Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Regular)-CPAS22(06) Stillwell Pasco Station- Providing for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 and Sheet 14) from RES-3 (Residential-3 du/ga) and ROR (Retail/Office/Residential) to RES-12 (Residential-12 du/ga) on Approximately 29.25 Acres of Real Property Located at the Southeast Corner of the Intersection of SR 52 and Old Pasco Road.

21:07Good afternoon. Uh this is item P three.

21:13Doreen Roy, long range planning.

21:22Okay, Dorraine, go right ahead.

21:25There we go. Uh agenda item C P A S twenty two dash zero six, Stillwell Pasco station.

21:37PDD two two dash zero two two four, small scale comprehensive plan amendment. Stillwell Pasco Station.

21:49Oh. Can I go back? The property is located in the South Market area, urban concentration service area.

22:06Uh the proposal is amend the future land use flu maps two-fifteen and sheet fourteen from res three, residential three. Dwelling units per gross acre and ROR retail office residential to Res 12. Residential 12 dwelling units per gross acre. Uh the locations at southeast corner of the intersection of SR fifty-two and old Pasco Road.

22:37Resolution. Amend future land use, flu maps two-fifteen and sheet fourteen from res three, residential three, and ROR retail office residential to res twelve, residential twelve. A rezoning petition will follow the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, amending the zoning from AC and AR to MPUD.

23:07The following policies are consistent with the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. flu one point ten point three residential compatibility Co transition flu one point four point three transitional land use Flew eight point one point two South Market Area Establishment and flew nine point one point nine urban service

23:37expansion area.

23:42This is an aerial of the location at the corner of fifty two and old Pasco Road.

23:52Location existing future land use, res three.

23:57During ROR. Can you stop right there because I have a question that relates to this map. Um So The ROR that's at that north West Corner. of the property. I I I understand why the the landowner is changing from res three to res twelve to get more density, but I'm not understanding the purpose of changing the R O R piece. Because ROR already allows residential, I think, at a fairly high

24:27density. So what is the intent?

24:31Of the ROR change.

24:37Well we are increasing the density. for this for this area and being a transitional.

24:43Right, but ROR already allows residential at a fairly high density. So what is the What's the purpose of that change?

24:56This is an experiment for you those planning on this point.

25:00Yeah, we can't hear you, Terry. There you go. Better come up.

25:06I don't want you to have to do it all over again.

25:09Uh good afternoon, Mr. Chairman Marictarios Pitos, Planning and Development Department. I think the applicant could probably speak to the logistics of their application for why that's changing. But um The uniformity and the flu would be the main reason that I see for why we would change this 1.85 acre parcel.

25:31But Terry, my concern isn't so much about the right-of-way. this parcel, my concern is that the property to the north I really think needs to remain as either retail or office. I mean it's a key corner it Old Pasco and State R fifty two. By removing this piece from the district, I think that allows the applicant to the n property to the north to say they get residential too. Because it's R O R So if you left this little

26:01piece in the R O R district, I think staff could take the position that that is the residential component of the ROR and that the property owner to the north should only get retail and office. My again, I my concern isn't so much about this property because it

26:19That's the end of the world. It's that I'm concerned about Now the property owner to the north being able to say now that that now that this property has been excluded from the ROR district

26:33To the north. Which I think that would be a mistake for that corner to become residential.

26:39I understand. Um generally r the ROR is looked at from an area wide basis, so we could run the analysis to determine

26:47Well I agree with you, but but now you're taking it you're taking this property out of the ROR. That's the concern. If it was in the ROR, I'd see how you could that that you're hitting my on my very concern, which is if it was in the ROR I think we could say that. It it is the residential component of this R O R district. When it's out of the R O R I'm worried that the property in the north is going to say, I get my own residential now.

27:16Barbara Will Hight, [address removed]. I'm trying to get staff to pull up for you the zoning map. The property, my recollection is the property to the north is already zoned, C two. So they've already gone through that zoning action. So they would have to try to convert commercial to something else. And so because of that, the small size and this is already this is not zoned, zoned agriculture. So I think between that distinction between this one not being zoned, it's agriculture, b that already being zoned, I think and it being the small the

27:46small acreage and that we would like to see a consistent land use is that's why we approach it that way. But I do understand your general

27:53Well I guess. Let me just ask you Barbara since they stop didn't really answer my question directly. Why not just leave it ROR if it allows residential anyway at high density?

28:07I think it was a little bit more than a little bit. From our perspective to have the same land use over our project made it so we wouldn't have issues in the future about blending densities or whatever may come up Um going between ROR and RES and said we wanted to just have a consistent land use. That's why we approached it that way. And we certainly are complementing, we recognize the ROR and the C2 to the north and we agree that that's important and that we actually complement that in having that transition of land uses from the commercial to our project. To

28:38the uh single family detached.

28:43Well I'm just trying to figure out I'm I'm looking for the right-of-way. I don't want to see the property to the north become residential. And I'm trying to figure out

28:53How we avoid that because ROR allows residential. That's my that's my concern.

28:58But it's owned. It's owned C two. And I and you guys watch that like a hawk.

29:04At least now.

29:07Today.

29:09Well um

29:12If it wasn't zoned, I would share that concern, but it is zoned, David.

29:15Can staff confirm that the entire site to the north is zone C two, please? Yeah.

29:20Confirmed. Sorry.

29:23Yeah, it it is on C two.

29:27And I take it. That's a different property owner, right? Barbara isn't it?

29:33I think I I I guess I'll be fine as long as Maybe we put a finding in this one that even though it's being removed from ROR that That it's effectively serving as the residential the need for this Quadrant of the intersection. So that's the The property owner to the north doesn't try to come in with a rezoning and say I get my it's R I get my own residential too.

29:59To me if we're allowing this to go residential, it should be the residential for this coroner and not I I don't want the property in the north to come and say they get their own residential I mean, I think that's a good thing In a perfect world you all would just change that Landings to the north to calm. And then I wouldn't have this concern at all.

30:17Well it it would kinda be the same scenario. Com would enable C two.

30:23I understand that because but ROR allows residential that's my concern. If the property to the north was calm, I'd I wouldn't have even said a word.

30:32Okay, but

30:32it's

30:32R O R I understand but th but the conflu isn't a hundred percent Non-residential. It does have residential capability.

30:40It well it's the the lim the amount you can do, we change the code, the amount of residential you can do and Unless vertically integrated and mixed use, so you can't do residential and calm. So if it was calm I'd be thrilled. I wouldn't even have this concern at all. I wouldn't even upset a

30:58I would have stopped the it When you started talking.

31:01So we can amend our application to include the application documents, because that's all I can control is the application documents, to include a discussion of why we were ROR and going to REST 12. And what's around it and then staff can include an appropri in their staff report can include appropriate discussion if that's the pleasure of the

31:21clear finding that staff does not support residential on the property to the north and that even though this is being removed from the ROR Did it still effectively functioning as the residential for this corner? So that we don't get somebody coming in north of this saying I get my own residential.

31:42Well how m how many units do they get on in the ROR residential units?

31:47Well how many units per acre does R O R allow? Twenty four. I mean it would clearly allow the level of density they want. I mean that's why it started the conversation of why bother even changing the ROR because it allows Density far in excess of res twelve.

32:05I I guess my one concern or question would be Let's say we do that. We we leave that 1.85 acres is ROR. And then the owner to the north comes in with a development. Who meets the ROR criteria and the C two criteria? And develops by right. How would we

32:28but then you could say staff could say, but the ROR already has a residential component? which is this piece to one point five acres is the residential component of the R R Therefore they're not entitled to their own residential

32:42Well I I think we could run an analysis on that. If we could put the flu uh map back up. We could run an analysis on the flu itself as the as the um The geometry of that flu as the district. And identify where the residential is in that flu. And maybe put a cap on it based on the overall flu. Uh

33:07I mean if there's something if there's some way that you all can document Yeah. We're not giving additional residential to the property owner to the north because There's already adequate residential in this R O R district, including the area we're about to change right now. Right.

33:25Or just change the property owner in the north to comm, well I'd be okay with that too. Yeah. But

33:32The problem with the R O R district Is it Allows all three. Right. And so you're now removing a part that could have been the residential component of it. That's my that's the concern.

33:46I understand.

33:47Yeah.

33:49I just think it would be a mistake to take that key corner F fifty two and Old Pasco Road and make it residential.

33:57It's a small one shape. And is that residential?

34:03So I on the overhead you'll s that's a little bit more than a little bit Does this work like this?

34:10Where is it?

34:14It's gotta work at some point. There it is. It's coming. Okay, so this this residential or this red that spans across Old Pasco Road and goes all the way to the edge. Um all that is one flu district. And there is on the east side or west side of El Pasco residential there already. So even if this parcel, this little piece gets carved out, What's on the west side of the road Is part of that R O R district already. It's

34:44part of the the same geometric district. On our maps.

34:51And it's and it has homes in there? uh developing as residential. So I mean I think that might help answer the the concern that you're having about the the one little piece coming out because what's on the left side is still connected to the east side.

35:06Terry, I guess if I knew you were gonna be here for the next thirty years for sure, I wouldn't have this concern. But I 'Cause then you could say, it's my position there's adequate residential in this area, it shouldn't that shouldn't become residential. But I'm worried about Ten years from now there's some staff person that just says ROR, residential is allowed They change it they want to change it to multifamily and now They say

35:32approved.

35:34Yeah, I I agree. We can we can clarify it and have a finding established in this uh project that identifies the portions on the north or I guess that would be the southeast corner of that intersection to be uh retail only. Because there's a lot of retailer office. Retailer office, yeah.

35:56And that the little the little corner here then satisfies the residential component for that whole corner.

36:03Yeah, we can do we can do it both ways. We can satisfy the residential component and then also reference what's on the west side of the road. Gotcha.

36:14I think it that achieves the result of preserving the retail office potential for the southwest corner or southeast corner.

36:24Okay.

36:25What do you think? And uh the only thing I would ask then is you also put somewhere the findings of this application. You put it in your file for whatever you have for file you have for the northern property, you put it in that file. So it gets caught.

36:50Okay, thanks.

36:53Mr. Chairman, if I might, uh this is Clark Hobby, Hobby and Hobby PA 109 North Brussel Street. have been sworn. Um I'm not here today actually representing the property owner, but I am working with the property owner to the north and we don't care what Barbara does with her. project and I'm not aware that we're trying to seek a change from the ROR and C2 zoning there. But I think it's really inappropriate for the County to be effectively trying to impose conditions on their property when their property

37:23wasn't the subject of today's application. I understand what David's saying, but there are rules in the comp plan about how you determine uh the range of uses within ROR and I think what needs to happen here is the staff just needs to implement the comp plan the way they would on any other one. So for instance, I believe this original ROR area maybe had about two hundred acres in it or so and there is a a list or of the three uses that can occur there and you have to follow the percentages

37:54within those areas, and I don't know why staff isn't just doing that the way they normally would. But I I'm I'm as I said, I'm not actually here representing the cruisants, didn't even know this was coming up, but I don't think it is fair to them.

38:05But Clark, the the the origin of this issue is that they are removing land from the ROR, which now affects those percentages. That that's the issue. But if the if the Land was staying ROR, I don't think I I would have said a word. No, I

38:17I understand. And again, feel free to do whatever you want to with Barbara's application. We don't care. We're we're fine with whatever they want to do. All I'm saying is I don't think you can start effectively adding conditions to our site. without them even having noticed that effectively their com what you're saying is their comp plan is being changed or conditioned somehow today and they had no knowledge of it. So I think it's unfair. That's all I'm saying. I mean I I I get what you're saying, David. And either way you do it, there

38:47is land that's coming out of the ROR area that could have been residential because there's a cap, and I can't remember if it's seventy-five percent that can be residential within ROR. And again, I'm not saying the Cruisans are seeking any changes on their property. I'm not aware of it, but I think they'd be kind of miffed if they found out that there was someone else. Comp plan changed that didn't purport to change theirs, that conditions were being added for it. So if you can find some way to achieve your goal without

39:16I mean the the simplest way would just be to leave the current one ROR, then I wouldn't have my concern.

39:27What is the harm to you with it staying ROR if you get the density you want anyway?

39:33I think

39:33that's re advertise. I don't think they can make that kind of change to the land use.

39:40I don't know that you have to readvertise because you're not making a change. We're just not making that change.

39:49I don't you have to

39:49start over.

39:51As long as there was in no issue with my M PewD and blending densities and

39:57I guess I don't I don't know how it would. I mean, I guess I'll ask Terry. I mean typically we allow people to blend their densities in an M P D, right?

40:06Right. Right. Uh I need a transparency blue with what the zones left.

40:16I'm sorry.

40:19So

40:19if that little piece stays R O R would we allow them to use the residential density that would be allowed on that little piece over the their whole and beauty.

40:31I believe so, yeah. You can because it allows the the blending of density as an M P U D. Actually it allows more density than Res twelve, right? Right. It's quite near. Well, yeah, because it would it would enable twenty four for that one point eight five. And then you blend that as a percentage.

40:52Seems like it would be an advantage to just leave it like it is.

40:57Can I may I answer the question? Yes. You can blend densities in an MPUD, absolutely.

41:04So I'm fine if we wanna change that as long as it doesn't I don't have to do anything. As long as it doesn't change my tran transportation analysis, I don't have to do anything other than staff change the mask. I mean you're actually my advertising.

41:16You're you're leaving it the way it is, so I don't know how that would require you to re advertise something.

41:24So if we look at the overhead zoom out a little bit.

41:29And then if you make the future land use layer transparent and turn the zoning on?

41:35Well we've we just did a real quick analysis of w what's commercially entitled with C two zoning. And that amounts to about twenty eight percent of that flu. So they're within range now of Uh the that means the rest of it the rest of that R O R is uh residential in scope and in purpose, which means that they're within range of the ROR proportions. That would mean that that flu district has th those the remaining properties

42:05would have to be uh retail office. If we follow that analysis. Now we can refine that and get

42:11the

42:11other.

42:11I understand what you're saying, but you're still removing land this potentially is removing land from the district. It would be part of that equation.

42:21That's my point. Right, but it's one acre. And they're actually at twenty eight twenty nine percent. Twenty eight plus change. Um so That means that we're not going to be able They're a little bit over on residential within this district. So it's probably around seventy six percent right now in the district. So he can afford to lose an acre or Plus. And not change much of the equation.

42:49Well Marva's already agreed that we're not going to be able to do that.

42:57I'm also a little concerned about the precedent of converting something that's an employment generating use to a residential use. But I can live with that. I mean well, I really can't live with I mean H if she can get the density she wants under R O R what's w I don't know why we're going through all that headache.

43:17So I guess there's two ways to go. One is Leave the R O R R O R is or the analysis he just told you, he can include in the findings of fact, 'cause that is their analysis. So either way.

43:29Yeah, but app apparently Clark doesn't want them using that analysis on his property. So

43:33this Planning Commission gets to decide their recommendation on that

43:36Anyway. It's up to the Planning Commission which what you want to do with it. I think she can get the density she wants with R O R so

43:45Yeah to me that seems like the simple way to go.

43:51And As Marva said, as long as she doesn't have to reintroduce it, re advertise it, you know, that's the That's the main I think that's the main concern.

44:00Yeah.

44:02So um

44:04But you have not taken public comment yet, so I didn't want you to Not take public comment.

44:10All right. So is there anybody in the audience?

44:12Did staff finish the presentation?

44:15Still has to finish the presentation, right?

44:18Yeah, I sorry, I guess I interrupted her there.

44:23Yeah.

44:27We got sidetracked. Sorry about that.

44:39Okay.

44:42Proposed future land use res twelve with a density cap not to exceed ten dwelling units per gross acre.

44:55The zoning existing is A C and A R.

45:02And this is the applicant's conceptual?

45:10Recommend that the local planning agency find the proposed amendment. Uh consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Alternative motion one, recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners. of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, CPAS twenty two zero six, Stillwell Pasco Station. or alternative motion two. Direct the planning and development department

45:41to an alternative course of action.

45:50All right, do I have any public comment? Any questions from the public? Anybody online, Denise?

46:01Mr. Chair, we do have um it it's not specifically for this item. I'm not sure we do have two folks that are online um that we're not sure what item they're on for. Um do you want me to

46:16Call out those folks.

46:21Because it did we get some opposition? Is that why it was unregular?

46:24It's unregular, I believe, because it it's uh multifamily component to it.

46:28Okay. Yeah, I don't know.

46:34They no one has registered for this one specifically, but I have two people that are online that I cannot attach them to an item so I don't know what they're on for.

46:45Guess we need to ask him. Well Yeah can we find out?

46:51So the first person that we have on is Zachary De Gregorio.

47:02Mr. Di Gregorio, what item are you here to speak on?

47:12Mr. Di Gregorio has been promoted.

47:16I am just in case.

47:20Mr Deborio, can you hear us? What item are you here to speak on?

47:26I'm not here to speak, I'm just listening. Can you hear me?

47:29Yes sir. Thank you so much.

47:32Thanks.

47:33So the the other person that we're not sure what item this person is here for is Has has it looks like he that person has dropped off. No, actually it's John Caraphalis. Can we promote that person?

47:53Um I can speak on behalf of John. He's also just here listening.

47:56Okay, thank you so much. Right. So that's that solves that.

48:00Which what what's he here to speak on though?

48:03Sounds like they were here just to speak to the

48:05speak on

48:05anything.

48:06We're just

48:07attending to observe. Okay.

48:09Thank you. Mr. Hudson's clear one here to speak of the item online.

48:15I think you should let Barbara and she answered the question, but she may have a presentation. I don't know. We should let her speak if she does.

48:27Barbara Wilheid again. I didn't have a specific presentation because it was on regular because it was on regular. But um if you have any questions I have my client here. Thank you.

48:37All right. Any questions?

48:39And we're fine with with the uh revision to just keep the ROR and change the rest of what Res twelve.

48:45All right. Thank you. Thanks, Barbara.

48:48Alright.

48:51So did uh I think we have the presentation. Do we have a motion?

48:54We'll make a motion to approve removing the um existing section that's uh has a feature land use of ROR from the Land use amendment.

49:04Okay, do we have a second? I'll second that. Have a second. The motion is second. Any further discussion of the motion?

49:12If not, I'll signify uh by saying aye if you're in favor.

49:19Motion carries.

49:21Okay.

49:26All right.

49:37Are we on P four?

49:39Alrighty.