Pasco County meeting record

On a calendar

Jun 8, 2023 → Aug 8, 2023 · click a mark to jump to that appearance

Every appearance1 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. 72% of 181 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 2 of the 3 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1Jun 8, 2023
Planning CommissionP16Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes
Open this item →No recording
2Jul 11, 2023
Board of County CommissionersP65Public hearingContinued
Approved minutes
Approved the item to alter the rezoning request to PO-1 uses on parcel S-12B with the Dimensional Standards proposed in the existing MPUD, and to continue the item to the August 8, 2023 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City to BCC AA 07/11/2023 redraft the Resolution and Settlement Agreement to be consistent with that direction, as stated by Mr. David Goldstein. Chief Ass
Open this item →
35m
Kathryn Starkey
R forty after sixty five. Okay. So P sixty five was advertised in the Tampa Bay Times on May twenty fourth, twenty twenty three.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Good afternoon, Tammy Snyder. Planning and Development. Today we have the Seven Oaks MPD, PDD 237487.
Proposed as a zoning amendment from an MPD to an MPUD to reconfigure parcel S twelve into parcels S twelve A and S twel D to reflect the current ownership and to add additional office uses to the existing office building on the proposed parcel S12B per a mediated settlement. The site is located on the north side of SR 56, west of Bruce Bowns, south and east of SR 54. and east and west of I-75. Just a real quick brief history. In 2018, the
applicant presented a similar proposal except that they were requesting all office uses. And the board denied that request, stating reasons as outlined in your agenda memo. This request now comes as a result of a mediated settlement agreement.
There's the location map. Site location.
As you can see the surrounding area is mostly MPUDs in that part of the county. And here's a master plan which depicts the inside the inside is depicting the split of parcel S12.
And with that, uh PDD recommends approval with conditions.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay. Anything questions for staff?
Seth Weightman
German Happens and Export Take Communications to submit
Unidentified speakerVoice A
on this item.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Yes, there were a number of ex parte communications. They have already been sent to the courts.
Jack MarianoChair
All right? No questions? So the applicant.
Barbara Wilhite
Barbara Will High 6327 Grand Boulevard for the applicant. I there've been communications today about some ideas of maybe um resolution of some of these issues. So I would normally stand here for ten minutes and give you a presentation. I think in the interest of time, if you'd want to hear public comment, staff has given you the present the overall presentation, their staff report of of what's before you. If you I'm happy to do anything at your pleasure. But if you want to hear from any of the residents that want to comment and then I
can react to those comments and we can see if we can maybe bring this to closure. Is that acceptable?
Jack MarianoChair
Um just that's a question 'cause all these people that hear for public comment, we've got a lot of emails on it. Um
From what you've heard, do you want to talk about that a little bit?
Barbara Wilhite
Sure. What what I've heard is that that they are interested in um whether we would support asking for PO1 uses. Right now, the way it's brought forward to you on our 1.2 acre parcel we have the existing building, 3600 and change square foot building that Crown Community Development occupies. And then there was the vacant property. And what's brought forward to you under the settlement is
that the vacant property will remain with the permitted uses today, which the county has determined, has a whole list of recreation uses. and that the b the building will be limited to certain professional office uses. What's we've seen in many emails and we understand from two of the folks that are here to speak, because we s I spoke to them earlier, is that they'd like to see us do all professional office so that we don't have additional recreation uses coming into their
community. They can obviously speak for themselves, but we are certainly open to that idea. We want to hear from them, make sure, you know, that we cover all the public comment. Certainly don't want to agree to somebody and can something and then continue, keep fighting. So we're interested in hearing from the public comment.
Jack MarianoChair
And you're comfortable if we did get to the matter we heard if has some public input to actually continue this for thirty days and bring it back then?
Barbara Wilhite
To continue it to fix the paperwork. Um certainly don't want to continue the debate. So if we we're we're ready to have all this herd and have you make a decision today. Right. We understand that if we go in this direction of of changing to P O one uses that we need to change the paperwork. But you could take public comment, close public comment, and we and
Jack MarianoChair
it's direct
Barbara Wilhite
a document to come back. Okay. So we certainly don't want to keep this going on, it's been going on for many years. Um I would say that and then what we'll have to hear their reaction, but they w they asked that the development standards be PO t B O P O one Well, we have specific development standards. for the plans that have already been approved. So on S12, there's a preliminary site plan already approved. For three office buildings and And
it's still valid and they can go out and develop those today. So in making sure that the development standards are consistent with that plan that's already approved, we wrote those into the MPD. I don't know if the ask I didn't get to hear to have a whole conversation about it 'cause I've been kind of running around. Um but the ask I think is to limit ourselves to PO one development standards in your PO one district, which wouldn't work here. But I think d standards aside, because we have our proof site plan that sets forth what our standards are, um standards aside I think
use is what we really should be focusing on here and and the P O one use is acceptable. Um again assuming that this isn't gonna keep going on and on and on, um my client wants to bring it to closure, so Okay.
Jack MarianoChair
So it's time for public comment.
Kathryn Starkey
Okay, so the first individual is uh John Tumsu. Mr Tumsu, when you come to the podium, name and address and state whether you've been sworn.
Jack MarianoChair
Let well um before you go, let me just ask uh I got Chelsea Waller down for ten minutes. Did she wanna speak or
Chelsea Waller Dothri
um I'll get to speak after speaking.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
John Thompson. Okay. [address removed] four. I have been sworn. Okay. Awesome.
This is the building, Crown Building. It's on the property that's in question, the parcel. We do see that uh and you can't really see it clear, but if you could zoom in, you'd see that it says private office. So the distinction here with private office, even whenever you put it up and advertise yourself as a private office, is you're not acting as an open office for everyone to come. It's not something that you would actually look for and see on Google Maps. Even in this case, whenever I look on Google Maps, it Refers to a Watergrass Property Owners Association, not necessarily Crown. That kind of establishes the use case that we have here.
So I'm gonna refer to that later. Brief history, it's already come up before, but in 2001, SB Associates purchased this land. It was under the quadruple zero at the end. It's really hard to find this parcel now because it belongs to a different unit. But whenever you look at all the documentation for the history of this back in 2001, it did have the quadruple zero at the end. In October 2001, SB Associates submits the site. plan. The site plan, and we'll see that in a moment, isn't just for this one parcel,
it was for the entire parcel. So the entire parcel when it was referred to as the quadruple zero, which included the land that's being used for the clubhouses and all of the amenities. In April 20 April 2002, SBS Associates did a cutout parcel. So that's whenever the 50 out of the 000 became for the clubhouse. Now, the reason behind this history is because it shows intent. It shows that whenever it was designed, it was designed with the purpose of Recreation Center. Finally in December 2008
and we'll see an image of this. There was the DRI Map H which actually broke it out into 12A and 12B for Recreation Center and Office U. Here's the site plan. This is where we can see the three buildings, one that exists today over on the right hand side, and then the two that are in the middle that are being that were part of the original site plan. Again, the site plan isn't broken up by those little dotted lines or the black solid line. It's actually a much larger site plan that's specific to the entire Seven Oaks
Amenities region. Again, suggesting that the whole thing was one autonomous unit. it and that's why it was de declared as uh a recreation center. Um also whenever we refer into the site plan, it makes references to things that don't exist. Um a future parking reference in yellow, um that is not gonna happen. Uh it's that that's C D land. It's not part of um the the parcel that's in question here. We also see that there's 13 parking spots in red that uh are allocated
via um an easement. That easement exists so that the CDD can't take away that type of use in front of their property. Here's a picture demonstrating normal usage, full parking lot, some overflow parking at the end of the caps, two people parked in a single unit over by the building illegally. Um, but this is kind of what we kind of experience in the community. So whenever we think about the future, we're concerned about the typical things, traffic, uh existing parking being
available. And that's why we want to focus on things that have a lower usage, like a PO1. Here's an example from the DRI map. Uh poor quality, but this is the best I could get where it shows that in um BCC approved stamp. of 2008 in December. So that was already called out in the DRI, but it never followed through in the MPUD. Until this reference, which was exhibit IE and PDD 217507, where it had a reference to this call out. This isn't a document that
I had had access to prior to this, but during the S19 um discussions, uh this one was provided later and it does show the breakout of the two parcels with that little star condition. Also in the twenty eight eight twenty eighteen outcome. It made reference to the meeting notes that this would be a future opportunity for the BCC to vote on. What's changed between 2018 and twenty and today? Basically, you just had a mediation. Are the arguments that
the BCC had against the original request are they still valid? Of course they are. Nothing's changed there. The only thing that's happened is we've had this new definition of Rec Center come out that's really uh terrified most of the community as far as what that definition means. Whenever we look at the definition of permitted uses under recreational facilities, it calls out to serve primarily the residents of the development, not general use. And that's where we get the distinction between do we want a main event or mini main events parked
in that area in the center of our community, or do we want to break it out into something less. Whenever we look at the primary proposed conditions, we see that the primary uses include a whole bunch of entitlements or definitions that exceed what an office space should be or exceed even what Rec Center should be. In this case, it's calling out uses that are normally classified as C2 General Commercial. So under the LDC 526 C2 General Commercial, we have these ones that were called out under PO. Uh excuse me,
that we're called out. Uh finally under the land use condition we have the office. This is what's being proposed today, and we see that the it has the the excerpt except for SP12. Um just skipping real quick to the real meat of this, um we believe that all of the language that's contained in the P01 professional is really what is being asked for. So it almost looks like the content was pulled out of the definition. Of the LDC and put into the requirements. We understand that you have a very tough decision. We have SB Associates
that wants to get what they're asking for. It could result in a Harris Act violation or that type of direction. And then we also have Seven Oaks that will have community members that come against the county and say, hey, we've got LDC and FLU reasons why this should not go forward. The decision that's before you, but we also think it's a great opportunity, and that opportunity would be to reuse Section E office and make a slight modification to propose P01 office office use. Now I
know that the type of use is the big concern here, but also the dimensions and the usage of the property going down to a P01 limits you to a footprint size of 35%. We do believe that that's in agreement with how the property's been used today and why it would be uh the most advantageous for both the seller and or the applicant and the uh the community as a whole. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you, Commissioner.
Unidentified speaker
Okay. So
District Five Chairman
sorry.
Jack MarianoChair
And Chelsea
District Five Chairman
Waller.
Chelsea Waller Dothri
Good afternoon. Chelsea Waller Dothard with Waller Law 38038 Meridian Avenue Dade City Florida 33525. I have been sworn. Um I represent the Seven Oak C D. Um it has been in discussion this morning about a possible resolution of making the entire Purcil um office use P01. Um I'm in a prediction. Here because without my clients um having a special meeting, um I don't have a client
to agree or disagree with anything that's been um discussed as a possible resolution. I think it would be beneficial if we did push continue this to the next meeting so that I would be able to have that special meeting and get approval from my clients to do so. Also be would be beneficial to get some clarification on the dimensions and potential site plan.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay. Thank you.
Is there anyone else to speak to this item?
Kathryn Starkey
Their um Shiraz Irani should be on WebEx, I believe.
Mr. Irani, are you there?
Mr. Pepper, Mr. Pepper on. You do? Okay.
Mr. Ironi, if you are on, if you can unmute.
Jack MarianoChair
Well we tried to that was the next?
Kathryn Starkey
Um that is all who we have signed up.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay.
All right. In light of that
Barbara Plano?
Barbara Wilhite
So we would like to proceed forward. Um we are fine with the P O one uses. and with our dimensional standards that are in the MPD before you today. Um we'd ask for you to approve that. Closure of public comment because we we haven't gone for this for years. And as the county attorney I'll tell you that the settlement agreement was sent to the CDD. never commented on it and you can David Goldstein's the best one to talk about that. But this has been going on for a very long time. So to to ask us to to concede again and then to say, oh no, we gotta continue it so we can see what everybody
else is going to do We would we would we we're coming here, you saw the emails, you saw the presentation about P01 uses, we're okay with those uses, we're we're the dimensional standards need to be consistent with the plan that's already provided. What we ask for you to do is to close public comment and and move forward um so we can fix the paperwork to allow for that. But I really it's just really not a fair to to continue us and to continue them whatever position they're gonna take. You've heard them, you've put they had a presentation,
you've received all the emails. Um We're making another concession. We've made concessions in the settlement agreement to get us to this point. We're making another concession here on the record today and we'd like to move forward if we can find a way to do that.
Jack MarianoChair
Sir are you saying that you don't want us to Move this to the next meeting to look at PO one?
Barbara Wilhite
So there's two different ways to do it and your county attorney can probably jump in and explain it better. So If the question is whether you're going to take public comment at the next hearing or we're going to bring back paperwork consistent with what the applicant is willing to amend their application to. So we're willing to agree to PO1 uses instead of that whole list that includes recreational uses and then uses for just the office building, those uses would now say P01 and then the rest of the documentation would
say the dimensional standards that we have in there because those are the dimensional standards that we need for those buildings that are on the site plan that are approved. So we're a what we're asking you to do is to Close public comment. make decision what you all want to do and and if you want to continue to do the paperwork consistent with what we're what's being proposed here, then you continue it. It's just a question of how you proceed from this point forward.
Jack MarianoChair
So let me let me stop you. I'm I'm comfortable to look to get a motion and make it all go P O one, but when it comes back here, there's a whole bunch of people that don't know this is going on that was being represented. Now it's a big change for them as well as for what they had told the their uh representation to do so I I I'm not comfortable closing public comment when it comes back. How's the bullfield?
Seth Weightman
I'm comfortable moving forward with P O one. I'd like I I very much trust John's comments. Um, I wish we'd have some reassurance from Miss Waller's client here. Um, but I'm I'm comfortable with moving forward with with with P O one but I'd I'd like Some confirmation that we can f finally
Jack MarianoChair
And that's saying a bit. And again, that's why we have public comment for for that reason. So if they they they come back to it, it's another agenda item. I don't want to shut it down. Like Mrs. Waller wants to come back up to speak. To say that her clients agree, et cetera, et cetera, so be it. But if there's some opposition to it, we need to hear it too. Not that they expect any, but Again, I don't want to close down public comment, but we'll close it down for today.
Seth Weightman
It would be the next meeting in the poll.
Jack MarianoChair
At the next meeting we'd have we'd be another I th I think it should just be another regular public hearing.
Barbara Wilhite
Commissioner, you're asking me to agree to something, but not to Degree to it's subject to more public comment. It's like w why don't we just hear the item and make a decision on it? It just It seems out of order to me that to say to the applicant Please come here and agree to something and then say, Well, let's see what else the public thinks of it.
Jack MarianoChair
Well, Barbara, you get two separate parties speaking. One saying they're okay with it, the other one's just hearing about it now. Sounds like we've got a situation to go forward. Sounds we've got a good situation to go forward, but just in case the representation of the other group, which is a major group If they have an opposition to it, because it is significant change, it's two thirds of the property now being zoned instead of just one piece of the right-of-way to have the public to be able to speak at the next meeting. And have and for you to even insist that is really disturbing.
Kathryn Starkey
Commissioner, uh I'm gonna do that.
Jack MarianoChair
Commissioner Starkey.
Kathryn Starkey
I'm gonna be in agreement with Seth. Um I think PO one is a really good compromise for and I think that's pretty it's whoever thought of it, good for you. So I'm okay with you.
Jack MarianoChair
I'm I'm not saying I have an opposition to it too, but if it's
Kathryn Starkey
gonna I'm I just there's no reason why to keep trying and I mean he's probably taking off work. I I I'm I'm just okay with moving forward today.
Jack MarianoChair
I'll
Ron OakleyVice Chair
make a
Jack MarianoChair
motion. Mr. Chairman M if I could get David to weigh in, he's uh because of the the way this is currently situated with a settlement agreement and
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Yeah, so I think you could close public comment um and you could vote to approve PO one. You're gonna have to make sure it's clear on which dimensional standards you're approving. But we have to con at least continue the item to fix the paperwork, fix the resolution, to fix the conditions, to fix the settlement agreement. Those all have to be modified to say P O one instead of what they say today.
To answer your question. So Chairman Mariano is for P O one you probably need to make it clear that it's PO one with the dimensional standards that Barbara has proposed because otherwise we're gonna have a fight next meeting about the dimensional standards.
Seth Weightman
Yeah I don't want to do that. Thank you. That's my concern.
lose what's going on right here, right now. So I'm comfortable with hearing what John say. So if we if we can we can vote to approve PO one but essentially we'll come back and vote to like do a final ratification of it next board meeting. Is that what you're saying?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Yes, he would be voting to approve a new rezoning for P O One, a new settlement agreement with P O O one. But if to get the paperwork right we do need to know what the board's direction is on the dimensional stage, because we're gonna we gotta fix all this paperwork to make it so that you can vote on s some final approval next meeting. So that the only just the only debate I heard between Ms. Wilhite Hmm. Mr. Tomzu is about not about
the use. They appear to be an agreement on P O one uses. The only disagreement I heard was about the dimensional standards. I think Barbara's offer is to use the dimensional standards that or that are in the ex the what's before you today and I believe we're consistent with what the DRC approved for the office building. Is that right, Barbara? So Barbara's asking that you approve the dimensional standards that the DRC already approved for these office buildings and that are before you today. And that's a thirty five percent.
Seth Weightman
Barbara, do you wanna I can some community we're we're trying to craft a a motion here, right? So
Jack MarianoChair
now before we craft, I want to bring up well, I just want
Seth Weightman
to hear
Jack MarianoChair
up John and Chelsea too. Okay.
Barbara Wilhite
So the dimensional standards are set forth in on page seventeen of your conditions. And um they talk about minimum front setback of 17.5, south property line, minimum side setback, east property line seven point five feet. Minimum side setback, west property line 7.5 feet, maximum height 35 feet, maximum lock coverage 50% total. So those were very thoughtfully done and you wouldn't have them written that way if they weren't very thoughtfully laid out to the site plan that was already approved, that's still
valid, um and that's where they come from.
Jack MarianoChair
Uh so if I could, let me bring up Sean and Chelsea.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Can I just add one more comment? It's not uncommon for MPDs to have different dimensional standards than what's allowed in the Euclidean zoning district. That's a fairly common request.
Unidentified speaker
Okay,
District Five Chairman
John.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Thank you, Commissioner. Oh.
The P O the P O one offers the thirty five percent. If you go with the PO two it's the fifty percent. I'm a novice at this, so I keep hearing about the site plan that was approved back in two thousand one or submitted in two thousand one, approved in two thousand two, with multiple updates every year after that as multiple phases were re re um put in forth. Um the biggest problem is, you know, the reason why we wanna go with this and and and finalize this forever is You know, we're afraid of those many main events that could pop up
here with these new buildings. It's already defined what the existing building is used for, and that really is P1, or excuse me, P01. But by utilizing the definition of PO2, which all of the other office spaces are, and that's why it's so easy on that letter E, that reference calls out everything. Every office space is supposed to be PO2. That's what their capabilities are. But whenever it comes to this one, we think that the right the best way to meet in the middle is PO1 with the 35%. And as far as the thoughtfulness
towards the development standards, I get it. However, those are exactly what's documented inside the
LDC 523, I believe. But it's inside the land use code exactly what those dimensional standards are. The website's really awesome because you can just go straight to the section that says what permit the permitted uses are, what the dimensional standards are, and 35% works out to be great because it preserves the trees that are on the exact existing lot. It also makes you
Barry Shine
Is that our administrator?
Unidentified speakerVoice B
If you put on those two additional buildings um you have the risk of the parking that's gonna be affected. I've already demonstrated and shown via the uh or through the aerial picture that uh you know most of those spots get taken. So we just don't have the space for it, sir.
Jack MarianoChair
So so bottom line, are you okay with the thirty five percent?
Unidentified speakerVoice B
That's what I'm asking for, sir.
Jack MarianoChair
All right. Thank you.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
I'm sorry, that's what the community's asking for.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay, yeah, I think I can You're present representing twenty thirty people? A couple
Unidentified speakerVoice B
more.
Jack MarianoChair
Yes sir. Alright. Uh Barbara, I want to talk to Chelsea next.
Barbara Wilhite
Well she can't speak on anybody's behalf, but okay.
Jack MarianoChair
I want to talk to Chelsea next. Thank you.
Chelsea Waller Dothri
There is a board meeting tomorrow, so we would be able to address this tomorrow and I can email um Mr. Boldstein and Ms. Bluehite and we can get this paperwork finalized if it's in if everyone's in an agreement.
Jack MarianoChair
No, this boat's gonna make a decision I think right now. Any way you can call somebody.
Chelsea Waller Dothri
Well I I I can't because their sunshine laws I can't just
Jack MarianoChair
Okay.
Chelsea Waller Dothri
And and as an attorney I can't find my client without their consent. That's just
Jack MarianoChair
What are your thoughts from what you know?
Chelsea Waller Dothri
From what I know, um I know that there have been a number of residents who are in favor of P O one. Um in my opinion, I would advise my clients that it it would be better than the settlement agreement that is proposed um today. So That's my opinion on it. Um but again I can't bind my client one way or the other today. Thank you. Unfortunately.
Jack MarianoChair
Mm-hmm. Catch a motion. To the board.
Barbara Wilhite
Well I kind of get to rebut that because I'm the applicant, but the dimensional standards are very important that are that I read out to you. Um this doesn't work, this compromise doesn't work without the dimensional standards that I read out to you that are in the MPUD today. And we're fine with changing the uses to get rid of all the uses except for the P01. Thank you.
Jack MarianoChair
Thank you.
Seth Weightman
So if we approve PO1, we're not that if if we make a motion to go forward with PO1, we're not accepting the
Y'all wouldn't be accepting the full PO one terms. You would be using PO one with your current approved
Jack MarianoChair
What do you have? The the permitted uses for P O one would be what would be established for this M PUD, for this for this parson. Which was what was described. The per the permitted uses. What Ms. Wilhide is talking about are the dinac dimensional requirements of Where she gets to build on a lot. where client kids to build on the law.
Seth Weightman
Okay. Alright, well I'll make a motion to uh are we amending settlement agreement to be Oak the Settlement Agreement next. What how do we
Jack MarianoChair
I'll
Unidentified speakerVoice C
defer to Mr. Goldstein. So I think the motion would be to approve an alternative rezoning for parcel S twelve B to P O one uses. And if we agree with Barbara, it would be with the dimensional standards that are currently in the MPUD, as opposed to the dimensional standards that are in P O one.
Unidentified speakerVoice D
What he said.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Yeah, which the the the one the ones that are in the M P D are fifty percent maximum lock, correct? In the in the PO one district it's thirty five percent.
Seth Weightman
But we wouldn't be getting a thirty-five percent.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
We w we would not be getting the thirty five percent in this If you go with what Barbara has requested, you would be getting fifty percent, not thirty five percent. Lot cut maximum lock coverage. But you'd be getting once. But you'd be getting P O one uses. No, I'm hearing the community one is five percent. Barbara's not agreeing to thirty five percent.
No that community may want that, but Barbara's Barbara's offer, compromise offer With repeal one uses And the st dimensional standards that are in the MPD, which is fifty percent lock coverage, not thirty five percent lock coverage.
Seth Weightman
But you don't have to go with that full fifty percent per se. because it may not work.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Right. So they may end up doing less than that. That's correct.
Seth Weightman
So based on the ability to park, how the the parking lot is configured and who owns what spaces, fifty percent may not be conducive.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Yeah. There there may be other regulations that prevent them from ever getting to fifty percent. They have to comply with stormwater regulations, parking regulation, landscape requirements. So It's a maximum lot coverage. They may never achieve it when you factor in all the other requirements of our land development code.
Seth Weightman
Okay.
Well, It seems like a pretty decent deal on the table. It's
Jack MarianoChair
a little risky with there at thirty five percent. So that's a little bit different than the way I thought Barbara portrayed it, but
Seth Weightman
Well it's either thirty five or fifty. Correct.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
I will tell you that for I read all the emails that have come in on this issue. Every one of those emails was complaining about use. I don't do not recall a single email where somebody was complaining about the dimensional standards proposed in this MPUD. The first time I heard there was an issue with dimensional standards was just now. So every email that I've seen come in on this composition, it was complaining about the uses, not the dimensional standards.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay. I f I find it uh interesting that John knew the thirty five percent though.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Well he read it from our code. I mean it's not hard to know that that is the the the maximum lot coverage in the code. But As I mentioned, it's not uncommon you probably have approved multiple MPDs in this county that have dimensional standards for office that are different than what's in PO1.
That is not uncommon. In fact, that's one of the main reasons developers go through the MPD process is they want different dimensional standards than what are in the code. This is an MPD, so that is perfectly perfectly permissible.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Okay.
Seth Weightman
So we're not going to be able to do that.
This is a buy it now. This little height.
Barbara Wilhite
Well really? Thirty five versus fifty? Yeah. You know, I'm telling you that we need you know, fifty. That's what where their dimensional standards are. We already have an approved building, we have approved site plan, we have all these things. So I mean I I'd hate to see it
I feel comfortable, like David said, the all the emails that I considered and talked to my client about all talked about use. Our dimensional standards have been here. They've they're in this document. They've been in this document. I didn't create anything. They've been here. They've been actually sitting here for a very long time. Um so I'd I'd like for you to move forward, but I also don't want you know the
Jack MarianoChair
Well I'll I'll I might have some help for you. The building that you have right now that we're going to look at today, is that at 50 percent?
Barbara Wilhite
Is the building today?
So there's three there's three buildings on that site plan. Not just
Jack MarianoChair
of the three
Barbara Wilhite
but the three buildings, what coverage do they have?
Jack MarianoChair
The one parcel that we're looking
Jack MarianoChair
at today. I think with the the actual construction
Barbara Wilhite
eight. So you're talking about the the current Crown's current building?
Jack MarianoChair
Correct.
Barbara Wilhite
But it doesn't sit on its own. I can't give you a coverage because it doesn't sit on its own.
Jack MarianoChair
Because it's a number side.
Barbara Wilhite
When we create this part,
Jack MarianoChair
is the dimension the same as what the other buildings are going to be?
Barbara Wilhite
The fifty percent law coverage is consistent with what those three buildings that already permitted, already approved. on your site plans. On the site plan the county approved site plans. So it's that's already that's already what you have. We've already approved that. But like I say, this comes into play because we're s now splitting And we're calling this its own parcel, so it has to have its own dimensional standards. And that's where we're going to do it.
Jack MarianoChair
So the building that's built right now along that. Is that the same dimensions s that's gonna be built on the other buildings? Is that what you're trying to get?
Barbara Wilhite
Trying to get the dimensions consistent with that plan that's approved for those three office buildings.
Jack MarianoChair
Which includes that one building's already built. Correct. So they're all the same.
Barbara Wilhite
Correct.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay. Correct. So that
Seth Weightman
helps you that. It does. So I'll I'll make a motion Based on what Mr. Goldstein has said. Uh to
Jack MarianoChair
maybe maybe Mr.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Goldstein
Jack MarianoChair
will restate the motion for you. So
Unidentified speakerVoice C
the motion would be for to to alter the rezoning request to for to be P O one uses on parcel S twelve B with the dimensional standards that are proposed before you today in the existing MPD Um and then we would continue The item till the next meeting in Dade City to redraft the resolution and redraft the settlement agreement to be consistent with that direction. Okay. That's
Jack MarianoChair
your motion? That's my motion. Okay. Second. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? Roll call boom.
Kathryn Starkey
District One, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District two, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford.
District five Chairman Mariano.
Jack MarianoChair
Aye.
3Aug 8, 2023
Board of County CommissionersC14Consent agendaApproved
Zoning Amendment ~~(Regular)~~ – Seven Oaks MPUD … and Conditions of Approval
Approved minutes
Approved the Consent Agenda
Open this item →No recording

PDD-23-7487

Official title

On a calendar

Every appearance1 of 3 are in a recording