5.27.26 Board Workshop - VOPH and Comprehensive Plan Update

Got a green light. Is that good?

They hear you.

Good morning.

Yeah. Can you hear me now?

Can you hear me?

Can you hear me now?

You get that one.

Going to call to order the Pasco County workshop for Wednesday, May 27th. We're going to rise for the invitation and then pledge Gracious God, we invite you into our discussions today. Unite our hearts and guide our conversations with wisdom and patience. Help us to seek solutions that honor you and benefit everyone involved. In your name, amen.

Amen.

To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Do roll call.

Commissioner Ron Oakley

here.

Commissioner Seth Baitman

present.

Commissioner Catherine Starky

here.

Commissioner Lisa Joerger

here.

Chairman Jack Mariano

here. And I'm going to turn this over for the topic of discussion of Mr. Carmelo.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh today we'd uh really have two two topics we'd like to give the give the board some updates today on uh the village of Pasadena Hills kind of where where things stand uh today uh so the board can can understand um how how that development and overlay is proceeding and then secondly probably a beefier topic that we'd like to get any any feedback is just to kind of present to you where we stand with the comprehensive plan. We've been working on this now for several years. Um and um we're we're getting very very close to being prepared for adoption. And so the team will will present um what our future land uses are going to look like, what the various elements of the comp plan are going to look like, and would love any feedback and board discussion that would ensue. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Allen and Mr. Engel.

Thank you, Mr. Carbala. Um, we'll go ahead and have our planning staff kick off with a village of Pasadena Hills update. And I think Terry, are you kicking it off or is it

Kevin? Kevin,

Mr. Will Smith is going to help lead that conversation. Thank you.

All right. So there or I guess good afternoon, good morning. you see the afternoon warrior vermillion planning development planning services in the villages of Pasadena Hills there are two topics that Mr. Kovi and myself want to cover today as a part of this workshop. The first of which is the financial plan update to include an overview the roadway infrastructure budget, our utilities budget, the public services budget, and then an update on the global funding and escrow agreement. Um that planning services has done with uh Galvin Harris over the last three years. There's an update on that. Following that, there is a uh a relation meeting there between the financial plan and the update to the comprehensive plan in the villages Pasadena Hills um which I will do. So, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Kobe to give an update on the financial plan assessment. Good morning everyone. Gavin Kov uh planning services. So, we're going to start off with the financial plan update. Um, and kind of how we got here. So, when VOP was originally adopted in uh 2008, it was approved for uh just under 42,000 uh dwelling units. Uh the current financial plan says that we need about 80% of those entitlements to fund our infrastructure. And during the study, we've we've found that we're we're missing that goal by a little bit. We're actually projecting about 25,000 total dwelling units within uh the villages of Pasadena Hills, which is just about 60% of the total entitlements. So, what planning staff has done is begin to look at how much uh revenue we can see with this new reduced number and and if we can pay for it. So, right now, we're really just projecting out budgets while we're still working on uh figuring out what the cost of all the infrastructure will be in the future. So the first thing we did uh was we took a dwelling unit projection by unit type um based on impunity plans and site plans. And you can see that a majority of our projections are coming from single family detached units with some multif family and some uh multif family town homes and apartments with the peak being in just around 2035 uh period of time before it slowly um decreases until the end of the district in 2065. So that last map was used with our existing mobility fees to calculate how much we can see every year. Um, and this is what the revenue would be like every year. We can see that we max out just under $18 million in 2037.

Stop you just for one second. Yes. When you say the current mobility, are you talking about the ones we just adopted?

Just adopted. Correct.

And so you can see that it follows the same trend line as that previous graph that we showed um with a total collection of $353 million over the lifetime of the district for uh residential mobility fees. Same thing we we created a tax increment revenue uh forecast and you can see that again slowly calculates over time as more dwelling units come online as the property value increases more uh revenue is going back to VOP and so in the lifeline of the district by 2065 you're going to see about $65 million in tiff revenue.

Mr. Mr. Chairman, why are we starting with the financial plan and not the land plan? Because the financial plan is result of what we did with the land plan. So, I feel like it's backwards.

Commissioner Starky, so we're starting off with the financial plan to kind of get a sense of of, you know, what is the revenue we anticipate to get. Part of the work that we're going to be doing in moving forward with um the staff is scaling the infrastructure requirements. as a result of changes to kind of the entitlements that we're seeing to make sure that we um have those facilities fit in with with the financial plan that we have.

All right. So, we have some new commissioners that were on before the before this was started. I don't even remember. Was I on when it started? I don't know. Can we get an overview of what it was supposed to be? Yes, we'll get to touch upon um particular um kind of the the infrastructure improvements um following this initial presentation of the fiscal component. We'll be touching on the infrastructure components.

Well, I I'm talking about the whole plan in general. I mean, what what it is, you know, changing I mean do you understand what the OP is and the specialness that it has? It was supposed to be like a special district where people could come in that build have industrial or have businesses and

supposed to have villages

walkability and things like that. Right. Right. And separated by green technology.

We have we have a map that's that's going to be up here. I think when when you get that up that may be an opportune time. I mean if the board would

Can you get a tiny bit of background?

You go to the

go to the map

website. You can give a quick overview.

Well, we didn't need to do that in the middle. I think they're going to do it now.

Just like

I think you're

I feel like you're just showing what it is now, but are we showing what it was supposed to be?

There we go.

So, that that is partly what we're trying to do. We're trying to figure out how much money we have to work with to basically put forth the vision of VOP and make sure that it aligns with our current financial plan. So, that's why we're doing the financials first. How much money do we have? Okay. what plan do we want? What is the difference in what the plan we want and what we have currently and how can we make adjustments to make sure that our plan and our finances are are kind of married up. Um so yeah, just a brief overview on VOP is a collection of villages as Commissioner Starky was mentioning before. Uh there's different intensities and type typologies within it. So some villages are more intense while some are less intense. It depends on their geographic location. Um, so the villages themselves were meant to be walkable downtown centers with suburban development around it. So people could walk to the coffee shop from the neighborhood. You know, it's really a focus on pedestrian infrastructure and less so reliance on using a car for your daily needs.

Not to say that people don't won't need to have car um amenities, whether that be larger uh, you know, department stores and whatnot. It's really v we're trying to solve the form question.

And each village was supposed to be bordered by a noticeable area of green space so that you could tell when you were transitioning from one village to another.

Correct. There are village buffers in between each of these villages. Um it's very similar to what they they do in town planning in Britain. They have greenways that surround each of the the villages to kind of separate them and have each unique identities.

And one of the things they they assess themselves more for these fees so they can pay for their infrastructure doesn't fall in the burden of the county. That's why we have some bumps from a couple years ago to now to making sure the fees are in place. And I think you're showing right now that on that early graph there's a big deficit to what's there. It catches up later, but there's a deficit now.

Yeah. And we're still working through the cost right now, but that's what we're kind of seeing early on right now is that we may have enough money in in the long run in totality, but it's really a timing question.

And I and I think part of this discussion may get to a point where to say, okay, if we're going to have all this construction coming in, maybe these people that are building now need to pay their way now, they can get reimbursed later on when there's more revenue, but it shouldn't be falling the burden. was designed not to fall a burden in the rest of the company.

Okay, are we okay with the background? Okay, let me go back all the way.

So again, we did this for each individual um subcategory as well. So, same thing we did for the the parks impact fee. We used that that projection that we talked about earlier and and found that we'd have just about uh almost $58 million in park impact fee revenue between the search charge and the base fee over the life of the district. And the same thing with schools, same model. Um and we were projecting about 15 almost $16 million in school impact fee revenue. And then uh portable water uh just about 153 million and then wastewater um 135 million. So this is the basis. So and that's what I'm about to explain a little bit. This is the basis of again how much infrastructure can we afford? We have 135 million towards the life of the district. We don't want to provide infrastructure that's more expensive than that. Right? So this is our our budget essentially. So, this is where we're working from as we're looking at revisions to the plan and stuff like that. What can we afford and where can we potentially need more money and where do we need less money at? So, this is really just the foundation foundational step. Once we get the cost associated, we'll kind of get more into the nitty-gritty and understand, you know, how this financial plan actually works and what we can pay for. And so if you wanted to see all those big numbers again, uh I've kind of just put a summary here. Uh just recapping everything. Uh 353 million for the mobility fee, 600 million for tax increment, and so on and so forth as you go down. And so we're going to be transitioning a little bit into the global funding and escro agreement, but I think it's important to kind of show you an overall map of what obligations we have currently within the district. Um so if you look at this map here, you can see where we have um constructed roads in the black, the existing roads that are not MRP standard um like portions of Hankar Road and Curly Road and some of uh of Fort King Road as well as obligated roads, whether that be developer obligations or county obligations. Uh you can see where we currently have plans to either improve or widen roads in the future. And one of the more important segments I think that just came online or is about to come online is the handcard extension onto State Road 52 in McCabe. Um that just opened or will be opening very soon uh which is done by Galvin. Um and again we'll continue to work south down to Kefir. Uh so it'll be widened to four lanes in the next couple years. And you can see we're we're we have a good amount of roads that are already constructed to their final typical section like portions of Tendle Road. Um and then Wargrass Parkway as it comes south to Wells Road, Wells Road. Um and then we have Prospect Road starting uh soon as well with the Galvan team. So this is the overall you know planned road segments that we have planned for

someone to build in the future. And let me also back up real quick. So, and with this next global funding and escro agreement amendment that we're we'll be doing, we're actually adding additional infrastructure obligations um to the agreement. And if there's a is there a pointer in this one? Yeah. Uh if you can see where my pointer is in this area, we'll be adding uh North South Avenue B from overpass, East West Street B and JBen Herald as obligations within the Second Amendment as well as East West Street uh C here and a portion of Jen Ben Herrell Boulevard as well. So you'll see that um coming to you in June for the funding agreement.

Question.

Yep.

What is that pedestrian crossing green dot there?

Yep. So that's an underpass

under and it's under hand cart.

Yes. And Galvin is building it and he's already

so golf carts and

golf carts, pedestrians. Yes.

And we have a couple of those on the plan. So we have one on hand cart on the northern segment, another one here and then there's one on Tundle over there. Yeah.

And so this is the roadway obligations that we currently have um with some of the additional Gavin ones that you'll be seeing in June. Um, so we're going to transition a little bit to the utility improvements that the Galvan team is going to be doing. Again, they kind of follow the roadway network that they're improving, uh, along Hankart Road here, sections B and FG. Um, portions of Prospect Road, Star Rush Boulevard. Um, these are public utility uh, improvements. They're not necessarily just for their development. They're public infrastructure that will help other developments come online in the future. And then if you also uh south of Tindle again uh those additional utility improvements that are being provided um again along Hankart here, portions of East West Street B and Kefir Road um as well as the new requirements down here on East West Street C. So, one of the other things that the Cal the county is doing with this second amendment is uh designating Galvin as a construction agent for a potential bond uh to construct portions of Hankart Road and Overpass Road. Uh we've gotten a lot of citizen concern with Hanart Road and the condition of the traffic there. So, it was one of the the main priorities that we've had in terms of constructing new roadways. So, we've designated Galvin as a construction agent to to begin.

Mike Galvin.

Is he here?

Not here.

He's got a whole whole bunch of

I think one main things that's promising right here is Mike Allen's come forward and said he's already designing Hancock Road to be four lane also prospect road. I think that's in design now. Next year that construction will start ahead of time along with different owners of different projects on their roads and that get ahead of the growth game as lots and ready to sell the roads will start being in place and I think that's very good. Without that they're deadlock they can't if you can't move traffic in and out you're going to have a hard time solving the problem. And I think this is what part of this bond is trying to do is make hand cart four lanes and make sure that traffic isn't congested um so that more people can can have access.

Is the road going to be developed anytime soon? Is it on the radar for a date or something when it will be?

We have some developer obligations. Um I'll go back a couple slides. Um like portions of Kefir right here and the Evans Pasadena project have already been constructed. Um they're two lanes. It's two lane as of right now. And then again another portion of Kefir Road I believe is being done by um or has already been done by Magnolia Island over here. So there's portions that we have we have a couple gaps in the network um but is getting built as developers come in for their development approvals.

Question um is and there is a multi-use path on prospect.

There are two 8 foot paths I believe off the top of my head.

It's better to have one wider one. Okay.

And so

just for so that you guys can see the schedule. Um we're planning to get all these segments done by 2030 uh in total. So hopefully you can see the breakdown here. Segment one uh will take approximately 30 months once the second amendment is approved by the BCC by you guys. Um, and then every segment after that usually has a July 1st start date. Uh, and then a August 1st, 2029 completion date for construction with the exception of the last segment, which is July 1st, 2026 and end date of 2030. Um, and in total, it's about $120 million worth of bond.

I have just a comment. Next time, can you just make like each slide one? We I can't really read this. So,

if you can email us Yeah.

a copy because I

Yeah,

of course. Yeah.

On the revenue bond, is this a bond that we're doing?

So, is a bond that the district will do based on their tax increment uh revenue that their VOP share? So

I would say chair of that the county will will be helping take the lead in issuing the bond but the proceeds and the security will be um tied back to the mobility fees in the tiff within the district.

Um I'm sorry. Can I ask a question? Um did you say the bond is being taken out by VOP and then it's the VOP residents that are going to be paying the bond? the tax it'll be funded from the tax increment and then the mobility fees

within the VOP's

it's kind of like an MSTU or MSBU or something like that

there's no impact on the board's balance sheet

okay okay

and that's where I will stop and we'll get into now Mr. Vermilion talking about the vision of the district and what we're wanting moving forward with a potential comprehensive plan update.

Good morning. Now that Mr. Kobe's put his calculator away, I think we can get into more of the the fund land use side of VOP. Now that he's covered what what kind of funding the district has to work with in terms of what the infrastructure should look like and how the land use should match that infrastructure. So the f the first thing I wanted to cover was the relationship to the financial plan update. First is having an effective alloc allocation of this VOP revenue to implement some plans that are already on the books within VOP like the master roadway plan. We have the county engineer here which we've been working with um kind of peacem over the years on fixing VOP typicals. Part of this funding that we have when we update the VOP comprehensive plan will go to changes in the master roadway plan both in alignment of road and in the overall typical sections.

I got at a funeral twice.

I was trying to pull up village capacity. Sorry.

It is perfectly fine. Um because I know I know that there has been concern about um originally contemplated there were some mass massive widths of roadway. you had 142 ft of roadway segment and that wasn't even necessarily indicative of capacity serving um of 142 ft. So what we're looking at is reductions to rideway typical sections that increase pedestrian mobility but don't affect the capacity needed by the district for the vehicles. Um, so you can shrink 142 foot typical down into 100 feet and still keep the fourlane capacity, but you can reduce the overall footprint, which reduces the scale for the pedestrians that are interacting within the roadway.

Right. But this this development is designed to be something a little different than just a regular standard cookie cutter type of development coming through. I mean, part of the reason for the distance, the quietness between the developments was to go, you crowd everything in, you're taking away the effect

what we wanted to get years ago. Well, I think that's uh one of the one of the perfect things that we have here is that the typical section, it doesn't need to stay the same for its entire linear footprint. So, what we're doing is condensing footprints in village centers and then taking them back out wider where it it's more necessary where you're getting into the suburbs and where you need the capacity at intersections like 52, Overpass, and Handcart where we don't need to lose the capacity, but when we get into the village center, it can slow traffic down for people since you're going to have a bunch of people crossing the street. Then it then condenses and then we can change the footprint as we get back outside of the building.

That's absolutely perfect. Yeah.

Part of this as well is updating the master utility plan. Um since 2008 along with roads, one of the the hardships in getting transportation kicked off in VOP was it's hard to build houses without utilities and it's hard to build houses without roads. So, one of the things that we're doing is um working to uh update the master utility plan and uh we've been working with Galvin and the utilities department on that and we're going to have sufficient funding to further uh master plan the utilities out there. And then some of the stuff that we're currently lacking is a public service plan. You know, master planning for parks, schools, transit, libraries, and public safety. um we can get a plan on the books out to 2065 with the allocation of this funds of where these things need to be to serve what could amount to be about 40,000 people living within VOP as as Mr. um Kovi covered I guess here here's an overview. So part of part of what we want to do with the update is to to update the typology of specific villages. Right now this is the current plan on the books and there are three different types of villages. Type one, type two and type three. Type one being the most intense of the villages and type three being the least intense. So, when this plan was originally um was originally devised, you can see some of the layout. You can see the type two villages that are actually up along the Clinton extension. You've got type one villages which are more internal. And then you have some type you have the type three village on the uh the Kirkland Ranch property which uh SwiftMUD is acquiring. So, that's actually going to be taken off the books, which helps us save money in terms of infrastructure because we had two roads going through there that we can now eliminate since it's being bought by SwiftMUD. So part of what we want to do is to update

which

Can I ask you a question?

Absolutely.

It's great that it's being bought by SwiftMUD, but were those roads part of the grid and should we keep the right to have a road through it like like we did with Ridge Road? I mean, maybe it's a no access road, but you know, our wellfields block good traffic patterns and so I I don't know the road network there, but should we consider negotiating for a road?

Sure. Uh,

which which village are we talking about?

So, if you look at village K, that dark purple on the bottom left with all those wetlands. Yeah.

Um, so whenever we were doing the financial plan assessment, what we've been looking at not only is what the financial viability of removing the road in terms of our savings, but also the impacts to capacity for um the residents that live out there. What what's the the capacity difference in eliminating those two roads? It has waterfalling effects on Prospect and Hankart. Um so we've been looking at that as well as um what can we do in terms of passive recreation uh with swift mud on that large property. Commissioner Oakley,

there is a future road I believe comes off the end of Elim and comes across by the school there uh on Kefir Road and also runs to

put up a different map

which is north of is down. But is that roadway still going to be able to be there even though Swift owns that property?

Uh I put up a different map. Is it uh is it Watergrass Parkway that northern extension between Kefir?

Oh, still Elum.

Talking about Elim runs, it hits Curly crosses Curly and then comes by the Kirkland Ranch School.

Yeah. Where where is that on that road?

Sure. All of that area that Elum Road, the Watergrass Parkway, and that whole uh larger white area. I guess I I got a pointer here. This is all village K. And so we do have

Elum would still be constructed down to Kefir. Nothing is official in terms of removing these roadways from VOP. Nothing's official. And this is ideas moving forward as we finalize the financial plan and as we work with the county engineer and Bill Oliver and his teams in terms of our transportation study on bringing back our recommendations to the board on what should be removed and what should be modified. So that could be an option that you see in the future. Even overpass road that comes it it actually comes to the south of Kirkland Ranch property hits Fairview Heights road continues to Casic on to 301. Um it doesn't cross that large piece of land of Kirkland and then that other vision road we were talking about hitting Kefir that's kind of separated.

I don't know if there's a need for a road in in between there somewhere but

you talking about Watergrass Parkway. Is that the road that would be in question? I don't know what

see it on the map.

I'm talking about over overpass actually comes u

below it

through water grass.

But isn't overpass kind of crowded already?

I it comes

we all get complaints about

it actually leads its way onto Fairview Heights and out to Kas to 301. She said

it doesn't it goes all the way out to G there. um part of

but my my question is should we reserve the ability to one day construct water gra I guess it's water grass parkway and not give up that vision road even if it doesn't get built now

I'm going to say that we need to make sure we protect

watergrass Parkway Elam road

even if it's later on where the graph comes in where the money's a lot stronger and you know the beach is overpaid into it even if it's at the end of the project Right.

But those two north south roads are connecting.

Seems pretty

that's going to help a lot of traffic down the road with things get more crowded

even if the end. But that that hole rightway should be preserved

and and and maybe later on get built. But that needs to stay in place. You saw I mean we see what Ridge Road has done for this country

and when it comes up to 41 coming up. It's going to be even a bigger reliever. We need to make sure we protect that. So if swift mud wants it, so be it. But we got to make sure BP controls that and we we keep that right away.

Sure.

And thank you. I mean, good point. I could put up. Um, chairman,

it's hard to look at you with that with the name on your face. It says boardroom.

I don't know what it is, but I can read something on your forehead. Where's that coming from?

It's a It's a private land sale between property owners and the state. So, you're not going to have any land use control over the property. The only way that we could a right of way is if we negotiate directly with the state for that right away.

We need to do something

because they're not going to they're not going to have to come in for any land use approvals. It's going to be conservation land.

Well, I think for them to come in and buy property in the midst of a major arteries that we have here for them to come in and like throw all that our planning off that we put in place here, I think it's a definitely conversation should happen right away.

Yeah.

Jeeoff, is that bothering you? Okay. There's not much I can do about it.

You can move to the right.

I think maybe you have a photo on your head. Then

I think we actually have had that discussion on even mode comes across by the by the high school, Kirkland High School, and comes to the north. We've had that discussion with with mud. I don't know what the outcome of that has been, but it just skirts along the school and then across Kefir going to the north. That's important. I I know of no other road that's actually going to cut Kirkland Ranch in two. I I know no road that actually does that. So, I'm just looking at the map and I see lines designed for a grid type pattern and to take those roadways away just like Ridge Road for the years was blocked out.

23 years of trying to get development approvals.

I mean, I just want to make sure we protect that. If we set this plan in place for Swiftman to come in and change all that,

that's a that's a big deal.

Is that actually a vision road? That's that's

Yeah, that's a major road,

right? Is a major down by that's a big deal. Otherwise, you got to throw the north be.

It doesn't I mean it wouldn't need to be the big fourlane whatever but a you know something.

Yeah, since it's limited access.

Absolutely.

We get trail in there too.

Absolutely.

Gonna be trails all over that place. I think that that is a good segue into one of the plans that um as a part of that public service plan, we're also looking at a VOP trails plan um you know, kind of like a green a greenway plan for VOP, but specifically for um trails that happen outside of the rideway.

You skip that one.

I went I went back a slide since I had to go back to that map and now I'm gonna go back to the typology. I just wanted to wanted to clarify there. So where I was on village typology currently as it sits you can see that the the most intense villages you can see in dark blue village D is type one and also village G. And so that would lend to the more um intense non-residential users. And what what county staff is doing in this update is seeing that there needs to be a rework in terms of where the type one villages are located and where the type two villages are located in type three because we can see up on those type two villages um up on that Clinton extension village B village A. It now makes more sense, you know, post 2008 in the year 2026, now that the Clinton extension has been done, that the more intense villages where you have some of the more intense non-residential uses like um you know, like a movie theater or um a big box, we want to keep

No big boxes.

We need a Sam's Club.

Don't Well, don't put it in there. Are are big boxes allowed in BPH?

Uh yes. Yes, ma'am. Big box currently isn't. But what we're trying to do is that this is a nice middle ground between

the 40,000 people that live out here will eventually need some kind of department store. But not every village needs a big box. So that's why we're trying to say, hey, these type one villages up on 52, maybe that's an area where you can have a big box store. We can keep it up near 52. It's the more intense village. But then as you come down into village D near the super park, village H, village G, we say, "Hey, big box isn't allowed in a type two village. It's allowed in a type one village up on the Clinton extension. It's already a sixlane highway." But Commissioner Wait,

so would it make sense to have the big box opportunity further west towards the interstate and that that ne that segment of 52? When I say big box, I meant onif on 52.

There's a Walmart coming there. Aren't you lucky?

But going closer to the the interstate side. If if you're going to do that, why would what's the methodology to to not have that more where you know where one Pasco Center is and the other light industrial complexes are versus sticking that further east connect

further away from the interstate.

Sure. people who were coming down 52 to Aaron Cutoff, you know, and everything down Connor Way. So, what's your methodology there?

It's just that the the VOP boundaries don't get all the way out that far.

I know that.

Um, so village B is our closest um our closest village on 52 to the intersection of Curly, which is also another uh major arterial road. And so when we're looking at the the logic and transportation impacts of having a larger department store or a big box, it makes the most sense to put it up there in village B because the transportation network that already exists. You've got six lane 52 and you can ride west to I75. But it also puts it in proximity of connected city end users as well as VOP end users while maintaining the character of the villages that should be happening more central along the super park and along you know village D. Speaking of character,

I think it's probably best to put the actual village circles with the colors where it shows what's what and it comes out to light brown because village bees already screwed up. That's one of the votes I regret taking.

Sure.

If I could redo that, I I would. And I' I've been very vocal from the dis about being very disciplined on not wonkying up these villages. And if we are, we need to understand the the methodology behind it and why. And I'm not confident that we're not already going down that path and it's diluting the value of 20 plus years of planning and the green space that I mean this project was designed as if that part of the county was flat and it's not. the top this is some of the best topography in the state of Florida and seemingly that was not taken into account when this project was designed. So if you're going to go through and rework these villages the topo and the contours of the land need to be taken into account because the initial plan does not account for that from my understanding.

Absolutely. Um there there is minor we do have topography controls in the current comprehensive plan for VOP. They're more centered around the specific villages in which the topography was mapped at the time. Um I believe it's village J and I um in terms of the topography protections that we had moving up into village E. Um but we can certainly look at increasing our topography protection measures as it relates to the villages of Pasadena Hills moving forward.

And that's the value. Absolutely.

You live on the water or you live on a hill.

Absolutely.

But for this sake of conversation,

I think it I think it would be good for everybody pull it up on the link to have

the villages and the color coordinate. That way we can see where the town

how it transitions from the dense part of the town

and then feathers out

unless it's not not in that.

I go to the website and pull it up.

Talking about the service.

We we have that. It's a PH2 in the comprehensive plan. Um, if we want to pull that up now, we certainly can.

While we're doing that, Commissioner Starky,

I'm I'm just wondering why you wouldn't put the big box over on 301.

Where's 301 on that map?

So, that that hatched area is the VOP countryside, which is our rural protection area in VOP. Um, and so you can 301 is on uh on the east side of that hatched.

I mean, that's that's already

there. That's already looking like a place where big box should go and is. And then and I agree with Commissioner Weightman that you got a Walmart coming at 52 and Mckendry.

Yeah, maybe. We'll see.

Why not put another one near there and just go ahead and ruin that whole area and leave this to be nice? I mean, if if the if the board's direction for staff is to not allow big box in any of the village centers, we can certainly take it that direction. Um, this was our direction as we were working with stakeholders prior to the workshop trying to find a common ground between development and regulation. But if the board's direction to us is that we need to be more stringent on where big boxes go, even outside of the typology of the village, we can certainly do so. At some point I want to make sure we get into what we're doing with the park too because what we've got set up from the plans I've seen I'm not happy with. I think there's a lot of opportunity and it may be for even like a public to be near there. It may be good for a hotel to be right there. So we've talked about this Mike but I think at some point it's got to get in there. Let me let me come back to a question with village K. With all the calculations how many units were going to be in village

K? the initial how many how many units were in village?

I think it was estimated 1,200 dwelling units that we ended up cutting off comes in

that was low 2,000. I was a little low.

Okay. So, you get 2,000 units are part of this financial plan. Is that part of the plan that you showed us in the initial slides?

Uh, no. So, they they did they did calibrate for for removing those. Yes, sir.

Okay.

Are we transferring those density? are are we doing at TDR?

So, that is an excellent question and something that staff has been been wrestling with on do we add that density to an existing village or do we look here at the intersection of um an arterial and collector road that currently doesn't have a village center and do we make up um for a village center from village K with a new village center and that's part of what we've been trying to to ascertain. We're just waiting on the financial plan to be fully locked down and the transportation announced to be fully locked down before we add in another 2,000 units to our transportation modeling that we've already been doing over the past year. Well, I I'm really interested to see the rest of your presentation because I would say if we could put those those densities into the downtown downtowns or the villages and do vertical mixed use that to help to help fund the um the retail and commercial in a town center. I would be all for that.

Absolutely.

And you're going to show some pictures that

Yes. And I'm going to talk about minimum density ranges what we have now um as as well as I move on. But this this is PH2. So just to get to that subject a little bit. So I think you got to be careful the way this was laid out and as as well as this concern about what we're going to do to change what was planned for 20 years ago to throw more densities in here. The way these roads were set up. I think you really can take a close look at that because one of the things was if they don't have the need for the transportation then they won't need as much money to build out the transportation. So you have less density. It's not a bad thing necessarily. It means less intense roads like we're taking up two major roads that are in there that are coming out now. So I don't need to throw the density somewhere else when now I'm missing those two roads too which won't come in my opinion till the end of everything. But

just to throw more and more density. Well,

if it may if you want to go take a look at the place, go up to Claremont. There's a really nice development up there. Claremont, as you know, is great. Great topography, lakes, etc.

And what they've done to that literally, you can go there and you can see what you see would be hills that they could have incorporated better houses, view sheds blocked by the houses.

They sold their hills.

I'm That's what I'm saying. Okay. So, that was one of the things we talked about with the the comprehensive plan many years ago to make sure we didn't do that in in the eastern part of the county.

And I just don't want to see you keeping slamming the density down when you're going to start taking away some of the stuff. It's like trying to like, you know, shrink the road the the road rightway that we need because part of it is, you go to some nice neighborhoods that we built years ago. It's kind of nice driving down there and seeing a a big wide open area to the side which would accommodate for more things if you want to build wider trails to let that happen. So I want to be careful about not just jamming all this density because you know go to Trinity, go to Wesley Chapel. Look at all the traffic there. Density is not

not like that. That's the wrong way that

I'm just saying

that development is not what we want.

You're going to get more and more stuff.

He's going to show you and I'd love to take you on some field trips, Jackson.

I'm just looking down. I think you're trying to say one of the reasons why we're going.

Yeah. Right down in the downtown was underserved for commercial. The take up has been the traditional single family type of development. So we went through this exercise to make sure we have a good balance and that's why this exercise and

I think division way brings up a good point. Let's go see these centers to what's there now and what's planned.

Yes sir. This is the land use vision, the the PH2 that uh Commissioner Weightman was referencing that shows um approximate density ranges around the village center. So you have you see the dark red um at the village center and then as you move along from that you have the brown which is the core residential which is more medium density high density residential into uh the yellow in the periphery which is the lower density. Um that's a max two dwelling units an acre. So that's your larger single family that exists in the periphery of each building. Um this is a it's a very traditional concentric concentric zone model here. Um commissioner

so go to go to Thank you, chair. So go to village B with your laser pointer

and what is that?

Show and explain on the record how we screwed that up by making the decision on villages on the green and why.

Sure. I think that the

uh

I can say it or you can.

Well, I think that the the real blunder here was the original um contemplation in 2008 of the plan of having a village center at the Clinton Avenue extension at all. Knowing that it was going to be sixlaned, um it didn't really set up to have a village center on a six-lane road that was going to be feasible. Anyhow, what should have happened was that the village either should have been moved south or north of the intersection to utilize the intersection for its transportation network that was going to be already built by the county and the state. Go ahead and leverage that, but then actually have your formation of the village either north or south of that intersection to allow people to be able to function within a quadrant of the intersection rather than focusing on the intersection itself.

So, this is a gateway into VOP, your entry points, you know, along Curly I don't think any of that's been taken into account like you know you've arised into the hills of Pasco coming into VOP that's not been taken into account.

Sure.

And when you look at where we put in the light brown we approved villages on the green but because of that decision it screwed up some of the red on the northeast corner of Curley. So I don't know because that decision with the formula reconfigured the village core. How do we go back in and make it salvage what has happened to the north

east corner of curly and 52 or whatever you call it because of that decision of villages on.

Sure. Uh, one of the one of the first things that was tough is there at the the southeast portion of the intersection. F DOT put a pond in. So, that really cut planning staff's legs from out from underneath them because they took a hard corner that would have been perfect for commercial.

Yeah.

Um,

crazy.

It's it's now a pond. uh we didn't have any say in the matter at the time, but I think that one of the salvaging pieces is treating the village center in this case as being two modular pieces. One on the north side of the road and one on the south side of the road to where sure on the map it's one village center, but in effect because of the width of of the Clinton extension, you really need to treat them as two modular 1A 1B village center. They're both whatever village B, but it should be B1 and B2 because they should they're having to act independently of one another because of the width of 52. But then adding wayfinding to your point and adding this stuff to let people know that this is in fact um the entrance to villages of Pasadena Hills as you're moving across um Clinton extension is certainly certainly valuable. Let me throw an idea out there because I'm I'm glad listening Mike Carbella just say they do this all over the place. Look at look at Bellamy in 52

where the old neon cowboy was wasted property for a pond. They did the same thing at 41 caused us a mess

where that could have been a much better quadrant. So they continually do what we say we don't want to see it happen again and there it happened again. And I I'll say this, I still think you can salvage that area. If we get back, go back to the planning board. When I drive by 52 and I when I hit Marada, got a nice thing, send a statement, bam, you've arrived at Marada, right? Looks good. You could do the same thing still there, but it's going to take a little bit of planning because you could take that pond and move it to the other side further down

and protect that whole quadrant and then make something happen in that section right there. Isn't that Wilton's property

around that pond?

I I don't I don't know, but I'm It's It's open land is what I know.

No.

So, what's that?

I was answering the that question. I didn't know off the top of my head about property

coming there.

Well, at the anyway, with the giant pond that's there, complete waste of space and you could make a statement right there at the entryway, which actually even separates from Marauder at that point, too. So, I think that's probably a dialogue needs to happen. But as far as for our planners and we're looking at 52 and are any other expansions along, we need to make sure we're protecting these quadrants. They shouldn't be pawns.

Mr. Chairman, um McDonald PTO's planning services plan to economic growth. So not not really part of the VOP discussion, but more part of a comprehensive plan update discussion, although that's not the subject of today's later discussion, is the uh preservation and protection of our intersections. So we've created established policies or will established policies in passport 2050 that mandates the preservation of our intersection corners uh against uh storm water facilities so that you don't end up in these types of scenarios that we've just highlighted uh with ponds on our hard corners. So, it'll be policy if the board agrees uh that only developable uh only developments should be right up on our intersection corners and that if there is need for uh detention that that detention should be located off the intersection and away from the frontages of the of the arterials and collectors.

Thank you, Commissioner Starky. If you look at um Starky Boulevard and State Road 54, DOT put put the pond right where the vision road of Starky going across 54. Dewey Mitchell sued them and got a lot of money because they put a pond there. Um so it's not I guess would you I want to make sure that kind of situation gets captured in your language because it it wasn't a corner yet. It was anticipated to be. We have the the vision road intersections also covered in this policy. So

he told them to move it over, you know, move it down 20 ft or whatever and you'll be out of the intersection. They wouldn't do it. They didn't want to reservey it.

It's crazy.

Can we go back to the slideshow? Any more about that intersection? No, I was just thank No, I was just using that as an example.

What's what's coming in that intersection?

So, as that's an example, say we've made decisions, are we are the decisions that have made today in these villages that are starting to bill out, are we in line with the spirit of the plan? Are we not? How far off base are we?

Sure.

We got one shot at this

and we have the ability. We don't know

to make changes if we need to and so we need to understand.

Yes sir. Yes sir.

So I had met with Terry and it it was very eye opening because he he showed me exactly what's going in all over in on on that land. I think that would be helpful because as we're talking about the roads and what's coming then we see you know where the density is and and the single family homes because like you said with the roads and the connectivity and the grid I think it would be very helpful to see what's already entitled on on those um parcels

and and Mr. Mr. Chairman, that's my question to Seth. I don't remember what's going in on that corner. So, what what's going on? Because they're not showing us

what's been approved.

Just has the zoning.

C2.

I got a map here, Terry.

But back to Will, before you get going back to a question. Where are we at in our decision- making methodology that has been approved today? Are we in line with the structure of the village centers? Are we out of whack a little bit? We off base?

Absolutely. I think that I mean I guess number one that's a it's a fairly nuanced question. um there's a couple different perspectives that you can look at, but the first the first thing that I would say is that

um

VOP has has constantly evolved since 2008 in terms of the direction of what these different village centers have looked like and staff in the last um I'd say four years has really taken VOP headon to try to get these planning outcomes um not only for the board but for the citizens and the people that bought into the VOP comprehensive plan to begin with in 2008. And so the first step of that to make sure that we're on the right track was Mr. Kov's financial plan assessment, which is why I tied it to the comprehensive plan update because we needed to get our hands on the financial mechanisms first to then be able to allocate those resources to the form question that you're asking now. And I would say that there's absolutely tweaks that need to be made, but the original language in the comprehensive plan and the lack of a land development code for the villages of Pasadena Hills kept staff's hands tied in terms of some of the character that the board wants to see now. So what I'm proposing to you now is changes and remedies for that and examples of character that I think that the board would like to see and things that are feasible for the development community to provide to staff in the villages of Pasadian Hills based on the dollars and cents that staff is going to have to work with in order to implement that. So what's what's so how how off a little bit? A lot of bit I mean you get a great

polished answer just

it's a workshop man.

It's a well

so

he did No, you still didn't answer the question.

I mean uh Mr.

Someone needs to answer the question.

It's not I'm asking very directly and I'm getting long- winded answers.

I'll answer the question. I think that BOP was a little off um to be honest about what the original vision was in 2008, where we were as of 2020 uh and the retrofit work that we've done since 2021 to bring BOP back. One of the major um concerns that we had with being off was not just in design and the location of land use, but what happened in 21 and 22 was major inflation uh across the board in the country. And it it also affected us here and VOP specifically which necessitated the financial plan assessment to figure out you know where where are we actually standing here. We're realizing having worked with uh some pretty good development partners in Galvin and Harris um that we're off on our projections as it relates to the number of dwelling units that we're going to have in VOP. So that tells you right there that we were a little off off base. um originally anticipating what 42,000 trying to get to 80%. And we're only really going to actuate about 60%. So yes, you're going to be a little off on that as a result. Um that said, uh I I mentioned that we are working with some pretty good development partners in the OP to bring the ship back on course and I think we've made some great progress over the last couple of years to make sure that the vision that was set in 2008 is going to be accomplished in 2025 terms. let's call it. Um and that's where Will's discussion about the comprehensive plan is going to make a lot of sense because um back in 2019 2020 there was concern that VOP was uh basically at a disadvantage to what the rest of the county was able to accomplish in terms of development. And so there were amendments that were made to the 2020 plan um where uh certain like TND was removed from VOP back in 2020 because it was thought to be a development disadvantage. The rest of the county didn't have to do it. Why did VOP have to spec specifically do it? Um that was perhaps one of one of the greatest indicators of how off the plan actually came. And then in working with second Yes. just just to cover that point. So tell me how many dolls we've done TND

uh in the county.

Yeah.

Uh Long Leaf I think would be the only one I I

So where is it a disadvantage

in New River?

So where was that a disadvantage then? No one has done it. Where is it at a disadvantage?

Well the the disadvantage was that VOP was saying that we're mandated to do this TND but nowhere else in the county are they being mandated to do it. So the mandate was removed in 2020.

So they took it away.

Yeah. But in uh we never see it

in uh subsequent years with new development partners like Galvin who actually approved guidelines along with their MPUDS that they were building for the majority of the of the uh project.

Can you share where it is where Galvin's project is because it's all T&D.

Yeah. Um this is where we're able to start to come back and salvage what we had in 2008 with uh really good partners who are willing to do something different. they they realize the advantage now that good design aesthetic is going to bring them that's going to separate them from uh in terms of a little niche market from the rest of the county. So, um it's actually turned into a benefit at this point. So, that's a long answer to the quick answer that you wanted, Commissioner, that I think we were a little off and that we're coming back now. But that's because you have So what about people who aren't the owners that aren't like Gal? Are they going to join be complimentary to what he's doing? How do we make do that? Because we don't we don't need a mirror of what's to the west.

Correct. This needs to be completely unique and it is

right.

And you know that's a real community of real value,

right? that's needed in our county,

right?

And I'm not confident that we're not on the wrong path and I've been talk saying this for years.

That's part of the discussion that Will's going to have right now in terms of the comprehensive plan update. We are going to be working on village commercial village testing house commercial standards. For example, uh Galvin and Evans I think uh control about 80% I think is that the is that close enough? Close enough. anyway of a great deal majority of the villages of Pasadena Hills um commercial areas and non-residential areas I should say more generally um be so we'll be they're the biggest stakeholders we'll be able to set the standards with them and then pretty much everybody else who's going to have to who's who's going to want to build in uh VOP they're going to have to follow the general VOP standard at that point so uh we're not there yet we want to build the confidence and capability to go ahead and do exactly that to make sure that VOP builds a specific form pattern uh place uh that people will recognize.

I think that really is the answer is what I'm presenting today is attempting to put VOP on track on the bullseye for what the commission and what the citizens want to see out of the village of Pasadena Hills. I think that's a good segue. We we move off of typology here. Um where we talked about I I guess I need to touch on a little bit more. Commercial entitlement reallocations. Some of the villages are are vastly underserved in terms of the the commercial that they have in relation to their location criteria and the amount of residents that would live in the village. So part of this study, part of the financial plan is where do we need to increase commercial entitlements and what do we need to do about residential density ranges within different types of villages um in order to support infrastructure and then in turn support the non-residential users because they do need a certain amount of of residential users there to keep um that certain business afloat. But the more the more part on getting on track and hitting hitting the bullseye is um legitimate village center design standards both for residential users and non-residential users. And so what does this mean for our village centers? The first thing that it means is it's a compact development pattern which means a grid network. A lot of times people point to a grid network in VOP and they point to um you know the master roadway plan from a 30,000 foot level as establishing a grid. It does establish a grid in in the macro sense but VOP's intent was to have a grid at the micro level. Each village having its own grid of of reliever roads that are just neighborhood residential roads, but offer you multiple ways in and out of a village forming a grid, not just the master roadway forming a grid. We need to do a a better job of enforcing the grid network development. Um, which in turn is going to help our building orientation and screening parking. Um, I think all the all the commission has been aligned in terms of nobody likes walking past parking when we're trying to create these pedestrianoriented areas. Walking past a large parking lot and then a couple hundred feet away is the is the building you want to walk to. It doesn't feel comfortable as a pedestrian and the scale feels off and it feels hot. So, what we want to do is create compact development patterns with screen parking. continue to emphasize multimmodal transit options and pedestrian movement, which I think that's one of the one of the things that VOP has done well over the past few years is because of the roadway typical sections that were originally improved. Um, this area is a little bit ahead of the county in terms of its width and breadth of pedestrian network that's already being created since it had the the multiple pathway systems and was planning for golf cart usage where some of the county roads that are needing to be retrofitted now were the old 5-ft

sidewalks. But we need to be able to carry that into the village center and make the design um compatible with people on bikes and golf carts. making sure that um adequate parking for those things is happening. You know, to the rear of the village center, you park your golf cart or your bike up to the park and then you're able to walk to the non-residential uses and then back. The proper integration of residential and non-residential uses. A lot of times you can see a development pattern that's clearly this area over here is residential, this area over here is non-residential and there's no real relation between the two uses. that's occurring and it just feels like two separate developments. What we want to do within the village centers is a proper integration of residential and non-residential uses. And I have some examples here where I talk about building orientation grid networks and public places. I think public places is something that VOP can improve on in terms of the requirement of these public spaces. is I think in the last few public hearings um there's been a lot of talk about social gathering spaces as a as a requirement in in MPUDS in particular in connected city um staff's been trying to do a better job of requiring social gathering spaces between retail and between residential where people have a place to go but this is something that really needs to be implemented within VOP in these

build no so

pops it up there

the first one here um this This is Baldwin Park, Orlando, Florida. Um, this is looking right down one of their main streets in the development here. You have on street seating um with shade and the buildings here. They're up along the roadway with on street parking. And they've even done, you know, brick pavers here, which slows down the speed of cars because, you know, you rattle around and your teeth fall out when you drive over the brick roads. Um, but it also gives a good linear view shed to the pedestrian, but the buildings never have to get that tall to give us that sense of place. You can see here, even over on the far left, that's a one-story retail building, and it's still doing a good job of providing scale. And as you move further down the corridor, you're only getting up to about, it looks like it's only three stories in this case. So, part of part of what I'm doing and Mr. Kobe's doing is we're in contact with um the municipality that permitted Baldwin Park so that we can understand, you know, what are the entitlements needed to serve this, what was their acreage and uh what kind of regulations did they use in order to secure um this footprint of development and how did they make it occur? The next example here, I know that this is Tennessee. Uh, I'm originally from Tennessee and so I picked a development that I'm familiar with. But more the reason that I more picked this more importantly is I think that this development style outside of the facades, I think it looks quintessentially southern. It looks more like the building form of Dade City and it looks like more the building form of my hometown in in Tennessee, but it's new development. And I think that that's transferable from what they did in Tennessee, which is a a less hot market than the state of Florida. If we're being frank, they were able to accomplish this in an area where the real estate market is not near as hot. Land isn't near as valuable, but they were able to get this footprint here where you can see in the background, you have a single family detached house past the shade trees. And then as you as you come into the forefront, these threetory brick buildings where the the bottom floor of those first three buildings there in the forefront is retail. The top floor is residential, but actually as you move past here, this is single family, detached, rear loaded. And you can't even tell through the

rear loaded. That's the magic word. every single single every single single family product town home in this development is rear loaded

and they average about $1.4 million um per here in this development for the single family detached.

I just I have a comment. So when we were in um Arkansas, they had something very similar like that and they went as far as like if it was a Jimmy John's, it had the same same look to it. Everything had character. So that would be something really cool for VOP. Absolutely. That it wasn't like, oh, it's a subway or it's, you know, it it would have to maintain the character of the neighborhood. And you could have houses, you know, next to it or um

you know, mixed use like that all over the place.

Absolutely. And that's part of what we want to do with VOP and VOP in particular is within within the the breadth of the county we have the the unified sign plan um which you're you're allowed to do but it can be quite cumbersome and complicated for applicants and in VOP we don't want something that the board wants to see happen like a unified sign plan like this character be so cumbersome. So part of the VOP comprehensive plan update is creating something for VOP that's like a unified sign plan that has this uniform character but without the cumbersome nature that it takes to go through a unified sign plan currently because it can it can make a lot of applicants not do it because they they see the long process that it takes and they'd rather just do their standard fair than operate within that. And it's a good point, too, because here in the forefront, pharmacy drive-in, this edge right here, this is actually a Publix, and Publix was able to come in here and fit the form and fit their pharmacy drive-thru in like an alley.

Yep.

And it it worked wonderfully. And so what you see here is a is another intersection of those same buildings um with residential on top, uh retail on the bottom, and then full retail buildings down here. angled parking, parallel parking, intersections that aren't too big, but also um I think that they did a really good job with landscaping here as well, which is um important when you talk about walkability is being able to shade the areas that people walk in, especially down here in Florida where it can get hot. Um palm trees look great, but they need to be used in the correct places. They don't provide a lot of shade. Use the palm trees where they're required. use them where that they make sense for your development, but then also use shade trees as an actual um utilitarian use to provide something for the for the shade if you're not going to do something like a sconce or an awning.

Didn't we have that discussion yesterday with Eminem?

We absolutely did. We absolutely did. And finally, when I talk about public space, Berry Farms in particular, they created something that was a very nice public space. It's maintained by um by their maintenance group there. And as you go into uh this right here is the start of the public's pharmacy. But as you go in, these are all live work. Um these are owner occupied. Um these aren't rentals. These are these are bought. Um you have the on street parking, but it's all centralized around their park space. So that whenever everybody is activated here in the retail area in the cross-section, they come out here to the park and then they stop along at these retail places here along before they go home. Um

yes, ma'am.

Um when we were in Cincinnati, where did we go before there? Our first

Well, the first one was Cincinnati. So, yes. So, when we were in um whatever that one was called, New Norton Commons,

Norton Commons,

say that brick building over there on the left um that was an uh uh senior senior housing, affordable senior housing. Um it looked and it melted right into the little downtown. And then across the street, let's say those six windows on the top, that was a hotel that uh it was a keyless entry hotel. you just like a VBO, you know, you you you check in online, you get a code for the door and it was a hotel downtown. I mean, so there's so many things that can happen with this form if if the codes are right.

We have similar form in Pasco County already.

Yeah. So there's a couple of things that come to mind. Um, I mentioned this a long time ago, Peach Tree City.

And I love the overpasses or underpass, whatever you got along hand cart where you can go under to go.

I mean, my my daughter, we were up there to visiting friends, whatever. And the golf carts, you could take a golf cart from your culdeac, go in the backyard, take a trail, zip around. You could then go to a commercial section as the trail network would connect, go underground, and she always I'll never forget she is, "Dad, I want to go live here because I want to be able to take my golf cart to to to everyquate, get a blizzard."

So, that type of thing allows kids even to go where they need to go safely.

Um, when I look at um place I grew up in Gl Massachusetty, Jillio's bakery down the bottom. They own the whole building. they lived up top the whole family. So even multi-generational live there. So that type of thing from what you're just saying I think is what you just mentioned is exactly what I think is good for these core centers. Um Champions Gate, anybody have a drive-thru there?

Yeah.

All of a sudden you get the GPS tells you to go skip go down 27 because the traffic's so bad. So that's a place they could have had I think more owner residential. And I I do like the fact of owner residential. David, when I was up at Alexandria, I sent you a pin of an area that was sir

in a area is kind of quiet in from the roadway, but then right in that center they had an elementary school from the elementary school all sorts of housing. It was intense, but at the same time, if everyone was going to kids could could go there.

And I s it wasn't just young families there, but seniors, too. So you had a mix of population. It was all owned. So it was like wasn't all rentals, but it was ownership there. And everybody had the community and if their focus was their kids, they were right there. Easy to walk in. Grand grandparents picking the kids up, they could do it, too. So I think these cores are good examples. And I think that's a good example of something we can get. Over in Alexandria, Oldtown amongst all the heavy residential, they had an area like that with an amphitheater. type of thing where people could go out, not a big one, but big enough to where it could be big for all the grass.

So, um, one one of the reasons why I talked about the TDR, transfer of development rights,

and putting density, you have to have density downtown to make this work,

right?

And that's why this is where you want the density.

Um, you want those two and three stories. You want people downtown, you want it to be vibrant. So I would take the density from Kirkland Ranch and throw it there to incentivize this kind of development. That's that's kind of what I would say.

Is that am I right, Terry?

That's the historic development patterns of Pasco County. We have

we have centers like Dave City, right? And we have rural suburban around it and we're trying to duplicate the tone and cadence of our existing historic patterns here in

Y Park. I see in this a nice water feature where kids can run through it and you have, you know,

uh,

kids, dogs, you know what I'm saying? Walking around having an ice cream farmers markets on Saturday.

Oh, yeah.

The the kids here, they're they're out till 9 10:00 at night in this development when I when I lived in Tennessee just because of how

how safe it felt for the parents. Like like Commissioner Mariano said, we're like, "Yeah, like your daughter, your kids." Yeah. Hey, go down the road and get ice cream. I don't need to go with you. We don't need to get in the car and get on 54. Go down. Go down and do it. And uh if I was to zoom out from here, I think one of the the other thing that's cool is the whole surrounding area outside of this development is all it's all oneacre lots. It fits into the rural areas that we want in VOP, but it still gives this feel to where it was still compatible with the oneacre lots and the twoacre lots that sit along outside of the development. They're divided by a road and they they exist perfectly because those people like going into this downtown and going back out into the periphery which in this case you know that's where you're in the sub two dwelling units an acre in VOP but it still mends and that's something that you know staff is looking to accomplish as a part of the 2050 update. You know, as Commissioner Wade brought up, the the core the corner at Curley and uh 52, even on Marada's side, the whole corner that's commercial or could be commercial, you got a sunken not tree where all the drainage is going to go. So eventually it's going to get wet and probably topple over and they get a open spot doing nothing. when you can get if you go back to the Baldwin Park shot, you could have had something that at the corner instead and and and

we shouldn't we shouldn't have a single highdensity apartment complex anywhere in this VOP unless it's right there and there shouldn't be many of them because if you want to go for the tax increment stuff, get those multi-million dollar units that could be like two stories, three stories for high-end residential, people will pay for that and it can go. But if you just keep having Kevin Apartments going, you're not getting the demographic you want, number one, and number two, you're not getting the value. And as a big part of this tax increment program that they're going to benefit from, we've got to get the high-end stuff. get those high-end demographics because the more high-end you have in the center is going to radiate to support those 1acre lots to the back because right now all we get is you get apartments over here and there's some residential over there or some town that was mixed. The intensity in those corners is key. And I'm glad you brought those up to look at those things because if we're going to shift anything, it should be that way. If they're not getting the units, probably because they're not building enough of what they could be building. But you can't just get that traditional guy coming in. Well, I don't build that. I don't build that. I don't build that. The heck with that. Let's go tell them what we're going to allow. Drive it through and let the markets then get the right builders to commit. If they see we're going to go that way. But when they can find I'm going to go have to build an apartment guy who's going to pay more money. I'm going to short sell and go, we're going to get more of the same.

Absolutely. And that this right this concludes um the update for the 2050 comprehensive plan. And Mr. Kov and PD will we'll be back before you as we continue to flush this out. But we wanted to give the the board, hey, this is the direction that we're headed and so that we can take your input that we got today and put that in to move forward.

Yes, sir.

So, you mentioned Tennessee. They got less going on than we do. Like

careful now. Careful now.

Than Florida does, right? But they're getting a higherend product. Florida seems to be all over the state. The builders give us their entry product. You go to Texas, wherever, and you see what LAR is capable of building or the large track are able to build is quite impressive.

So why is it that PE places like Tennessee and others, what are they doing to attract this? or is Florida just like, hey, this is a volume model and we need to turn and burn to make cash, you know, is that just the the difference in the markets? Like what's what's what's driving these two things from Tennessee versus

I I think I think it's the difference of the developers perspective. So I I've looked at these great mixeduse projects using innovative design and land use planning and the master developers are in for the long haul. They realize that if you invest and there's a lot of capital intensive upfront costs, but if you invest wisely and have good quality lenders, you have monetization and value enhancement and you'll make more money in the long haul. And if you notice, uh, a lot of these projects, the developer has equity in these projects. Uh, Avalon Park, uh, the Avalon Park Group, they they own the downtown. Uh we the Kentucky project that mayor uh commissioner Starky and I went several years ago, the developer owns the downtown and that type of equity commitment in the long view makes more money and the communities are happier. U you know what we're what we're not going to get here is Dr. and LAR if if if we put certain requirements in rear loaded town homes, rear loaded, you know, houses, they're not going to be the ones buying the land. We're going to get a different kind of person coming in and developing.

Well, I'm going to give you a line, too. At the last planning commission meeting, a project in Hudson was coming in and it was brought out on record where they talked about, you know, why why can't we get bigger lots? And what was said was something like um well the people going to sell to don't want that and for that reason from a continuation to coming forward that's the answer we got and that's what we lived with.

It's coming up before us soon. But that that type of discussion needs to shift and we got to set the things in to make it work. I I do have a call with the director of this municipality to get their conditions of approval, what their future land use element looks like for this particular area and uh what the like what what did they get for a master plan? Did they get did they get a bubble plan? Did they get a binding plan so that I can see what the implementation strategy was that got this built on the ground and how does it differ um from the strategy that Pasco's had. So, I'm going to I'm going to pick their brain, get their approval documents, and hopefully bring some of that back to the board of these are some of the best practices that that made this get built.

What year was this founded? How long it taken to build this house?

Ironically enough, uh it says 2005 there.

Um it so it it I will say that living there

to them from approval to customers walking in the door. So, it's it's been a long it's been a long time and I know growing up there in terms of like how they had to phase the project and what they had to build first. So, they did get original PUD zoning approval in the early 2000s and they they kind of they sat on it for a couple years and didn't really do anything. and they came in and they revised their plan sets and they built the uh the single family um product first and then they came in with some of their main anchors um secondary like the Publix and then there's some other stuff that's not pictured out along the main corridor like they had a they had a special Chick-fil-A that they did an eye doctor stuff like that that they came in with but most importantly what they did first before any of that is they built the infrastructure for the entire development and they set the grid pattern first so that when they sold to individual home builders because it's not all I don't think it's all the same developer. I think you got some Stanley Martin in there. Whenever they came in the bones for the development were already laid out. These are the roads that you have to work with. These are the lot typicals. You can build them as big as you want or in this area you can do town homes. In this area you can do this. But the roads are already built and you have no choice but to form your building orientation to this grid network. So when the public comes in it, it plugs in place.

So how many acres is this?

This is uh right at 100 acres total for the entire thing. What you can't see here, 300,000 ft of office, um four hotels. Um I showed more of the downtown, but what they did like VOP is

so the residential hall is on 100 acres. This entire MPU or whatever you call it in Tennessee is 100 acres.

Yes, sir.

Um, but they've got hotel, they've got office, retail, multif family, town homes, single family, detached on 100 acres, and uh it's really indicative of what VOP could be in terms of the size. The scale is not crazy. The downtown's pretty small. And then on the periphery, um, you know, they've got some they've got the hotels and their office use that they needed um, for their employment generation. And it all it all works pretty wonderfully together even with the single family in the development.

If you would send us more plans on this,

Mich's going to be lower because see all the porches are are facing in. You're going to have people in the parks. You're going to have people outside on the restaurants. So there's going to be eyes everywhere.

Absolutely. Eyes on the street. lower the crime rate. So, when we're thinking about designing neighborhoods and things being rearloaded, that really does help lower crime because people are out and about and looking around. So,

absolutely. And you can count on your neighbor to keep an eye on your kids whenever you you send them down the street to get ice cream and you know the guy at the corner.

Yep.

Hey, yeah, I saw your kid walk down and walk back.

Yeah. You watch Family Guy?

No, sir. not officially on the record.

So, let me ask this. Is this is like you're looking for direction we're coming through. Is there going to be any public meetings to show people what we're trying to get to?

Uh, absolutely. I think that that's a a proper planning practice of any comprehensive plan update is public workshops, but and once we have something more concrete, we can kick off public workshops.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, uh, this has been a very instructive session. So, prior to these public meetings, we wanted to get input and engagement. I've been taking very careful notes and I understand which each one of you are focused and you know I at first I thought there was a lot of variance in opinion but it's really a uniform opinion. This is a special area. We don't want it to look like a single family sprawl project. There are certain gateway and also placemaking exercises. So we are going to we're going to take that back. Um and we also have done a we've listened to the board in the I remember Commissioner Weightman was very concerned about the business and financial plan of EOP. We rights sized it. We scrutinized how we're going to derive the revenue to build out the roads and the infrastructure without burden to the county. And I think we've achieved that goal and now we can focus on the design goal of the board and we're ready to we're ready to take it back and come back and maybe make a presentation or at a workshop at at a more convenient time in the future. It's up to the board. Good.

Yes, I would imagine.

Did you want to talk about the park or definitely

um I don't think we need to talk to the park now, but I'll just put my concerns to I think we need to make sure we get a lot more out of that park and I think in there we should be looking between a public's there a hotel there u get something where

can we pull the map back up as you're talking?

Okay, if you can pull the map pull the park up.

Are we going into the Are we doing this? We're doing it.

Do you have another picture of the park, though?

Uh, this is this is my map that shows where the super park is. I I didn't have any specific parks.

This super park serving the whole community all around. All around, not just in BOP Beach. Correct.

Yes, sir. So, we need to make sure we make this where it's going to be helpful to kids that want to go play sports that they got places to play. It can't just be meandering things here, there, and everywhere. We got to really focus on what the design's going to be. I think that could be a separate workshop in itself and probably should be.

Well, did you

not even a workshop, just at least a full presentation on it instead of just a quick shot. Here's what we got.

Did you see Keith? Did you see the plan for it with all the ballparks and the

I the we talked about it briefly at the previous workshop and you're saying something more

intense. I because I think you got to look at what's what's around it too. Like how are we going to make this work

in cooperation like if I'm going to have a park you got kids coming from out of town too. You got tournaments that may be coming in there if we're going to set up for that that you want to have place for people to stay. They're going to want to buy something while they're there between Publix whatever. So, let's go look at not just the park itself, but let's go look around. Let's bring the owner of the properties around there to say what can we do here to make this fly because you got a great opportunity and right now I don't think we're maximized. I think it's almost going to be as bad as the curly intersection if we don't get it right. I

I I agree because I I was hoping that the neighborhoods edging that were going to be like Baldwin Park and walkable so that there's an interface between a downtown and the park, but I think there's already development that's approved next to the park.

Yep.

That's not what we would have wanted. on West Bay.

It's it's we have partial development in there's some uh West Bay

um that's being built single family detached. West West Bay is in

So it's it's a it's a suburban model,

not a walkable

community. Is that right?

They they do have all of our uh multi-use paths as a part of uh their community to connect to the park as well as actually there is um a commercial

their commercial downtown area here. Um, I believe it's at the time when this was approved, it was probably just commercial retail.

I I I don't think we should be allowed.

I don't think they have anything. Uh, they don't have any commercial approved. I I'll put it that way.

Okay.

I think we need to be really careful on the development pattern of the commercial.

What you do at Kefir and Han Cart, which is across the street on the Evans piece. So, like I said, there's opportunities here and I think now's the time to really bring everybody around there and whatever's done and said, so be it. But at least we'll look at everything else that's there and figure out what's the best way to to make that be a core because that should be a big core feature for everything we're doing. When I look at Champions Gate, as much as all the traffic's there, the fields that they built to the side are phenomenal to support the hotel, support the rest of everything around it. Had they done a little better with the transportation, so be it. But that's when we need to look at everything around it. So I I think that should be a separate maybe it's a a 20 30 minute presentation at a board meeting rather than a full workshop. But I think we we need to have that dialogue.

I've got I've got one more thing before we

I think we um need to look at how uh apartment complexes are dropped into these kind of neighborhoods. uh because what we're doing are those isolated apartment complexes that have no relation to the land around them

and there's certainly ways to integrate the same density into a community.

It's just the sighting, right? So, so we really need to have some guidelines for um multif family.

Well, I think that's perfect because we are meeting with board members. We do have some guidelines proposed and the multif family we're looking for is integrated walkable around amenities and resources without these plop and drops in the middle of nowhere.

And one other thing that uh commissioner and I saw in Bentonville on either our bike ride or our scooter ride, which we'll show you one day when we have our presentation, was actually this one developer had these I have I do have a picture of one here. um these really cool sets of town homes. There were three or four to a unit and he took the same ones with great facades rear loaded and plopped them in on little pieces of land all around the downtown and they look great. Um but and I I took a picture of their their code. Did you guys did you get the No, you weren't with us and I don't know if Dave and David were with us, but I how they put the code in so that developers could come in and just I guess maybe it was a form-based code or something and they had little pockets of density and they were really transforming areas with that around that park

and they made it easy for them

and they made it easy for them. Yeah. So,

yeah. Absolutely.

Go ahead. Terry,

Mr. Chairman, um there's a few other things that we want to talk about too that is related to some of the discussion that you're having right now with VOP, but on a more general or countywide basis. um later in the agenda if if you'd like to um continue that discussion. Um I was going to suggest uh if possible to round out the VOP discussion with a short presentation on the VOP fee credit registry uh which is the financial transaction platform that's going to help us uh build a lot of the roads and infrastructure that's out in VOP. The platform was completed. Um it's operational and uh Justin Camino from planning services senior fiscal analyst is going to present those numbers really quick for us.

Howdy. Justin Kaminos uh planning development economic growth. Let's see how many times I got to click in here. Right there. Okay. So, um, as Terry mentioned, um, the fee credit registry is a great way to try to incentivize developers on the front end to have them build, um, some of the infrastructure. So, um, I'm going to read a little bit on the slides here. So, mechanism that enables credit monetization for the VUP land owners. We've had Galvin incentivize um, a few bits of infrastructure, Tindle, handcart um, etc. where they've preunded certain dollars and then they get they get credit on the on the front end. Um so also so the the credit holders whenever they register their credit they provide infrastructure they do that they submit the receipts they or preund the infrastructure um basically if there's no cash available for um for them to get uh exchange by they can either put themselves on a registry for whenever the county actually gets cash and then give an exchange or they can monetize them within their own development. So they can basically monetize their own credit by using them on households and whatever. Um so the county controls the cash components for consistency with other countywide road road agreements. So this is basically the the county holds the checkbook. So whenever um whenever there is a developer who doesn't decide to uh use their own credit within their development and they decide that they're going to register their credits. So they say, "Okay, we're going to wait until cash is actually acred." And then they say, "Okay, I'd like to exchange my cash um for that." So there's two kind of ways that they um that they are able to incentivize uh that we're able to incentivize them to build our our collector and arterial road network. Um and as development occurs um out to 2065, we'll start to see investments pop up, roads built more, intersections, traffic signals, etc. because we can't build stuff without the cash. So, um, so basically I'm just going to go over just a brief kind of where we are now, what we've collected. So, we've collected about roughly about $15 million in mobility fees. We're talking road, uh, bike ped transit, um, things of that sort. Um, we've awarded about $20 million in mobility fee credits. We've awarded things for for Handcar, for Tindle, for um,

Pasadena Ridge. Um, and we've got a we've got a couple others on the hopper among them. Kefir Road, Magnolia Island Boulevard, um um among among others. Um and the uh the the the single one out here, the bottom line is the credit and cash exchange payouts. That was for Matt Galvin whenever he preunded Handcart, Tindle, and um no, handcart and Tindle. Um so right now there's there's no registrance on the list. So, we're waiting on people to actually uh instead of incentivizing I'm sorry, instead of them monetizing their credit through their development um we haven't had anybody on the registry list um as of yet other than Galvin um and the bond mechanism that we have. So, basically um Galvin preunded dollars. He then um MI Homes came in and seceded that account ownership because they're going to actually build the road. So instead of actually going for a traditional bond where they would go to a shity and say, "Hey, I'd like you to, you know, uh bond my infrastructure." Um the funding and escro agreement actually circumvents that process and says, "Okay, we want you to fund in a in a um in a just just cash." They basically preund the entire balance of the road and then they basically uh draw on that. The contractor draws on that as they start to build out the road. Um so as you can see here the preunded dollars we've had um developers preund over $16 million in road infrastructure and that's basically just they're just they're out that money until that gets built and then they get they get 90% credit for that. Um and the escro dollar payouts just kind of signifies that we are actually um they are contributing into this cash account and then we're actually having contractors build stuff and then have them draw down on those uh on those dollars. So the bond kind of bond has 100% here and then as the contractor pays out the bond is reduced by the amount of work that's done on the on those roads. Um and that's it for me. Mr. Chairman, I'll just mention too that the VOP fee credit registry is unlike any other financial platform in that as far as we know, it's the only one in the state of Florida that's operating like this to make sure that we can get u private dollars to build uh public infrastructure as quick as possible.

How's the decision making going to happen as far as what roads are going to get reimbured compared to which ones aren't? So a lot a lot of that decision-m is established through the public hearing processes that we have setting conditions of approval for MPUDS and development agreements. Um so the big decisions are being made um by the board of county commissioners. Um the subsequent decisions are happening on an engineering and business basis on uh when certain uh developments are coming online during the the various phasing of their developments and they're saying hey we need to build this segment of roadway in order to facilitate phase one of our project. Therefore they approach the fee credit registry and start um logging in their credits and drawing down as they build that infrastructure when their developments are coming online. was all an approval basis going to control what goes on. What if you have like an extra surplus and you deny you the decision? Do I pay developer A or developer B? How do you make those calls?

It's a first come first serve is my understanding of the the V credit registry.

Yeah. So basically it's a um if if I if if I built a road a hand cart or whatever road that's within the VPM MRP the master roadway plan um um I then decide do I want to go one of two routes. Do I either use do I either obtain credit? You're going to obtain credit from the county either way. So I'm going to build the road. Let's say it's $10 million. I get $10 million in credit. Um, am I either going to a take those credit dollars and monetize it within my development, pay for mobility fees, pay for the homes, the the whatever? Um, or do I register those um those dollars on the registry and wait for the county to collect mobility fees to then pay out and exchange those credits for cash? But if I go the registry route, I can't monetize it in my in my development. So, that's it's basically a it's it's an eitheror. So, it's a it's a it's a circumventing of money. So, it's either we you forego money here or we collect the county collects dollars and then they get paid out to whoever is registered on the registry.

I was just going to say importantly um trade can take place between developers on the fee credit registry. They can assign credits between each other in their own business transactions.

So, utility question. So, as the projects are paying as they go to put utilities in the ground, what's if if a if a neighboring project comes online that's going to benefit from the work that other projects have paid for, what's their obligation? For example, St. Leo golf course. If something happens there, that project would drastically benefit off the backs and the investment of other people and they wouldn't be necessarily they'd be getting one heck of a discount on utilities and infrastructure. And so what what's the thought process there?

Yeah. That way, you know, if if something were to come to fruition, there should be a rebate or something back to the people who were who were putting

Yes. So,

investing in first.

So, VOP does have a search charge on utility fees. So, the base fees are the base fees. Those those remain what they are, but VOP actually has a search charge on the utility fees that come on top that everybody in VOP is going to have to pay for the utility infrastructure that's put in by developments. they're getting credits on their search charge. So, they're paying the search charge also, but they're getting they can get credits on that search charge. And then as other developments come online that maybe are not building that kind of infrastructure, but they're benefiting from the existence of that infrastructure, they can then be buying those credits to facilitate their own development or pay their own search charge fees, which then pay off the infrastructure that has been built elsewhere in the in the in DOP. Okay.

Also, another point that I'll make is that um so the one one key differences here is that um typically developers countywide um whenever they have an excess credit balance and they don't know what to do with it. If let's say let's say for example they can't sell it. Um they can in the case of VPH they put it on the registry and that's a mechanism for them to actually remmonetize what they didn't what they weren't able to monetize in the infrastructure that they spent. So, they spent $10 million. Let's say that they didn't they were only able to monetize 8 million. They can register the latter 2 million and then say, "Okay, there's a instead of like, oh, I I can't sell this credit. Nobody wants to buy it." They can put it on the registry and whenever the county acrews cash in the mobility fee process, then they can um they're able to get monetized for that latter balance.

And I think the good news in going this way, even if you can't get it from the private sector by selling it from the other developers, etc., knowing the value of the revenue is going to be a lot stronger at the end, they at least know they can get paid so they can make the investment to help themselves.

Absolutely.

Yeah,

Mr. Chairman, it's this is not much of a departure from what you have historically done,

right?

The departure is that we're facilitating payment back. The only the only roads that are getting reimbursed are the same collector and arterial county roads that would normally have gotten impact fee credits in the old days, mobility fee credits recently. So, it's

the the difference in this system is that we're keeping a registry of multiple developers where in the old days it would only be a credit agreement for that particular project. And some of those credit agreements I believe never materialized. So they never really got reimbured because there wasn't enough money coming in to get it back. This is nowbody.

Exactly. But now I think there's a short there that you're going to get paid just no matter when

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let's go with that.

Okay,

let's go to the Pasco 2050 comprehensive.

Are you going to do the last slide because I was waiting.

Oh, that's right. I was waiting for

excited.

There we go.

So, what's what's next for VOP?

Um, we're going to finalize the financial plan update that was uh presented to you this morning. Uh, we are going to be working on the comprehensive plan update for VOP. Um, we're going to talk about a comprehensive plan update today, but that's to the the countywide comprehensive plan. Uh, we did not update the VOP comprehensive plan as part of the countywide. So, we have to go back uh and update the VOP comprehensive plan um as Will has discussed to you today. And then at the same time, we're going to be looking at the commercial design standards and everything that will talked about and update the land development code for VOP specifically because as you mentioned, there is not much in the land development code to facilitate the VOP vision. Uh and then uh lastly, I'll mention that um the bonds for transportation improvements, those will be coming to the board. uh coming up soon on June June 16th. Yes. On June 16's agenda.

So, Mr. Chairman, that's what I wanted to weigh in because some of the information that was presented may have misled the board. Um I don't think intentionally, but this is a county bond issue. It's not a general it's not a general it's not a general obligation bond,

but it is there is no legal entity

to issue these bonds except for the county commission.

They are backed by the way they're currently being set up. They are backed by the transport uh the tiff that you've set up for this district. Um, they're also backed up by a potential special assessment pro process in addition to this and a but and a covenant to budget and appropriate any missing revenue to pay the bond holders back. So there is the potential that general revenue dollars that are available, you couldn't increase taxes for it, but general revenue dollars that are available could pay these bonds back. The hope is that all those you're never going to get there because the tiff will pay for it. If the tiff doesn't pay for it, the special assessments will pay for it. The issue with a covenant of B budget appropriate is that you get a better interest rate from the general people who are buying your bonds if you have that failafe um provision in in your bond issuance. Um so the bond holders know that they will always be paid back. So I think I think it's a good I mean VOP is supposed to be sustaining themselves and I think by us doing what we're doing again with that that tiff backs stop we're going to be in great shape no matter what happens whether things die out there or whatever that money is still going to be coming in for down the road. So I think by us helping them they help build the infrastructure. So that handcart road especially coming up and down the east west connections are are part of this whole thing that can help balance it out. So and I think in a good way we're doing a good thing for the development not only for VOP but for the county too.

I just wanted to correct the record in in that it was a developer issued bond. It's going to be a board of county commissioners issued bond.

I I appreciate the uh clarification. Mr. Ducky.

Um, this is a dangerous question because I don't know the answer and you should never ask a question I haven't answered. Uh, it might involve you. It might involve David. Um, so VOP has its own board and and and special rules.

They have a they have a body that serves as a planning commission for VOP.

So, who's in charge of what we're trying to do? Us or that planning commission? It always will come to you,

David. I

I just

fill in the gaps

because I you know when I have someone sometimes I'm told differently

but it'll go to

that's that's accurate. They make recommendations to you but you're still in charge.

Okay. So

you're always the final decision maker in VOP

because there may some be some people who just want to do the standard suburban what we have everywhere else land owners or developers uh which is was never the intent of EOP right um but so we're still in control

yes they're recommending body just like the planning commission's are recommending body to you they're also recommending body to you

and and the only difference would be is if somebody did not wish to increase their entitlements, they basically have have opted out of the VOP process,

right? What do you mean they didn't want to increase their

So, a land owner doesn't have to.

They got whatever they've got. They don't have to follow the VOP process. They would they would never Yes. They wouldn't be going through a resoning that would trigger that process. That's an active statement. Yes.

Okay. I just want clarification.

Well, and it's good to remember this conversation, this this workshop as we come forward with these things, but what we're really really looking at, what we're really trying to get.

Yeah. I think it's very special and the values will be very high eventually and it'll be really awesome and what was meant to be. Frankly, I had thought this is what we were getting at Newport Corners. I thought that that was going to be this kind of community, but when I drive through there, I don't see that. So, I don't know. Is that what's going to happen, Terry, or is this just

Well, Newport Corners, the the center of Newport Corners has not yet uh been proposed to us.

You mean the commercial area?

The commercial area, but the commercial area is mixed use.

Okay. We have to be very careful that

yeah as I recall Newport Corners does have uh various elements from the OP like buildings up on the street um outdoor amenity spaces etc. Um for not along the little road but along the internal road of Newport

because we have a very busy road for Little Road and that's not a

right. So we have yet to see the what that mixeduse commercial

I don't think they've sold it. I I don't think

it was seller retained. That's correct. Oh, it has been retained.

Well, it was at least back then when the approvals were going through, it was seller retained property. So,

oh, seller retained. She still owns it.

Yeah.

I think why don't we take a fivem minute break and then

Oh,

take the rest. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Cancer.

No.

Like like how bad?

I don't know. But I guess she's been so much.

Jerry, you going to lead off?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Uh, Nario Pitos, Planning Development, Economic Growth. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this part of the workshop we're going to talk about Pasco 2050 the comprehensive plan update for the entire county. Um I just want to start off by say by asking the question why did we do this? Um we did this because the comprehensive plan hadn't been updated in about 24 years. though we've been amending the comprehensive plan very frequently and that was one of the board of county commissioners starting objectives when we embarked on this uh project uh to reduce the number of comprehensive plan amendments that are coming before the board of county commissioners. A general update to the comprehensive plan hadn't been done since 2006. Uh so uh we embarked on this uh project to update the comprehensive plan for the first time in 24 years. Part of that update, the mandate was to streamline the comprehensive plan and to consolidate as many of the goals, objectives, and policies as we could to make the document more user friendly uh for general understanding for the public to understand what what what is actually uh being uh contemplated by the county, but also to update uh the comprehensive plan according to Florida statutes. Make sure that we're following uh state statutes and pretty much every goal, objective, and policy of the comprehensive plan. So with that brief introduction, I'm going to hand it over to Hyatt Misili. She's the principal planner and project manager for the comprehensive plan update. She's going to walk us through a couple slides and we're going to get into this uh right away. Good morning. Hi Miss Ellie plane development economic growth. So now that Terry has set the stage for us, let's walk through our Pasco 2050 journey or as I like to think of it the road map that proves that planning is not just about land use and zoning regulation. It's actually pretty exciting and maybe that's just the planner in me but it really is. So um we started with uh or we started our journey with data collection and market analysis. This is where we started crunching the numbers and collecting data and also um studying the market trends to understand what's really happening um in our county. Then comes the visioning. This is the creative stage and this is when we got out in front of our community and talked to our the folks here in Pasco County and asked them to imagine bold possibilities and shared big ideas and aspirations and pretty much tell us what an even better Pasco could look like in the next 25 years and beyond. So the result of this in uh of this vision is uh phase was the envision pass 2015 document which pretty much summarizes the feedback that we got from our community and um also establishes the vision for our county. This vision was used as the framework for reviewing or drafting the plan which is phase four. We uh used it to review each and every elements of the comprehensive plan. And finally we arrive at the adoption

year. Um so this is when the board reviews, refineses and ultimately approves and adopts the the plan. It's the finish line but also it is the starting point to turn the vision into reality and something tangible on the grounds. Next, we have the adoption year timeline which shows the major steps leading up to the final transmittal and adoption of the Pasco 2015 comprehensive plan. It's important to note that these SAX tasks were not completed one after another. They were very much intertwined uh with many steps happening simultaneously throughout this entire process. We began by finalizing the data collection and preparing population projections. But while was all of that happening, we were also coordinating with u multiple county departments as well as other stakeholder groups. Um those conversation conversations continued throughout the entire process and often informed updates to our data and analysis. At the same time, we were working on refining each chapter of the plan. The goals, objectives, and policies were being drafted um reviewed and also updated as new information came in. So although this ladder shows, um these steps in sequence, in practice, they were overlapping and feeding into each other. Now, we are on the last rungs of this ladder. We began our LPA workshops back in July of 2025, working through each chapter of the plan and during that time um and continuing obviously through um today's BCC workshop, all the feedback that we had received has consistently flowed back into our work which allows the plan to evolve as we progress. Um all of this brings us to the final stage the transmitt and adoption um phase which we are targeting for the September October time frame. Now that we talked all about these processes, let's step back and look at the structure of the plan. So this slide shows the 11 chapters of the Pasco 2050 comprehensive plan. Each chapter represents a key theme that helps organize how we grow, move, live, and play in our county. Uh, chapter one, Pasco grows sets the foundation with how we manage growth and development. Pasco um specializes is the second chapter of the plan. It focuses on special area plans such as connected city and villages of Pasadena Hills. Uh, chapter 3, Pasco Moves, lays out the framework for the transportation network. Chapter four, Pasco Lives, addresses um housing, neighborhoods, and the overall quality of life in our county. Pasco serves is chapter five and it covers public services and facilities that supports our communities. Pasco adapts is chapter six. It focuses on coastal management strategies and resilience. Pasco Conserves. Pasco um chapter number seven focuses on um on natural resource protection and conservation strategies. Pasco plays which is chapter number eight. It centers on parks, recreation, tourism and cultural amenities. Pasco works is all about jobs, economic development and our workforce. And Pasco Partners emphasizes collaboration with our municipalities, local and regional

agencies or regional partners as well as the school board of Pasco County. And finally, chapter 11 is Pasco Invest. Um this chapter outlines the level of service standards and capital planning needed to support the comp plan um implementation. So together these chapters create the framework for how Pasco County will evolve through Pasco through 2050 and of course beyond and uh tying together growth, mobility, services, quality of life and long-term investment. All right. So now that we have seen the big picture, let's zoom into the backbone of the entire plan and that is Pasco grows. So this chapter focuses on how we guide future land use and protects property rights as the county continues to grow. It lays out strategy for managing growth in a way that maintains choices for where people can live um whether in rural areas, suburban um or urban communities. So what's changed in this update? First, we reorganized and consolidated the goals, objectives, and policies to improve clarity and um reduce any overlap. The chapter now includes eight goals, 27 objectives, and 94 policies. We also made edits to ensure compliance with the Florida statutes. We updated outdated information and removed policies that were no longer applicable um in in today's day and age. Um on the mapping side, we updated the future land use map series. We introduced new mixed use future new mixed use future land use categories and consolidated the residential future land uses into one unified um suburban density residential future land use which has multiple tiers that um Terry will um discuss in um just a little bit. In addition, all the special area plans like I had mentioned, connected city, VOP, um, Newport Corner, projects, Arthur or Angelines have moved into chapter 2, which is specializes. Want to make sure that all these special area plans are under one chapter. That way, it's easier to access. Okay. Uh, so those are the major changes with Pasco grows. Now, let's dive into the bigger pieces of that work and I will hand it over to Terry to actually walk us through all the details.

Thanks. Hi. So, we're going to talk about the new future land use uh scheme that uh is being proposed in Pascal 2050. This will be one part of a multi-step conversation here that's going to talk about density strategy specifically. that'll be the meat of the presentation for today uh on this topic and then we're also going to talk a little bit about the rural areas towards the end the urban service area and some vision roads uh also so in terms of the future land use scheme um we as I mentioned at the beginning we've consolidated and streamlined um a lot of information in the comprehensive plan that was part of the charge that the board gave us at the beginning of the project um I'm not going to go through all of this detail um generally I'm going to uh say that um we've We've taken our agricultural and residential future land use categories. There are eight of them today and we have consolidated them down all of them down into four uh future land use categories. That's the AGR agricultural rural which is the combination of today's AG and AGR. Uh this combination comes with uh some benefits in terms of eliminating a lot of conflict zoning that's taking place in our in our agricultural areas. There's a there's a bit of a boost a benefit there. Um the one of the strategies that we deployed in in this compre version of the comprehensive plan is to close the gap between certain future land use categories. Uh today we move um very cleanly you might say between let's say res one and res 3. But what about densities that are between one and three that often cause us to amend the comprehensive plan uh to the higher density in order to accommodate something that may be at 1.3 or u 3.5 requires us to jump all the way to res six in order to accommodate that. So we've closed the gap. You can see the gap uh sort of being closed um when AGR is 0 to 0.2 which would be a maximum of one dwelling unit for 5 acres and then RDR begins at 0.21. 21 and climbs all the way to 2.9. Um, RDR is the rebranded res one C future land use category from our current comprehensive plan. There are some important notes in Pascal 2050. It RDR, we'll talk about it later, but it's capped at 1.0, one dwelling unit per acre in northeast rural, and there are some other caps for RDR depending on which rural area that you're in. Um SDR as I mentioned is the consolidation of res 3, res 6, res 9 and 12. And so you'll see the density range is at 2.9. There's a little bit of a purposeful overlap. That's not a typo. There's a purposeful overlap in order to accommodate net densities within suburban density residential. And um today we have res 3, res 6, res 9, and res 12. There is no res, you know, 15 or res 18. it just jumps all the way to res 24. Um, which has caused some issues over over time. Uh, and so we've expanded the density range to go from 2.8 to 17.9. That's a large density range. We're going to get into that in more detail uh later in the presentation. And then lastly, we have

UDR, which is urban density residential. That's today's res 24. Notably, the density range there is going to be 18 to 64. 64 is actually a density that exists currently in the comprehensive plan today. We've just never seen it activated or or used. Uh, importantly, UDR is only allowed within the urban service area. It's not allowed anywhere else uh in in the county. Um, I'll mention it again later, but there are only 23 instances of res 24 today in the county. Uh, totaling about 222 acres. So, it's not a lot of res 24. So there won't be a lot of UDR in the proposed Pascal 2050 comprehensive plan. Um moving on, these are our productive or business flu. Um we've consolidated the employment center and the town center future land use into a rebranded ECR employment center. Um the density density characteristics of these flu generally stay the same as what we have today. Uh comm is rebranded into core or commercial office residential. Uh ROI is the combination of O of office and ILE industrial. Um there's not a lot of office in the county and we also have very interesting um limitations 10acre maximums on uh office. Um most of the office that does take place is often in IIL anyway uh and in core for that matter. So we've we've rebranded and consolidated those two future landings categories. And then we've rebranded IH industrial heavy into planned industrial. A lot of the heavy industrial that we're seeing come into the county over the years has been um uh the type of industrial that nobody wants to slap the IH flu on. They end up hiding it behind well my word anyway, but they end up hiding it behind the PD plan development. Uh this does a couple of things for us. I think it does a little bit of a disservice in terms of economic development because when prospective companies are looking for potential locations within the county, they're seeing PD. They don't know where what the PD is actually um consisting of or what kind of allowances have been made within the PD. And so they they begin to look elsewhere as a consequence. Um the planned industrial status uh gives the sense that you know this land here is marked for industrial but we're going to work together to make sure that the heavy industrial that's being proposed is u good and proper for the county. So that this it'll function like a PD but it's really for industrial purposes. Um in terms of specific categories all of these that you see on the overhead are unchanged uh from the way they're written today in the comprehensive plan. So all the plan developments that currently exist uh on our future land use map, we didn't touch those. Those are all the same because there's a lot of entitlement and reliance built on those PDs. Um Connor to New Town stay the same. Newport Corners will stay the same. Gateway hub will stay the same. Our coastal lands future land use uh category will stay the same. The conservation con will stay the same. Major recreation open space stays the same and PSP uh stays the same.

Importantly, RO and MU are listed here. Um, originally we had identified these two as potential candidates for consolidation uh because um we don't uh actively create new RO or MU areas within the county. Um and so we had actually consolidated these into core and into ECR, but then Senate Bill 180 happened and we had to unpack those. And so ROI and MU will remain on the map as they are today um in Pasco 2050. Um lastly, in terms of the future land use categories, we also have uh we've created a new future land use category called CPEV. We all know what CPEV is. It today exists as a PD or sub area, but we're going to take that exact sub area and turn it into a flu in and of itself. It's one of the most unique um places within the county. What what's making it unique?

Um its sub area specifically in the way it operates. It's a very different sub area than other PDS.

But is there unique development patterns in there or

um there could be depending on how the MPDs lay out?

Um and when are we going to call it something different than CPV? CPEV.

Anytime you want. You want to name it something? We get to name it or who who

if you want we can rename it right now.

I think I think we need to come up with a better name than CPEV. I mean oh I live in CPEV.

Central Pasco Employment Village.

That's a horrible name.

Well, the flu is just

comprehensive plans. Let's maybe we need a contest or something. I don't know. I'm so tired of calling you.

Um but the the the good news is that

it's your it's your neighborhood, right? the the flu is just comprehensive plan speak um from a marketing standpoint. The developers I suppose can name it whatever they want.

Um importantly, VOP and connected city were not updated as part of this comprehensive plan update as I mentioned earlier. However, we are establishing a specific place for them on the future land use map. Those um flu categories technically exist in our current comp plan, but they they don't appear on the flu map for for various reasons. Uh so we are identifying VOP as its own flu on the map. That flu will then have sub flues the VMU1 and the VMU2 that we talked about this morning. And so the VOP comprehensive plan will live within this flu. Um and then same thing we've done for connected city is to put connected city on our future landings map and have that flu be governed by the um comprehensive plan for connected city.

Okay. Came up with a name.

Cypress Creek Village. I just Cypress Creek Employment Village or something.

Just Cypress Creek Village.

Okay,

we'll make that.

I mean, chew on it and see what you think. Right.

That's what popped in my head.

It sounds nice.

Okay.

Very good.

Works for me.

So, one of the biggest uh

I like it. One one of the biggest updates that we've done to uh the P in the Pasco County or the Pasco 2050 comprehensive plan is on density and we'd like to spend the majority of our time here talking the density strategy um that is being put together within Pasco 2050. There we are. So what is the issue? We've listened to the board across multiple many very many very many u months and board meetings and the issue is really really has been density uh and specifically if we've uh understood the board well um it's densities that are 12 dwelling units and up. These are garden style apartments and and and above although there have been more recent discussions also on town homes so we haven't ignored densities that say begin at 8. Um but generally speaking, the overall concern has been uh densities over 12 dwelling units um per acre. And so we want to kind of uh talk about that today and uh show how we can make it all fit together uh in a in a strategy that will uh bring the county forward while still enabling the ability to achieve density in the proper locations. So in the Pascal 2050 uh comprehensive plan update, the density strategy is going to be three-fold. It's going to first talk about the consolidation of multif family densities in our various mixeduse nodes and we'll talk about those in just a second. Those are three brand new flu that we're proposing as part of Pasco 2050. Um we're going to talk about the compatibility of multif family densities uh specifically within the SDR flu which if if you recall from a few slides ago this flu range was from 2.8 on the low end to 17.9 on the high end. So it's definitely uh um central to this conversation here. And then we're going to talk about the housing capacity studies the way we're doing them today and also the way we're proposing to do them uh under PESCO 2050. This is going to put the mixeduse nodes and the SDR flu into a type of cooperation uh working together for the board to understand where density should be applied. So those are the three things we'll talk about. So back here we are with the mixeduse nodes. These are the new future land use categories that we've created. Um there's three of them. I'm not going to go through all the details that you see up here. Uh but importantly we have neighborhood corners which is a density intensity of 6 to 11.9 community square which is 12 to 24 and urban center which is 18 to 64. Urban center is only going to be allowed in the urban service area. It's not allowed anywhere else and for the most part we'll show a map in just a few minutes. It's mainly along US1 19 and uh state 54. Um we do have as part of these mixeduse nodes certain density bonuses specifically related to affordable housing uh serving below 80% AMI. So um we're currently targeting a 20% uh affordable housing need within each of the or ask I should say within each of the uh within each of these uh three flu um with a graduated increasing number of density. So in neighborhood corners, if you did 20% affordable

housing, you could get plus you could get potentially plus six dwelling units per acre. You could theoretically um bring that density up to 17, let's say, or 18 uh in neighborhood corner. And the same thing can follow through within each of the u future land use categories that are listed on on the overhead here. The idea being here is that we're consolidating multif we're working to consolidate the multif family within these three uh type flu types within specific areas of the county and we're trying to marry that with the affordable housing so that people who need the affordable housing have less distances to go uh burn gas whatever to get to work to get to the grocery store to whatever other amenities parks etc they may be requiring. um if all of that is concentrated or consolidated then it'll make that housing even more affordable uh for them. So that's kind of the the strategy that's built into these mixed use nodes. So how do we come up with these mixed

go back to that slide?

Yes sir.

So on those three categories you've got may receive additional units beyond density allowance if limits if units are imported from conservation subdivisions but served open. How often do you expect that to happen between the neighborhood, the community, and the urban?

Um, that that really depends. So, that that comment there is part of a strategy for the East Market area. Actually, the preservation of rural areas over on the east side of the co county. If if East market area residents, for example, wanted to uh develop their properties and they developed them in conservation um subdivision formats, they could take uh they could essentially, you have to read the policies, but you have to double dip on that density that's allowed over there

and sell it to receiving locations on the west side of the county where higher densities are more appropriate uh within these flu. So, that's kind of the idea. TDR. It's It's a remake of the TDR strategy that we currently have in the comprehensive plan that really hasn't worked to date.

Why do we think this is going to work?

Because we're making it more lucrative for the transfer of development rights.

I'm not crazy about that.

I mean, if you did, you should be developing stuff in corners where they're going to develop. If something's appropriate for the west side that you want to put there, then make it go where you want it to go. But don't take something from over here to go over there. It doesn't make sense to me. Well, we would still allow the East Market area property to develop at what they let's say it was 100 acres and they were going to build 20 units because however many acres were going to be conserved. Um, well, they're going to get their 20 units there, but then they could also sell those 20 units to somebody on the west side who might want to buy them and that would help preserve more rural lands on the east side of the county while providing the housing needs on the west side where all the infrastructure is,

which is a good plan. I I disagree. Keep

Well, that's that's good math right there.

So, just keep the rural area rural. Don't don't allow the extra density. Don't be flipping it from one to the other. Let every area grow.

They have they have property rights and so so you're you're trying to encourage a different use than they have the rights for already, right?

Then find a way better way. But to go take from one area to another unrelated makes no sense.

That would be a taking. No, not listen.

If they've already got the density,

one of the reasons that the TDR concept didn't work, frankly, is

if they could come into you and get increased comprehensive plan density, there was no reason to do TDR. And so, so the only way that this sort of a transfer works is if you if they already have the density in the comprehensive plan and you're not going to give them any more density, then they can then it would transfer out and then there's a market. If we're going to continue to allow the comprehensive plan to be bumped up,

um the a transfer will never work.

Then can it if it hasn't worked, there's got to be a reason for it. But to go take an area, you're going to try to put a comprehensive plan together on every area to go.

Like I've got an area right now in Hudson. It's res six around. It's res 3. That res six is causing all sorts of grief because the extra density that was planned way back when to go in there to mess everything else around it because now all your rural infrastructure around it can't support the extra density it's already there.

That's not where he's saying the density would go.

It could go in west side.

The idea is to try and save areas like that from getting the density and putting the density where we have the infrastructure.

Is that right?

Uh yes.

Yes.

That's the idea. You you're taking density from one area, move it to another area under

an area that can you're taking area you're taking density from an area where you don't want it

and you're putting it where you do want.

Why don't I just put it where I want it?

Why am I allowing this credit to flip over?

Because otherwise you're taking their property rights if they can't develop it.

They got rights. They got rights. But why why am I going to burden

Oh, you explain it better than me. Well,

I think Commissioner Mariano, um, the transfer will only occur on the west side and these specific mixed use nodes. It's not going to be all over the west side.

Frank, I'm going to go back to the

map, right, that show

coming up.

Frank, I was going to let the whole presentation go, but I'm going to go back to taking all these res ones, res 3es, res six, and res 12s, put them in one area. I think it's disastrous unless there's some strict strict limitations. How are you going to make it happen?

And we we've contemplated that. Um so right, David's right. The these are only specific to these three flu and we'll show a map in just a second where these three are located. But first I wanted to give a little bit um on the methodology of how we created these locations. So we had um three levels I guess of review you could say. At the macro level, we looked countywide. We identified major intersections, analyzed transportation data to establish a quarter mile walking rate, walking radius, the most realistic distance that somebody would walk uh in order to get to work, let's say, or to go shop and then carry whatever they bought back home. Um, and then evaluated existing population density around uh the the proposed areas using address points and pedestrian infrastructure. And this gave us a broad picture of where mixeduse opportunities could make sense within the county. Uh and then we looked at it at a micro level at once we identified what these nodes could go. We evaluated each of them and we looked more closely at existing land use, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, bus stops, routes, the existence of these and we referenced um various uh local studies that had been done like the TBRPC um industrial study that had been done a couple years ago. uh and uh we noted that uh whoever did not meet these criteria were eliminated at this stage. So this was a culling of sorts on the quantity of mixeduse nodes that we had identified more generically at the macro level. Um and then finally we uh through govern through a governance process we engaged stakeholders to refine the results. We narrowed down the number of nodes based on fe on feedback. So there was another callulling that took place. uh clarify the intended purpose and function of each of these nodes and balanced the countywide growth objectives with the context and character uh of the individual communities that we were uh looking at. So I think we went from something like 80 something potential locations at the macro level uh down to about these uh 30 or so nodes that you see on the map. And so you'll notice the um in the north part of the county there's a lot of or not a lot but just a few of these polka dot colored um nodes. That's your neighborhood corners. This is where we have low density areas. But a node is the concept of the node similar to how we talked about at the OP. As you get to the center area of a loc of a geography, it should be a little bit more dense, a little bit more intense to cover the needs of the surrounding um uh community. Uh then we have this uh more solid pink CSQ, the community square. Uh you'll notice that these are located on major thoroughares. Um sorry, I don't want to hit anybody in the head. Um and then uh a lot of it is on 52 and 54. And then we have the urban centers um which are these dark uh purple or mauve colors uh that are along the US 19 and 54 5 yeah 54 corridor. uh these can only happen within the urban service area.

They cannot happen outside of the urban service area. The important idea behind this density range uh is because a lot of these urban uh centers are going to have a lot of small lots and so the density is going to drive up very quickly um on the redevelopment of these pre these pre-existing and smaller lots that you tend to find along US19 and the 54 corridor in the urban service area. So, we're not talking about hundreds and hundreds of acres that are being, let's say, refflued or comprehensive plan amended to a new flu that'll have a density of 30 something dwelling units per acre across two 200 or 2,000 acres. What you're talking about is is redevelopments that are taking place for the most part on 30 to 50 acre sites, maybe probably even less than that. um where density is going to spike just just because the small land area that we're that we're dealing with. So the these are the only locations that we're proposing the mixeduse node. Again, these are not all residential. These are mix. So there's going to be a lot of non-residential included in these nodes too because we want be people to live near to where they need to shop, where they need to work, etc. So that's the so right. So, going back to that initial discussion on the TDR. So, a lot of this area here in the eastern part of the county um on the big screen, I guess I could do it on the little screen, too. Um, a lot of that area out there is is rural as you perceive it, as you move through it. And to the extent that we want to preserve a lot of those perceived rural areas, um we could potentially transfer densities only into uh these nodes that are within the urban uh framework here or in the urban and suburban framework.

Mr. Sty,

did you add um

Dunan 54?

Yes.

I mean we is that the pink one that

Yeah. Sorry. Sorry, Connor.

Okay.

It's right there. Um the important to note on this map, you'll notice there's a lot of PDs that are not on this map, right? We're not talking about PDS. PDS are not part of any of these mixeduse nodes. Wiregrass, for example, is not on here. Two Rivers is not on here. VOP doesn't appear, but of course, VOP has 13 of its own villages. So, we'll still get those villages. Connected city is not on here. We'll still get the development that connected city is uh looking at. So, these are outside. These are areas that are outside of those specific um planned locations.

So my question to you is this. If you're going to try to set those up to be extra densities from the east side to the west side

potentially,

why if they're appropriate to be developed with more intensity, why are you just allowing them to develop on their own? Why are you restricting their rights to develop unless they're getting rights from the other side?

Oh, no. They don't have to. They're they're not mandate the west side property owners, let's say, are not going to be mandated to get rights from the east side. This

then they can develop anyway. What's what's the benefit for them?

The the benefit is if you want if if there was an opportunity to increase your the quantity of units that you could build within your project. Let's say you wanted to do the 20% affordable housing, but costs were a little extra higher. you got your plus six or whatever from from your mixeduse node, but then you could go and contract with somebody on the east side and get even more units built into your development. The idea being that you're trying to maximize or optimize the opportunity for more housing units where the infrastructure exists to help solve some of our housing shortages. So what I'm saying to you is if it's appropriate to put those extra density in the west side anyway, why am I taking east the east side part to make that happen? If it's appropriate, it's appropriate. If it's not, it's not.

Yeah.

But to go take and take the east side

benefit way over there.

It's it's ludicrous.

You're this is planning 101.

If you can't do it, you're talking about property rights. You're actually restricting somebody's property rights from doing something you think it's appropriate. Otherwise, you're taking the burden from the east side, throwing it on the west side with no benefit to the west land owner.

I I understand

you're hurting the west land owner by doing this.

Yeah.

Oh, you're a fight now between east and west. Terry

on the There's no mandate on either east side or westside property owners.

There's no mandate on east side or westside property owners on the on the subject of TDR. They don't have to do anything. They're not they're not mandated to do anything. It's an it's an opportunity at least for the east side property owners if they wanted to preserve more of their rural landscape let's say

um of their rural property they could potentially sell the number of they could sell their development twice basically if you if you are allowed to do 20 units right on your east side land I could then sell 20 units to the west side if I preserve this uh this conservation space on my property and so it it allows for that property owner to double dip in a sense making it more lucrative for them to conserve those rural landscapes

while providing

potential additional housing capacity for the west side.

Find another carrot.

That is that's the carrot. That's the standard carrot. It's just

come with us sometime to one of these.

Come come with me to uli or something.

But but none of that is mandated. None of that is mandated. That's all voluntary.

I would point out we're not taking from anybody. were giving more optionality. Yeah.

For the person in the agriculture or rural protection area, if they could uh you know build five acre lots, they can sell that density and monetize their land but put that property in a conservation easement to protect open space.

And on the other side, um if somebody wants to buy that density and do vertically integrated mixed use, it's it's available. They don't have to do it. Yeah,

I would rather see, and we had this conversation just a little bit ago, I would rather see a bigger discount on their mobility fees than going this way because at least it's direct and you're getting you want to keep it rural, raise that number up

for the mobility fees. Give them a bigger discount. If you want to keep it rural, give them an incentive that way. Don't shift it to the west side because if it's appropriate for the west side to get more density in these areas that you've picked out, then let it happen. But don't throw it on this to go solve that. It's ridiculous. I think what Terry is saying is this creates a market for that that to happen. It creates an environment that that allows it to to occur naturally without us having to pinpoint and pick

where it's we've picked the centers, pick where we want them to be. Now we're offering ways and incentives to kind of help build that density over over time, however the market sees fit to do it.

Right. So, say this happens. Who's going to track it? Who's going to track these?

That's a fair question.

I mean, we can't even track what's going on BOP. We can't figure out what's going on connected city. Like, we're having to track and do audits. So, who the heck's going to keep up with however many tens of thousand acres on the east side with this credit game you got going on here? Uh I anyway I just

well it's just the same way we track uh VOP fee credit registry. Uh the board may not be aware of this but over the last year we have an enhanced monitoring system we've developed. All our MPUDs have conditions of approval. We're we're tracking them. We send them out to the stakeholders that are involved in compliance with the MPUD approvals. And we do have the apparatus to track uh transfer development rates. But Terry to say somebody in Northeast does this credit thing. Does that allow for pe someone in Wesley Chapel

to get a hold of them? I mean, is it 41 a dividing line? Like what?

Neither.

Yeah. Neither the the thing. Let's go back

because if it's appropriate wherever it's appropriate to the chair's point, it should be appropriate.

Yeah. Importantly, um I'm I'm noting the east market area purposefully because the TDR is not for northeast rural. Stakeholders in the northeast rural actually did not want the TDR. Um and the TDR was therefore made simply an option for the east market area where the east market area is facing uh development pressures more and more lately. And there's a there's not a necessarily growing consensus or anything, but there's a lot of interest in preserving the rural aspects of Pasco County in uh in this area here, west of or east of Zephr Hills and south of Date City. So, those are the areas that the TDR comment that you saw in the mixeduse flu is potentially looking at as the benefit districts or excuse me, as the uh sending districts and then the receiving districts, the places where they're they will benefit from the additional housing units is just in these purple um locations on the map here.

Terry, um could we possibly consider expanding this to maybe the the northwestern area there? you know, Commissioner Mariano's district, he has a lot of rural areas uh there with rural infrastructure and a quality of life. Maybe we could apply it to that area, too.

We could. There's a possibility. We'll talk about the rural areas in in a few minutes, too, if if time permits.

Um but yeah, it's right now it's just written for the East Market area in coordination with the mixeduse nodes,

but it can be um opened up too. Um so that's just the mixeduse nodes piece of it where we're looking at consolidating and concentrating the multif family um in these mixed use areas. Now the SDR flu is going to be a major player in this conversation. So I'm not going to go through uh all of the the SDR details but as I mentioned it's the combination of the res 3 res 6 res 9 and res 12 to create the one flu that's SDR um 2.8 8 to 18 essentially. Um and we've divided the SDR flu into three tiers within the comprehensive plan. Uh tier one is basically 2.8 to six. That's your today's 3 and six is to provide lower and medium suburban density residential in uh in the flu. Tier 2 is basically the next level 6.1 to 12. That's to provide for a medium low suburban density residential while preserving the character of the existing residential neighborhoods. And then tier three is the upper level which is 12.1 to 18. So though we have consolidated the flu into one flu, the one flu does have three tiers. These tiers are important to consider because we've developed compatibility standard or criteria, excuse me, uh within the comprehensive plan. We were actually heading in this direction prior to HB399 making this a requirement across the state. Um in uh in pre- Senate Bill 180 days uh we were developing the SDR tier compatibility criteria based on the relationship between a proposed development and the surrounding existing development. Then Senate Bill 180 came along and we had to retool SDR in the in this what what eventually became an interim period um where that took us a lot of extra time to retool the thing and then HB399 came through and made it a mandate. Uh so uh it basic HB399 basically relieved us of our senate bill 188 constraints but each tier within SDR is going to have uh compatibility criteria in the comprehensive plan that are going to address parking orientation, height restrictions, building form and design, roof design which is a little different than the next one which is articul architectural articulation especially for um your multif family products. the screening, the setbacks and the stepbacks of any uh sizable or tall buildings and the landscaping or the vegetative buffer that um would be required.

Now the key commission wait

you finished your things and then I'll

Okay, the the key thing here is that the comprehensive plan is establishing criteria that the land development code then has to follow through with to actually establish the standards. So when we talk about say something like building form and design, you're going to find generic language in the comprehensive plan establishing the criteria that each this tier tier two to a tier two to tier one relationship or tier three to tier two or tier one relationship has to have a particular form associated with it. This can be articulated in the land of development code as a standard that might be something like all town homes should be reloaded or shall be reloaded. Right? That's just an example. You're not going to find that kind of statement in the comprehensive plan today because we're only talking about criteria and the comprehensive plan doesn't regulate. Comprehensive plan sets the direction and the policy guidance on what the land development code should ultimately do. What the stand the SDR compatibility criteria ultimately are going to um uh establish for us is it's going to necessitate the binding concept plan at entitlements. So when we get a tier 2 project, which would be a town home example, or a tier three project, which would be an apartment example, the development team was going to have to demonstrate to the board and to the staff that this is a binding concept plan that meets the standards that these criteria are going to set up. And excuse me. And uh in so doing, we're going to know exactly what kind of development we're getting and how it's going to relate to the single family uh subdivision, let's say that's neighboring to the west or something. So it's going to be we're going to have uh much more visibility and understanding on multif family projects uh going forward under under this uh compatibility uh criteria framework. So

thank you chair. So Terry, you talk like 3.99's good

in this one respect.

There you go.

Yeah.

So anything under 100 acres like live local is administry administratively approved. we won't see it, which the majority of projects we see, a lot of them are under a 100 acres. And communities, neighboring communities, if they're rural in nature or what have you, that can't be taken into account for what is allowed to go on here. So, it could be a pyramid, you know, a unicorn in the middle of something and there's nothing we can do about it. Due process is taken away from residents, it's taken away from the boards. It doesn't go to planning commission. It's equally as bad as the live local act. And so while I appreciate these points, I think it needs to be on the record that this is another bad piece of legislation that come out of Tallahassee in the 11th hour.

I think it's time to talk about what H bill 399 actually is and how it affects us because it seems to me that's going to be a key point to all this. I know.

Where's David? Ralph's here.

David Ralph.

I saw Ralph.

And we're going to reference him for a tough bullet point. So some can explain it.

We've never had I don't recall 399 having to take projects that are under 100 acres off the table for

No, we won't get due

process and review. There's no public comment. Citizens don't get to comment on it. Due process is taken away under 399. Same thing with live look. It's all administratively approved.

Don't we see a site plan?

I don't think that provision is in 39. Is this all?

I'm fairly confident it is. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

I I don't think that is in 399. That may have been an earlier version of 399, but it's not in the adopted version of 399.

You sure the adopted version of 399 has what Terry's talking about has compatibility requirements. It also has a requirement that you allow mobile homes in every single family zoning district. That did make it into the bill. But the requirement that you're talking about that citizens don't get to participate in the process, that's not in the adopted version of 399.

That must have been removed.

That may have been in some earlier version that and it got a lot of press, but it didn't make the adopted version. So the importantly to David's point, the mobile home aspect of it, that's why we've included this roof design criteria in SDR such that if mobile homes are being proposed, they're going to have to follow specific land development code standards for those uh subdivisions that are saying not mobile home built initially. They were traditional single family detach.

Is is there a an acreage requirement or is that removed also? I'm not aware of any acreage requirement in 399 either

because it originally was 100 or less.

That's also not in 399.

All right. Well, good. I'm glad they made some changes in it.

But but it does have some substantive preeemptions in it. I want to be clear, but not the ones that you're referencing.

So, it does it does preempt your ability to deny projects based on compatibility.

Well, that that's a

unless it's based on an objective standard. And that's why,

right,

Terry's talking about adopting objective standards on compatibility into the comprehensive plan and the land development code because if you deny a project based on compatibility and it's not based on an objective standard, you may lose a lawsuit. Um, so that's why Terry's talking about putting those standards in the comp plan development code. It it basically will give you more pegs to hang your hat on to approve a project or to deny a project than you currently have today.

All right. So, let me just try to get some clarification. I thought one of the things that was in the in 399 was coming up was they were not they were allowing mobile homes, but modular homes as well. Well, modular homes, I would argue under even under prior state law, you required to allow them in single family districts. Anyway, what changed in state law under 399 is that even mobile homes, if they're if they're treated as real property, which means they're affixed to the land, um you now have a slab.

If yes, basically, if they're not if they're they're not movable, you have to now allow them in any single family zoning district under this change in law.

Okay. Now, compatibility, do we have a definition for it? Now that's that holds up. But we have to create that definition.

You have a definition in your land development code of compatibility, but the 399 requires you to create more objective standards of what is compatible. And more importantly, you have to create criteria for mitigating um a lack of compatibility. In other words, if you say something's not compatible, you have to give the developer an opportunity to mitigate for that lack of compatibility. What would be an example of that?

You can't buffering,

you know, example screening, buffering.

So, let me let me let me throw one out for you because I this is an issue I brought up with staff already with a thing that's coming up. But if you've got a single family homes, newly built along a roadway and on the back end of it, there's a dirt road

and you've got lime rock dust that's there

and that lime rock dust through wind, whatever blows over from that development,

would that be a compatibility thing?

I think you could argue that's still a lack of compatibility. But you might have to, you know, if there's a way to mitigate for it, you might have to see if that that's something that can be mitigated for.

Mhm.

But there may be some circumstances where you can't mitigate for the lack of compatibility, in which case you could still deny it.

Okay. All right. So, let me let me let me go to the bigger picture what we're looking at with everything else as we like we might have an update on 399 coming. But what bothers me with taking all the res 1369 um putting them all together, it seems to me that you're you're really going to cloud what can be approved, not approved, what's appropriate. To me, if you're going to have that mix in an area

than for someone to go build a 300 acre or 400 acre place, you've got an MPD process for that and that's been used, etc. So, I'm not sure why we're getting away from MPU.

No.

Than going to this with the tier system because it's going to be harder to figure out where to go. At least with the MPU, you're getting to all the details to what's going to go, right? So doing the land use change to go that way.

You can then break it down like we do to break it. So if you're trying to get mixed of uses in a land use area,

I think you're making a lot harder to control what's going to go on with this and a lot more complex. At least the MPU

you get system standards, etc.

Well, you're still going to have the MPU capability under SDR.

Then why do we need

and you're you're likely to get even uklidian

your comprehensive plan, not your zoning.

MPUD is your zoning. This is your

All right. So PD,

this is the Okay.

PD will still exist. You still have the opportunity to do PD.

If I have PD, why do I need this?

We It's our comp plan. We keep

you need a suburban density classification or category within the comprehensive plan. You can't have everything be PD, but we do have a lot of, for example, a lot of res 6, res 9, res 12 development is happening with a P MPUD zoning district. What the the framework here that Pascal 2050 is setting up is you can continue doing MPUDS but you can also fix your uklitian zones to accommodate the same concerns that we have uh developing in MPUs but have them take place as uklitian also. So, for example, our MF1, MF2, and MF3s zoning districts, they don't have a requirement today to submit a a binding concept plan with their proposal in order to suffice. But you can uh you can update the land development code to have similar type requirements uh in order to understand what the zoning district is going to be, what the zoning what the proposed development is going to be doing with that zoning district um before they go ahead and get their approvals for site plans, etc. my my opinion for when I'm looking at these breakdowns of the land use the way we have it, you've got areas, you know what intensities you want, you can step them down in in development as you're going. Uh you can look at those nodes if you want to separate them out. But if you're going to put all that in one, I just can't imagine how much book work it's going to take and how you're going to set up to where you can do this, that, and the other thing. Well, the other way with the PD, you know, you're you're laying out the opportunity to go to the MPD to lay it all out. But here to me, you're you're you're taking some guy who can be in that category. Who knows what he can do or what he's going to do. What I think what I think this framework will do is uh remove the speculation from the process because pretty much every project that enters the planning department today there's a discussion on density taking place and so um rather than not having a density discussion at the very beginning this framework is going to require them to tell us what are you proposing what tier are you going to fit in in the SDR flu but

I disagree there's going to If you're res one, you know what your density is. You know what your range is,

right?

Res three, you know what your range is.

Now, it's a matter of that's it's hard enough to even work at those things.

The tier structure is going to identify that range for us.

But I already But why do I need that tier structure when I've already got it set for the res 13? I'm okay with you're adding on the extra stuff, you know, the the res 9 18, etc. I'm okay with that. But to me, you're taking an area that's designed to be rural and you're going to put these extra things in there. I mean, Hudson's going to be a mess right now just because

of the approvals based upon that.

You have a lot of more stuff in there.

It's going to be a mess.

There's Okay, there there's more to the to the presentation that's going to give us a little bit more understanding on how to think about the multif family aspect of it.

But keep in mind that SDR is about suburban density. So, RES 3 today in our comprehensive plan uh is the beginning point of suburban densities. So res one today is the be is the uh the top end if you will of the rural densities. So um SDR is only going to be about suburban areas and it's not going to try to take over rural areas unless somebody tries to uh do a future lenuse amendment to SDR from let's say RDR or something um in which case they would have to come before the board of county commissioners to do a coverage of plan amendment. But to do any of that um to do anything whether that's a future land use amendment or even a zoning update passport 2050 is going to require a housing capacity study for multif family densities in the county. So there's a the way the policy is currently written which we can adjust this policy as may be necessary but the way the current the way the policy is currently written is that future land use map amendments and resonings which are zoning map amendments of multif family residential densities of 12 dwelling units per acre or greater within SDR or the UDR we didn't write that on the slide but it's for UDR2 um you have to do a housing capacity study um and the housing capacity study is going to be a discussion about land land use availability and housing capacity within the nearest mixeduse future land use categories. Uh so we're going to look at that map that we saw previously and we're going to say hey there's a mixeduse node at such and such intersection. It's a community square. Your housing capacity study has to look at that area there and tell us whether or not there's enough uh development potential for multif family at that location. uh in and if there's not tell us the reasons why the SDR flu is going to be a justifiable location. The comprehensive plan is setting up criteria again for this. The proposed policy anyway is setting up criteria again for the um housing study which um very briefly that criteria is going to be a map and an inventory of all vacant underdeveloped and redevelopable part parcels um in the neighborhood corners, community squares, and UCR flu categories if they're near those or to the nearest one I should say. an analysis demonstrating that that identified mixeduse or higher density areas cannot accommodate the proposed density due to limited land availability and an analysis of existing and planned transit service and mobility capacity. Right today, our housing studies that we require are countywide and very very generic. They almost um provide no good information to us to identify whether or not a potential location for increases in density will make sense. Um this housing capacity study is tailored to focus multif family on the mixeduse nodes and to the extent that there's capacity in those mixeduse nodes uh there can be a potential to say hey the density belongs over there more than it does somewhere else in the SDR flu. Um, alternatively, if there is no if there

is no capacity in the nearest mixeduse node, you still have the compatibility criteria in the STR flu to measure whether or not the increase in density being proposed is suitable for the location that uh

so that gives the board more control then over those higher density multif family projects.

Correct.

Terry, I just I want to try to make sure that the commissioner's questions are kind of answered. Can maybe by way of example if if I have a property that's future land use res3 3 today I mean this this is kind of like a menu of options here am I is my property going to be recategorized as SDR tier one or is it SDR and then I I have to come in to see how would how would the mechanics of that work

right so I'll have a slide that kind of shows that in just a minute here

okay

but um uh today if you have res 3 you're going to be documented on the future land use map as SDR3. That's your starting point. That's where you that's what you have today in terms of density allowance. And so

I'm sorry, SDR

3 REZ 3 to SDR3. Um it'll make sense on the map when I show it to you in a second.

Um the Sure will.

If you have RES 6 today, you're going to have you're going to be documented on the map today as SDR6.

If you have res 9 today, you'll be documented as SDR9. Point of this is not to uh create a more burdensome and restrictive situation on the property owner. This is a response to SB180, part of the retooling that we did with SDR that took us a couple extra months to to fix. But um the whole point is we call it the slideback rule to prevent the slideback so that property owners who have an allowance of 369 or whatever will continue to have that same allowance in uh Pasco 2050. that a a new development that wants to get SDR, for example, they have to provide us the housing capacity study as part of their future land use amendment and then put simply an SDR flu on their property. So, they're not they're not going to be coming in for a proposal of SDR6 or something. They're just going to come in for SDR, but their housing capacity study is going to illustrate to us the density that they're seeking and whether or not it's amunable for this location or whether or not that density belongs somewhere else. Which tier does that fall into as a result of that?

Yeah. So, there'll be a conversation. They'll have to tell us, you know, we're looking to do town homes, so that's going to be uh 8.7 dwelling units per acre. That'll be a tier two. Therefore, we're going to look at the area surrounding it. We're going to see that there's single family maybe to the west, multif family to the north, whatever. And the tier the tier criteria of SDR then going to dictate the design of the project that are going to be actuated in the land development code standards.

Commissioner Wayman,

thank you. So to that point, Terry, on the couple of projects we've that's come before the board on 54 and valid arguments were made about the cap, you know, the capacity of 54, you know, it's overloaded. So for State Road 52 or other major roads like that, is that going to are the approvals going to take into account the DOT capacity matrix?

Oh yeah, we'll still be looking at transportation capacity on the on the network to make sure that what development is being proposed can actually fit. So what happens if if if uh like the concern with VOP, you're the last property in but because others gobbled up the entitlements or capacity if you will for road are they going to get the get to short in a stick. I think it depends on their design ultimately. I mean the land development code today has certain mechanisms in it like mutram to exceed your volume to capacity ratios. Um but mutram essentially dictates a particular pattern on the ground that you need to build in order to accommodate and do more internal capture in your development in order to accommodate the VC ratios that you have on the on the network road like 54. So it I think that really depends on the pro on the project and whether or not they're going to design something that's going to meet our policies.

So is the methodology going to be like the uh

Cypress Creek village how through there everybody has a formula and all things nobody gets anymore or nobody gets any less.

For for the record if I could stop you still the central Pasco Employment Village.

Central Pasco Employment whatever

just so I don't get confused. whatever the name is going to be. I was trying to bring some levity in here. All right. So, with with 52 to try to to mitigate the challenges that we've learned from from 54, you know, the whole length of 52 since there's two east west roads. I guess I'm just trying to understand the methodology along the whole route and uh you know because you go from Royal Royal Transition and you get into a more you get to an interchange at 75, you get to an interchange at Veterans Expressway and you get further west into the 19 corridor. So I mean it's it's clearly segmented along the way. So, I'm just trying to understand in the comp plan what's all going to be taken into account. That way, folks kind of

know what what they're in for or

generally

to be to add more transparency into the process, less guesswork, streamlining for staff because there's a base work foundation of okay, if it's in this area,

here's where the framework we're working in.

Yeah.

Does that make sense?

Yes. So this framework that we're talking about in terms of how we're approaching density in passport 2050 doesn't change the fundamental transportation review that takes place to make sure that what is being proposed can actually be accommodated on the transportation network. We're still going to require the timing and phasing analysis for example that will dictate to us whether we need to build more lanes, turn lanes, whatever the typical timing and phasing obligations might be. So all that's going to stay the same. So in essentially in applying the SDR and the mixeduse node framework, we're not blowing out the transportation network because all of those developments are always were and always will be required to produce a timing and phasing analysis to make sure that the transportation network uh is going to be able to accommodate that land use. or uh there are instances rare but there are where the transportation network simply cannot accommodate it and so you have to scale down the project.

Yeah. But the example the example is uh uh the school the property the school owned at the intersection of 54 and Livingston they stayed within their res six

guidelines. They didn't ask for anymore.

Right.

But it became controversial because the traffic in 54 being overloaded. And it's because they were one of the last properties along that corridor to come in to do something with

because they had a reason they wanted to expand the school and what have you

and it became a bit contentious and we all understand why. But if you're looking at being fair to the land owner, the people who want to do something, it puts them in a in a situation that could be potentially, you know, latigious on the government side and on their side become more costly. So it I'm just trying to find a way to a avoid that all things being fair, right?

Yeah. Ultimately in that project, the timing and phasing analysis worked out the necessary transportation improvements that were necessary to accommodate their project. they did have to make tweaks to their project in order to make it fit properly. Um, and so they came at cost, but that's the cost of development at the end of the day. Um, I I want to

let me I want to follow up with with some of that stuff. So studies are great. They're almost like statistics. You can almost get them to prove what you want to prove. We have a traffic studies that we know aren't effective. We know we got developments coming and we can't track them. And we just we just saw VOP. We're back in here. We're looking at it again because we can't track what's out there, what's come in. We were told just a couple years ago, we built build out with residential. We got to go multif family.

When I found out we that wasn't true.

So, we're going to try to track all this stuff and figure this out. I mean, you want to talk about putting more guesswork on. That's what's happening here. When you at least have the categories of your res ones, res threes, res sixes, at least you know what you're going to get in there. You're convoluting to me this whole process to make it less likely to know what's going on. Development community wants certainty. They don't want to range from I don't think from one unit per three units per acre to to 24 or 64, whatever it may be. They want to know where they're going to be. And I think the people as they're going to look at this plan, they're going to say, "Well, you're taking out everything to know what we're looking at when we're saying we like this plan or not." Because now you're throwing all the bureaucrats looking at the whole thing, all the planners looking at the whole thing and all the controls going right there. At least here the way you've got it set and you can improve it, but right now you you're you're taking all these generalities and trying to put them together and then we're going to look at this one, this one, this one. When if you want to multiply things and and change things a little bit, how you going to look at it? It's got to be a more segregated thing like you've got. Otherwise, you're going to you're you're going to say, "How come he gets this? He doesn't, he gets a heavy intense approval, but the next guy behind him can't. Or if he does, he can say, "Well, you let this guy do it. You got to let me do it." I mean, you're just really open this thing up to be a mess.

They they would be responding to the facts on the ground is basically what each development would have to do.

Back to the facts on the ground. The traffic studies that we use are terrible. They do not show what's going on. Their fundamental basis on the growth that's going on in the county is wrong, and we still keep using it. So, you can tell me about this next study you're going to look at for housing affordability and uh compatibility, etc. All that looks at is someone's study. Doesn't mean it's accurate. It's just what's going to be accepted at the time until someone can say we got to change it. And we've talked about the traffic study not working for years. And guess what? I haven't seen a change. If the housing capacity study is not to the board's the board doesn't agree with the housing capacity study, uh then there can be mechanisms that cause the project to be removed from the dock.

And what I'm telling you is that same logic you would think with traffic studies. We know old 54 can't handle anything more. They're getting approved.

I think that's

we know the Let me finish.

All the traffic is going to get worse and worse and worse. It's coming in. Look at Look at 54. Go drive it,

right? Go look at I mean down at Trinity 54 all the way across. It's like a jam because we've had these studies that said you can go do it.

The the studies are a consequence of the provisions of the land development code and what the code is looking for. So to the extent that we need to tighten the bolts, screws and bolts on those studies. We can update the land development code.

We've complained about it. We've talked about it and have we ever changed it?

We needed the comp plan done first, Commissioner.

Yeah, that's what we're trying to do here. you know, you're going to throw another study to rely on that to give us more and you're going to take away the control at least, you know, of certain categories.

Well, yeah, the housing capacity. So, again, the the overall strategy is consolidation of the multif family density question into the specific areas. um establishing compatibility criteria in the comprehensive plan that translate into compatibility standards in the land development code and then requiring an explanation for why density should exist outside of the mixed use nodes and there's three steps there that the board can ultimately say no this is not a project that we like at this location or say yes that this is a good project for this location.

Let me answer this question. Has anyone else ever done this?

Prove this worked anywhere else. Yeah, lot lots of communities in Florida do housing studies in order to demonstrate um whether or not the density is appropriate on any any particular

to see what others have done. I mean, I'm I'm I'm agreeable to look at a plan that's worked.

Yeah.

Look what the results are and go, but this to me is just so radical.

Terry, could you um explain how the land development code interfaces with this flu strategy that you have? Yeah. So the land development code is going to establish the standards, the very specific uh aspects if you will that a development will have to meet in order to achieve or demonstrate their compatibility to us set with in a satisfactory way. The comprehensive plan is only establishing the broad criteria. So it's saying in these categories we want standards and the land development code will then follow through in those categories. They will have a whole set of standards associated with each of that with each of those criteria.

Where is where is this data? Where are these explanations?

High at 30,000 ft. I want to see what you're going to put for details.

Okay. We we have that criteria language in the comprehensive plan that we can share with the board. Uh both in terms of the compatibility criteria and also the housing capacity uh study criteria that we have. Um but again, those are going to be criteria. They're not going to be highly specific. The highly specific information is going to come at the land development code stage where we're actually going to be very prescriptive in establishing a standard by which a project lives or dies.

What if we get it wrong?

Well, that's why we have public hearing processes to make sure that we

So, you're going to have the public comment to you on this complex document that's going to work.

Public hearing process is ultimately the up or down vote of the board of county commissioners in the election. But as complex as it's going to be, I mean, there's a reason the MPUDs go to staff to go get looked at to work out the details, you're going to tell people like, "Here's what we got. We got this broad open category." What do you think?

No. Commission.

Um, in order to keep us moving, I appreciate that you don't want to study, but just to keep us moving. I appreciate all the work they've put into this and I agree with it. So maybe we need to have a majority speak up if we want to move off this topic and keep moving with what they have planned

because you you have an opinion but you're one of five and which is fine but I just like to keep moving.

You want to stop the dialogue is what you're telling me? Really?

No. I want him to do his um it's it's just you and him and I I want them

I think Commissioner Whitman's comment a couple times too. I I'm I am on board with their plan. That's what I'm saying. And so I'm ready to move to the next subject. And I just wonder if the other commissioners are

I'm ready to move forward.

I guess if it keeps going, I'm going to be here.

I thought you left already.

Got enough mine. So go ahead. I mean, I think the devil and the details in the LDC, this is pretty broad,

right?

And we get to the specifics in the LDC,

which we got to get to quickly.

So, uh, just to move the conversation here, uh, urban density residential only exists in the urban service area. Um, and as I mentioned at the beginning, there's only 23 instances of res 24 flu in the county that gets turned into UDR and Pasco 2050, only about 222 acres. Um, so UDR the board of county commissioners will have complete control over in the sense that you have to create new UDR and the board can always say no to the establishment of new UDR. But keep in mind that that UDR would only be happening in the urban service area. The density range, the importance of a density range is mainly a consequence of the lot size that you're trying to redevelop. So to the extent that we're trying to establish missing middle housing, other opportunities for affordable housing in in different forms that are not just apartment blocks and buildings, uh you're going to have to respond to the lot size that you have to work with. At that point, depending on the lot size, your density level is going to spike. So, if you have a 120 by 120 foot wide lot in the West Market area somewhere, um, and you just want to put a forplex on it, your density level is going to spike into the mid-30s, lower 40s, even though you're only doing four units.

So, this is why the density range is key for having that uh capability.

Um, so UDR will be a surgical flu of sorts that will be very specific in its uh application within PES 2050. There's not a um a general application of this anywhere in the county. Um so here's what the map looks like. This is our the new version of the passible 50 future land use map. You'll notice that orange is the biggest color on the map. That's SDR. And you'll notice that within that orange you have uh different hatchings. Um and that hatching is a consequence of Senate Bill 180. It's our slideback uh provision making sure that property owners who have the three, the six, the nine as their starting points continue to have them as their starting points going into uh Pasco 2050. Um the key thing to understand is you know what are the new flu that we've added to the to the map here. We've added connected city which I mentioned. We've added we've added CPV or Cypress Creek uh village. Um when we and we've added BOP technically new flu but not new in terms of planning concepts. Um we've added NCR neighborhood corner community square and urban centers. Those are new flu new concept that we've been talking about today. And then we have the SDR flu and again it's broken out into 369 and 12 right now because of Senate Bill 180. Uh but they are all essentially one flu. And then anything new coming in to the county that wants to do SDR, they're going to have to go through the process that we just described and they would be getting SDR and they would have to be responding to the tier compatibility and the housing capacity uh criteria that we've established. Um so that that's sort of concludes the presentation on the density approach within Pasco 2050. How do we deal with our 12 units and more? Now I'd like to move into our rural mapping uh for a quick update on what's happening in Pasco 2050 as it relates to our four rural areas. We have uh rural area number one which is the northeast rural. Um generally speaking we've this silhouette that you see here is the east market area boundary and this has been carved out of northeast rural. It's US 301 and the luchi area. they belong to the East Market area um because East Market has redevelopment policies associated with it. Um this is a non-rural um corridor if you will and so we've we've taken that out to remove additional layers of of policy and regulation over some of the poorest parts of the county particularly in the Luchi area. Uh importantly, what comes out of the northeast rule is also the non-residential zonings and land use classifications or categories that are on this corridor too. Uh then we've carved out the Blandon I75 area which is where we have ECR um some light industrial, some mixeduse flu, some PDS, etc. Um those are flu that have extremely high intensity as compared to the rural aspect of northeast rural. they're not uh they don't work well as we've seen over the years with the northeast rural policies. We've struggled to come up with commercial or non-residential standards for northeast rule as a consequence of

this tension. Um and so in pass 50 we're proposing that these get carved out so that there are no uh precedents and pressures put on the rest of northeast rural just because comm or core rather and ECR exist within northeast rural. Um the net effect of this for northeast rural is that the remainder of what northeast which is the vast majority of the land mass is essentially agricultural and RDR rural density residential. There's a cap on the density for RDR. Earlier we saw that it climbs up to 2.9. In northeast rule, it'll be capped at one. There are a couple of red sixes today in northeast rural. Uh so that means in the translation here we're going to have some SDR happen in Northeast Rule also, but those are also going to be capped at six because they have six today. So everyone is going to stay at their status quo essentially for Northeast Rule. In the comprehensive plan, we are also updating our policies related to the rural transition area, which is this thing. In our current comprehensive plan, there is a silent density prescription taking place of two dwelling units per acre. A lot of the developments that have come through to date, like Palmetto Ridge, which is about here, 4G Ranch, they're all coming in under two dwelling units per acre. Why?

I don't think 4G Ranch is developing.

Well, they come in for approvals for for their PD approval. Um but and they got uh

I know but they're they're gonna put that in conservation.

Okay. Um but in terms of precedents they're they were approved at sub 2 Y 2 because the rural transition area is supposed to be transitioning from the suburban areas that are around it to the rural areas that are behind it. So the suburban starts at three and the rural caps out at one go two. So, we're following through with that uh two dwelling unit per acre cap and RTA and actually just making it um

uh obvious. And then finally, with regard to the RCA, which is a rural character area over here um just just west of the Shady Hills or portions of the Shady Hills area, we are a lot of that area translates into RDR, but it's going to be capped at one dwelling unit per acre, which means it maintains the status quo. Importantly though, we've made boundary adjustments to the rural character area to uh enable redevelopment to take place on County Line Road here and to enable utility and transportation infrastructure improvements on Shady Hills Road along this boundary here and to enable certain economic development opportunities along I believe that's Hudson right here um at the south end of uh the rural character area. Rural character has a provision in it that says that it's the final form of development. So once you make these boundary adjustments and remove these significant corridors from the flu uh or not from the flu from the rural area uh it locks in that rural area to be rural and there's no further pressure or precedent within the rural character area to do other future land use or zoning uh opportunities. Um the this is this area here is the rural neighborhood protection area. No changes there uh in terms of density or anything. It just stays the same. And then lastly, there's a deep green color on the map. This is, let me go back really quick just to point it out. It's right here. It's between to the east of Northeast Rural and to the west of Dade City. It includes portions of Dade City. That's what this map is illustrating. This area is known as the D uh the Dade City transition area. It was originally part of the 2006 northeast rural study intended to transition development density and intensity between the between date city and northeast rural. Um so it was identified in 2006 but it was never officially mapped in any subsequent uh comprehensive plan update or amendment or anything. Uh not doesn't exist in land development code today. So we've attempted to map that today. it it will include unincorporated Pasco County as well as date city jurisdiction. Um the purpose of this is to work with date city and their interlocal agreements and agree that any kind of um annexation or development taking place within this location does not exceed six dwelling units per gross acre which is sort of the default um density uh in in this area of the county. The other important thing is that we tried to prevent Dade City from annexing into northeast rural. This little finger right here is one of those um encroachments of the date city jurisdiction into northeast rural. So by establishing the date city transition area, we can be clear about what we're thinking about in this particular part of the county.

Um moving on to the urban service area. So we talked about the rural areas. Here we're talking about the urban service area. Um we have this area too over here on the map the blue area. This is known as the urban concentration expansion area. Um there's a distinction in the comprehensive plan today. Uh practically speaking that distinction hasn't really been distinguishable because there's a lot of utilities that are criss-crossing across area 2 anyway today. So, we're simplifying the urban uh service area policies in Pasco 2050 to make sure that um rather than talking about an urban concentration area and then talking about an urban service area and then talking about an urban expansion area, we're consolidating all of these and just talking about an urban service area period. So, all of the red plus that blue area is just going to be known as the urban service area and we're going to be on our way with what is the urban service area in Pasco. Um, and then this brings me to the transition to let uh the county engineer speak to the vision road network in Pasco 2050. Good afternoon, Nick Ren, county engineer. Waited all this time to get to talk about transportation. Um, thank you for your perseverance. We briefly the 2050 comp plan update has three components to it. We're standardizing the widths of the rights of way for our collector and arterial roadway network. Um commissioner, I heard you earlier about the distinctions and the distinctives rather within villages of Pasadena Hills. Let's make sure that we create and maintain the character that we were pursuing in the specialized districts, but let's also make sure that we're not taking more land out of the um tax role than is necessary to provide for the mobility and aesthetic that we're seeking in our transportation system. So that that's what we're trying to do, balance and standardize the rightway widths. We're also refining the um future ultimate number of lanes and the alignments of our vision road network. And there are three Bs that we're we're applying to the criteria for changes. Did the BCC already approve a development that shows a new alignment? If so, make the map match. Is the alignment in the comp plan buildable? If not, make it so. And is the road busy enough to justify all the lanes that we have previously shown? If not, let's back down to the right number of lanes so that we're planning to construct infrastructure that's necessary to support our overall comprehensive plan vision. And then third item that we're doing as part of this update is uh you'll notice in the area that Terry was just referring to, we're proposing an additional east west controlled access roadway from US 41 to Bellamy Brothers. It will align with Bowman Road on the west and it will align with uh Johnson Road on the east and that is intended to provide a parallel reliever to state road 52. When I say controlled access, I want to point

out the one example that you may be familiar with on a county road is Ridge Road just west of the Sun Coast. The point is we're trying to build roads like that not to provide access for development, but rather to provide a way to get from here to there. So that's a proposed addition to the vision road network. We have a couple of others. I'm sure that that certain commissioners will be interested in. We're we're adding the Bolton corridor. We're taking off Kitten Trail as part of the the update. um these are really reflective of development activities that we've already seen in the area and ensuring again that we have an adequate network to move people when all the land uses envisioned in the comp plan are ultimately constructed. Uh, and then last thing I'm going to mention is Caldwell Lane currently connects to Shady Hills and crosses the Sun Coast Parkway and terminates right here. And we're proposing to extend it over to 41 to provide a meaningful connection between the 41 Shady Hills corridor and a potential location for an additional Sun Coast Parkway interchange.

Commissioner Whitman. Thank you, Chair. Can you clarify the northern route and the southern route of the call call your Parkway extension with your laser pointer? place. Northern route is here and then southern route follows here.

So this is existing Kier Parkway all the way up to this point and it curves around here and this is where it hits the southern piece of Aaron Cutoff

traffic circle there at that funky intersection. If we're if we're going to do an intersection like this, actually the county is in the process of doing a route study to finalize the alignment from here to here connecting from where Kier Parkway currently is proposed to intersect with Aaron Cutoff down to this point where parkway boulevard aptly named because we like to use the word parkway as many times as possible intersects with Kier Parkway. So we're trying to figure out just how where where is the best place to make that southern connection. Right now, we're showing it primarily utilizing the existing roadway network, but should the route study show that we are able to construct a more direct alignment, we would ask the board to approve that and that would become part of this map.

I have a quick question. So at 52 we have all those lanes from Dade City coming into Lando Lakes and then once we get near that 7-Eleven and 41 like it gets down to one lane over there

and it's horrible.

You're talking about this section right here.

So you're going east. Yeah. So, the state has a plan,

a a funded project rather, that they intend to award next summer to widen 52 to four lanes from the point where my cursor is, my my laser pointer is eastward all the way to Bellamy and then to six lanes between Bellamy and Old Pasco. We're actually offering to partner with them on the portion from Bellamy to Old Pasco to make that part of the sixlane continuous six-lane corridor leading up to the interstate. What they don't have, and this is critical for your discussions when the the board members convene as part of the MO, they do not have funding to widen this piece. About a two and a half mile stretch east of 41 will be an hourglass. It will go down to two lanes and then it will come back out to four

for six months. Right. They pushed it back.

That project is not funded in the 5-year program.

So the the portion to the east is funded. The portion

That's what I'm saying. We've widened 301 and we didn't widen 52.

You've talked about that before. and that it's a two and a half mile stretched

and and it's it's about a 35 million dollar shortfall and that's why they they've said in their latest update to the capital that now this is the DO's capital program. This is not the county commission but when you assemble as the MO you are voting to ratify the the transportation improvement program. So that's the proposal that they said they were able to afford. Understanding that and and Mike and I had this conversation yesterday, the understanding that we need to be pushing them to fill the hourglass.

Yeah, because we have all that new development coming in off of 52,

right?

That's going to be a nightmare.

Very important project. I agree. Um start

I'm trying to understand that Collier Parkway. Um doesn't Aaron Cutoff go all the way up there? Is that Aaron Cutoff? So Aaron cutoff is the solid line right here east and this is counter but cutoff goes all the way to 52.

So what we're suggesting is that Kier Parkway will be as part of this comp plan update Kier Parkway will be the preferred four-lane corridor that provides connectivity and continuity from 52 all the way down to 54.

So where is Aaron Cutoff?

Cutoff north of Connor will no longer be part of the vision road network. So it's not it will function as a local residential access street to the community that that really has a primarily rural character and and doesn't want a four-lane road in front of um

well how nice that so we the rest of us are going to pay for a what $40 million road $50 million road because they want to keep that

well presently we have both roads in our comprehensive plan we have the intent to construct Kier Parkway and the intent to make

the cost of of going from there to there for Aaron cut not using air and cutoff Oh, that's what the route study.

That's what Yeah, I was going to say I'm not I'm not ready to give you a precise answer yet.

It's about right land is is a big is a big piece of this and and where it's going to be,

but but we've already acquired most of the rideway through Connor as well as north of Conerton. So, the right ofway is in hand. The cost is going to really be environmental mitigation. I mean, we're going to have to construct and and we will have some wetland impacts that we'll have to mitigate.

And and FYI, we were supposed to have a little downtown in Conerton and it's gone away. It was supposed to be like the little downtown Atlanta Lakes and we we chipped at it and chipped at it and it's gone.

Back to 52. So they're shutting down that connection from 41 over all the way to Secretariat,

which I believe is right where Pasco Trails is.

Yeah,

that is a critical thing as far as I'm concerned. I think it's even more important than the six laning of the other section that's out there. If I had to go say what should be done first, it would be multi-laning that because I mean we had to we just got over a big traffic jam that's freed up a bit, but now they put more traffic coming through.

Oh, swap the section they do first.

I I think the priority should be frankly from their 41 interchange out to Secretary before even the rest. For comparative cost purposes, the the incremental cost to add the four to six lane widening from Bellamy to Old Pasco was only $4.5 million because it can all be accomplished within the median relatively inexpensively. Whereas the 2 and 1 half mile stretch of 52 that they're not currently able to fund is closer to a $30 million need.

So I can see the value to it. So that's okay. But you still got to get that section done.

I mean agree 100%

agreeing. Do we know where our money went? speculatively.

That's a good question for Secretary Hall's team. I I

to the raise until we don't

I'm not Yeah, I'm not privy to that.

I'll say one more thing. County Line Road,

that's not Is that funded yet? No.

Um so what one of the items and again this is a comp plan. So I'm showing you the ultimate rightway footprint and the ultimate foot and the ultimate number of lanes is is not even on this map. If I'm speaking from memory, um we have a whole separate map showing you all of the capital projects that will be accomplished in the next 5 years. And this segment from Shady Hills to the Sun Coast Parkway is funded as a partnership between um Pasco Hernando and FDOT District 7. DOT is administering the project. We are contributing to the cost to buy rightway for the corridor and then we will be paying a one-time as well as current funding strategy that we're pursuing uh borrowing a state infrastructure bank loan uh and paying that back overtime to fund the full construction cost of that project.

So DOT is not funding it. We're funding it by borrowing money.

They are contributing a portion of the cost. I I don't have the exact numbers in my head. I know our share of rightway is 5 million. Hernando share is 5 million and I think the state is putting in a matching 10 million for the right ofway acquisition. State is funding the design 100%. So that's all state money and then the state is putting in a small amount of matching funds for the construction again about $10 million whereas the counties are being asked to pay the remainder of that cost.

So we going to the acquisition of the rightway?

Uh state is pursuing the acquisition on our behalf.

All right. So one of the things we did on one project was Hicks Road the sidewalk project had all those individual land owners. We had a group meeting with everybody there, brought them in the room with Hudson High School. We said to the people, "Look, we're trying to do this project. We're trying to save money." And what we did was we asked them to sell us the land at a reasonable price, property price value, so we get the project done quicker than later. I think the same approach will probably work up there rather than have these people wait on Conland Road to get the riding we need to go build the road quicker. The state can't do it with their rules. We can do with our rules. I think we should investigate that and look at that audit and save us a whole bunch of money.

See if we can't accelerate and and reduce the cost.

Coot doesn't care if we do it either.

Yeah. No. And I think our development approvals have also obligated the projects along the corridor to convey right away to us. So that's accelerating the the acquisition of property as well. to to kind of what the chair is talking about. Have we identified the 50% grant for the parallel reliever to the state roads like to state roads? Would that Aaron would the call your parkway extension kind of qualify for that being a hurricane route between 54 and 52? I mean, and then what chairs out with up on County Line Road and same thing with that the Bowman to Johnson up there. That's a parallel reliever and the state DOT has 50%

grant. We've discussed it before when when you're going through this, are are we taking into account that opportunity in into this context when we're talking about scaring us with how much it costs, right? like we we understand it, but

it it is not. Just for clarification, the the county incentive grant program and the transportation regional incentive program, those are the two state programs that give us a 50% match on on potential transportation costs. Those are not unlimited pots of money, right? They they have a finite funding level in each fiscal year. And we absolutely apply for and secure grants from the state for as much of the funding as we can as is available to us.

Part of our job is a electeds.

Yeah, we understand that. We go to work and do do the things that y'all aren't necessarily able to do.

Got three lobby uniforms.

Yeah,

get on it.

Yeah. And a handful of um a handful of anecdotes really quick. Rangeland Boulevard is a parallel reliever to that section of State Road 54. I apologize, Connor, if I shot you. Um that parallel section of State Road 54 that is that we were just talking about being over capacity. And that's a that's a a portion um that we've secured county incentive grant funds for. Uh same thing is true

and we got we got 4.5 million yesterday from the governor for that.

I mean well we have funding

and then still going after yeah legislative appropriations are another avenue that we can pursue as as well as federal earmark funds. Um I was going to mention that the widening of Wesley Chapel Boulevard just west of I75 is a parallel lever to 75 is another project where we've secured that funding. Uh and and one that's near and dear to your heart. We we've talked about a potential reliever to the busiest section of arterial roadway in Pasco, which is the state road 56 quarter east of wire um Bruce Downs leading over to Meadow Point. Uh constructing Chanse is a potential candidate for that funding. Now, we still have to come up with our half of the of the total amount needed because they're not paying 100% of our cost. But we are absolutely looking at every opportunity to bring other people's money to Pasco County and and build this network.

Question.

Sure.

Um looking at Jack's district, uh north of Ridge, that whole section, there's nothing going across. What? Why? Why to Moon Lake? Why do we not have a connector coming in that area? I don't

Jack, I don't know. You're in this area.

Yeah. Why? Why? Why is there no grid there?

One of the one of the things Well, from above that, one of the things we're trying to work with is the turnpike authority is to take Hudson Avenue and bring it all the way to the turnpike.

Yeah. Yeah. But what what's going on down? Where's Hudson? Down there.

Uh Hudson's above 52. But

Hudson is this corridor right here.

No, I'm talking below that.

You were asking about this area here.

Why is there nothing there?

Because there's nothing there.

Squamp.

It's there's

district owns land. There is what what's zoned over there?

It's between it's right by that airport community there off

4152.

No, west of Lake Boulevard.

That area has

there's neighborhoods,

Mr. Chairman. Yeah, that area has neighborhoods.

So, it's existing subdivision development.

Um,

so we never

It doesn't allow a uh vision roads across the all of the private properties that are there. When is that that when is um Moon Lake going to be um widened?

We don't have that currently funded in our five-year program.

So, uh monitoring it. I know the southern end, especially as you get close to ridge, is is very con is very busy.

Uh but we are we we don't have currently the the funding available to widen it.

You have sidewalks all the way down.

I don't think so.

Yeah. the plan commissioners to see what with the widening of the cub bills when that happens along with the combination of ridge road if that relieves

we'll let that beated

we'll have to see phase two

yeah it's an important project I mean we

one of the reasons that one of the things that drew me to Pasco was the opportunity to participate in building out a network like this it's a vision that you've established that I'm thankful to be part of

bringing to fruition what

that's why I see That's all I have.

Okay,

I'm sorry. I am going to speak on the active transportation. Oh, so one of the items that we are showing in in the comp plan is a vision to construct a trail network and spoiler alert the trail network follows the road network for the most part. We are also showing in addition to the to the roadway network um which the vision is through the establishment of updated typical sections every road will have a trail or a pair of trails constructed when u as part of its overall rightway footprint. We're also adding in the sunrail system which is the statewide shared use non-motorized trail network established and regulated by the Florida office of greenways and trails. and we're adding in the regional trail system, a couple of connecting facilities such as the Enloquote um the Enquote Trail. So, we are envisioning and and then showing you in this case the significant amount of work to be done to build a connected trail network throughout Pasco County. The dash lines are are yet to be constructed. The solid lines are there and and we've got a ways to go, but we've made some significant strides and progress just in the last five years. I I I feel that we should be showing some kind of trail along the coast along going up the west side of the county where we have the beginnings of with the Anclub coastal trail.

We go along 19 there up to Florar. Um don't you think didn't we want to try try and get up to Sunwest?

It's actually the it's planned

all the way to the dots there.

That's what the dots are. Yes, ma'am.

That's right. Yeah.

What's the name of it?

The coastal anklo trail at the southern end is is what we refer to.

And we can tie it into the trail that um

if you remember, I had the uh guy uh that used to be the commissioner in Sarasota come up, Charles Hines,

who's with TPL now, Trustful Puppet Lands. They're doing they're doing a Sun Trail project that is a coastal trail. Every day I get updates on the overpasses they're opening and all that. It's coming up from Sarasota if not before Sarasota, Banity, Panelis County. And I I told him why why aren't we included in that? Because we already have part of our posted trail done. So I'd like to get included in that sum trail. And if we take if we take the part where Everica roads a little loop that's at the top

if we take up and go up through the property which we actually have land with swift you take it to the chest preserve up there.

Yeah. Beautiful.

I get some federal money involved.

Yeah. Good idea. So um

so there are commissioner to your point there are connections planned south of Gulf Harbors. We run into a constraint here and we run into a constraint here to do anything on the west side of 19 which is why we're showing the 19 corridor as the primary means of trail

to come behind the mall wherever that is up there.

Right. And and and I think those are all so so this is the the regional trail network. But to your point if if there's an opportunity for a buildable corridor to be shown here

we'll look into that and potentially

add that to the map. And then same thing once you get up north and we can jump over uh at the um 5A and Hudson intersection. We can jump over to the west and come up uh Old Dixie. This is a planned trail facility as well that we're trying to get closer to the coast and off of the 19th corridor.

Nick on the coast. Commissioner just pointed out that green area that you get below you say county park facility. That's actually state

Salt Springs. Yes. Yeah. Salt Springs State Park. I if I said I I said constraint. I'm not sure. Maybe I said county park,

but I'm just looking at the map. The way the color is, it show shows it's county, but it's actually state.

Oh, county park.

Oh, gotcha. You're saying from the legend, we got to fix this. Okay.

What I would think would be able to put a trail through that.

Yeah.

It's a well

some area maybe

two components there. Lots of environmental impact if we wanted a paved facility. There are some unpaved trails in there. And then the second is it's a regulated access facility. The state charges admission to use it. So we we can certainly explore that.

I don't know what the revenue is going to be out of that.

And with that click, I think I'm ready to say thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

There we go.

Commissioners, we we've had some robust dialogue. I' I've taken copious notes. I'm know our I know David has as well. And so we're going to we're going to take this and come back. We may take the opportunity to to educate individually too as as we go as we go through this process as well. Uh but we'll we'll take this to heart. This was in my mind very very productive. I know we we went over by an hour, but uh I do appreciate your participation in this. I appreciate uh David, your team, and everyone pulling pulling together to to get this information to the board. So if there are no other questions or direction,

one thing this isn't the first time we've asked this. Okay.

I cannot read this.

Yeah.

I cannot They have to be one page.

We can't. And now that

I mean,

we can't see anything.

And I had my eyes fixed, but I can't read it.

We'll We'll send digital copies out to each of the board members so you can enlarge.

But I like I like to have the copy so I can write on it.

One one picture on the slide.

Yeah. I love to make notes on things, but I can't even see that.

Next. And I don't think this is the first time we've asked.

No. Lots of times. So Luna a suggestion the font that you have right here easy to read just go to that font size and all these things and I think one slideshow per picture is always

and just a suggestion I'm just using this we don't have to this doesn't have to be in color the maps do in color you know save money that way I'd rather have more pages of paper and be able to see it and use less color that's just my opinion

if I could um I've actually asked Sonia But I think it better if it came from our attorney or Ralph. But I think we should all get a copy of Senate Bill 180399. Get a copy to us with a dissertation of how this affects what we're doing.

You've gotten a copy of 267, which is 399 while we were here. Um the adopted version of 399. I can we can get 180 to you as well.

Okay. And I think a little dissertation from you gentlemen to say here's the effect would help. One of the things I saw on there, I looked it up, was that it's it's a there's a new kind of method to tax mobile homes on property. So, I mean, that may be um FanDo's thing. I don't know, but it was something something's changed on the way they pay their property taxes. as part of the affordable options that the state's rolling out. Mogles for their for their affordable housing bills they've passed. It's captured into it may be difference on how tax collectors take it, but it's incorporated into the state's affordable housing. It's always been a bone with me because in the TR in some in if they don't own the land, I believe they have to have a sticker on their trailer.

Yes.

And we don't have anybody who goes to see if they have their stickers on them,

right? Do you send someone out?

I don't know.

We don't find out.

I remember that because there was one on little on 41. That is Do you remember that when we were doing some projects behind on 41 and that mobile home park came in? They're they're pretty bad mobile homes and I drove through there and most of them did not have that sticker on B uh Bambi Lane. Bambi Lane.

Oh, it's right over here.

Yeah.

All right, uh just make

Yeah. Thank you everybody and and you know Terry and I had these have had similar discussions through this process not just the first time I've shared my views with him. So uh I do have a lot of concerns how this affects the I'll say northwest Pasco especially. Um I do think there's a great way or a great opportunity to take some of these developments where there's infill opportunities to maybe put a forplex in put a duplex in stuff to fill in for affordable housing going in there. the nodes themselves. I think if someone's got the right to develop it, it's a fit to develop it. I shouldn't have to wait, they shouldn't have to wait on what could happen from East West Pasco for a guy to come over to give them some money to make those developments happen either. So, I think it's just kind of a shell game as far as what's moving where. And if there's another way to go look to incentivize keeping East Pasco rural, let's go dig into that more and try to find a better way in my opinion. But with all that said, I do appreciate everybody's work, diligence through it, and I appreciate the dialogue because when the five of us talk, whether it's one voice saying something, we get better decisions made. So, I appreciate the dialogue.

With that, we're journ. Thank you.

All right. Good meeting.

So