An Ordinance Amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing for a Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 and Sheet 22) from Res-3 (Residential 3 Du/Ga) to Res-6 (Residential 6 Du/Ga) on Approximately 61.04 Acres of Real Property Located at East of Billmar Road, North of Zephyrhills Bypass; and Providing for Additional Text Amendments as Necessary for Internal Consistency; Providing for a Repealer, Severability, and an Effective Date.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionAdopted
Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 10, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 10, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-23-0013 in full →PDD-23-0013 was taken up 5 times between Oct 20, 2022 and Jan 10, 2023 — this is appearance 5.
What was said
Machine transcription of 18m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 89% of 131 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
The Tampe Times on October 9, 2022. Thank
you. Mr. Pleethill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh item P fifty-five is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, Map 2-15 and Sheet 22, from Res 3, residential three dwelling units per gross acre to res six residential six dwelling units per gross acre on approximately 61. 1.04 acres of real property located at east of Bilmer Road, north of Zephyrhills bypass, and providing for additional text amendments
as necessary for internal consistency, providing for appealer, severality, and effective date. This comes with a recommendation for uh uh approval. And this is the adoption hearing for this comprehensive plan amendment. Now there may have been, just a clarification, there may have been a technical glitch in which what was illustrated in the agenda packet was a transmittal hearing agenda memo. Um but as I'm checking the
system right now it's it's showing as the adoption memo. So we passed out a revised adoption motion uh agenda hearing, agenda memo with the proper adoption motion.
Okay. That was the change of the revised edition. I'm sorry? That was the change of the re revised edition that we just covered.
Well we provided it just in case uh the the glitch was persisting in the system. But I I'm I'm bringing up the correct uh agenda memo off the website right now.
Okay.
Any more presentation or we're gonna hear from the applicant?
Well it's an ordinance, so normally it would be you'd have a staff presentation.
Okay. Right, we can make a presentation.
Hi, good afternoon. Brian with Long Range Planning.
Hi Brian.
Hi.
So today's project is um PDD 220013, Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPOL 2213, Hamilton Oaks.
This is the um ordinance right.
The property is located in the South Market area.
The proposed project about the village of Pasadena, B O P H um to the south, Village M. There is a map just so you get a general location.
That's the um project overview proposal, large scale comprehensive plan amendment, amending feature land use map two fifteen and sheet twenty-two. From residential three to residential six on approximately sixty one point zero four acres of real property located east of Bilmore Road and north of Surf Hill Bypass. It's the address. The resolution is to amend the flu map Two dash fifteen and sheet twenty
two. Um there is an associated rezoning petition under RC seventy six sixty nine, Hamilton Oaks, MPUD.
Um the following policies are consistent with the proposed comprehensive plan amendment.
We got our site location. Oh the subject property.
We got a visual roadmap of the Surf Hill bypass just south of the proposed project.
Here is a zoom out version of the Vision Road with the proposed ulterior. You can see on purple going south of the proposed project. Thus every hill bypassed.
We got the site location at sixteen um future land use. At the moment it's rest three.
Proposed future land use is res six.
That's a map of the um current zoning is um AC. You got M P U D abutting to the um west and south.
Here is a map with a site location of the um MPUD that is that are aborting the proposed um site to the west south
The recommendation recommends the Board of County Commissioners find a proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and adopt by roll poll vote.
Any questions?
Thank you. Any questions for staff?
Mr. Commissioner Bradford?
I've got one question that pertains to uh fire. I know in the past, but uh is this would be a a uh question for the county administrator. Is there a like is there a reason
why thank you is there a reason why we don't uh have a comment from fire on this proposal? Have we ever done those?
I'd have to defer to staff as to what what comments were were collected from the various departments.
But no, to answer your question, if there were none, I'm not aware of a
reason why. Yes, correct. On the um when the plan was sent to the fire department for review, um they replied back that they didn't have any comment at the moment for the uh proposed project.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman Mariano, just to have a question. Um
This proje what's the this is res three and you're ask they're asking to move it to res six. What's what's around this area and uh residential units? Say to the south of it, to the west of it?
all around this this project.
Well all around the project we actually have Chapel Crossing M PUD. We also have Avalon Park um M PUD to the south. Chapel Crossing MPUD will be um to the west.
And Air Warts, Arizona. Um sonning
currently is zone AC, Recultural, does the current zoning, Fisher Land use, proposed res from Rest three? So there's no
res there's no res three around this project?
Um no.
And it's a very dense project and You're gonna put in the middle of A C
Am I looking that wrong
or
So the the proposed project is going to be at a density of six twelve units per gross acre. which would be uh similar to the densities in uh Chapel Crossing to the west and uh similar to the densities that one might expect north in villages of Pasadena Hills um which off the top of my head I don't have the exact densities for villages M and L I believe that are there but it I think they they are around the five Dwelling unit breaker
mark as well.
Oh yeah, yeah, it's okay.
Hi, Amy, Highland Long Range Planning. Um so to the north it's actually V O P H. So that's gonna be Villages L M. It's currently Res One, but it is planned as Villages L M, which is a higher density residential. Um and the subject property it is uh mending to a res six, but they're actually proposing about a res four right now. We just don't have that. That flu classification between a res three and a res six. So they're capping the density as approximately a res four.
Correct. Okay.
All right. But isn't uh V O P H if I'm not mistaken, isn't that Um
different villages. I mean they're separated but there's land in between.
Correct. Yep, that's correct. Yeah, and this village uh is I
just wanna make sure it fits 'cause some day or other we decide we're not having forty and pitch foot lots. Every project comes up you approve the zoning and the next thing comes up and it continues to be forty and fifty foot lots. So sometime or other there's gotta be some kind of uh Step back from that or everything will be forty and fifty foot lots. That's all my concern is.
So let me ask you a question. Chapel Crossings, it is a M P U D, but are there any forty or fifty l foot lots over there?
Uh that I don't know right now, but we can find the answer to that if necessary.
Okay. How quick can we find that answer out? Because it's a big discussion we had today about forty, fifty foot watts.
Sure. Um I can try to hunt it down real quick.
Okay.
Sure.
Thank you.
Okay.
Well I I'm gonna say something that you heard me say this morning. Can you put the previous map up?
Not that one. Sorry, not that one. That one. Uh no. No. It's too late now. But this is no the
future lanius map is the right-of-way.
Okay, we got feature land use existing. That w
that'll work.
Okay.
My issue, it's too late. is that Asbury is not connecting to it. That's what? That Asbury isn't should be connecting to it and it's not. We we can't we just really have to not let that happen. That is very bad planning.
So
okay Commissioner Bradford.
So it's not connected with uh Zephyrhills bypass?
No.
And that continues on as they build that?
Well, Asbury connects in the middle part and Commissioner Starkey was saying she wish it went straight across through the next developmental.
But it's already built out.
It's already done. It's not something we can do now. But I'm just saying we if you look and if you look down below and you see Inkly quart and whatever again I don't know what's coming to the right of that, but that should have been connected as well. And then we don't have the gridlock.
When you only come out on one route.
You when you have multiple ways to go, you you avoid a good one.
Um to answer Commissioner Pratt for question, yes, Safer by ha uh bypass It's gonna be constructed um all the way up to the project. Right, let me see up to this area right here. Right. And that surface here is uh developer driven, so it's gonna be up to the uh project. As so far the information that we have.
So to be to be clear about the answer about Zephyrhills bypass being constructed, it's gonna be instructed completely in front of the property, the whole boundary.
Um t typically the developments bring the road to the to just about their entrance so that they can have access into the development, maybe a little bit beyond it, but not the entire length.
Well but as far as their entire property lines should be covered.
In order for them to have access, yeah.
So n not only just the access coming in, but to the end of the end of the bolted property lines, we should have that road Zephyrhills built. Why should we follow on the next person?
Uh I think the the standard the typical practice has been that they build up to their access point and then the next development that comes along extends from that access point to the very next one. So
Why why why would I end it at their property line?
Because we know that's the right-of-way. Because it's excess road that's not going to be used until the next development whenever it is comes in.
I know, but why should that follow on the next guy coming in? It should be everything in the front of that property should be taken care of, I would think.
I think what Terry's trying to say is is that the next guy will take it to his entrance. We're trying to avoid build building excessive roads that we need to maintain and they also long stretches of dead end roads lead to problems such as illegal dumping and other problems that that come with with things like that. So it works out on the averages because you're building entrance to entrance. And that's what that's what planning's policy is.
Okay.
Logical.
Okay. Any other
questions
for staff? Mr.
Chairman Mariano We do have the answer to your question on the 40s and 50s. Thank you.
We have a slight answer to your question. So the Chapel Crossings, which is abutting this property, is currently planned or approved or being under the approval process for the forty and fifty foot wide lots. Hamilton Oaks is envisioned to align with that, which is why they're proposing. the 50-foot wide lots. There is also currently an MPUD to the north, which is the village's L and M, under review right now. So we're also finding that information as well for you.
Okay. Thank you.
Uh any other questions for staff? No? The applicant?
Barbara Will Height 6327 Graham Boulevard, Newport Ritchie, for the applicant. I don't have a lot to add to staff's presentation, other than I would note that Chapel Crossing is approved for 40s and 50s. They have a land use of Res 6, which allows a maximum of six units for developable acre, and also ROR, which allows a maximum of 24 units per developable acre. To our south is Avalon West. similar lots. It's um it's a PD, it's planned development, so it
doesn't have a res category. And we are coordinating with um to the north, because DePew Ranch has plans in We are providing connections to our north and to our east. Our southern connection will be to Zephyrhills Bypass, which we will continue. We have a meeting on Thursday to talk about Zephyrhills Bypass with your staff. to talk about the issue that you're raising. Are we going to the driveway? Are we going to the end? of our parcel. So that's um teed up for for Thursday. We are working on the M PUD and those
are the details of that's why we have that meeting set up. So we'll be discussing that with With the planning staff and there's a whole bunch of people in that meeting um on Thursday. So we'd ask for your support in transmitting the Comp Plan amendment is consistent. Um with everything that's around it. We know we've got some questions in about zoning and lots sizes and all the things you've been discussing from the DIES. We're keenly aware of that. And we'll work with your staff and yourselves to make sure that you don't have any concerns
as the MPD comes forward.
And I do have a team. If you have any other particular questions, I have my team here.
Well, let me bring up the conversation about the forty foot, fifty foot miles. Uh even though they are around, do we want to see more of them or do we want to see less of them? Do you wanna see more do you wanna see more forty foot lots or do you wanna
Commissioner, this wouldn't be the time that you'd make that decision. This is the comprehensive plan. So as long as res six is appropriate for this area What size lots would be a decision that would be made during your MP and D discussions of the of the zoning? Okay. Yeah. I
understand that. That's uh and there's gonna be more of a res four than a res six, so Yeah. I'll move for approval.
Okay. So it may not be anybody, but you still have a have a public hearing.
Uh so this is the public hearing. Is anyone here in the audience would like to speak to this item? Do we have anybody on Web WebEx?
Okay. So we'll close public comment.
We have a motion? No.
Yeah. I move for approval.
Okay. Second? Okay. And a roll call vote?
Do we have Commissioner Weightman here this afternoon? He was on earlier.
Did we take public Mr. Hudson? Yep.
We cannot see you, but we can hear you.
Oh I I can see myself.
Now we see you.
Seth
Seth We can see ya. You need to go to bed. Back to prime time.
Like magic.
Okay. So yes, you'll need a roll call vote.
Okay. District one, Commissioner Oakley. District two, Commissioner Weightman.
I'll support this item today, but... I I really want to emphasize that Bend Resolve here needs to be a high quality product and matching Only resident. Standards. So that called.
District three, Commissioner Starkey. District four, Commissioner Bradford.
Aye.
District five Chairman Mariano.
Aye.
Okay. Motion passes.