Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Regular) - CPAL 20(12) Hay Road – Transmittal of Proposed Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (Map 2-15 and Sheet 21) from RES-6 (Residential-6 DU/GA) and IL (Industrial-Light) to RES-24 (Residential-24 DU/GA) on Approx. 28.22 Acres of Real Property Located at the Intersection of Wesley Chapel Blvd & Hay Road (Public Hearing: BCC: 2/9/2021 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; BCC: 4/7/2021 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid)
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionApproved
Approved the item per Staff’s recommendation by a roll call vote with Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Mariano voting nay.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Feb 9, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Feb 9, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-21-0179 in full →PDD-21-0179 was taken up 4 times between Jan 7, 2021 and Sep 15, 2021, continued 1 time — this is appearance 2.
- Jan 7, 2021PlanningP5▶No disposition in the minutes
- Feb 9, 2021BoardP59▶Approvedthis item
- Apr 7, 2021BoardP51▶Continued
- Sep 15, 2021BoardP101▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 25m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 96% of 125 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Move on to P fifty nine.
Item P fifty nine was published in the Tampa Bay Times on December twenty-third, twenty twenty.
Yeah.
So So what you are receiving right now was by the request of the applicant, they wanted to uh put this into the record for this item. So uh item PDD 21-0179 is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAL 2112 Hay Road. The proposed amendment is proposing to amend the future land use maps, Map 2-15 and Sheet 21 from Res 6, residential
6 dwelling units per gross acre, and IL Light Industrial to Res 24 to allow for the development of 400 apartment units.
You have
the location is at the intersection of Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Hay Road. And the resolution is to amend the future land use maps, map two-15 and sheet 21. There was also a companion rezoning petition for this one. Slide.
Uh the proposed amendment is consistent with the following uh policies, comprehensive plan policies. Slide.
This is your like locator map. It is in the South Market area as well as the urban service area. Slide.
It's located um off of Wesley Chapel Boulevard with access from Hay Road. Slide?
The existing zoning district is AC agricultural with I-1 Light Industrial, and as stated before, there is a companion MPD. Next slide.
The existing future land use is Res 6 and I L. The proposed amendment to uh Res 24 would be kept or would permit a maximum density of uh 400 dwelling units. There are wetland constraints on site as well, um as and the proposed development will not exceed uh 13 dwelling units per gross acre. Slide.
Yeah.
And this is your visual as to what um the res twenty four would look like slide.
The proposed conceptual plan, as you can see, it is abutting a multifamily area or use. So they will be providing access to the multifamily as well as access to the EC flu. I wish I had the little pointer and I should have put an arrow on there. Access is going to be on the left of the screen. Access to that site is provided to the EC flu that is abutting the property as well. Slide.
And with that, we find the BCC find that the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and authorized transmittable to DEO and other reviewing agencies. There are four additional slides. Those are reserved for the applicant. And I'm happy to answer any questions if you have.
All right. Uh is the applicant available? Oh wait.
Yes.
Yes, Mr. Chairman Joel two for the applicant. That's right. Um, Joel to an associate's uh Palm Harbor, Florida, and I have been sworn. I represent Florinoy Development Company with the consent of the property owners. Uh there are multiple property owners. This land has been assembled for this potential project. As Amy said, we're on Wesley Chapel Boulevard west of the I-75 interchange there at 54. This
is about 43 acres, gross acres. However, over 16 of those acres are wetlands, many of them class one wetlands. So we actually have 37% of the site that consists of wetlands, which makes this a little bit more of a challenge from the development standpoint and what type of use would be practical. There are 37 developable acres. As Amy pointed out, we have agreed in a companion MPUD
zoning, which is pending to cap the density of 400 units. And if you do that actual math, if you divide those 400 units by 43 gross acres, it's about nine, nine units per acre. If you divide it by the twenty-seven developable acres, it's a little over fourteen units per acre. And if you do the somewhat complicated math under your comp plan where you get credit for your developable acres and then a percentage bonus
for the wetlands. It does come out to right at 13 units per acre as Amy indicated. So the practical problem is your comp plan only has a RES 12 multifamily category, and then it jumps all the way to Res 24. So we can't quite get the density at Res 12, hence the reason that it needs to be REST 24. But with that said, We've stipulated for the record and the application that we absolutely will cap the
density at 400 units in the companion MQD. We are coming to you with a recommendation from PDD staff and also your planning commission sitting as the local planning agency to approve this plan amendment. And I'd like to point out, and I think this is very important, this is just a transmittal. We understand that there are ongoing questions and discussions about the propriety of more apartment uses in the South Market area, specifically, and possibly
other areas of the county. We fully understand and respect that this is not an approval. This is just a transmittal to move the property. To the state to get any comments they may have. And we recognize and understand that any final approval would and could only occur when this comes back, and the board sees both the plan amendment for consideration and also the companion MPUD. So I'm urging all of you respectfully to simply transmit this for us so that at least
we aren't held up further. if and when the board sees fit for any ultimate approval, which would not be before a May and more likely a June timeframe before this could come back. But as to the specific justifications, we are not, I say again, we are not within the designated State Road 54, State Road 56 quarter, which you established by your locational resolution last summer. We're not within that. We're
outside that. So this is not an area that the board elected to restrict. We are within the urban service area. We are within the South Market area. We therefore are entirely consistent with the ULI recommendation that originally served as the basis for your existing cop plan policies, which specifically promote Higher multifamily density within the South Market area and this region specifically. If we could go
to my surrounding land use map, Amy, if someone can put that up. It was my first, my first slide.
Thank you. Our site is in purple on the graphic before you. As you can see, it's a north-south, very linear parcel. To the east of us, the brown area is the existing industrial commerce park, which is largely already developed. So we have industrial commerce immediately to our east. We have the very large employment center future land use designation to our south and wrapping around to the west, which is in purple. As Amy
said, we've committed in the MPD to provide both a vehicular and a pedestrian cross-connect from the southern boundary of our property to and from the employment center. And then immediately contiguous to us on the west side is a project that the board just approved last year. It's the Matomie Homes Town Home Project. You approved a multifamily zoning there immediately adjacent to us. So from so from the traditional comprehensive plan analysis, if there were no other noise
or any other concerns. We we submit that this would be the poster child for an appropriate infield project. It's the hole in the donut. And because we're adjacent to a large employment center and a commerce center to the east, obviously having multifamily apartments adjacent to that is totally consistent and supportive. For example, in your employment center land use. The board itself established. Mandatory criteria
of 20% land allocation to multifamily use. So Obviously, multifamily has been deemed critical to supporting employment center and job growth. We can help support that employment center by being contiguous with it and by functionally integrating our project with cross-access to and from that future employment center. This as I said is a unique narrow parcel. If we can go now please to my second side, which is that zoning
concept plant. If you look at this, you see substantial wetlands. And most importantly, we have a very large forested wetland on the right-hand side of that screen, going all the way out to our frontage on Wesley Chapel Boulevard. In fact, we only have enough upland area to accommodate our excess driveway, which will be at that existing signalized intersection on Wesley Chapel. Everything else in the Front has a large forested wetland. It's also a class one wetland, which means
there is absolutely no possibility, unlike some other sites that you've looked at recently, there is absolutely no possibility here for future uh retail or future office employment on that road frontage because nothing can will ever be constructed there. So we have substantial setbacks. Over 850 feet from Wesley Chapel Boulevard to our first apartment building that will be more than one story. That first building is a one-story clubhouse
and it's over 500 feet itself from the road frontage. And you will not even be able to see this project due to that forested wetland in the front. I also point out here that we're being even though this is the MPUD plan, I think it's important that you see what we're committing to, that whole perimeter of buildings along our western boundary adjacent to the Matamy Town Home Project, every one of those buildings is restricted in the MPUD to a two-story building only. That two stories will
match the two-story townhomes immediately on our western boundary. Any buildings above two stories will be on the commerce or industrial park site. So, with that said, we did put into the record the market study that you're going to have presented during your work session. I simply wanted to make sure it was part of the formal record here, but I urge you to please just transmit the plan amendment so we can get that path going and
have this back for your potential consideration in May and June once you have further. uh the countywide issues that you're discussing about the rental market. I'm happy to answer any questions. Have my client on here as well. And we appreciate your time.
Right. Let me go to uh the WebEx first. Uh is anyone on WebEx to speak to this item?
No one is on WebEx to speak to this item and there was no email submitted for this item.
Is anyone at the kiosks for this item?
There is nobody at the kiosk for this item.
Okay. Commissioner Moore.
Oh so we're back we're out to the board now, right?
Yeah.
Okay. Just to make sure. I yes, so I I I was gonna refer to this market study. I I thought it was for this afternoon, but since it was presented during this item, I will refer to it. It's incorrect. Um It states on page one, two, three I don't know, the back of Let's see here. Six since they presented the nano. We'll get a page eleven and it says class A apartment communities mapping inventory. I I can actually I can actually show you one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
eight, they're not even included. So I'll take this and throw it in the little round can next to me. Um You know, we're we're gonna submit things, let's be correct when we submit things. Um Second thing is um well you know I I don't want to I don't need to go through what I went through last time. Um referring to the comp plan and the you know and everything. There's no need to and I think Mr. Steinsteiner can attest to that. I mean the the bottom line is this time is now we're taking
away Light industrial.
I'm not gonna talk about the past. I'll talk about right now. That's what we need. We talk about it all the time that we need line industrial. I was on a conversation this morning with somebody. that has somebody they want to bring into town that's from outside the area. That is willing to spend Millions and millions of dollars. for light industrial land. We keep taking it away. What's our EDC going to do? What's our internal economic development department going to do? They're not
going to have anything left. You know, there's gotta come t it's you know, we as a board are allowed to say no. if we think it's not in the best interest of the community. And over and over again these are coming in front of us and we're having I'm hearing yeses. If we get rid of our light industrial land, we're not gonna have any left. Right next door to this site is Compark 75. very, very,
very successful project. They've done an extraordinary job.
You know, there there I'm not saying there could be or would be potential 'cause I'm not in the land buying business. But considering it's contiguous With this site, there's potential there. So that's my f again, my fear. Listen, nothing listen, nothing no nothing against Mr. Two, the applicant, whatever, they're they're doing their job. I get it. At the same time, we as a board, and we talked earlier today about what people in the community think and
listening to the community. It's time to do it. It's time to do it. I spend all my time in this district And we talk about how much we know our districts and the people in the district. Yeah, the one per well, I don't know how many for sure, but I know one person. I watched the Planning Commission meeting, which I watch all of them. And there was a nay vote on the Planning Commission, and it was the person that lives in District Two, because that gentleman knows and hears from the
people. What's best for that area? And what we're losing in the area. So he was in he was in dang. But, you know, at some point what I'm gonna ask and I appreciate it, is if The people that are up here with me. Listen to me. Cause I know what I'm talking about. And our my people in my community. And I say my community The you know, that whole district too, that's where I live. So I hear from I see the people all the time. But again, in this instance right here. I'm
talking specifically about losing light industrial. We can't lose any more of it. We're not gonna have any left. It was great what happened today, this morning, great project, right? But do we need raw people to pay Paul? Again, we're gonna have c cons continue to have people that are gonna bring apartment complexes here on a regular basis. We know that's how it's gonna be. It doesn't mean it's needed. If a Kirby vacuum sales guy comes to my door. He's gonna do his best to sell me that vacuum. I don't
need a vacuum. But he's gonna try to sell me. We don't need to be sold anymore. Okay. Close the door.
Um, Ms. Moore, I'm gonna give you an example of of where we do need housing because there are places that do need it, because we have been doing a good job of bringing in business and for an example, Wiregrass. Has residential in that area, has, you know, the different shops and the different things to create business. Yep. They have only residential in that area. They only have, say, 6,000 residential sites, when in actuality they have over 15,000
jobs there. And so it calls for some of these apartments to be near those areas provide a place for people that work there, live there in our community.
So that's a great point, Mr. Chairman. And that's why Wiregrass did a good job. Let me let me continue for a second. Did a great job of adding those products there. There are s you gotta remember how many entitlements are already there. And if you'd like to, I'm happy to provide each and every one of you with it. Because the entitlements, the amount of entitlements within Wiregrass, the amount of entitlements that are within the Meadow Point area that some have been there since nineteen eighty nine. They haven't been built on yet. So
what happens then when they're ready to roll? Okay, so
Well you still gotta remember now everybody can't live in a five hundred thousand dollar home.
D d did I not just say that there's entitlements for apartments? Mr Chairman, what I told you was there are entitlements for apartments on the Wiregrass property that have not been built. Tons of entitlements. There are tons of entitlements right down the road from the mall you're talking about. Within the Seven Oaks area. There's a ton of apartment entitlements right down the road in the Meadow Point communities. Their diamonds are already there. They're sitting and waiting for them to be built. We're we're not asking, and I've never asked to take away somebody's entitlements that
they already earned to have the zoning they earn. Continue to keep rezoning properties. With this oversaturation and doomsday will come.
Starkey.
Oh okay. I'm is this slight industrial or res Res
let's
say so residential, not
yep. So it's both. Um so the majority of the property is currently res six. Um but there is five acres that are I L. However, um there's about ninety percent of that five acres that is a cat one wetland, so it can't be developed on on that cat one wetland. And then it's also surrounding to the north. Um east and south is that cat one wetland going into the um I L that's adjacent to it. So it it wouldn't even be able to interact with that I L component
because a cat one wetland can't be developed on at all.
If you pull on
a
baseline with that map up we're set problem.
I was gonna be with Commissioner Moore if this wasn't light industrial because I don't that is valuable property that we need to bring
Yeah, but I want you to see
up this but this is not
See at the bottom of the map.
Yeah.
Look at the left side and see that pond on the on the bottom. That's that five acre pond. Cannot be built on in that slight industrial zoning.
Right. So sadly.
I'm sorry, we can't hear you. And then you can see it. You gotta be at the mic. You have to be at the mic. There's a mark of the mic right there.
Sorry, sorry. I get it. Yeah. So two right there. To the south, that's all cat one. So what they're utilizing is whatever space, it's about ten percent of that site. They're use utilizing that for drainage, and then they're gonna have their buffer that they're gonna activate as well as a component or an amenity to their site so
so
so for
that reason I'm gonna be in support of this. If I'm telling you if this had been industrial I would not have been support supporting it because I don't want to be flipping and d you know A good site for Great jobs. Um
Yeah, it's about five acres of the existing forty-three
acres. You know what's really sad, and it's probably before all of y'all were here, Commissioner Oakley, I don't know if you were paying attention back then, but I think at one time this was the Saddlebrook Corporate Park. A lot of this land. And the owners of this property held it and held it and held it for a long time in hopes that it would be a class A industrial park, like what what you see in Raleigh and and it's such a shame that, you know, the there was the recession, I
guess, and I I don't remember what precipitated to become housing instead of a really great Uh Um business park. And it was well situated too. Seventy five, fifty four. Could have been a you know Could have been another um Evangeline. But um Uh so I I will be in support, but um just throwing this out there to everybody. It's not gonna I'm I'm not
in favor of Swap an IL for Multifamily.
Now that I L the most case they you can't build IL or homes on that property. It's strictly just gonna be used for dredging and
That's what their proposed proposal is, yes. What is it? Yeah. Around the wetland. No, you can't build anything in the wetland or around it.
So it doesn't matter if it's an I L, Res six, Res twenty four, you can't build anything on it anyway. Correct.
Of the wetland part. Correct. Okay. Any other?
Well I don't this will follow up and
Terry Well Terry came up from the
Mr. Done. Thanks. And I appreciate Commissioner Starkey's comments she just made. Uh and I think we need to remember to ex we we extend that. We talked about industrial again. This is kind of More we'll get into this later, but since the comment was made, we talk about industrial, but let's talk about this doesn't have doesn't have the zoning, so I'm not referring to this property. Okay. Not referring to this property at all. But we gotta think about the commercial and the retail in the office as well when we talk about the rezoning, which we'll get into later this afternoon.
Um all right, I will yield.
Mr. Mariano, I don't mean to forget you, but do you have something to say to this item?
Yeah, I was gonna say um You know, I I just I think we do have enough apartments out there. Um It's a big jump in the zoning. If they wanted to keep it residential and keep it as smaller densities, I mean it's it's a tough road to get out on. Uh we're gonna spend a lot of money on that roadway coming up. I don't know how much money we're spending on that, but you probably know. Uh we get a lot of traffic in that whole area. So do I need more density right there? I don't know that I do.
Well you gotta realize um The infrastructure we've built in that area is is part of the reason a lot of these things come in that area with the planners because uh you gotta move the traffic. And it's there we built the infrastructure to to serve those people.
Yeah, to serve the people that are there that can't get out right now. Well it's the truth. I mean I don't know why I need to sell people.
They
keep coming.
I'm gonna invite everybody in a bus ride one down d one day down there. Seriously.
You guys need
to see it.
Does there's some time there. Do we don't have to vote on this at all, do we?
This is the vote for the transmitter.
Okay.
And this is the second phase of the comp plan, so it's being transmitted to DEO.
All right. Then I'll need a motion.
Uh moved to approve.
Move staff recommendation. Is that
yeah
move staff recommendation?
And the staff recommendation is to
transmit it to DEO.
A second.
Okay. Um I got a motion and a second. All those and Favor say aye by roll call vote.
That was selecting. District two, Commissioner Moore. District Three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Fitzpatrick.
Aye.
District five, Commissioner Mariano.
Aye.
District One, Chairman Oakley.
Aye. Most past three to two.
Okay, right.
I think it's getting me that time. All right, we go on to where are we at here?
Yeah, I can go to