Zoning Amendment (Regular) – Global Broker Group LLC and Alma Associates LLC – Change in Zoning from an A-R Agricultural-Residential District to a R-4 High Density Residential District – South Central Pasco County – South Side of Tupper Road Approximately 360 Feet East of Interstate 75 – Containing Approximately 2.61 Acres

1:26:21Approved for publication in the April 19th edition of the Tampa Bay Times.

1:26:29Leam Divine, Planning and Development. Item P sixty nine. Um before I begin, I have received ex partees from Commissioner Mariano, Commissioner Starkey, Commissioner Oakley, and Commissioner Weightman, which have been committed to the clerk's office. I believe I will be receiving a ex parte from Commissioner Bradsford office, which will be provided to the clerk's office.

1:26:49Um item P69, PDD 23-7687, in the name of Global Broker Group, LLC, and Alna Associates LLC. It's a rezoning amendment from AR Agricultural Residential District to a R4 High Density Residential District. The subject site is located on the south side of Tupper Road, approximately 360 feet east of Interstate 75.

1:27:16Here is an aerial view of the site.

1:27:24The future language to the north, east, south and west is all Res 6.

1:27:30The surrounding zoning to the northeast and west is all AR. To the south there was an MPD, Wesley Point subdivision. This zoning amendment allowed for 155 single-family lots with lot widths of 36 feet wide.

1:27:48The subject site is currently undeveloped on approximately 2.61 acres. The applicant proposes to develop the property with a total of eight single-family detached homes in conformance with the R4 high density residential district standards for development. The surrounding area is characterized by residential and commercial development.

1:28:10Access to the property is from Tupper Road, a county-maintained local road, with approximately 40 feet of right-of-way that varies. And the subject site has a future land use classification of RES 6 under the comprehensive plan.

1:28:25On February 2nd, 2023, Planning Commission made a recommendation for denial, citing several reasons. The proposed change is inconsistent with the existing land use patterns in the area. The proposed change will adversely affect living conditions to the immediate and surrounding neighbors. And the property does not have adequate access from a standard road.

1:28:52So this is coming with recommendation for approval from Planning Development Department and coming with a recommendation for denial from Planning Commission.

1:29:00Okay. Any questions for staff?

1:29:04Well just one thing. Um is this road paved that's going into this property? Yeah.

1:29:10Or going to be paved? It it is substandard, so I I we do have transportation folks that can talk to that. There are sections of the road that is unpaved.

1:29:19Okay.

1:29:22All right. Is the applicant here?

1:29:30Good afternoon, Commissioner Jane Graham, attorney at Sunshine City Law. I have a presentation and hopefully it is Okay, and I'm here today with my client Alma Associate Coacher Anthony Marsh is here as well.

1:30:09Okay, so yeah, good afternoon. So we're here for this tougher road change in zoning. Now I want to make it clear that this is a quasi-judicial hearing today. Your decision must be based on competent substantial evidence. It cannot be based on generalizations, conjecture, or opinions. The evidence shows that this request meets the Euclidean rezoning criteria. To give you some context. This property is located on the other side of I-75, north of State Road 54. The Grove

1:30:39and Crate Shopping Centre is just on the other side of 75. The future land use is residential six. And as you can see, let me see if I could do the points are

1:30:53the red star shows where it is and it's it's really within the residential six. It's not like right on the outskirts, it's it's there. Um a little bit north is residential three, and then on the other side of 75, you have mixed use and you have some commercial. and planned developments to the south. So as residential six, there's the ability to develop up to a maximum density of six dwelling units. Here is a copy of the conceptual

1:31:23plan which my client has provided. Now it shows that the lots are a variety of lot sizes. They're only asking for eight units. They could potentially ask for up to 12, but they're just asking for eight. And the reason why this is eight is they're looking for a gradual transition to the full density that's contemplated. under residential six. Now this is more detail of the specifically proposed lot sizes. Lot one on the top is 77.5

1:31:54by 110. You have a couple that are 65.110. Moving down you'll see there's some are regularly shaped ones that are larger. And then going back up there's a stormwater proposed stormwater management area and um a larger area on the other side. So if you do a comparison of the surrounding subdivisions, this is really well within the range. Now, R4, which is the zoning district that

1:32:24we're asking for, that has a minimum lot of 60 by 100, 6,000 square feet. In this case, we're looking for a range, but the smallest is 7,100. Square feet. Directly to the south is a MPUD, it's Wesley Point. 155 single-family homes, and those are only 3,650 square feet. A little bit over are the villages of Wesley Chapel, and those are 60 by 115,

1:32:54which is actually a little bit smaller than what we're asking for. It's 6,900 square feet. Now there's a proposal which I won't go into in detail which you um the Planning Commission had looked at which is just down the road and that does have a higher proposed density but we you know it's not really comparable but just so that you have the information in front of you. Now something to keep in mind is that even though we're asking for R4, there are also existing design limitations

1:33:25on site itself. Um for example, part of the land will have to be dedicated to the right of way. There's an interior street and call de sac which will substantially reduce the area available for develop developable lot creation. And stormwater retention will also reduce the area available. We have um Dylan Alderman available who is my client's architect if there are any questions about this as far as the specific design he's done this analysis So this

1:33:55is a larger picture of where this fits in with the lots. As you can see there are a number of lots all around it. This is a close up, this is a overlay. Ne oh, what happened there? Okay. There's an overlay of the conceptual plan. Oh, maybe there's a power outage. I don't know what's going on there. I thought it's odd. Um but yeah, so so you can see the size of the lots, especially lot six next

1:34:25to the smaller lots to the south. This is the the bigger picture of the overlay that shows, you know, this is not just only Only an agricultural area. I mean, there is quite a bit of development in the existing area. This is a zoning map, which also shows that you know there are MPUDs around. There is AR, but there are a number of MPUDs. There's actually a residential four a little bit south. There's residential one, there's residential two, there's commercial

1:34:55two, MPUDs. You know, this is not only.

1:35:01Yeah. To give a little idea um and personalization of the project, my client actually had a landscaping business up north and he takes the landscaping very seriously and just to give a little bit of an idea conceptually of what he'd like um you know he takes great pride and you know he likes to have high quality in the type of products that he makes. This is a house that he actually built in St. Petersburg and or referred And

1:35:31so he you know he likes to really look at the style. Now, a significant issue that you are going to hear and you need to talk about is the road. The access to the property is on Tupper Road. It's a county-maintained local road with approximately 40 feet right-of-way. Now, as far as the question of whose road is it, I refer you to Florida Statute 95361, which says that after a certain amount of time where a county maintains

1:36:02a road, it is their property. At the Planning Commission it had been previously testified that the peak hour trips were six or eight trips depending on AM or P. M. Something else to take uh into account is that Tupper Road is a vision road, um, which envisions that there will be more growth in the area as well, um, is going to connect 54 to 52. Um what my client is doing is he he

1:36:32had been asked, oh, this is going in the opposite direction. I don't know what's going on there. Um Quite quite. This is not going in the right direction here. What? Now you went. I just

1:36:47All right. Whoops. Apologize. Um

1:36:52All right. So just to to close here, um Yeah, so the you know this oh I apologize. Could I have thirty more seconds to finish up? Okay. Alright, so yeah, so um staff had requested a fair share payment for sixty-one thousand. Um this is a substandard road, but it doesn't trip the the threshold for over. hundred daily trips so it's just a fair share payment that's needed. My client is happy to

1:37:23pay that. Um And as far as neighborhood compatibility, just again, you know, my client wants to be a good neighbor. There are a number of these homes around. This is actually on Tupper Road, a little bit down. You can see that, you know, it is agriculture on one side on the north side, but on the south side, there are lots of homes as well. Um, again, that's that. So um in closing, this meets the rezoning criteria. It's consistent With a comprehensive plan, road impact is minimal. My client is

1:37:53complying with the county's requirements as far as fair share payment. Um there are only eight units. It's not, you know, 100-something units. I mean, this is really has large lots. It seems like a no-brainer. There's actually a stretch of over 1733 feet of single-family homes already along Tupper Road, anyway, on the south side. Um so that's it. The I I would like to enter this presentation into the record, if I could. To receive in file.

1:38:21Second.

1:38:22All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

1:38:25Thank you. And the one last thing is um my client actually received an email from his neighbor, Mr. Ken Jacks. He's his neighbor to the east. And it was of support. Um I believe that it was sent to the commission and I passed it on as well to Mr. Devine, but it came in late, so I just want to confirm that that would be able to be entered into the record as well.

1:38:46Um we can make a motion on that too.

1:38:48Uh

1:38:49I moved. Move to receive the email? Second.

1:38:52All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Well okay. Um any questions for staff? This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public want to speak to item

1:39:10P six P nine.

1:39:12We have no one signed up or online.

1:39:14Oh online? Okay, we'll see.

1:39:15Okay, well we do have do you wish to speak?

1:39:20Please come forward. If anyone else is going to speak, please line up behind them.

1:39:27Uh may I ask were you here when we uh administered the oath uh earlier? Yes sir. I was fine. So with your name and address just acknowledge that you took the

1:39:37My name is David McLaughlin, I live at [address removed]. And obviously as as we're all aware, the Planning Commission recommended denial on this and I think they they really hit the accurate points within the rules that the county has set and the guidelines. But I think something that really needs to be noted is the density of Topper Road. There are twelve homes on Topper Road. One is not even completed or inhabited at this point. So if you break it down by acreage, of addresses on top of roads. It's

1:40:07one house per 27 acres. Everything is AR. No one has any immediate plans that I'm aware of on Top of the Road to do any type of development. It's still active farmland. So as far as anything on the south end of Top of the Road that was discussed, there is an MPUD. It's been there since the mid-90s, completely isolated by a six-foot masonry wall. And there No access whatsoever to top a road. It's completely independent. There are trees, it's a barrier. So I don't deny the existence

1:40:37of it. And whenever you look at the aerial map, you can see okay, this property kind of catty corners this one, but it just doesn't fit the character of the area. So and as far as the debate on who owns the road, I think that debate will continue because we have Have property owners on top of the road that bought within the last two, three years, their surveys show that they own half of that road. So obviously, if the survey was passed, the county's aware that they purchased

1:41:07the property, they own half the road. So I guess we can take that up at a later date. But that's all I have. Thank you for your time.

1:41:15Okay, thank you.

1:41:20Anyone else here to speak to the item? Um maybe have staff come up and address the road issue?

1:41:33Mr. Chairman, the the the road in question has my and I'll let development staff uh planning and development staff confirm this, but the the road has been maintained by the county. It is shown on the road book Um under the statute that Ms. Graham pointed out, uh 95361, um we do not have to have a right-of-way map f on file. Um it is sufficient

1:42:03enough that we have maintained it for the period of years that we have. So the county's position is that it is a county maintained road. The level of maintenance is not great.

1:42:15Okay. Any questions, staff? Mr. Rothley.

1:42:20I uh heard him say something about one house per twenty seven acres, but there's houses right next to this this lot for these eight homes. They're not on twenty seven acres, so I mean they're similar s lot size, maybe even smaller lot size than some that he has on this project. So I just wanna make that clear that It looked like it conformed to what's next door to it in the in that Mr

1:42:46Chairman Mari if I can. While the while the uh uh applicant's attorney correctly pointed out that this is R four and it's Euclidean. Um She also represented that there was a conceptual plan and that this was an eight-unit project. That may be this Property owner's intent. But once

1:43:16you rezon it to R4. That site plan isn't about binding. That number of lots is not binding. So you are you are rezoning this to the R4 Euclidean category. There are, to my knowledge, no deed restrictions that would prohibit them or that would require them to make this an eight-unit submission.

1:43:40Commissioner Weightman. Thank you. Let's jump right in here. I'm opposed to this project here. Planning Commission voted it down. When you look at the neighborhood and I've driven this this neighborhood we have several items coming up that it's very clear that Westley Point project was not something we should be proud of in thirty-five foot lots. It's if you drive in there you you think man what how'd this happen? But in the existing

1:44:10this project's the very end of Tuple Road, it dead's end. Temple Road is a dirt road, it's a Clearly a substandard road. And when you look at the neighboring houses, everybody's sitting on an acre plus. Okay, every house is sitting on an acre acre plus and then you're putting in This project wants eight, but it could be more eight more units within there with a cul-de-sac. It's just it's not conforming to the existing area to the way the folks that live there are currently living. And

1:44:41um So when you look at it on on the plan and it it doesn't fit. So I'm opposed to this project.

1:44:50Mr. Chair. Mr. Shark. So I'm in support of the project. But um are we but I'd like it not to I'd like it then to stick with the eight houses. Can we not condition this?

1:45:02No, it's a Euclidean zone.

1:45:04So um

1:45:07Is there another number beside R four? R four is sixty by one hundred, right? That's the minimum. Is there somet like what's the max size?

1:45:17I would defer that to Ms. Hernandez.

1:45:20And um and the reason is because while there may be farms and ranches there now, they are not gonna be in the near future. And don't forget there's a town home project coming right down at the end at the other end s on the street, on the Caroline. So it's already starting to change. And I'd much rather see the bigger lots and that up that that bigger size lot.

1:45:42I'm not saying I'm a poet, I'm I'm a fan of this type of development. However I'm saying at this point in time in this area. with what's in that existing area if you go travel, it does not fit. And

1:45:56I disagree. And the ne and the neighbor is is okay with it. And eight eight houses is not gonna affect that road much.

1:46:03Uh let's hear from

1:46:03Denise. Yeah but what's Denise but I I don't want it to go to sixteen houses. Right.

1:46:10Um so the question was a step down uh from R four would be R three and those are seventy-five by a hundred foot lots. Then after that you have ninety five hundred foot lots and then after that you have twenty thousand square foot lots.

1:46:25So what so if we went to R three, could he s get eight eight lots out of there? Um Is that the number you said? R three?

1:46:34R three.

1:46:38Yeah, so he he can get his his number of blocks. Not our four.

1:46:44R three can get his eight.

1:46:46He can get his eight if he does R three.

1:46:50I'd

1:46:50rather I I I don't wanna open the door to smaller lots.

1:46:54Do you mind if we bring the applicant back up? Yeah.

1:46:58Commissioner, my my client would like to offer R four with a deed restriction for eight units if that's something that would make the difference. The reason why we haven't done R three is because looking at the um the requirements of R three, it is a slightly larger lot size and there's a preference just for the design of this that they would have the different sizes of lots, some larger and some slightly smaller in this. sixty five and so um it would be my client's preference to do a deed restriction

1:47:27Can we do that?

1:47:31You can continue this for for the applicant to submit a deed restriction. But as I said, you can't condition this. That would have to be something that would be all right.

1:47:40You can either go to R three today or continue and then get a D restriction. Okay, my client says R three is okay. Okay? R

1:47:47three?

1:47:47So I would make oh make a motion to R three.

1:47:52What's the motion? Uh R three R

1:47:54three. R three. Okay. I'll move. She moved. Do you second? I second. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. And opposed? Mr. Wayman is opposed. 3-1. Passes 3-1.