Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Regular) - CPAS 20(02) Meadowbrook – Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (Map 2-15 and Sheet 20) from RES-3 (Residential-3 DU/GA) to COM (Commercial) on Approx. 1.67 Acres of Real Property Located at the Southwest Corner of State Road 54 and Meadowbrook Drive. (Public Hearings: LPA: 3/4/2021 at 1:30 p.m., DC/Hybrid; BCC: 3/23/2021 at 1:30 p.m., NPR/Hybrid)
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Mar 4, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Mar 4, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-21-0225 in full →PDD-21-0225 was taken up 3 times between Mar 4, 2021 and Apr 20, 2021, continued 1 time — this is appearance 1.
- Mar 4, 2021PlanningP8▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Mar 23, 2021BoardP49▶Continued
- Apr 20, 2021BoardP47▶No disposition in the minutes
No appearance of this case has a final disposition in the minutes. It was continued, or the minutes do not dispose of it in writing — which is true for 24% of items.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 35m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 94% of 431 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Thank you. So I think we're gonna ask a couple of questions on this one. On this particular next item, we've got items P8 and P P9. P8 is the comprehensive plan amendment and P9 is the companion rezoning. We do have several folks that have signed up to speak on both items. We also have an email. um of objection to be read. It's three pages. So when I start reading it, I'm gonna ask that I be timed on that. So just
wanted to ask the chair and the Planning Commission members what's how how do you want to handle the item?
Okay. Well the applicant's present, correct? Right.
The applicant is virtually present. We do have two objectors at the kiosk as far as I can tell. I will double check for that as well. And we do have an email to be read into record and we have several folks who are on WebEx to speak in opposition to the item also.
Okay, um this applicant has not requested extra time, is that correct?
The applicant has requested extra time. Ms. Wilhite has been granted 15 minutes of time. And Mr. Press Pressman has been uh has asked for 12 minutes of time and that has been granted as well.
Denise, Mr. Chairman I want to make sure Denise's question was answered. Are you asking whether the funny To open up the public hearing for both items at the same time. Is that what you're asking the chair?
Yes, David, that's what I'm asking. I I don't I don't know if we should like ask for objections on P eight and ask for objections on P9 because they're basically the same objection.
Does does the applicant have any objection to us opening up the public hearing at the same time?
The applicant does not.
I think that's a better way to handle it. Should do the public hearing. The to combine the public hearing for both items.
That would be the pleasure of the chair if he wants to if he's okay with that.
Yeah, I mean I I think it makes sense to could deal with both of them since they're related, um, at the same time, if we can. Um so my question about time is Uh d would Barbara uh want to reserve her time? Do you respond to the people that are gonna speak against it or have questions? Or would you like to make some comments to begin?
So Mr. Chairman, that's a very good question. Uh this is Barbara Will Heights. I think your staff both you have two staff members, you have Amy Heiler and Christina Acostas, and they have their presentations. I think the the best way to order this would be allow them to each do their presentations, one on the comp plan, one on the zoning, and then open that up for public comment and then I can present And in rebuttal. My presentation is combined as well. It's just one presentation that addresses both lands and zoning.
Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. All right. So Amy?
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Yeah.
Uh sir, my name is Todd Pressman. I'm representing residents and neighbors in the area. Um we would much prefer to hear what the applicant is presenting. The residents need to be fully at the speed, and with all due respect, that is the normal, typical manner in which the applicant then has a chance to revive.
Sorry, but we're we're the applicant has an opportunity to choose when they like to speak. That's our tr that's been our tradition, so that's the way we're going with it. So uh you must already have in mind what you have objections to, so um there's really no reason to go over that again. So we'll we'll give you all your time to speak and ask questions. And then Ms. Wo Hide I'll have an opportunity to uh respond to each and every one of your questions.
We appreciate your consideration. Thank you.
Thank you. Amy?
Hello, hi, Amy Heiler here with uh Planning and Development. And once the slide starts I can get started.
Who's following you, Amy? I didn't get the
What is it?
Who do they say was gonna follow you?
Christina Costa.
Oh okay. Christina Costa.
Okay, I was sharing my screen, so let me try again. I I'm I know there's a delay, but let me let me try again.
Yeah, we do see the PowerPoint. You do, okay.
All right, great, thank you.
Do you have what you need, Amy, or you can't see the screen?
I can see the slides. We can use this, but it hasn't like officially started, so it's just the normal PowerPoint program.
Yeah, we're just seeing the cover sheet.
Oh
okay.
All right.
Yeah when you press that button on the bottom it didn't pop up as the PowerPoint. So we're still looking at the slides.
Sherman.
Yeah.
While we're waiting, can I just swear everybody in who plans on speaking?
Sure, that's a great idea.
If you plan on speaking on the items today, could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is a true so help you God? And just say th yes.
Yes.
Thank you.
Okay, so it looks like you're seeing just individual slides for whatever reason. I'm not sure why you're seeing it like that. Um let me do It just moves on to Can you see it now?
Yes.
Okay, fabulous. All right, so now I'm gonna probably have to go through the entire Thing to get you where you need to be. Mm-hmm.
All right. Is this where you want to be?
Yes, thank you very much. Um okay, so item uh P8 is gonna be C Pass 2002 in the name of Meadowbrook. You can uh slide.
It's uh item PDD 21-0225. It is a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. Slide.
The proposal for this small-scale comprehensive plan amendment is to amend the future land use maps 2-15 and sheet 20 from Res 3, residential 3 dwelling units per gross acre to Calm Commercial. It is located at the southwest corner of State Road 54 in Meadowbrook Drive. And the amendment or to this, the resolution to this proposal is as stated as follows: amend the future land use map 2-5. 15 and sheet 20. There is an accompanying rezoning to C2 commercial district that'll follow after
this citation. So the comprehensive plan consistency, these are the following policies that the proposed amendment is consistent with. I do want to go through them in detail. So policy flu 162, location for commercial development, how the comprehensive plan states. It says Pasco County may allow comprehensive plan amendments to Calm commercial future land use designation only under the following conditions. And so there's three conditions in this set that the
uh proposed amendment must meet to allow for a commercial development or an amendment to calm. So in this case, the first uh condition states that it must be located At an existing collector and arterial roadway. State Road 54 is an arterial roadway, and Meadowbrook Drive is the intersection that is going to be your clowny collector roadway. And so after through some of the uh conversations and research that we had, just to be clear, intersection is as stated.
Um, I confirmed with F DOT on how they define intersection as well. And it's in essence an intersection. Any types of roadway that do intersect, bisect. Um, it's not necessarily county collect or arterial. It actually just has to have that intersection. And I do have the definition if necessary. Um, oh, I have it right here actually. So how FDOT defines it is uh multiple different ways. It says an at grade connection or crossing of a local road or state highway with a state highway. So Local road being
the southern portion of Meadowbrook and State Road 54 being your arterial or state highway. Then there's also a conventional quote at grade intersection being three legs, four legs, or multi-legs. In this case, we have four legs. And then also the third definition is areas that include not only the physical area where the roadways cross each other. But also the area upstream or downstream of physical interaction, meaning where the driver interacts with that intersection. So, with that
being said, based on that definition and the arterial and collector status of Meadowbrook Drive and State Road 54, it meets that condition. The second condition states that it may not detract or it shall not distract from existing TC town. Center. So what this means is actually our town center flu designation. We have a town center flu designation out by Curly Road. That's the only one that's existing right now. So in this case, it does not detract from our TC town center
flu designation. And then the third one is it shall not proliferate strict commercial development. In this case, it's at the southwest corner of Meadowbrook Drew. Drive in State Road 54. It won't proliferate strip commercial because it is uh to the to the south of it. There's like a little canal or a hydrological feature. So it won't end up going strip southern and to the um uh east, it's going to Uh I'm sorry, to the east, it's Meadowbrook
Drive. So Meadowbrook Drive, it cannot extend past Meadowbrook Drive because of the roadway segment, so it won't proliferate strict strict commercial there. And to the east, there's only about three properties that are adjacent to this property along State Road 54, and then you have your storage unit and wetlands. And it's a category one wetland, so you can't develop past that as well. So it will not proliferate strip commercial. So in its simplistic form, with that one policy
that allows for an amendment to calm, it Meets those three criteria, which is why we're we're moving forward with this. With the other policies, the next slide you'll see the transitional land use. Policy flu 143 provides us with the foundation to address proposed comprehensive plan amendments and identify whether it would be considered a suitable transitional land use adjacent to. To following other transitional or other land uses that are existing.
And so in this case, the abutting res the abutting land use would be considered residential three or res three. The proposed amendment would be COM. As you see, there is a plus sign in this table, which basically means it can be a compatible transitional land use, but it does have to have sensitive site design, so in additional buffering and whatnot. And then in uh as a companion to this policy, we also have policy 144, which establishes the buffering requirements for residential
properties. And in this case, it directs the LDC to establish those adequate buffering standards. And so adequate buffering standards will be provided on this site given the LDC code. So slide please.
And then these are going to be some of your visuals. So as you see, it's located in the South Market area and urban service area. Next slide. And it is at the southwest corner of Meadowbrook Drive and State Road 54 is highlighted. Slide.
Its existing uh zoning is AR Agricultural Residential or AR1 agricultural residential. It is being uh proposed to rezone to C2 a general commercial, which you'll be hearing that next slide.
And the existing future land use as you see is res three um and the proposed amendment is to commercial. That's like
And with that, we do recommend that the local planning agency find this amendment consistent with the policies identified in the comprehensive plan and approved the Board of County Commissioners. If you have any questions or
anybody,
go ahead, Chris.
Amy, is the uh the the two parcels immediately to the west? Are those residences?
Currently one's a resident that's for sale. Um, and then the one next to it is a resident that is active, and then the one right next to it is an office. It's already zoned PO1 office. Okay.
The and I have a question, Amy, that the Thing that looks a little bit like a road. Is that just an easement behind the property?
The s the diagonal portion
itself,
that's actually like your canal or or hydrological feature that's there.
Gotcha. Okay. Any other questions from anybody?
Hmm. And I guess not. Thank you, Amy.
You're welcome.
Okay, who do we have next?
Mr. Chair, did you want us to do the presentation for the following item? Is that what you want us to do?
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon. This is Christina Acosta with Planning and Development, Current Planning. This is the companion rezoning to the CPAL that Amy just presented. It's PDD 21-7516 in the name of Kitty Campus University Inc. The request is for change in zoning from AR1, Agricultural Residential District, to a C2, General Commercial District. The property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of State Road 54 and Meadowbrook Drive.
The site is currently undeveloped and contains approximately 1.67 acres. The applicant proposes to develop the site in conformance with the C2 General Commercial District standards for development. The site has been reviewed by the Long Range Planning Division and was found to meet the location criteria of Comprehensive Plan Policy Flute 1.6.2 for commercial development because of its location at an intersection of an existing arterial roadway, State Road 54, and an existing collector roadway, Metterbrook Drive.
Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 2-2, traditional land uses, general guidelines, states that the commercial uses are appropriate near residential areas with special consideration to buffering and screening. Pursuant to flu 1.4.4, residential compatibility, buffering standards between residential and non-residential land uses. At the time of site plan review, the site will be subject to additional screening and buffering conditions exceeding. meeting the minimum requirements of the land development code. On March 23rd, 2021, the Board of County Commissioners
will consider comprehensive plan amendment CPAS 2002, amending the future land use of the subject site from RES 3, residential three dwelling units per acre, to Calm Commercial. If the subject opening is approved, it shall not take effect until the companion C Pass is adopted by the BCC and the appeal period has ended.
And this is just a visual showing the surrounding zoning. It is all the adjacent neighbors are zone PR1. And then on the north side of State Road 54, you have an MPUD, which is entitled for a multifamily development. And then two lots to the west, you have a professional office. And as Amy pointed out, there is a high a water feature, a canal located. adjacent to the south of the property. And the the next slide is going to show the current future land
use, which is Res3, but as as we know, we're the companion rezoning or the companion C Pass would change this future land use to Calm.
And the last slide is showing your access from State Road 54 and Meadowbrook Drive. And this is going to come to you with a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Development Department.
Thank you.
I have a question. Anyone else got a quick question. Oh,
yeah, great. So Christine, could you speak to the buffering requirements that you mentioned a little bit? That was my more detail for the residential properties.
So the the additional buffering requirements would be at the consideration of the person who's charged with reviewing the site plan. So we we don't have a site plan at this time, so we we can't put, and it's also a Euclidean rezoning, so we can't put any specific uh conditions on there. Right. They they would be required to do whatever the uh the site reviewer felt was appropriate for the site based on the adjacent residential neighbors.
Okay. And is that that is that handle at a public hearing meeting or is that Is that uh Uh conference. Yeah, a separate conference. That those decisions.
The site plan review would not come to the Planning Commission or the Board.
Could you go back to that intersection photo, please? You had a photo of the intersection.
Like the last one you had up.
Is that a that's a four-way intersection I could see. Is there a signal light there?
There is a signal.
Christine, I I guess going back to the buffering, I mean, isn't isn't the buffering outlined in the land development code under section?
Yes, there is buffering out outlined in the land development code, but uh based on the uh compatibility requirements of the flu, it would be subject to additional buffering at the discretion of the of the site plan reviewer. So I can tell you what the minimum requirements would be. They would be over and above that. And as we saw to the south, there's um there's the the natural water buffering as well.
Okay, so a residential to a C2 would require a uh a 10 foot wide buffer. Single row of trees, maximum 60 feet, continuous row of evergreen shrubs, and no more than 30% of the landscaping could be grassed. And then In addition to that, there are specific restrictions to how far a structure or a driveway could be located to a residential lot.
Okay, any other questions?
Okay, hearing none. Thank you, Kristen. Appreciate that. And If we could now uh hear from the Members of the public?
Mr. Chair, how would you like to handle this? Um I we do have a letter to be read into record. Do you want to start with that or how how would you like to um approach that?
Yeah, we could start with we could start with that. So we need to let you know when three minutes is up.
Yes. Um let me first start by saying if you want me to read the letter, um let me just first start. It's gonna state who it's from and then we can start the um the clock if that's all right.
Okay.
Okay, so um the letter I'm going to be reading into record is from a gentleman by the name of D W. Douglas Grant. He is a Meadow Group Estates resident who resides at [address removed]. And I will start reading the letter now. It states, I oppose rez rezoning the two parcels, subject parcels at the southwest corner of State Road
54 and Meadowbrook Drive Lutz, Florida from agricultural residential to C2s. The following describes my understanding of the current circumstances in opposition to rezoning. Understanding of the circumstances. The subject parcels 29-26-18-0010-50-0580 and 29-26-180010-50-0590 are currently vacant and zoned agricultural residential, consistent with the zoning of adjoint adjoining
parcels and other parcels future east, southeast, southeast. And southwest. The adjoining and surrounding parcels are part of a residential community informally known as Meadowbrook Estates. The residential community of Sierra Pines is further south and southeast of Meadowbrook Estates. Meadowbrook Drive is a sole northern entrance to both the Meadowbrook and Sierra Pines communities. I understand that the rezoning application seeks new C2 zoning, but the applicant does not specify specify an actual process. Proposed land use. Consequently, we assume that the parcels
could be used for any type of C2 business, including relatively high impact land use. If the parcels are resumed as requested, I consider high impact uses to be developments that create excessive noise or traffic and or generally not conforming with nearby land use. High impact use might include a child care daycare facility. The current owner of the subject parcels, Kitty Campus University, Inc., could conceivably apply to the county to construct a large child daycare facility at the parcels if rezoned. The county rejected that land
use before, but the landowner might try again to construct the daycare after achieving C2 zoning. Surface water drainage from the subject parcels is south to a creek that Traverses Meadowbrook Estates. Water in the creek flows 0.2 miles southwest to a floodplain and wetland, which is adjacent to many homes. Surface waters at the floodplain and wetland recharge the underlying aquifers and eventually flows to tributaries of Anclote River. Why I oppose the brief zoning, nonconforming land use and potential environmental
risks. Many of the TC2 land use is bottom. Sales or garage, car wash, candle, child daycare, but starkly contrast with the adjoining and surrounding residential development. Certain C2 land uses could present an environmental risk to the surrounding community, such as dry cleaning, auto service, and a fuel station. Because activities of those businesses have a relatively greater occurrence of polluting soil and groundwater. It's possible that a chemical discharge from a C2 development at the subject parcel. Could pollute the soil, creek, floodplain, wetland, and aquifers.
There are many homes along the creek and floodplain, and many animals depend on those natural systems. The people at Metaphor Estates and Sierra Pines depend on private wells for potable water and irrigation, so polluting the aquifers would be devastating. There is no public water supply for those communities. Noise. Many types of sea to development might increase noise for the nearby homeowners. The distinctive noises from some C two businesses. Okay, we're done. Time.
Thank you. Okay. Any questions concerning that reading?
Okay, so we'll hear the other public uh comments.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, board members. I mean my name is Todd Pressman. I'm here representing uh
Point for you, if we could bring that up, please.
Yes, give me a moment. Thank you.
Just s just so you'll know, we're we're having a little bit of uh Or at least I am, having a little bit of difficulty hearing you but with that mask on, so You can choose to leave it on or take it off. But um It's just we're having a struggle here to hear what you're saying.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So again, my name is Todd Pressman. 22nd Avenue South in St. Pete, Florida. I'm here representing working with the Sierra Pines community, the Meadowbrook Estates community, and many other nearby residents. Mr. Chairman Mariano and board members And I did did indicate, Mr. Chairman, that I had extended time, I believe ten minutes. Thank you. This rezoning application will be devastating to this community. It will literally destroy this community. Considering
a C two zoning, which is profiled by the uh kitty organization, but as you all well know, C two includes many intensive uses. So if we could go to my PowerPoint please.
Uh you're familiar with the site on State Road forty, next slide please.
Todd, give me a second. I'm having some difficulties. Just a moment.
No, no. Take your time, Denise. No pressure.
Thank you.
Yeah, I just have
Do you wanna try next slide, Denise, if you can please?
Are you seeing the slide that says that says site? Is that is that not the slide you're seeing?
I'm seeing yes, I'm seeing if we could move on to the next one, please. Okay.
So you should now see a slide that says residential homes, residential homes. Is that what you're seeing? Yeah.
No, it's the same slide, unfortunately.
Okay. A little closer view of the site. That's fine, we can stop there. So To draw this point home.
The site as indicated in yellow is surrounded by residential homes. Next slide, please.
And as a report notes, zoning is primarily AR one, which is low density. Next slide, please.
Future Danny's categories primary res three. You can see the entire area is res three as residential. Next slide, please. The zoning staff notes the surrounding area is characterized as residential development. That's very clear. Next slide please.
R three, the residential the intent of R three is to recognize those areas suited for single family detached residential development, which this entire area is. Next slide, please. Let's talk about past land use activity which has not been raised. Next slide please. A request came through for this property for a daycare in preschool.
in January eleven. That was denied seven zero by this bull.
the same request came through one year later for daycare and preschool and that was denied. So Mr. Chairman Board members, this board, some people may have been members at that time, This property was denied for a use that is far less impacting than what you're considering today. Mr. Chairman, board members, this request could allow a gas station operating on this property in this residential area. That would be nothing less than devastating to this community and this residential area. Next slide, please. Let's
look at impacts. Next slide. please be aware that this is the Meadowbrooks Estates plat. This location, both of these parcels, is inside and part of this plat and part of the subdivision.
Access is right in, right out on State Road 40. But they would have they are proposing a full access on Meadowbrook Drive. And there's submittal notes, the study assumes a reasonable access plan of a right in only City Road 54 and full access on Meadowbrook. That would be a tremendous infusion and impact of vehicles involved with all C2 activities. Next slide, please.
Policy official landings 1.6.4, neighborhood commercial uses, shall permit small-scale neighborhood commercials only in areas permitted for commercial development. Note number two, new neighborhood commercial uses shall not be located internally within existing single-family neighborhoods. And This commercial zoning supposed is located internal. Next slide, please. For their own numbers, they're looking at almost 2,500 daily trips, 165 in the peak hour AM and 208 in the PM, coming in both uh involved
with both those access points. Next slide, please.
Problematic uses involved, I told you already, is gasoline station. I believe that would include car washing, automobile washing, body and painting, barbecue stands, amusement facilities, contractors office, dancing halls. Next slide please. A long list of really problematic upsetting impacting and pieces that
Next slide, please.
We hired uh Patricia Artiz. Um, that report is in your files. We submitted that early, along with her resume. We had her look at this request. She is an AI C P planner, and she made some conclusions for us, which we want you to know. Number one is that the zoning designation, the log disturbless, long-established residential neighborhood character, make these subdivisions unique. These class recreated in the early 1970s while most of the running development occurred in the late nineteen nineties, early two thousand. Next slide please.
Looking at transitional land uses, she knows the commercial land use and zoning reclassification proposed does not provide a transition of use between the existing and well-established residential neighborhood. Mr. Chairman, I've been to the site. This hydrological condition is
a three or four foot wide little creek. Uh as I served on Swift Mont for eight years, one year as chairman, I would hardly call this any kind of substantial hydrolog feature. And quite frankly, it provides more
It does not provide a buffer for noise, light, or impacts of any kind. And for the staff to use that as a buffering element, we think is wrong in all respects. Our planner also tells you Residencial compatibility of buffer standards between residential and non-residential uses shall protect these uses but we just found out today that we will not even have input for any kind of review or consideration for the buffering for any kind of CT use. Next slide please.
Uh our planner, private planner, also notes the commercial zoning is proposed be located in turtle to the neighborhood, which I told you. Allowing this zoning will set a precedent for future commercialization of properties with frontage lawn fifty-four and within the Meadowbrook Estates neighborhood. Next time.
We also reached out to a real estate expert, which is also in your file.
That is Mr. Rene Carpina of Florida's first choice realty. He is a broker and founder of the company. He has determined that the approved applications will be a negative impact on surrounding residential value property values and will be much more impacting on those in the immediate area. Next slide, please.
He indicates there is no question in his mind that home values will be negatively affected and some seriously negative impact. By incompatibility, impacts, and inconsistency, and the loss of residential and suburban harmony. Next slide, please.
Planners private conclusions that is not consistent, it is in conflict with policies, and is it is incompatible with the surrounding residential designations. Next slide, please.
And also notes that this change has potential to be inconsistent, incompatible with the neighboring residential designated land uses as well. And would create would result in the creation of an isolated district. I think that's pretty clear from the land use maps and the zoning maps. Next slide, please.
Uh next slide please. Oh I'm sorry.
This is important. Neighborhood commercial uses under this policy shall be located collector arterial with preference given the locations at intersections. The subject property is not located at uh intersection and is proposed to be located internal to the neighborhood. Next slide please And next slide after that. So Mr. Chairman, next slide, please. There you go. Mr. Chairman, these are the closely located, abutting, and near adjacent owners. These are all owners who are opposed and are on petitions that have been submitted
to the county. Beyond that, we have submitted almost 140 petition signatures of residents in the immediate area who are absolutely, positively. against this application. And I have more to submit in the record today, which will take it to one hundred and forty. Next slide please.
So in summary The future land use categories and zoning categories are all residential in the immediate area. There have been repeated and much lesser land use applications that have passed that have been further denied by this board. There will clearly be significant and tremendous impacts in the residential subdivision under a wide-ranging C2 uses. We've got comprehensive policies and planners, private planners, conclusions of incompatibil incompatibility and inconsistency, and
there's tremendous neighborhood opposition. And I like to mention Mr. Chairman, board members, it was very, very difficult. Where's it? Is all with hearing today? to be on virtually or to be out here today. There was confusion where people were to go and how to sign up. But luckily we were able to get that writing for you. We appreciate your uh allowance took a little bit longer on this request and we're happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Uh so before you step away, are there any questions from Madeus? Or or anybody on uh On the web.
Mr. Pressman, I have one question. I I think in your presentation you made a comment or there was a point made in your presentation that said This property is not located at the intersection of a collector and an arterial?
I I think that was an air. That was an error, sir. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah.
Okay. Anybody else? Roberto, anything from you?
No, sir. No. All right. We have any who's next to speak. Thank you very much.
State your name and address for the record.
My name is Nadine Ferguson. I'm at 17550. Oh, sorry.
My
earrings caught.
So sorry. My name's Nadine Ferguson. I'm at [address removed]. I'm gonna just speak to you since Mr. Pressman covered, I think, all the legal reasons is completely wrong. I will speak as a resident and the impact to my life. Um, I don't think you all can understand by looking at the aerial shots and the pictures how very small Meadowbrook Drive is. It represents the only in and out for many of us into that neighborhood. And I will say that this board before when we came before them
looking for help. With flooding issues, with traffic issues, It's not a county maintained road. We did privately pay that. I've paid for that. So I do not know how then we can call this a public road all of a sudden when businesses want to access it. The buyers of those properties, I welcome them to our neighborhood, but if you bought that as is, it was bought as agricultural, it's still agricultural. You should not have expected to be able to drop this in essentially what is my driveway. And I will say this again,
gentlemen, that road is about the size of a large driveway. I wish you could really see it. The buffer that they're talking about, the stream, I have hopped over it. It's that small. It is not a stream, it's not a big buffer. It is a small little dribble of water that goes across the street that occasionally floods our area. I want to just say, imagine if I drop this in your driveway, even if it's to the side, imagine the traffic that's going to block up your single lane access in and
out of your house. because that's what you'd be doing to me. So I ask you to please represent my community in this sense and do not approve these changes.
Okay, thank you. Uh before you step away, any questions? Any questions? Mr. Chairman
I have a question for staff, Mr. Chairman
Mariano. I'm sorry, I should have asked you when you stepped up there, have you been sworn?
Yes, sir.
Okay, thank you. What was it, David?
Um on the issue of the maintenance of that roadway, um the agenda memo says that it's a county maintained residential road. I just want to make sure that I'm asking staff whether that's With whether that's accurate given the representation that was just made. I'm asking staff the question, not not to speak
Could the staff respond to that, please?
Hello, this is Stacy Burgess. From my understanding, it is a maintained. I'm looking at Pasco Mapper right now and it's saying that it's a road maintained by Pasco County.
All right. Well we have a conflict of information here. Um State. So are we sure that that's a county maintained road or is are we just right now we're supposing or we're sure?
Well I'm wondering if it's just if it's maintained only for a certain distance and maybe that's the source of the confusion. Do we know? I guess I'll ask Stacy. How do we maintain the roadway?
Chris, did you gonna say something?
Yeah, I just I believe that the answer to that question will have to come from project management. So it and they're not on the line. So that's something that we'll have to research and have ready before the board. I I don't think beyond what we can see on on Map, we can know exactly at what point. the county stops maintaining it and and David's probably correct that that's the case.
So that that's a that's a that's a pretty central uh
presentation. I can address that in my presentation.
Barbara, okay. All right. So let's go let's continue to move like we've been moving and then Barbara, that'll be one of the points you'll need to address, okay?
We have to do that.
Hello, my name is Sharon Honeywell Johnson. I've been a resident of Middlebrook Estates for thirty years. Um
have you been sworn?
Yes, sir.
Okay, thank you very much. And your address was again, I didn't hear the address.
My address is [address removed]. They've been a resident of Metal Brook for thirty years. We have fought kitty daycare like the prior speaker back in 2011. I want everybody to realize that this is not going to be a daycare center. I do know what the intention of this property is going to be, which is a gas station car wash. The exit for this development is going to be on Metal Brook Drive. And nobody I think has addressed that to the board.
The entrance will be off of State Road 54, but you will have an additional entrance and exit off of State Road off of Metal Brook Drive. It is a single lane in, a single lane out. We have traffic backups now. We cannot even imagine allowing commercial use coming into there with the exit coming onto our little residential road. We for the most part maintain that road. The county maintains the first I think fifteen feet or you were when you first come in, but after that we have called
and complained about flooding, but they say it's not their their job to maintain our our neighborhood.
And the I know that the notice that is posted currently they never changed the date out there. You have James that lives directly behind this parcel that drove all the way out to Land Lakes Boulevard because it still has the February eighteenth date on it. We were all notified of the change of the date. But they never sent out a letter to this gentleman. He never received a letter and he is adjacent to this property, which I thought was the requirement for the petitioner to also do, which has not been done. We believe our neighborhood
has been fighting. Let's continue. Keep this residential. We cannot have any more traffic coming in and out at this intersection. We will not be able to get out.
Thank you very much. Uh next.
That is all at the kiosk, sir.
Okay, that's everyone? Okay.
All right, Barbara, I guess you're up. There may be people online, sir. There
are speakers, yes. There are speakers online.
All right. Who's first online?
Um, I do see for this item, I do see Wanda Neal.
Yeah. Wanda Neal, is that what you said?
Yes.
Okay. So we'll need her to be sworn, if not already.
Yes.
So, Ms. Neal, if you can hear us, would you please state your name and address for the record and the clerk will swear you in?
I'm not hearing anything.
Okay, I see uh uh Ms. Stempion uh being on there as well. So Ms. Stempion, would you please state your name and address for the record and the clerk will swear you in?
My name is Jessica Stempion. I live at [address removed], and I have been sworn in. Uh good afternoon, commissioners. I want to make the point of flow through traffic for this item. Our neighborhood connects to Loot Slake Bern. concerned about the amount of traffic that will be cutting through to avoid traffic on Highway
54 or going in the opposite direction, trying to get to a new gas station or whatever other commercial use there might be there. Our Maryland has no sidewalks, no bike lanes, and that is a concern for safety to me. I am also a part of the Sierra Pines Coalition in our neighborhood where we have been working on flooding issues. Fine. canal,
it's the Sandy Branch tributary canal and I am concerned about the flooding impact from whatever gets developed on that property. I just wanted to make a point and point out to you all that Cut through our neighborhood. People do it all the time. You know, we are just two miles east of the south coast.
And then the Sun Coast light. And then there's a balantray light when you go further east on Highway fifty four. And I don't know if you're familiar with the traffic conditions of Highway Fifty Four along that stretch. I just believe that changing it to commercial use is going to further add to that traffic. We have buses coming in and out of our neighborhood. And like another speaker said that Meadowrook
is very small.
is going to lead to some safety concerns that need to be considered. And if we were to keep it residential, it would fit more with what our current conditions are. So I just wanted to make that point and thank you for your time.
All right. Thank you very much.
Okay, now we'll try Wanda Neal again. Ms. Neal, if you would please state your name for the record and your address and whether you've been sworn.
Okay, so we'll try then uh Jennifer Robertson, Ms. Robertson, if you would please state your name and address for the record and whether you've been sworn.
I've been sworn my name is Jennifer Robertson. [address removed].
Um, I do wanna state that uh no one has mentioned the delivery trucks that would come and go from a commercial property. No one has really given a good example of how wide Metabrook is. Metabrook where the in and out would probably end up for that property. It is so narrow that if a car comes from a side street You
have to stop and wait for a an oncoming car so that you can make a turn because it's not wide enough for two cars. It would It is um maintained by the residents. It's news to anyone that lives there that our that when we have to pay for our our uh Road to be paved? Um, I don't understand where the county thinks that they're paying for it because it comes out of our pocket.
Um The there's just no room for commercial property on that intersection. I do not I do not believe that that is a collectorode. I think of a collector road as the neighbor the neighborhood, the residential properties come off of a side and then collect like um Ballantre or Bexley. Uh these residential houses lie exactly
and directly on that property. I am one of the ones that have contacted um James Collins about the meeting. Um, but he didn't get all of the information since I've been out of town. That the meeting had gotten moved. Um It it seems to be we're having to chase this meeting, which seems quite unfair to us. They're not changing their notifications. They're not
notifying the residents, uh, eva even directly um adjacent to the property. They're not putting the sign that's posted that's supposed to be posted. I took a picture of it just yesterday. It still says February date. So I don't see how You can continue um and agree that this this hearing this um meeting has been um publicized
Yeah, oh.
And h I don't understand how you can put a commercial right in our next door lot.
All right. Thank you very much. And did we have one more person that wanted to speak?
Mr. Chair, let's try one more time for Ms. Wanda Neal. Uh let's see if um I I I still see her on, but it doesn't show as if she has a a way of speaking. It doesn't show a microphone or anything like that. Um, so Ms. Juan Daniel, if you're there, would you please state your name and address for the record and whether you've been sworn?
Let's try this again. We do have a call in number and we've just unmuted that person, just in case it's Ms. Neil. Ms. Neil, would you please state your name and address for the record and whether you've been sworn?
Hello, can you hear me?
So those
can hear Neil. Can you hear me? Yay! I'm so excited. Sorry. Hi, my name is Wanda Neal. I am a resident of Sierra Plains. I live at [address removed]. Um, I have been resident for seven years and um I I just like to state a couple of things. One, since my time here as a resident, I was not aware of the age of the subdivision. I didn't look into that when we purchased and I was not aware of all the flooding issues that we have been battling apparently long before I started. Um it's interesting that um
before
you
continue just want to make sure you've been sworn.
Oh yes, I've been sworn, I'm sorry.
Okay, that's fine. Go right ahead.
Sure. Um there have been numerous attempts and and as Jessica stated, Jessica Sempion stated, there has been a coalition that has been formed to try to help alleviate a lot of these issues, which she has been a big part of. And I thank you for those of you who have participated in helping us alleviate these issues. But as an older subdivision, we are not privy to a lot of the privileges that a lot of the newer subdivisions have, and therefore any time that they There is a new subdivision, they dewater. When they dewater, that water comes into us and it leads to more of our flooding
problems. Um, I've done some research about potential um uses. For example, if that were a gas station, there has been a study by John Hopkins University that shows that even the little drift. Um that people, you know, when you go to shake off the gas from your when you're pumping gas, those little drips seep into the concrete and that and those little drips c accumulate and in a ten year period of time, a huge amount of that water or of that of those gasoline Go into the groundwater system, um, including Ben
Benzopene. I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm saying it correctly, but it is a carcinogen. Carcinogen, excuse me. Since we are all um responsible for our own potable water, our drinking water, our you know, usable water, the water that our pests and our animals drink, that goes into our well systems, which trust me is a pain in the butt to con to maintain. pain anyway if you're not a scientist. Secondly, um I heard mention about the roadways and as the other speakers have stated, um it is a very narrow roadway. In fact many times
when they opened up um construction behind um Yeah, no, no, no. um the area north of us, I'm sorry, it would be to the east of us, um, where the little restaurants are, there have been trucks that have made a wrong turn and come into our subdivision and have had a very difficult time finding a way to turn around because there are narrow and small roads. Third, um, there are no other exits onto 54 for our entire subdivision, which is a pretty big subdivision. We only have that one exit. It's a a single,
you know, two-lane road, like right and left. Um, and there and it just recently was expanded to include the traffic light and a turning lane at the traffic light at 54. The other exit to our property is actually at the back of the property, and I think Jeff Jessica mentioned that. That is on Hillsborough County Road. It's a Hillsborough County property um zoning area. So They get no Pasco County taxes and so therefore they do not maintain that road whatsoever. That people come in off and dump and it's our residents that
are cleaning up that road. They do not maintain their spotholes and all sorts of things. The only reason that they are allowing us to maintain that or keep that road open is because we have um agreed to maintain it because it is the only exit way out of our subdivision. So God forbid there's a flaw. or a an emergency or a fire or the roads are blocked, we have no other alternative unless we try to fly away. So those are three main reasons I would love
Okay, that beep was that the time. That was the time. Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Anyone else, Denise?
Mr. Chair, that was the the last speaker that we had on our list that is actually on WebEx at the moment.
Okay.
You've heard from all the kiosk um Folks.
Okay, so we can hear from the applicant now.
Yeah.
Mr. Chairman M
Yes.
Before the applicant speaks, can we get her to confirm she wants still wants to proceed with rebuttal given the audio issues we're having with WebEx? I just want to make sure. Did she heard all the opposition?
Yes, I did and I'd like to proceed.
Good. Okay. Thank you, David.
Can you uh put our PowerPoint up? Yes I will. Just give me a second.
Thank you.
As Denise was putting that up, there's some I can address um comments. um questions that are I don't necessarily have a slide for, so I can start with that. We did follow all the county's notice requirements. The notices that are sent out were sent out as required by the county. The notices specifically state the times meeting dates contain. And so the responsibility is to contact the county or myself, because I signed the letters with my phone
number and email on them. Or you can obviously they can check the website and see that's been continued as well. We as far as um flooding goes. We would be happy to meet with the residents. Um the counties and our engineer and the residents. Um design has not started on this parcels. This would make it a perfect time to share information. So uh we would all kind of do that, done that in the past successfully um It's just focused
on flooding. And concerned about flooding, it can be productive. As far as the transportation issue. State um Meadowbrook Drive from State Road fifty four to Rainbow Lane, which is south of these parcels, is accounting maintained sixty feet of right away. I think the confusion that you hear is Because just because it's a county maintained road doesn't mean that that the residents don't get assessed a test for
improving it. So maybe they were assessed before for paving uh paving improvements. I think that's all over the news right now that are called banking. about that procedure. So I think that gets confusion when when when residents are pay paying assessment. Okay, it happens on kind of maintain roads, but all the records, I don't think there's any confusion, the records are just kind of maintained. We went through a substandard road review um in connection with this application. And staff looked at and
determined that the segments that our project would use of Meadowbrook is standard. And as it's been pointed out to you, the that intersection is signalized. There's a left turn lane, a dedicated left turn lane, as well as a right turn lane coming from Meadowbrook going north to State Route 54. We also want to finally a phasing review in connection with this application, which deals with the capacity of these roads and intersections
to handle the project traffic. And at the time of act at the time of site plan construction plan review, we have to go through the third review, which is the geometry of proactive management. So we will be going through that review.
Thank you, Daniel. Next slide.
So as you've heard, I'm just going to summarize a few things and just point out a few things um to give perspective. As you've heard from staff who did a very thorough job of giving you two very thorough reports. Um and I I put this presentation together not to duplicate, but just to try to bring some perspective to a few things. We're located in the South Market area, urban concentration area. this property fronts on State Road fifty four, a six lane arterial highway. It's located at a signalized intersection, approximately three quarters of a mile east of the Suncloth
Parkway. There are no other commercial uses at this signalize intersection. This is clearly an underutilization of the counties and FDOT's investments in infrastructure at this location. This is a six-lane arterial roadway, signalized intersection, and an intersection with a collector road, which has not been disputed now. I guess it's been admitted to. Staff's been very clear that the status of the roads. Um I think the neighbors clear that they're object to any use but residential.
This is absolutely not the place for residential use. I also want to point out think thinking about it, that if you do not place commercial uses at signalized intersections, then you put pressure on unsignalized intersections to become signalized. So totally uh a waste of a signalized intersection if you're not locating your not your commercial uses at that location. The property is currently zoned AR1. Oh, I got a
typo there, excuse me. An AR1, you can read what the description of that is. The important part of that is it talks about curtailing urban development in areas which lack facilities until such time as those facilities are available. So Even the very zoning district that's on this property, that's been sitting on this property, recognizes. that there's a a change in circumstances when infrastructure is invested in by the government. Water and sewer is
is right at this location and as I've explained, you know, what type of roadway we're talking about and what kind of intersection we're talking about. Conditions of change in all facilities. our at this location. And so I just you have multiple uh rezoning considerations. They're not criteria, they're considerations, but I put a couple of them there. Um as to what you would consider uh four and thirteen relative to Um Those considerations. Next slide.
What's kind of unique about this Comprehensive Plan amendment that I don't get to come before you and say very often is that there's a clear policy direction from the board adopted into the Comprehensive Plan that specifically directs where they want commercial land uses. This application strictly complies with that direction. The board weighs out the policy decisions of what should go where and prioritizing land uses. And they specifically said
this is a location when you meet this criteria that this would be a location where we want to see commercial. Not only want to see it, you're only can do commercial in these locations. So it's a it's a very interesting.
That has lots of specificity to it. There's three criteria. Staff have gone through it with you, the A, B, and C, and we meet all three of those criteria and it has not been disputed, that policy 1.6.2 has not been dis was not disputed in Mr. Pressman's presentation. Um Uh there is policy one point six point four that has been cited. I know Mr. Pitos is on the line and he certainly can explain uh we're complying with
one point six point two. Um we do not have to comply with 1.6.4 because we're complying with 1.6.2.
The subject property is the location for C two uses. And that I've I've did the re rezoning considerations that uh relate to that. C2 is clearly consistent with COM land use. I think I've said this to the Planning Commission before. When you look at consistency, COM C2. You know, they go together. You know, you could if you have a residential land use and you're doing certain things zoning wise, sometimes it's a question, but here C two is absolutely consistent with the comm land use. And quite frankly, maintaining an existing zoning of agricultural residential In
this location is is absolutely inconsistent with the comp plan. And that's why you have rezoning actions and that's why you have comp plan changes, because things change.
Next slide.
This complies as staff has told you with the with uh the transitional land uses. They've gone through that very clearly with you. With regard to the residential compatibility and buffer standards, I've I've I've um Listed all the LDC requirements, buffering, building height, lighting, on-site parking, stacking, loading outside of ref loading outside, loading, outside refuse storage, trees, landscaping, those all apply. And this isn't the first time we have ever had a commercial use next
to a residential use. They coexist often. And so the the code has already been written to address these concerns. With regard to the additional buffering discussion, I would be happy to work with staff and and And neighbors, the neighbor and uh to our South to add a deed restriction. to talk about what we can put within our buffer. You know. And we can have that conversation and added these restrictions. It's absolutely Um Absolutely
fine to do and reasonable. Next um Five.
This is a a quote from our um real estate experts. And what's if you compare it to the expert that Mr. Pressman presented to you Those are all conclusory statements that were made. But I actually want to read to you what this expert put forth because I think the facts that he puts forth here. put a lot of perspective on this location. So this is this is the expert, the real estate expert for the applicant. With regards to the value of the adjacent properties,
The three properties are located because we have three adjacent properties. The three properties are located located approximately zero feet, 180 feet, and 370 feet from a six-lane Arterial Highway and are next to vacant unmaintained parcels. As such is our professional opinion that the development of the subject property for C two uses would not result in lower property values. As for non-adjacent properties in the general vicinity, it is common for commercial uses to
be located at a signalized entrance to a neighborhood and is our professional opinion that the residential and commercial uses can coexist without creating a negative impact on their respective values.
With that, I think I I've responded to the different things that were raised. If I didn't address something, I'd be happy to. Um But we would ask that the um Planning commission sitting at the LPA. um make a recommendation that the comp plan amendment is consistent with the comp plan and then I think it's a separate motion required to make a recommendation um for the rezoning.
Specific use of the future for the property is gonna be
One minute.
Sorry.
Okay. Barbara, can you hear me?
Something ask me now.
Okay. There was uh discussion by the by some of the residents that the specific to the future use of the the property being a gas station. Is there any plan for future use that that that you could share with us?
So that isn't um a permitted use in C two, which has found been found to be consistent by your staff. So that is a that is a potential use.
Do you have any uh are there any plans for your that your your applicant is is considering there? Is is gas possible use there?
It is possible. It is a possible use of the location. There are no when you you p you all have to think about this in your mind. When you're driving east on State Land fifty four and you pass Sunclift Parkway. You're going east on your right-hand side. You're driving along, you're driving along, you're driving along. You have to go all the way to Collier Parkway for there to gap. So this is It should be a location where you would have a convenience store with gas pumps.
Well I have a question, Peter Hansel.
Is there a the there is a there is a large, there is a significant jump between the agricultural current zoning for that area to a C2. And I think it's common knowledge that when you go to a C2, you open a a large variety of facilities that can go in there. And perhaps that's what the residents are concerned about, going to a C2. Is there a possibility that it could go to a C1, which reduces the number of commercial construction businesses
that go into that facility and may reduce the anxiety of residents there?
So my answer to that would be that they opposed daycare. And they clearly said to you today that they want it to remain a residential use. My other thing my other my other comment to that is that this is not a place to underutilize property. This is not a location to underutilize property.
I concur with your your logic and the fact that it's a f four way intersection and that it that it eventually will lead to some type of business going in there. That's a given because of the commercial uh Businesses like those faraway intersections like that. You brought that up. That's a extremely good point. But they also, I hear the residents have a concern on what can go in there. And that's why my concern is the C2. zoning for that area.
So I just that's how I feel about it.
So I guess the question uh anybody else have any questions?
Obviously this is a When it comes down to land use, it's always a a difficult use and and land use and zoning. Um I mean a lot of the points that were made today were Dwelled on the fact it is the intersection, it's a signalized intersection of an arterial and a collector roadway. Mm. I mean, from a planning perspective, I think it makes perfect sense. Um, a lot of the issues that were raised today for traffic, for stormwater. For pollution. All those items will be hashed
out during the design process, and that's important for everybody to know. Um, I mean, the stormwater concerns, the flooding concerns. When I look at it it's GIS for the known flooding problems, they're quite a bit south. Yes, they're within the neighborhood, but they're south of this intersection. And there are regulations out there and there there are things that the developers have to follow whenever they want to develop a piece of property. Um as far as, you know, design standards they have to meet. Um I guess the the only question that I have and and maybe this is for staff, but
when this use does come in As far as the landscape buffering Is the landscape buffering on the south of the property? What what standard would that fall under? I mean, I know there's an adjacent waterway to the south. So therefore are they buffering the waterway or are they buffering the residential use that's on the other side of the waterway?
Mr Chairman M this is uh Brad Tippen Development Review Manager. I can speak to that. Uh thanks, uh Commissioner. Uh Essentially. What will happen is is until we actually know the use that's going to be there and we actually see a design layout that essentially will show us uh where structures may be on the site, where parking might be on the site, playgrounds if it's a daycare type of facility, other things
where those things are actually on the site, and where stormwater is proposed on the site, things of that nature. We would look at all of those items when we're when we're considering a buffer. And there's a basic buffer between uh and the Land Development Code between a commercial and a residential area. So they they're that the comprehensive plan requires that this actually have an increased buffer. So
what we would do is we take that basic buffer that's required between commercial and residential, and that is going to be there. Uh that's gonna be there all the way around the site, uh wherever the commercial abuts residential. Then we're going to look at what is actually physically on the design, what is where, and we're going to at that point say, okay, with this piece, to properly buffer, you're going to need to do these types of improvements. And we're going to have a kind of a unique plan
that will buffer the pieces that need to be more heavily buffered to make sure that those residential areas are at adequately buffered. Now we do that again based on this. This is a rezoning. So based on this zoning, we would do that same process for any use that were to come in here. Additionally, in that regard, the access management, I heard that was mentioned a few times with the road and people being able to get to and from the subdivision and traffic
and things of that nature. No matter what use comes into this site, the access management would need to be addressed at the time of those site plan reviews. If something is going to put more traffic onto these roads, then they may need to improve those intersections and make some improvements in that area to ensure that all of that can be done safely. So all of those issues are actually addressed at the time of site plan review
for any type of use that would come in under this zoning. And if for some reason a use comes in that can't meet the standards that we set for them in that regard, then essentially that use isn't going to be able to be there unless they put in some additional deed restrictions or something to limit their impacts or come back to this body for some form of rezoning to be able to work through those.
Mr. Taylor, can I ask Mr. Trippett a question?
Sure, of course.
Um, Brad, could you address the public notices provided at the time of site plan approval and Yeah. Is it closing to weigh in on the site plan conditions or landscaping or Got the Thomas St. Plan approval.
Yes, at the time of uh site plan review, uh there is a another notice that is required to the surrounding area based on code requirements. Uh and the individuals that would receive that notice would have uh a minimum of 30 days to contact the county and and make arrangements to look at the plans and see what's being uh being provided for and then they can also provide feedback at that time. Uh that
is one of the the opportunities that that still exists. I believe that uh Ms. Wilhite did say uh that she was going to or was willing to possibly meet with the neighbors ahead of that time, possibly even before a site plan would be submitted at all. To come up with some plans as to how to buffer those areas and some deed restrictions as to what could go in those areas. So some of those things may be addressed
with some of the residents ahead of time, even before it's submitted to the county for review. But even after it's submitted to the county, 30 days, a minimum of 30 days prior to any approval that we would offer. will be additional notice that would go out uh to those that are certainly abutting the property within a particular distance uh to to be able to see that information.
So
Brad if you If a resident thought that staff's buffering was inconsistent with the comp plan Um could that be appealed to the Planning Commission?
Absolutely. The first step that we would do is the resident may make comments to us during that review process after they receive notice, and we can forward those comments to the applicant. If the applicant is willing to address and look at some of the uh some of those concerns and maybe make some changes, uh that is certainly uh uh the applicant's prerogative. They they can do that. Applicant does not want to do that and everything else is within the requirements
that we're expecting of them, then yes, once we issue the approval, anyone can appeal the decision if they believe that we applied either a comprehensive plan policy or a land development code element incorrectly.
That answers all my questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, David. And uh Um thank you, Brad. Um Anybody else have
any
questions?
I I've got one more comment that I think it's important to 'cause I mean we heard I think from uh at least Ms. Robertson and and Miss Neal, I believe, about the seems to be uh conflict between maintenance of the the road, the county or or public. They clearly seem to think that they're they're paying for maintenance of the road, so That's something that should be reconciled before it it goes beyond us.
Yeah.
Mr. Chairman, this uh can I speak?
Yes,
please. This is Emir Jamali, transportation planner with Planning and Development Department. I just want to confirm Middlebrook Drive is a county maintained road from SR-54 to half mile south of SR-54.
And this is a 24 foot wide rod and the piece advantage of the subject parcel has been recently resurfaced and it is in a good shape.
Okay, so how far do you maintain it from fifty four? Half mile,
half mile.
I have a mile, okay.
Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that information. Proper. And that clears that up. So otherwise it's a county maintained road for half a mile.
All right, that's my understanding. Is that right, Res? Thank you very much, Amir. Um
Yeah, my I mean my input is basically that um Yeah, in trying to I've tried to always put myself in the r position of the Both property owners, the residents and the person that wants to develop the property. It's always a balance of Of a property rights and uh I'm a strong proponent of property rights. But I do think that uh we need to provide some kind of protection from For the residents. that live in that area. They're
very, very close to this property and uh And I certainly wouldn't want Um people walking back and forth from a seven eleven, for example, to Yeah, to my home. walk across my property or I know how that how that gets. I um deal with that all the time. So um Yeah. I would like to make sure that that if it's voted to be approved. That's right. Uh we We
agree right here and now today that That the buffer uh conversation is gonna come back before uh this board before any f any final approval. Otherwise. I wouldn't vote to approve it unless there was at least a solid wall. between this property and the residential property. So that's my that's my opinion. Just sharing it with the board.
Mr. Chairman
Mariano. Well.
Yes, Mr. Chairman Mariano. Mariano,
yes, hey
Terry. This is Terry Pizzo's planning and development. Um to bring the buffer yards back to the planning commission. W uh before any final approval could take Um very long time.
It's usually handled during the site plan review process as Brad had previously indicated. which follows the land use establishment in uh living establishment as well. Okay.
Terry, I misunderstood. Then I thought Brad said that uh um if there's any disagreement between the property owners and the applicant that it would come back to the board for for consideration.
During the site plan review process, there is the opportunity to appeal. And bring the actual site plan to the planning commission. At that point. Okay. All right.
Okay.
Uh and c let me ask the applicant, d would the applicant have any objection to uh putting up a solid petition between uh this subject property and the residential properties. That you know of?
The B buffer, that's the minimum buffer, requires a um Six foot. Yeah, as I I'm trying to pull up the Yeah, requirements. Yeah again, I if if if we need to to sit down before now on the board and come up with a need restriction and go through this with staff, we can make it a minimum. Um and we can have the conversation again. Uh we we absolutely agree with you, with Chairman. I just a little hard to do it on the fly. But um absolutely agree with you that
approach buffering's important and the land the comp plan agrees with me that buffering's important. So we'd be happy to do that.
Okay. Um All right, yeah, my you know my my vote would be not to approve it unless I know there's gonna be some kind of a solid buffer between the The property answer. Let me see
if I can let me see if I can get an answer here.
So
I understand I understand, Barbara. Yeah, take take your time.
Uh Mr. Chairman, this is Brad Tippen. I I can maybe speak a little bit further to that if you like. Hey
Brad. Yeah, go right ahead.
Uh yeah, the the type B buffer that would be required, uh it requires a six-foot-tall opaque visual screen uh at a minimum. And like I said before, uh the Mm the comprehensive plan, because this is a commercial use in this area, very specifically says that. go above and beyond that standard. Uh so it would be perfectly reasonable for us to at the time of site plan uh review to request that this be a uh a
wall and also that it be anywhere uh from six to eight feet, depending on on what would be visually appropriate uh in the area. Uh again, until we actually have the plan in front of us, it's difficult to tell where some of those things would be. necessary um because uh a wall is often unsightly as well. Uh so you know there there may be a place where where certain types of combinations of landscaping are more appropriate and there may be places where
other features such as walls would be appropriate. But until we actually have that design down the road, uh we can't necessarily say what that would be and what would be appropriate where. So that's that's why we like to go ahead and do that. And then we can allow the appeal process to proceed after the fact, uh, if indeed the neighbors disagree with the way that we applied that.
Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm doing one I'm doing one right now where where we're requiring a green wall. Basically it's a wall with a W you know, that with growth on it. So it it's always green. But uh Barbara, did you say something?
Yeah, I can add to that. You know, I w in looking at the type B The type B requires screening to six feet at installation or within one year. But it allows you a variety of ways to do it. And I think this is what you're getting at, Chairman. It allows you to have a pig fence, wall, berm, or hedge. Some combination of those. So it sounds like what what you're asking is supposed to be to do the opaque fence or the wall so that we actually have a barrier and not just a landscape or
barrier that somebody could go through. And so again, I we can do a deed restriction that says, you know, we do a fence Or a wall. Again, we can kinda work on that exactly which one is best and not be on the fly. But I guess I get the point which is that you want to see something more than landscaping there and we're agreeable to that.
Yeah, because I I know how that happens with people hanging around a a convenience store. you know, walking across people's yards and it's just not It's not appropriate, so I I think we have an obligation to protect The residents there was and still give the landowner an opportunity to develop his land properly. Obviously he's not going to build a house there. Yeah, it's not appropriate for that either. So Um is a as I say, it's a balancing act and I think it's our responsibility to make
sure that we try to balance the interests of all parties. So Uh Mr. Chair Correct.
Text a question. So
sorry, David. Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah. Um so what you're asking for would require a deed restriction, as Barbara mentioned. Are you comfortable with staff working on that deed restriction with the applicant between now and the board meeting, or did you want to see the deed restriction? Before you vote on it. That's really the question.
Is that a question to me or to Barbara?
Well to you and the planning commission because What you're doing because if you want to see the derestriction first, you'd have to continue the item. If you're comfortable with staff and the applicant working on it between now and the board. That's it. Just let it proceed.
Um, I'm comfortable with the staff uh working on it, but if the residents, you know, have a have a strong opinion or don't agree, then I wanna make sure we have an opportunity to Take another bite of the apple.
Otherwise. I'd like to see what it is before it's Work goes to the commission.
Well I think If they're not happy with that, I mean I guess it's possible the board could remand it back to the Planning Commission. Um If there's a disagreement over the D restriction, but Control. Planning commission as to how you want to handle this. If if
You can either d continue it until you see that deed restriction or you can let it move forward. Student and staff will work out that issue with the applicant.
Okay. Um well let me see what kind of emotion that we can get from the from the board here.
Well one one question before that, Mr. Chair, if I if I could. So David, that continues to be under the zoning amendment, correct? So we could let the uh the comprehensive plan amendment go forward and continue the zoning amendment. Is that what you're suggesting?
Well, I'm not suggesting anything. You could let them both go forward. I'm just but yes, to answer your question You you the deed restriction would not be Part of the complaint amendment. It would be part of the zoning. So yes, you could let the Com Plan amendment move forward. And and hold back and continue the rezoning if you wanted to.
Okay, I can make a motion. Sure. Okay. I'd make a motion to approve the uh the comprehensive plan amendment as presented.
Do we have a second?
Amy Gerardy, I'll second that.
Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion?
Well my only concern is I hear the words. Request Nothing compels The developer. to do any action really, 'cause request is not an action word for the most part. Once we approve this. To a C two.
Well to be clear, he he he did not make a motion on on the rezoning yet. He only made a motion
amendment. This is not the rezoning. Well that's the next thing we gotta deal with. Okay. So if there's no further discussion, Let's vote by roll call. All in favor signify by saying aye. Nay, in opposition.
Jamie Giordi. Aye. Peter Hansel?
No.
Roberto size.
Hi.
Christopher Poole.
Hi.
Chris Williams? And Chairman Charles Gray.
Okay now um
About the uh Um the actual rezoning itself. Uh we need a motion to either continue or Um Or approve that motion. Did I understand it? Is that right, David?
Yes, you would either continue it or move for approval. Or denial, one of those three.
Or deny him.
Okay. I hear a motion.
I'll make the motion to continue. Yeah.
Okay, we have a motion to continue. You have a second. I second. We have a second. Any further discussion of the motion?
And just for clarification that the request is for The applicant to come back with a deed restriction for the buffering requirements. On the property? Is that right?
That David, that's that's right, correct?
Well, uh yes, if that's the Planning Commission's direction to the applicant, then you're continuing it so that you can see that eat restriction. Then yes, that that would be the reason for the continuance. You do need to state how long you want to continue it though. Is this thirty days or to win?
So if I could jump in as the applicant, we are agreeable to a continuance. It looks like your next planning commission is March twenty fifth, which is three weeks from now. Um so that's plenty of time for us to diligently work on a deed restriction. And if for some reason we still weren't there, you could continue it again. Um but we asked for Tuesday twenty fifth.
Sounds good. Bay.
The only thing I'd like to add to that is I I think just for clarification, we're talking about the buffers on the west and the south side of the property, correct?
Yeah.
Originally I was thinking of all four sides. I just wanted to make sure the waterway at the south wasn't easy to position.
Mr. Chairman, can I uh comment briefly?
Yes, yes, sir, Brad.
I I apologize. This is Brad Tippen again. Uh in regard to developing a deed restriction, uh to really do that effectively, uh it is going to require uh some level of a knowledge of what use is going to go there again and and what the site design may be. Uh, to really have the best. uh the best use by by actually going in this direction, you may un uh unwittingly uh tie our hands
as staff into a particular type of buffering. When the final design comes in, may not be what would be best for the site. Uh we can we can certainly pursue that. I would also just like to know that uh uh however whatever timeline you're looking at as far as the continuance does allow us. To meet on this with the applicant and the neighbors as necessary. Uh, and also allows us enough time to get that documentation into the various
systems for public notice that we need to, civic folks, et cetera. We have some deadlines for uploading documents. Uh, so I don't know how quickly we can turn that around. I would say at the very earliest, it would be. uh the next hearing in Dade City uh in April. to be able to meet all the deadlines that we would need to meet, possibly longer.
There's April Four. Do you say the April first, is that yeah there's March twenty fifth or April first. They're one week apart, interestingly enough. Um, you guys have your meetings one week apart. But I would I would just say a couple of things we can do, Brad, is we can work on minimum language. We can always put the unless otherwise approved at the time of site plan in case we get it wrong. I mean, I think there's different things that we can do. I mean you can hear I want to work this out. I agree with the the comment. And and
um if it's April first as opposed to March twenty fifth, that gives you more time, let's do that.
That that would that would be preferable uh for for our team.
Okay. All right. So um I would say uh I would ask for a motion then. For somebody to mo make a motion that we continue it to the April first meeting.
I am in the motion to April first.
Okay. And the motion is amended to April first. And we s have a second. Who is the second?
Chris seconds whether it was me
or uh Roberto's
Roberto did too.
Okay. Well we got a second and a third, so we're good.
Okay. All right. So we have a motion. We have a second. Any further further discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion signified by roll call, aye or nay as as you wish.
Jamie Giardi. Peter Hansel. Roberto Sides.
Aye.
Christopher Poole.
Hi.
Chris Williams.
Aye.
And Chairman Charles Gray.
Aye.
Okay, Mr. Chair, just for clarification and for everyone who's listening, um the um continuance date is April 1st, 2021 at 130 in Dade City.
You got it. Okay, thank you.