Zoning Amendment (Regular) – Seven Oaks MPUD Master Planned Unit Development Parcel S-19 – SB Associates Limited Partnership - A Rezoning Request from an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development to Modify the Master Plan to Allow the Conversion of Retail/Commercial Entitlements to Multi-family Entitlements on Parcel S-19 – No Funding Required
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Denial
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, Sep 9, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Sep 9, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-21-7507 in full →Heard once. PDD-21-7507 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Sep 9, 2021PlanningP9▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 34m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 65% of 347 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, Mr. Chairman. Uh item P nine.
Unit development parcel S19. And on the agenda it says SD Associates Limited Partnerships. That's actually a typo. The ownership is D D slash 56 LLC as all. So we will correct that on the upcoming agenda. To continue with the title, we'll be zoning requests from an MPVD master plan unit development to an MPD master plan unit development, modified master plan to a lot of conversion of retail, commercial entitlements,
multi-family entitlements and cost. So that's 19.
Very interesting.
Yes. Uh for the record Victorious Pizzos finding a voluntary part of the record.
So yeah, 70x MPUG Parcel S19 is PVD 217507. And the applicant is proposing to modify the 70X MPUG master plan to add multifamily as an allowed alternate use on parcel S19 utilizing the improved language improvements the matrix. And currently the allowed primary use on parcel S19 is retail. And the lot of alternate use is office.
And some of the parts some.
Mr. Peters, can I stop you for a second? Because I got a text from somebody who's watching online saying they can't hear you. So can we do anything about volume?
I just don't want this to continue if we can't
fix it. It should be better
than
Can you hear me now? I can hear you but I don't know if you're not going to be able to do it.
Speak again Terry, let's see. Try again. Okay, can you hear me now? Can we hear you in the back of the room?
Can you hear us? Okay.
Yeah sir.
But you can't hear Terry. Okay.
Acquisitions to know the point.
Well.
Well, it may be better if Mr. Petos just of course we have the applicant and others that need to speak at the same mic, so we're gonna have an issue. Um
Do we have another mic?
What's that micard over there? Someone's sticking up. I don't know.
Denise, what a what's that microphone right over there? Behind the court reporter.
There we go. That's got a red light on it at least.
Yeah, that sounds like it works.
Put oh I push there you go. Test. Test.
Yes, we should do we should do it.
Okay. Well I'll back up a slide in case um they didn't hear me. So uh 7 Oak S MPD parsel S19 is PDD 217507. And the applicant is proposing to modify the 7OX MPUD to add multifamily as an allowed alternate use on parcel S19, utilizing the approved land use equivalency matrix. And currently the allowed primary use on parcel S19 is retail, and the allowed alternate use is office. And
parcel S19 is partially built out and contains a major retail, very small retail shops and some outparcons.
And here's an aerial that illustrates the major retailer. Let's see if does this work.
Over here to the east, north is up, and then the outparcels are to the south along State Road 56. Parcel S19 is outlined in the red and to the immediately to the north and immediately to the west. are office condos and beyond those further north begins residential development of various types.
And I'll go and broadly describe the general area context in just a minute, but before I do that I want to illustrate the zoning here, which this map indicates the zoning being the MPUD for the Seven Oaks development. And then this map is indicating the future land use for this particular area, covering all of the Seven Oaks development within this portion as Res 3.
So this map is an illustration of the entire master plan of Seven Oaks. It's uh generally one might describe it as a as a triangle to the north and a square to the south. Um What it is is basically I-75 along the west boundaries, uh Bruce B. Downs along the east boundary. And then along the south boundary where it makes a right angle, where our subject site, Parslas19, is located, is stable 56.
And the broad characterization for the area is that most much of the economic development potential is mainly located along State Road 54, which is to the north. It's just beyond this point here. I can't get my thing too well. All the way up here, State Road 54 is essentially up here. And stay road 56, which is to the south, immediately up along parcel S-19. And the Bruce B. Downs corridor
that runs along the eastern boundary of Seven Oakes has not seen, has not historically seen the same economic development potential. that the Stable 54 and the Stable 56 corridors have seen for the county.
So on August 19, 1986, the BCC approved the Saddle Book Village Development of Regional Impact, the DRI, and the Development Order, Resolution No. 86258, and the subsequent MPUD. The MPUD and the master plan have been modified several times since the original approval to add uses, to modify uses, and to revise primary and alternate approved uses and associated land use of the.
The most recent modification was in November of 2019, which allowed a brewery as an allowed use, which I believe was along the Stable 56 area to the west of Parsons 19.
As proposed, the modifications to the MPV master plan are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan as detailed in the agenda memo and the analysis contained in memo OEG 211084, subnocks parcel and fiscal impact summary, which is included in the civic uh in your agenda packets that was distributed via civic clerk.
So I'll I'll go briefly go through each of these. Presently Seven Oaks is developed as a mixed use community with residential office and commercial uses and recreational facilities. The proposed land use change from commercial office to residential multi-family is not consistent with policy flu 187 and policy flu standing for regional land use 1810 of the comprehensive plan. In addition Is not consistent with policy ED, economic development, 144 and 162.
So I'll go through this and talk a little bit about each of these policies. Policy flu 187 talks about the contribution a development makes to the county in terms of the revenue generating potential of a project. Mainly it notes that developments should contribute more revenue than they will consume in services. Residential projects tend to consume more in services and generate revenue because, by nature, they are the places where taxpayers live and demand various governmental services, such as water parks, fire
rescue, etc. An independent analysis was conducted using a regional economic modeling incorporated analysis, the REMI analysis. And a memo from the Office of Economic Growth OEG 211084, which I noted earlier, summarizes the findings. The memo is attached in the agenda memo packet for this project, but we can bring it up on the overhead if we can take a moment to do that.
Yeah, just
As they're bringing it up, the memo will focus in on the tables that the memo is uh highlighting. And I'll give you a brief summary of the tables. So the memo determined that the proposed multifamily project for 320 apartments will generate about $188,375 in common revenue over a 10-year average. The current MPUD entitlements for the subject property will generate $743,375 in county revenue over a 10-year average. And even if
we considered the construction phase of the project, the analysis noted that the multifamily project at this location would generate $441,700 versus $654,200. For the current entitlements. The memo also shows similar characteristics in GrossCon's product, meaning that the current MPUD entitlements, the 86,000 commercial use. always have a greater number than the 320 units of multi-family.
The comparison illustrates how the county can maintain its economic development interest along the State O 56 corridor by keeping the potential for retail office entitlements on the property and ensuring a land use entitlement that will contribute more in revenue.
Than it will consume in services. Policy ED 144 mandates that the county must recognize the high priority of retaining employment generating land uses in appropriate and compatible locations within the county. And the State Road 56 Quarter specifically is an appropriate and compatible location within the county to retain a high priority for employment generating land use. ED-144 works together with Flu 187 to preserve the site's existing entitlements.
Now with regards to policy flu 1810, it talks about the preservation of employment generating land uses in terms of this development. And multifamily does not generate employment opportunities as a land use. Like in the case of ED-144, ED162 works with policy flu 1810 to preserve capacity for employment generating land uses. as a as a priority.
Finally, uh with regard to these, at least on this slide, there is also a public reliance factor from Section Flu A-2 to consider in which residents did not use the foresee for accommodation pacts previously uncontemplated for additional standalone multifamily residential densities could have on local parks, trails, and other infrastructure.
As a result, it is not consistent with the following Landon Code sections, 402.1E19, because preservation of land for employment is a legitimate public purpose, and maintaining the existing uses further that public purpose. 402-2F1 through F3 and 402-1E1 E thirteen and E seventeen.
This project's not consistent with those sections for the following bullets here on the overhead. Higher operational costs to the county, potential strain on utilities capacities, additional demands in larger district, regional park systems, which are not sufficiently mitigated by impact fee, an addition of 76 students in the school system, existing commercial office uses. not do these things as a land use. And 402 E11 and E16, it's inconsistent with those sections because the site has
constraints that make it unsuitable for standalone multi-family development.
And for these reasons, the Planning Development Department recommends the united substantial modification to the 700 SMPD development master planning.
That will conclude my presentation. If if we have need for um to look at the particular future language policies and their language, I have some slides available that can uh we can bring those up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much, Jerry. Um anybody have any questions? Okay, so your staff is uh recommended not denial on this one, is that correct?
It makes dollars, okay. No questions?
But I'd I'd like to hear what the applicant says first then. Yeah. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, if I may, Joel two, to it associates. I represent Stock Development Company. Mr. Keith Gelder, their representative, is available via WebEx, along with Height Design as the planners, Linkson Associate as the Transportation Engineers, Leslie Deutsch, our market expert, who is available via WebEx, and Ed Kester, who is Stock developments outside legal counsel, also available via WebEx. If I may, I would like uh
to ask you to receive for filing the hardbound copies of the index binder we transmitted via electronic files on Friday to you. This is exactly what you received on the same day as you received the staff's agenda package. If you'd be kind enough to allow me to give one to the clerk and the court
reports. Okay, motion received and filed. Second. The motion is second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay.
Our request, as Mr. Pito said, is very simple. It is simply to designate parcel S19 for multifamily residential use, pursuant to the pre-existing DRI, which has existed for 35 years and which predate it. Your comprehensive plan. This DRI is actually older than the COMP plan. And pursuant to the land use equivalency matrix, which we refer to as the LUM, the
acronym L-U-E-M, which also was approved in the DRI and the MPUD. I'm going to turn this over to Christy Barrero, the Director of Planning for Height Design. And all of our expert CBs are in the binder, which has been introduced in terms of their expert qualifications. I do politely remind everyone that this is a Snyder quasi-judicial hearing.
As a judge today, to hear this impartially and without any preconceived notions, and we urge you to try to do that and to rely only on the competent substantial evidence which you're about to hear. And I only say this because I have a staff recommendation of denial, and obviously our job is to get this approved. So Christy, when I'll take over, thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman Mariano's Christy Christy comes up and I'm really sorry, I'm having a very difficult time uploading the PowerPoint. So if I can maybe get a minute or so.
Sure. Christy, have you uh been sworn? What you've been sworn.
And I'm sorry, Joel too again, Mr. Chairman. I also was sworn. I forgot to acknowledge that. I
saw
you
standing. Can we can we can we stop the timer in the interim? Yes. Is somebody stopping the timer? Yes. Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon, Christy Guerrero, Certified Planner with Height Design, 5904 Hampton Oaks Parkway, Tampa, Florida, 33610.
Alright, so I wanted to begin this afternoon with an overview of the Seven Oakes project. Terry mentioned that it was originally the Saddlebrooks DRI and MPUD that was approved in 1986. There's approximately 2,500 acres with a mix of uses. Each of the parcels were assigned a primary use and an alternative use. And it should be noted that Multifamily was not specifically prohibited from any of these parcels. Over time, the land
use equivalency matrix has been used to convert uses based on market demand and developer desires. I also wanted to remind the Commission that the development is located in the urban service area as well as the South Market area.
So our parcel is approximately 10.6 acres. Stock development is seeking to convert the existing commercial square footage that's remaining on the property to 320 multifamily apartment units.
The western boundary is bordered by Ancient Oaks Boulevard, a four-lane divided community entrance road. West of the road is a large retention pond. Directly north and northwest of the property are series of office developments. There's approximately 70 of those office suites in those two locations. South of the subject property are additional outparcels and east of the property is the Sam's Club and their parking lot. So as you can see, this is the only vacant
piece of property in this area. On the south side of the out parcels is State Road 56, and there's also a bus stop just on the south or on the north side of State Road 56 adjacent to the property. So looking at this aerial, you can see that the residential component of This quadrant is missing. The quadrant of Ancient Oaks Boulevard on the west.
Summergate on the north, Bruceby Downs on the east, and fifty-six on the south. So in that square you have retail, you have office, but you have no residential for a mixed-use project.
Interestingly, the office complex just north of this property that's highlighted in yellow parcel S eighteen did have an alternate use of multifamily. As you can see from the previous slide, they did develop out its office, but multifamily was an option for that property. You can also see in the tan colors that there are two other multifamily developments within Seven Oaks that have been constructed in the vicinity of this project. This is an aerial show in
those parcels. They're outlined in greenish blue. The Windsor Club to the northeast. And Colonial Grain to the west. There's also a third apartment complex that's on the south side of City Road 56 that's not part of Seven Oaks.
So again, this is a map of the Seven Oaks MPUD. The orangeish tan color is where multifamily is a primary use. You can see again the two parcels on the south side of the MPUD that are close to our project, as well as some parcels on the north side. The yellow areas are where multifamily is an alternate use. So in the MPUD, a total of 1,726 multifamily units are approved.
To date, only 558 units have been constructed. And those are the two apartment complexes again on the south side of the MPUD close to our project.
So I wanted to talk a little bit in detail about our particular site, the western portion of S19.
So as you can see, this is showing the um Two buildings that are proposed as well as parking to the east. The purple lines indicate the existing sidewalks that are on Ancient Oaks Boulevard as well as State Road 56. And the teal lines represent proposed sidewalks in this project. So where the existing sidewalks end, we're planning to pick up and have them go through our project. And then on the east side, you can see that those sidewalks
will connect to an existing pedestrian walkway through the Sams Club parking lot.
And then there's some graphics that show what this could look like. Along the north side, we're proposing perpendicular parking spaces. Through the central drive aisle, we'll be proposing angled parking spaces, and then the southern drive aisle will be parallel parking spaces. And each of these parking spaces will help calm the traffic as it drives. from H Oaks Boulevard to the Sands parking lot to ensure pedestrian safety.
And here's some additional pictures at the southern entrance to the site. As you can see here, there is no median break, so this will be a right in, right out into the project.
This graphic shows the amenities that the applicant is proposing.
So they're proposing a pool in the center of the project and there's some graphics of what it could look like. We're also proposing a dog park in the northeast corner, as well as an open space for gathering in the southern area.
So we believe that this proposed multifamily development is compatible with the State Road 56-54 corridor design standards in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And the plan states that this is to create attractive roadway corridor along this road that enhances property values and the quality of life. So at this time I'm going to turn it over to Keith Geldner, who's the president of Stock Development, to talk about his company and show
some images of other projects that they've done in Florida. And Keith is joining on WebEx, so but I'll be flipping through the slides as he speaks.
All right, thank you. Keith.
Keith, are you there?
All right, thank you. Can you hear me? Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you and uh I assume you have not been sworn. Can you give me your name and address and we'll swear again?
Yes sir Keith Gelder Stock Development the address is twenty six thirty-nine Professional Stockton Wheat in the lawn Naples Florida three four one one nine
All right. Could you raise your right hand and we'll swear you in?
I
did.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Let's continue. Well thank you. Yes, uh good afternoon. Again, my name is Keith Elder with Stock Development. Um we're the applicant and developer for the project.
Appreciate the opportunity to participate virtually.
Um to give you a little information about our company. We've been in business since 2001.
Different housing types, including single family, multifamily town homes, and condos throughout the state of Florida. As a developer of Master Plan Communities in the last twenty years of the complexity of master plan communities uh to achieve a piece of plan of
Yeah, while master plan communities are a large component of our portfolio.
In 2015, we launched Stock Luxury Park Living as an extension of our home building business with the initiative to create high-quality apartment communities with high-level finishes and many packages like you can see here. Our typical project was well landscaped and filled with a ray of on-site amenities of dog parks, group fitness, hotel pools, cabanas. Escaping rooms and fire pits and after we're living at it is our target demographic is typically
working professionals age 25 to 35 and empty nesters um 15 and older. We've actually seen an uptick in MT nesters within our projects, um which is a trend that's uh occurring across the country. One of our recent projects actually 40% of our uh residents who are age 50 and older. And I think that speaks to the quality and underscores the fact that we the quality of our projects regularly attract records
by choice defined as those who can afford purchase homes but prefer uh a maintenance-free lifestyle. We found that uh many of our residents come from our homeowners. Right.
uh the similar uh uh the similar situation to occur here in so much. So with respect to the property at Seven Oakes, you know, our vision for the project is to create a high quality multi-generational community that's complementary to Seven Oakes. Although Seven Oakes has a broad range of housing types that exist already within the community, we're seeking to provide an additional option that appeals to rent by choice. And also those
who wish to downsize and continue living within 70s and be near their friends and family. So as Christie mentioned, the site is ideally situated on the southern perimeter of the community on 56, ordered by only office and retail, no residential. Closest residential units are over 800 feet away, minimizing any impact on adjacent neighbors. The site has excellent walkability to retail to create that mixed-use project that's desirable
from a residence perspective and also encouraged from a planning perspective. A short list of uses that are walkable from the property includes Sand Club that offers grocery, pharmacy, and gas. You have a bank and out salon, iCare, Own Goods Store. and a variety of quick serve and sit-down restaurant options. Adding apartments in this location will help those commercial tenants remain viable and provide goods and services that are convenient and accessible to our
residents. So with that, I want to show a quick 3D video we prepared to help articulate our vision for the property.
Yeah, so Keith, we're gonna skip the video for now. If you guys wanna see it later, we just wanna be cognizant of our twenty minutes that we have today. Okay. So next I'm gonna bring up Steve Henry to talk about traffic.
Steve Henry, this Associates 5023 West Laurel, Tampa 33607, and I have them sworn. We've been involved with Seven Oaks for over 20 years now. In fact, we did the traffic study for phase two of the project, which is basically Seven Oaks.
Yeah. Yeah, he may have been.
Sorry Keith, we're gonna skip the video for now. We're running a little bit short on time.
Well unfortunately for me to share that um it is in your uh event materials I think what you'll see is uh the project is a high quality development that the community can be proud of. This property has remained vacant for over 15 years since the original SAM's club uh was constructed and actively listed for more than five years prior to our acquisition. Um so we believe uh you know the site isn't a viable. box retail location uh the highest best use uh for this project is multi family to really create that mixed
use project that everyone's seeking to achieve. So with that that's in my presentation. I'd like to turn it over to Steve Henry to discuss
traffic.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, so I'll continue. So this parcel in the original traffic analysis was part of the 400,000 square feet of retail. This parcel uh has allocated about 19,522 square feet of retail to us. And what the graphic up here shows is a comparison of what the traffic generated by the 119,000 square feet of retail versus what the developer is proposing, which is 320 multifamily. And as you can see, the green is
the retail, which would be 424 PM peak hour trips. And the multifamily be 135. So there's a significant decrease in the trip generation over the what could be what is approved there, which is the retail versus the multifamily. In addition, we have done an extensive number of Of land use equivalency matrix trade-offs throughout Seven Oaks over the last 20 years. So that concludes my presentation unless you've got any questions on
traffic.
Any questions?
At the end I can have a few questions, but just at the end. Yeah. At the end of a presentation. Okay, great.
Mr. Chairman, our next presenter is Leslie Deutsch, our market analyst via WebEx, please, if you can activate her.
All right, thank you.
Leslie, are you there?
Ah here. Hello, nice to see this.
All right, go right ahead. Uh can you give me your name and address and then we'll swear you in?
But the boys nineteen hundred yards at corporate boulevard. Why not three?
Okay, if you raise your right hand we'll swear you in.
She hesitated there. I don't know what that means.
Oh, I think if there was a delay, I apologize. Okay. Um so my name is Leslie Noyta. I work for a group called John Burns Real Estate Consulting, and we spent all of our time looking at how to make markets across the country. And I've listed Florida and work all across the state of Florida. Uh I would ask to put together a uh Brief report to look at if there's more need for rental units in Asco County. So the first thing that we did is we looked at four different aspects of Asco
County. We we looked at first the location, obviously, as all of you do know, it's a great location for apartments, especially for those looking for a suburban setting, and Keith alluded to this before. It has great access to highways and and And really it's become a huge growth corridor with increased schools, with increased retail entertainment, and it's got about 551,000 residents and it continues to grow. So it is considered one of the biggest paths of growth for the MSA, for the Tampa MSA. You
can see that map here. Um on the next slide we we really dug into the demographics of Pasco County. And Pasco is it's an interesting demographic because it's got that mix of retirees and younger residents. Um and more and more we're seeing, as T said before, we do national research on how many more people age 55 plus are starting to rent residents own. They want to live near their kids and they want to have the access to move around. They want less maintenance. So it becomes a choice for a lot of ST
nesters and retirees. But also bring up the residents, obviously, pre-family and post-family. They're going to need a wide range of housing options. And we we need to accommodate that with more rentals. The average tax hole size you can see here in Pasco County is a little bit larger, but the median age is a little bit older. So you can see that kind of uh the uh complement of young and old already in
Pasco. Uh and then we just dive a little bit deeper on the next slide. You can see where the apartment market is today, and I want to spend a minute on this. This is Class A apartment. Um and Class A is really any kind of new construction in the last 10 years and probably even some some 15 years. Um they have a tiny little drop-up, but I will argue, and I have been doing this real estate research for over 25 years, anything above 90%. 25% occupied, it basically full. So we spend our
time going into the leasing agents and speaking and seeing what's happening in the market. I am hearing stories of people coming and there's two available units in this type of place, they'll go and pay 12 months up front. And what that's doing is really pricing out the workers in the local market. They're pricing out a lot of people that can't put 12 months. Up front. There's waiting lists. And really every uh class A building is completely full. So that's one indication that I think is really important to show that we really do they do
need um additional units. And then the final slide I think is the most important that we conduct this demand model. And so what we do is we take, and there's a lot of detail behind this. provided a the full report and I'm happy to provide that. But we take the total number of renter households today in Pasco County. That's about fifty-seven, fifty-eight thousand people. Then we have a demographer that sits on our in our company and he we forecast given a growth
pattern for what that's going to look like in twenty twenty-six. That's fifty-six thousand people. Um so that's You're gonna have basically an annual rate of about seventeen hundred new residents per year over the next five years. Of rector excuse me, of rector units, okay, people that are renting. And then because not everyone can afford this new classic construction, we actually take all of the the residents moving in and divide it out by income and by age. So what you see below there is
we'll become market rate. So those that are making um thinking the household income yet for fifty thousand dollars plus it's that we kind of limit that the richer pool to only those that make fifty thousand dollars plus because that's really a flat day apartment. And that number, it does come down, but it comes down to twenty one thousand in twenty twenty one and is expected to grow to twenty-eight thousand. So so what we concluded here is that here Pasco County, just Pasco County, will need another fifty-five
hundred units just to accommodate the growth of of the population. And this doesn't include some people that might be living in Pasco and house and one move to a rental or a big look that so it's probably underestimating it. And I know that there's some there is some supply that pipeline, but there's not enough right now to really accommodate that large number. It's a good thing and it's it's something that I think needs to be accommodated. But it just means that the area is going so fast that you're going to need this range of housing options. Uh for
for all the new residents. Um and that is the end of my I will turn it over That's right. Thank you very much.
Could I ask her a question? Did we stop the time? She stopped the time so I can ask the question. Leslie, is she still there?
Did you?
W when you were looking at your analysis, did you look at um the amount of multifamily entitlements that already exists in this area? In Pasco County or in this area.
I did not look at the entitlement that exists in the area. I looked at the future supply overall. Um it it's a little bit tricky to do that because because it really depends on on where the location goes. So no, that was not part of the analysis to look at the um at the location of the new entitlement.
Okay, and then my other question is, were you tasked with reviewing the Remy economic analysis that was supplied by the Office of Economic Growth? Did you were you asked to look at that?
Okay, I just wanted to know
if she was asked to look at it.
No, I can tell you she was not engaged for that because we didn't
have
time.
That answers my question. Thank you.
But I I would like to respond. I I know Mr. Chairman, I think that with the switchovers and the swearing and all our time just expired. Would you possibly give me just maybe three minutes max to because I I need to rebut the economic analysis which staff only provided to us on Friday, so we haven't seen that and also Mr. Pitos's comp plan argument. And I'll be very brief. Just in closing, I think from the other the planning experts, I I submit that
this site actually is the poster child for an urban mixed-use pedestrian-friendly infield project. It is in the South Market area, also known as the Urban Concentration Area, and a transit corridor. Ironically, when I bring new clients in to meet with staff, This is exactly the kind of project they ask my clients to build. They say please go build us a project that has high density multifamilies surrounded by retail
outparcels and professional office, all in a walkable environment. Ironically, when we find a hole in the donut that has every piece except apartments, then all of a sudden it's not acceptable. But to that point At the pre app. Staff told us that there was no problem with this application. I put those pre-amp notes in that binder. I submitted the staff's pre-amp notes and my notes, and they match up. We
were told specifically that the DRI and MPUD already authorized the loom conversion from retail to multifamily. We were told that multi-family was, and I quote, appropriately placed, close quote, at this infield location, and that was Mr. Petos's own long-range planning staff that said that. And finally, that there was nothing in the MPD that prohibited designating multifamily
use on this parcel, because, as Mr. Henry just testified, it's been done multiple times throughout Seven Oaks. This map shows you how many parcels have been either designated primarily, alternately for multifamily, and how many times things have been swapped. around. That loom has been used 15 or 20 times. That's why staff told us initially, no problem, we've done this all the time. This is a great spot for this. It's only
now due to a political directive that staff at the last minute was told to oppose this application. And that's unfortunate. The sole basis they argue now is this economic impact argument, and I want to address that. I have no idea what that REMI model is that they just put in the memo on Friday. No one provided the methodology, no one gave us access to the model, no one gave us a heads up and an opportunity to have Ms. Deutsch or someone who's competent
to analyze whatever it is the county did. However, we did some simple developer lawyer math, and I think here is the response.
These are actual multifamily projects built and assessed by the property appraiser in Pasco County with their tax bill. These are ones that exist. Based upon this and extrapolating to our 320 units, there is no question but that our tax bill annually is going to be $850,000. I don't know where they came up with their numbers, but 850,000 based on these other projects. Well over tw over 30 years, that
is $25 million. And over 60 years, the life of a project, it's $50 million. In addition We will pay $3 million in impact and mobility fees, including Mr. Williams' school impact fees and the county's fees and utility fees. So we're going to generate $850,000 a year in recurring taxes, and we're going to generate $3 million up front in impact fee. And finally, there is almost a half
million dollars of CDD debt, seven Oak CDD debt, levied on these parcels. They are part of that CDD. This developer will be writing a check to pay off that debt because you don't carry that on apartments. There's no one to pass it through to, and so there'll be a payment to the community CDD. Of a half million dollars. So it is disingenuous to say that the project won't bring benefits. Lastly,
On the policies, because this is important. I made a list here, but you saw a section in the binder, and this is important on the economic impact arguments. What their study Assumed Is for there to be any of those impacts from retail development, the assumption is that you will have a brick and mortar retail use by that site, build on that site, and operate on that site. Otherwise their projection is zero. This side has sat here for 15
years with no one there. And it's owned by Walmart and Debartlow. And if anyone knows how to market and sell retail property, it's Walmart and D Bartlow. And they've had it marketed for five years. It isn't frontage because the retail out parcels up front took up the frontage. So, as Keith said, this is the highest and best use. The policy Mr. Pito cited, the future land use policy 1.8.10, here's precisely what it
says. It says the county shall ensure that adequate land, adequate land, is available for high paying. Employment generating land uses. Now, how is a 10-acre site with no road frontage that's at the corner of Bruce Bowns and State Road 56? How is dropping that out of the industrial corporate office park target
industry inventory? How is that going to move the needle? And when we have Pasco. Town Center, CPEV, Newport Corners, you name all the large industrial projects. That policy is aimed at those projects, not a 10-acre site that just what a couple months ago? Mr. Cronin stood here and argued on CPEV that those four-acre sites in Connecticut City were worthless, that he needed 50 and 100 acre sites to be meaningful
for the employment-generating uses. So if Mr. Cronin was right two months ago on CPEV, this 10-acre site is of no value to him for that purpose. Next, it said, and I noted high-paying employment jobs. What you will get here, if anything, is another Circle K, Dollar Store, or mattress fund. on these parcels. They're going to be minimum wage retail jobs. And finally
The important point here on the public reliance. This MPUD. and DRI approved thirty five years ago. Has No controversy, at seventeen hundred and 26 multifamily units approved. The Seven Oaks community has always known. that they had 1700 approved multifamily units. So how are we wrecking public reliance when they only have 500 and
some odd built? We're adding 320. Even if ours are approved and built, it still will be at less than 50%, 5-0% of the 1,700 that have always been approved. So we urge you to please look beyond the politics. I know the apartment issue is a hot button issue. I know this location is a hot button issue, but we implore For you to be the judge that you're sitting at today, apply the comp plan,
apply the policies, apply common sense, and please recognize that in a normal world that if this project came in, it would be on consent. You wouldn't think about it twice. You'd be thanking this developer for building exactly the mixed-use project that this county has begged all developers to build. Thank you. And thank you for
the extra time. I apologize to you. Any questions before taking a seat?
Do you have anyone who is uh against the project I want to talk about?
Yeah. Okay, uh so uh how many people are planning to speak on this project? Okay. All right, who would like to be first? If you come up and state your name and address, please.
Good afternoon. Uh John Thompson. [address removed]. Before I begin, I just want to thank everyone for allowing me this chance to speak to you and to specifically call out Mr. Williams. I corresponded with him previously because a lot of residents were concerned about education and the impact of bringing more students or more families in, how it would impact the school. Right now, fortunately, we're
in a great state. So thank you for all the work that's gone on to make that happen. Also, want to call out uh special thanks to uh Tanya Snyder. Um, she helps regular citizens like me that don't understand things like Like uh LDCs, FLUs, MPUDs, LUMs, all these things to help us understand what the issues are. And without their patience and time, um, it would make it hard for us to have these type of conversations and understand uh the matters of fact. So
Poster Child. Whenever I came up here I had a whole different list of what I was going to say, but then I just heard everything that was presented. Poster child is a square peg for a round pole. That's what this request is. A lot of people believe that their statements against apartments. That's not what the case is here. This is just the rezoning, the effort to change commercial entitlements into multifamily units. As was noted, there's already
multifamily units to the north. It's called out here. They're available. They're ready right now. We just need developers to be able to build to one. Sorry. Uh whenever you look at the commercial entitlements, um the retail and office space, uh we see where places are constantly needed. There's people that you know want to start small businesses that need that office and retail space so that they can, you know, venture and have their dreams. A lot of the residents in Southern Oaks, they probably want to
start businesses as well. Unfortunately with you know prices going up and the availability being so so low it makes it difficult sometimes. Several weeks ago, whenever this meeting was paused or delayed until an indefinite time, there was information related to the financials um that was published online. So just like I was able to get it, you know, anyone else could have gotten it as well. They talked about the three million dollar loss whenever you convert from commercial to multifamily
units, um, the impact to the county. Uh additionally, um You know, it's been on the stock website for several weeks what this would look like. It's kind of like an advertisement to all of the potential uh renters out there. And that looks great. You know, they were able to show really good work. Um, it's just in the wrong place. It needs to be in the place that's designated on the MPUD. Most of the residents that moved to this area moved here because of the MPUD, not understanding that an LU UEM allows for it based off of trip
count, that's great. But I'll go back to the adage of, you know, just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean that you should. So I would request that all of you Oppose the rezoning and not entertain any of the uh alternatives. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Thank you sir.
Could be next, please. Coming up.
If you plan I think there's one more back there if you plan to speak, why don't you come forward so we can move along?
Hi, good afternoon. My name is Kathy Sierra. I live at [address removed], right in Seven Oaks. I moved here pre-COVID in October 2019. Coming from New York where all the businesses are being boarded up, it was very refreshing to move to an area where you see nothing but construction in an area thriving. I also have been blessed to relocate my parents who moved here one year ago after me
in October 2020. They also purchased a home in Seven Oaks, and they live a mile from my house. I want to share a story with you that my family has experienced. And let me start this story out with being very blunt. There is not enough offices to support our community presently. My father, who is 80, needs constant medical care. After weeks of research, I was able to find him a primary physician who ultimately would be the anchor
of his care. Hugh recently retired and we were told we need to find a new primary physician. I researched and researched for a new physician and call after call we were told, how about an appointment three months from now? How about four months from now? And I even had a receptionist tell me at a doctor's office, I'm so sorry, there's just not enough medical support in this area because too many people are relocating here. Looking through the
social media and talking with my friends and neighbors, it's the same story over and over and over over and over. Waiting three plus months for a primary physician, specialist, or a dental appointment is absolutely ridiculous. We do not have the commercial office property necessary to support our doctors practices or the residents that need their support. So when I hear about the possible rezoning in my own community, it saddens me. So here's the big question that I ask you to deeply
consider today. Why would parcel S19 be rezoned from commercial slash offices to multi-units when Seven Oaks already has vacant land zoned for multi-units? Wouldn't commercial or retail be better suited for S19 to support our current residents? And I just want to rebut I'm just adding this on to my speech, what the real estate woman who came on and gave that whole big long speech about how they're expecting
6,000 that they're going to need 6,000 more apartments, you know, within the next couple of years to accommodate. Everybody relocating. Well, what about all the supportive needs that we need for all those people? Doctors, firefighters, police officers, and all other types of utilities. There's vacant land already available in Seven Oaks on the northern end. Why relocate? Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Chelsea Waller Dothri, I'm an attorney on behalf of the Seven Oak C D. I would request an additional three minutes, being that the applicant was afforded 23 minutes of her time.
Um no you didn't request any time in advance and he did, so I made an exception. He
didn't move.
Your
your time is running, so you better get started. All right.
Chelsea Waller Dothard 38038 Brandian Avenue, Dade City, Florida with Waller Law. Um we agree with all the arguments made by the planning commit or the staff in their um agenda memorandum that was published. As we all know, MPUDs don't just come about overnight. Much thought and deliberation went into creating this plan. And the developers strategically placed all of the commercial and office buildings on the outer edge of the MPUD with residential located on the interior. This
thoughtful design provides a gradual transition between the different land uses and helps minimize visual and noise impacts on different land uses. This also helps establish the separate and distinct identities of the community with a clear separation between office of commercial and residential. Uh. The applicant is proposing to deviate from this established pattern by placing an apartment complex directly in the middle of the Of commercial property, making it inconsistent and non-compatible with the surrounding
uses by creating this hodgepodge sort of character with this apartment complex being dropped in the center. Additionally, thought went into traffic patterns, neighborhood park space, and CDD fees to support sediments. And there was public reliance on this plan. So this proposed rezoning will affect the residents of Seven Oaks who are governed by and pay CDD fees. And they relied on those when they purchased their homes in Seven Oaks. And this change will directly impact
those residents and potentially the CDD fee structure.
They make note of traffic. The only access point into or this proposed apartment complex is through Ancient Oak Boulevard, Office 56. The applicant is not proposing any changes to that access point, and if you look at the the aerial mass that were provided, there's no lights, there's no nothing, there's just it's it's going to be chaos in the peak hours of the morning and the afternoon. Um the applicant put some weight on Walkability. Um, this
isn't Hyde Park Village. No one's walking to Home Goods 17 miles across the interstate. That's just not gonna happen. There's not much there for people to walk to. The proposed apartment commons doesn't comply with the neighborhood park requirement. Um, that section requires for 320 units, they would have to have a 3.2-acre neighborhood park. Um and And they're asking for a variance to one acre. Their proposed site plan shows several parks, which
is allowed as long as those are a minimum of one half acre. None of those are. They're all less than a half acre, 0.11, 0.16, 0.44. It doesn't comply with section 905. There are multiple compartment complexes in the area. As we've seen on the aerial, there are two directly next to them, there's one directly across the street from S19, and then there's also, if they want to build one tomorrow, they can go just north of Seven Oaks.
That's your time, if you could just go ahead and wrap up please.
Do you have any do you have any other written comments you want to present?
Um I don't necessarily, but like right now.
Well you since you're out of time, did you want did you want to submit any written documents for the rec group?
Um I think I've pretty much got it wrapped up. Um I think that's that's it.
One advice would be when this goes to the Board County Commissioner, if you need more than three minutes, you need to request that time, Chairman, in advance.
Yes, and the applicant they asked for additional three minutes at the end of theirs, so I thought I would get that same courage.
But he had also requested time in advance. Right. Additional time in advance. So I'm just giving you
a word advice for it to the
board.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions for the speaker?
I have some comments and questions as well. I have been living in Seven Oaks for over fourteen years.
We need to make sure the applicant gets rebuttal and I don't know if Staff still has wants to say anything else too. So so Joel, Joel, do you wanna save your rebuttal till after Mr. Petus or do you want to go first? I'll go first and
actually uh we do have folks online that would like to speak. Okay.
So we should have uh Marina Garbut. Are you online?
Yes I am. Okay. Please uh provide your name and address for the record and please state whether you've been sworn.
A marina orbit? [address removed] and I have nothing strong.
I follow the resuming of Profile S19 for following reasons. The development will increase traffic through the 7007 top division. And as a resident giving out a down angle currently is not consuming during peak times due to the amount of traffic coming in from sector 36 angle speed downs. They are currently wrote signs in synagogues prohibiting through trade. However, I'm not aware of any enforcement of these signs. The residence of the development of Barthol is 19, to travel
east of Seth Weightman-6 and north or south on Ronald Bowns. or choose to drive through the seminar subdivision using ancient box boulevard or Sunday Boulevard. Thereby avoiding making left turns or U-turns at the intersections of Rooksbyns and State Road 56 and also ancient Out Boulevard and State Road 36. And therefore I think that kind of development there would not be a good idea. Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, we also have um Mr. Michael Garbut on the line. Mr Garbett, would you please state your name and address for the record and whether you've been sworn?
Marco Dart left. And dress [address removed]. And I have no.
So we got.
Yes, we we bought our home in Seth
with the Z S19 Lots zone for retail and office. And at some point in the future more stores, restaurants and offices would improve the livability of 7 Oakes, making it more convenient to eat out, shop, and find services like doctors, headresser's and so on. The way it's zone today created the expectations that Seth Oak will become an even better place to live in the future. Changing the zoning
to multifamily use would add traffic. And it would reduce the property values and it would destroy our reasonable expectations that the area will improve over time as more amenities become available.
I think because of that, doing a change when there is other appropriately zoned areas in that similar area, I don't think it's it to the benefit of the community.
Thank you very much. Anyone else on WebEx?
That's all we have on Weather.
Okay. Joel. Before Joel speaks, just quickly the ch just for the audience, the Chair needs to leave in approximately five minutes. And we don't have a vice chair today, so under our rules of procedure, the Chair has designated Mr. Hansel to act as the acting chair for this meeting for the remainder of the meeting once he leaves. I just didn't want you to be anybody to be shocked when the chair gets up to leave. And Mr. Gans will moves.
I hope I
didn't hurt your feelings.
I didn't want to say. But we will still have a quorum even once he leaves.
Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief and I'm responding only in rebuttal to points that that have been raised since I sat down. First, a question about our MPUD rights and the argument that we don't have MPD rights to do this. There have been at least fifteen to twenty Loom conversions uh over the course of this MPUD, including Several that involve multifamily conversions. There have been conversions from multifamily out, and there have been conversions from other items into multifamily. So
it's been done repeatedly both directions, never been questioned. In fact, as to allowable uses, multifamily has been added as an allowable use to other parcels where it wasn't originally. Designated as allowable use. So this is not the first time that that would have been done. And of course, other uses have been added that were never contemplated. As Steph told you, the last change. added a brewery use. So breweries are okay according to staff in Seven
Oaks, but apartments aren't, even though we need apartment dwellers to help drink the beer to support the brewery. So The other point was that why should we be allowed to do apartments here when there are other multifamily sites within Seven Oaks? The problem is those sites are not for sale. They have not been for sale, or they were originally authorized for this use, but they've been converted to other uses. For example, on the north end, those brown multifamily sites that were originally
primary multifamily. family, they have been converted to retail. They actually went the other way. That's car dealerships and retail on the 75 front. So the map was just to show you where things originally had been authorized, just to demonstrate that multifamily is not a new introduction, and it's been done many times.
Importantly from that map. and why our location makes sense, all of those designations from the beginning. And all of the new ones for multifamily have and for all non-single family, all non-single family uses have always been around the perimeter. They're either at the north perimeter or the south perimeter. So the integrity of that internal single-family neighborhood. has largely been preserved. We're doing nothing to challenge that. We're doing nothing to
intervene in that. So this proposed use is on the perimeter exactly where such use was always intended. The attorney said that there would be some adverse CBD impact. I didn't catch exactly that argument, but let me reiterate the facts. Our parcels are in the CDD. They have the CDD assessment link. They have to pay their operating and maintenance assessment share every year, just like all the other parcels. So this parcel, regardless
of the use it's put to, has to pay its OM share. It's on the tax bill. It has no choice. And it's still obligated to pay its allocated share of. the CDD debt, which I indicated would actually be paid off one sum in this case. Neighborhood park waiver. The neighborhood park waiver that was requested is 100% consistent with every multifamily apartment project I've done in this county the last three years where those waivers
have routinely been granted. They give them credit for the amenitized areas that they provide and the dog park. And in this case, this is back. when staff was supporting our application. Remember we went a year and a half with staff support. So we vented all these issues. We met with parks and rec. Barts and Rec, in their review comments, approved our waiver. They were specific as to what counted, what did not, and what we would have to do. And in their written review comments
in the record, they agreed that what we were doing was 100% consistent with all of the neighborhood park requirements for all of the other apartment projects they've approved in the last three or four years. So that was signed up. This is before staff changed its mind and decided it didn't want to part.
Two more points. Traffic. Obviously the only person who's testified who's qualified to opine on traffic is Mr. Henry, the traffic engineer. And he testified that in fact the apartments, the 320 apartments, will produce substantially fewer PM peak hour trips. Which is how the traffic engineers measure, than the retail. And in fact, if you look at his bar chart, they will and do the math, we will produce only 31%. 31%
of the trips that the existing approved retail would produce if it was built. Finally, arguments that what we really should be doing is more office and particularly medical office. Well, as you're probably aware, within Seven Oaks, there is a new hospital under construction with a large medical arts building under construction. So that need is under construction in Seven Oaks. It is being met. What isn't being met is this residential infill donut
hole on State Road 56 in the urban quarter. That's all we have. Thank you.
Any other comments? I think you should you should let staff if staff has any final words, Mr. Petros should let him do that, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of points that I'd like to uh underline here. Um as it relates to zoning actions and new zoning actions, which this would be one, um they must comply with today's comprehensive plan. So even though the DRI and of this development may predate the comprehensive plan, it nevertheless has to meet the policy Of the current comprehensive plan per state statute. And the fact that this project predates the comprehensive plan does not mean that
the comprehensive plan doesn't apply. Likewise, it doesn't preclude the application of the current, the land use equivalency matrix, I should say, does not preclude the application of the current comprehensive plan. And so we have to consider that trip generation and traffic impacts are one piece of the puzzle. The LUMAT illustrates the impacts to roads, but it does not limit the economic development considerations that I've previously noted. As far as the uh Pre-app notes
were mentioned. The pre-app is a pre-application meeting. And the title says everything. It's before an application is actually submitted into the department for review. So the pre-app is not a full review to assess the entire impact of the project. It provides good forward intelligence on a number of projects, let's say a majority of them. But sometimes a larger review identifies other issues that come up and these have to be vetted up. Additionally, I'll
note that as it relates to the The policy flu 1810 and the discussion for adequate land for employment generating uses and the 10-acre argument that was presented. I think that's a discussion that really needs to be taken into consideration with what occurred at parcel S18. It's tied to the story with of parcel S18 because.
Parcel S18 is part of the overall quadrant that is at the north, is that my head is turned wrong, northwest corner of Buspey Downs and Sierra 56. The story of parcel S18, which I'll walk over and point to the yellow spot on the map here at my left. Mm-hmm.
The office cardboard? Yeah, okay.
Sorry, partial S eighteen I think um included the multifamily option uh at that location. Um but the multifamily option was not elected there, or selected rather. Um did the partial S eighteen went to office and I think This is where multifamily would have been most appropriate as a transition between the residential uses to the north and non-residential uses or to the south on parcel S18. Since it would have been by
my estimations at somewhat 1,000 feet or so from the stairway 56 frontage, and that would be The land that would be preserving for the employment generating land uses in total. Parcel S18 is 50 plus acres, if I recall. And so one might say that, you know, far from being a precedent to allow multifamily on parcel S19, it was the southern limit of where we would allow it here at this development corner. with Bruceby Downs. And then as it
relates to density
You know, the comprehensive plan does not mandate higher density in any particular location in the self-market area. It's true that the comprehensive plan desires and seeks higher densities in the self-market area in the urban concentration. area, but it doesn't identify particular locations. It doesn't say that this particular area, beyond what the res clues already indicate on the on the future land use map, it doesn't particularly indicate that this particular area needs to have X amount of density.
And so that's important to note because when identifying those higher densities, we must consider and fit those densities within the context of future land use policies and the economic development policies that I previously talked about, which was Flu 187 and 1810, as well as ED 144 and ED. uh one six two.
Finally, I do want to note that as it relates to the memo from the Office of Economic Growth, it was posted with the agenda on Friday for the Planning Commission meeting today. However, I understand that the applicants only received it on Friday, but we also only received four plus gigabytes of data from them on Friday as well. So training deformation that occurred on Friday.
I'm available for any questions.
Any questions?
And Denise, we're done with WebEx, right? Everybody's spoken that's registered?
We are done with WebEx, yes. Thank you.
Okay. Bring it back to the board. I think we're to the Planning Commissioner Oakley Commissioner Yeah.
Perfect, you wanted to speak.
Yes, thank you Chairman. Um I have living in Seven Oaks for over fourteen years. I live in grassland community in across the street of the uh elementary school inside of Seven Oaks. I have a couple of questions for the staff first. I'm really familiar with the area, as I mentioned to you, I wake up every day there. And I I go to have a dinner in my house every day, so I know how it is. I have some comments that
I hear from the applicant that bring my attention. I don't believe that the issues that we have in the medical access to doctors, dentists is under construction. I really don't believe. I'm really familiar with that hospital. They are building their Bay Care. And we need services. And I'm totally in favor to workable communities, I'm totally in favor to Mid-Use community, but I really believe the location of this specific property is not the ideal. And
other things that I hear from the replica is the need of residential there. Honestly, if you see the aerial pictures, you see clearly that we have a multifamily at the behind Sas Clock at the northeast area. I don't know how many units there are, but it's a decent-side complex. And the same at the e at the west side, inside of 7 Oaks, we have uh uh another apartment complex that is there. I'm really familiar with the Summergate development that
is 38 office building on the north side and that was built by Kerry Howell construction developer and Waterford built the west side that is a Seven Oaks Professional Center. So saying all this, I have a question for the county at this point that is really important for me to hear. The slide that you present, one of the comments that you mentioned is that the utilities are compromised if we build three hundred and twenty units. Because I my interpretation
is that we don't have the capacity As the county to provide the decent uh utility services for that apartment complex. If the county staff, can you please explain to me we have or not the capacity to build those uh units there?
And again, is uh I have been following this specific topic for a long time and I have been doing my research and I believe that this is not a workable area. It's not. It's not something that I want to take my kids to walk around it. You know, is I prefer to have high end uh restaurants, uh services, like you say. I I go every day there, I cut my hair there, I go to the dry clinic,
I everything is around that area. And maybe I cannot be How can I say this as my second language that is English? But uh I try to be the most objective judge, as you mentioned, here. In favor what I see is I have a lot of information and experience living there. I locate myself in another location and I'm sure that my comments are going to fit with what I say right now.
If this is what we have around. So saying this one, I oppose to this multi-family Complex there. I would love to see development like that. It's no doubt that the quality of the construction that you offer there is something that we need in Pasco County. You having developed those type of uh uh units all the all the way to Naples, to Four Myers and and Pinellas,
but again it's not the right location. I don't have a doubt that if you build, we build as the quality and the service you expect, but it's not what I need what we need there, in my opinion.
Thank you. Mr. Anderson.
Um question I understand that there's been fifteen to twenty I guess they're pronounced Lumens, L U E M S. Have has uh have any of those requests been denied at any time?
Mr. Chairman M the answer to that would be no. Those land use equivalency matrices exchanges, to my knowledge, then the
Yes. Sorry. Should have drinking some water. Um to my knowledge, the answer to the the question is no, the land use equivalency matrices exchanges prior have not been denied.
So Mr. Pitos, if you could answer the question about utilities, I I read the memo differently than you're reading it. I read it as That it's gonna place additional demands on utilities. It wasn't necessarily saying that we didn't have plant capacity to accommodate it. It just said that I think what he said in his memo, and Terry correct me if I'm wrong, was that it it would have a greater utility demand than the commercial would, not necessarily that we don't have capacity to handle it. Terry comes if I'm wrong. That's correct. Thank you for
shaded.
Okay. I uh I would like to ask uh uh Mr Two and his team to talk about the access to the existing commercial On the east side of the property and the access from
The highway.
Right, I'm going to ask Christy Barrera, our planner, to put her graphic back up and walk you through. That's a good point. And it's one that we specifically worked through with staff while they were still processing and supporting the application because we worked out those dry aisles, those parking areas, and those sidewalks specifically with staff, and they signed off on them. But Christy can walk you through that quickly with a slide.
Mr. Hansel.
Yeah, Chris.
I'm sorry, before she does that, um I told Mr the Chairman I have to leave as well. I have a doctor's appointment, but just prior to my leaving I have no issues with this particular rezoning. I think it's appropriate um as Mr. Two has said that the number of multifamily planned for this development was 1700. They're far below that, which means we have already plan for the capacity to accommodate those students so we have n no capacity issues from the school
boards. uh perspective.
Thank you.
Anyway, sorry I have to leave.
Go ahead.
Commissioner Anderson, to answer your question, Denise has one of the graphics up right now. This is the pedestrian graphic, and we can flip to an aerial too if that's helpful. But there are three existing access points to this property. There are three drive aisles that go to the Sam's Club parking lot. And we are not proposing any changes to those dry vials. So they will still be in the same form that they are. So you have the northern dry aisle here that goes along the back of Sam's Club and actually comes
up to, I believe this is Summerbrook Drive. And there is a median cut here too. So you can do a right in, a right out, a left in, or a left out. The middle drive aisle again is staying in the same location. There is a median cut here as well. This goes along the front of the Sam's Club, and this road actually again goes back out to this main road that goes to Bruce Bow. And then here we have our southern access point. The southern
drive aisle is between the back of all the outparcels and the Sam's Club parking lot. And again, it winds around here to the entrance of Sam's, out to South Brook, out to Bruceby Downs. You can see that there's a median cut here at State Road 56.
And then there's another entrance over here, and then the main entrance at Seven Oaks Boulevard.
With the properties vacant as they are now, what do you think the greatest uh entrance into that commercial district is from the West?
From HO's Boulevard. I don't know. Steve Henry might be able to answer that question for you.
Steve Henry, yeah. Um we actually had done counts out there uh to look at at what what the volumes are. And so the the majority of them go in and out the middle access, which are the front of the stores, which is what you would expect. Right. We've got a write-in, right-out, which gets you know some of the people coming from 56, but the majority of people that are using it are using the full median opening because that goes to the front of the store.
That's the that's the only thing that really bothers me from a um Just a a flow capacity and the parking lot on either side with traffic going both directions in a in a small area.
Well again, we would this this development will have you know uh 70% less traffic than if that were developed as commercial. And we also have looked at those driveways to see what the operation is of those with the multifamily and they Will all operate except the level of service, and there's sufficient turn lanes to accommodate those. So we've already looked at that and evaluated that, and from the standpoint of what's existing plus what we're adding to it, we believe it'll operate except the level of service. So it's actually better than if it were commercial because you'd have significantly more
traffic at those driveways than what you'll have with the multifamily.
Okay. So we we I just see a difference between the the commercial and the residential in terms of uh the nature of the people that will be using it principally. But thank you for the answer.
Show me again how the traffic will flow into this property. Because I live in this area. And I don't quite agree with what you're saying, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Please show me again how the traffic will flow in there without going through the parking lot at Sandsclub.
What you say the the traffic for this particular project? For this project in this area. In it w what the the access that it has. Now it has full access to the you know the access through the SAMS Club. It has the access through you know to uh fifty six. Now the predominant amount of traffic we'll use ancient oaks because that's obviously the front door for for the multifamily. But if if somebody is wants to go to you know is coming from the north on 581,
they can certainly turn on the internal roadway system and get to the site from there. And once you live there you'll know the shortcuts within uh Seven Oaks of how to get there. But again we'll we'll the people that are visiting that most of them will use ancient oaks. But again we have a significant decrease in the amount of traffic that will be using those. Okay. Thank you.
Yeah the only other thing I just want to make sure I understand is the original uh plans were up to 1700 multifamily units. And you're you're what now 500 now? Yeah. And adding the three six? Yeah. Put you over eight hundred. Okay.
Chris? Yeah.
Chris,
do you have any
questions? Yeah well, more more statements. I mean I I have a tough time with the outright denial of this project to be to be honest. I I think it's uh I think they're I see both sides of the argument that there's some good it's a very uh positive project potentially for the for the area. Um You know, Mr. Two made the comment that uh the property's been marketed for five years. Um a legitimate user has not uh come forward. I've lived in the area for about sixteen years and ever since I lived in the area this this
property's been been vacant. But I've always wondered why, actually, given the area and and uh what surrounds it, I I would have expected that this property would be already developed. Um that being said, I mean, is there I guess a question to staff or to Mr. Two? I mean, are there any other legitimate uses for the property that have that have there been any permits filed ever in the history of this site that uh um that any Anyone's aware of?
Uh this is Nectarios Pitos again. Um Legitimate uses
It within the context of the zoning, obviously that
there's a credit titlement, sorry, detail office.
Right. And I'm saying has there ever been anyone that stepped forward to to develop this in in the context of that zoning?
Not familiar with any applications for this location, but in terms of what it could be used for would be um commercial entitlements consistent with C two district, which allows also C one and then um office uses.
Okay.
Yeah, I just again from a a property rights perspective and and the like, it's um I have a difficult time denying this outright on the on the face. I wonder, you know, there is an alternative motion that that we have that I wonder if the applicant would consider a uh up well let me step back. So this is in the urban service area, so there is no height restriction. Ums Belvin, is that correct?
That's accurate.
Okay. So would the applicant consider the alternative motion that's that's presented?
Joel two to an associates for the applicant. You're probably talking about the second alternative because I certainly would support the third alternative, which is to approve the uh the conditions that we'd worked out the staff. Are you asking about the vertical mixed use option, Mr. Poole? Yes, sir. Uh I've discussed that with my client and he firmly believes there is no present market for that product at this location. Uh He would build it if he thought there was a market because they do mixed use projects, as he told you, and commercial.
But he honestly, legitimately sees no viability for vertical mixed use at that location. Uh so we would have to respectfully decline that option. Uh and obviously urge you to uh approve the third alternative, which is approval with the conditions staff that worked out with us previously. But thank you for the inquiry. We we expected that. So I I vetted that with the client yesterday. Third Okay.
Thank you.
Well it's back to the board now. Is there any motions?
I move a motion to deny Pc nine.
I'll second that.
Okay, there's been a motion any discussion.
You have a forum, you have a forum member. Okay.
Uh all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Nay. Aye. Three, two, one. Motion passes.
Just a point of order, Mr. Goldstein. So the fact that uh Mr. Williams announced his position in support of our proposal, that that doesn't count before he departed the hearing?
Well, first of all it wouldn't have affected the outcome because it would be three to two.
No, but my question is it's important to me in Boat County.
Okay, well he didn't actually vote. I understand that he expressed what he how his position, but he wasn't here for an actual vote, so I don't think we can count a vote
Second point of order is the acting chairman allowed to second a motion under your rules of procedure.
Um I believe so, yes. I don't think there's anything that's stopping him from doing that.
And the third question, whether a resident of Seth Oaks was qualified under Snyder to vote on the matter or whether he should have recused himself for lack of independence.
So I don't think he has any special private gain, and he's one of thousands of residents and under the applicable A G opinions if you're, you know, around one less than one percent of the affected residents, you don't have a special private gain or loss. So I don't think he's prohibited from voting.
Okay, and just for the record, my point of clarification, my point is not of pecuniary financial interest, it's his own statements uh unprompted. That uh he had personal uh experience, information, and preconceived notions prior to the hearing, and I believe that violates the Snyder obligation to only consider competent substantial evidence presented at the hearing itself. So that's just for the record, I'm not here to argue it, but that's my that's my point as
the legitimacy of that vote. I view that more as him just. These are his factual observations because he lives in the air, not because he has any um preconceived notions. These are just factual observations from living in the air.
Thank you. I appreciate the response and I guess someone else uh can decide that rather than you and me. Thanks.
I would also note that this is a recommending body, so I'm not sure that any procedural irregularity at this body is gonna affect Anything anyway.
I I understand and and I'm just preserving it for the record which you clearly also understand. Thank you.
Who who was can I ask a question, who was the person that uh you you're concerned about in having knowledge about the area? Mr. Sayez. That's what I thought, but I wasn't quite sure if you were to be able to do that.
Thank you. You're welcome.