C1 comes you with a recommendation of approval with conditions which include of course that it would not take effect until such time as the zoning is approved and also there's a limitation on the number of years that it can it will have that special exception and allowing the applicant um to to reapply for it um at at least 90 days prior to the expiration and it comes here with a recommendation of approval in with conditions as included in your agenda packet and then also one of the conditions does also include the um live local act condition okay is there is the applicant present okay is the applicant present the applicant is virtually present okay we're going to pull that one then okay pull will you be pulling PC8 which is the companion uh yes I I assume you're both right okay so Peg uh 24 7806 Lakes Shore Boulevard LLC which is a resoning from P2 and mf2 to C1 um that one is Al also being ped okay okay thank you m um following item is pc9 and that is Peg 24780 it's a zoning Amendment Pasco Window and Door Plus more LLC it's for a change in zoning from an R1 MH single family mobile home district and C2 General commercial District to a C2 General commercial district with a voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction that limits the uses to those uses allowed within the C2 District which is also known as the live local act deed restriction comes through with a recommendation of approval is the applicant present the applicant is virtually present is anyone here to object okay I see no objection next one do you want me to move on to PC2 so that you can vote on the items together excluding Mr Po um we'll leave 10 and 11 out right yes sir is that what you're saying yes yeah would you like that we're going to have still have to vote on them but you want us to vote on them separately yeah okay okay all right so I'm going to move on to item PC2 mhm and that's Peg 24781 15 it's 4802 se102 place l l c Mitchell Lando Lakes Boulevard and Gator Lane this is for a change in zoning from an AR agricultural residential district to a C2 General commercial district with voluntarily agreed upon deed restrictions that are listed in your um findings of fact number two um and those deed restrictions are as a result of conversations with the District School Board of Pasco am I looking at the wrong one District School Board of Pasco County where that access to this property um or this property is adjacent to the Pasco High School and also the district school board offices um for the school district so um basically they have specifically asked that certain uses be prohibited and those are Li listed in your findings of fact number 2B Additionally the school board ask that access be prohibited through Gator Lane this parcel does have access to land Lakes Boulevard so it comes to you with with a recommendation of approval with approval um of the zoning action with the deed restrictions U voluntarily agreed upon deed restrictions listed and of course it does also include the live local act deed restriction and the applicant is virtually present okay anyone here to object I'm sorry did you raise your hand no you Scrat item pc13 is being pulled there is someone here who would like to speak on that item 13's being pulled okay yes sir yes Mr chair and pc14 um Mr P is uh you know we're going to move on to pc15 PC 15 is peg2 42107 it's a we're going to pull that one too it is going to be pulled okay all right okay so that is your consent agenda where Mr P will not be where Mr P will be voting on the items will not be okay so motion wait you no PC 15 is still on consent correct you're pulling 14 or 15 so let's go through the ones that are still on consent thought 9 and 12 Oh I thought you pull 14 okay motion to approve pc9 and PC2 on the consent agenda second okay we have a motion in a second and further discussion PC 14 for clarification Mr chrispol is not going to be voting on that and it's also going to be pulled because there are folks here who are okay want want to speak on that all right so let's uh we have a motion a second for discussion if not all in favor signify by saying I I oppos like sign he motion carries okay now we're going to move on to item pc10 mhm and that is peg2 47809 zoning Amendment BMC 9 LLC and black marlin Capital LLC it's for a change in zoning from an r1h single family mobile home District to a C2 General commercial district with a voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction that um preserves the uses to those uses um allowed in the C2 District also known as a live local act D restriction comes here with a recommendation of approval all right is the African president the applicant is virtually present anyone here to object if not do I hear a motion and what's the understanding did you want to do pc1 because that's another consent where Mr P will be okay we can do both of them on item pc1 is Peg 24781 4 zoning Amendment 39 and chansy LLC 39 and chansy change in zoning from a C1 neighborhood commercial District to a C2 General commercial district with a voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction uh preserving those uses to C for those uses listed as permitted uses within the C2 District also known as a live local act restriction uh comes here with a recommendation of approval and the applicant is physically present all right um is anyone here to object move to approve Items PC 10 and pc1 second we have a motion in a second uh with the uh extension from commissioner Chris Po from both of those items um so all in favor signifying by saying I I I oppose like sign okay Mr chair we're going to move on to the first item that was pulled which is pc7 move back give [Applause] right okay good afternoon Liam Divine planning and economic growth Department this is pc7 peg2 24- 7807 it's a special exception request for a freestanding commercial and RV boat storage facility in C1 neighborhood um neighborhood commercial District in the name of Lakeshore Boulevard LLC the future land use is RO the applicant is requesting to develop the property with a freestanding RV and Boat Storage in conformance with C1 neighborhood commercial District standards for development this does have a companion resoning which is PC8 on your agenda the subject site is located on the west side of lakes Shore Boulevard approximately 233 ft Southwest of 5 Bay Road it's located in the West Market area and urban service area here is our context map of the area here is a zoomed in AAL of the subject site the surrounding future L juice to the north east and south is all R and to the West Is Res six and the surrounding zoning to the north is mf2 and C1 to the east is PUD to the South is mf2 and to the West is R2 the subject site consists of a one-story concrete block building that was formerly utilized as a notary and fingerprinting service access to the property is from lak Shore Boulevard a 30t wide um private maintained local Road here is the conceptual site conceptual site [Music] plan and this is coming with recommendations for approvals as provided in your agenda packet I'm here if you have any questions okay so the memorandum talked about substandard road conditions is their obligation to fix the road or just pay proportionate fair share I would defer to our subject matter experts for that and can we show the planning can we Street VI the road I don't know if Nemo or not Nemo um if Ben or Stacy is online for uh yes good afternoon Ben ELO here with Transportation planet um so the roadway of lore Boulevard uh from uh Lakeside wom Drive Northwest to 5 Road it is indeed standard um the let's see as far as um having that roadway um conform to our County standards um the uh trip generation for this one um based on the zoning uh is about the the DAT trips is the 57 trips and as such the um uh based on our Land Development code 91.4 um they they're they're pretty much um uh they're pretty much uh [Music] the yeah they're they're pretty much going to have to mitigate that roadway through design construction donation uh to do that do we know what substandard Road mitigation they need to do can we Street you there I assume we're waiting for an ANW for so Ben how far do they have to fix the road's in pretty rough shape the question is you're saying they're required to fix it how far are they required to fix this thing and does that include fixing this pavement I mean that's in pretty rough shape yes sir so they're going to have to do a rway assessment basically from 5 uh roadway all the way to their projects um uh Drive um and and if that that's estimate in case that they need need to um you know uh p b the roadway um then they would have to do some but they have to do the assessment to indicate what type of mitigation they would have to do for that roadway um well yeah it's rough it's pretty much a rough State um you know um there are Pooles and yeah that's shown there they need to rep [Music] thiss uh yes if if if the engineer um indicates such that they have to do that then then yes bringing up to County standards okay that satisfy you joh for a moment thank you you're welcome thank you okay what other questions do we have going to hear from the applicant you you don't have anything else stff okay all right the applicant present web back Sor Miss Russo you have been promoted if you would please unmute and also State uh your name and address for the record and whether you've been sworn um my name is um I have not been SW if you raise your right hand and uh repeat back to the Clark do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth sorry do you swear for the testimony you're about to give the truth and help you God I do okay thank you all right uh go right ahead your connection is Miss Russo we cannot hear you you're you're very you have a very spotty connection you're breaking up why don't you try now can no it's still you're still breaking [Music] up do you want to revisit later in the agenda or yeah it's it's still very difficult to to hear you okay we're going to we're going to back move on to another item on the agenda yeah Mr chair based on what has been pulled the following item would be item PC 13 and that is cacus West and beauty good afternoon William Vermillion Planning Development economic growth this is the calacas West Mudd Peg 2475 97 a rough location of this resoning just to the south of State Road 52 in the central pasal employment Village this resoning is from AC agricultural to Mudd master plan unit development to allow for the maximum development of 155 single family detached units 67 single family attached units 168,50 ft of support commercial and 125,000 ft of light and dust reel this is on approximately 177.8mm Brothers here is the location map the current zoning reflecting AC the future land use reflecting employment center here is an overall contextual map showing the location of this project within the larger Central Pasco employment Village area to the Far West there you can see Aaron cut off and to the Far East Bellamy brothers the approved zonings within the central Pasco employment Village the Swope imp pey and Eagles one and Eagle 2 and then to the very Southwestern portion you can see a little sliver of Outlaw Ridge and to the north outside of central Pasco employment Village you have paletto Ridge or formerly known as for King the the subject site you'll see on this map has two Vision roads that run through it from North to South Vision Road AA and from east to west Vision Road s uh it should be noted that the the future orange belt Trail runs along the southern portion of this property and this project will be connect connecting uh via pedestrian connection to that future Trail here is the master plan you'll see The Black Arrow to the South indicating a pedestrian connection and those yellow arrows indicating potential future cross axis as well as the two Vision roads to be constructed on the premise the red areas indicate the support commercial the purple the light industrial and the brown is the medium resident uh medium density residential here is the currently approved master plan for the central Pasco employment Village you can see the the vision Road alignment is the same and the kakas West NY is following the guidelines laid out by the sub area in terms of the approved land use with the red for support commercial the critical linkage and wetlands the purple for light industrial and then to the South the medium density residential the applicant is only seeking one variation from 91611 to not provide a vehicular interconnect to the south of the subject site as to the south of subject site we have the orange belt Trail and then further the Swift Mud property a meaning a meaningful vehicular connection could not be made and with that it comes to you with a recommend ation of approval with conditions are there any questions for myself any questions okay thank you thank you all right jaby Mr chairman Clark hobby hobby and hobby 109 North breast Street Tampa Florida been sworn um staff gave a pretty thorough presentation so I'm not going to say a lot but the the upshot of it is this this project was put on hold a couple of years ago because of issues with um the land owners and that was all worked out but it's following the construct uh um of CP EV it's the right location it's the right entitlements in the areas that the conceptual master plan for CPE shows um we were not subject to PM 26 but we we voluntarily chose to meet all those requirements anyway because we know that's what the county would prefer to see um we want to be a good neighbor here and in the last day or two we submitted a revised master plan to better show where our connection will be down to the orange belt Trail so we feel like we're following all the rules and I'm here to answer any questions you might have all right do we have any questions anybody all right thank thanks good afternoon thank you for the opportunity to speak U my name is christe Zimmer 3615 pinec con Court land Lakes as most of you know the Cypress Creek wellfield is a very sensitive piece of property uh with the amount of construction of PL plans that you guys have already approved I am speaking in opposition of this plan with the density that you're allowing if you allow it the 168,000 Ft of corporate business park Target industrial Light industrial is going to leave a negative impact on that Cypress Creek wellfield for many years we've been very protective of that area because it is a main resource of water for the Hillsboro Pasco and pinelis counties uh even commissioner Seth waitman stated that that area is such a significant area for our water supply and water quality so that studying it is one thing but we think we would really really need to understand the impacts we are going doing to D serving that because the water supply is obviously for the Tampa Bay Area Ascension resources Cypress Creek wellfield near the northern section of the property serves as an important source of water for surrounding region is managed by the Tampa Bay Water there are restricted areas around the water facility a substantial amount of money has already been spent on previous studies when trying to put roads through the wellfield I do not understand why we need to spend more money on something that has already been determined not feasible uh the the uh Tampa Hills Expressway had tried to put it Beltway through there years ago and determined that the project uh is ahead of its Authority uh in because of the environmental sensitivity the department considers the Cyprus Creek we as a fatal flaw area a piece of land the department would never touch one of the factors that have been said here today is that I got the information from Tania Gordman the chairman or the director of the no that the PDN for the orange belt Trail is is now in revision due to its negative impact to the wetlands so before you approve this also the vision road is not even in the lrtp and that is not should not even be a consideration approving this project without it even being in a long range Transportation plan I ask that you ask these the applicant to go back and revise that eliminate the amount of industrial that you're impacting on that north side of the wellfield the water does run south and all those projects that you're approving are going to be a negative impact and this particular project is closer to the wellfield than the others but we have to find a line and draw that line somewhere before we do major damage thank you thank you very much anyone else anyone else that's the only person I had signed up to speak on that item it's the applicant Comm commers uh just so you're aware the board and the original group of property owners were very aware of the issues related to Cypress Creek when the planning for cypr for a CPE V began in about 2010 and there special conditions both in the sub area policies for this area and all of the MPS related to surface water treatment surface water design setbacks from the special area that she's talking about which by the way is about a half mile or a mile from this site we're not building the uh Trail the orange belt Trail the adjacent mpud has a condition requiring that we would connect to it so that that's a nonissue but the board adopted a series of special policies which are implemented in the mpud to specifically not cause any damage to Cypress Creek in the manner that was being alleged we we will not be able to do it we're meeting all kinds of special pre-treatment and other standards for surface water drainage so we specifically do not adversely affect the wellfield we're very much aware of that okay any question answer any other questions Mr Obi I just wanted to reiterate um I know it was mentioned about the um entitlements but cpep was entitled as a whole and and this project is is just using what their percentage was pre predetermined already corre we are following the percentage and the layout of the uses to the te that the board's approved in a conceptual master plan for it one last thing there was a discussion about where the industrial or corporate business park location is on our site it's about one mile away from where the well field is it's it's not anywhere near anyway thank you thank you Clark just real quick Clark sure yes Catherine my time to her okay I just I just there was I correct Catherine starky uh 4920 gallan Court Newport Richie I was sworn in um the orange belt Trail is not is definitely going through there as you know we've secured easements from um folks there and the plan is for it to come along there and get to the trail that's been connected on overpass to get down to the school district um down on uh is it overpass or Old Pasco what what where's your Old Pasco yeah Old Pasco so that our students don't have to get out on the road and drive but they have an alternative uh method to get down to that big complex so the trail um which has been on the state map for 15 20 years is definitely coming through there thank you thank you thank you C all right anyone else any comments okay no could John can you restate what you said just so people can ask if the proposed industrial uses were light industrial okay thank thank you okay there's nothing else so hear a motion move to recommend approval of item pc13 as presented call second motion and second further discussion on the motion all in favor signify by saying I iOS like sign okay motion carries Mr chair would you like to move back to um item pc7 I believe we have the applicant available by call7 so that'll be seven and eight really right yes pc7 and PC8 okay all right let's give it one more time uh m Russo are you with us hello can you hear me now yes yes we can much better okay great sorry about that I do apologize My Name Is AO the address is 1 9 G Lane 33625 I'm working under Michael hofman and I'll be representing both the applicant as well as engineering the proposed project involves reing three Parcels toing 3.62 Acres from P2 and Ms to C1 the purpose of the resoning is to accommodate the addition of a freestanding recreational boat and facility while also keeping the existing use of cite um per LBC section St St facilities anding recreational facilities are committed within the C1 building as special event and specialen has been for currently with theing to the Northeast is currently C1 demonstrating the conversal competitive within the vicinity and we believe this transition from po2 and MF to C1 Zing asign with evolving needs in the community and brings a mix of commercial and Professional Services while maintaining theing Ling pattern there are approximately 1.22 Acres of Category 2 lines on the site and the provided a 25 W back andelin theal impact poens will also be provided on to accommodate for the additional impervious area there's a separate entrance for the RV and Bo facility which will have a gate and a fire truck turn for emergency access and it requires 75 separation from the gate to the RightWay line has been considered as well the property is going to all standards in the code as well as provide a tene landscaping to the north and a Tennesse to the [Music] eastly mentioned that there concerns regarding the condition of boulard standard analysis did mention that medication is needed from the property access road which will be handled at the time of development this development approvable and we fin request your approval as well to keep your time and I'll take any questions you have so does your client recognize that they're going to have an obligation to pave a substantial length of roadway that's in horrendous condition they're aware of this and they are going to be hiring an engineer to do that mitigation analysis to see the extent of it um and they're also considering potentially asking neighbor properties if they would consider working together to get this gr done since that it's going to benefit numer all the property on that road so they're they're um they're looking further into this but yes they are aware that for the conditions they would be required to do so so how does your proposed resoning comply with comp plan policy Ed 1.6.2 preservation of capacity for employment generating uses the exis thing you said is there would remain um um so it would be multiple use property in addition to the RV existing use would be there which is so I guess the question that I have is this is clearly an office Park everything else in this neighborhood is an office why not just use the land to build more office we have a hospital that's just gone through a brand new expansion and is even proposing additional expansion there's lots of opportunity to rent offices to doctors and other support Medical Services where's the need for boat and RV storage in an office park that's understandable um this was something that the clients were wanting to have the use um and with this new condition of the 15year expiration datee that does give opportunity in 15 years to change those use to more commercial um oriented such as an office but this is the direction that the client wanted to go with their property well I I understand that what I'm asking them is how does this proposal comply with that policy of the comp plan that says we're going to reserve that our sites for high paying employment generating land uses such as office industrial Unemployment Center uses it's an office Park everything around understand that and them keeping me the existing office that is on site would I gu the way that they're complying with [Music] that okay I don't have any more questions okay any other questions from up here no anybody from the audience I see no I see ask David a question par me can I ask David Engle a question yes so we allow boat and RB storage by special exception in light industrial zoning but we have a standard condition that says if the Economic Development Council or some other entity can bring some employment generating user to the site that they'll discontinue that use and I don't know if you have access to what that condition is you said that's an industrial category in light industrial it's a special exception just like in C1 but in light industrial staff typically imposes a condition or the board typically imposes a condition that says you can use this as V garage storage but if we come along and we've got someone that wants to use it for light industrial then you're going to discontinue use okay Mr Moody Denise is looking it up I've never had a circumstance where we've had toose that since I've been the planning director but uh there may be a template that we use that I tend to side with um commissioner Moody here I'm I'm not sure if it's compatible with the the area you this is like you said it's all Office Park uh around there is a hospital right across the street um granted you know uh outdoor storage is pretty easy to convert um in the future but it's or it's easier than freestanding building would be for instance but um I tend to agree it's I don't I'm not sure if it's compatible with the area would that be uh considered more like a transitional use until such time as there a demand I think that's that's what I'm looking for as I see when we do this with li we basically say hey if we can bring an employment generating use there then you'll give up the boat in RV storage the right now the proposed condition is that they can have this special exception for 15 years well hospitals expanding now right I mean so if a group of doctors wants to come in here and build an office yeah I mean it's two years from now I'd hate to have it tied up as a boat and RV storage place and I'm frankly not seeing where's the market that's the the owner's problem I just don't personally see where there's a market for boat and RV storage in the middle of an office park next to a hospital thank you thank you do we know the staff know where other boat yards boat storage yards are is that in the agenda packet yes I recall reading something about how there was five in the area or something that was not in the agenda packet um we the nearest next boat RB storage is right is there one in Lakeside Woodlands just around the corner I I don't recall I don't know off the top of my head but I can answer a little bit to the condition about 15 years so um we have used the condition in 15 years um before in industrial special exceptions for RV and Boat Storage um that was a Land Development change that I think happened in um 21 22 so about two years ago um and we did that based off of an industrial study that we had done of the county and we um determined that those aren't necessarily employment generating uses but they could be temporary uses in industrial um zoning districts um so we added that to to C3 which is a waterfall District into i1 and I2 um for that so that section that is currently highlighted was always used there for um purposes for industrial we didn't actually know it was appropriate for this case because it's commercial in C1 and and definitely lower density and we also didn't have a study that was showing that um those aren't necessarily um full employment generating and additionally they would still have a professional office on on the site in as a mixture of uses so a professional office and then the RV and Boat Storage but if you feel that we need to add the the language that is highlighted that we've used before in industrial um in i1 special exception cases we can certainly do that I would just ask if the applicant is acceptable to that that basically say states that in that 15-year time period if um Pasco County Economic Department Council or or um Pasco County finds a a higher gross end user they would have to Forfeit their special exception use I be more likely to recommend approval if that was the case yeah I mean the thing is there's not tremendous demand for office right now however it is near the hospital so there's more demand in that location but you know if there hasn't been a demand and there's been no you know rush to build an office complex there I would hate to deny the property on the opportunity have some kind of transitional use you know so I would agree I'm not sure that the applicant nor the engineer understands the costs of repaving that road and I'm seriously doubting that all your neighbors are going to willingly chip in if you're it's on your back to do it but that's your risk yeah yeah that that is I'm with you I'm fine with it as a transitional use but if they if we can get a group of doctors from the hospital that wants to come over there and build an office that's a better use than a boat RV we just approved a Workforce affordable housing multif family just few hundred ft away from that what was the obligation do we remember what the obligation was they are required to bring the road to standard from Project entrance all the way up to 5A which would pass the site so what happens so here's a problem with our substandard road system so we look at each project in a vacuum and not all of the projects here so now we've got two Property Owners with the same obligation so how does that get resolved and again the idea with that Workforce affordable housing was to provide spaces for employees of that medical area to live a little bit more ably it's so what's you know for having a boat in RV storage uh taking up valuable space for employment generating opportunities I don't know I do also know that the hospital is considering expansion of the property that's directly north of there by the shopping center yes Mr chairman I just wanted to speak to the provision that Mr Moody requested that we read it to the record MH it's a little bit misleading to the extent that the way it's written Now The Economic Development Council or the office of economic growth would have to bring a Target industry to the property so that's a business and if the business doesn't secure the entire property and build an office building for itself this uh provision would not be helpful so we have to reward the it's a narrow window of yes that provision is pretty narrow it would have to be the pedc we just change the words Target industry to say office [Music] User it's a P1 although if we resolve this it won't be a P1 District it'll be what's the FL what's the flu for this property the flu is R Ro well in the event an office user proposed to build on his property there would be a land transaction with the owner and they would purchase the property yeah R doesn't fit with the RO either so you want to try to structure a word I mean some verbage there you comfortable with Elizabeth um if you want to whatever word is more appropriate whatever David I think what he's I think what he's trying to say is that office use isn't necessarily a Target industry that's correct the medical office wouldn't be classified as a Target industry under the state statute and definition okay so can we just change the word office user or medical office user medical industry yeah it could be medical or or related office users yeah medical or related office use yeah I'd be okay with that all right we've made the amendment is that acceptable to the applicant Mr chair I got a question okay uh we have another question so if I understand The Proposal correctly they're going to have an an office the existing office building is going to remain and then they're going to have a portion of the property that's boat and RV storage is that correct correct and there's a requirement that they come in with a site plan yes before they do anything I me Brad this question might be for you what does the whole site then get put under the requirements of 11:05 or they do they divvy up a portion of the site that's held to 1105 standards or how does something like that work see it doesn't help just to sit at the back of the room I'm going have to take a shop across the street now uh Brad tipping Planning Development and economic growth uh can you ask that again well you'd have a mixed use on the property and a portion of the property would be governed by 11:05 for the storage use correct and a portion of the site would not not how does that I mean you start talking about buffering and all the development requirements that go with the site plan how would that even get applied to this kind of mixed use so the the 1105 the storage facility language actually has some of that Corridor style Graphics that show different uses if you have a barrier used between something and another site how you have to design that use uh we can look at those but well 1105 apply to this particular Road uh well not not for the specific Corridor but there's parts of it Des standards for outdoor storage I mean you can you can request that I mean for example you got you're going to have screening requirements so you're going to take that office building it's going to be tucked behind a PVC fence that's got to be put up right so you can actually make the request that certain uses be in certain orientations for that um yeah I'm I'm just struggling with with the mixed use I guess that's just all the things that are popping in my head and the whether the boat in RV storage belongs in in this location so that that was why I was asking the question got it thanks and that applicant recognizes that the county allows one driveway cut per parcel it seems like there's a lot of challenges here that's right I'm just not understands the Flaming Hoops of fire that they're going to have to jump through and actually get this done public comment yeah I I asked for public comment I don't think there was [Music] any anybody any suggestions since there's no a comment I think we need to either make a motion one way or the other or continue it give the applicant an opportunity to rethink you know what his obligations are here and if it's really worth it because just to pave that road is going to be a lot of money I agree so maybe a continuance to allow him to think about it's a good idea I I just don't think it's good planning I mean it's I I'm all about trying to allow a property owner try to make money with their property but it's just not good [Music] planning all right so do I hear a motion was a suggestion a two-month continuance or the two the motion a two-month continuance I just said perhaps a continu I just I took that as a motion so moved days continue sir I have a second October 17th would be I think Derek seconded that didn't you Derek no I probably I probably wouldn't jump onto that okay probably move it I'll second y second okay we have a motion in a second to continue for 60 days October October 17th Planning Commission 130 Newport Richie okay so all in favor of the motion signify by saying I I I I I oppose like sign nay okay motion carries that a or that was a obate the continu is a good compromise however so PC8 is the companion resoning to that special exception that was just continued I can certainly go through that that will apply to pc7 and PC8 right well you need to take you still have to the same thing chance to comment okay we'll go through okay you can't pass one without the other Power Point unless you just want me to read it into record yeah open the public hearing you need to go through that process okay we'll through PC8 will'll go quickly um okay p 24- 7806 a zoning mment in Lake Shore Boulevard LLC it's a rezoning from P2 professional office and mf2 multif family high density District to C1 neighborhood commercial District the future land use is rir and again the applicant is requesting to rezone to C1 so they can have um apply and go through the process of a special exception for an RV and Boat Storage and comply with C1 standards and 1105 standards it's on the west side of Lake Shore Boulevard approximately 233 ft Southwest of 5A Road subject site is located in the West Market area and urban service area here is our aerial views once again zoomed in surrounding future land use surrounding zoning subject site consists of a on story um concrete building that was formerly used as a notary and fingerprinting service um and access is through Lake Shore Boulevard the nearest Trail segment is by the um Trail which is about 260 ft Northeast of the subject property and this is coming with a recommendation for approval all right we know the applicant this President okay I assume is no is there anyone here to speak on this one we have no one signed up to speak on this one nor on WebEx very good okay any questions or motions from the Z are you going to make your same motion have a motion we do have a motion I'll make a motion to continue second we have a motion days same 60 days yeah October and that continuing state is October 17th um Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 of4 rich okay all in favor of the motion signify by saying I I those like sign nay to be consistent with my previous vote consistently obstinate have an offer I know okay all right keep it straight Denise where are we going we are now on item pc14 which is DG 27739 so I'll take my name for the record just in case it needs to be done Liam Divine planning and economic growth Department this is pc14 Fletcher mpud peg2 24-7 739 it's an mpug zoning Amendment from AC agriculture district and R1 MH single family mobile home District to mpud to allow for the development of 350 multif family dwelling units 160 town home dwelling units and 100 square ft of commercial and Associated infrastructure 100,000 100,000 sareet 100,000 ft what did I say 100 100 well that's a big difference um 100,000 square feet of commercial and Associated infrastructure the subject site is on the southwest side Leland Avenue and east of us41 it's located in the Central Market area and is outside of the urban service area and rural areas here is a context map here's the zoomed in aerial I would point out pilot country is directly to the southeast of the subject site pilot country airport the surrounding future land use is AG and res 3 to the north Ag and res 3 to the east to the South Is Res 3 and Ro and to the West Is Res 3 the surrounding zoning to the north is AC RMH and C2 to the east is AC and a r to the South is a r and RMH and to the West is r mhc2 and mpud here's some context related to the MP in the area there are several muds I will um point out just a couple um to the west of the site is T Tela MP which was approved for 800 um single family homes um to the south of that is Enterprise um sorry Enterprise Park MP which was approved for 200,000 Square ft of industrial and 35,000 square ft of commercial and then south of the site is long leaf Groves MP which was approved for 9 5,000 ft of commercial 15,000 ft of office and 350 apartments and that one's also adjacent to the pilot country airport here is the master plane we do have a conceptual um there are specific um conditions with this conceptual in I believe um condition one and the project does have a loom the applicant is requesting four different variations from one from LDC section 42.5 D the applicant requests a waiver from the distance requirement for the sale of alcohol beverages this mpud um Peg agrees with this variation um this mpud is proposing a mixture mixed use compact development pattern that is walkable as such the buildings will be close together and the development will need flexibility regarding the mixture of uses they are also requesting A variation from LDC 91.3 M um which is the the applicants seeking that variation from the LGC requirement for interconnections and cross access in areas where there are wetlands and Runway protection um which are to the south and east of the subject site um Peg agrees with this to avoid those such inter sorry to avoid those such interconnections on the south and east side um of the property will help preserve the wetlands environment and avoid possible flooding in the area Additionally the pilot country Runway protection Zone to the east um will by not allowing that interconnection and cross access will pre preserve future expansion LDC 95.1 the applicant is requesting a waiver from the neighborhood parks requirement for multi family apartment portion of the development um Parks Parks Rex and natural resources um agrees with this variation multif family Parcels are intended to be developed with a higher density and than other residential developments therefore basing Park acreage on up Upland acreage of the site rather than the number of proposed units is more appropriate and the last variation is LDC section 97.1 the applicant is requesting um a minimum 15% reduction in the overall multifam parking ratio um Peg agrees with this um this MPD is again proposing a mixture of uses compact development patterns that is walkable reducing the multif family parking ratio to 1.9 um spaces per unit and reducing the um impervious surfaces and this is coming with recommendation for approval with conditions as provided in your agenda packet okay thank you Mr D appreciate that any questions for so on that uh conceptual plan parcel H and partiel G1 which is kept clear for um the um approach for the runway so G G1 is not for the approach that would be parcel H that is the basically the runway protection Zone for um the airport which cuts off access to G correct um however we do understand that this there's wetlands and there's going to be you know impervious area that they're going to have to do water compensation for so um parcel G1 is allowed for ponds and water that was going to be my question you know cuz it mentioned um a reduction of the parking size to reduce in perious area and I was wondering if H and G1 were counted into that as per you know for the for purposes of the pro project or if they were just looking at impervious area on the D1 c b a so in condition number one and I'm going to read it parcel G1 allows for ponds for water compensation and Landscaping that complies with the FAA regulations in 605 um so parcel H which is the um essentially the runway protection Zone um there are no structures or ponds or Landscaping because that's prohibited in Your Land Development code when we did the airport zoning ordinance not too long ago um so that would be prohibited um fences are not concerted structur so those would be permitted and then also they could have technically um agricultural uses um passive grazing animals like horse cattle and sheep could still be there okay but is that is that portion of the property included in the calculations for perious versus impervious do you know I don't know that answer that would be a good question for that okay okay any other questions for Le okay if not is the applicant present good afternoon Christy Barrera with hype design 5904 re Parkway Tampa Florida I have been sworn in um so Liam did a great job presenting I just wanted to remind you all that back in December you all recommended approval for a future land use amendment to plan development since then the board has transmitted that application to the state for review and that will come back to the board hopefully when this zoning goes to the board um next month so it is a companion application the the plan development zoning has uh the same entitlements that the I'm sorry the plan development future Landing has the same entitlements proposed as the MPD zoning in the zoning as you can see in this concept plan we're proposing the higher density and intensity closer to us41 and then transitioning to lower density as we get closer to that Runway protection Zone um like Liam stated the runway protection Zone does not allow any development or any ponds but we can have storm water and flood plane ponds in parcel G1 which we plan to do was just not shown on this graphic um to answer your question about the perious versus impervious really we look at that um on a smaller geography so specifically talking about the multif family apartment portion of the site was what where we were trying to reduce that but the area of the runway and east of that was not included in that analysis okay and so um because we're in the airport protection Zone we complied with all of the new regulations in the airport ordinance we had a noise analysis done we also submitted um building locations to the FAA to ensure that the heights of each of each of these buildings um meet their requirement for the planes coming um in and out of this airport so we worked with staff quite a bit on these conditions of approval and have put the different Parcels on this concept plan to really break down where the uses can go so we worked with staff to basically allow the use that's shown on the graphic or one use lower density so parcel B could have apartments or commercial parcel C could have apartments or town homes D could have town homes or single family and I'm happy to answer any questions we also have the applicant here today and our LS attorney all right do we have any questions are you going to have to get a final approval from FAA for any of this and just asking because I'm dealing with a project at an airport and the ponds become an issue if they're not designed correctly so they don't attract birds and birds get so that was one of the things one of the reasons why we can't have ponds in that Runway area um interesting you can have them right outside so right outside that cone you can have a pond um but yes there are definitely certain requirements we have to follow Pond location is one of them also glare on buildings is another one that fa will approve so we got you know initial approval but we will have to continue to show any revisions and changes as we go through the process with the FAA it looks like there's a pond there made by Mother Nature it's been there for quite some time probably before the airport so we have to tell the birds you know where they can fly where they can't okay um there's no questions from here anybody from the audience on this item we have uh two people signed to speak we have Caitlyn F and Alita Bud okay hello hi I have something I'd like to add to the record uh we just need to have your name and address please okay uh Caitlyn bule 11934 Driver Lane okay thank you um you want to submit something for the record yes please motion to receive and file second we have a motion and second for the uh all in [Music] favor may I go ahead or do you want me to wait till you see the looks upside down yeah there we go so fuzzy all right good afternoon my name is Kaitlyn je as a pilot country resident and Private Pilot my goal in speaking to you today is to help preserve the existence and unencumbered operation of pilot country airport while it is a residential airport it also serves as a community resource it's used by the National Guard and Pasco County Sheriff's Office for helicopter training and is a logistical asset to the county for natural disaster relief I am a flight nurse on a medical helicopter and I see every day how small airports like pilot country provide safe landing zones for EMS allowing for Rapid transport of critically injured people as the county has adopted ordinance 2328 I know we are all on the same page about not harming airport operations I would like to explain the image I have submitted and then I have a couple points to raise where I think this plan does not comply with 2328 uh this is a representation of the traffic pattern at the airport air traffic and the noise it produces is not as simple as airplanes coming straight in or taking straight off we fly in predetermined box patterns in order to approach and depart from the air rep report in a predictable manner we also fly patterns repeatedly in order to land and take off as much as possible to maintain proficiency the noise Contours in 2328 are an inaccurate depiction of the reality of what can be expected by Future residents noise does not stay near the runway as you can see the pattern for the runway 36 involves aircraft at low altitude directly overhead these apartments at full takeoff power ordinance 2328 states that no new Wildlife attractants will be added this plan is adding new Wildlife attractants the FAA acknowledges Retention Ponds as attracting large water foul which are a hazard to air navigation elongated ponds are especially attractive to large water foul and flocks of birds here we have a long retention Pond where airplanes would have just taken off or will be about to land and would easily spook a flock of birds low-level bird collisions are difficult to maneuver away from and are likely to crash an airplane this development adds risks to Pilots as well as to those on the ground I would like to know also what the effect this development will have on the water drainage for the airport given its position it may cause FL new flooding to the runway regarding the deed language I would like to know what the process is for enforcing it the same deed language has been required in the past with another development and the deed language was never put into the deeds and everything moved forward it cannot be determined today whether the proposed plan complies with 2328 unless there's a predetermined strategy to enforce it and information on why the process failed last time in conclusion the population density not matching the area resulting in hundreds of families living under a high noise area and low flying air traffic not reflected in the current noise Contour The increased danger to pilots and future residents from the new wildlife attractants and the previous failures of implementing C harmless deed language caused me to have significant concerns about the current plan moving forward thank you for your time did you say did you say lived in Pilot countries I live there yes so this came before this board when they changed the future land use and I know I'm getting older but I'm not scile yet um I'd swear we had a representative from Pilot country who got up and said that they actually worked with the developer to come to an arrangement about how this land would be developed did you partake in that process or I have heard of that process I don't agree with whoever that was and I'm here representing myself and not the airport it was actually Spencer B brass who who met with the county and the applicant to to discuss the adds and of course you're very familiar with the airport zoning ordinance I can tell and there's a procedure baked in it to have that dialogue with the airport because none of us are experts on this stuff right so we have to rely upon what they tell us um okay do you have any other questions any other questions if not we like come come forward thank you very much for coming thank you hi good afternoon my name is Alita bud I live at 12051 pilot country drive so I do live at the airport um one of I'm going to follow up with her statement I do agree with her 100% using all of the lingo etc etc with regards to if I don't know if you guys can pull up that um the diagram back up again for the land so the uh threshold for the runway starts at the numbers not at where the end of the runway is so I don't know if we can pull that back up one uh you can use that same one you can pull the one one that was up on the screen it's actually easier to see yes so you see the uh Red Line looks like starts and it's dotted and then it starts with the conb that actually needs to be pushed back to the line uh right at uh the runway not as far back as that is therefore the cone changes right so that protection zone of our Runway will pull back and extend more so it would actually cut off where the um the pond is that there uh you're going to build as well as um the oh look at that thank you so it widen the con because you're moving the line back I'm sorry it'll widen the cone because you're moving the line back yes sir it will it'll move it back is it on no there we are okay so that line sorry if I'm shaking so that right there would be pushed back to right here 200 it's so it goes 200 ft Beyond this point right so then this come of protection will widen so it would widen out Beyond right where they're looking does that make sense so can I ask you a couple of questions um I actually worked on this ordinance myself with a few other folks in this room so is there something wrong with the way the ordinance is drafted or is the picture wrong um I that I can't answer that question so I think what you're saying is that this picture is wrong because the line's in the wrong spot correct so they don't have it where it's supposed to be per the FAA so it should be 200 ft that's our statement in the in the LDC it says a trapezoid area at ground level with getting 200 feet beyond the end of a Runway and centered around the extended Runway Center Line so forth and so forth so creating a trapezoid so okay but then that plan that you're basing that on would would be wrong this plan right so this visual you have yeah what's defined as the end of the runway is a question so is that the the there probably is a definition yeah as the end of the runway the white line or is the end of the runway the beginning of the asphalt I'll have Caitlyn answer that question because she is the pilot I am not I'm just you know a pilot come back up thank you for reintroduce yourself so because we got to get it on tape reintroduce myself I'm Caitlyn bu my address is 11934 Driver Lane um so the FAA def the end of the runway as the the other threshold line so where it says 18 and you have the white bar that is the end of the takeoff area at the end of the takeoff distance um so 200t north of that white line the rpz should start 200 fet North of the white line not 200 ft north of the pavement which is what is going on gotcha okay okay um and the fa has an advisory circular that I to send you which all that if You' like so are you fine with it based upon that adjustment if they can make that adjustment I would like them to make that adjustment and I we also have a couple other issues mostly the uh the wildlife attractants also and they were basing it also uh they have in here in this petition U is let us know who you're who's speaking sorry um what they have in here is they based off of can you your name CU When She translates this you don't know who's speaking sorry that's okay Alita Bud 12051 pilot country drive so what they used in here was the noise level right back in 2022 is the is what they have listed here so our development we've already grown we're it we grow just like everybody else around us so we have more new homeowners with louder airplanes um we have more renters um so therefore the noise level is going to be significant iFly different than what they did in 2022 and they came out and did it on a day when no one was flying so there was really no accurate noise level that was provided and we actually we we kind of we talked about this years ago when I think it was in the Campbell uh development was coming in um so that's kind of when we we actually said we didn't approve or didn't agree with that noise assessment can I ask a question so how does the noise affect you that affects somebody that moves into the neighborhood and I'm trying to figure out if I buy a house and it's clearly next to the airport or at the end of the airport I should have enough common sense to expect that I'm going to hear airplanes and you right I can tell you that I SK shoot on a property not too far from here and airplanes fly right over the wetlands we ski chesing to so you expect to hear airplanes if you're next to an airport but how how does that affect you at Pilot country that those people are got to hear airplanes we're just saying the ordinance 2328 your name again I'm sorry my name is Caitlyn bule I live at 119 you don't have to give the address it's the name r i can uh provide my social security numbers don't do that don't do that do that later the point about the noise is more to say that the noise Contour existing in 2328 is not accurate it was done on a day presum presumably where the weather was bad and no one was flying so these people these future residents might be getting into something more than they would expect based on the noise assessment within the 2328 L yes I'm saying I don't feel bad for them there's an airport there that's obvious yeah the the the main thing we want to do is make sure we protect the airport and thank you um you know because it's important I think for any any small community like ours to have airports nearby and uh that's always been a concern of mine about pilot country and even about the one we used to have out on on uh 54 you know I hated to see that one go yeah we're we're just concerned that complaints from the residents are going to result in more you know restrictions or shutting the airport down or something like that I know the Deep language is supposed to prevent that but things have a way of getting yeah getting out of control like that we just want to make sure that they comply with the ordinance but you know we have to be fair with the land owner he needs to yeah to develop his land and he use his land he's paying taxes on it but so we just want to make sure he complies with the ordinance and that we if we have to change the ordinance I know a couple of questions about that questions about that so why don't you go ahead so it's the County's noise study that you believe is out of date or is it a noise study that was done by the applicant it was a noise study that was done sorry a bud it was um a noise study that was done by I believe the um County there are noise Contours that we adopted were done by a study that we actually paid a consultant to do for us using a variety of sources including Flight Aware I believe which is real time tracking my understanding of it um so that is maybe something that we need to consider as the county how often we need to update our our noise studies and then accordingly the maps in that was going to be my next question is is um with every development that comes in not not saying you're going to do this every year but as I said we grow um so our airport community grows so when you're going to build this community should you not redo a noise assessment to see okay well we've grown are they going is is it going to cause an issue okay understood and then as for the deed restrictions and we have a lot of detail as to the different types of uses and the triggers that when a deed restriction has to be done it's contemplated that as a condition of the site plan Etc when those have to be done and they're recorded that they're going to be reduced to County staff so that we know that that was complied with during the phase of development so when the phone calls start coming in and someone wants Code Compliance to go out there and you know and and talk to the airport about the noise they're making we'll have that as a reference where it's you know not the airport's fault would it be in their um is it the mor the purchase of their their yeah there's different steps depending upon where you are in the development process and I don't have time to go through it right now but it contemplated that if you were buying near an airport or even renting near an airport or even living in an Al you had to be made aware through your lease agreement through your your your your your restrictive covenants your deed so it's all on record for the per Church know so hopefully they won't complain to the airport in the county um Caitlyn bu uh I I hear you that that should be how it goes uh if you refer to the satellite view of our neighborhood there's a development just south of this proposed development that was supposed to have that happen and nothing ever got put in the deed um the sellers were actively telling people buying those homes that there was no airport there yeah I'm familiar Spencer did fill us in on that when we were working on this coordinance so that was part of an MP condition not actually in the ordinance when that was developed that was quite like Lake Shore or something it's old yeah the ordinance didn't exist that this yeah so hopefully you won't have more to deal with in that Community complaining okay um one more thing that we oh you said one more thing three time three times this is your last thing last you you you go sorry go um there's a pedestrian access gate on the south side of the mpud that we believe could result in a safety issue um because we should not have have people as pedestrians on taxiways and presumably and also possibly the runway who have not been briefed on how to act around airplanes and how to avoid them yeah where is that on that map the red do yeah gated access yeah so we would like that to not be there and is that a okay are you done okay so Alita bud but I do actually have a funny question I want to know who the attorney is for the turtles because they have more rights they have more documentation than we do as an airport owner just asking for a friend yeah you can get that from Liam he talk to your Congressman thank you good afternoon this uh my name is Angela halber um I'm with hbert Henderson I'm the land use attorney for the applicant uh just wanted to take the time to address some of the comments um obviously you heard U miss barrero the applicant completed a study with the FAA completed that um initial study and is committed to completing the other studies that are necessary because this is obviously very close to an airport and there are lots of restrictions moving through this process that we will have to continue to maintain um as you can see parcel H uh we we Ed the information that was available to us from the county based on the new ordinance as you may recall the actual process was subject to the moratorium um that involved the um the enactment I think that took quite a while but it was about 18 months that we were in that process of developing that ordinance we've taken our best effort we've repeatedly been uh continued actually so that we could work through all the fine details and in large part that was to comply with the needs of the airport there are restrictions there are wetlands that are existing in this area obviously we have to comply with all of the requirements to maintain storm water and all of those things and we uh the applicant will continue to do that if you have any questions please let me gated access The Pedestrian access is that something you're proposing or is that something staff was required so the access is because as you know this is a mixed use development and that gated access is proposed in part because staff wanted that for the convenience of the residents of pilot country airport it is one-way access only the residents from the Fletcher development will not be able to access pilot country from that access but the pilot country residents will be able to use that access to go through the um streets and sidewalks the development how does that work a key card or fob or something of that nature I see okay I can bring the applicant up to answer that more specifically if you'd like but that's the idea and that is so that they can get to the commercial areas but without having to go to the highway or and they'll be able use their golf carts and walk and so forth so that's just pedestrian access through that through that gate or golf cards there's vehicular access it's not vehicular access okay okay you anticipate any problem with the current understanding of the ordinance as far as where that line starts in Cas it's going to widen the count this uh based upon our review of I mean to me the ordinance is secondary to the FAA I mean it was really intended to enact to codify for Pasco County as I understand it some restrictions on these types of airports that are residential in nature but the ultimate governing Authority is the FAA and the FAA will determine where any of this gets built ultimately well I have a question about the definition for the end of Runway I mean I don't see us defining it in here to be other than just that statement the end of Runway so if the end of Runway under the FAA standards is that white line that is going to adjust your sketch significantly because I I just ran a um a measurement on Pasco mapper using their little measurement tool um that ended Runway line is about 26ish feet from the property line so it would actually move that red line onto the pilot Country property line which would significantly widen that conone for this particular development um the um as a I'm not a pilot but I'm a Aviation Enthusiast I've done my share of flying right seat uh right seat actually out of that that that uh airport I understand there's a naturally occurring Pond there where we can see some water foul and things like that but um I I'm not crazy about the idea of adding additional retention on the left side of that cone um um to to add risk to pilots on approach or or uh departing that Runway so um I I tend to agree with Mr Moody with regard to the noise people buying in there are going to know that they're next to an airport so I don't think that's as big of a concern uh for existing residents as it would be for future residents and that's up to them whether they want to buy there but the issue I see is the issue was brought up by the person who spoke during public comment with regard to the size of that cone and um adding additional hazards to uh to that approach or that departure area so that's something I I I wouldn't be comfortable moving forward without finding out for sure if the definition according to the FAA is that white line because that would significantly change the what this development looks like how far does the cone extend from the end it depends so this is Christy Barrera with a design p Pasco mapper has um some lines I don't know if we can pull it Pasco mapper but this graphic that's currently on the screen was part of our FAA application you can see that there is the 200t dimension from the property line to where the cone starts going out but we can definitely look at those the boundary of that Runway protection zone between now and the guess what I'm getting at is the cone doesn't go on forever correct it does not there's limits to it depending upon it it's until they've achieved enough altitude on departure or you know if they're coming in a higher altitude than and so in the airport ordinance specifically there are no ponds permitted in that Runway protection Zone but outside of that zone there's there's multiple layers in that airport ordinance so outside that cone you can have ponds those are permitted um so we have you know worked with the county and Elizabeth to make sure that we were meeting all the requirements of the County's ordinance again the FAA looked at this um for building placement and height as well so we you know have submitted this to them there will be other documents that they have to review and approve but we're we're happy to go back and confirm that that cone is in the right location chrisy question I assume all this gets worked out of the site plan process we're not approving site plan today let's just make the assumption that the engineers draw the cone as you've got it shown here which some of the neighbors dispute when this goes to the FAA does like the FAA send any is there any notice to these people to the to the surrounding residents so that they get a chance to say hey wait do con's in the right or the wrong place or that I don't know for sure we did have um you know another firm prepared this are airspace analysis that was submitted with the application I can check with our consultant and let you know that but I don't know that answer I would assume the residents could independently contact the FAA with their concern but only if they they would only do that if if they knew an application were filed if they don't know an application was filed then they would never have that opportunity I I will say that the um airport ordinance that you recently approved does require us to coordinate each step of the process with the airport so that is something that is a continuing obligation throughout this all that being said if they get the site plan approval they still have to notify the residents within a certain distance of the right the airport the airport gets to comment on the S plan this and for the record I'm not necessarily opposed to the project you know I I think there's probably a workaround for that and I understand that conceptual plan is just that is conceptual so things can and will probably move around but that would be the only my concern is just making sure that is ironed out before final plans are drawn you know if you're talking about a bunch of impervious service that's on the border of that um area no Retention Ponds and it doesn't offer that Wildlife risk for bird strike so that's a it's a completely different scenario well if I understand we're here to approve approve not the site plan but the use and the youus can I mean the actual site plan if it has to be adjustments that'll be handled by somebody else not us so I mean I think it's an appropriate use for the property we do have to make sure we preserve the uh the airport no doubt in my mind about that and I think our ordinance and Liz is uh very on top of uh the ordinance and and what we need to do for that so um I wouldn't feel comfortable you know moving forward with it so I move to recommend approval of item PC 14 second Motion in a second any further discussion of the motion if not all in favor signify by saying I I oppos like sign motion carries I didn't even have to say what I was going to say so that's fantastic I gave well this these details can get ironed out before the anything gets built so make sure V on that I did not vote on that let the record reflect that Mr Po did not vote please do that was correct okay all right Denise Hernandez Planning Development and economic growth this is item pc15 excuse me just a second let's take a five minute Mar okay before we get in this might be thanks foring cut off to sorry thanks for [Music] trying calls of nature really irr [Music] sure they came [Music] [Music] would you survive that TNA okay my son actually is working on his private pilot license and that's where he goes to school and he just finished [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] all the airports I used to good [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] it was a while ago it was a while ago but I remember it's probably when they saw the concep this is the whole this is the whole man let's resume please it's under all right we ready Mr chair yes fabulous okay Denise Hernandez Planning Development and economic growth this is item pc16 which is a variance request in the names of Robert D and Johnny J wood it's for a request 15 PC 15 thank you so much I did specifically say that to the clerk of Indo so I must be going C thank you thank you thank you Peg 24 2107 this is a variance request for a reduction and the required minimum rear setback from 25 ft to 20 ft for a small lot of record in an r1mh which is a single family mobile home District the names of Robert D and Johnny J wood the site is located in Northeast Pasco County on the east side of Lawrence Road approximately 265 ft south of Delong Road okay this is not working for me thank you I'm going to run through some of these slides um the site consists of Lot 10 block two of the Hillcrest Manor um sub subdivision which was recorded in 1959 and that's important as we talk about a small lot of record it contains a siteb built home that's on approximately 30 acre a small lot of record is a lot that existed prior to the adoption of zoning that was located within the original zoning district and the does not meet the minimum requirements for the district the uh Land Development code specifically states that single family dwellings may be constructed on small LS of record in conformance with the required setbacks lot coverage of the the nearest District where the minimums can be met this particular um lot is more consistent with the R2 low density residential district it's 30 of an acre R1 and M requires a 20,000 minimum lot area and a lot that's at least 100 ft wide uh this particular a lot meets more like the R2 setbacks which or R2 uh District uh minimums the minimum re setback for the R2 district is 25 ft the applicant certificate of occupancy for per for permit for the siteb built home um was placed on hold as a minimum 25t rear setback was not met for this application uh for the permit process this is actually one of the first ones that I've personally seen um has the applicant utilized a private Pro provider for both plans review and for inspections the setback issue was not actually discovered by County staff or the actual office staff until the applicant submitted for his asilt survey so we are finding that the actions that necessitate that necessitate this variance are as a result of errors that were from a private surveyor so when the private surveyor actually place the actual um flags on the property the flags on the property were placed um consistent to wear the an existing chain link fence which is on the parcel that's adjacent to this property to the east um and uh on the fence line and then the form boards were also set based on the survey and inspections were conducted by the private provider so the applicants have provided a petition of no objection that is signed by Property Owners adjacent to the north south Northeast and across from Lawrence Road this is the um the the actual uh site plan with the variance so it's about 20.1 20.1 ft from the rear property line it's required to be a minimum of 25 25 ft the applicant also has provided for the record a cost estimate for the removal of an oak tree it's a very large oak tree that's located to the west of the parcel so if the applicant had to move that that um the the house or you know West for example it would um that oak tree would have to be removed and quite a bit of money um just just to to supplement the record the recommendation from the Planning Development and economic growth staff is that you approve um the request with conditions as stated in your agenda packet thank you very much you're welcome did the applicant submit a site plan the applicant did submit a site plan in that was put into the building permit record and that is um attached in the file and again as I stated that's it was reviewed by a um private provider so again it wasn't it wasn't reviewed in the office wait wait I I got questions about sure of course so do we have the site plane we do um just giving us a second for couple of seconds so how was the site plan reviewed by the private provider so the private provider reviews the plans and the uh and the site plan building is the doesn't the private provider only administer the Florida building code that's my understanding but is in our site plan the Pasco County zoning code that's correct so how's the private provider review the zoning code the um I spoke to building construction services and they stated that the survey that they received which I I attached it even though it does say 20 ft that the survey that they received was I I couldn't find a survey that stated 25 ft but there was one initially it it is but I just can't I can't find it in the record in a sell well and in the presentation we say it's the private surveyor's fault that he marked the property line at the fence but I'm looking at the survey that's in the package and it says found iron pipe and that's 3.9 ft west of the fence and then there's another found iron pipe down at the other corner and it's 4.4 ft from the fence he didn't mark the fence he's got it marked away from the fence Mr wood can answer those questions I believe that what was on the site is different than what is shown on paper that was physically what was physically there on the site okay okay is Mr wood the applicant yes okay and he's here physically here very good any other questions for Denise okay Mr wood he state your name and address Mr Wood Robert Wood um the owner of the property your your name and address address okay 15810 Lake IA Road okay and you've been sworn right yes sir you sworn yeah you've been sworn yes okay all right go right ahead tell us your story when we bought the property we had a surveyor come out place the uh the surveys and the stakes for the house that we wanted to build um and also did the elevation I was marked for us when we we we we got a survey from him we put that into the building fish building application um took for a while to get the permit back once we uh we were you know we told we was at 25 ft um we got our permit and all no nobody moved the stakes where they were supposed to be at five but if you look at the survey there uh or actually the Pascal County side plan there you'll see that the back neighbor of ours his prop his fence is 5 ft onto his property not on the property line so when the guys came out and measured they measured off the fence and that's where the the states were at and so they assumed that that was 25 ft and that's where the house would built nobody caught it throughout the whole project and we had super out there we had um private providers block layers every nobody just we just missed it that's the truth okay you're a licensed building contractor I do you didn't have the surveyor state out the house yes sir the surveyor surveyed the squared off with the property and give us the elevation marks so did you submit a site plan with your building permit application I did do you have a copy of it you that was the one that was on the screen but I do have it well that shows the house being 20 ft from the property line not 25t at at the beginning yes that's what it showed that that was the be that survey that you see there that's what I submitted that was the first um no House was built there or anything at that time he just marked it and that's what we submitted well no Denise was saying you submitted one that had 25 ft originally and that's the one she said she couldn't find so this is okay this one says 20 so I think you're confused yeah this is not so if it showed 25 ft it would have showed it in the tree cuz the fence is only 4T from the property Val well if you take a tape measure from that fence to where the house is is 25 ft okay well were you saying that if you have to move at 5 ft you'd have to take it take out a big oak tree yes sir I got I have a a pull the cheapest one I have was $10,800 30 36 in wide oak but I didn't I didn't get that until after I found out so I wouldn't be in favor of moving something 5 ft and lose a big oak tree that that make sense to me I wouldn't build a foundation on top of the tree roots of a big oak tree yeah you're going to have problems if you didn't do anything with the tree with the house y yeah the tree roots will just basically bust through the floor what kind of a house you have there you'd have to excavate the whole thing I also went all all way all around the neighbors and I and and every everyone signed a petition said that they didn't object the house being built there is that I'm not gaining nothing is that on slab or is that on frame that's it's on a slab I'm not gaining profit by doing this it was an honest mistake we just missed it I mean well and you save the O Tree by doing that is the house completely built now or yes sir it's completely built so what stop you from turning the house the other way or building a house that was wider and shorter it's not like you have a setback a side setback you're up against we just PR we just like that the way it look that way how many houses have you built five I'm I'm actually an agricultural Barn Building I build real luxury horse barns I don't build a lot of houses and know we're building this for my son and then he backed out on me after we got started so I'm stuck with a house so did the private provider review the drainage plan too he he did everything I said um I'm trying to figure out how that how that works cuz the drainage plan isn't in that's part of our Land Development code the requirement to submit a drainage plan and I'm trying to figure out how a private provider who's only licensed to to review against the Florida building code starts reviewing things for compliance with the Pasco County Land Development code I'm trying to figure out how that works well I know that they're asking us they they wanted us to put gutters on both sides for drainage so well that's interesting because the drainage plan's actually in here in the package and I don't see that all I see is a bunch of squiggly arrows and I'm trying to figure out how the squiggly arrows to demonstrate compliance with either Land Development code or the Florida building code also trying to figure out how you can submit a signed and sealed plan with no title block address anything that's required by chapter 471 of the florid statutes but that's the engineer's problem and I'll deal with him later this shows the that where we have the survey show where the water drains if that helps you out oh yeah okay who staked out the house because in the staff report in your explanation for the variance you say that you here you've testified that the surveyor staked out the house but in the variance application in the package then you blamed it on the concrete guys that they sted it out in the wrong place so I'm trying to figure out who's on first no what I'm said what I said was the surveyor came out surveyed the property staked out where the house was going to be built and did the elevation at the beginning no house it was an empty law once we got the permit the guys that uh did the C the the foundation the block measured from the fence why would they need to measure if it was already Stak huh if it was already staked why would they need to measure that's what I'm saying from the from the fence to the stakes it's 25 ft so they double you're saying they double check they double check the existing Stakes so the surveyor staked it out and then when they went for the foundation they double checked and then it was 25 ft as well and the fence the existing old fence there was 5 foot on my back neighbor's property not on the property line if it had been on the property line theate would have been caught but I didn't even catch I didn't catch all this until they asked me for a a as built survey that's when I found out I like I said I'm not gaining nothing on this I'm not making an extra dollar I'm not hurting anybody it was a true mistake I guess the problem that I'm having with this and I'm sorry if I'm raising my voice somebody that they're not able to hear us back there I don't know Eric they said the speakers or something that aren't on back there the difficulty that I'm having with this is that now we can just walk in and say well the private provider did it and you guys just got to live with it because the private provider did it it wasn't my fault but you could have had the county building inspection do it I'm still trying to figure out nobody's been able to answer me how the private providers reviewing site plans and drainage plans which are requirements of the Land Development code not the building code because a private provider only licensed to review against the building code so I'm trying to figure out how that works I do know during the pandemic they wanted us to use nothing but private provider and that's you know I don't know well I've heard some County Commission discussion that that are not too happy with the private providers I'm never going to use them again and I would tell you that I have a job site right now where one of the very large private providers is full of it and there's multiple building code violations and plumbing code violations that they just sign off on left and right at the time at pmic that's what we were all encourage to do I don't I I've never never used them I don't plan to use them again well I mean I don't think there's any real easy way around this and and I think my just my judgment does not no what no proof seems to me that this man is truly just a victim of circumstance maybe he didn't do things as thoroughly as he should but it was people make these mistakes we see them all the time they get to close to a too close to a tree too close to a fence and it's a judgment call we have to decide whether you know who want to ultimately it's not negatively impacting his neighbor so right I personally don't I don't like this being an after the fact I mean that's really my my whole hang up on this thing is as an after the fact and we're coming in here asking for forgiveness however if I in in my opinion if I'm looking at this like if this was preconstruction he was coming in to for the variant to reduce the rear set back I don't think I'd have a problem with that because of the conditions of the tree so that that's the right and and Jamie I'm in the same place as you are had this come in on the front end I probably would have absolutely determined that there was a hardship because of the tree and we don't want to kill the tree my bigger issue and I recognize this may not be your fault and still haven't gotten an answer I'm still not understanding how a private provider is reviewing plans that are under the jurisdiction of Our Land Development code and Zoning code not under the jurisdiction of the Florida building code because they're not allowed to do that and no one's allowed to delegate that authority to them I guess if the county wants to hire somebody to come in and review zoning plans and drainage plans that's qualified to do that but the building department doesn't have the authority to just allow Our Land Development code to be under the jurisdiction of a private provider if that was the case I'd submit every one of my site plans to a private provider and not Brad's Department back there I I think in this case I think it's just some a situation where you know it's what's been done has been done we just have to decide whether we're going to make him go back and redo everything which I think is unreasonable and or we're going to give him forgiveness this time right and uh and move on Mr I agree with you what I'm trying to figure out is Staff hasn't been able to answer how this isn't going to happen in the future of private providers reviewing against our code yeah I would I'm wondering yeah and I'm wondering uh maybe we can get get the staff after we hopefully get a motion on this um to give give us whatever explanation they have available maybe it had to do with the pandemic at the time I know there was a lot of things going on during the P I can answer the question it's just that I don't have anyone from building construction services here to answer that I'm only getting this information from a very kind colleague who used to work with building construction services right that is telling me that the private provider would not have reviewed the drainage plan the drainage plan would have been reviewed by our our County staff that is responsible for reviewing the drainage plan okay okay well Mr chair I'd be ready to make a motion but I'm not sure if he's finished with his presentation I know we have to call for a public comment so yeah is there anything else you'd like to say before we move on we're going to take any public comment if there is any and then we'll make a motion one or the other okay you'll know in a few minutes huh you'll know the answer in a few minutes all right I don't I really I don't didn't hear you that well okay we're we're going to is there any is there anybody here that wants to speak on this issue okay well I don't see any chair I don't have anyone signed up to speak on nobody signed up to speak so why don't we make a motion somebody make move approval of the variance second okay so we have a motion to approve the uh the request and we have a second any further discussion not all in favor signify by saying I I OPP like sign okay you can take a deep breath now thank you okay okay so this item I believe is p16 it is p24 cu15 um this item um had previously been brought to the Planning Commission on June 6th 2024 this is a conditional use for a wireless communication facility Southern one LLC Coral Towers Verizon Wireless and um when it was presented to the Planning Commission on June 6 2024 the Planning Commission requested that the owner applicant consider an alternative location on the property um explore altern alternative locations on surrounding properties provide site selection information and have both the site selection expert and the radio frequency engineer available at the Planning Commission and the PC approved a 60-day continuance uh to today so the owner applicant submitted a revised um compound location which moves the fence compound area um originally was in this portion of the property so the fence compound area has now been moved um approximately 255 ft north of the original location and approximately 230 ft East onto the adjacent parcel which is listed in your finding effect number 19 that parcel is under the um same ownership the proposed placement of the compound area will be approximately 395 ft from the front property line the prior site plan uh showed it at 140 ft from the property line and it is approximately 230 ft east of the original location this information was provided to our radio frequency consultant who basically stated that it did not affect his analysis or recommendation of approval so this is basically the original location so it's called C plan location one so as you can see it's um fairly close or closer to this particular piece of property um and this is site plan location to now we're on the adjacent parcel and the property that we can we would originally see is over here additionally I do want to mention that but I I'll maybe I'll show it in a few seconds which is that because that location has different elevation GR Radiance the uh the prior location the proposed Tower would have been at about 185 ft which which would have been like 180 ft Tower with a 5T lightning rod the new location you're seeing now because the elevation is lower it's at about 105 elevation prior location was at can't read that but I think it's 120 something um the tower that you're seeing today is at approximately 190 ft or 195 ft so 19 90ft Tower with 5ft lightning rod 10t to these are photo simulations I apologize that was pretty close 121 at the old sign and 105 at the name site so these are photo simulations this is uh position one is looking Southwest at the intersection of ruffing Road and Roberts Barn Road um position one shows existing without you know without the tower and propose with the tower um position two is at it's looking Southwest from ruffing Road just north of St Joe Road Again position um two with ex existing which is without the Tower position two with proposed Tower The View three is looking northward on St Joe Road um showing without and with and the last photo simulation is looking Southeast on Swift Road and um a recommendation is approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet to do in the math it looks like uh the tower is about 10 ft taller but it's on uh 15t reduced elevation so it's actually reducing the yes elevation above sea level by about 5 that is correct okay any other questions from uh Denise if not applicant presid oh I should say I'm so sorry um I did one of the other things that the Planning Commission talked about there was a applicant at the prior Planning Commission on June 6th that basically stated um that it that Towers neg negatively affect property value so I did send the plan commission a tower value analysis a property value analysis with Towers um that I would like the clerk's office to include into the agenda as well okay and I provided that to the clerk's office also thank you thank you pleas do they need to make a motion to receive and fil after if you already gave it to the clerk as part of the agenda packet uh would you please yeah I I didn't see it either I'm sorry me either here here quick okay motion to receive a file second all in favor I like sign there you go good afternoon I'm ATA John 9:35 Main Street suet C4 Safety Harbor Florida 34695 it's a pleasure to come before you again I have David Smith with Verizon Wireless with me to answer any questions that you may have about Horizon's RF need I also have James McNichol with b& group the site acquisition company for Coral Towers on this project to answer questions that you may have on site selection so just to take and circle up again on where we were we're off of St Joe Road and I have an arrow pointing to the old location of the communication Tower it has since shifted East in all maps I show you today up will be North this is your Pasco County property appraiser area so this Arrow this is a closer view and you can see St Joe Road proceeding East in West um across the map let me see if I can make the actual laser pointer work nope um that's a completely separate tool got it my apologies so you can see St Joe Road here running east and west and it curves off it comes up north you have the old orange belt Railway right away you have Robert's Vault Road off to the east um you can also see the Orange Grove portion of this land this is an overall ranch with orange groves and pasture land and some mag buildings further north and what we've done is we've moved from the Orange Grove over to um the pasture land which something that was discussed extensively by the uh commission earlier at the um June meeting and this is just another arrow pointing to the approximate location of the um communication Tower as it is proposed today this is just your zoning we're still AR zoning we are still residential one development unit this is allowable throughout your county in these different um jur in these different zoning districts because this is really support use for what's going on out there this is monopile communication Tower As One support pole no guy wires or um Iron Works extending out to support it none of that has changed since the last time we talked I'm showing you the old sheet C1 just so you can see the location the original location that was before you back on um back in June and it was 67 ft from the property line um with our abing neighboring Property Owners we have one property owner on these two lots here to our West one property owner to the Northwest at that time the tower provided 1.2 times or the monopol provideed 1.2 Times tower height separation uh from that house to the west and that's the nearest house to this property it's now been moved it's 296 ft from that Western property line and now it provides two 2.8 times so going on three times not quite 2.8 times from the southwest and 2.6 times to the Northwest this is the old location just again for context and then here's the new all right 2.7 and provides 2.2 Times tower height separation uh from the south nothing else has changed um as you noted we're on 15 ft shorter so net effect is 5 lower you saw the photo simulations I do want to compare um the old photo simulation to the new one you can see this is looking down along this is the southern one looking North and it was looking along St Joe Road now you have to look North from St Joe Road into the property to get that [Music] simulation these are line of analyses provided from our two Western properties um they're prepared with survey data and bu a engineer the blue area is the field of view for a person given the intervening trees and these are assuming far locations so you're instead of trying to look from here at these trees it's for the Southwest Los one it's looking for the most open view you can get from the backyard and then that's Northwest um the RF package has been updated just to show its relation to the Blanton site you can see that the coverage is continuous between the two towers so if you were to shift North you would start creating overlapping coverage I have David Smith with me here today uh to testify that the capacity side of their RF objective comes from the south uh that's where they're noticing the traffic uh coming from that's causing the burden to trigger this um and then also you have the side acquisition methodology there's a method there's a review of the a re-review of the entire ring but the thing that's the direct answer to your previous question is where there other sites considered prior to this site uh rising to be an alter rising to be a candidate and the answer is yes so you go ahead you can see at the green SAR that is the proposed site and then you can see seven other sites starting with SeaWorld off to the West um a variety of property owners along St Joe Road who didn't respond to inquiries and then there was a property further to the South that was wooded that would have made a nice candidate but unfortunately they were unable to provide um the access that is the legal access that is needed for Verizon and that's a specific creature for Verizon they have to be able to take good title to a very specific access that is code compliant I have Mr MCN on hand in case you have any questions for him so uh with that I respectfully request that you recommend approval of the monopole as proposed with staff's recommendations of approval and again I have both Mr McNichol and Mr Smith available for your questions as um provided and I would also state that we've provided a property value study letter in the record with our most recent submitt okay thank you all right so I know the um one of the biggest issues we had was um with the neighboring property owner which obviously this has moved it further away from that property so have have you spoken to him about this development and or about this change and has has there been any any update from that property owner this is mat I John I have not had the opportunity to speak with that property owner um the last time I had communication it seemed like there was a a strong position on this that was not open to modification okay okay if if I if I may um that property owner did request the public records for any new information that had been submitted and I and that was provided to that property owner um the week of July 19th or so I remember he testified the last Mee I'm trying to remember his name but yeah okay okay thank you anything else um M John okay thank you very much thank you anybody else for the applicant okay anybody else to speak on the subject come forward can you state your name and your U address yeah good afternoon my name is uh John Terry and I live at 3437 St Joe Road dat City 33525 and actually my property is right next to where they're proposing to to put this this Tower and I just actually when they moved it you're right next to the Orange Grove is that what you're saying yeah it's my property is directly next to the to the Orange Grove and then um let's see this would be you Sor what was your address again sir my address it's 3437 37 okay okay got you okay okay that's approximately my house I not done for my uh artwork but uh so now it appears that this thing's going to be right out here that I mean that's where I'm estimating it and it's going to it's actually worse for me than it was before cuz now when I walk out of the house I'll that's what I I see my office has a door that you know goes that would look right over here and we're going to have that that large Tower directly outside cuz that you know this one area here here when they're talking about the Orange Grove it's um the Orange Grove is dead I mean it's just Citrus Greening so I I was talking to one of his uh guys that works on the farm and I mean eventually they're going to have to tear it out I'm sure they're just waiting for all this to clear out and see where what happens but so that's all pasturel land but I think actually now it's it's I mean it's just as um prominent now as it as it was before and it's it's not consistent with the character of surrounding area I mean I understand they got to put these things up um whether it needs to be there is I don't know there's hundreds of acres of land around there where it's vacant you know if he stuck it even over here a little bit that that would make a a little bit of a difference cuz I I I read the information that they gave us regarding the land value and they said it didn't make a difference but my research I looked it up and it said 90% of people that were asked didn't want to live next to a tower but in in most of the research that it looks like they did they they were looking at uh property in high density uh neighborhoods and the whole reason we moved out here was I you know I'd rather have cows living next to me than people so I mean it it's more I would say it makes it's a bigger difference for people to live out in the country to try and keep it that way and and that's all I understand you got to put these things up but um keep it away from the house you know that's so you'd rather see it go on the original location pardon so you'd rather see it go in the original location no I'd rather see it not there at all I I'd rather see I don't see where they there was a time where they were looking at the uh Christmas tree farm and that that was a my understanding was it was all approved and this goes back a few years so I don't know what's changed as far as they don't seem to talk about that but well the thing you got to realize is that they can't put it anywhere that the property owner doesn't want it so it might they might find an ideal spot but if the property owner doesn't want on his property Christmas tree they don't have any well they don't have any choice they can't go where they're not wanted as far as property owner's concern it appears that they can because well that's not on your property you we can put it on your property but if you want it there would you like it there I don't believe I money that's the problem with a lot of the people around there so that's why they're limited they when they find a property oner that can whe they can put it within the area geographically that will work for them cuz they have to have their that's why it's a cell tower they have to have a cell that connects to other cells I understand but on the same token coming out of you know St Joe Road it is as I mentioned before one of the more pristine areas so I just think they could find a better location further from the from the the road so okay that's where I'm at all right well we appreciate you uh sharing that with us and there's anything else you'd like to say are there any questions your lot's mostly still wooded correct it looks like from the aerial it was when the aerial was taken so I'm sorry your your lot is mostly wooded correct I mean at least from the aerial it looks like it was yeah that aerial I don't know how long ago that was taken it's a I wouldn't call it it's we've lost a lot of trees I've taken maybe 20 or 30 out just they're water Oaks and they're all 45 years old so they they don't last that long you know that so but it's still fairly well treated yeah okay there's that one picture I got here this would be looking at the yeah you didn't need talk to the microphone I'm sorry we have to get it on record so you can get your picture look out okay this yeah there you go okay that's looking from uh my house to the uh it's 84 ft to the property line for the Orange Grove and then the tower now is going to be right about there what almost 200 ft now so that's looking due east or is that looking Southeast that's looking East yeah I'd say do East I mean you can see the shuttle go well not shuttle but I mean you can see the so the proposed Tower location from where your house is would be Southeast it's going to be right about where I'm talking about okay any other questions all right thank you very much sir appreciate you coming anyone else was there someone else yeah okay Hi Lesley Rose 14920 Swift Road D City 33523 what road I'm sorry is right off okay my brother and I own the Christmas tree farm and we actually um way back I think it was in around 2006 Verizon was looking at a a 9.5 um acre parcel of land and um if a Verizon would be willing we are willing um there's no additional easements or anything that need to be done you just get off S ja Road turn on the Swift Road and you are 2 minutes there you're there okay where is it on this area Okay um I I know because I I get Christmas trees there um um it would it would go right there that 9. five AC and was that in that was that in the applicant search Rim they showed a search a graphic search ring it is in the search ring yes sir um and I believe on the last meeting you guys had it they said something about an additional easement and that is not a true statement okay anything else any other questions we'll give the applicant a chance to respond that okay yeah was there someone one other person no yeah there's one other oh yeah yeah come on up mhm I lost you there you're sitting on the other side that would affect their coverage Mr chair I I do want to mention that we're we're being quite open with this applicant because in our rules it says that this information needs to be provided at minimum 24 hours PRI prior to the Planning Commission meeting because if if anything in here has any way to damage our computer system this is something that we need to verify prior so I just wanted I'm not trying to be mean or rude or anything but our rules to to this my apies my apologies about that uh my name is Benjamin bluin I live at 34031 St Joe Road uh I own the two properties just to the west of what they're uh of where they want to put the tower uh I just want to note that uh found a newsp article online that said that just not too long ago they tried to do a proposal to uh for a cell phone Tire Verizon as well and it was rejected saying that it was too close to uh residential homes and it was so it was voted down I have copies of that article and then I also have the top of uh where I got that from uh the newspaper the link up there as well I don't know if if you guys want paper copies of that no I assume that that we voted it down probably yes sir yeah it was voted down and the reason from what I could read from online was that it was uh too close to properties too close to residential homes and at that time that Tower was 155 ft and the tower that they're recommending is 185 I'm sorry how do I scroll more than that and that's just another picture from the newspaper article and you can see that there's where the star is is where they wanted to put the tower and then there's homes uh just to the South and just to the uh West and so because of that it was denied uh the recommendation was to move it further and from that picture further north away from the residential homes and so couldn't quite get an exact location but from what I understand it was roughly 5 to 600 ft from the homes and uh so and and again that was too close and because of that it was rejected so if I can click on the next sorry next one one yes thank you sir uh so if you uh I'm sorry keep going I pause keep going sorry I made a couple different versions of this uh keep going okay perfect lazy lay Acres is a roughly 50 plus acres uh next slide there's Lazy Acres I'm sorry and then the two dots to the bottom right was our property keep going okay well all right I apologize PowerPoint uh I guess not the one that I saved uh but I have uh their uh the one that they proposed has their Circle radius the lazy L lazy L Farm is within their within their Circle so uh obviously I don't want the tower right next to my house um but uh so obviously the opposing site would be the lazy lake Acres or for whatever reason that did not pan out if we could go back I'm sorry to uh y keep going where is your house yes sir uh so from this the yellow dot in the just above just north of the road okay and uh so my my first request is to look into lazy L lazy lay Acres it's wooded it's off the road it's not near any home uh but if that didn't work the second thing would be if they could move it even further north and to the east so that it would be at least if they did that it' be roughly a, ft from the house I know some people say there's no safety concern with radiation but if there was they say at least 1,000 ft is is safe so instead of making it 400t from my house if they can move it even further uh East and further north that way it be roughly a, to 12200 feet away from from me and Jack's home so okay that's it anything else okay all right any questions from here okay thank you very much all right thank you Mr John have you I know you've listened to what theyve had to say is there any uh any uh any sense in looking at the lazy lay property um Matt I John again and I would say no because Verizon is trying to avoid overlap with the Blandon site but they're also needing to be proximate to they're trying to pick up traffic to the South and just like these lights over your head those recess can lights if you start moving them you create dark spots and as you saw on the RF map that was provided it's currently meant to reach down and it reaches the edge of the residential areas further south so you're going to pull away from that and when you make these compatibility decisions which stand in the light of their own day on a Case by casee basis you're always balancing nearby neighbors and the overall area so I would respectfully submit that uh to the extent that Mr bluffing has and if I may please have my PowerPoint presentation back um while they're bringing that out to the extent that Mr bluffing had um Mr Bluffin had his stated that his house would be able to VI view we have a line of sight analysis from his property MH uh that takes into account the trees and runs from there to the tower so you know Mr Bluffin obviously has a firmly you know a earnestly felt belief but we've provided competent I would respectfully submit we provide competent substantial evidence analyzing The View shed and also um on that same note as um commissioner pontet uh noticed with u Mr Derry you can see Mr derry's property and I won't speak to whatever tree clearing activity he may have done on his property but his property's way up here so what he was holding out that that you look in due east through a a gap in the canopy established that his house was under canopy um it wasn't a picture look working Southeast right um I know that Mr Bluffin was asking to move a th000 feet to the east he mentioned RF emissions so I would respectfully submit that that's grounded in RF emissions and of course Telecom act prevents regulation on the basis of R emissions but even just looking at sound planning his th foot radius was putting us in wetlands and a lower area where you need a taller Tower and once you go over 200 ft you have to light the tower so um and then uh just to discuss um uh lazy lay Acres I understand that uh they're trying to Market their property by way of the diere I mean that's very clear um the public right of way stop short of their property so maybe there's easements maybe there's not May I'm sure they're driving stuff up there but Verizon has a very specific requirement for access to the extent that I've had two sites this year shut down after they were built because they did not meet the legal requirements for a marketable assignable access to them as a tenant so with that uh we would respectfully request that you recommend approval of the monopole as adjusted all right thank you very much for your presentation any questions for Mr John no I'll go on the record to say that since I was one that requested the continues initially I I certainly appreciate the effort that the applicants done with relocating the the uh the location of the pole and I I agree that uh the safety concerns are completely eliminated regards to proximity to the houses um I think the viewshed analysis is very telling that uh yeah where you're going to come down St Jer road heading to the West you're going to see it obviously if you look to the north but I think the location that is proposed now is far superior to what was what was uh initially proposed so I appreciate your efforts and in doing that all right any else anything else I'm Chris when I read this case we had continued at 60 days we asked them to speak with the Christmas tree farm people I understand the access problem and I think they've done the next best thing there was an attempt made to to try to move the tower location and that was my take on it too was that they did the best they could they tempted to assuage our concerns and don't see any Rec any reason that we should deny the request yeah even the um U access issue with um even ignoring that there's an issue with coverage if they move that far north as Miss John mentioned so I agree okay then in that case I hear a motion I'll make a motion to approve second a motion and second further discussion all in favor signi by saying I I oppos like sign okay motion carries thank you for your time today thank you okay what's next Mr chair we're going to go to item PC3 because we do have someone who wants to speak on the withdrawn item and that same person also wants to speak on P item um PC 17 as well and that is Miss Jennifer sceni wow um okay yeah Jennifer cini 25605 Apple Blossom Lane Wesley Chapel 33544 I'm here to speak to the item that you withdrew that would be the original invasives ordinance that was presented to you twice um this program was meant to be proactive in that the inventory of of invasive plants in new development was to start early in the process planning process it provided a very specific list of invasive plants that was tailored to Pasco it didn't simply say remove invasives it said include an invasive management plan with guidelines best management practices types of treatment maintenance and monitoring this ordinance amended 26 sections of the Land Development code in order to make sure that every type of new development would be required to comply this it was this was a seriously aggressive program but you need to know that we're not the leader on programs with this approach Hillsboro County has an extremely strict invasive ordinance requiring strong specific me measures they name their obnoxious plants and kogan grass is among it pel is right there with Hillsboro with a very strict approach to invasives at the site planning stage pul county is so serious about their aquatic invasive species ordinance that their sheriff's department enforces it they've invested thousands into providing boat decontamination stations fando only names two plants that ticks them off but requires complete eradication on all property whether development or individual homeowners you did not need to kill this program others were already doing an aggressive approach and we could have been part of that unfortunately your interference in the development of this invasives program was unwarranted and I believe should be reversed that's my comment on PC3 okay thank you very much good afternoon chair good afternoon board how you doing good to see you again um here for pc17 and that is uh an ordinance by the Pas County Board County Commissioners amending the pass County Land Development code section 95.2 Point e landscape and buffering landscape uh acceptance maintenance and prohibitions appendix a definitions and other sections as necessary for internal consistency providing for applicability repar uh providing for severability inclusion into the Land Development code and effective date and go to the next slide please actually two slides one more so this is the Land Development code amendment number 69 it was on July 11 2024 the LPA requested to revise the invasive vegitation Amendment and replaced by an amendment of the section 95.2 uh of the Land Development code the previous embased vegetation was version uh drd 2436 and it has been withdrawn on July 17 2024 the uh this amendment was discussed with the interested Parts in the horizontal round table grp and this invasive vegetation version the drd 24209 was D and properly advertised in the Tampa Bay Times on July 24 202 next slide please this amendment is uh requesting consistent with the following comprehensive elements chapter 3 conservation element policy con 1.8.2 Landscaping with native plant species uh pas County shall continue to require the use of native plant species and non nonnative or nonnative species uh proven to be noninvasive in the Landscaping of new development projects and additions to to existing projects next slid please so this amendment is for chapter 900 specifically 95.28 landscaping and buffering landscape acceptance maintenance and prohibitions and this amendment requires the proper disposal of invasion vegetation and ident identifies Future Property Owners that are required to maintain Landscaping free of invasive vegetation it also amends the definitions by adding a new definition for invasive vegetation or invasive plant species uh and the new definition for invasive vegetation um or PL species as proposed next slide please so uh we are um respectfully asking the board to fight the proposed ordinance Amendment consistent with the pass County comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the PO County Commissioners okay any questions from Maas Roberto I guess the first question I have is what's the proposed language of the ordinance when I came to sit down this afternoon it was being changed as we sat here so it would be helpful to know what the actual language being proposed is all right so for record I would like to introduce this uh this is the language uh it it changed a little bit and so do you want to put it up or do you have a copy for everyone I have a copy for everyone okay it wouldn't hurt to put it up have a motion to receive and file motion to receive and file second all in favor I I so as that is being distributed um pretty much is going to stay the same as it was um distributed earlier we just saided in the last uh paragraph uh there was a request made to include some of this k k grass language um and as we uh disuss with the team we identify that the department of agriculture uh already has a Prohibition for uh distribution of Co grass is very specific so it's already a state uh what I call it a the state's already taken uh Cardon this this issue so we added the paragraph that's highlighted in yellow that the Department of Agriculture and consumer services recognizes that the Cass is both the state and federal noxious weed and it shall be illegal to sell hay or s from con grass and fested Fields in pukani all s use for site development uh we produce through a licensed Sal farm and certify as a grass free and human movement of the grass is any in any fashion fa IL that's what has been added just this uh few uh hours I guess Roberto what does the last sentence what does that mean human movement of the grass in any fashion is illegal so you you cannot transport it you cannot distribute it uh you need to get rid of it and how does how does one dispose of it what you talking about what grass googan grass or grass from The Sod Farm well K grass okay I I make the presumption that you're talking about kogan grass my question is if human movement of the grass is in any fashion is legal then how does one dispose of it I think we need to make an edit there I think that needs some help yeah yeah human movement I think we we know what was trying to be Achi it needs to be written better outside of disposal of Cogen grass fashion we go and I think there's Elizabeth when we were working on this before there was a Florida Administrative Code section that 5j something or other that actually had l language about transporting and moving this stuff can't we reference that wouldn't that be the better way to do that and then Roberto I the one question I have I have no issue with making sure that we're not buying sod or hay and I've heard the stories about buying sod and hay from kogan grass infested Fields but do licensed sod farms actually certify that they are kogan grass free like does the state have a program if you're a licensed sod farm that requires them to do such things my concern comes from are we making a requirement that's impossible for somebody to fulfill if a licensed sod farm won't guarantee that it's kogan grass free then we've made a requirement that our citizens can't comply with not saying that we want kogan grass in the saw that's something that the state regulates on side Farms do we know how that works yeah this is already regulated by the state state statement I'm not sure you answered the question that that already is regulated that's that that this comes from the state straightforward from the state so they regulate that they have a website they have I think what I think what he's asking is are these sod farm salese are they certified is there some kind of certification that can confirm that they are authorized sellers of Cogan free right I I have to look into that I don't know the answer but so that's that's my hesitancy I don't I have no issue with making sure we have a war with kogan grass I got no issue but what I don't want to do is create a law that is impossible for the citizenry to comply with like the last time we talked about you wanted them to get a certification that the fil dirt was free of wheat SE well from somebody who's in this business that's regularly buying fil dirt I can tell you you can't buy fil dirt and get a certification that that's the case nobody's going to do that so what I'm asking is do sod farms do that if they do that that's great I'm all for this yes and we got we had a um we had do and Swift M here Katherine starky P 4920 gallan Court Newport um and maybe they they just don't recall that we did have do and Swift Mud come um report to give us a report on how they manage Cogan grass on their property and this is straight from them they require um sod be come from certified sod farms only and they have they monitor them for three years and I drove the State Road 52 Corridor with the guys in charge of this program there's a Nuance in what you said I have no issue that they require that the sod come from a certified Sod Farm my question had to do with does a certified sod farm guarantee that it's kogan grass free I understand the monitoring and I'm all good with that they must I mean so that's part of the certification I think is what he's asking and I have witnessed and I've had calls from developers and land owners who said commissioner they are selling kogan grass as saw right now off of State Road 52 and I feel so bad for the developments that just got that cocen grass um saw uh because they're they're going to have a humongous bill when they go to change all their grass out but so but to answer your question yes and this is straight out of state language and it's what other counties require okay and then maybe Elizabeth can oh it is still in here it says best management practices for maintenance shall be included within the development review manual so what are those that's what we were talking about last time that we would use this ordinance to refer back to that manual and I do like the language was in what we're reading here was changed to say as a standard for implementing this section versus just for reference right but yeah what what are the what are the best management practices it you're never going to be successful at a program if you don't have something that's understandable by the public on what to do when I researched this issue there's not a whole lot of science about what to do there are some people that say well we can go spray it with glyphosate but that's they say that it takes multiple years of application of glyphosate to do that and I'm not sure that anybody who knows anything about glyphosate wants that's sprayed all over the county then there's this chemical called and I'm going to mispronounce it IM imip up here and this is from The Nature Conservancy by the way and this is used sometimes to control kogan grass and then it talks about this particular pesticide um that it's exudate and the ability of a aipa to move intertwined root graphs May therefore adversely affect surrounding desirable vegetation with little to no control of the target spe so what I'm trying to figure out is what do I tell my client what what is the best management practice for he or she to get rid of the kogan grass what is that and what is the county doing because the comp plan says that the county was supposed to do that in policy con 184 you were supposed to develop a program on County owned their leas lands to eliminate exotic nuisance plant species so I'm not saying you're not doing these I'm asking what is the the method what what works what what can people do so hello again Keith Wy director of parks recreation natural resources so if the question is specifically directed to kogan grass it's herbicide herbicide herbicide herbicide herbicide herbicide which herbicide so you typically glyphosate right or or some something stronger that's more systemic but to the to the actual whole list the bmps depend on the actual species in question I think we talked about this last time so instead of a very robust you know guideline we're referring to the bmps that's referenced actually I think in the existing LDC uh language that then gets to University of Florida Institute of food and agricultural Sciences which I think would be the experts on what those bmps would be so right because science is advancing at all times so those pmps can change and and we had kogan grass on starky Boulevard um especially on the right hand side recently in the last two years staff went out there and sprayed it three times gone um we had kogan grass years ago on the left hand side um bordering some of the Swift Mud Edge and some of the um I guess dot know Duke right away and uh our family did a trade and we we got them to get rid of something noxious on our property we got rid of the kogan grass there so yes you you can treat it uh and the county just needs to start getting a PL I'm I'm going to speak again later on my 3 minutes come back it's in my 3 minutes s in my 3 minutes um but yes we we have treated it minutes we have treated it successfully and what I'm good with is just it put the takes it out of all their property I I just want to make sure that if they amend the development man you will to include bmps that they're practical bmps that people can achieve absolutely and and to your point commissioner it's this it's not an easy thing to do but again there are methods that have proven results that you just have to continue to do and apply over and over again we're not saying the complete eradication is 100% possible it's difficult Brazilian pepper is difficult to get rid of so yeah that's for sure yeah some people like it yeah they do what I will tell you is from personal experience when we clear development sites that are infested with kogan grass and I've got one that's under construction right now it's over in west of us9 in the sea Forest Area it was the% covered when we when we cleared it and grubbed it and took the first 6 Ines of dirt off it's never come back they'll do it it's doable that's the cheap way so back to your point though you mentioned sod farms but it also mentions hey here so you know I drive by and see hey for sale are we creating some kind of thing where people won't be able to do that without getting some kind of test or I mean hopefully they're not selling that out of kogan and grass infested Fields but but there's not necessarily a test but I also want to make sure we're not driving them out of business by not that's creating some regular I share your concern that's why we have a Florida Department of Agriculture and consumer services who happens to be headed by a Pasco County resident citizen um I don't know whether the county has the authority to regulate the sale of agricultural products or not I'm not sure we do or don't that's question for the lawyers question I don't have an answer for that but um but I mean I we do know that the state does they have there's a there's a rule in the Florida administrative code in fact I think it was in the last version of this ordinance it was cited and I have no problem that following what the state law is on that and I agree because then all of a sudden some some future commission or some future Administration comes in and wants and seees so and so with a I've got hay for sale sign and they're down there knocking on their doors demanding to see their certifications right right all that being said from what I understand cows won't eat kogan grass so if you sell them hay with kogan grass in it you're not going to be in business law but it could be cross contaminated with seeds and things like that so so are we are you are we writing up new language now that we need to talk about or well what I'm suggesting is that there be a a couple of edits made to this and he certainly this is in furtherance of that comp plan policy that he put up there on the PowerPoint though it does need to be Wordsmith I mean like I would probably can we put the language back up [Music] may we still take public comment to I mean I for example would take the reference to in Pasco County from that first sentence and switch it over to be illegal in Pasco County like moving that around and then I think what needs to be done is the word c but needs to be inserted into that last sentence under human movement human movement needs to somehow be modified to allow for disposal as you had pointed out there needs to be some reference to that other then appropriate disposal and then maybe incorporating the Florida rules for disposal um as the rule you're referring to as the disposal rule right so that talk about transport transporting right and Disposal incorporating that rule in there and then the research project of whether or not we have an issue with prohibiting the sale of some kind of ultural product but I would certainly think that us prohibiting the sale of Tainted hay and sad probably wouldn't run a fail of some kind of Department regulation because it's in further words of their own regulation if you were to prohibit that but I can look into that as for any additional amendments to this I I don't know but that's what I would do to fix that additional language okay and further in so that policy what you're saying did you get the last sentence on that Elizabeth the human movement of clarify other than some kind of appropriate disposal pursuing to best management practices or or whatever that's kind of confusing right there's a state rule do we need an additional rule can we just reference to say that it's sometimes best to give your reader the concept instead of making them go resarch something else you know what I mean but it's it's it's okay to cross reference and repeat things at our state level okay and you just include the rule the text of the rule I remember it was a fairly short thing 5j something or that's possible too and then the second with the definition we're including proposing to include in appendix a are we creating a conflicting definition of what invasive is because we're defining it by UF if's list in the E5 but then we've got a different definition than the pendix say that's not a question and then I'll just say that none of that's consistent with the comp plan policy con 1.86 says Pascal count shall utilize the Florida exotic best plant council's list of exotic nuisance plant species as amended that are likely to occur in Pasco County oh I may not like that but it is what it is the comp plan is what it is but that's at a DAT right that's out of date that terminology what I understand it's out of date it may be but are they now the Fisk the florid yes that's yes okay but that's what the compant says I may not personally like it but that's what it says right and as far as I think one of the Commissioners brought up the definition underneath appendix a I mean quite honestly it really the it is you could say that the definition is actually underneath E5 referring to the to that but that's I guess that's up up to you all to consider that piece but I'm just saying down the road somebody goes oh well I think that this plant is extensively uncontrollable and poses an environmental threat well who gets to determine that down I mean it's fairly consistent with most yeah most of the definitions that refer to that but um yeah to your point it's could be probably defined elsewhere so yeah yeah Keith and I think I I had raised that question in conversations with staff earlier I just didn't know I know before we were talking about the category one plants and then it was just whether this was are the category one plant going to actually be listed in the development manual not I mean I think the intent is to use the reference that's an existing code language so we wouldn't we wouldn't be creating an additional list we would use all the existing references and make it a simple as possible and I will say that um I mean that database is rather extensive but you can filter it by the type specifically called out in the existing code language so I think that's safe territory and then I got one last question hopefully it's not about how you get rid of Cogan grass CU I really well no I'm I'm all good with that but the last time I was here I asked has anybody gone over to marada and ask them to please remove the kogan grass along with the ludia peruviana and the Brazilian pepper cuz it's still there today when I passed by and we added your parcel too that you I don't have any rid of some next door tomorrow okay and what's the pleasure what do we what do we want to do you take Public public yeah I thought we did I thought Catherine gave it to it continue public not yet she didn't use her three minutes yet oh that's right that's right okay so who would like to have public comment is there Lester is for this one the only person is Miss that has signed up to speak okay Jennifer CI 25605 Apple Blossom Lane Westley Chapel Florida 33544 this time I'm here to speak to pc17 um the newly proposed osed invasive ordinance based on Section 95.2 this ordinance amends one single paragraph buried deep within section 95.2 the section actually runs approximately 17 pages but this is just one paragraph This board expressed their opinion that we already have an invasive ordinance through 9052 if that were the case why hasn't it worked so far this paragraph has existed for decades but has not done anything to stop The Invasion now why because it's an afterthought it is a reactive if you will paragraph to a situation it is not proactive it is not prioritized for example here there is no required inventory of species just a vague if you find them remove them there's no requirement for management plan there's no oversight there's no process or procedure to implement it and there is no reporting essentially it is relegated to an unsupported Code Compliance function I find it very interesting that it references ifas assessment of non-native plants employers natural areas you know that is a list of over 900 species but who no ma'am it is 900 species plus and but who cares because we're going to let staff do any work with this ordinance anyway so what does it matter if there are hundreds of species that don't relate to Pasco County and who cares what are those pesky invasives that make our County Commissioners crazy aren't emphasized here the proposed ordinance puts this whole program on the backs of Staff most likely cold compliance and it will not be prioritized unfortunately you all directed staff away from Pasco County Commissioners directive and I will say I've watched both meetings and please forgive me but it you guys were bullying staff and you know what they gave up and they gave you 9005 I say this proposed ordinance should be scrapped and we go back to the original attempt to put in a real proactive program thank you thank you okay I think we had one other person want to speak Cindy buckler 59 38 Frontier Drive Zer Hills Florida there are actually 1,400 invasive plants in the State of Florida most of these plants are sold in every Nursery that you can find one of the most popular ones are Fountain grasses which are com in red they have the feathers on them they grow wild um camper trees um there's a whole there's a whole lot of them my question is are you all going are you prepared to go to the Home Depot in Zephyr Hills the loe's and Zephyr Hills the nurseries throughout the county and tell them they no longer can sell these plants that have been sold for years and years Palm Beach County also uses these in Landscapes um right now camper the fountain grass um the Australian pines that grow along our beaches um these are drought tolerant plants okay now the weeds that sarie talked about they can be somewhat um problematic but are we to burn the entire County down to get rid of all the weeds and are we going to tell the nurseries that they can no longer sell these plants for landscaping I have these plants in my own yard and they grow wild and I allow them to grow wild because I live on five Wooded Acres near the airport in zeper Hills which is a whole another story and they cause no kind of problem at all my concern is why all of a sudden commissioner starky decided to start attacking the invasive weeds I didn't hear anything about it until that came up and then the fires that caused the MOG and then got out of control and then someone was arrested for starting a fire which they did not start um I have all of this documented I've been doing this for 35 years this is the first time I've been in front of you all but the Commissioners know me very well and that's my concern camper trees are huge they provide shade they they are not a bad tree and if you can cut down a 36 in or bigger grandfather Oak and burn it but you're going to want to cut down and burn Lantana grass and everything else that these Home Depots Lowe's nurseries all throughout Pasco County sell what's the plan you can't it's not going to be able to be stopped they're first of all they are perennials and they will come back over and over again okay thank you is there anybody else thank uh Katherine starky 4920 gallan Court Newport Richie um thanks for taking this on I know it's a really tough ordinance um but we have been talking about dealing with Cogan grass at the county level for number of years now and um we have got to get a little proactive on it or our count is going to be eaten up with it and um Swift Mud and Dot have very active programs to stop it in their property as I mentioned and we we have done really nothing to stop the spread and there are things that can be done to stop the spread and if you research it you'll see no animal eats Cogan grass it cuts their tongues to to Pieces um and to walk through it you can't you can't walk through it it'll cut cut up your your legs so to have it in your yards to have it in your Open Spaces um it's just very detrimental it burns at a higher rate it's got a lot of oil in it so um it can uh cause um control burns to burn at a much higher level and you'll lose your trees um it will actually um overtake a a lot of new growth in um in in P well takes over pastures and and I would say to you can you get a nag exemption for a pasture of Cogan grass when it's no agricultural purpose I'm not sure that's legal to get an egg exemption on a on any acreage of Cogan grass so if we don't get proactive on stopping the spr read we're going to look like a lot of parts of what Hernando County looks like and um so it's just time that we we put some rules down and uh one of the things I suggest suggested to staff and I've been um starting conversations with our um secretary vag will Simpson is is there a way that we can help fund um with grants the removal of some of this stuff in some of our neighborhoods cuz I think it's going to be a long hard fight to stop the the spread but I think we have to try otherwise we're just going to be overrun with it EV every piece of grass we have in the county will be kogan grass so so are Katherine are you primarily your concern is kogan grass not not Camp I I you know trees and not stuff like that here here's my problem with Cogan grass we're spreading it through new development pretty much I don't think we're spreading Brazilian pepper through new development that's coming right from the birds maybe eating the seeds and then spreading it that way that's that's a harder nut I do want the county to have a program to start getting rid of Brazilian pepper and I pretty sure Keith uh when they get El lamp properties Keith still here behind me he there of course um when they get property they remove invasives we we bought the gulf Harbor's um fun golf course and we're going to be working together with the pro the gulf Harbor's residents and the parks department and El lamp to get rid of the invasives and it's mostly Brazilian pepper off that property um but to go and try and get rid of all the Brazilian pepper in Pasco County I that's that's that's a hard thing to do I used to drive to Miami all the time and I watch the state spend I don't know how much money getting rid of maluca but they they did do it they got rid of it a lot of also Australian pines they they got rid of but if you do nothing it's going to be so much more expensive for us in the future so uh we just have to start somewhere I'm not real H I don't really want it to be on the backs of Code Enforcement because they're just not equipped to do something like this so we'll have to figure that out um but let's you [Music] know let's start somewhere so so the thrust though right now for you is co grass yes it's not camper trees no um I did hear um at the last Planning Commission a woman speak about development happened near her and there were air potato plants yeah and then through that development process her air potato plants got worse now I don't think that's fair I don't know how to deal with that one I've not researched potato plants yeah and I know some of the ranchers over here complain about uh terrible um soda apples yes and we used to have those on our Ranch and I can tell you that was a great job for my kids when they were in high school and before high school to drive around in a little ranch vehicle and we sprayed all our soda tropical soda apples cuz those will tear up your cows and we got we got rid of all of ours and uh we didn't have Brazilian pepper we didn't have soda apple and we did not have Cogan grass on any of the starky ranch property can't speak for camper trees I don't think we had any but I know those three we worked very hard and very diligently to make sure we had none of those EMB bases on our property I think what the um Cindy was speaking about is not anything near what we're talking about with kogan grass kogan grass is one of the 10 most evasive plants in the world and so okay thank you no no I'm sorry you can't not unless somebody wants to ask me a question no we can't speak from the audience okay okay so what's the pleasure of the group are we going to get like updated language we're just going to continue this or well you could continue the item or you could find the draft language as written in the proposed amend M ments to it consistent with the comprehensive plan which is the only motion that you're required to make as the LPA um so puts you not in the position of recommending approval on something that you haven't yet to see the final product of so yeah that would be my suggestion that you just do that that way it keeps moving forward and we can certainly send to you for kind courtesy and curiosity what the final thing looks like before it even goes on the board agenda you know it's whatever your pleasure is I'd rather see the language well if we continue it we will see the language right well you don't have to continue you can and this is that your all plet Earth the matters in front of you I I hate I mean I think this is an important issue I mean I I know that I was pretty vocal against what was being said and what was brought to us last time I think this is an important issue and I think this is a good compromise I like John would like to see the language I'm a little uncomfortable not seeing the language but if it's a Pasco County before or after a certain word I'm not too concerned about that part of it um I think we need to get something in place and something where we can start moving forward and and and I think really it does like Katherine said I think it does come not really so much on on Code Enforcement this kind of goes back to even when site development plans are submitted and when site development plans are reviewed when there's inspections at the end of construction when the contractor or the Builder is getting ready to leave the site I think that's an important my opinion I think that's an important part of the inspection process the natural resources needs to be going out making sure that the stuff that was supposed to be removed was in fact removed um I I mean I hate the the story of the HOA that was burdened with the air potato I mean that that's that's a bad story and that's a big thing that they have to tackle down the road so um is there any way we can just finalize the language or Elizabeth you're just not comfortable the only thing is I don't have a reference to that rule number that specifically and can we take a break for five minutes and let her find that's a yes 5 minute break I know right I was warned we don't want to be here any longer than necessary either yeah yeah it's Florida administrative code 5j and I'm going to try to help you [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] for [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] okay let's go back to M I think uh we can get the new language up on the screen there we go does that look right and then the definition it's modified to reflect that to give direction to the reader can you keep scrolling down yeah that it's because that's actually in the body of of the ordinance and so I thought it might be useful keth perfect can you scroll back up I think he missed a word I did yeah all side use for site development must be procured okay through a license side there's an extra County in the beginning of that one okay I'll than that too yep see it just wanted to see if you're paying attention are we ready for a there will be a test okay with those two changes is that appropriate then for y Mr Moody well I think he wanted to make we ready for motion move well I just had I'm sorry I had one more question so back to your question though I know it came up last time is does this now there seem to be concern that they couldn't go out and check the places like Mora does this give them the at least the backbone to do that correct see n Keith Wy yes that is correct Mr Wes okay thank you thank you Keith so I move we recommend approval the ordinances modified finding it consistent with the comprehensive plan okay so yeah we find the modified ordinance language consistent with Comprehensive plan second I will uh one thing I'll say since we're at discussion on this is that I think um this certainly goes beyond our purview but the bmps and the development review man on the like to get to Miss's point I think there it's an opportunity for us to have a more robust program um in attacking inv basin in general I think it's that's the right place for this to obviously be not within the within the ordinance but um encourage Keith group and others to reach out to whoever those experts are to to develop that because there's a lot of really good folks in this in this space that can help with that but I think that we can get to to you know may not be necessarily as ordinance driven in robust as what Hillsboro has but I think that we can get there with the uh through the development review process okay any other discussion I'll just say that money spent on the actual removal is better than money spent trying to prove you've complied with some bureaucratic process that's true yeah are you just saying dig it up is that an edit right don't K it depends on what it is okay we have a motion have a second second we had discussion all in favor of the motion signify by saying I I oos like sign all [Applause] [Music] right Terry good evening fining commission uh speak house Planning Development economic growth and ter let's wa to late oh they're making a lot of noise I can't hear you you're being rude shall I begin okay I think we're quiet enough now okay good evening uh planning Commissioners um item PC8 is the long awaited car wash facilities ordinance proposed Car Wash facilities ordinance this is PDD 24336 um with a power Point that's going to come up in a second um essentially this is an ordinance by the pass County Board planing Commissioners to amend the Land Development code in a number of uh sections to introduce uh new regulations that will help uh provide regulatory guidance on the development of car washes in Pasco County so our purpose here tonight is to establish new LDC standards for car wash facilities this will be Land Development code amendment number 70 and the reason why we're doing this tonight is uh to establ to understand the frequency and location of low employment generating Car Wash businesses on County arterials and collectors and that has created a public concern uh such that the board of County Commissioners directed The Planning Development economic growth Department back then Planning and Development Department to develop new standards to regulate the frequen location and design of car washes and so what I would like to do today or tonight is to discuss our journey in developing the proposed ordinance uh by first talking about existing conditions and observations associated with car washes then talk about the consistency in terms of what the comprehensive plan directs and lastly to get into the actual proposed ordinance and so we'll walk through each of those in that order and before I I do that I just want to say that we've had extensive stakeholder input in the development of this ordinance we have received uh a lot of feedback through multiple meetings over the course of the last uh six to seven months or so as we've developed this in hand with our U private sector Partners Land Use uh site planners uh land attorneys and uh and other interested parties so we want to thank them for their participation in the process uh so in terms of existing conditions this is a map of the West uh Pasco Harbor area it's indicating the frequency and location of uh Car Wash facilities what we're passing out right now is a map and what's on the board on either side of me are maps that show the frequency and location of car washes countywide and uh soon as Chris is done handing out those uh plant so you can see them up close and better we'll turn these boards around and let the audience take a look at a motion to receive and file so move second uh but what you'll see on the maps that are being passed out as we turn these around here on the sides um we have 25 fre standing Car Wash facilities across the county we have four freestanding Car Wash facilities within the cities the various cities that are in the county 10 self-service car wash facilities uh four hand wash service facilities and 29 gas stations with ancillary uses that are car wash that have car washes uh this amounts to approximately 72 different opportunities to wash the car within the county jurisdiction it 72 yeah if I did the math right in total um not sure the power point Something's Happened gra as we think about the frequency and location of car washes within Pasco County we need to be aware uh and aware of our County our crossy thorough fars and how many we actually have though the county is a really big place um we actually don't have that many Cross County thorough fars we have from west to east just 11 North South roads that will go County North to South um and that's kind of stretching it a little bit uh us9 Rowan it's kind of a stretch it cooperates with us9 little also sort of cooperates with us9 star key Moon Lake alignment Sun Lake shev Hills alignment US 41 State Road 54 Old Pasco alignment Bruce B D boy at mckendry alignment curly metal Point alignment hand cart M brige alignment and US1 old Lakeland Highway those are cross count roads and then as we move from the south to the north there's even fewer Cross County thorough fars um we have state 5456 State 54 the zepher hills bypass Island County Road 54 alignment the rangeland Aaron cut off alignment which actually continues in in a vision Road scenario will cross over 75 or uh cross under 75 um Ridge Road and overpass so those two don't really line up they're kind of on the same parallel uh and then State Ro 52 itself and County Line Road uh up by Hernando County um and so we want to make sure that we uh temper or moderate the frequency of certain low employment generating land use is on our highly valuable uh Cross County thorough and the frontages that that they have so uh some of the observations that have uh come in from the public have been on the appearance of car washes uh generally vacuum stations fac of the roadway and no screening so the functionality of the site um has been a key Point that's been brought up um the expense or space between the road and the building where the building is hidden from the road because of the landscaping or the uh the vacuum structures themselves uh and and so this is part of the observations that we were looking at with in terms of what's happening with car washes uh in our in our County and then in terms of where we'd like to go some best uh best examples here buildings near to the roadway with the vacuum stations and the ancillary equipment and functions sort of screened and either behind buildings or behind uh Landscaping so onto the consistency analysis then um we would like to talk about is a number of comprehensive plan policies and the first one the first set is going to be policy flu 1810 and policy Ed 162 which are essentially the same both of these in the comprehensive plan note that the county shall through the development review process ensure adequate land and transportation capacity is available for present and future high paying employment generating land uses uh the development review process noted in the comprehensive plan begins with the regulatory framework of the Land Development code this the provisions of the Land Development code establish the standards against which a review is conducted the review process itself establishing the proposed standards for car washes and the Land Development code ensures adequate land and transportation capacity is available for employment generating land es because the draft Provisions will regulate and condition the design proximity and frequency of Co washes on the transportation corridors Board of County Commissioners uh Express desire uh desires the economic diversification and the preservation of impl generating frontages of the County's Transportation quarters so proposing regulation for design and frequency as well as establishing car washes as conditional uses will enable the county to assess the impacts of such development and spread it out sufficiently to make space imp generating uses uh additionally policy flu 143 which talks about transitional land uses and policy flu 163 which is a parallel policy are typically used to transition specific land uses between one another they're used to ensure an appropriate mitigation of impact using Land Development code standards such as landscape Buffs noise mitigation measures hours of operation Etc the proposed amendments uh before the Planning Commission today work to ensure an appropriate design design relationship between car washes and surrounding land uses in addition the policy also works to manage Redevelopment of areas no longer appropriate as viable residential areas so if it's not going to be residential what is it going to be commercial or industrial uh mainly talking about commercial areas here properties identified for commercial development or Redevelopment are typically understood as not viable or appropriate for residential development alone in understanding that a property is more appropriately designated as non-residential or at least excuse policy flu 163 requires the management of said non-residential development or Redevelopment and so the proposed amendment seeks to manage the development or Redevelopment of sites proposing car washes through the application of the conditional use process and the new standards uh to ensure a mitigation of impacts and a reasonable transition between uses policy flu 144 talks about residential compatibility buffer standards between residential and non-residential land uses and this intends to protect neighborhoods from the sensory intrusion of adjacent non-residential uses that may affect the long-term viability of those neighborhoods propos amendments to landel will condition and limit the sensory intrusions car wash uses will have on surrounding development whether it is residential or non-residential in scope the uh neighboring uses it is often the case that car wash uses locate near to residential areas and are also adjacent to other non-residential development and lastly policy flu 1220 which talks about groundwater protection and waste disposal on discharge this policy requires the county to monitor permit monitor permit compliance for Waste Disposal and or discharge facilities and activities and so while the policy is typically associated with solid waste waste water would fall under this policy with uses that are Wastewater dischargers such as car washes in terms of General countywide application so the proposed amendments seek to reinforce groundwater protection against car wash Wastewater and car wash Wastewater um and so let's move into the actual proposed ordinance U now and we'll do a walk through of the of the ordinance we'll start first with the definition of what we're actually talking about in the car wash facility standards the proposed Car Wash standards we're talking about free standing car washes so a free standing Car Wash is an automotive vehicle service that includes a fully automated exterior vehicle washing that uses soft touch or touchless equipment as Vehicles move on a conveyor belt along a washing tunnel fitted with a series of synchronized machines and providing a minimum of three vacuum stations that's the last uh piece of the definition is important so that we can make distinctions between what a freestanding Car Wash is and what an ancillary Car Wash might be the number of vacuum stations being the determining Factor um before we get into the new section 1106 there were some supporting amendments associated with with this new uh proposed uh ordinance in chapter 300 two amendments are proposed that will prohibit waiver of preapplication or pre-consultation meetings uh and will require Car Washers to have neighborhood meetings that would make it consistent with other with the with with the practice of reviewing conditional use permits in chapter 400 we're aligning conditional use requirements with new zoning regulations which bulleted under chapter 500 are to make freestanding car washes conditional uses in in the C1 Zone uh and to make ancillary car washes as special exceptions in the C1 Zone and lastly to make freestanding car washes conditional uses in the C2 Zone uh small parenthesis of the whole car wash conversation there was an add-on Amendment uh that is rather unrelated to the car washes but it's in chapter 900 which is to modify stacking requirements for drive-thru facilities for restaurants essentially instead of counting the number of stacking spaces from a menu board out eight spaces you can now count according to the proposed amendment uh count spaces from the pickup of them and it's a little bit more site plan friendly uh to the uh to restaurants and other uses that have to count their drive-thru stacking close parentheses on chapter 900 so uh onto the new section 1106 car watch facilities so instead of uh going line by line I'm not going to I've already kind of talked about the intent and purpose uh I'm going to do uh sort of summary Recaps and then you can see the language on the on the overhead and if we have any particular points we want to discuss we can always bring the the language up on the overhead and talk about them specifically but if you recall C1 and C2 will have car washes as a conditional use permit now so um in the first sentence in in uh paragraph a there uh in muds that have C1 and C2 permitted uses identified um those muds are now going to need a substantial modification to add car car washes back into those muds which is essentially the same process as you might consider for a conditional use uh in a ukian Zone um which is basically review bring the Planning Commission bring to the board of County Commissioners for review and approval so to clarify Terry um that means a C3 it will be permitted it won't be a conditionally or it won't be per permitted at all it's not permitted at all they they're not permitted today okay um moving through continuing to move through the paragraph We have uh a Prohibition in the EC employment center ilil industrial Light IH industrial heavy TC Town Center future land use categories uh these these future land use categories uh are reserved for employment generating land uses some of them have a 15% support commercial allowance uh this ordinance would remove the car wash from being part of that 15% so that we can maximize the employment generating potential in those future landage categories and within that 50% support allowance um from a design perspective autoc Centric car washes are not as compatible with traditional neighborhood design or Transit oriented developments or the compact Development Area of a mix strip ruction measure project um because those types of ordinances those types of uh design patterns seek to uh enable pedestrian and bicycle or non vehicular um non-auto Centric uh mobility and so having a car wash in there would sort of disrupt the environment a little bit um and so there's a a Prohibition proposed in this paragraph uh additionally there's a Prohibition proposed in Connected City for the northern and southern Innovation zones as well as for the community Hub uh special planning area and uh in terms of The Villages of pasadina Hills if you're a type two Village it would be prohibit car washes would be prohibited but in a type 1 vop Village you would be allowed one car wash per Village Village again in Bop the intent is to uh promote pedestrian bike other non vehicular mobility and a car wash would likely disrupt the pattern however there is an allowance that's being made to uh enable carwashes within the more region serving Villages of the op and then uh previously specifically approved car washes in muds uh within this paragraph would be exempt from section 1106 so for example if you're in a type two Village of vop that has an mpud that has an allowance for car you you would be exempt from this from these uh prohibitions moving on uh we get into paragraph B which is limited applicability these standards are more countywide applicable so the previous paragraph about very specific areas of the county and what happens within them here this is more countywide uh General paragraph B would influence paragraph a right so these would stack on top and provide support um I provided a key at the bottom of the page here because you'll note that in each of these uh Provisions we reference certain uh proposed code sections right 116.3 b e F1 and 11064 B9 uh the the key at the bottom tells you that what we're talking about here the things that you're not exempt from so to speak would be following the noise ordinance which is in the code of ordinances or as might be limited by a conditional use permit the hours of operations uh which this section does have a proposed time frame or as limited by conditional use PR uh 11063 F1 is basically keep your pavement markings crisp make sure that the markings on the gun are painted properly so it's a basic Property Maintenance uh provision and 11064 B9 is basically follow Florida D uscpa regulations on waste water and uh so on and so forth but here we have a progression of exemptions that are proposed all proposed new free standing car washes having an approved site plan for Approved building permit prior to September 17 which is the anticipated approval date uh all proposed new free car washes with pending site plan application being complete prior to September 17 so you get if you've gotten it in while we' we've been de developing the ordinance or debating the ordinance um you would fall on the B2 existing freestanding car washes shall be subject to 11063 D and E the grandfathering Clause uh B4 all proposed freestanding car washes with a pending building permit submitted prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall the subject two sections uh df1 and B9 1164 B9 uh and then of course any approved mpug with specific designed location or site orientation standards for free standing power shall be subject to noise hours of operation Property Maintenance and the D Wastewater regulations which are fairly standard and will not require substantial modification to the NP so just to keep moving through the ordinance I've highlighted the high points lot of language on the slide but basically what uh the distance requirement is talking about is that it's regulating the frequency of car washes in the county there's a 7,920 foot proximity regulation proposed uh which is measured as the crow flies so how do you measure from the crow uh as the crow flies you pick a point along the front property line and you draw from that point 7,920 ft out from there and complete circle and that would uh illustrate the Zone in which another car wash would be able to locate this is about 1.5 mile distance uh and it is based on the spacing requirements and the frequency of arterials and collectors within the within the county uh additionally preapplication meetings with the planning and development and economic growth Department are required for for car washes that are going to be seeking car wash or conditional use permits or potential modifications MPD and car washes will have uh neighborhood meetings required for the mile and a half requirement is there a mechanism for them to be able to you know let's say the site's 1.49 miles away can they uh appeal that or have some sort of extra consideration is there a mechanism for that um or is it a hard and fast rule that cannot be I think you can varant no no can says you can I think yeah it's 7,920 ft so if it's 7,919 ft then how did you say always have the opportunity they can nevertheless submit for a conditional use permit if they so desire we can't stop them from applying so then during the review process if that review process determines if it's the pleasure of the of the board County Commission for example to lower that threshold then that is then why have one why not just leave that to the Judgment of the board of County Commissioners for for which the distance requirement for the distance requirement because I'm with Derek I think you're going to get a lot of edge cases this guy's 7,000 ft away this guy's 1.48 miles away why not just leave the distance to the Judgment of the board of County Commissioners when they decide issue or not issue a conditional use how did you come up with the mile and a half is there some science based on that it's based on the separations of the arterials and collectors with what does that have to do with where a car wash can be uh well so the industry was industry standard industry standard was was Once Upon a Time 3 Mile distance uh so cares tried from themselves from themselves that's right so then uh that that industry standard has fallen by the wayside mainly because technology has changed the way people interact with car washes I guess memberships matter uh and so what we determined was a manner we need to set up a benchmark to identify how far we should be separating these car washes and creating space on our I separate coffee shops well and you could probably do that through stating it as a as a guideline you know so with with the ability for the Planning Commission and or the board Commissioners to you know see well it's a benchmark requirement it's a benchmark requirement and it enables us to understand how what an appropriate distance that is defensible against comprehensive plan policy or in favor of comprehensive plan policy and the Land Development Cod but I'm trying to figure out how that's defensible because and I'm asking I'm I'm sorry Elizabeth's Le left because I'm using the word defensible as is in court how are you going to go and defend a mile and a half separation in court when my client sues you and says that that's an arbitrary and capricious decision as to the distance but it's not arbitrary and capricious because well then how is that the mile so you have a minimum mile distance between an arterial to arterial collector to collector so we trying to preserve the frontages of these arterials and collectors what you want to do is you want to space out at least 1 mile and if we go to 1.5 miles we can have at least two arterials or two collectors before we see another car wash use along the cor so problem I got with all of this is where does this stop today it's car washes I see a proliferation of drive-through coffee shops going on there's white duck coffee Dutch Brothers Coffee Starbucks Coffee they're going up everywhere and I know and I know what everybody's fear is we all fear that these car washes when the economy takes a dive and maybe that's sooner than later that a lot of these car washes aren't going to make it we're going to be stuck with some blight on the landscape well I think the same thing about all these coffee shops that are going up and we see that with a lot of uses when when there's a growth spurt so where does this stop what about with marijuana dispensaries or what about with drugstores I spent a big portion of my career finding sites for Walgreen drugstores and you know where we chose to put them directly across the street from CVS and you know where Publix likes to put its stores directly across the street from wind Dixie and and the Aldi in my neighborhood is directly across the street from s from Publix and similarly the saal lot is across the street from that so we're picking on car washes and there doesn't seem to be Rhyme or when I was Finding sites for Walgreens they wouldn't locate within 2 miles ofs they don't want to cannibalize their own store but there was nothing that made them happier than to get in CVS's face and try to say take their business no different than Mr Bubble's Car Wash versus Mr Car Wash trying to get in and compete the American way with their business Lowe's versus Home Depot and Lowe's versus Home Depot they're loc in fact in Newport rich either where are they located acoss the street from each other so I mean you could carry this and I don't think you're going to be able to defend that in a court there are laws and there are cases on the books where the courts have upheld separation distances but those all have to do was something where there's some moral hazard or there's some proven ill to Society for instance if we concentrate adult uses together there tends to be more prostitution arrests in the area so then they would separate them by minimum distances so that we didn't create a red light district but I'm trying to find out where's the moral hazard and the social ill from people washing their car yes I agree there are going to be a bunch of these people that go out of business and I think some of them made a very stupid investment but this is the United States of America and in America I have the right to make as much money as I want and there's no law that says I can't lose as much money as I want and I just can't I can't get behind a separation a separation that is an absolutely arbitrary number and I'm going to tell you right now and I'm going to give these to the county attorney because this is already going on all over the country Court tells Lebanon Tennessee and by the way it's a local developer Bose development sued the city of Lebanon Tennessee cuz the citizens came into their Planning Commission and screamed there's already three car washes down the street were oversaturated with car washes well guess what the judge cited with B's development it's going on in Madison Wisconsin in the transit oriented development that you brought up you should go read that case there is there is a bunch of these cases going all along don't get me wrong I have no issue making these a conditional use but we can't do things which are arbitrary and capricious and we can't Target IND indries which don't have some ill on society right now what we have is a lot of people whining on Facebook cuz I watch it I see the group every day I follow it religiously they're all whining about all the car washes every day yeah but I haven't heard about the car washes causing pollution and these D rules for car wash recycling systems have been on the books for 30 or 40 years now that's not something new that's a red herring you got in your ordinance that where does it stop Terry well the next commission comes in and decides it doesn't like coffee shops what about all these uh game of skill places which is code for cassino they're popping up everywhere right where they got the little duck game and the fishing game and the slot machines in there what about those should those be every mile from each other maybe half a mile from each other or should there be a block from John let's just let's just get let's get Dar an opportunity to at least respond to some of your concerns and I I think they're all valid concerns I think one of the before I continue here one of the major distinctions that I would draw between these this use and some of the other uses that have been mentioned is is starting with economic development is a legitimate local government objective uh secondly uh some of the other uses that have been mentioned are tax revenue generators with sales tax revenue to a great degree especially if we're talking about retail uh as well as uh greater employment generation perhaps The public's employees aren't get getting paid as much but there are certainly more employees in the publics than are in a car wash nevertheless employment generating land use uh preservation along our major corridors is a an important objective and we have to set the objective as a community and I think um having a benchmark at least at a minimum to go by will help us understand you know how do we how much of a tolerance we have for these uses that don't generate as much revenue don't generate as much employment ination well can't we set it up so that they can at least have a a resource to appeal the distance and there can be some judgment I feel like at the very least it should be a guideline because if if there if there 200 ft off you know they should if it's a conditional use that means there's going to be a public Hearing in front of the Planning Commission and in front of the board of County Commissioners that can decide whether they think there's a I think the County Attorney pointed out to me in in our conditional use one of the standards we can look at is whether or not there's a public need right was that correct correct term Elizabeth yeah so there's no need to put a distance in because we have the right already under the code to determine whether there's a public need and maybe in a more dense area there's more public need than there is in the Northeast rural area for these things but that at least we could look at them on a Case by case basis rather than deciding that they must be a mile and a half is the way the crow flies and then there's not even a consistent way to measure that because well I could make measurement from that corner of the property line or that corner the property line or the middle of the property line right but at least that gives them the the right to look at them all on a caseby casee basis because I I can tell you if you go and you Google this there's a lot of Articles out there and we're not the only city or county that's struggling with this but the problem is when each of these cities and counties has gone in and they've set some criteria which is arbitrary the courts have consisted consistently ruled against them and I don't want to see us go down that road I understand the concern okay you do understand the concern but I don't want to see the county spend I'm sorry Denise yes Mr chair I just wanted to mention that our our director would would like to speak he's been trying to speak for a little while now okay great I'm sorry I didn't see his hand over there thank you I got to hand it to you um so I don't think it's a cacious provision we receive received specific guidance from the B County Commissioners to regulate the frequency and the location and distancing of car washes so we picked a reasonable it's arbitrary capricious and reasonable the test and it is reasonable if somebody came up and they were 5 ft short they could argue their case in front of the board and get relief from that but at a minimum the distance should be a guideline thank you so uh section 116.3 just to move through the ordinance and then we can have a bigger discussion 116.3 talks begins with General design and use standards so it talks about site layout the main points of these Provisions here is that we're looking to put vacuums uh the where the vacuums and parking usually go together and car washes and the trash and other uh vertical apperances behind the building um so that we can prioritize the building along the street so that the building appears more as a as a as a sign and has a presence along our main theough Affairs and then uh no alternative standards 106 3A through 116.3 a 1 through 5 um fall sleep think it fell asleep um it's not working yeah so there we go okay um m moving on into the setback discussion the setback discussion is basically imitating C2 zoning setbacks with the distinction that the front setb back is 20 ft maximum again trying to bring the buildings forward to make better presence to articulate at least a good design on our uh arterial streets oops there we go the side yard setback Remains the Same as what's in the C2 zoning district and the rear yard setback essentially stays the same at 30 ft um 10 ft when adjacent to commercial or industrial districts but they would have had to put in a 10 foot buffer anyway and then in terms of the buffering requirements screen all your Mechanicals make it look good on our thoroughfares uh and then importantly C2 is an allowance for for the opening of the car wash As you move through the tunnel and the car comes out uh is an allowance for the car wash opening to face the RightWay and when that happens there's ways that you can help screen uh the appearance of the inside of the tunnel from from the right of away uh this is an allowance basically full of car washes appear on Corner Lots uh continuing on within the those sight layout requirements screening the vacuums and the pumps sometimes they have air pumps to uh pump your tires or air pumps to blow out the things that you have to vacuum in your car ultimately uh and then screaming from residential area a solid 6 high decorative Mason wall required along all sides of the site that but residential Z distri use D and E are the noise and hours of operations uh no the noise condition or provision rather comes out of the uh condition the quot of ordinances and then here's that F1 provision that we were talking about in the key as well um basically Drive lanes and parking spaces shall be clearly delated so keep your painting markings uh clear and easy to follow and read uh the rest of the slide is indicating additional standards which talk about architectural controls basically avoid blink facades uh again we want visual interest along our major thores uh make it all match that's an important quality so we give some uh allowances and Provisions on what kind of use what kind of materials you can uh put together but make sure that you're following a good color not a good color schem a consistent color schem scheme on your on your building uh and if you're adding things to the site make sure that whatever you add over time matches all together so who's going to decide that it's going to be in new orance so the I understand that but so here's here's why I asked you who's going to decide that Chuck's been selling houses for a long time I remember the first house my parents bought when I was a young kid here in the 1970s and all the colors in there were Harvest gold and green beautiful it was beautiful right then I moved into a house over in River Crossing in the 1990s and all the colors in the house were mauve and Peach in fact my kitchen I think you were there Elizabeth back in those days my kitchen cabinets were bright Peach so what's beautiful today is hideous tomorrow that and the the problem is is who gets to decide what color goes with what color I see AR people all of a sudden come up with a new design oh those colors look great I never thought of that before were we going to hire a county color consultant or who gets to decide that is that written into the Florida building code somewhere that the building official going to figure that out or the standards that um are presented here are actually grafted from our The Big Box ordinance that we have section 112 uh the section 112 standards so we've been we've been deploying this type of standard on our big boxes to great effect and and and it's been pretty successful where our big boxes are now appearing within the county so it'd be a similar exercise for car wash facilities uh as we would with the with the big box ordinance so understood we get it um and tastes change over time but this is not really an attempt to regulate someone's brain so much as it is to help them understand that we just want something that's matching within the built environment so you're looking more for consistency across the different structures on the property not so much what colors are and we' we've test we've beta tested a lot of this against car washes that are out in the community or proposals that we've seen in uh for the most part to a large degree they basic this ordinance would follow what they already do but you can't guarantee that into the future we've gotten kind of Lucky up until this point so it's good to at least again create the benchmarks I think one important uh I'm sorry just to continue through the um additional standards here uh again it's it's a talking about avoiding blank faots making a match having a clean appearance uh one thing to keep in mind is number four on slide Car Wash tunnels the interior mechanical equipment of the freestanding Car Wash shall not be visible from the adjacent rights of this is basically an attempt so that you don't have that clear Plexi glass that fronts onto our roadways and then after time because so many cars have washed through the glass is all filmed up and whatnot um that's what this is because this is talking about the vertical this section of the proposed Cod is talking about the vertical uh elements of this of the building and then lastly the outdoor merchandise and Wastewater regulations which is following the state uh State Standards um these are the chapter 300 changes that I mentioned at the very early part of our of the presentation so pre-application consultations uh the intent and purpose for a neighborhood meeting PR standing Car Wash needs to have that here you see the change to section 42.3 which says that the propos conditional use for preing car should not be located within the proximity uh distance we've been talking about 7,920 ft um chapter the chapter 500 changes to make preeing car wash conditional uses for both C1 and C2 um that parentheses provision on the uh stacking space requirements for drive-throughs is on on display here at section 9073 uh then the wrapping it up again this was the definition that we talked about what a freeing Car Wash is and what the proposed ordinance is attempting can you stay right there for a second yeah well I was just going to well I know you want us to recommend approval yeah um so as my very intelligent business partner amply pointed out and I can think of the same thing myself I've been to a Tunnel Car Wash where you park your car and the Machine moves M doesn't pull you through on a chain or a conveyor belt what about the ones with the brushes the brushes what do you mean the brushes you've never been in a car wash that has the spinning brushes right they still make those why why only the ones that are soft touch so I can go right around your ordinance today by Just Simply Having the machine move rather than having a chain or conveyor built or using the ones with the brushes I mean it the brushes are they're not intending to scrape your car but is there a legal definition of soft touch all the soft touches we've seen is all the pressure it's no brush is touching your car correct it's brushless brushless oh so they call soft touch and the touchless are the same term well what I'm saying is we probably ought to go if you're going to attempt to do this one of which I do not support this but if you're going to do this then we might want to look at a definition that catches all because there's a lot of car washers that don't meet this definition out there and they're not hard to find second one I have is your justification for this Ordinance one of your justifications is these car washes are low job generators so if I go to one of the car washes where I put the 75 cents in and get the spray wand how many people does that employ how come we're not going after those car washes they're everywhere and that could be a freestanding Car Wash facility in fact if you were just going to ban my Tunnel Car Wash I'd just go build one of those coin operated ones with the spray wand because it doesn't meet your definition and I could go build it and I have get a conditional use it's true um Mr Moody the the proliferation of car washes aren't the ones you're speaking about those well that's because right after you ban them then those will proliferate well um from personal experience I do a crummy job prefers more I think I do a pretty good job when I go there and use it but the thing is if you've banned those things then there people will move to the next best thing they'll say well I can't get get the good car wash so I'll just go to the car wash that does the crapp ofier job because that's all I have to go to that's what's not banned or maybe I'll just go do it in my front yard where I can let all the dirt and everything run off into the storm sewer and there's no regulation whatsoever we're only regulating 1 and a half mile distance I understand that I don't I'm going to tell you right now you're not going to get any support out of me about having a minimum distance I what I think there's too many land use I mean not land use there's too many personal injury attorneys in town in fact there's probably six of them within spitting distance of my back door of my office not that I would spit on any of them I like them all but um they're everywhere I mean where where does this stop what about the proliferation of chicken finger restaurants those are popping up everywhere too aren't they we think they're all going to make it well I you know I I see the rationale to some extent you know because we all and and I what I really think that I would focus on if I if it were me is you know you're talking about like the storage units always came into into into the conversation because there very little employment going on in the storage unit especially the modern ones and I think most most people think that there's not a lot of good employment going on in a car wash either so why why put a car wash so many of them in your Prime commercial areas not necessarily disagreeing I the only thing I'm thinking is there needs to be an opportunity for anybody who wants to apply for car wash if they don't meet the strict criteria there needs to be a if it's a we can hear them on Case by case Bas so just a little background I'm not trying to break my arm patting myself on the back conditional IDE got proferred by me and I'm fine with the conditional use I've got no problem with that we do that same thing with cell tappers and as the County Attorney pointed out earlier in the meeting right now we have a set of Standards by which we decide whether or not to issue a conditional use there are some additional standards that go with cell phone towers and I think it would be appr roate to have some additional standards that go with the car washes I think one of the fears is that these car washes are going to go out of business and we're going to be left with a blight on the landscape and they're going to be filled with homeless people and they're you know all kinds of crime and drugs and stuff going on in there so like for instance if a cell Tower's use is discontinued for a certain period of time our code requires the removal of the cell Tower I personally would not have an objection to having a condition that said hey if you're Car Wash use becomes discontinued for a certain amount of time or it becomes a public nuisance then we can order its demolition but I'd rather do that than set an arbitrary number as to how close one can be to another and I I just find that to be anti-competitive you know in fact I like people exclusive territory you know when we give people an exclusive territory like a cable company or a power company we sell them the franchise area if we're going to give a car wash an exclusive trade territory then let's auction off the mile and a half area for them and let the county makes some money at it but what's going to happen is that your little shitty car washes you don't want to excuse my language that or the the I didn't hear what you said the ones the little city the little City Car City carv those are going to pop up every quarter mile in between the I mean that's so yeah competition is going to fill in the fill in the Gap essentially with with that so the less desirable ones that you don't want are going to be where they going to start to pop up and then the hand car washes the car washes that go out of business and there's three of these down the road for me they had the former tunnel that's out of business now it's just a hand wash so you take a car in there and they they hand wash it so those are going to continue to pop up everywhere yes ultimately the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating the free markets I mean the design standards and everything of this I I agree with I think they're they're good and necessary but yeah that I struggle with the distance too Mr chairman just to note though um we're not just talking about the end of life of car washers it's mostly about the proliferation of car washers during the lifespan it's a lot of time that passes before the car wash finally terminates as a business and in that time they can proliferate quite extensively and then they've taking up valuable fages on our on our transportation cor at some point is there any way we is there any way we can't make just make it a conditional use yeah I think that we can address that that's what I'm saying and I'm I'm willing to today to support this as conditional use but I don't want to have an arbitrary distance we can look at them on a Case by case and it opens up to a lot of litigation and we're seeing that throughout the country as well so staff is proposing just to be clear that these are going to be conditional uses yeah okay so that that is what's being proposed um and the framework then is once you get your meet the distance and basically check your distance then you have all these other things you have to do so you look good so that's kind of the structure and more public input of course I'd rather know I'd rather be able to tell my client I don't think I'd try to put a car wash there because the County's not going to see that as the you know they're not really going to want to support that enthusiastically it's too close the three other ones you know yes and as to having Asos to having a s I don't have to tell you how much trouble and money you have to go through to get anything approved you know why would you want to start something you can't finish I wouldn't either and the same thing I would recommend to a client and say look this is something BCC really isn't wild about and there's five car washes over there within two two square miles of each other if you want to pick a site over here but I don't want to get somebody who's a mile and a quarter instead of a mile and a half and that's where the conditional use comes in I 100% agree the one and the one thing I'm going to tell you Terry when you write law you cannot possibly you can't catch every possible scenario and so a lot of times when you write a regulation you know what you're doing you're creating a road map for somebody to go around it in fact Jamie and I are pretty good about that we figure out how to do those things every day but that's exactly what you do when you create something like that so again I have no ISS doing these as a conditional use but I don't want to do something that's arbitrary that there's no science behind or at the very lease is easily attacked and and it's easily attacked and the problem that I got is this is going this is going we're not the only Community doing this is going on all over the country but every place where they've tried to do this the the courts come in and rule that that's arbitrary you just can't set arbitrary standards and there's lots of it didn't take me long to Google I got mhm handful of Articles right here it's not hard to find me what I was interesting was even one of our local developers Bose's development has fought this battle the other thing that I personally can't get behind in this ordinance is I'm not willing to change the rules in the middle of the game we have applicants who have spent tens of thousands of dollarss to have MPS approved they've followed the rules they've had their public hearings their day in front of the commission and they got their entitlement and now we're saying well that entitlement really is an entitlement we're going to you got to still come back to us again I'm with you on that one for that the same thing I've got a site plan approval but I really don't have a site plan approval because now I'm a in all these screening and buffering and Architectural requirements and you think about that if you didn't invested in a car wash all that was changed that was changed they're they're exempt it's very limited applicability to somebody already has site PL approval um yeah it's like hour of operation it's it's it's hours of operation it's noise it's that water issue you pointed out and there's one other thing um so and all right yeah I've got there's a car wash at the southwest corner behind McDonald's at 52 and 19 fairly new one dirty dog or something he calls himself he's B if he wants to operate 24 hours of day seven days a week and by the way a lot of his customers are our sheriff's deputies who are keeping very nice clean cars there who's he harming who's where's the noise pollution who's being affected by the noise if there's actually any noise that comes from that car wash he's backed up to the wner boy Salt Springs Park a McDonald's and us19 so I I've even got some issues with the whole hours of operation yeah I understand if they want to come in in conditional use and they're next to a residential neighborhood well we can add hours of operation I'm out here next to I75 behind an industrial park who cares if they want to be 247 the other thing to note too is the attached car washes don't have that limitation so if you're attached to a gas station you can run 24 hours a day no problem there no noise and that could be next to a neighborhood what thoughts on that one Terry what are your thoughts on those items the hours of operation as I noted earlier is regulated by this section or as limited by conditional use so I don't have a problem regulating them on a Case by casee basis I just hate to say this guy's been in business in fact there's a car wash I can think of that's just south of this along 19 on the along the west side of 19 has Car Wash been there since the 1980s he's got some big sail cloths up there there's nobody lives behind there either he's been there since the 1980s and now all of a sudden we're going to come in and change the rules of the game what did he do he didn't do anything he's been there he's paid his taxes he's been a good neighbor he he's rejuvenated his car wash put up the nice modern sailcloth shade structures and everything and now all of a sudden Big Brother's going to come along decides he should change his hours because somebody on Facebook doesn't like the car wash down the road but yes right this is all about this ordinance is about new car washes new freestanding Car Wash yeah but you're applying the hours of operation to existing car washes right that's paragraph three that I had struck that then the numbering was was messed up that was what that why I struck that okay we didn't have he I didn't have a chance to really talk about the stru he wanted to get it out to you all as quickly as possible that's why I struck that okay so it's not going to apply well I mean that was just coming from my opinion just as reading it you know it I didn't have enough time to verify the the suggestion that Elizabeth was making so the more conservative approach would be to present it right if there's a discussion that you know we can remove we should remove three we can true and if you do want to talk about hours of operation in terms of what's around you that's a legitimate consideration for staff you know for a policy Direction you bring to the board and get feedback on based upon who your next door neighbor is I like I said if we want to approve these by conditional uses then we can evaluate them by case on a Case by casee basis and if there needs to be a restriction on their operating hours to protect the an adjacent neighborhood from noise I think that's completely and it gives the public a chance to make count on that absolutely and hours of operation are typical for traditional use standards in some situations Denise yeah absolutely yes they are um I just um if the if this is a conditional use and that's section e stays the same I don't think that we can make changes within the conditional use of the hours of operation okay because it's kind of like waving a code requirement which we can't do in right and I right and I had some concerns too about other under a Terry that last sentence of a under applicability because basically you're saying then that these people get a pass to everything in section 1106 which would include the noise ordinance you create a conflict so there that the that very last bit should stop should should stop [Laughter] at that that they shall not be Pro brought it in that they they've gotten their approvals and a specific approval as part of of already in this Village of whatever shall not be prohibited and then then you get rid of shall not be shall be subject to this section that that goes away because if you look under further down that is taken care of when you talk about number five because all of those folks you know already have gotten that specific approval and design standard because if you if you have that very broad n none of 1106 then you have an internal inconsistency in Your Land Development code because now they can do on-site storage outside storage all those things that you would have prohibited over in C2 now come into question but what you know what I'm saying but I mean that that's just something I noticed today sitting here but I guess could you look in looking at it from the opposite direction just because you don't have to follow section 1106 doesn't mean that the other sections are I don't I don't I don't think the conflict is a good thing to create in that sense so to just have it be straightforward you know would make I would think make the most sense because there's no need to have then you actually coming back in five is addressing it as well so it's just internally inconsistent within that one section you know the sentence should how how should the sentence that sentence should end shall not be prohibited because they've already gotten their approval say it shall not be subject to right it it should say shall not be prohibited period because you're referring to the actual prior approvals that were given to those specific car washes within what now have become prohibited areas okay it's easy fix it's just for clarity and no one else up here picked up on it but I did so that's why they pay you to be a you're the attorney and that's consistent too with what Cynthia is concerned about other people yeah okay yeah I think that's a danger of codifying some of these things you know the distance and um it's much better to be you know there could be some standards but it it's much better contained within unconditional use that can be modified on a case-by Case basis I think by codifying some of this stuff you open yourself up to litigation that we probably don't need to be opening ourselves up to Terry I have a question this not necessarily an argument question the maybe Denise I need to go get to go check this so if I'm in a C2 District what's the minimum setback typically in a C2 District the minimum setback is 20 ft oh it's 20 Okay so that aligns with the ordinance and what Terry is proposing is to put the building right at the front setback line which forces all of the other stuff behind the building okay yeah in this case the ordinance speaks to a maximum yeah I I understand yeah he is a minim I caught that clever have you spoken with the sheriff's department about this so in fact I think Denise it was maybe you that told me this that the sheriff has videos of where some of the destitute and homeless population of the county likes to break into the Vacuums at the car washes because sometimes people suck up pennies and dimes and that kind of stuff so if we've now got them hidden behind the building is there more opportunity for that to go on I think we should just leave keep some loose change on the ground that would be easier you well in Canada they say you should leave your keys in the car so that it can be stolen much easier doing more damage I don't know I'm not going to comment on how what the criminology is in breaking into vacuum pumps and whatnot if they're doing them now with the pumps facing the street they're probably going to do them wherever the pumps vacuum personally I like the idea of the building being in front I think it makes the you don't have to look at the whole Road nice break presumably little camera there I mean I think there's a lot of scenarios here I think there's definitely an over proliferation of car washes and I think there's some design standers needed and I and I like the conditional use idea too um I know we've kind of beat this to death here and I know there's a couple people here to talk to we going to let them talk first and figure I mean things moving get the big money yeah okay Terry are you all done then for your part well U I think my last slide was simply to find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and to note that the the schedule the public hearing schedule will be September 3rd for the board County Commissioners to look at the proposed ordinance and the second meeting would be the adoption on September 17th which is the date that's in the thank you appreciate thanks Terry and sorry to throw tomatoes at you good work good work nothing's easy okay uh I think we have some people in the audience that are here on this issueing more regulations who would like to be first uh good evening Cynthia Fel I'm with Sterns Weaver Miller at 401 East Jackson Street in Tampa and I have been sworn and I'm here I our firm represents the Circle K MPD that was recently approved um on the corner of it's the South excuse me Southeast intersection of New State Road 52 Clinton Avenue and Prospect it did not come before you because it's in the village of of Pasa Hills Village type 2 so um a I'm just here to reserve uh comment on this latest Draft so a a version was circul dated on July 29th which I thought I would be speaking to today but then luckily I checked last minute just to make sure that nothing was changed and I saw that the version that was in posted online was different than the version that was distributed to the development community so a lot of us were kind of caught off guard by that I panicked uh we went through it during lunch I think it's okay but I'm not 100% sure but I don't want to slow it down if you're going to make a motion on it I'd rather just reserve and come back to the board of County Commissioners just to make sure my team has fully vetted it so um but getting back to if you guys can pull up that section A again I read section a specific to use and then section B specific to design standards so I like the way that section was read um because in my opinion it was specific to use so we would just want to make sure that the because the circle Cas in a village type 2 that the use is not prohibited because that's what the approval was then section b um goes into 104 actually when it talks about no you got to go back up again um up one more so yeah this is it right here the limited applicability um so I went back through it and I checked um that it's the df1 and 4 B9 which was the hours of operation which uh the Circle K is okay with I had double checked that CU that was in a prior version um and then the parking striping or whatever it has to be clearly delineated and then the B9 was a Wastewater so but I'm happy to answer any of your questions because I know there was a lot of really good conversation so if there's anything that you know you wanted to ask I'm I'm also happy to provide input thank you okay this is actually a question for I should have asked this when Terry was up here um on that language shall it say CU we're trying to grandfather people that have had applications in prior to September 17th correct so shall it say that um shall only be subject to sections DF is that correct because by saying they should be subject to those sections you're just not you're not saying that they shouldn't be subject to the other sections the new ones right it's prescribing the sections that right so they shall be subject to those sections but everybody's subject to this section so should it should it say shall only be subject I think that that's fine for clarity I and then I have a question about that what is what does it mean deemed complete does that mean we've reviewed your application and staff has issued its notice of intent to improve or does that mean you've submitted a application that's been deemed complete for Content that's used that word deemed complete is used elsewhere in the LDC maybe it's find somewhere I maybe Brad can explain that she left when you had the chance Brad while Brad's walking up I'd say that item hours item four exercise uh Matt go ahead yeah I said well Brad got here now but say on item four we we say submitted prior to adoption of this ordinance but we say September 17th and the other and items one and two why we just put the date in four as well oh yeah the adoptions okay hey Brad you have a question you're on no we still need your answer uh so Brad tippen uh I don't it's too late I don't even know who I work for anymore um plan development economic growth uh deemed complete the way we use it when we talk about an application is deemed complet it means has all of the items necessary to begin a review so content content complete for just add that that's that's how we typically use it okay you're off the hook go sit down for another three hours we'll get back to you maybe a mo point I alen Alman 1571 Jasmine Road San Antonio and hopefully I am the last speaker in your day a very long day and I really only came up here to say thank you uh for your service having uh not set on Planning Commission but on many other boards over the years I know that as volunteers you all get beat on and harassed and you've sat here a long time today and so I just wanted to say thank you we've been over two years uh in the process for the Circle K that Cynthia spoke about and I just want to be uh uh clear that I'd like for you all to go ahead and vote vote move this ahead today um and that we are assured that our mpud which was approved by the vop planning board in March and approved by the BCC in April is intact and that we can move ahead um there were a couple of comments about the community meeting U I will tell you that we did a community meeting and didn't have a single person show up in opposition and in fact had comments from people wanting to know when it could be installed and be ready uh my project is on Highway 52 at Prospect Road and um there is one car wash today on Highway 52 from the Sun Coast Parkway all the way to the Pope County Line one on a road that do says is now estimated by the end of this year to be at 43,700 cars a day so the projects needed the residents desperately want it and and uh I appreciate your all's time and consideration and would encourage us to go ahead and move forward today so that maybe I can get to a closing Table after two and A2 Years thank you all only two and A2 years Alan I I can't believe can't believe he did it so quickly it doesn't seem that way when the well you know the last person to speak it's our tradition that they buy dinner especially when we're running into dinner time just our okay it it might it might be useful once again I'll repeat this but you have you can find it consistent or inconsistent um you can create recommend all sorts of ways to make it better that that that sort of thing you know and and still keep it moving forward if if you know if it should be move I know that there's some staff go under a lot of pressure to bring this to the bo we need we need to move it forward yeah I like the idea of the conditional use Direction with some guidelines for that as opposed to codifying all of these details in the ordinance itself I think you sorry what didn't you say that that was the way it was it was you you can do thatum what you're saying is that you can you can have a laundry list of conditional use things that we typically do that you need is familiar with those conditions that are applied on Case by case basis and in doing so you could have something like the conditional use have the condition to include but maybe not limited to hours of operation if necessary you can create that verbage and take out the extreme detail and you're still giving guidance for stack to okay it's a additional use in one by Case by case basis including radius well I mean yeah whatever but but you know to John's point you don't want to have a bunch of a bunch of arbitrary stuff you want things that actually make sense in the industry make sense for the the public you know purpose and need of that you know the industry which changes on a day-to-day basis as well right okay so let's move how do we make that into a motion well do you want to put the language back up again and just go through and and make your suggestions as to things that you think are too detailed for the ordinance itself if you just the conditional use criteria on a Case by casee basis and we can make notations of that I'll just try to make this simple please I would move to recommend to the BC that all car washes whether they be tunnels coin operated hand washes it's a car wash it's a car wash it's a car wash that all car washes be approved by conditional use is that including attached to gas stations in there all car washes that way I'm not discriminating against one car wash versus another car wash versus another cuz I'm going to tell you right now when you try to write that definition I'll figure out a way to go around I'm really good at that in all transparency with conversations we've had in house was basically did the board intend for all car washes or just a particular business model so we really so my thinking on that my rationale on that is the reason people build car washes is because they can sell a membership and they can hold land and they can thanks to our federal tax policy we can take bonus depreciation on the equipment well that's no different if I got coin operated car wash than it is whether it's a tunnel operating Car Wash and I can make one with all kinds of fancy neon lights and I could probably figure out how to sell pieces and hamburger at the same time out of place so car washes and then should there be within that condition should there be gu line I think that if the use is discontinued for a certain minimum of time and we can leave that to discretion of the board whether that be 6 months or 12 months or 36 months that you need to remove that use our fear of these car washes is that we're going to end up with a bunch of vacant Car Wash tunnels with very little potential for adaptive reuse so make them take it down I think that's as simple as you can make the motion I can sit here and try to let the staff do what it's going to do and you keeping all the design standards that are in here for the all I'm fine with all the staff's proposed design standards I'd recommend that the board adopt those the board a future board may have to come back and revisit them I don't know try it what about the spacing I am not in support I absolutely am not in support of the spacing and my if you do every car wash as a conditional use that leaves it up to the board to decide whether the spacing is adequate whether it be a mile 5 miles or a/4 Mile and I don't run the risk of Mr Car Wash coming down here and saying well you've given him a mile and a half exclusive trade area and no restriction to hours of operation you can address all of those things in conditional use I think we should just make this as simple as possible it's just like the invasive species we took what was a proposal that was 40 something pages and we narrowed it down to one paragraph and I think we can do the same with the car washes agree that's my motion all right do I have a second I'll I'll second that and it's a motion for consistency as well yes can we recap the motion the motion she's like the motion I move to recommend to the board of County Commissioners that all car washes shall be a conditional use and shall meet the design standards as currently presented by staff that's it nothing more nothing not going to talk about the removal and and that that a special set of conditional use conditions similar to like those that we use for cell foam Towers be created for car washes and the ordin is consistent with the comprehensive plan don't forget that part what about what about the you talk about the removal if they're not used for 6 months or whatever the time that's the set of conditions I'm referring to mhm okay in addition to the hours of operation and spacing conditional use the board can decide the hours as appropriate did you get that I still second is that clear is it clear enough well one of the Commissioners is sitting here she's heard our [Laughter] recommendation and then she'll have to decide whether she likes it or she doesn't okay we got a motion we got a second further discussion all in favor signify by saying I I I POS like sign very good all right I nextage Mr six hours is enough ORS yeah it's 20 minutes all right do have another motion have three of those all in favor Liam thanks thank you for your patience everyone [Music] [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 72783 43611 [Music] [Music] often times when you find a loose or a lost dog they're not abandoned they're close to the to their home almost 80% of stray dogs live within a mile of where they were [Music] found did you know the best thing you can do for a dog that's lost or stray like this one is to keep it in the area in which it was found only 25 to 30% of stray dogs that come to the shelter actually get returned to its owner and there's so much you can do to get little ones like this home you can connect with your neighbors via social media hang up posters in your neighborhood with the dog's picture or even check door too [Music] if you haven't found the owner right away don't worry it might take a couple days some dogs have identification on them like licenses tags collars or even microchip implants you can check at your local veterinary clinic or Pet Store where the dog can get scanned for the owner's information you can help get friendly healthy stray dogs back to their homes by following these few simple tools and remember always report aggressive sick or injured animals to Animal Services right away [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] they serve as I did to fight for our freedoms we here at go Pasco want to return the favor by serving you go Pasco offers all active duty military and Veterans on unlimited free rides on our fixed route buses when you step on the bus just show the driver one of these forms military ID Card DD Form 2 valid VA card V on your driver's license or go Pasco veteran ID go Pasco where veterans ride free here in Florida we're no stranger to rain and Pasco County Public Works wants to show you how we're working to improve drainage along your roads our crews work hard to keep your roads in great shape and you'll notice after a heavy rain we often see ponding or standing water on the road that doesn't easily drain away