Zoning Amendment (Regular) – Plazewski MPUD Master Planned Unit Development, Villages of Pasadena Hills – Walter T. Plazewski – A Rezoning Request from an A-R Agricultural-Residential Zoning District and an AR-5 Agricultural-Residential Zoning District to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to Allow the Development of a Maximum of 200 Single- family Detached/Attached Dwelling Units and Associated Infrastructure on Approximately 40 Acres
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
DispositionApproved
Approved Staff’s recommendation including the amendment of Condition 21 to add a sidewalk from Tyndall Road down to the first subdivision road connection.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Mar 8, 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, Mar 8, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-22-7564 in full →PDD-22-7564 was taken up 3 times between Nov 9, 2021 and Mar 8, 2022, continued 2 times — this is appearance 3.
- Nov 9, 2021BoardP86Continued
- Jan 11, 2022BoardP86▶Continued
- Mar 8, 2022BoardP58▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 33m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 84% of 208 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
All in favor. Aye. Good job. P fifty eight.
Originally uh this matter was set or uh we have publication for the November ninth meeting w was continued to January eleventh, which was continued to today.
All right. Um who's who's gonna speak to us about P fifty eight?
Madam Chairman, this was one that you were that you had conducted a full and complete public hearing. Board closed public hearing and within deliberations. Um when because of some issues you decided to Continue it um and give the applicant and staff uh the uh team members a opportunity to Discuss the matter. My understanding is that there were uh
revisions to the stipulations, which I'm assuming somebody from Planning is going to go over.
Good afternoon. Tammy Snyder, Planning and Development Department. Here we have Plazowski and PD, PDD 227564. Here is your location map. We have Tyndall Road directly abutting it to the north. And proposed is a rezoning request from an AR agricultural residential zoning district and an AR5 agricultural zoning district. Agricultural Residential Dwelling District to an MPUD to allow the potential development of a maximum of 200
single-family detached and attached dwelling units and associated infrastructure on approximately 40 acres. And here is their master plan.
And here is the um future land use. We have res three and res one to the west. And the site itself is Village Mixed Juice Type 2B. And here we have various village concept plans. The original V O P H.
Swing Nero up there. And you can see kind of the circular format. Evans F1 came in.
And pretty much kept the same format.
Bogaranch came in, pretty much kept the same format. And then when Plazuwski came in, the Vision Road, the North South Vision Road had been adjusted. And so they shifted around some of the entitlements. to fall in line with the roadway.
Presently, the subject site contains a residence in some outbuildings and pasture land. And the project lies within village F of the villages of Pasadena Hills. And due to recent BCC directives concerning all future amputies, conditions were added to address a mix of lot sizes, front yard trees, architectural details, and the maximum number of and maximum building size and placement of the attached products. The PHPPC heard the item at the September 29th, 2021 public hearing and
voted to recommend approval with the inclusion of a condition requiring the removal of the proposed emergency-only access to Peachtree Lane once a secondary access is constructed. The applicant also added a new condition after the hearing to address the enforcement of potential on-street parking and obstruction of roadways. And the BCC heard the item at the January 11th, 2022 public hearing and voted to continue it to the March 8th, 2022 hearing, as there were outstanding questions regarding the North South Vision
Roadway, which lies off-site to the east of and abutting the subject property, among a few other details to be worked out. And this is just depicting again the vision road alignment. The big picture there is the Pl Plazoski MPD. You can see that the north-south vision road has shifted, the south part of it has shifted to the east. And then after additional conversations regarding the location of the Vision Road, the applicant offered to set aside thirty five feet of right-of-way along much of the eastern boundary of
their site in the event it may be utilized for one half of the required right of way in the future. Should the thirty-five feet of preserve right-of-way on the Plazuski property be utilized as such and shift the alignment of the Elam Road extension to the west, it may potentially cause intersection issues at Tyndall Road. to the north. Although the PDD does not object to the additional 35 feet provided, the long-term recommendation is to keep the alignment as shown in the comprehensive plan vision roadmap. And
the proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County LDC and the applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. And with that, the PDD recommends approval with conditions.
Board members have any
questions?
Madam Chair, I just have one question. I guess prior to the applicant coming up. Your last slide.
Um one more.
Where it stated the P D, Plan and Development. Harbin. Okay, there you go. Thank you. Although the planning and development part does does not object to the additional 35 being provided. The long-term recommendation is to keep the alignment showed in the comprehensive plan vision roadmap. I'm just curious, you know, how did the plan yeah, here he comes, came up with that. I know one of the things that you know I listened to and I worked with with the the applicant on this as well. Um to come to some sort of compromise
to so that the burden wouldn't be entirely on either property owner. I thought that was sufficient and the applicant agreed as well. But you're making a different recommendation. I find that odd.
Uh good afternoon. Uh Nicaragua Scritos Planning Development Department. The statement is that um we don't object to the thirty-five feet. If the road needs to move over, it can move over. It has the Ability to move over? But there is a plan and The comprehensive plan is asking for the alignment of her Elam Road to be as shown. And so if we can avoid moving the road over, it's not necessary to move it over. Um We could maintain the alignment. Our primary concern
is the intersection alignment specifically. Um so at the point where the uh the road comes to the intersection. Um there may be the opportunity to keep that alignment. according to the comprehensive plan and shift the rest of the road further south as as may be needed. But also the other thing to keep in mind is that Uh the neighboring properties that in the event that they become MPUDs at some point in the future with their own developments may desire to take Elam Road another way.
Well I my assumption is I could be wrong that if the property owner to the that'd be the east, right? I'm looking here. That'd be to the east. If they do if they do develop it and they and they um requ request that all the r that right away be Or the road alignment I should say be on that property. I'm sure the their current applicant would be more than fine with that. They're not they're not going to be able to do that.
Then providing the additional buffer enables a lot more flexibility for both properties to coexist with the road.
Okay. I I was just curious why that statement was made in the I don't see the need for it, but you made it. Okay.
Commissioner Yeah. Yeah. Uh I've met with the applicant as well as the right-of-way. Um But In the conversation we had um It was a I think a good recommendation say if the next guy's coming in, which I don't expect to happen, as you say. Put the right away over there. But the next white guy come in, he may say, you know, we wanna keep it straight 'cause we think it's gonna be safer for the road. Is the one thing that can go.
Uh
right. Yeah, they have the ability to do it. Right. Yeah. So the so for that reason I was I'm comfortable with the language that I see there because I've been looking at that issue. I do have one thing for the applicant. I'd like to ask him a question. When I look at the roadway with the right-of-way that's there. And if we put this condition in the right-of-way, Somewhere there's gonna be a trail on one side, a sidewalk on the other side, correct?
I believe that is the cross section. Yeah, VOPH roadway. I'm sorry, Joel two to an associate's for the applicant. I believe you're right, Commissioner. In VOPH, every uh every specific roadway has a specific cross section. that's required uh to be constructed, uh including alternative vehicle network and trails.
Okay. It's gonna it could be a long time before the people to the east come forward. The people that own the property now say they're not interested. When the errors come into play somewhere down the road, they may come in and that's when other things get looked at. So And if you could give me the answer, and I don't expect you to give me the answer, you'd probably have to talk with your team. But You know, one of the concerns we have with the small lots, the forty-foot lots, the fifty-foot lots, the kids have nowhere to play. Nothing it's it's tough. If we're gonna look at high density on the
outside part of this whole thing. One of the things that I think would be good is on That right away part. If we shift over there and we go, we put in, we say, look, we're gonna go put a the golf cart path on that side somewhere in there. And we fit that in there and we tie that into the neighborhood. So until the other developments come in. Now you got a sidewalk and connect for everybody in there to go back and forth all on their property. Until it changes. Is that something that could be looked at and thought about now? And if
s we don't think we do it now. Is that something we can look at with staff later on?
Yeah, I think that's something that would have to be looked at down the road for the very reasons you've discussed. Right now, when our properties develop, no one really knows exactly where Elam Road will be constructed. Will will they take advantage of our thirty five feet? Will they not uh will the intersection align exactly and then veer. So I think the problem is you don't know what to construct. until the party actually builds the roadway cross section. The other comment I have is we're we're
accommodating that because we're providing the full 35 feet no matter what. And even if the county never requests the right-of-way because the road isn't moved, we're still obligated on these conditions to permanently maintain that 35 feet as permanent open space maintained by our HOA. Um, you know, we'll be providing our own internal connections up to Tyndall, and that's where our residents will get on the um the AV network and the trail system. So I don't know if you're were
are you asking that we actually pre-build part of that? I I I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking.
Then again, I just this this idea just came up right before the
meeting.
So otherwise I would have brought it up when we talked at the end.
No
problem. Um but but uh what um uh again to thank Depending how this goes, if it does come out I'll say that if the other Party. Yeah, the parties alongside the keep the roadway just the way it is. We don't need the right of way. At that point, if this had a trail going alongside it internal to the development, it would be a benefit to everybody from the get-go and now And if it c in case it takes a long time for it to develop. It's something that you g you're gonna wanna have
in there anyway. Just your people could use it at start.
Correct.
It could be built in there and then if it does change over, now there's a simple shift over where now it's gonna be part of the public right away. I don't know how we could write that in so quickly, but
I think since we we are obligated to reserve this 35 foot right-of-way, the county at any point could request that to be donated for trail, roadway, sidewalk, anything the county wanted. So we are already obligated. To provide that for any county purpose. So my thought would be depending on how that plays out beside us. If the county even if the road didn't shift onto us, if the county still wanted to use our 35 feet for the
trail system. Certainly the county has the right to request that right away and the Plazoski's or their developer have to donate it. So we we are making land available for however However this plays out and frankly whatever whatever purpose the county wants to put that right away to.
Right. And and l but and like I say, if the road for the other situation where let's say it stays The way it was previously done where it's all on the other side. this would be an amenity for your people inside and I'm Comfortable to set that up and and set that in. And I'd feel better about the density, knowing that everybody inside that area will now have a trail golf cart that they can actually ride the bikes and safely and go around.
But we have no problem adding to that condition that where it says we have to reserve the right-of-way, that the county is free to use that right-of-way for roadway, trail Sidewalk, whatever purpose the county deems appropriate. But other words it wouldn't have to be used for roadway.
Right. Until the other things develop on the other side, what I what I'd like to do is to improve
If it never comes out, at least the people in there will have a trail to use. And I don't want it to tip be in the county's burden to go build it, maintain it or whatever until we know it's gonna be ours. If it ever becomes ours, then we take it over.
So you want us to you want us to build a trail when there may not even be a roadway constructed there next to us.
Correct. And the reason for it. And that what here's why. Just in and just again, I don't know if it can be done. I don't know if it's even acceptably done. I just have the discussion. Because if If the roadway stays out to the side then then this is just gonna benefit everybody inside there anyway. If the roadway ever does get advantaged of the of using that right away. Then We'll have the right that we'll have the street in there as well. I don't want us to take it over now. If that road if the trail gets built because I don't want the liability
for it. And I want it just to be for you guys anyway. So good, Pat, you can help us out.
That's
a lot of words. It is, it is.
Well well, we are we do have to construct our own neighborhood park uh for the kids. I mean that's part of our requirement. And we are constructing that adjacent to the Ron Clay buffer. So we will be providing our own recreational amenity areas and we'll we will be providing our own internal connections back up to Tyndall Road. Um I mean, do you have have you talked to the client about whether they want to build a trail? I
have, I might be able to
Behind the houses? Okay.
Good afternoon. Uh Pat Gasway with height design representing the applicant. Um I'm gonna attempt to use her magic wand here that almost never works.
Oh. yeah.
I believe what you might be looking for Uh in this cross section is the sidewalk. That is is All right, I'm getting you new batteries.
Al along that strip. from this sidewalk that will be internal to the subdivision. to be able to go within that thirty-five foot buffer that may become right-of-way. So I I think that's what But but not just sidewalk trail. So a little bit wider. Uh uh understood. Okay. Uh that would be a a little odd in that cross section. Would be because it's got already, you know, the
the vehicular uh the cart lanes in in the road bed.
So what what the applicant would be willing to do is build the future sidewalk. to connect this sidewalk to the sidewalk that is along the south side of Tyndall. in order to provide that loop. And Um that there won't there wouldn't be a large multi-purpose trail in that 70-foot cross-section. So pre pre building
the five foot sidewalk for the county. in in the uh in the location where a future shifted road right-of-way would be. uh what would be acceptable to the applicant. dev
Okay, well I'm gonna ask a question then. Um
If you put so in that thirty five feet of dedication. So if if you could put that map back up.
Uh on this.
Oops. Oh, you're doing it.
Take that button away from him.
She did it too.
It wasn't his fault. So uh um in looking at that map, um It looked like there was a sidewalk on the east side. Is that what that kind of darker gray line is going down?
It behind the houses and then it doesn't show what But behind those houses is a twenty foot required buffer. Right. And then the 35-foot future right-of-way, which will it initially be maintained by the HOA. Uh if the road isn't shifted. So the um So in Behind the lot, there will be a required buffer. And and then that in that 35 feet
is where we would be suggesting that. uh that left-hand sidewalk be constructed to be able to connect that that loop around there.
Why why uh so we're looking at your the typical roadway section of D O P H and I guess we're we're gonna ask why is there no trail, why is there only a five foot sidewalk, which is You know, a person on a bike. And a person walking two people on a bike can't We'll crash into each other on a five foot side box.
That goes back to the original V OPH plan, which is what the community planned.
I mean To not be able to use a bike or a golf cart anywhere. These were designed.
Actually the golf cart lanes are in the road. Oh so if you would put put uh that typical section back. Um
So if you'll see the the two vehicular lanes are in the center, right? On on either side of the center line of the road. And on the outsides of the vehicular lane are the six foot Uh golf cart lanes. And and then the curbs. Then you've got ten foot tree planting zones outside that. and then five foot sidewalks outside that.
And what's the speed of those roads?
Um th 35 or less.
So we we've th those are anticipated to be golf cart friendly vehicular and alternative vehicle roadways. That's why the the the sidewalks flank both sides.
I feel bad for the
community.
They're not getting a trail.
But th th those are the adopted sections, not only in B O P H but also in Connected City.
Um Commissioner Oakley. I'd like to say one thing too. Um after we continued the other day, because you never know how the plan looks until you put it on the ground, see where it matches up. So the plan worked for this project ended up next to No Wood Acres. And I think it affected two lots, if I'm not mistaken.
Right.
They've set back fifty feet. and then put the park in that area. They redesigned their development. to put the park where it's right behind those no one acre properties. So Well
yeah, I mean
good buffering they put in there where they touch those homes that'd been there a long time.
Sure. Thank you. I'm just didn't realize they're not getting any trails. They're just getting sidewalks. But can you go back can you go back to the Plazuki Um I'm just trying to understand your layout and I I see the difference. Can you please go back to the She's working on it? Yeah. Can you zoom in? Or is that as close as you can get?
So okay, so I see this I see now where you have this Shaded area, that's the new dedic new donation. Is that right? Um next to the Elam Road.
Right. So there's in the in the blow up you can see you've got lots, and then you've got the required buffer, and then you've got the 35 feet, and then you've got the 70 feet of right-of-way per the roadway that's adopted in the ordinance.
Okay, so going um past that pond as you work down, that darker line is not a sidewalk. For the project? A trail or whatever, internal trail?
So Uh in in
because I see a line. You guys see it in the green?
The heavy the the heavy line is actually the property line.
Yeah, but I'm looking what is that right there? That's what I want to know. That's if you look at the pond at the bottom right corner, it's blue for the pond, then it's green, then it's dark, then it's green, and then it's brown. So I'm asking is that straight line going down? a trail or sidewalk or anything. Or is that your You don't see it?
That's the piece of the property that the applicants given us.
So I I think the green that's uh east of the blue. It's
kind of
Green, gray,
kinda yes.
Is a buffer.
Oh it's a okay, so it's not a uh anything that's constructed.
Right. It the it's That's
the buffer?
The L D C requires a permit or buffer there.
Okay, so Jack, I don't know how they would build a a trail or a sidewalk or anything coming down there when it would stop down there by that pond because they don't own the property. Where where the road would continue on. So the trail would only go We're
we're suggesting that it go from here where we will have a sidewalk to connect to.
I can't tell where you're pointing.
Oh. I suppose we
need a better system.
I know we do. Um in fact I I I could see. You can't see it? Yeah, the stub is where I'm talking it it would be the southern end of the sidewalk. moving and and traveling northward to to Tyndall.
If I could help. Mr. Sharky. So if if you take the on the top part with Tyndall as you come down, you get the pond, then you got that brown, dark brown loop. Yeah. And then there's a roadway going across there.
Yeah.
They're talking about bring it right across there.
Oh just to to the first road.
Yes. Now if I could
Okay, yeah. That's
if and if I could, I think that's good. Yeah,
dude.
And if I just had to accept that I I go along with that. But if there's any way to even take it down to the next one down. And bring it around. Mm-hmm. But one section's good, two would be great.
I don't think that would help anything. First section's what the
applicant
is.
Yeah, I and I agree with that first section.
But I'm checking
it. Yeah.
Are you going to be able to do that? Are you gonna present? Are you gonna talk about Joel? Are you gonna talk about the the buffers or anything like that? Okay. Well listen, I'm just gonna speak up for a second. Because there were certain concerns I heard from the residents last time I was here. And uh when I I know when I met with the applicant, I'm sure the applicant met with everybody, I don't know, but um I met with the applicant and this is what they brought forward and said, we listen to you, we know these are the these are the issues a lot of the citizens were talking about. So There was that buffer and there was we're not gonna allow an outlet. It was only gonna be an emergency exit. I said that
was a nice my opinion. Good compromise. Right. Um we're not always gonna each side's not gonna get everything they always want typically. Nice compromise. I'm good now.
Yeah, I I'm good too.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Okay, so um do you want do we want a motion? Oh public comment?
Well, or you maybe you don't know are you gonna reopen public comment? You Oh we have it already? We don't have to. You were You closed public comment. Right. And directed staff to ro work on these issues, which they have brought back.
Okay.
You have the ability to open public comment if you wish to. But
we did what
you cla you did
a full and complete public
comment. I didn't. Okay, Madam Chair. I'm not sure. And
Mr. Mayor. And I'm happy with the conversation I had, the suggestions about the right-of-way, that little e extra thing right in there for that piece. Um so it's it's it's come a lot better than it was talking to staff as well. They're gonna need density and density's gonna come in this area. I mean it granted it's out further than It was anticipated. Further than I'd like to see it at this point, but It's gotta go to make the whole thing fun all the way through. And we just made an adjustment earlier to two agenda items before it. where they had to do some changes for the accountants to make sure everything was gonna fall in line.
So density's coming. It's gonna come in these corridors. This is changing a little bit, but we may see some other changes in some other ones too.
Um under just let me ask you one more question. Um I don't know who was, I don't know if it's a Joel or to you. Um one of the other issues was changing the matrix a little bit to and maybe we fixed that earlier, to make sure that the costs of the roads are shared. um in a more equitable way. That was one of the conditions that concerns I had. And I think we took care of that.
Right, Joel too again for the applicant and either either David Goldstein or I can address that. But just to confirm what I said at the prior public hearing. We are processing for the VOPH stakeholders. We are processing a financial plan update for you. That would make all of these intermediate roadways, which is what Elam Road is, impact fee creditable by adding that cost to the overall budget that's spread by everyone. And what that does is that removes the inordinate burden. For
example, this property to the east, should it be developed and need to build the road. then that road would become creditable. Whereas now it's not. But that is that is in review with staff. We've we've gotten the document in and it's under review. So that that is going to happen this year, subject to your approval, of course. That will have to come. I think we would approve that. Hopefully. Thank
you.
So I just wanted everyone to remember that and the public to understand that. Yes.
For approval. Madam Chairman, what one procedural matter before you so I've heard several commissioners say they met with the applicant and the residents since the last public hearing. There's no ex parte forms. in the record except for Commissioner Oakley.
Yeah, we have one.
So I don't know if I can just for purposes of the record, I if I can just get each commissioner to indicate Who they met with Yeah. Residence developer. Um For part for for part of For purposes of the record, uh and it for ex Bar J communication. Pretty sure I met with the Well was in my my meeting on the it was online.
Well The applicant was the applicant will state for the record. We had an individual meeting with each as requested at the last public hearing. Our meetings were all entirely with the full staff. We met with Mr. Pitos, Mr. Goldstein, and Ms. Snyder. So ours were joint meetings with the staff. staff and each individual commissioner. We had zero individual meetings and zero contact other than the staff meetings. That's from the applicant standpoint. But that was with all five.
I've got Goldstein, Mr Mr. Goldstein was in mine and I'm not sure who else was it was probably a lot of people.
I think Joel's if you all agree with what Joel just said, I think that covers the disclosures for the applicant. Yeah. But I think the Commissioner Oriano mentioned he also had meetings with the residents too. So those if there's any meetings with residents, those forms are don't we don't have those. You would have to verbally disclose those now.
I I didn't meet with any residents.
I think I I met with the resident months ago. Yeah, b before
the last one. That's fine. Yeah. They're in the record.
Go ahead. Yeah. So I had the staff meeting, which We
don't have to
Do you have a paper on that? Then I met with two friends of the applicant. Kind of an inf informal meeting, but we did talk about it.
And I met with the applicant and staff. I'm reminding my staff to make sure all exports get turned in.
Thank you. Yes. You may proceed. Motion is
where are we? Did did anyone
have to be able to do that?
You had a motion in a second. So yeah, we not taking public comment. Did you have so we're under discussion, Commissioner Oakley?
As staff writes up the condition for that sidewalk to go alongside it. I I um I don't care if they make it private to themselves until that roadway opens up. So it can just be internal until later on. So
I have a question. Okay, but we're not taking combat.
Madam Chairman, so
with
Commissioner Mariano, so you want the condition amended? Because we haven't you got a motion and a second on the floor and we haven't really talked about amending the condition.
We made the motion.
I made the motion.
Um Uh can you amend your motion to include the sidewalk?
Is the applicant good resolution?
They agreed to it. Down to the first nope, sorry.
Yes, I'll add that to my
motion.
Okay. And you'll second that.
So you want to add to condition twenty a Um
Where it talks about the buffer and the open space. that there's that there'll be a sidewalk from
Yes, sir. I think in that 35-foot right-of-way reservation area, we we would agree to uh construct a sidewalk from Tyndall Road down to our first uh subdivision road connection. If that's acceptable.
Madam Chairman I would suggest that in twenty-one that would
be fine which would be that's the right-of-way reservation section. Yes, sir. Thank you.
And we do that yours under discussion or do you need it before the motion? We're we're amending the motion. I have a quick question. What's the parliamentary
Do you have a question on the motion or do you have a question
On the amendment to the motion.
I can be under discussion.
It should be under discussion.
Okay. So you have amended your motion to include the sidewalk. And you have seconded. Okay, under discussion.
Okay.
Uh
If that's supposed to be a buffer. And are we building this sidewalk before or at the same time as the road? And I thought the p purpose of the buffer was to buffer the land between the landowner to the right east and have it buffered
to the west. So I think there's a buffer and then there'll be a sidewalk down to the first road. And 'cause we don't know when The road is gonna get built. No, there's a buffer and a sidewalk.
But they're coming to the east of the sidewalk. So it they're coming east of the buffer. Well we'll have applicants.
I'll try to answer that and Pat will correct me, but we have starting at at the back of our lots, we first have that required twenty foot buffer that the land development code requires anyway. Then we have this additional thirty-five foot right-of-way reservation. My understanding is we would build this sidewalk close to the eastern edge of that thirty five foot area, I assume. I both western and western. I so I stand correct. We would put the sidewalk
outside of our twenty foot buffer, but on the western edge of that thirty-five foot right-of-way in case the road does get shifted over. You don't destroy the sidewalk. If the road doesn't get built, then there's just a sidewalk and then we still will have to maintain that area between the sidewalk and the thirty-five feet. I think that's
very
generous. Thank
you very much.
Thank you.
Any more discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? You can't d we took public comment last time, so we don't have public comment this time, sorry. We closed public comment at the last.
That's what my my attorney said we closed public on me. Okay. Um I think we're done. What was that?
All right, um think we're done.
Okay.