PDD-22-7632

Every appearance2 of 3 are in a recording

Each appearance carries the official title above. Where the county’s wording changed, the change is marked: added and removed. Steps with no marks were worded identically.

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 95% of 132 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 1 of the 3 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1. 1Jul 7, 2022
   Planning CommissionPC5Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →No recording
2. 2Jul 21, 2022
   Planning CommissionP2Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Zoning Amendment (Continuance) (Regular) - Cross Park MPUD … - A Rezoning Request from From a MPUD Master Planned … Unit Development District to allow Allow for the development Development of 280 Multifamily units, Units, 45,000 square feet Square Feet of Medical/Professional Office, and 10,000 square feet Square Feet of retail Retail on Approximately 20.916 Acres. Acres

   Open this item →▶ Play from 38:54
   ▶ 38:5410m

   Denise

   38:54And the following item is gonna be P2, and my colleague Amy Heiler will be presenting that, and then after that, we'll be doing Pasco Town Center.

   Amy Heiler

   39:02Okay, thank you. Thank you.

   39:31Good afternoon, Planning Commission. Amy Heiler with Long Range Planning. The item you're about to hear is Cross Park MPUD. You may have recalled this. I previously brought this to the Planning Commission or LPA a few months back for a requested comprehensive plan amendment to the existing plan development. So we'll go through the presentation. It's PDD 22-6.

   39:57The subject site is located in the South Market area in Commissioner District 4.

   40:04As you see here, the subject site is located off of State Road 54 at the southeast corner of 54 and Henley Road.

   40:13The zoning request is from an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the development of 280 multifamily units, 45,000 square feet of medical professional office, and 10,000 square feet of retail on approximately 20.916 acres. The applicant is proposing the following variations to LDC section 8056,

   40:44which is restrictions on post-development wetlands and upland buffers within residential lots and non-residential parcels, and LDC section 902.2 M for stormwater management requirements, as well as LDC Section 901. And three access management. So I'll go through those. The following requests for variation on the first one, which is 805.6 and 902.2, is requesting a variation to allow for the open

   41:14space, drainage areas, common areas, landscape areas, wetland areas, buffer, preservation, conservation, recreation, and park areas. to be under one single ownership because it is a multifamily and not a single family complex, so they'll be having that under one single ownership within the HOA or CDD that they established. And the second one is Section 901.3 Access Management, which basically says that you

   41:45shall provide safe access to land development while preserving the flow of traffic in terms of safety, capacity, and speed. This is for the frontage roads within this development, and they're requesting to deviate the code by not. Requiring the access to the eastern boundary. The reason why we're accepting this or staff is recognizing that it meets the intent of the code is because on the eastern boundary it is bound by a swift mud drainage as well as a category

   42:15one wetland. And there's very specific policy in the comprehensive plan that says we cannot impact wetlands for those purposes. So with that, staff recommends that we find the analysis or staff and has determined that the variation meets the code for these purposes. So here is the master plan that they're provide that they had uh submitted. And as you see there's two access points. One is going to be off of Henley,

   42:45the other is going to be off of State Road 54 with a secondary emergency access off of Henley.

   42:53And I've zoomed in a little bit so we can go into detail on the master plan. This area is going to be the proposed medical office complex of 45,000 square feet located along State Road 54. We negotiated with the property owner and the applicant to ensure that this is located along State Road 54 and preserved for preserved friends. For viable non residential employment generating land uses to align with the policy directive from

   43:23the board?

   43:26And then the multifamily product that they're pro that they're proposing is 280 dwelling units. They are also proposing an additional 10,000 square feet in this area where 5,000 square feet is going to be vertically integrated within the multifamily. The other 5,000 square feet is going to be located along the frontage of State Road 54 and proposed to be a pet center or an amenity to. to the multifamily.

   43:54And the findings of fact, we can go through those. Um the findings of fact, as you see here, uh the subject sites located along State Road 54 on the northern edge of the development and Henley Road to the western edge of the development. Um as previously stated, there's currently a planned development that's accompanying this project. You will be hearing that at the next public hearing, or I guess you guys already heard it. So never mind, the board will be hearing that at the next public hearing. It is in the name of Cross Park PD,

   44:24which is a text amendment to the existing sub-area policy flu 7.1.17 Cross Park. The subject site, where am I at? Category One wetlands. So we have approximately 18 of the percent of the site is a category one wetland, which is identified in the master plan. And the crosspark MPUD will utilize this feature as an amenity and open space for trails and open spaces. There's adequate transit options with various bus stops located along State Road 54

   44:54to service this area. The conceptual plan also, or there is a conceptual or planned trail along State Road 54, which is identified on our Greenways and Blueways trails map. And the proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County LDC chapter. 400 section 402.2 zoning amendments and PUD master plan unit development and applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. So with that being said, PDD recommends

   45:24approval to the Board of County Commissioners or with the conditions, excuse me. And I'd be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here and online.

   Chris Williams

   45:33Okay. Do we have questions, Chris? Amy, I just have a couple questions. I was trying to remember, this came to us before, right? So what what has changed since

   Amy Heiler

   45:42then? So what's happening here is the they're what they're actually doing is converting the assisted living facility. So this is that assisted living facility that they're converting to a multifamily component. Um at the previous public hearing, what was discussed? Was ensuring that

   46:04the negotiations between converting the assisted living to multifamily showed a greater impact on the area. It was consistent with the surrounding area. And then one of the conditions of the sub-area policy was actually binding the fact that we are going. to require the forty-five thousand square feet of employment generating land uses, whereas the original sub-area policy and MPUD did not do that. So

   Chris Williams

   46:35And then my other question concerning that trail. Can you tell me a little bit more about that or do you have more information? The one that you said is going from the Sun Coast Parkway to

   Amy Heiler

   46:46So that the reason why that's there is that it's identified on the Greenways and Blue Ways trails map. So it's a conceptual trail along State Road 54. We are just ensuring that connections will occur to that trail, but we don't have any conditions yet because it's conceptual.

   Chris Williams

   47:00But we're not. But we're not sure what any more specifics on what that is.

   Amy Heiler

   47:08So we're just ensuring that if it does occur on this side there's going to be a level of connection.

   GreyChair

   47:12Thank you. Any other questions from up here?

   47:18All right. Any other any questions? Anything from the uh From the audience.

   47:25Anybody else would like to speak on it or have questions? If not.

   GirardiVice Chair

   47:32Tear emotion. Move to approve item P D D twenty two seven six three two.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   47:38See

   GirardiVice Chair

   47:38Apple

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   47:39can't

   GirardiVice Chair

   47:41I'm sorry, what did you say?

   47:47And you second it? Well,

   Chris Williams

   47:48Well we didn't second it yet. I think Jamie has a lot of people.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   47:51Is the applicant present or is the applicant? The

   Denise

   47:53applicant is both

   Elise Batsell

   47:55online and in the audience. Hi, Elise Batzel, Stern Sweaver Miller. I thought you were going right into the vote. Um but we're happy to we do have a separate presentation. Um a lot of it is duplicative of what Amy has already provided. Um so perhaps if you have questions we can answer those or we'd be happy to go through.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   48:16I I I personally don't have any questions. I know we we talked quite a bit about this stuff whenever the P D was coming through, so um Or the future landing compliant amendment.

   Elise Batsell

   48:30I

   GreyChair

   48:32Oh shouldn't have said that. All right. So we do have a motion. Do we have a second?

   48:39Okay. No further discussions. All uh all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign.

   Elise Batsell

   48:48Thank you very much. That was my easiest hearing of the day. Remember that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   48:52Mm-hmm.

   GreyChair

   48:59Okay.

3. 3Aug 9, 2022
   Board of County CommissionersP96Public hearingApproved

   Zoning Amendment (Continuance) (Regular) - Cross Park MPUD … Park Properties LLC - A Rezoning Request from Proposed is a MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District Substantial Modification to a the MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to allow Allow for the development Development of 280 Multifamily units, Units, 45,000 square feet Square Feet of Medical/Professional Office, and 10,000 square feet Square Feet of retail Retail on Approximately 20.916 Acres. Acres

   Approved minutes

   Approved Staff’s recommendation with Commissioner Moore voting nay.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 52:14
   ▶ 52:1418m

   StarkeyChair

   52:14Aye. Okay, then we are on that now we are taking ninety six ninety six ninety six ninety six is the companion. Oh it says ninety-five.

   Amy Heiler

   52:24And just on that one item, just so we can say on record, uh the supplemental report that you have in front of you for that, there was just a brief modification from that. during the transmittal phase, so I just wanted to make sure that that was on record with this item and the agenda. So just so you all are aware.

   52:44All right. So going into the MPUD.

   52:50So uh you'll now be hearing the associated MPUD with the comprehensive plan amendment. This is cross-part MPUD, PDD 22-7632. As you can see, it's located in the South Market area, Commissioner District 4. We've seen the visual of where it's located off of Hendley and State Road 54. A lot of these are repetitive, so we'll go ahead and fly through them. The proposal is to request a substantial modification to the existing Cross

   53:20Park M Puty Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the development of 280 multifamily units, 45,000 square feet of medical professional office, and 10,000 square feet of retail on approximately 20.916 acres. The applicant is requesting the following variations to LDC 805.6 restrictions on post-development wetlands and upland buffers within residential lots and non-residential parcels, and LDC 902.2M

   53:51for stormwater management requirements, as well as LDC Section 901.3 access management. With those variations, staff analysis has determined that the variation request meets the intent of the code for the first for A, because the LDC seeks to place those operational and maintenance responsibilities of open space, drainage areas, common areas, landscape areas, wetland areas, buffer areas, preservation, conservation, recreation and park areas, and other special purpose areas under the responsibility. Of

   54:22a single representative entity for the entirety of the parcels. And then B, staff supports this variation request due to the requirement causing an impact to the existing category one wetland, which would be inconsistent with with policy identified in the comprehensive plan and the intent of the code. So I've already shown you the master plan with the access points as you see. Like I said, these are gonna be repetitive. So the multi the medical professional office located along 54. the mixed use multifamily with a vertical

   54:52integration. And then the various findings of facts. So the project will have access from State Road 54, located on the northern edge of the development, and Henley Road to the western edge of the development. Planning Commission heard this item on 721 and voted unanimously to approve the proposed modification. The future land use is currently PD, and there's an accompanying comp. Plan amendment to this proposed MPUD, as we previously heard.

   55:23Approximately 18% of the site is a category one wetland, which is identified in the MPUD master plan. And Cross Park will utilize this feature as an amenity to the proposed multifamily development through the establishment of trails and open spaces. There's adequate transit options with various bus stops located along State Road 50. And the conceptual plan trail for the Suncoast Parkway, which is from Suncoast Parkway to Oakstead Boulevard, which is identified within Pasco

   55:53Mapper and our Greenways, Blue Ways Trails Maps, is also identified on the master plan to provide a connection when that is constructed. And then the proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County LDC Chapter 400. Subsection 402.2 zoning amendment, MPUD, Master Plan Unit Development, and the applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. So with that we recommend approval with conditions and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have on the PUD. Um

   StarkeyChair

   56:25Anybody have any more questions?

   56:30Okay, this is a public hearing and um

   Moore

   56:34Madam Chairman Mari Just just one question for um the team uh county team. Um You know, multiple occasions it's you know it's been brought up. We did a a study and such, which oh and this afternoon if you if you stay tuned, I'll maybe bring up another reason why that study was wrong that was presented to us, because we actually have some new numbers to share. Um but I won't do that now. won't bore the people that will be leaving. Um But you know, so from your perspective in these you know, approval with conditions,

   57:04you know you know, eventually, you know, along that fifty-four and fifty-six corridor, if you as a team and as staff continue to make these exceptions, there's a good chance, you know, like I said before, all you're gonna see or apartments lined up on fifty four and fifty-six. Is that the vision I don't think it is, but is that the vision the county staff has now? Because You know, you're again constantly saying, okay, this it's we're gonna approve this. We've w our recommendations to approve, but uh are we gonna continue to see these every time one of these comes up Again, we

   57:35lose another job trading site, we lose another job trading site on that major corridor here in Pasco County. I mean are we gonna is this is gonna be the norm for the next ten years?

   Oakley

   57:45Uh good afternoon Madam Chair Victoria Speedos Planning and Development. Uh I think the answer to that question is the comprehensive plan itself. Um there are policies in the comprehensive plan that direct and guide how development is supposed to shape up in the South Market area along stable fifty four and then we also have Board direction given to us how to consider uh multifamily development when the market proposes it on particular properties in order to preserve those employment generating land

   58:15areas on 54. So when when a proposal is made to us, as in the case as in this case here, we look at it and seek to find ways to preserve that employment generating. generating land use and make sure that if if there is a multifamily component to it, it is put to the rear as the board requested.

   Moore

   58:34So just in your opinion, um, what's more important right now to you? As a planner. Job training sites or more multifamily. Yes it is, because this is how they make their this is how they make their determinations, Madam Chair. So I'm asking their this is their opinion. Yeah,

   Oakley

   58:52well what's a

   Moore

   58:53complaint. We've shown in the complaint on multiple occasions why it doesn't always meet the compliant. At least I have from the dies myself. So I'm just asking this question for the record.

   Oakley

   59:00Well I what's most important to me is the implementation of the comprehensive plan. Um I can only respond to what the marketplace brings in uh in reference to what the comprehensive plan is saying.

   Moore

   59:14Well okay, I'm not gonna get in the in the weeds too much with you, but uh we've had those discussions and I've had them up here before on how jobs are better and meets the comprehensive plan in my opinion more better than that does than swiping 'em out and switching them out. But especially along a corridor like that. Where it's you know,

   Oakley

   59:30but uh uh we have heard the board um and we worked uh particularly close with the applicants in this project to meet the board directive to ensure that there's a employment generation taking place on property, uh on properties that do propose multifamily. So it isn't the case that we simply accept a multifamily project on 54. We look at is it what are the viable alternatives here and how do we uh get those to be present on 54, being the the viable alternatives being the employment generating

   1:00:00land uses. And it has to be done in a way that makes sense from a site planning perspective, which is what we tested against in this case, but also from an economic development standpoint, which we worked with the Office of Economic Growth to determine as we did in this case.

   Moore

   1:00:18So the Office of Economic Growth, just out of curiosity, they think would be better to have the multifamily than additional jobs.

   Fitzpatrick

   1:00:26And Madam Chairman What is the amount they they of jobs they increased on this by increasing the square footage of the medical unit?

   Moore

   1:00:34I don't know why you keep interrupting me today when I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

   StarkeyChair

   1:00:37Well there's there's is the J Did the economic the Office of Economic Economic growth comment on this?

   Oakley

   1:00:43They did. They commented that the uh category one wetlands constrained the property significantly. And they determined that the 45,000 square feet of employment generating land use here, which would generate 93 jobs,

   1:01:01actually I shouldn't say 45,000, it's it's more like 55,000, which was half of the existing employment generating entitlement, um, was sufficient for the amount of acreage that remained on the site. after you took away the land for the category one wetland.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:01:17Okay.

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:01:19Madam Chair? Yeah. Um, you know, just if there's any doubt, I think this board's said it many times. Well I don't think we're looking for a lot of apartments. I think homeownership I think is great. Whether it be town homes, I th which is I think it's superior, single family homes superior to that. But this corridor especially, whatever we can do to generate jobs is what we want to do. Uh if you feel you need to bring a project like this forward Don't be thinking I I don't think you don't you want to think we want any more traffic out on 54. There's not gonna be a lot of relief, though

   1:01:50some things will help. So if you have to look at a priority, I would rather have you work very closely with David Engel, EDC, PEDC, and find what incentives you can get to get better job creating things. I mean this project better than what it was. They did make some improvements on it to create some more jobs. and the retail going underneath that was good. But I don't want you to think for a minute that I don't think we're pushing for apartments. Right.

   Fitzpatrick

   1:02:17Madam Chair. So moving forward, we would like to see more job generating access.

   StarkeyChair

   1:02:23Well and they don't they know that. That's why you

   Moore

   1:02:25say this for five years.

   StarkeyChair

   1:02:27Well and w we've done that when in certain areas when w when if someone wants to come in and they're allowed to come in with a storage facility, we've said no. Push the storage facility in the back. Put jobs out front. And I think they've done that here. They put the jobs out front on 54 and they put the residential in the back. Um it'll be across the street from other residential. Um so we won't get that complaint that we're getting in in other areas. Um so I think this is a a good compromise. Um and

   1:02:57uh take a motion.

   Moore

   1:02:59Well no, you still got it you still got the applicant in public in the public comment.

   StarkeyChair

   1:03:03Oh okay. I thought I asked for that already. Does the applicant want to speak? Okay.

   Elise Batsell

   1:03:09Just very briefly, uh Elise Batzel, Stern Sweever Miller, uh could you put the presentation up? I'm not gonna run through it. I just wanna show a couple of slides to address a couple of the transportation issues from the community.

   StarkeyChair

   1:03:22And while you're doing that, I just want to remind everybody, and I know not everyone was here when we went through it, but we had the we're following the guidelines from when the Urban Land Institute came in and said Your your comp plan promotes sprawl. And you need to focus your density on the 54 corridor or you're gonna have to really raise taxes to provide services spread out all over the county. So that is what our comp plan says. It says put your density on 54. And um And I know we're going through some revisions now

   1:03:52and this board. And the public will have an opportunity to weigh in on how we want that c that comp plan to look going forward, but this is what we're following now.

   Fitzpatrick

   1:04:01Madam Chair, motion to receive and file for this project, please. Okay?

   StarkeyChair

   1:04:06Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

   Elise Batsell

   1:04:09Thanks. Um so just briefly, I know that A B set forth w how everything is laid out. The areas in red They weren't very clear on the black and white site plan. Those are additional uh retail and employment generating uses vertically integrated within the multifamily building. Um again, because it's constrained by the wetland, there is only so much that you can do on this site with res it's odd shaped. There's a very large wetland which we are protecting completely.

   1:04:37We made a number of changes to the site plan based on input here, input from the community.

   1:04:46I'm gonna skip over these.

   1:04:51Oh, let's go back to transportation. I went the wrong way. Whoops. I'm sorry.

   1:05:00Bottom. Oh, that's why.

   1:05:04Let's find where we are here.

   1:05:11Alright.

   1:05:20I thought

   StarkeyChair

   1:05:21you went through really quick.

   Elise Batsell

   1:05:24Do you by chance have the comp plan up rather than the MPUD presentation? Oh, there we go. Transportation. So I just want to make sure that you understand what the developer is doing to address the transportation issues. First, we will be paying a prop share payment of $350,000 that will actually go towards the signalization and intersection improvements at State Road 54 and Henley. Uh the county is going to install the signal and we're going to receive mobility fee credits towards the roadway and SIS portions of

   1:05:54mobility fee. The maximum amount of that credit would be $75,000. We are also doing significant site access improvements. That's adding 350 feet of an eastbound right turn lane at the driveway access off of State Road 54. as well as a 195 foot southbound left turn lane at the driveway access off of Henley. And with respect to the concerns about traffic, we had our traffic engineers look at the proposed

   1:06:24entitlements and what traffic that would generate on 54 and Henley versus our proposal. And there is a significant decrease in the trips that this project will generate. And that does not even count any internal capture that may happen between the Pet Center, between the retail and the multifamily. your guidelines under the ITE trip generation and your county methodology. don't allow us to take those into consideration. So it may in fact even be less than that.

   Moore

   1:06:50Madam Chairman Mariano. You just mentioned that the previous proposal would generate more trips than your current proposal?

   Elise Batsell

   1:06:57That's correct.

   Moore

   1:06:58Okay, so now I'm really confused.

   Elise Batsell

   1:07:04Commercial typically generates more than residential.

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:07:08Look at the chart.

   Elise Batsell

   1:07:10And our t our transportation as engine engineer is here if you have specific transportation projects?

   Moore

   1:07:16So you're saying if it would have been A L or a SNF, that would have generated more trips?

   Elise Batsell

   1:07:22I'm gonna let you know.

   Moore

   1:07:23And I asked that because you're you made a statement a little while ago that's saying there's gonna be more jobs created now.

   Elise Batsell

   1:07:29Jobs and trips are two separate things.

   Moore

   1:07:31Well I understand it very well. I've been here eight years. I understand that works, thank you. Um but I do question that because at a assisted living facility or a skilled nursing facility. Majority of the time, I'd say ninety seven to ninety eight percent of those time, those residents aren't driving. So if you only have a few jobs, how is that c how was that more tripped?

   Elise Batsell

   1:07:53What do you mean a few jobs? I thought you said that it was such a huge employment

   Moore

   1:07:56generator with the analogy. Come on up,

   Elise Batsell

   1:07:57Batuffy.

   Moore

   1:07:58You're saying there was more jobs now than there were previous, but there's gonna be less trips. Sure,

   Elise Batsell

   1:08:03I'll let all these

   Moore

   1:08:04But you

   1:08:05know

   1:08:05the people in the assisted living facility in the SNF don't drive.

   1:08:11So I'm just I'm just curious where you're because those numbers make no sense. All right,

   Ali Atefi

   1:08:14let's go. My name is Ali Atefi, uh Links and Associates of 5023 uh West World Drive, Tampa Bay. Um so the these uh figures do not compare uh the uh ALF versus the nursing home. These compare what was approved in entire i in its entirety of office eighty thousand square feet, retail of thirty thousand

   1:08:44square feet, and uh two hundred seventy five thousand square feet of AF AFL of what was approved previously. So when you add up the trips of all those uses and then compare it to what is proposed Here then you generate less threats of what is being proposed, if that makes sense.

   Moore

   1:09:07Listen, I I respect and I appreciate what you're what you're saying. I'm just making a point that the trips that are gonna be generated at an AL or a SNP do not compare to what especially forty thousand square foot of office if you add that in as well. I mean you can because you're you showed us earlier about how many FTEs maybe there or employees may be at that site, but um

   Ali Atefi

   1:09:27Uh and and that may be I'm just talking about the overall, what was overall approved. Versus what's performed.

   Moore

   1:09:39Hopefully. Hopefully.

   StarkeyChair

   1:09:42Okay. Otherwise we're available to answer any questions they have. Thank you so much. And it'd be great if some of those residents get to work there and then they don't even get out on the road. That'd be wonderful. Um all right, so we've heard from the applicant. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this item? Do we have anyone online?

   StarkeyChair

   1:10:00We have no one online for this item.

   StarkeyChair

   1:10:02Okay, I'll take motion.

   StarkeyChair

   1:10:04Motion to approve.

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:10:05Second.