Zoning Amendment (Regular) - Cross Park MPUD Master Planned Unit Development - Cross Park Land Trust No 1, Cross Park Properties LLC - Proposed is a Substantial Modification to the MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to Allow for the Development of 280 Multifamily Units, 45,000 Square Feet of Medical/Professional Office, and 10,000 Square Feet of Retail on Approximately 20.916 Acres

52:14Aye. Okay, then we are on that now we are taking ninety six ninety six ninety six ninety six is the companion. Oh it says ninety-five.

52:24And just on that one item, just so we can say on record, uh the supplemental report that you have in front of you for that, there was just a brief modification from that. during the transmittal phase, so I just wanted to make sure that that was on record with this item and the agenda. So just so you all are aware.

52:44All right. So going into the MPUD.

52:50So uh you'll now be hearing the associated MPUD with the comprehensive plan amendment. This is cross-part MPUD, PDD 22-7632. As you can see, it's located in the South Market area, Commissioner District 4. We've seen the visual of where it's located off of Hendley and State Road 54. A lot of these are repetitive, so we'll go ahead and fly through them. The proposal is to request a substantial modification to the existing Cross

53:20Park M Puty Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the development of 280 multifamily units, 45,000 square feet of medical professional office, and 10,000 square feet of retail on approximately 20.916 acres. The applicant is requesting the following variations to LDC 805.6 restrictions on post-development wetlands and upland buffers within residential lots and non-residential parcels, and LDC 902.2M

53:51for stormwater management requirements, as well as LDC Section 901.3 access management. With those variations, staff analysis has determined that the variation request meets the intent of the code for the first for A, because the LDC seeks to place those operational and maintenance responsibilities of open space, drainage areas, common areas, landscape areas, wetland areas, buffer areas, preservation, conservation, recreation and park areas, and other special purpose areas under the responsibility. Of

54:22a single representative entity for the entirety of the parcels. And then B, staff supports this variation request due to the requirement causing an impact to the existing category one wetland, which would be inconsistent with with policy identified in the comprehensive plan and the intent of the code. So I've already shown you the master plan with the access points as you see. Like I said, these are gonna be repetitive. So the multi the medical professional office located along 54. the mixed use multifamily with a vertical

54:52integration. And then the various findings of facts. So the project will have access from State Road 54, located on the northern edge of the development, and Henley Road to the western edge of the development. Planning Commission heard this item on 721 and voted unanimously to approve the proposed modification. The future land use is currently PD, and there's an accompanying comp. Plan amendment to this proposed MPUD, as we previously heard.

55:23Approximately 18% of the site is a category one wetland, which is identified in the MPUD master plan. And Cross Park will utilize this feature as an amenity to the proposed multifamily development through the establishment of trails and open spaces. There's adequate transit options with various bus stops located along State Road 50. And the conceptual plan trail for the Suncoast Parkway, which is from Suncoast Parkway to Oakstead Boulevard, which is identified within Pasco

55:53Mapper and our Greenways, Blue Ways Trails Maps, is also identified on the master plan to provide a connection when that is constructed. And then the proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County LDC Chapter 400. Subsection 402.2 zoning amendment, MPUD, Master Plan Unit Development, and the applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. So with that we recommend approval with conditions and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have on the PUD. Um

56:25Anybody have any more questions?

56:30Okay, this is a public hearing and um

56:34Madam Chairman Mari Just just one question for um the team uh county team. Um You know, multiple occasions it's you know it's been brought up. We did a a study and such, which oh and this afternoon if you if you stay tuned, I'll maybe bring up another reason why that study was wrong that was presented to us, because we actually have some new numbers to share. Um but I won't do that now. won't bore the people that will be leaving. Um But you know, so from your perspective in these you know, approval with conditions,

57:04you know you know, eventually, you know, along that fifty-four and fifty-six corridor, if you as a team and as staff continue to make these exceptions, there's a good chance, you know, like I said before, all you're gonna see or apartments lined up on fifty four and fifty-six. Is that the vision I don't think it is, but is that the vision the county staff has now? Because You know, you're again constantly saying, okay, this it's we're gonna approve this. We've w our recommendations to approve, but uh are we gonna continue to see these every time one of these comes up Again, we

57:35lose another job trading site, we lose another job trading site on that major corridor here in Pasco County. I mean are we gonna is this is gonna be the norm for the next ten years?

57:45Uh good afternoon Madam Chair Victoria Speedos Planning and Development. Uh I think the answer to that question is the comprehensive plan itself. Um there are policies in the comprehensive plan that direct and guide how development is supposed to shape up in the South Market area along stable fifty four and then we also have Board direction given to us how to consider uh multifamily development when the market proposes it on particular properties in order to preserve those employment generating land

58:15areas on 54. So when when a proposal is made to us, as in the case as in this case here, we look at it and seek to find ways to preserve that employment generating. generating land use and make sure that if if there is a multifamily component to it, it is put to the rear as the board requested.

58:34So just in your opinion, um, what's more important right now to you? As a planner. Job training sites or more multifamily. Yes it is, because this is how they make their this is how they make their determinations, Madam Chair. So I'm asking their this is their opinion. Yeah,

58:52well what's a

58:53complaint. We've shown in the complaint on multiple occasions why it doesn't always meet the compliant. At least I have from the dies myself. So I'm just asking this question for the record.

59:00Well I what's most important to me is the implementation of the comprehensive plan. Um I can only respond to what the marketplace brings in uh in reference to what the comprehensive plan is saying.

59:14Well okay, I'm not gonna get in the in the weeds too much with you, but uh we've had those discussions and I've had them up here before on how jobs are better and meets the comprehensive plan in my opinion more better than that does than swiping 'em out and switching them out. But especially along a corridor like that. Where it's you know,

59:30but uh uh we have heard the board um and we worked uh particularly close with the applicants in this project to meet the board directive to ensure that there's a employment generation taking place on property, uh on properties that do propose multifamily. So it isn't the case that we simply accept a multifamily project on 54. We look at is it what are the viable alternatives here and how do we uh get those to be present on 54, being the the viable alternatives being the employment generating

1:00:00land uses. And it has to be done in a way that makes sense from a site planning perspective, which is what we tested against in this case, but also from an economic development standpoint, which we worked with the Office of Economic Growth to determine as we did in this case.

1:00:18So the Office of Economic Growth, just out of curiosity, they think would be better to have the multifamily than additional jobs.

1:00:26And Madam Chairman What is the amount they they of jobs they increased on this by increasing the square footage of the medical unit?

1:00:34I don't know why you keep interrupting me today when I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

1:00:37Well there's there's is the J Did the economic the Office of Economic Economic growth comment on this?

1:00:43They did. They commented that the uh category one wetlands constrained the property significantly. And they determined that the 45,000 square feet of employment generating land use here, which would generate 93 jobs,

1:01:01actually I shouldn't say 45,000, it's it's more like 55,000, which was half of the existing employment generating entitlement, um, was sufficient for the amount of acreage that remained on the site. after you took away the land for the category one wetland.

1:01:17Okay.

1:01:19Madam Chair? Yeah. Um, you know, just if there's any doubt, I think this board's said it many times. Well I don't think we're looking for a lot of apartments. I think homeownership I think is great. Whether it be town homes, I th which is I think it's superior, single family homes superior to that. But this corridor especially, whatever we can do to generate jobs is what we want to do. Uh if you feel you need to bring a project like this forward Don't be thinking I I don't think you don't you want to think we want any more traffic out on 54. There's not gonna be a lot of relief, though

1:01:50some things will help. So if you have to look at a priority, I would rather have you work very closely with David Engel, EDC, PEDC, and find what incentives you can get to get better job creating things. I mean this project better than what it was. They did make some improvements on it to create some more jobs. and the retail going underneath that was good. But I don't want you to think for a minute that I don't think we're pushing for apartments. Right.

1:02:17Madam Chair. So moving forward, we would like to see more job generating access.

1:02:23Well and they don't they know that. That's why you

1:02:25say this for five years.

1:02:27Well and w we've done that when in certain areas when w when if someone wants to come in and they're allowed to come in with a storage facility, we've said no. Push the storage facility in the back. Put jobs out front. And I think they've done that here. They put the jobs out front on 54 and they put the residential in the back. Um it'll be across the street from other residential. Um so we won't get that complaint that we're getting in in other areas. Um so I think this is a a good compromise. Um and

1:02:57uh take a motion.

1:02:59Well no, you still got it you still got the applicant in public in the public comment.

1:03:03Oh okay. I thought I asked for that already. Does the applicant want to speak? Okay.

1:03:09Just very briefly, uh Elise Batzel, Stern Sweever Miller, uh could you put the presentation up? I'm not gonna run through it. I just wanna show a couple of slides to address a couple of the transportation issues from the community.

1:03:22And while you're doing that, I just want to remind everybody, and I know not everyone was here when we went through it, but we had the we're following the guidelines from when the Urban Land Institute came in and said Your your comp plan promotes sprawl. And you need to focus your density on the 54 corridor or you're gonna have to really raise taxes to provide services spread out all over the county. So that is what our comp plan says. It says put your density on 54. And um And I know we're going through some revisions now

1:03:52and this board. And the public will have an opportunity to weigh in on how we want that c that comp plan to look going forward, but this is what we're following now.

1:04:01Madam Chair, motion to receive and file for this project, please. Okay?

1:04:06Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

1:04:09Thanks. Um so just briefly, I know that A B set forth w how everything is laid out. The areas in red They weren't very clear on the black and white site plan. Those are additional uh retail and employment generating uses vertically integrated within the multifamily building. Um again, because it's constrained by the wetland, there is only so much that you can do on this site with res it's odd shaped. There's a very large wetland which we are protecting completely.

1:04:37We made a number of changes to the site plan based on input here, input from the community.

1:04:46I'm gonna skip over these.

1:04:51Oh, let's go back to transportation. I went the wrong way. Whoops. I'm sorry.

1:05:00Bottom. Oh, that's why.

1:05:04Let's find where we are here.

1:05:11Alright.

1:05:20I thought

1:05:21you went through really quick.

1:05:24Do you by chance have the comp plan up rather than the MPUD presentation? Oh, there we go. Transportation. So I just want to make sure that you understand what the developer is doing to address the transportation issues. First, we will be paying a prop share payment of $350,000 that will actually go towards the signalization and intersection improvements at State Road 54 and Henley. Uh the county is going to install the signal and we're going to receive mobility fee credits towards the roadway and SIS portions of

1:05:54mobility fee. The maximum amount of that credit would be $75,000. We are also doing significant site access improvements. That's adding 350 feet of an eastbound right turn lane at the driveway access off of State Road 54. as well as a 195 foot southbound left turn lane at the driveway access off of Henley. And with respect to the concerns about traffic, we had our traffic engineers look at the proposed

1:06:24entitlements and what traffic that would generate on 54 and Henley versus our proposal. And there is a significant decrease in the trips that this project will generate. And that does not even count any internal capture that may happen between the Pet Center, between the retail and the multifamily. your guidelines under the ITE trip generation and your county methodology. don't allow us to take those into consideration. So it may in fact even be less than that.

1:06:50Madam Chairman Mariano. You just mentioned that the previous proposal would generate more trips than your current proposal?

1:06:57That's correct.

1:06:58Okay, so now I'm really confused.

1:07:04Commercial typically generates more than residential.

1:07:08Look at the chart.

1:07:10And our t our transportation as engine engineer is here if you have specific transportation projects?

1:07:16So you're saying if it would have been A L or a SNF, that would have generated more trips?

1:07:22I'm gonna let you know.

1:07:23And I asked that because you're you made a statement a little while ago that's saying there's gonna be more jobs created now.

1:07:29Jobs and trips are two separate things.

1:07:31Well I understand it very well. I've been here eight years. I understand that works, thank you. Um but I do question that because at a assisted living facility or a skilled nursing facility. Majority of the time, I'd say ninety seven to ninety eight percent of those time, those residents aren't driving. So if you only have a few jobs, how is that c how was that more tripped?

1:07:53What do you mean a few jobs? I thought you said that it was such a huge employment

1:07:56generator with the analogy. Come on up,

1:07:57Batuffy.

1:07:58You're saying there was more jobs now than there were previous, but there's gonna be less trips. Sure,

1:08:03I'll let all these

1:08:04But you

1:08:05know

1:08:05the people in the assisted living facility in the SNF don't drive.

1:08:11So I'm just I'm just curious where you're because those numbers make no sense. All right,

1:08:14let's go. My name is Ali Atefi, uh Links and Associates of 5023 uh West World Drive, Tampa Bay. Um so the these uh figures do not compare uh the uh ALF versus the nursing home. These compare what was approved in entire i in its entirety of office eighty thousand square feet, retail of thirty thousand

1:08:44square feet, and uh two hundred seventy five thousand square feet of AF AFL of what was approved previously. So when you add up the trips of all those uses and then compare it to what is proposed Here then you generate less threats of what is being proposed, if that makes sense.

1:09:07Listen, I I respect and I appreciate what you're what you're saying. I'm just making a point that the trips that are gonna be generated at an AL or a SNP do not compare to what especially forty thousand square foot of office if you add that in as well. I mean you can because you're you showed us earlier about how many FTEs maybe there or employees may be at that site, but um

1:09:27Uh and and that may be I'm just talking about the overall, what was overall approved. Versus what's performed.

1:09:39Hopefully. Hopefully.

1:09:42Okay. Otherwise we're available to answer any questions they have. Thank you so much. And it'd be great if some of those residents get to work there and then they don't even get out on the road. That'd be wonderful. Um all right, so we've heard from the applicant. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this item? Do we have anyone online?

1:10:00We have no one online for this item.

1:10:02Okay, I'll take motion.

1:10:04Motion to approve.

1:10:05Second.