PDD-23-0209

Published agenda

2 appearances between Mar 21, 2023 and Aug 22, 2023 — continued 1 time.

No final outcomeEvery appearance was continued or left undisposed. Nothing in this archive shows it decided.

Official title

An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 11) From Res-6 (Residential-6 Du/Ga) To Res-12 (Residential-12 Du/Ga) On Approximately 34.18 Acres (M.O.L.) Of Real Property Located East Of Little Road, South Of State Road 52 And West Of Moon Lake Road; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.

On a calendar

Mar 21, 2023 → Aug 22, 2023 · click a mark to jump to that appearance

Every appearance2 of 2 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. 72% of 214 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1Mar 21, 2023
Board of County CommissionersP43Public hearingContinued
Approved minutes
Approved to continue the item to a date uncertain and for it to be readvertised by roll call vote.
Open this item →
26m
MarianoChair
Next item P forty three.
Starkey
Item P forty-three was published in the Tampay Times on February first, twenty twenty-three.
Nectarios Pittos
Item P43 is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map 2-15, and sheet 11 from Res 6, residential 6 dwelling units per gross acre to Res 12, residential 12 dwelling units per gross acre on approximately 34.18 acres. of real property located east of Little Road, south of State Road fifty two and west of Moon Lake Road, and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal cons consistency, providing
for a repealer severability and effective date. And this comes with a recommendation of approval.
MarianoChair
Okay. Thank you. Any comments for staff? I I do have a few comments for staff. Um You know, when this was approved as an MPUD Uh I think a lot of discussion went into it. If you look around the property on on our maps, Uh everything to the back portion of the property? Um Is all res one? Um I think This development has given a lot of density on the front where the apartments are, uh coming right up fifty-two. To
the back part, you're now gonna have multi-story buildings. Uh to the back part, which I think for the people in that rural part of the area. I don't think planned on. I don't know. I know the notice 'cause I drove out to the property
And I don't know what really connection they make with everybody in the back, but Um I I I really think we have enough apartments. Um in this M P U D as it was designed, as it was set up, I don't see the need for us to go switch it back from The way it was set up was single family homes and town homes to just go and More apartments and more townhomes. So I'm not I'm not gonna support the way this is set up.
Nectarios Pittos
Would would you prefer to see a presentation on this one? Uh I would see a presentation, but Yeah.
Starkey
Is it on the consent?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
No. There is no consent agenda for ordinances.
Ed Zodian
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Ed Zodie and I'm a planner with long range. The matter before you is the small scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAL 2216, Collins of Bear Creek. As Mr. Pretos noted, the property's in the central market area. It's east of Little Road, south of State Road fifty two, and west of Moon Lake Road. The proposal is to amend the future land use map. To res six
from res twelve. Excuse me, to res twelve from res six. to allow for a multifamily development containing a hundred and twenty units along with the forty eight un uh townhouse units that will rain. The resolution is to amend Flu map two fifteen sheet eleven and there is a proposed MPUD running concurrently with this matter. The following policies uh provide consistency with this particular compreh amendment The intent of Res 12
is to recognize those areas that are suited for single-family and multifamily residential development. Yeah. As an aside, I will tell you that the applicant had initially filed for both of these parcels. to go to Red Swell. They own the parcel below it as well. After we sat and negotiated They agreed that the proposal would only be for the northern parcel.
It is this is consistent with the transition transitional land use table. It's compatible with ROR uh and the Res Six Flues.
The comprehensive plan amendment dealing with housing, the proposed expansion to the existing columns at Bear Creek community provides the area with a variety of housing types. Would be necessary in that area. As you can see, this is the site location.
This is the existing future land use. This will be the proposed future land use. The current zoning which is M P U D Uh and the site flu location. And we recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Uh approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Uh and adopt the ordinance by roll call vote. I'm delighted to answer any questions that anyone may have.
MarianoChair
Yeah, if you would go to the aerial aerial shot.
Ed Zodian
Not in this presentation, sir.
Please.
MarianoChair
Okay. So currently
Shows Cassandra and Aphrodite, those are all apartments right now, correct?
Ed Zodian
I believe so. It's R O R T Yes.
MarianoChair
Okay. So down below is where you want to put more apartments and townhomes down below and take out and take out the single family component that is already approved.
Ed Zodian
That's the proposal, yes, sir.
MarianoChair
Okay. So next to that, and And again from up there to All the density was put up top, I think was designed to be softened down below. Now you're gonna change that and you're gonna put the multi-story apartments all the way down to the back.
Ed Zodian
Those on the bottom are still i is remaining That's What has been proposed in the current M P U D that's not being changed?
The only parcel that we're addressing is the outlined in red.
MarianoChair
And that's all I'm talking about. And you wanna you want to take it from I think it was forty something. home, single family homes and put in Uh a hundred plus apartments. Yes, sir. Okay, that's that's w that's where I'm having a I'm having to struggle with it. Mm-hmm.
Ed Zodian
And again By virtue of the transitional land use, we don't think that's inappropriate in this area because of the growth.
MarianoChair
So with Res twelve right there. around it to the southern part of where these homes are going to be, it's all res one. Three land uses categories is too high?
Ed Zodian
No, because they go into the res six below it before they get to the res one.
Bradford
Hmm.
Ed Zodian
We do think it's there's a buffer with the densities. Where is there a buffer?
Unidentified speaker
It goes down to six is his point. He they're leaving that as six, and that's twelve.
Starkey
Where does it where does it show that?
This line here.
MarianoChair
Oh the cross the cross lines and then the vertical lines?
Starkey
Yeah.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
So you've got e I'm not sure why we didn't use a different color, but you've got you've got vertical lines and you've got horizontal lines. So the so the I think what Ed is trying to say is the piece they're leaving a piece From the property line to the red line that will be res six after
Ed Zodian
this change. That's all res six uh remaining res six. So
Starkey
what's going to res twelve? Res
Ed Zodian
twelve
Starkey
or nine or
Ed Zodian
whatever. Res twelve is just that portion that's above it. You can see the
MarianoChair
so to the left of that. That's res one still. So you can have res twelve next to res one. Yes. And again, to the front part where it's close to the fifty-two, that's one thing, but as you come back Getting new more to the other homes that are down back in the neighborhood? Mm-hmm. I mean I think I think they did a good job approving this M PUD from the get go. But
Ed Zodian
Well the developers over here to address any of your questions as well, but we did feel like from the ROR The rest fall was Uh a transition an a compatible transitional land use. Uh and with the growth in the area the product was acceptable.
MarianoChair
And may I answer any other questions? Nope. Well, good. Uh Commissioner Bradford.
Bradford
Mr Chair, have we had any uh I know we're just starting, have we had any uh concerns from any of the neighbors neighborhoods? Any of the people who live in that surrounding area, they come I haven't been contacted by any of it.
MarianoChair
Yeah, I'm I'm not sure where they did well we we can ask the applicant where they put the notices out, but I know they had it right in front. I don't know what they had around the other neighborhoods.
Ed Zodian
Yeah, uh for what it's worth, I've had four neighbors contact me and When we explained the unit development and what was being retained They were fine. As they understand at the M P U D stage, they may want to insert some issues about screening. That's about it.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Shelby Fuente, I'm with the applicant with Stantec Consulting. So I do want to address the Res1 to the West portion. So Res 12 to Res1, then per the land use table 2-2, that is a transitional land use. The only thing it requires special and sensitive site design, and that is something that we are taking to account for the MPUD.
Starkey
So if I could understand again, you're gonna add a hundred units. Is that what I heard? So in
Unidentified speakerVoice B
total, two hundred and twenty two units have already been developed. There are a remaining um of a hundred and sixty eight that have not been, and we're just including an additional forty eight um to better round it out, just make it uh financially feasible to even be developing. These. So MPDs do permit the blending of density. So again, to kind of reiterate, we want to see that transition of land uses. That's why we're amending the northernmost portion to 52 to that res 12 to blend that density. And then we do have significant
wetlands on the property that kind of better buy.
Starkey
And then there'll still be some other land that can be developed that's less dense or are you filling out all the land?
Unidentified speakerVoice B
We're gonna be filling out the land so existing because ma'am.
Starkey
So so where that this dotted line is Um or dash line or whatever that is below that is not gonna be developed?
Unidentified speakerVoice B
So that is the portion that has yet to be developed. So in the initial MPUD, then that was designated as phase two. So when we are um we have already resubmitted a substantial modification to the MPD to include that unit increase of the 48 units. Um so they're just being moved below.
Starkey
Okay, I'm I'm sorry, I'm confused. Um so are you developing below that line or not? Because I thought you just said they're not. So I'm confused.
Ed Zodian
They're only developing th that's remaining res six below that line.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
So you're at the future land you're this is a complan amendment. Okay. So you're they're asking to change the northern portion To res twelve, they're leaving res six at the bottom portion. Okay. Where they're gonna put units is gonna come up in the M PUD. Right in the next one.
what their proposal is for the M P U D design. I mean it that that is still your property, correct?
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Correct.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Do you have a design set up yet?
MarianoChair
Can we see it?
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Um I would have to send something to Um the clerk really quick. Yeah.
Starkey
I mean, Jack, I gotta think that this this piece of land coming here on the left will probably come in One date and be developed. Uh from Bob Whiteway and Turkey Lane.
Bradford
So Mr. Chair, tell me your concern. Tell me succinctly what your concern is.
MarianoChair
Well, you've got an MPUD that's been approved. It's all been designed as far as that's what's gonna be. So probably when this hearing was held long before that people were told here's what's gonna come. So they're depending on what was put out there. What you're taking now is you're taking away a single family home project That was gonna be the back end of it. That was all part of a phase. And now you're being told that now it's not financi financially feasible. What I think they're really telling you is they can make more money on apartments. Now I think we have enough departments going on.
I think when this was laid out many years ago that it was laid out. And I will say the apartments out there are nice. That's a nice community. It's a gated community. It looks good. But to go throw more density in there. Um I think We we frankly need more single family homes anyway in this area. There's not too many projects going around. So now you're gonna change what's set what's set up.
And I I don't I don't buy the f financially feasible argument because it's It was planned from the get go. They made the most money doing the first part. They're just trying to maximize profit.
OakleyVice Chair
Can I ask a question? Commissioner Oakley. Right on the lower part, it looks like there's a pond there. Is that that lowland or
Unidentified speakerVoice C
It is
Unidentified speakerVoice B
a wetland, yes.
OakleyVice Chair
It is a wetland.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
May I clarify, make some clarifications, it might help the conversation. My name is Diane Chadwick. I'm also with Stantec. Uh based on the aerial that you're seeing now, the anticipation and our MPUD is has provided a conceptual site plan. That's our application that's already been submitted. multifamily buildings ringing around the south side of that very large wetland and then to the south of that it transitions to townhomes. So we
are making that transition as we go down to be more sensitive to the surrounding areas and the MPUD also. uh discusses extra buffering, fencing, and whatever to the the neighbors to the west and to the east uh to be sensitive to them also. So that is something we are very aware of and have been working on. If that if that helps to clarify.
MarianoChair
Uh
Weightman
Thank you, the voice the voice from
MarianoChair
the ceiling.
He's alive.
Weightman
I thought about making it during picture time throwing some jokes out there, but I held held back. Thank you. So based on Ma'am, what I just heard. We're going to lose more single family product.
based on what you just described, if if this project's approved as is. So the single family products to the south, you say is going to be transitioned into town homes and more multifamily.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
To townhomes. Yes. It would be multifamily transitioning to townhomes, which are often often called single family attached units.
MarianoChair
Well, to be clear, it says You've right now gonna take s forty eight single family detached units to 120 multifamily units With the forty eight townhomes already approved. So to be clear, it's going from The difference is forty eight single family DCHACH units are gonna go away and you're gonna get 120 multifamily units in its place.
Liam Devine
Yes.
Starkey
Um I think
Weightman
that's the clarification I was looking for. Thank you.
Starkey
And um How many units total will be in this development?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
About the number total in
Starkey
So how how are you complying with how will you be complying with our county rule that you can have to have more than one entrance?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
That is something we're going to be working with your staff on. It's because the site is only has one point of contact anywhere. We will be working with the fire districts and whatever for that. We the road system will ring around that big wetland so that there is uh a good good circulation within the project for that very reason.
Bradford
Mr. Chairman Mariano. Commissioner Bradford.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Uh
Bradford
You don't have that done yet? We have the
Unidentified speakerVoice C
site plan done. Yes.
Bradford
With the roads on it?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
The roads are shown and that's in the MPUD package that will be coming before you. Assuming we're approved today, it would be uh coming before you in April or May.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
And what we have discussed with staff let me see. So this right here is an existing point of entry. Um during our pre-application and discussions with staff, then we are extending Athena Boulevard down and around to connect that to add that extra point of contact. Okay.
MarianoChair
But still only one one way out to fifty two.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Correct.
MarianoChair
All right. Um When you first submitted this plan With the MPD, you you put a site plan in together in total, didn't you?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Yes.
MarianoChair
Do you have that as well?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
It's a conceptual yield plan.
MarianoChair
From the the initial one when this was approved years ago.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Yes.
MarianoChair
Yeah. I mean it used to be we'd have M PUDs coming in. You had the M PUD coming in for the land plan? And then you'd have the documents for the
Starkey
zoning as well.
MarianoChair
And that's th and that's the way they sh that's the way they used to do it. Why we break it away, I don't know. But now we're doing a change. And I don't have to do that. to see what was shown to the people before or the commission before when it was approved, how was how it was laid out.
Mike Carballa
Are you asking just to clarify why the M PUD is not being heard at this time with the conditional with the.
Just to help the applicant speed along their process. That's a timing issue. They could submit the M PUD.
MarianoChair
Right, but I can't see I can't see w where the flow is, but again, I'm not sure. This MPUD was approved from before with what they have asked for. Now we're going to put a push in for more density and frankly I won't say fifty-two is clogged up like fifty-four, but anybody who drives that fifty-two-forty-one intersection, do we need more traffic right there right now?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'm gonna remind you all again This is a comprehensive plan hearing.
The analysis is supposed to be whether Res twelve is appropriate for this site. It's not a You're not this is not a PD comp plan amendment. This is a straight res twelve. And so if It's compatible. It may not be. It may be. Not weighing in on that. But the questions you're asking are all about The site planning portion of this he uh which is not in a in is not
a hearing that is before you today. Yeah.
Well
MarianoChair
I guess I see this butting up next to Res One. My feelings is the same.
Starkey
Um Commissioner Weightman. Well first of all I just dropped a pin on fifty two and I'm very frustrated to see we have a We have a vehicle storage facility on fifty-two with the landscaping on the inside of the fence, yet again. Um I don't know how we I don't know why we wanna Let the bat the boats have the the beauty of the Landscaping is crazy. Um when I look at the Surrounding area. I
mean I see it's next to a mobile home park. And um looks like a lot a lot of trailers in that area, maybe. And so I'm not sure. that that um just thinking of the tax the return on the investment for the county I'm not sure we're gonna get homes there that are above three hundred fifty thousand dollar value in that market right there. And I'm wondering. Uh is you so the town homes are they gonna be fee simple?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
We don't know that yet. They could be.
Starkey
Um
Unidentified speakerVoice C
that is an option. Well
Starkey
I'm just wondering tax wise which is better for us.
My my concern was that they weren't gonna have another Exit and then that I don't know how they could Put anything more, but if they're working on that I'm I'm feeling a little more comfortable like Uh I don't think it's such a bad transition for the community there.
If you if you look to where the apartments are up above, they abut right next to the the town the mobile home.
Yeah, I see that.
MarianoChair
The wetland that's over to the side is right to where the other part is. This other part was supposed to be a quieter thing with single family that abuts up to if you look down at R uh
Starkey
Tow Trail
MarianoChair
Court, Burnwood. Jack Mariano Wildcat. Those are like huge lots. And I think it was originally set to go that way. So it's a lot quieter to the back part as this thing was first set up.
Starkey
I don't know what that community is on Jack Mariano
MarianoChair
but
They part of Golden Acres?
Starkey
No. They wouldn't allow that what I'm seeing from the air there. That's there's a lot of issues there.
MarianoChair
Okay. Well
Starkey
wild
MarianoChair
so Wildcat is.
Starkey
Okay.
I don't know. I didn't I didn't have anyone come. I don't think I met with anybody on this. Mr. Chairman
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Mariano again I want to get you back on course. This is the time for the applicant's presentation if they want to make one. And then you then you need to do public comment and then you can have all the dialogue you wish. Okay. Uh
Unidentified speakerVoice C
We did not make a formal presentation for this because we felt like that uh with your staff report and uh the concurrence with your staff that this was a positive move that uh We would just answer questions, which we've been doing.
MarianoChair
Would you want to come back and do a presentation?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
We could if that's the the desire of the board.
Bradford
Yeah, let's uh let's do that. I wanna I want all the facts in front of me. I'm gonna Tony Rode a Pony. I don't wanna guess. I wanna see it. I wanna verify it. Uh I have great faith in our staff, but uh I think these decisions are are uh part of our job and uh so if you could uh arrange that. That would be very helpful for me.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
If I could make the suggestion, we are willing to postpone this portion of the hearing and make it dovetail with the MPUD application so that you would see both of those at the same time. We're fine with
MarianoChair
that.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
If you would if that would be more meanable to you, we're willing to do that.
MarianoChair
Okay. That sounds good. Do we need to take any more any public comment or just If we continue we're okay to just continue.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
I think I would take public comment and Well, Just so that we get everything out on the record and maybe that'll help them with designing the M PUD rather than yeah,
MarianoChair
How much time do you need to come back, would you say?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Well our M P D is scheduled was tentatively scheduled for what date? April, May? Twenty yeah. Four twenty. April twentieth was before the Planning Commission.
MarianoChair
Okay.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
And then May Something. uh sometime whatever your May hearing is for uh you to see that. So I I would say we'll we'll just have to well let's re-advertise this portion of the hearing along with the MPUD advertising. And it'll be a continued, but I I think readvertising for your portion of the comprehensive plan amendment is uh appropriate.
MarianoChair
So do it con and will continue within time uncertain.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
I think that Jeff, is that correct? What do you think is best?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Um yeah this was a small scale, yeah that's probably yeah
Unidentified speakerVoice C
probably
Unidentified speakerVoice A
the best. Yeah.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Okay. Because we we're only tentatively set for that planning board and and county commission only and PUD. So we're we're still working out conditions with the staff. So just in case it runs a month behind, I'd rather do it uncertain.
MarianoChair
All right, we appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Okay.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
All right.
MarianoChair
All right. So does anyone from the public Want to comment on this item?
Starkey
Mr. Chairman I have no one signed up and no one on WebEx for this item. Okay.
MarianoChair
And seeing no one will close public comment. Commissioner Bradford.
Bradford
Yeah, I make a motion.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
It would be you'd move to continue it to a time uncertain to be readvertised.
Bradford
I second what he said.
Starkey
I'll second what he said.
MarianoChair
We have a motion and a second. Uh bro call vote.
Starkey
District one, Commissioner Oakley.
MarianoChair
Aye.
Starkey
District two, Commissioner Weightman. Alright. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford.
MarianoChair
Aye.
Starkey
District five, Chairman Mariano.
MarianoChair
Bye. Okay. Item P forty three.
2Aug 22, 2023
Board of County CommissionersP59Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes
An Ordinance Amending The … Plan; Providing For A ~~Small-Scale~~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment To … Land Use Map (Map ~~2-15~~ 2- 15 And Sheet 11) From … (Residential-6 Du/Ga) To Res-12 ~~(Residential-12~~ (Residential- 12 Du/Ga) On Approximately 34.18 … And An Effective Date.
Open this item →
8m
Starkey
Yes, sir. We do. Tampa Bay Times, August thirteenth, twenty twenty three.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Okay.
Ed Zodian
Bear with me, I Mr. Commissioner, excuse me, Commissioner's my name is Ed Zodian. I'm with long range planning. And I dropped my presentation, so just give me a moment to
MarianoChair
Well these looking the to the board. This is the item that came before us before. We had looked at it, gone through a full presentation. Uh I told you I wanted to meet with the applicant. We did look at a few different things. They made some modifications that uh made me much happier with what they've brought forward.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Oh.
Ed Zodian
Mr. Chairman, again, this is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map two-15, sheet eleven. from res six, residential six dwelling units per gross acre, To res twelve. residential twelve dwelling units per gross acre on approximately thirty four point one eight acres more or less of real property located east of Little Road, south of State Road fifty two, west of Moon Lake Road, and providing
for Excuse me, additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer, severability, and an effective date.
As you can see, this is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. As I indicated, it is going from Res 6 to Res 12 on approximately 34.18 acres to develop approximately 168 multifamily units. Uh there is a corresponding MPUD that you will hear in a moment. The site location as you can see is located in the central market area on the excuse me. on east side of Little Road and south of State Road 52, west of Moon Lake Road.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the following policies. The res twelve. the policy flu for transitional land uses as well as policy HSG one one two. No. I think it's appropriate here to mention that when the The matter was originally uh filed, it was for a large scale comprehensive plan amendment. Staff met with the applicants and indicated that we would not support That large scale. They have modified it
and as you know we are supporting The proposal before you now. This is the site location.
This is the context map, as you can see as I said it's south of State Road 52. Uh The existing future land use.
The proposed future land use and they're very similar, so you need to realize that that Portion Right. The brown portion to the left then is the subject property. Uh this is the zoning, it's all M P U D. Uh the excuse me, the site location flu. And We ask that you find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and adopt the ordinance by roll call vote. I'll be delighted to answer any questions.
MarianoChair
Okay. So Commissioner Oakley, as I said, this is an item that came before us before. Um I think it used to be in my district, it's now Commissioner Bradford's district, but uh I told you I was gonna meet with the the applicant, go over some proposals to change and they made made some good changes to shift the property. uh uh building locations which I f found was better. So uh I will be supporting it. Uh it is on consent on the zoning amendment that comes up behind us.
Weightman
Okay.
MarianoChair
Commissioner Weightman.
Weightman
I have a question.
MarianoChair
Uh it's the other one's on consent, so we'll come after.
Weightman
The townhomes on there, are these fees simple?
Ed Zodian
If they build apartments they won't Plat them. If they build townhouses, they will be platted. Therefore they can be P simple.
Weightman
I read it as they're going to retain forty eight townhouses.
My best reading it.
They are converting the single family product to 120 multifamily units, then they plan to retain 48 townhouses for a total of 168 units. Are those forty-eight they're going to retain 48 townhouses? Are they going to be fee simple townhouses or are they going to be rental?
Ed Zodian
I will defer to the developer who is here.
Weightman
Okay.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Any other questions for staff? I see the applicant coming forward.
Shelby Fluente, Stantec Consulting Services. So those 48 units, they're kind of acting as flex units, so they can be developed as either apartments or townhomes. We just needed that little bit of flexibility there depending on what the market is at the time of development.
MarianoChair
Um I may pull the item off consent. So they're not platted.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
We have agreed that as part of the conditions of approval that they will be platted if they are to be built as topic.
Unidentified speakerVoice D
Hmm.
So Commissioner, if you I we're jumping ahead, but uh if you look at the zoning conditions um for this one, it's condition number thirty-five says all townhome products shall be platted. They don't have to put it on there though. Well, and if they're not doing if they're not doing apartments and and they're doing townhomes they have to be plated. Typically multifamily apartments are not They wouldn't be flattened in individual units because they're apartments. I'm reading this as a combination thereof.
Well staff or the applicant can explain that I I'm looking at the zoning conditions. The zoning conditions are pretty clear that it's They have to build either apartments or platter town homes. They get nothing else.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Correct.
Unidentified speakerVoice D
In fact, condition thirty two specifically says Multifamily residential units are to include apartments or platted town homes. No other multifamily product types are permitted within this MPUD.
MarianoChair
I'm okay to pull this from consent because I did want to see the town home products. That was a compromise.
Would you would the board like to hear the zoning now or wait till we hear it after?
Unidentified speakerVoice D
Uh Well my preference would be that if you want if you're not comfortable with this that you defer it to the zoning because We haven't sworn anybody in yet. I haven't gotten the procedures for resigning yet, so we're still under ordinance right now.
MarianoChair
Anybody from the public like to speak to this item?
Starkey
There is no one signed
MarianoChair
up for Bebex. No one signed up, no one on WebEx? Okay. Correct. All right, so I'm gonna defer this till after we do the zonings.