Zoning Amendment (Regular) – Renner MPUD – Darrell A. and Karen J. Renner – Rezoning Request from A-C Agricultural District and AR-1 Agricultural Residential District to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to Allow 108 Single-Family Detached Units on Approximately 50.15 Acres – South Central Pasco County, on the South Side of Bexley Road, Approximately 1 Mile West of the Intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Wisteria Loop
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
DispositionApproved
Approved Staff’s recommendation with amended wording to include the alignment with Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Fitzpatrick voting nay.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 25, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 25, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-22-7526 in full →PDD-22-7526 was taken up 4 times between Oct 26, 2021 and Jan 25, 2022, continued 2 times — this is appearance 4.
- Oct 26, 2021BoardP67▶Continued
- Nov 18, 2021PlanningP3▶No disposition in the minutes
- Dec 7, 2021BoardP124▶Continued
- Jan 25, 2022BoardP68▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 35m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 81% of 205 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Um N right one. Madam Chairman Members of the Board of County Com previously uh for this item as it has been continued Uh from the dis October twenty sixth. twenty twenty one meeting and December seventh, twenty twenty one meeting to this time.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Commission Members. Jessica Coell with Planning and Development. Item P68 is item PDD 227526 in the name of Daryl and Karen Renner for the requested change in zoning from AC Agricultural District and AR1 Agricultural Residential District to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for 108 single-family detached units on. approximately 50.15 acres. As this item has been heard before by this commission, I will jump
forward to the changes that have occurred since the December 7th hearing.
Since December 7th, staff and the applicant have been in discussions about the proposed exhibits. Staff proposes revisions to add exhibit B to condition 16 and some text changes to conditions 16, 17, and 18. I would like to ask to receive and file these conditions as changed and provide copies for the commission members.
Second.
All in favor? Aye.
Opposed? None?
Thank you.
So as you can see as the exhib or the changes provided, staff has agreed. To allow the applicant to enter into a development agreement within 60 days of the approval of this MPUD to address mobility fee credits, right-of-way dedication requirements, permitting and timing of construction of the substandard road improvements identified in condition 16. The other request the changes also identify adding
language to condition number 17. I'm sorry, to condition number eighteen that would allow for sixty-six units to receive certificate of occupancy before the completion of the roadway improvements. When the application was submitted, Land Development Code Section 901.4C, Substandard Roadway Analysis and Mitigation exemptions, allowed for an exemption in substandard roadway analysis and mitigation if the project generated less than 100 daily
trips. In December, the Board approved an amendment to this section of the Land Development Code that increased that threshold to less than 500 daily trips. Yes. With this code change, staff can support the 66 units prior to roadway improvements being completed. Thus, this proposed request, as conditioned with the revisions given to you today, is consistent with the Pasco County Land Development Code. and the applicable provisions within the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. Again, here is a master
plan unit development master plat map plan for the M PUD. And this does come to you with the recommendation from staff and planning commission for approval as conditioned in your packet with those revised conditions 16 through 18 presented today. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Um
We do have one speaker signed up.
Well I think we have the applicant.
So
Thank you, Shelley Johnson, [address removed], and I have been sworn we are in agreement with the revised conditions that have been handed out to y'all. Um we appreciate all the work because we've done this pretty quickly in 30 days. So and I know everybody's really busy, so um we're in we're good, but we're here to answer any questions if y'all have any. So
Uh well I have one. Um did we change change our language? I was Oh we we're good? Okay. Yeah, we're good. Sounds like we're good. All right, um let's go to the Applicant who the speaker who signed up. Public comment. Public comment.
Looks like Ray is walking
this way.
Ray Gab.
Would you acknowledge that you were previously sworn? I was
uh previously sworn Ray Gad [address removed]. As always, I'm here in a person c personal capacity, not my professional capacity. Thank you for your time. Um as I had indicated earlier when we started this adventure, uh not opposed to development. And I'm not going to oppose, I think, staff recommendations today. I have a couple of questions though. Um one is regarding the 66 um COs.
Um I would like to think that after they got to 66 COs that no more permits. would um be issued um because a permit is permission. So I'm wondering what happens after the sixty six COs. Um because then if they issue permits that Is a little bit confusing to me. Um second thing, um, there is an actual alignment on the Vision Road map. And I would
like that alignment to be followed. So two items. What happens after the sixty-six COs, because if you issue them permits, that's a problem. And then number two, do we have some reasonable expectation that the actual existing vision road alignment that's on the vision map today will be followed?
Okay, we'll have staff um maybe answer those questions. Thank you.
Who is the s well, does anyone else want to speak? Why don't we get all the speakers and then we'll answer the questions.
Is someone coming to speak?
Commissioner, my name's Jeremy Couch, [address removed]. I have not been sworn.
Yes. Do you swear that or affirm that the testimony you were about to give in this matter is the truth, so help you God? I do. Thank you. Um so I'll
I'm a concerned um property owner on the street as well. Um I'm not opposed to development. But I would like them to follow the vision road alignment that's shown in the Clark M PUD, which Westeria loop is unique. There's a lot of homes that are estate homes on the lake. Um there's a lot of really nice mature trees. along the road is very quaint. Um the alignment goes right through a pasture. It's
gonna be easy for them to build. They're not gonna have conflicts with citizens. It's it's gonna be real smooth if they go through that pasture. And that will kinda keep the character of wisterio Um Intact. And so I support it as long as they follow that alignment. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Uh
I don't believe we have one other speaker.
Is there anyone else after uh Mr. Nacko that would like to speak? All right, this will be our last speaker. Morning. Good afternoon. No, good afternoon.
It's a morning somewhere in the world. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Chris Notco, [address removed]. I've been sworn in and I am here as a private citizen. Um just to follow up with some of the things, you know. So anybody here in Pasco County knows that Ridge Road was the longest project ever to have to get approved. Our fear is the same thing here. We do not want a project where it's being promised that a vision road will be put in, but permits are delayed, things happen, and we understand from a corporate standpoint they just want to move forward to the next project. So I just asked a couple of
things. One is and I don't know what the answer what Mr. Gad had received, but After those 66 houses, the COs have to put in, but no more permits after that until the road is built. Because the road will never be built. if you allow all the houses to go up and then there'll be a reason that oh it's good you know the permits weren't in for the road. That's the fear for those people that live in that community. You know the other aspect is With those houses there, you know, the impact of the entire community. So I go, I'm all
for smart smart growth. I think everybody is. The fact that growth is coming, but make sure that road stays the way it was promised and it was aligned. It doesn't get realigned because of permitting. And the houses, there has to be something that the builder, there's an enticement that they have to stay engaged, have to be part of this project, and not come back to you two years from now and said, We did everything we could to improve this. road but we're not getting the permit so we're gonna just fix the road that's there now because if you you can't fix the road that's there now with the amount of growth because as I spoke about before it's not just about
this project that this community is concerned about. It's about all the further projects that are going on. So if we're talking about smart growth, we have to realize this is only one of the only roads that will cross over the path of train tracks. CSS CSX is not easy to get roads through over their lines. So we better be smart and do it right this time because if we're not, this is going to be a disaster for this Land Lakes area for numerous years to come. Thank you very much.
Okay, is there anyone online that wanted to speak to this issue? This item?
Just confirming with uh staff but I do not believe we have anyone, correct? To speak to this issue, John? We we have somebody from staff that can answer questions. No no he means aligned.
Nobody's aligned.
Waiting to speak uh No, I'm not sure. Well we're gonna have staff come up and let them answer those questions. Is that okay? All right, so who from staff will answer about the road alignment, please? And the vision road and how that alignment happens and
So Essen Khalil should be on. Um if you would unmute him, he can provide the answers.
Good afternoon, Commissioner This is Asin Khalil with current planning. Uh um. We answer Mr. Gad's first question about the 66 units. We are approving this project to go up to 66 certificates of occupancy. Uh and we are conditioning them that those improvements have to be completed. after the further development.
After the 66.
Correct. Sorry. Before you issue the sixty-seventh or any more COs, you have to get those improvements completed. Okay. The applicant is also, I just wanna let the board know, the applicant is providing for bonding of all these improvements. Uh for the vision alignment. And there is a time period also. I believe uh staff um can clarify that Jessica can what's a twenty-four month period that we requested that these improvements be completed,
uh considering the vision alignment. On on the other question that Mr. Gadd brought up and Mr. Calf brought up. The alignment to stay as the whatever is shown on the vision map. Uh I just wanna clarify one thing. The alignment shown on the vision map is not really studied. It's not the ultimate alignment that may happen Uh When we do these types of roadways and alignments, there are studies done. And
since this alignment is showing cutting through a a major wetland We would attempt to avoid the wetland as much as possible, or at least the impact should be minimized. There is a drawing uh provided by the applicant and Jessica can share that on the big screen. That shows how the future alignment would happen. If Jessica could bring that up, please.
Well she's um getting that ready. I see the applicant for the Clark property is here. I mean the attorney representing the Clark property. Part of what needs to happen to make this road happen is that that land Uh needs to be dedicated to the county, is that correct? So that's gonna happen quickly.
The the Clark M PUD, this is S and Khalil again, Clark M PUD shows an area of dedication, uh right of way dedication for this future vision road. Uh based on the final alignment the design when it's done Uh I believe Clark is uh willing and ready to dedicate that right-of-way to us at at our request.
Jessica Coel again with Planning and Development. The alignment shown on the Clark MPUD is slightly different than what is shown here with the proposal that is Renner is is proposing. As uh my colleague Mr. Khalil said, the alignment is not studied. That would seek to avoid wetland impacts as much as possible through the various permitting agencies. Again, the Clark MPUD did agree to dedicate right-of-way and necessary stormwater area for
the improvements necessary for that right-of-way. There is some timing in the Clark MPUD that states that they have to do it at time of plat or within 90 days of the county's request. But Mr. Khalil is correct. The county was working and agreeing to a 25-year-old. four month period that would be discussed in the development agreement that would be later presented and seeking approval. Okay.
Madam Clerk.
Yes.
Um question. Yeah, don't you? So don't leave. You s some you mentioned there was a bond that was gonna be issued. When does that bond get issued to build the road?
Bonding for subdivisions usually occurs when it is submitted for plating with our survey department if any outstanding improvements are not completed. It is bonded.
Do they apply to build the road or to get the road permitted immediately or do they wait?
You mean the specific project the
Vision Road. Are they applying to get it approved? Right away or are they waiting?
The applicant, it's my understanding I'd rather them speak to it, but they have no intentions upon delaying the process any further for development of this site. They would seek to get the improvements um approved through the various agencies as expeditiously as possible and also enter into the development agreement to protect what the county wants as far as that roadway is concerned.
uh the minimization of wetland impact because it's just something that's gonna happen through the process anyway. So we can follow the road as close as we want, but if the agencies say you've got to avoid it if you can We're gonna be subject to that.
There are external agencies that could say that during the review process that We would want to at least
Okay.
The issuing of COs and you can't issue it after sixty six, I'm comfortable with that language? If you go to the fact that they can't do anything after that with any permitting, you're gonna slow down the development, which is also the cash that's gonna bring in to help them pay for the thing. So I don't want to necessarily tie their permits up. But I'm okay with the COs.
on it. The permitting is just gonna slow down development and the financial viability of getting it all through together, which we want to see happen.
And that is a an important clarifying point. So thank you for bringing that up. The permit issuance would be different than the issuance of the certificates of occupancy that would add vehicular trips to the roadway network.
Okay. Um Commissioner Fitzpatrick.
Okay, yes. I had made recommendations at the last meeting about the alignment of the road, but the alignment of the road on here looks exactly the same as it did last time.
Correct. And again, this is mostly conceptual because we do not know what the actual permitting agencies will require in order to avoid those wetland impacts when it is reviewed by those agencies. We do try to, when the county does these, do a PD and E study to try and avoid as many impacts, not just to wetlands, but adjacent areas that we might need to acquire right away from with private entities or private owners. So it is something that Is ideally trying to skirt the wetland because they assume that that will be one
of the comments that is generated through the review of this vision road. However, we can't determine until the construction plans are actually in for review the exact alignment necessary for this road.
But it is the intent of the vision road to go as close to go as northward as possible without impacting that Class A wetland.
I can't speak to that. I'm pretty sure that's what the intent is. I believe I believe that that would be determined by the agencies reviewing that. But
I did speak with the applicant and they said they were working with staff. So when they were saying that, I was under the impression that they were actually changing the alignment of the road and section C is still completely on Wisteria, and I thought they were gonna go around and change.
Yeah.
So I'm not sure if um the applicant's transportation engineer would like to speak to that. I know there were some safety concerns about the curvature of the road and doing it too drastically to not Like to prevent safety issues from occurring um with the realignment. Um however I do feel that staff has reviewed as much as we can conceptually without locking them into something that another agency might say that is not feasible when it comes to the actual permitting and construction of the roadway.
With the alignment not being updated at all, I am a little concerned because it still has it going over the wetlands and I always do try to find resolutions to the concerns on every s project and I would like to request a continuance on this project for thirty days.
Because this is not what I was discussed with the applicant.
Uh I mean it's not exactly the Vision Road, but it's pretty reasonably in compliance with the Vision Road alignment as is.
This looks exactly the same as the last time it was brought to us last month.
Correct. I think they made some adjustments. I will say that What you're talking about, Commissioner, are design details once we get surveying wetland field data and all the other design details that the engineering team will need to make final alignment decisions before prior to submitting for permits. So I mean you're talking about engineering design. in the actual alignment of the road. The vision is With every one of our patient roads, the where they go flexes based on what we find when we do the P D and E study. ourselves or whether or when a developer does it. So Yeah,
at the conceptual level this is what it is. As they go get and do their design work, which they have not done yet. they will dial in specifically where that road needs to be. in compliance with the vision as best they can and the other regulatory agencies.
Then it will be adjusted to move n as north as possible?
We can't go too far north because
the curvature of the road, the design speed of the road, the impact of the existing network, all that has to go into the That's why we have a civil engineering design team that's going to be that's gonna work on that for the applicant to c solve those problems.
To me this looks the same and I'm not comfortable with that.
No, it's it's it's different than the last one.
Well just uh
So The current alignment. If you're saying it's different, show the current alignment and show the alignment that we showed in the last meeting. Let's compare them.
When you say current alignment, do you mean the vision road as in Pasco mapper as
it's shown to you? I'm just going by what the commissioner just made a statement that it's not that it's
Section C looks exactly the same as what it was before.
But you're saying it's different, so show us the difference.
Yes. Thank
you. The I saw I'm sorry if I misled you. The the exhibit is the same as what you saw. The anal the the information presented during the back and forth with the applicant, we can't Hold them into a specific alignment without with what Mr. Biles identified as the details of engineering. So just to clarify, sections A and C are the substandard roadway improvements, and those are considered to be the areas of the road that are existing that just
need substandard roadway improvements. Section B is actually identified as the realignment portion. So I I Not certain if it's feasible for them to adjust section C as far as an alignment is concerned, especially trying to maintain the safety of the curvature of segment B.
Didn't you show us a map before that had section B going into that wetland? Did or somewhere I saw a section B going through the wetland?
It is going through the wetlands
right now. No, no. I mean the wet the middle part of that wetland. There was another B that was shown to me somewhere along the line.
That would have required a bridge.
Yeah, where's the pastor that's a good thing?
Testimony a second ago. Can somebody show us the pasture?
These wearing road ties.
We'll pull that up for you on Pasco Mapper.
Yeah.
Hey Madam Chair.
Yeah.
A question for you.
We don't seem to be ready for prime time right now. Should we go to sixty nine and then bring this back until they're ready to
How long until
you're ready for what we need. She's pulling up the exhibit from Pasco Mapper right now that shows the conceptual alignment that was perceived to be appropriate before a P D and E study is actually done.
So if you can go like a little further west and zoom in. You're right there.
Zoom in a little bit please.
Mm-hmm.
A little further east.
So you can see Bexley Road that comes over the train tracks there.
And if you zoom in on the wetlands, it does go a little bit further north than the existing proposed alignment in segment B. But the curvature of the road. Is a little bit more fluid with the exhibit shown.
I think you're on the wrong side of the track.
I don't know. Sho show the vision, right?
Right. Is that the train tracks to the right there? Yes. Okay.
Oh my god. I feel like I'm on a roller coaster ride looking at this.
So you can you can see to the west of the lake you have the wetlands, right w westeria loop.
Kind of ends and then the vision road is black and it comes through the bottom of the wetlands.
Follow it with your you might need to go to the Control the
black dotted line is the vision road? Okay. Yes. So it's exactly the same. It's a little closer t to the wetland and that line. There you go. The big the big wetland. Yeah.
There we go.
So section B would actually start further north on Wisteria.
Third. Yes.
Oh and that's the pasture.
So this is the section we're worried about right here.
Mm.
W um when the align ho so when this alignment is d actually studied, does it come back to us or Well How does that work?
Do do you want us to bring the engineering design to you? I mean uh normally it doesn't. It goes into current planning and and is part of the review process.
I think it is the wish of this board to have that road go as far north as we can within reasonable costs that have been determined Right? The cost shares are out there. So
Madam
Chair,
I would feel more comfortable voting if I knew the vote.
So we can have the development agreement set in more specific alignment because I assume we might then be able to go on through a little more deny.
That makes sense. Right now it's just everyone's just guessing.
So we can make sure the development agreement has a more specific one.
Yeah. All right, that worked for everybody?
Well Madam Chairman Mariano.
I would be
more
comfortable voting on this if I
no one has seconded it.
Well I just questioned Madam Chairman M to h to Mr. Goldstein's statement, um bringing back the development agreement Um and you're talking about that which would include the road alignment. So if for some reason this board says they don't like the alignment What would that actually end up doing, you know, a positive or negative impact on the project?
I'm sorry, what?
Well what I'm asking. So that's that's my point. So now you have a a situation where you've got you okay, you have two sides of the corner of this one. So you have one side where they're concerns obviously of the of the citizens of the neighborhood, and then you have an applicant that's they're being told they can build sixty six homes. If you're not going to be able to do We don't like the alignment.
What happens then?
Well you could direct you could direct a different alignment. Uh I mean,
But what okay, we can direct a different alignment, but what if that alignment isn't approved by the by the uh the um Who would who would I mean is Army Corps involved in this? Since it's a wetland? Or is it just Swift Mutt?
I mean yeah that's that's a question we can't answer right now.
So I th I think that's a good suggestion that David has brought up.
Well I understand the suggestion, but at at the same time We still don't know
We know we won't until they get it until someone does goes into it and they can't go into it if they don't have the agreement. So there's that's the only way to start studying where the alignment is. That's the process. Madam
Clerk.
I mean they'll never move forward. With this being in my district, I would like
So I can meet with the applicant and the citizens directly to address their concerns.
No, no, I d no. I'm I'm not I mean
I'd like to make a motion for a continuance.
I'll I'll second it. If you're having some issues still. I mean that's
Uh all
right,
we're gonna let the applicant come up and address
it. Michael Dadey, KB Holmes, I have been sworn. Um, we're out of contract time. We've been continued a number of times. We've it's been two years of process. I I I respectfully ask for an up and down vote. Commissioner Fitzpatrick, we will work hard with staff to make the alignment the best possible alignment. But you have a 404 web. You move it too far north, we're gonna have the Sierra Club after us. It's a balancing act that we'll work with staff, we'll work with the environmental consultants, we'll work with you. I'll
meet and show you but I can't afford another continuance Um Time, money, expense. We've been back before the board a couple times, planning and zoning two or three times. Um the vision road is off our property. It's on the Clark MPD. We're spending one point six million additional dollars to build this vision road for the community at large. So we respectfully ask that you move us forward. We'll use best engineering practices for the best alignment. Thank you.
I would request a continuance of February eighth.
Which
is two weeks. But at least that gives us can't do that. It's wrong wrong side of the county.
No, no. It's a central.
I I am not in support of continuing I'm s because I think that we have the opportunity to again look at it in even better detail. uh when the development agreement comes back. So we they'll ne we'll never have the detail you want if they if we don't let them move forward. Commissioner Mariano.
You know, I I think they Kate B. Holmes has been great coming forward to actually work with us to actually build this road that's not even on the network. They're coming forward. Yeah, only sixty six units is a trigger for them to kind of make sure this happens. But trying to get in the middle of the easy. envir uh between the environmental permitting part of this whole thing. Is it's nothing we can control. Swift Mud or E D E P Army Corps says look you can't build it here, you gotta build it there. What are we gonna do? Not build the road? We need to build the road anyway. And
I think we've got the intentions where we can look closely on what's the best way. I trust our staff to come back with something to us. We can look at it, but If the agencies aren't gonna permit it the way it's set right there, and it is just a vision road map, so it's close to what's gonna be be happening, we hope, but if they push it down, they're gonna push it down. We can then still work with the land that we're gonna need on the keeping as far away as once we hit down the bottom of that corner to keep it inside the pasture as much as we can before it bends back over, but we can't control that. But for to hold this thing up, I mean, I think they bend it over backwards for
us. to m to make this vision road happen, which we do need in that area. And there's no other way to get the road done. It hasn't done been done for the previous MPDs. This is our last shot.
I don't think we should be building a vision road over wetlands at all.
Deck we've been dealt with, we didn't want to build the vision road at all. Yeah, don't go there. But we'll do our best to be environmentally sensitive. We're gonna move it as far north as we can for the neighborhood, as far south as the environmental agencies make us. Ultimately, I wish we had a P D and E study at the beginning of this process.
Thank
you.
I'm gonna move approval staff recommendation.
Well we're we we have a Motion and a second. So we can either have the second or move a second. Listen,
I understand and I appreciate we can't have applicant during com our debate right now.
Yeah, we're in debate.
And I don't know if we have a parliamentarian, but
I think we need to clear the grounds for a second 'cause we're in we're in the middle of Commissioner Oakley that's
Did you have something to add that was relevant? Can I just ask a clarifying question from the commission members? Um when you know Commissioner Mariano brought up not withholding building permits, I just want to make sure we're clear in the conditions. Um are you suggesting that we do not uphold building permits after the sixty-sixth or we do not uphold COs after the sixty-sixth? I think it's COs.
I don't think that's the same thing.
Thank you.
Um but so the idea is to control the amount of people driving on the road. So without a CO there won't be anyone living in those houses to drive on the road. Um
Yeah listen, I understand you guys wanna get going. I appreciate it. It's just I un I but at the same time the district commissioner has some questions on the road. It's two weeks. It's not the end of the world. I uh my hop my second hold is to continue for two weeks. Two weeks.
Okay, so we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of um Continuing. Continuing for two weeks, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Nay. Right. So let's
get
let's
Move approval staff's recommendation.
Right. And w and because the same thing's gonna happen, you won't know the alignment of the road. until they get into the process and start studying it. So we there won't be any difference next in two weeks. So just so everyone's clear on that. But we all understand the intent and what we're working to do here. Yes? Madam
Chairman Mariano So David, the the suggestion about dealing with the alignment in the development agreement when that comes back. Does the does the The text the the conditions that have been passed out need to be modified to or would that just occur?
It probably would just occur. We can make sure it happens, but in an abundance of caution you can add the word alignment um in the list of things that will be addressed in the development agreement. Yes. You could add the word alignment just to be safe. If I'll make the motion
adjusted with the alignment. So the m the motion is amended to include the alignment. Yeah, okay. That that really will take care of what we're we're trying to do. Yeah, I think you should bring it back in the show. Okay. All in favor? Aye?
Aye.
Opposed?
Nay.
Okay, so pass
three three to two.
No it'll be same the same thing. The exact same thing. There's Nothing else that can be done.