Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent)- CPAL21(25) Cross Park PD- Providing for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.17-Cross Park PD

41:21Mr. Chair, you did you say you now wanted to do PC four?

41:24Yes. Uh yes.

41:26Right.

41:34Hello, Amy Heiler with Long Range Planning.

41:38So I guess I'm the one that asked this be pulled. Um, Amy Was this your application?

41:44Uh uh no, I'm covering for somebody.

41:46Well

41:47for staff.

41:47That goes to the heart of my question, though, because um So It it appears that this site the the employment potential of the site is being reduced. For example They're going from eighty thousand office to forty five thousand thirty thousand retail to ten thousand retail um incre we're getting rid of ALF and now there's multifamily. So I'm not understanding why if you look at the Denton Avenue one

42:18That you did.

42:19Correct.

42:19There's an analysis there's an analysis about our economic development policies. There was coordination with the Office of Economic Growth. to ensure that we were retaining employ the employment potential of that site.

42:30Correct.

42:31I don't see any of that analysis for this amendment, even though it's pretty clear to me it's reducing the employment potential of the site. There's no analysis about policy one point eight point ten There's no analysis about economic development policy of 1.4.4. I don't see any fiscal impact analysis. I mean I I don't I'm not understanding why staff is treating want two applications dramatically differently when it comes to the preservation

43:02of the employment potential of the site. So

43:07That's my concern. And I guess my question is did anybody coordinate with the Office of Economic Growth? On this application. Um was there any analysis done about Policy one point eight point ten and one point four point four Any fiscal impact analysis?

43:26It's just purely a reduction of the employment potential of the site without any analysis of those policies.

43:33So as it relates to one point ten or one point eight point ten and one point eight point four, I know those speak directly to the employment generating uses of the aisle flu. So at least for the Denton Avenue purposes, that's why those were cited because the IL flu was being removed in that scenario.

43:50Yeah, but they don't just talk about industrial, because their office is also considered a high paying. So this is clearly reducing

43:57Absolutely. Um I'm not sure if if David Engel was involved in this conversation as well, but I

44:05uh on on this is Terry Nictorios Pitos with the Planning Development Department. On this particular project We looked at it through the lens of the multifamily policy directive that the board had issued in July of twenty twenty. And in this project we approached it from a site planning, so we reverse engineered in the sense what can possibly fit on the site and how does uh how do the different land uses um line up on this irregular parcel. in uh working with

44:35the applicant, the site planning that we did with them to form uh the revisions to the planning to the planned development. Uh It was clear that we're not going to be able to In order to fit what they could do based on the multifamily multifamily policy directive, which is to put multifamily on the property. Uh but still meet the Board's intent of in preserving employment-generating land uses to create viable commercial street frontages. Uh forty five thousand square feet of professional medical office.

45:06was established along the frontage of uh State road fifty four. based on the parking capacities that forty-five thousand square feet would require. And then from there we started to uh obviously they had a number of units that they had to fundamentally meet to get the project done so they had a particular building size associated with the project that they had to meet. Uh and so in in site planning Uh we determined that forty five thousand square feet

45:36uh was appropriate to meet the multifamily multifamily policy directive. In addition to that, we vertically and we had them vertically integrate five thousand square feet of commercial retail office into the uh multifamily building that was separate from their clubhouse and leasing office spaces. And then there was a the bonus three thousand five hundred square feet that was identified for uh pet veterinary activities. So it was a it was a we didn't talk to OEG necessarily

46:07on this particular project, though it had I believe it had been circulated to all the appropriate departments. Um but this particular site was looked at from the multifamily sea policy directive and site planned. in order to determine the proper uh entitlement levels for the planned development.

46:27Well I guess my concern, Terry, is that this seems from a strictly entitlement perspective Seems eerily simil similar to partial S nineteen and seven oakes. I mean it's a it's clearly a an exchange of employment generating uses for apartments and If staff wants to recommend approval over that, I'm not saying you you can't. But there be should be some analysis, at least with S nineteen you did an economic analysis and a fiscal impact analysis to demonstrate Why it met those

46:58policies I see absolutely No analysis in this memo about why it meets our fiscal impact policies or our economic development policies. You're looking at it solely from a multifamily directive, but you're not looking at it, in my opinion, you haven't looked at it at all from a economic development or fiscal impact. impact perspective. Right, but the And it might be okay. I don't know. I'm just saying that there should be some analysis in in the memo addressing those policies. And and I'm pointing this out because

47:28Amy on a very Someone on our other on our agenda There's one that specifically analyzes those policies. For the Denton Avenue one. So I'm not understanding why we're even though this one is clearly reducing employment Why we're not analyzing those policies here.

47:48We could take a look at the policies. The but the Multifamily Policy Directive was based on those policies to preserve employment generating land uses. And there are parcels along the corridor that are that are overentitled. And the site planning exercises that we went through with the applicant.

48:03But I'm just being uh just it's not obvious to me that they are because Even ALF, in my opinion, and I don't think about David Engle probably generates more employment than than a multifamily apartment does. It's probably I think that's probably obvious that it does. So And they're clearly reducing office, they're clearly reducing retail.

48:26I don't I guess I just don't not sure I agree with you that just because they've comply with the multifamily policy directive, that they automatically comply with those Compland policies.

48:34Mm-hmm.

48:35And the Complant policies are adopted provisions in our Comp Plan. They're not just a policy directive. So This may be perfectly okay. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying there needs to be more analysis that is not in this memo.

48:53And you did that analysis for S nineteen. And it wasn't done here.

48:59And even though S nineteen got denied, at least the analysis was in the memo.

49:05So Cynthia is the applicant's um legal representation if you wanna she has got a couple comments.

49:11Does she have the analysis for me?

49:15Right.

49:16Uh good afternoon. Thank you. Cynthia Speidel, I'm with Stearns Weaver, 401 East Jackson Street in Tampa, and I have been sworn. We did do a detailed analysis as part of the application process, David. And if it would make you feel better, we could certainly uh attempt to beef that up in the staff memo between here and planning and board the board uh hearing. I'd also like to mention at least Batsel is the land use counsel, and she's online via WebEx as well as Alia Teffee. to speak to transportation issues. So transportation

49:43issues,

49:43so I don't think

49:43so.

49:44So um so what we did here, David, is we've actually increased the amount of acreage through the site config we have a very unique site configuration constraint here. And I don't know if we have an Elmo if we can pull this up. But um

50:04So due to the unique site configuration, this is the part, it's about a mile uh west of the US 4154 intersection, and it's where there's like a little hump in 54. So we're basically a right triangle. So when we looked at what the entitlements were there, including the ALF entitlements that you were speaking to, we actually did a thorough like site configuration analysis of three other uh ALFs and ILFs in the area, including the two in Trinity. is one is wiregrass. And because they have the benefits of uh Of using stormwater

50:34off-site because they're part of a master planned unit development with master stormwater drainage plans. We don't have that situation here. So we have a very constrained site. We have some wetlands, we have stormwater ponds and a permit already that has that those areas fixed. So um so basically we have limited net development acreage available to us, and when we look At what was actually entitled on the property in the sub-area. We do not believe, and I have the applicant here from Live Development that can speak to it well that did all the site planning for

51:04it. We we couldn't fit everything that was there. So it was just it was approved in the sub-area policy prior at a level that was not realistic for what the site could actually yield. So what we did was recognizing the um Staff's concerns with regard to employment generation is we've uniquely configured a medical office site at the corner there for 45,000 square foot medical office facility. And then we've put the multifamily behind that. And due to the uh Uh right in, right out, that DOT sort

51:35of, we can move it a little bit, but not that much. So that kind of forces where our driveway location is. And that leaves sort of a residual parcel just east of that, which will be veterinary center, pet center, and family park. So we basically have site constraints. We don't really have that much development acreage available to us. So we've committed in the sub-area policy. to address your concerns to a minimum two net acres, I think it's three and a half gross acres, to the medical office facility. And I'd like to introduce Tim who

52:05could actually speak to some of the site configuration constraints that led us to this development footprint.

52:11You don't need to give me all of your justification right now. All I'm asking you and staff to do is Analyze why this complies with policy one point eight point ten. E D one point four point four. Why it's not a a loss in in in It it's not a cause loss from a fiscal impact perspective. It may all be okay, but I see none of this analysis And I just say uh it doesn't appear anybody coordinated with the Office of Economic Growth at all. So That concerns me as well.

52:42Um And I don't and I think that needs to be in the memo. I mean it may again it may be okay Let's say it's a little odd to me that you're saying it's too constrained of a site for ALF, but it's perfectly fine for apartments.

52:56Maybe it's all okay. I'll my I'm not sure.

52:59I I didn't say it was constrained for an ALF, I said it was constrained for the amount that was entitled in the subarray policy.

53:05Why couldn't you just do a smaller ALF? I mean, I think that's a good thing

53:09Yeah, well there were market issues with that because uh the the uh landowner and we have submitted a letter into the record from the landowner that um speaks to his experience with trying to find an ALF and I L F user and um he actually tried to do it himself and it turned out that they came up with a market analysis that there was an oversupply of ALF and I L F within the ten mile radius that they were researching. So he tried very hard to develop it as that was a

53:35office also?

53:36Well this is medical office. That's the reason why we specified and we revised the subarry policy to make it medical office slash professional office.

53:45I mean 'cause I you're saying that there's an oversupply of ALF so that's why you don't want to do L F, but why not?

53:51Because we actually ha we're actually in discussions, well my client's in discussions with a potential medical office uh user for that site, so that's the more realistic version for the site.

54:06If there's a market for medical office, why can't it all be medical office? Or retail.

54:12Uh good afternoon. My name is Tim McKeacher and I'm with Lib Development. We are the contract purchaser for the subject piece here. Uh and

54:19you've been been sworn, right?

54:21I've been sworn in, thank you. Yeah. So we we have been uh working on this project since roughly 2019 with the uh current landowner. Um And we went through the process of analyzing the currently approved MPUD, which allows for ALF and the retail and office uses referenced in your comments. And the reality of the site is that um It has been overentitled to the extent that if it was built strictly as a 110,000 square foot office or retail, the 10 usable

54:51net acres would result in an FAR of about 0.25. So it would be no way in reality that we could fit an ALF project in addition to the 110,000 with the required parking for each use. So layer in the ALF with 275,000 in the original approvals, it's Clearly there's too much there's too much um entitlement for this site to even fit the buildings, the uh the level square footage and the parking that would be required for those uses. Now, going back historically, the original owner went through the process of designing the property,

55:22and he and his plan had a similar acreage allocation of about three acres uh gross to the corner piece and the ALF fit on the same exact component that we're showing the um the um uh multifamily today. The if you were to apply the 110,000 square feet of office and retail to just the three-acre gross, that would be an FAR.84. So there you wouldn't be able to fit that much entitlement onto just three acres of gross acres on the corner. So that also points to the fact that there is it is overentitled

55:52for what the use is. This is a site that uh has been approved before by the county as an MPUD, so there is obviously a mix of Uses that is allowed here. And what we've tried to do in our site planning, both dating back to 2019, when we looked at it for an ALF use, and today, as we're looking at it as a mixed use with an apartment, is how do we fit a reasonable balance of these components so that from an economic viability perspective it works? That we can get the mix of uses that the county desires, both employment generating also residential. This is the plan that we've landed on that works today. In

56:232019, we went through the process of a market study with our senior living group. They found the oversupply issue. The letter that's in your packet would also state that the owner today went through that process since 2012, also faced the same headwinds related to oversupply. So, what we're trying to do today is meet all the sub-area policy requirements, create a viable mixed-use project, which uh we feel that this plan does. We have both an outparcel component of three gross acres with five to one thousand, excuse

56:53me, uh five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of medical office. That is the demand for medical office development, and so we've been able to fit that 45%. Yeah. uh or the you know I guess the triangle. Uh we've met or attempted to meet all the sub-area policies related to commercial and retail frontage along 54. We've also incorporated a mixed use component of retail into the multifamily. So This is I think the reality of taking the entitlement package that was approved previously. Putting

57:23a site plan together that's financially feasible and economically feasible, and presenting it to the board for in in for your consideration as an amendment to this to um both the comp plan and eventually the MPUD. And so

57:35so I I'm not disagreeing with you that the site was probably overentitled. I'm not disagreeing with that point. I'm just pointing out that Yes it was overentitled, but that doesn't necessarily mean you take the land that is available and you convert it to multifamily, you could take the lands available and make it all medical office. You can make it all m office and retail. It doesn't mean that Just because it's overentitled, you have to convert it to multifamily. That's my concern and I'm not sure whether that's that conversion to multifamily satisfies our economic development policies, our

58:05fiscal impact policies. It may or may not. I don't know because there's no analysis in our memo that talks about those policies. Okay,

58:12Elise Batzel, who's our land use attorney, is online, so we'd like to have uh introduce her and have her speak to some of your concerns as well.

58:24She's a mirror.

58:37Yeah.

58:40She doesn't have a lot to say, I guess.

58:45Trying to speak, I'm unmuted.

58:50Okay, go ahead.

58:57And the board that the staff and the applicant supply additional information? Is that the request?

59:05Yes, and I would hope that information shows that information shows that

59:11we're being told that there's a lot of feedback.

59:26David, you were saying I'm sorry, y you didn't finish your

59:29So yes the application's missing any analysis about Compliance with economic development policies in our comp plan, specifically One point eight point ten and one point four point four economic development policy. and our fiscal impact policy. that analysis is all missing. I don't know what the results of it are because it's not here. So usually that if an analysis was done, we'd the results would be in the memo. But So I don't know. I guess my conclusion is

59:59just saying it's not in your staff memo.

1:00:03In and I'm pointing out there's another memo on our agenda where that analysis is in the memo. And so I'm not understanding this is really a question for our staff is why is it that One application has a full analysis about the economic development impact. in compliance with those policies, but then another application doesn't, even though this in my opinion, this pol this application is clearly reducing the employment potential of the site. So That that's my concern.

1:00:32If Planning Commission feels comfortable moving it forward with that big mystery, I guess that's up to the planning commission. I'm concerned that there's no. analysis here about the economic development impact. And what concerns me even more is that nobody coordinated with the Office of Economic Growth So that They could stand up here and say it's still a an equal or better economic impact. And and I'll be honest with you and my other concern is why is this on the consent agenda when You know, our board has been pretty clear about wanting to preserve employment

1:01:03on the fifty four corridor. And so I'm not sure why this apple this to me directly implicate some of the policy directors of the Board of County Commissioners and should not be on our consent agenda.

1:01:14Mr. Chairman

1:01:15Mariano.

1:01:15Yeah.

1:01:17If I may, um I agree with David, it's not about just to deny this application, it's to have the right information and treat every single application the w the same. So I move a motion to continue this application For the next board meeting if they are okay with the E City and we have the analysis for the economic growth and the fiscal analysis as well.

1:01:40All right. So we have a motion on the table.

1:01:44Um yeah. I was gonna gonna let me see if I can get a second and then we can open it up for Yeah.

1:01:50I'll second that motion. Okay.

1:01:52So we have a motion on the floor, uh now we're open for discussion.

1:01:56Uh Mr. Chairman Mariano Speedall's Planning and Development. Um so as I mentioned earlier, the project was circulated and the comments that were received from the Office of Economic Growth where that OEG does not object to this land use amendment proposal. uh b due to the property site specific environmental constraints and restrictive remaining uplands. Suggesting that the O OEG looked at the irregular lot. the number of w the amount of wetlands on that site and did not consider it uh fully uh available for the uh to

1:02:27the did not consider the property Um important enough I guess for the maintenance of o the overentitlement. But I just want to point out that the other uh amendment that was on the that is on the agenda today that does include uh that uh analysis that Mr. Goldstein is referring to Um We did consult with the Office of Economic Growth be on that one because there was uh a large land area available for potential office development.

1:02:58Uh there. And we wanted to be able to preserve that. But even in that case, there was still a reduction in the economic development potential that was on the books versus what could actually be built. Um so it it's kind of the same scenario in both instances. There is a reduction on the Denton Avenue case, but there's also a reduction here. Even in this reduction, however, we have preserved 50 percent of the employment-generating land use based on the site planning potential. Uh that is available to

1:03:28the site.

1:03:29Well that that assumes that ALF has no employment generating potential.

1:03:35Which I don't think is an accurate assumption.

1:03:37Well it's going ALF is going to have uh the ad the administrative staff and the nurses, so to speak, that would uh look over the the people that would be there. Um But that also Could be the same amount of people that are grounds crew maintenance and office workers in a multifamily building. So it it not necessarily That one will have more than the other? One may have

1:04:05your your position as a multifamily has just as much employment as AOLA.

1:04:09I don't know that for certain. Is that really your position? I don't know that for certain.

1:04:12Maybe that is the case. I just want to see the data. That is simple.

1:04:19I mean I guess the other concern I have, Terry, is this is on the fifty four corridor. I mean I get your point about Denton, but The board has not really had the same interest in the preservation of employment on Denton Avenue. I understand that you did your best to improve preserve employment on Denton. But this is the fifty fo this is our Major Economic Development Corridor. where the board has said they want to see Employment generating land land uses.

1:04:48It's not obvious to me that this is preserving that mission. And it may be that this is all fine, I don't know, but I I think there should be some analysis about the economic potential economic loss. If it and if it's okay, then explain why it's okay.

1:05:04I mean you're the The memo didn't even have the statement from the Office of Economic Growth in it that you just read.

1:05:15Because that maybe. Any other discussion from up here?

1:05:19Yeah, I'd like to make a comment about the nursing home or the AFL A L F I have a son that's a Director of the in that business. Of course he's not in the state of Florida. But you talked about nursing staff and clerical staff, but there's also culinary staff, food service staff, this custodial staff they're generally have some s type of security and they operate on a twenty four or seven basis too. So there's a significant number of employees there in addition to the the medical staff that will come in to visit these folks.

1:05:50Well I I fur I firmly agree with you and I Totally disagree with Mr. Pito. So I have a mother who was just in an ALF facility.

1:05:57Yeah.

1:05:57The level of employment in an ALF facility far exceeds What's in a multifamily apartment complex? So I'm not even sure that's accurate to say that they're equivalent, but Regardless, that's all analysis that should be in the memo. That's that's my point.

1:06:14And another point that these positions are relatively relatively high pain. I I know my s son, he's in the six figure bracket for a nursing home director. Uh Nurses are you know or are paid a significant And then you have L P N.

1:06:31So Uh the other the other analysis that's missing from here, in my opinion, is Multifamily has an additional school impact that A L F does not. And so I saw nothing in this memo that's saying that Whether the schools in this area can accommodate the additional impact. It may be that they can. But Clearly ALF is not gonna have an impact on schools. Multifamily apartments clearly does, but I saw no statement in the memo about that the schools I mean.

1:07:03from school districts, th a lot of the schools on fifty four corridor over capacity. So there should be something in this memo Addressing whether they can accommodate the additional school impact.

1:07:15Okay.

1:07:17I mean that's certainly a concern. I mean uh elementary wise, that their zone for Lake Myrtle, they're probably all right, but Rushi and Sun Lake.

1:07:25But we got a letter from you, Chris, because we did the MPUD, so we did the school questionnaire with the M PUD and we're here for the Com plan.

1:07:31No, I

1:07:31think. But we but we did the questionnaire for the M PUD and that's all in the file and in the application.

1:07:37I understand. You know. If something went here then we'd manage but

1:07:43you may v very well have done a lot of the analysis that I'm talking about, but What's in front of us today has none of that in it.

1:07:49Right. So what I what is in the application, especially for the MPD, because we wanted these to be heard concurrently for this for this exact reason, was how an ALF is structured. So if we were to build 275,000 square feet of ALF on the site, there would be no medical office building. So I just wanted to make sure you realize that there is employment generation opportunity in a two-story medical office building and that 45,000 Three-acre site that we have in the corner. And so what we really tried to do was try to balance all of these competing interests to come up with a realistic site plan that you will get,

1:08:20you will get your employment generation, you're gonna get the office building, you're gonna get the veterinary pet center, you're gonna get everything, you're gonna get the multifamily behind that. I mean, staff's really worked hard with us.

1:08:34I don't know, but it's not obvious to me and there's nothing in this memo saying Why it is or isn't.

1:08:39Yeah, well we'd be happy to work with staff to get that information between now and the board meeting and March twenty second. And I'm sure a lot of it's in in the application. We just have to put it together in a format for you and beef up the staff memo.

1:08:55Okay.

1:08:58Could you restate your motion? Roberto. Absolutely. Again. Maybe you are right, Cynthia. depending on the size of the medical uh assistant uh living facility can be reduced and you can have a medical office as well. So it's how you see, how you design it. Let me let me finish my my idea. So We don't have the information that we needed, in my opinion, personal opinion, to go and move this today. That doesn't mean we are not going to move in the next board meeting.

1:09:29That is not that can be the case. I just asking for the information to be evaluated for us in order for us to paste this.

1:09:37I understand and that's the reason why when the the comp plan was originally adopted back in two thousand six when you had the PD flu, the MPD was originally David may remember this, was originally required to go as companion to it because it's a negotiated FAR and a negotiated density.

1:10:01preserve that frontage and have employment generating uses that are solely for office and retail along that frontage and put the multifamily behind it or we vertically vertically integrate everything and the sub-area allows that.

1:10:13I know what you're talking about. That's for what I live in for. Okay? I move a motion. Turtle. Yeah. Until we obtain the data data and

1:10:27Now since there's no citizen opposition, so you don't necessarily have to continue it to the next Newport Ritchie meeting, but I don't know how long staff needs to do and the applicant need to prepare this analysis.

1:10:40I think they ha seems like they have a lot of the work done, it just wasn't included in the report. So uh

1:10:45we can update the uh agenda by the next book.

1:10:48And I know Amy was wasn't Amy's report, so you're standing in for somebody. Yeah. Well,

1:10:54yeah, and if David Engel had put in his comments that there was issues of concerns, obviously we would have addressed that. So we didn't get that comment from him. And that's the reason why, you know, he supported it or or their office.

1:11:10Yeah, and we've met w we've met with most of them already. So and we've tried to incorporate certain components of their concerns in the in the revised site plan. And we've done all the ex parte work, so that will be r you know included in the record when we go to the board.

1:11:25Okay. J just for clarification, is the statement from David Engel sufficient or do they need to do the analysis? I still think they

1:11:32need you to do the analysis. It's a co so these are policies of a comprehensive plan. I don't think you can just ignore

1:11:37We can touch base with David Engel again.

1:11:41They weren't included in the agenda memo, but they were not ignored.

1:11:48Yeah, I I think you know, I think it's um I think it's a evident that in your mind In your mind. You considered all those items.

1:12:00Isn't laid out in the excuse me. Isn't laid out. Is he is he talking a after me? I didn't know you had a twin. That's not your voice.

1:12:10I think we've got all the materials to to do the job properly. Yeah, I think you have a good case for what you're asking. But I think we you need to have time to put it together. I don't think it'll take very long. I don't think there's any reason why we can't continue it to the next Meeting. There's like like David said, there's no local opposition. So there's no reason why it can't be done in Dade City.

1:12:32So it sounds like the application might might already or the applicant might already have that economic analysis. Dave, are you suggesting that David Engel's office? Still needs to produce that is it?

1:12:44If the applicant has the the analysis that I'm asking for, then It just needs to be included in the memo.

1:12:50And to the extent it's not already in the application, I'm happy to provide that for you.

1:12:55Very good.

1:12:58All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

1:13:02Well, and just back to David's point, I mean it's we need to be consistent. 'Cause it's seven oaks. Even though I said capacity was fine, there was still um you know, people were bringing it up that has school impacts. Which is which it does. So that oughta be included as well. All right.

1:13:23All right. So there's a f no further discussion. I'll have a Uh vote. Uh all in favor of the motion signified by second. So the continuance is to which date, just so I'm clear.

1:13:33The continuance if if it's to the next date, that would be the March third, twenty twenty two Planning Commission meeting at one thirty in Dade City.

1:13:42Is the applicant okay with going to Date City?

1:13:46I'm also happy to write the staff memo too, so

1:13:52Okay. Motion and second. Favor, signify by saying aye. You have a question?

1:13:58No, I was just saying calling

1:13:59questions.

1:13:59Oh, okay.

1:14:01All opposed? Like sign? Okay, the motion carries.