Zoning Amendment (Regular) - 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, an 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
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
DispositionApproved
Approved Staff’s recommendation with the amended condition regarding the trees by a roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Apr 20, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Apr 20, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-21-7529 in full →PDD-21-7529 was taken up 2 times between Mar 25, 2021 and Apr 20, 2021 — this is appearance 2.
- Mar 25, 2021PlanningPC5▶No disposition in the minutes
- Apr 20, 2021BoardP58▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 25m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 55% of 130 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
thing. We'll move on to B fifty eight.
Item P fifty eight was published in the Tampa Bay Times on march tenth, twenty twenty one.
Item P58 is PDD 217529 in the name of Meadow Oaks Development LC, New Life Ministries, and Ridger 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 Planned Unit Development District. to an MPUD master plan unit development district.
Next slide. 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 a exhibit of the current zoning. Next slide. And this is the exhibit of the current future land use. Next slide. The site consists of platted residential subdivisions and undeveloped lands. The subject site is both in the north and central markets, but
is outside of the rural area and outside of the urban service expansion areas. This request includes the addition of acreage to the previously approved Meadow Oaks MPUD boundary, creation of Tract U for development of 65 single-family detached units. Changing the product type on track J from single family attached to single family detached. decreasing proposed units by two. creation of development standards for Tract U and single family detached units on Tract J, and modification
of development standards for Tracks T and S. The proposed minimum lot dimension for tracks J, S, T, and U are forty foot wide by one hundred and five feet deep. Next slide. Among the proposed changes to the existing Meadow Oaks U MPUD conditions of approval is the removal of condition number eleven that require the developer of Parcel T provide a buffer plan that was agreed to upon with the property owner located to the east of Parcel T. Should
a suitable buffer plan not be provided and agreed upon between the property owner to the east of Parcel T, the Pasco County, and the developer, Between the Pasco County and the developer, the project would be required to be brought back to the Development Review Committee to re-examine the use of the 45-foot-wide lots. This condition was a result as staffs recomm recommended to deny the applicant's request of the 45-foot lots. Yet the board thought it would be sufficient if a buffer plan could be provided to transition from
the eastern parcel of pro par the eastern property of parcel T into the development of parcel T. With the current provisions in the land development code, the development of parcel T as zoned MPUD adjacent to the parcel to the east as zoned agricultural would require a 10-foot type A landscape buffer that would consist of a continuous row of evergreen shrubs and trees planted with 60 foot on center. unless relief is sought at the time of the preliminary plan submittal through an alternative
standard request. Next slide. LDC Section four oh two point two C eight allows for variations from this code to be reviews reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners during a public hearing Held on any application for an MPUD zoning amendment. LDC section 901.6 D.11, continuation of existing street patterns, and street access to adjoining properties, requires streets with the proposed development to be connected to adjacent areas to provide
for proper traffic circulation. The current Meadow Oaks MPD conditions of approval, specifically number 21, allows 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 parcels J, T, S, and U. To the south of proposed parcel U is the reserves at Meadow Oaks Subdivision, with private residential roads, of
which Maryland Court and Neety Drive abut proposed parcel U. The existing subdivision has access to the Fairwinds Max Flee Max Fleet Drive Subdivision Collector Loop. And connecting the subdivision to proposed parcel U would not benefit the existing transportation network in relieving vehicular trips from existing roadways. connecting Parcel J to Amberwood Street would disrupt the homes that have primary access from Amberwood, with little benefit to the vehicular trip juice distribution. Parcels
J, T, S, and proposed parcel U will all have access from Maxflea Drive. The applicant is proposing an emergency access only connection from Parcel J to Amberwood Street, as the connection would serve a benefit in emergency situations but would not be as disruptive to the homes accessing their lots from Amberwood Street. Next slide.
The proposed request has been reviewed and is found consistent with the LDC and the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Next slide.
This is the proposed master plan with the s uh specific parcels S, T, and J um in the northern portion as seen in the gray of this map. Next slide. And since the Planning Commission meeting, um the Planning Commission requested that the applicant reach out to the property owner and come to an agreement with the property owner to the east of Parcel T. And they have provided an exhibit that is included in your conditions of approval in your packet. That demonstrate the Colo uh c
collaboration to establish a six foot vinyl fence in a specific location adjacent to the property, not necessarily the entire linear distance running north and south along the eastern property boundary, but for a general location that was depicted in the exhibit. Therefore this petition comes to you both. From the Planning Commission and staff with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval included in your packet.
Question. Yes. Um so is this part of the Meadow Oaks Golf and Country Club? Or is that somewhere different?
I believe there is uh some of the subdivisions in Meadow Oaks that are part of that country club, but I don't believe all of them are. I'm not certain.
So um and again I'm sorry I'm on this landscaping thing today, but I'm I'm looking and is the applicant online?
Yes, Ms.
Okay. Well they'll I'll discuss this afterwards. So um I'm looking at the um Google Earth. And I'm seeing Sorry, but many homes with Zero landscaping and I know our code requires that every lot has to have a forty by what has to have how many trees?
Six thousand square feet and less it's one tree and then it goes up based on the lot size, not necessarily the house.
So everyone is supposed to have at least one tree. So um and I for some reason there's looks like there's n no street cheese in here from what I can see here. But um would the applicant agree that every home will have a tree in the front?
Hi, this is Barbara Will Hype. Um I can see that Jamie Girardi is on on the project engineer. And
And I can see Jim Quendenning is on as well. He's the um developer. We would need for one of them to jump in on that.
And we're not talking live oaks here.
Uh this is Jamie Girardi, uh 9400 River Crossing Boulevard Suite 102, and I haven't sworn. Hey Jimmy. I bought the good afternoon. Um The developer intends to comply with the conditions of the code. Um I don't know Specifically that it'll be in the front. But I can speak to the majority of the houses that are out there at Meadow Oaks have been out there since the late eighties, early nineties at least. So that's probably why it appears that some of them don't have landscaping
that meets the current code.
So um they will they won't put them in the front?
There's a lot of front yard there. Plenty of room for a tree or a palm tree.
I mean if if you want to make that a condition, I don't think that'll be a problem.
Great. Thank you very much. Recommend approval.
I gotta have
public hearing. You got a public hearing, you got an applicant presentation. You just ask your question. You're just getting ahead of the game.
Okay, do we have
Just a comment. Just to make a comment.
Okay.
All right. Uh I I like the connection that you have from Hudson you gonna connect to Hudson Avenue?
Yeah.
Very good.
Continuing the Maxley extension per the development order, yes.
Max fly, yeah, thanks.
Okay.
Uh do we have anyone?
So let's let's get back on track. Okay. Barbara, do you have a presentation or are you gonna rely on staff's presentation at this point?
So that was a pretty detailed um presentation. I'm ready depending on any public comment, I'm um we're ready to discuss any public comment, but uh I don't think I can do that as well as Jessica did.
Yeah,
good job. Anybody on WebEx or email for those items?
I do not have anyone on WebEx or email for the website.
Is anyone at the kiosk for item
P fifty eight.
P fifty eight.
Chao.
No one at the kiosk.
Okay.
I believe there
was somebody who
was planning on
showing up. So there's there's a couple of people up for P50.
We have people at the kiosk. We have four people at the kiosk.
Okay. State your name and address.
My name is Calvin Branch. Yep, my name is Calvin Branch, [address removed]. Have
you been?
My concern is this. Have you
been?
Yes, I have been. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Now my concern is this. I spent a lot of time last week trying to find out an answer to a simple question. all of the construction traffic and the heavy vehicles that are going to be accessing the building site, how are they going to get there? And I got a couple of three different answers. My concern today is this I would like to make sure that in your conditions That's absolutely quick. That other than a case of an emergency where you might have to use colony and
fairwinds, all construction traffic and heavy vehicles. Well access the building site from Hudson Avenue.
Okay. Thank you for your comments. Next gentleman. Our lady.
Hi, Pate Turner from [address removed]. This is the property that is to the east of the um property in question to be developed. So we are um I just wanted to start by saying I am the um purchaser of the property that will be um happening in June. And um when we went to first look at the property what one of our main things was was that we loved the wildlife. There's deer, turkey, gopher turtles. I
will be raising a family there upon purchase. Um so we are really looking at um preserving the integrity of this agricultural property and keeping the agricultural feeling and land um to be used for not only um equine purposes but to raise um livestock with cows, um, to raise chickens, to have eggs, um, to grow crops and to have greenhouses. Um so just trying to keep that integrity of the area intact. Um
I know that not only um is the property over off of haze being developed so a lot of that wildlife will have nowhere to go um um unless they go across the street across 52. um So we're also concerned about the buffer in between the two properties. So if we have that 10-foot buffer, we are proposing that there be a six-foot privacy fence, a six-foot privacy PVC fence in between the two parcels to
help protect the safety of our animals and the safety of the new housing. development as well. So with the 35 houses being developed on that 10-acre parcel, we have one house on the 10-acre parcel. So um we would just like to um We're concerned mainly with the safety and well-being of our the agricultural piece of property to ensure many unsure of many things at this time, including um the well or septic arrangements
of the houses that are gonna be on the property. Um The flooding of our property while um Dirt where um they're making four retention ponds on the property, so where will that dirt be brought? Will it be used to um put as the base of the new houses being developed or is it gonna be taken out? while we are raising our farmland. Um we don't want any of the flooding to affect any of the animals. Um So
Also with um we are currently in X-flood zone, so we're um concerned with how the development of the 35 houses will affect our flood zone and um where will the runoff go and can we be certain that it isn't that it is going to go towards those retention ponds and not go into our area. Thank you.
All right.
Manews
and
repeats.
How you doing? Uh my name's Steve Turner. I live currently at [address removed]. Uh that was my daughter you just spoke to. We will
be purchasing up Have you been sworn?
I have been sworn in.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, sir. Um I have uh We we currently uh have a contract to purchase [address removed], which is the neighbor to the east. And um we've been given a little bit of a graph as to what's going to happen. And I know you guys like your landscaping, but I think of a tree every sixty feet is not really very reasonable in between two two different homes. I mean we're gonna have one home and they're gonna have thirty-five on just that one piece to our our
west. when we're gonna have them for neighbor on our west, on the north side, and on the east side. They bought a J-shaped all the pieces around us and I was hoping that we could make sure that, you know, if they're gonna have sewer or septic, I don't know. I mean I mean I'm hoping the drainage is gonna work out right. And uh another thing is we're worried about if they're gonna make the the flooding uh the drainage ditches they're gonna dig all the dirt out of 'em and what are they gonna do
with it? Are they gonna take it off site or are they gonna build it underneath the other harms which is gonna elevate them and with all with with homes covering most of the land and driveways. We're just concerned that the water is gonna come on us from all angles and what our property will be you know, useless and uh we're just hoping that that you guys will make sure they do that right. I appreciate your time.
All right. Thank you.
It's hard to know what
Jim Campbell, uh [address removed]. I'm the current current owner and I have a a contract with the uh Turners to sell my property at the beginning of uh June.
Have you been sworn in to uh
I have been sworn in.
Okay, thank you.
Uh I'd just like to bring up the uh question of uh the electric power line that comes from Hudson to my house. It's it's very it's It's very close to the property line. If not over. I was wondering how that's going to be handled. With any easement issues? Uh I'd just like to uh remind the uh commission about uh some facts here. Uh there was a two thousand seven agreement to provide the PVC fence. Uh with the current current owner. The
fence line uh has been marked by uh a wire fence since uh nineteen eighty four and the cement patio has been there since two thousand five. We we are going to be working with Mr. Clandenin in in discussing the uh Buffer and the uh fence. according to its current diagram, um the fence, its quote is is uh on the The fence must be on the west side of the buffer. Uh this will ensure that the um
the shrubbery is facing us and and we have the crop of uh separation between the two uh types of uh properties. I believe the MPU MBUD requires that, that it um it's the the it's the buffer is there for for us and and and to keep us uh separated from that development. Um I'd just like to remind the board that the owners are going to keep this in a natural
state with cattle and horses. And uh I hope the uh Commission can do everything in their power to keep this part of Florida safe. Thank you very much.
All right, thank you.
There is nobody else here for this item.
Okay.
So um
Does the African have anything to rebuttal? Rebuttal?
Sure, Commissioner, thank you. With regard to parcel T and and the neighbors adjacent, my client has been working with them. Um not sure how we we Still come to you when we've been working directly. Um, we did add language to the conditions relative to a requirement for the fence. um in the area of their actual home and then some um The and then we also have the it's a type A. Your code already requires a type A buffer. That's the buffer
that the code says we require. We added the fence to that. Sounds like there's an issue of whether the plantings are on the inside or the outside. Um I will let my team address that. With regard to Mr Branch's comment question. There's an existing condition in this MPUD. This is not a new project. This is a build-out. We're at the final phases, parcels of this project. And so long ago condition nineteen was negotiated for what the rules were gonna be regarding
construction access for all the all of the project. And so cons condition nineteen requires that construction traffic enter via colony road To Fairwind? The Max Fly. or from Hudson Avenue to Max Fly. So that's the existing condition. We are not My client does not um own all of the vacant parcels. So there are other owners So We'd ask that that condition would I mean it's still there. We
didn't ask for it to be changed. That's a condition that's been on this project. That's been how the construction traffic's been anticipated by not only this property owner but somebody else that owns vacant parcels. Um And so that's that's the it is in the conditions um regarding how construction traffic has always been um required to enter and exit the site. I will let either Mr. Clendenning or or Jamie address I guess if we moved our plants to the outside, um as opposed
to the inside. of our fence that we've offered in that condition, I suppose that would address the concern.
And my client will will continue to be working with Mr. Campbell because Mr. Campbell's driveway and patio are on my client's property. So they've got to work together anyhow to get that resolved. Um So I think the bo best we can do as as the county is to add to our type A buffer requirement the vinyl fence and we and the code does not dictate which size of landscaping goes on. Um so but if if putting it on the outside moves us on then
I could see if my team's agreeable to that.
Okay. Yeah, again, this is Jamie Girardi. Um I don't know, is Mr. Clendeni on or is he not? Yeah. I think you have to unmute him. Yeah.
Can you hear me? Yeah it is. Yeah, sure.
Hello? Yes, sir. We hear you.
Hello?
Hello? This is Jim Clintonning.
They can hear you, Jim.
Well I I guess while Mr. Clintoning's having a problem. Again, Jamie Girardi, ninety four hundred River Crossing Boulevard, suite one oh two, New Port Richey. Um I have spoken with Mr. Clint Denning and again he is working directly with Mr. Campbell and with the Turners is my understanding. Um He wishes at this point to keep the landscaping on his side of the fence. Um his understanding and working with them is that the privacy and um the opacity of the fence or that will be provided by the the six foot
fence he has offered to provide. Um it goes above and beyond what's required by the code. So he would he would prefer that his residence benefit from the landscaping on his side of the fence. Um I can go ahead and speak with the other the stormwater concerns, um the the the dirt, the sort are they? and home for the dirt that's gonna come out of the ponds. All of those items will be addressed during the final design and final permitting. Um The the agencies
will not allow us to make the flooding problem worse on the other side of the property line, all the water internal to development. has to be maintained on site and we are regulated as far as how much water we can discharge off our site. Um so all of those issues will come out um during the um design and permitting phase.
Okay. Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Yes, sir.
I'll just speak to the uh Colony Road and Hudson Avenue access. I think it's acceptable doing it the way they got set up. Then not going through the main way off Sugar Creek, going Uh the development which was probably a concern I I would have had, but I think the the access you're you're putting in for transportation is acceptable.
And if I may add, the uh order that was put in place to prevent the construction traffic was actually the construction traffic was actually using the more the like the what we consider private residential subdivision roads and it was tearing them up. So that's what caused a halt of construction and caused the order to be put in place. Um when you look at the whole area as as a if you s ve span out on the aerial There's less likelihood that they would utilize Colony Road because of how it circumnavigates through Fairwinds to
get to the northern part of this development where Hudson Avenue is. It's most likely that they will enter Hudson, especially since that isn't a developed road yet. They just need to stabilize it to get their construction trucks in there and then propose the rest of the development. If Parcel O, which is on the southeast corner of metal oaks were being proposed with this and being developed at this same time, I would have a little bit more of concern. But given that all these four parcels, S, T, J, and U are all on the northern part of the development, I think it's highly unlikely unless there is an emergency that blocks
that, that they would be using colony fairwinds.
Move approval.
Back in the right-of-way.
Got a motion and second. Uh by roll call vote.
District two, Commissioner Moore.
All right.
District three, Commissioner Starkey. Uh
Commissioner Oriano, that includes the Condition of the tree. Okay.
Aye. District four Commissioner Starkey I'm sorry. District 4 Commissioner Fitzpatrick. District five, Commissioner Mariano. Aye. District one, Chairman Oakley.
Aye. Motion passed five zero. Move on to P fifty nine?