Zoning Amendment (Consent) - Meadow Oaks MPUD Master Planned Unit Development Substantial Modification - Meadow Oaks Development, L.C, et al - Rezoning request from a R-1 Rural Density Residential District, a R-4 High Density Residential District, and A-C Agricultural District, and a MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to a MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to add acreage and allow substantial changes to the Master Plan and Conditions of Approval on approximately 63.23 acres - North West Pasco County, on the south side of Hudson Avenue approximately 1.1 miles east of Colony Road (PC: 03/25/2021, 1:30 p.m.; NPR Hybrid Virtual Meeting and BCC: 04/20/2021, 1:30 p.m.; NPR Hybrid Virtual Meeting)

1:00:26Okay, now we'll move on to item PC five.

1:00:31Okay.

1:00:34Jessica Coel with the Planning and Development Department. Item PC five is Memorandum No. PD217529 in the name of Meadow Oaks Development LC, New Life Ministries, and River Ridge Homes Incorporated for a change in zoning from R1 Rural Density Residential District, R4 High Density Residential District, AC Agricultural District, and MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to Master Plan Unit Development District. I'm sorry, Denise. I apologize. No,

1:01:04you're fine.

1:01:05So that that big box is not in the middle for

1:01:07you. You can go to the next slide, please. Thank you. This is a picture of the I'm sorry, if you could go back one. There we go, sorry. This is a picture of the current aerial. The property is located in northwest Pasco County on the south side of Hudson Avenue, approximately 1.1 miles east of Colony Road. Next slide. This is the picture of the current zoning in the area. Next slide. And this is it an image of the future land use we jumped one two soon. No, you're okay. It's just touchy.

1:01:39I'm sorry, my bug might hijack me. You're fine.

1:01:45The subject site consists of platted residential subdivisions and undeveloped lands. The subject site is both in the north and central market areas, but outside of the rural areas and outside of the urban expansion areas. This request includes addition of acreage to the existing MPUD, Also it included is the creation of Tract U for development of 65 single-family detached units. Creation of tracked U I'm sorry. Changing of the product type from track J from single family attached to single family detached, also

1:02:15decreasing those units by two in that parcel. the creation of development standards for Track U and single family detached track units on Track J. a modification to the development standards for tracked T and S, And the proposed minimum lot dimension standards. Reduced to 40 feet wide by 105 feet deep on all tracks J, S, T and U included in this proposal. Next slide. Among

1:02:45the proposed changes to the existing Meadow Oaks MPUD conditions of approval is the removal of condition number 11. That required the developer of Parcel T to provide a buffer plan that was agreed to upon with the property owner to the east of Parcel T. Should the buffer plan not be agreed upon The condition required that the item be brought back to, at the time, Development Review Committee, and be re examined for the use of the forty five foot wide lots. At the time, staff recommended

1:03:16denial, identifying the transition of the area as not equ equ adequate for the forty five foot lots, yet felt if the parcel to the east, which is zoned agricultural, could agree to a buffer plan, this would be acceptable for the transition.

1:03:36Decided that the buffer plan would be a great opportunity, however, this current application is proposing to remove that condition. I would like to mention that according to our current land development code, when tract T is developed. The tract will be required to establish a 10-foot type A landscape buffer that consists of a continuous row of evergreen shrubs and trees planted at 60 feet on center unless relief is sought at the time of preliminary plan review and approval

1:04:07by the applicant through an alternative standard request. Next slide.

1:04:13LDC Section 402.2C8 allows for the variations from this code to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the Board during public hearing on any application for an MPUD zoning amendment. This application is seeking relief from section 901.6 D11, the continuation of existing street patterns and street access to adjoining properties. This section requires streets within the proposed development be connected to adjacent areas to provide proper traffic circulation.

1:04:43The current Meadow Oaks and PUD conditions of approval, specifically number 21, allow for private streets within and connecting individual villages only if the streets are not required to provide access to abutting neighborhoods and properties. The developer intends to utilize private streets within the parcels J, T, S, and U. Currently, to the south of Parcel G U is proposed parcel U is the reserve at Meadow Oak Subdivision with private residential roads. Of those roads, Maryland

1:05:14Court and NeTee Drive, a butt And uh abut the proposed parcel U. This existing subdivision has access to Fairwinds Road, Maxflee Drive Subdivision Collector Loop. And The connecting and the connecting subdivision to put post parcel U would not benefit from the existing Connecting to the existing transportation network. There are no deficiencies in the existing transportation network that would allow

1:05:44for this connection to alleviate any vehicular trips.

1:05:51The applicant is current proposing to connect an emergency access from Parcel J to Amberwood Street. This would provide less disruption of the homes that have current access to Amberwood Street, but also provide a benefit during emergency situations. Next slide.

1:06:11The proposed request has been reviewed and is found to be consistent with the land development code and the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Next slide. And this petition comes to you with staff recommendation of approval. With the associated conditions of approval included in your packet. Thank you.

1:06:28Thank you. Are any questions for the staff?

1:06:33Mr. Chairman Mariano. Ms. Cole, I just want to confirm So the addition of these units does not exceed the original Approved number of units for meadow oaks, is that correct?

1:06:47Correct. It actually reduces the total units proposed.

1:06:49Okay.

1:06:50Minimally, but it does reduce them.

1:06:51Sure.

1:06:52Thank you. And one quick question too, on the the buffer removal for the landowner east of parcel T, wh why is the applicant proposing to remove the the buffer requirement that was approved by the DRC?

1:07:05To be honest, I I would prefer if um the applicant's representatives speak to that. But just to be clear, it's not removing a buffer requirement. It's just removing the condition that would require the applicant developing parcel T to engage with the property owner to the east of parcel T to agree to a buffer agreement. That's why I wanted to make sure that you understand according to our current code, unless relief is sought through the alternative standard process at time of preliminary. plan review, they will be required to establish the ten foot type A buffer that is noted in our code.

1:07:34Okay. Yeah, because I also know in the the agenda memo are that the the current owner is selling. So yeah, I just want to make sure that the the subsequent owner is

1:07:44I have spoken with both um I think he's actually at the kiosk to speak, um, Mr. Campbell and his potential buyer. Um actually the realtor for the potential buyer. They've been provided with the information that they have requested about this petition.

1:07:57Okay, thank you.

1:07:59Yeah, Mr. Chairman just for the record, I I do have a conflict on this item, so I will be recruusing myself from voting on this item. Right.

1:08:07Any reserving comment?

1:08:09Yes.

1:08:12Alright.

1:08:14Very good. Thank you very much for your presentation.

1:08:20So the applicant's here virtually?

1:08:22The applicant is virtually present, yes. And they do have someone on WebEx

1:08:27and

1:08:27we also have someone at the kiosk.

1:08:29Okay, so do we want to ask the applicant if they'd like to Speak first or hold their

1:08:35powder. So the applicant is Ms. Wellhite?

1:08:41Hello again,

1:08:41Commissioner. Uh Barbara Wilhide. We We would like to hear what the um The comments are and then we can respond In rebuttal.

1:08:53How can go? That's good. Then we'll go to the uh app the to the uh public there.

1:09:00Did you want to go to the kiosk first or to WebEx?

1:09:02Let's go to the kiosk first, right.

1:09:05Okay, if Mr. Campbell would please come up.

1:09:11Uh James Campbell, [address removed]. I have not been sworn in.

1:09:17Okay, let's give let's do that for Mr. Campbell.

1:09:21Sir. Sir, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is a true so help you God?

1:09:30I do.

1:09:32I'm here to speak to uh parcel T, which is to the uh uh west of my property. And uh

1:09:42The 10-foot buffer. My request is to have a PVC fence six foot tall put along the entire uh West side of my property. East of the East of uh parcel T And uh that 10-foot buffer should start at my property and then 10 feet beyond that should be the PV PVC fence. It also requests that the uh shrubbery be included in that too. Uh I have two reasons for that. First of

1:10:13all, uh Looks like they're going to reduce the lot size. And second of all, I have a letter In nineteen uh two thousand and six from the attorney representing the owners it said uh I'll read it Be that as it may, my client is prepared to install a six foot PVC opaque fence along the entire easterly boundary of the property. Uh huh. This is in the uh file of Ms. Coralyn Burns. Also, I don't want any uh trees

1:10:43cut down on my property line. And uh That's about it. Thank you very much.

1:10:55Yeah. Before he leaves.

1:10:59Mm. Can I ask one question, please? Um how many feet is his property line that he's disc that he's talking about?

1:11:16The uh M can you hear me now? Anybody hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. My question was your eastern property line that we you're referring to, how many feet is that line?

1:11:32Uh approximately thirteen hundred.

1:11:35So it's a quarter of a mile.

1:11:38Thirteen hundred. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. And uh I think we had somebody on WebEx.

1:11:49Yes

1:11:50this is uh Jeff Hobbs with um Metalogs Master Association.

1:11:55Okay.

1:11:55I have been sworn in.

1:11:57Thank you, Jeff.

1:11:58Um So so one of my concerns was the connection into Amberwood and now that it's just an emergency Connection. Object to that. Um the community's concern is with traffic, with the connection into Hudson of Maxfly. We believe that the the traffic will go up quite a bit. And we were hoping that that the county could do something along Um fair winds and backs fly to help reduce the speed

1:12:29of vehicles going through Through the community. Whether that's four way stops or or roundabouts, something like that, they could help us out. Other than that, the community is not objecting to this change.

1:12:43All right, Jeff, thank you so much. Are there any questions for the other? For Jeff.

1:12:54Okay. If not, um

1:12:58Can we hear from the applicant?

1:13:06Sure, it's a barbable height. Um Trying to reach my client. I don't know if he's on. Not sure maybe he can't answer my phone. Um So r regards to Mr. Campbell This would be we'd be happy to work with Mr. Campbell. It's a little difficult when somebody just comes to Planning Commission when when um I sent them a letter and they're aware of this, so it makes it a little bit difficult. The difficulty is that Mr. Campbell has a patio

1:13:37and a part of his driveway on my client's property. And so some of his requests is dealing with that is trying to to have us have a a wider buffer and a fence that starts off of our property line in order to accommodate his encroachments. So Mm. The code already set forth what's required to achieve compatibility um between the uses. So it isn't something that we have to try to figure out because the code already says

1:14:07what to do. That being said, I don't mind in between now and the board, you know, discussing with Mr. Campbell and see if an agreement can be reached, um But it's not just a buffer because of his encroachment. It makes it a little more complicated from a design standpoint. So Um

1:14:31you know, that uh we'd like for the the Planning Commission to recommend approval and move forward with the understanding that we will vivo Reach out to Mr. Campbell. um and try to work out what we can do Because he does have an encroachment Um which needs to be resolved because if not we're going to remove his patio and remove his driveway. And so there's a lot of opportunity to work together here. kinda surprised that he chose this forum to um

1:15:01engage in a conversation that needs you know, specific attention.

1:15:08Okay. And he re he referred uh Barbara, he referred to a letter I g I guess from the property owner saying that they would r install a six foot Opaque fence, is that correct?

1:15:21Yeah, I imagine that's a attorney. This is a old an old project, so I imagine that was somebody represented the project. Um before.

1:15:29Okay. Well in any ca i either any case I think what's required is that you reach a resolution that's satisfactory to all parties and then if not you it reverts to the county requirement. Is that correct?

1:15:46We we're asking for that to be chang changed. Well, yeah, our ten foot buffer, true. We're yes. We are asking the existing condition to be changed 'cause there's Um and that if we don't reach an agreement that it'd be the land development code. um requirement for a type A buffer. But again, I I think we can work with the neighbors directly. Uh There's no basis to for the county to require more than ten foot black parts, that's what their own code requires. Um but again w we need to deal with the fact that he's

1:16:16got an e he's got a property up for sale under contract with pretty significant encroachment onto our property and so have to deal with both of those and and really can't be done in a in a meeting like this. So

1:16:31Okay. And uh are there any questions from the dais?

1:16:34Yeah, I I would like to ask um one One question. How how long has S encroachment been? How many years do you know?

1:16:44Well yeah.

1:16:46Jamie, do you know?

1:16:47Yeah. Jamie's

1:16:48our

1:16:49project

1:16:49inform.

1:16:50Yeah. Jamie Girardi, uh ninety four hundred River Crossing Boulevard, suite one oh two. Um I have not been sworn, so I don't know if do I need to be sworn. Yeah,

1:17:02go ahead and swear in, Damien.

1:17:06Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God. I do. Thank you.

1:17:12I'm not sure if you're

1:17:12Jamie is uh just note that Jamie is speaking uh you know not as a member of this planning commission on this particular subject.

1:17:21Yeah, as far as I know the the survey that we received on the property did indicate the encroachment of the driveway and the the patio that Barbara referenced and as far as I know it was constructed when the house was built. Which Mr. Campbell could would have to testify on when that was.

1:17:37No, it's been it's a considerable period of time.

1:17:40Correct.

1:17:40Yeah.

1:17:41And I and I think Mr. K mean i if if I heard his testimony correct, I mean what he was asking for was a fence n that didn't start on the property line. I mean he was basically acknowledging that he is encroaching on the property because he mentioned that He would like to have the fence installed ten foot west of his western property line. which is about the amount that he encroaches on to the applicant's property.

1:18:05Okay.

1:18:08Okay, well I think there is a there is a mechanism to to resolve it. So uh If there's n are there any other questions?

1:18:18I'm being told that Mr. Chairman can say somet uh I'm not sure if it's allowed, but I think he can answer a question because I think

1:18:26Who is this?

1:18:26Mr. Campbell who's at the kiosk.

1:18:29well we typically don't allow two bites at the apple. Do you Does anybody know? Wanna hear a response from Mr. Campbell?

1:18:38Um the reason I asked that question, maybe our attorney David can answer it. I was the impression that if somebody encroaches on property and it's for a number of years that property therefore can be The individual's property. Is

1:18:58that

1:19:04And there's a lot of factors that go into that analysis and we don't have all the facts but Regardless, it's not really relevant to the Planning Commission's decision here. I mean you Okay. Yeah, I do make a decision at what is required for adequate buffering between the two properties, but The encroachment is really a private issue between The applicant and Mr. Campbell.

1:19:26And Mr. Chairman, I was looking at some old aerials. It it looks like it wasn't built with a house. It looks like sometime around Two thousand five maybe? I'm not sure there weren't other encroachments before then, but It looks like somewhere in that neighborhood.

1:19:45All right. Than thanks. Thank you very much, Chris.

1:19:50Mr. Chairman by the other citizen um for response from the applicant about traffic calming on Maxfly. I think that needs to be Addressed by the applicant.

1:20:03All right. Barbara would you like to speak to the traffic uh speed I g primarily the

1:20:07speed issue? I think I think he was speaking to you all. He he was speaking to you on asking the county for help at the county road. So I I understand that that there is a process that communities can go through that's spelled out in your code. for speed pumps or bumps or whatever they're called these days. So, um I heard it to be a reach out for help to the county.

1:20:31So Barbara, uh my understanding though, is there's a portion of MaxFlat that is a developer's responsibility to build. So I'm not sure does it have been entirely constructed by the developer?

1:20:44It has it has not. Um we are extending this is the last phase of Meadow Oak's almost built out project and we are extending Max Fly. We're required to extend Max Fly to Hudson Avenue. And it will be a county road.

1:20:59I understand that, but the reason I say it's not entirely a county issue is because In theory, that portion of Max Ply could be constructed by the developer With traffic coming. So that that's a developer issue.

1:21:13Barbara, would it help to put up the M P U D plan, the master plan?

1:21:18I I don't I don't know. I mean it does Does somebody at the county if the county wants us to construct a speed hump on their collect their subdivision collector roadway, That would be surprising to me. Um but

1:21:33Well to be

1:21:33clear

1:21:34traffic, Barbara Barbara, to be clear, traffic calling is not always a speed bump. It could be Other forms of traffic colonials such as roundabouts, chicanes, or other And I I don't think that the the resident was necessarily requesting speed bumps. He was requesting I think some type of other design that would slow traffic.

1:21:57I don't get the impression that the extension Oh The traffic combing is within their neighborhood, the current neighborhood is where I get the impression that the conversations come from. But what I'd be happy to do is again between Planning Commission and BOCC If we can be part of a solution with the community and five developer client and the county, let's sit down with the public work folks and see what what can be done. Um be happy to do that. I'm not sure we can do that here at a

1:22:27planning commission hearing either, but hap absolutely happy to sit down with the county, the master association representative, um Mr. Hobbs. and and my client and see what we can come up with.

1:22:41Okay.

1:22:44Well that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Um

1:22:50Any other comment from the dais? David, anything from you?

1:22:58No, I don't. Pardon me, David?

1:23:02No. I have nothing further. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

1:23:08Um do I hear uh a motion? There's no further comment.

1:23:13I'll make

1:23:13a motion to approve. So we have a motion to approve. Do we have a second?

1:23:20I will second with Ms. Willite's confirmation that she'll address the issues before BCC.

1:23:26Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second. Any further discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion is signified by roll call.

1:23:39Chimie Giordi abstainings in the vote. Peter Hansel. Aye. Roberto size.

1:23:45Right.

1:23:46Christopher Poole. Aye. Chris Williams? Aye. And Chairman Charles Gray.

1:23:50I.