Zoning Amendment (Consent) – SR 52 Groves MPUD Master Planned Unit Development – State Road 52 Groves, Inc. - A Rezoning Request from R-3 Medium Density Residential, C-2 General Commercial, C-3 Commercial/Light Manufacturing, and I-1 Light Industrial Zoning Districts to an MPUD to allow for a maximum of 231 Multi-family Dwelling Units (Attached and Detached) and Single-family Attached Dwelling Units and Associated Infrastructure on Approximately 68.49 Acres.

21:16Mr. Chairman will move on to item PC two.

21:23Um why don't you uh just address them from where you are, it's gonna be easier. Anything you have to say?

21:30Okay, I th I think that item is off consent, so I was gonna have Tammy Snyder do a presentation.

21:37Unless there's like a specific question on the items. Okay.

21:51Good afternoon, James Snyder, Planning and Development.

22:10All right, we have for you today SR 52 Groves and PAD, PDD twenty-three seventy-five ninety-one.

22:18Proposed is a zoning amendment from an R3 medium density residential, C2 General Commercial, C three commercial light manufacturing, and I one light industrial zoning districts to an MPUD to allow a maximum of 231 townhomes on approximately 68 and a half acres. The project is in the central market area on the north side of State Road 52, approximately 6,500 feet west of U.S. 41.

22:45The applicant is also seeking variation from the interconnect requirements in L D C sections nine oh one point six point three point eleven and nine oh one point. 1.8 due to category one wetlands on the east and western boundaries of the subject area and platted residential lots. And this wetland map further describes the amount of the category one wetland coverage. Um given this constraint, the applicant is requesting to provide interconnects to the north and not to the east

23:15and west.

23:19Site location map shows it on fifty two just west uh east of five eighty nine. And location map?

23:30Current zoning districts.

23:37Here's the master planch on the interconnects on the north, the access to State Road 52 on the south, and you also see the wetland coverage on this one as well.

23:49With that, the P D D recommends approval with conditions to the BCC.

23:54Mr Chairman Mariano Tammy, two comments. One is I think you need to update your master plan in your PowerPoint because I don't think that's the most current master plan. Let's see. I think there's a more current one.

24:07Come on button. What?

24:13Because it's still looking at the right-of-way.

24:19Right, but if this is the one that still has uh the track model

24:22description. Correct.

24:25In addition, the other comment is I believe the applicant has reduced the request to two hundred and four units. At least that's what the conditions of approval say. Right. So you probably need to change that in your title if they're no longer requesting. I realize they originally were requesting 231, but if they've reduced the request to 204, I think that's what should be in the title. Yeah.

24:51Exactly.

24:51Yes, sir.

24:52Do you have a total on the wetland impact, the acreage of the wetland impact?

24:57I do not I can get that for you. They're they're impacting it Oops come up.

25:02And I'm kinda doing the math

25:03and I said it

25:03looks like it's about a third of the total.

25:08And then down there at the south to get out to the road. Those are the and then there's a little wetland of Yeah. uh there that they're also gonna be impacting. But they're trying to stay out of the wetlands as much as possible.

25:30Yeah. Like I said, doing the math in my head looks like it's about a third of an acre. So thanks. Appreciate it.

25:41Any other questions? Having Tammy. Okay. Applicant present.

25:51You look familiar.

25:54Good afternoon. Barbara Wilheit, 6327, Brand Boulevard, New Port Richey, for the applicant. Yes, we did reduce to 204. At one time when we first applied for this project, we provided that we could do either platted townhomes or build to rent horizontal apartments. Um we are just now doing platted townhomes, so that reduced the number from two thirty-one to two oh four. So that is the the number that we are seeking as a maximum. There is a companion comp point amendment that's worked its way through the system. You all saw

26:24it and recommended approval. Um going from

26:30IL and Res 3 to RES 6. And the board has transmitted that comp plan as well. And so now we're coming to you with the MPUD. It's for 204 applied to townhomes. We do have a condition in there that says that when the board finally settles in on a policy regarding standards for townhomes, we'll comply with it. So with that we'd ask for your support and we're here to answer any questions.

26:54So the setback for the That you're showing Bring your standards on the master plan twenty three feet from the back of the sidewalk. Is that anticipated to be part of the board's policy memo on?

27:09I'm not up day to day. The Builders Association is leading that effort, but my understanding that 23 feet is going to be that new standard. To address the board's concern about trucks and cars overhanging the sidewalk, we're providing for that 23 feet. It's usually 20 feet. Mm. I think it's as far as I know that's consistent with what the board's policy's gonna be.

27:33Do you know it? Maybe it's not appropriate to ask you but staff is the board considering changing the setback in other Euclidean districts to be 23 feet? Because I went through most of our residential districts and they have a minimum twenty foot setback. So one I'm pleased I agree that the twenty foot with some of the length of the vehicles today does create situations where sometimes the vehicle

28:03hangs over the sidewalk. So I appreciate them volunteering to provide that setback, but seems like that might be appropriate to change the other districts to do that as well. Is there any plans to do that?

28:15I have not heard of such direction, but perhaps Mr. Petos who has been more involved in those conversations may have some information. But yes, you're correct. Um our as you stated, our both our R four and our R three districts do have twenty foot front setback. That's when you get then when you get to the R two, that's when you get to twenty five and R one at thirty. Yes.

28:38Nictorious Peter was planning development department. Um there has not we've not received any direction to make any changes to the um land development code sections for the Euclidean zones. Um but there probably will be some direction to make some updates to the land development code that would be pursuant to um whatever direction the board ultimately gives on those setbacks.

29:03Okay. And then while you're here, question and I've noticed this in a couple of the town home proposals Um and this is in their conditions of approval 9D This talks about creating room for planting lot trees and street trees. And it says in order to accomplish the foregoing landscaping objectives for townhouses, no driveway flares shall be required for townhouses, and water main lines

29:33may be installed under sidewalks in townhouse phases. So

29:43I'm puzzled about the removal of driveway flares and Denise I sent you an exhibit if you could put that up there.

29:53Sonya's working on bringing that up.

30:08So what this is is a drawn to scale.

30:16Of an 18 foot wide townhome with a nine foot wide garage door and a twelve foot wide driveway. And that is an Ashto passenger vehicle wheel template. And what I'm showing you is that it takes the flare to accommodate the car in a narrow driveway, a twelve foot driveway. The standard door on a single single garage door is nine feet. So I'm not sure that we're really accomplishing the goal

30:47of creating more room for a street tree. In that three foot nine square feet that we're getting by eliminating the driveway flares. By doing that. In fact all we're going to be doing is driving the right rear wheel of the car over the tree's roots.

31:07But I did notice that there's language in here that says if they can't accommodate the trees, they can pay into the tree fund. But I do think that with the twenty three foot setback that they're probably able to plant some trees behind the sidewalk or in the yard. That seems to be enough room that you could accommodate a tree where we're not going to. or between the two driveways. Well we're not gonna run over the tree routes with that. And I'm gonna ask David if

31:37he can help me with this. And you'll have to jump ahead to the next case and I think it's condition number forty six in the next case. Four G? Yes.

31:47Okay.

31:47Is that it has similar language

31:51Forty six, you said.

31:52I think it's forty six.

31:55I see that.

31:57And that one the language in that particular condition talks about allowing the water main under the sidewalk. And then there'll only be a five foot utility easement across the front of the property.

32:13And I would like to see that same benefit afforded to this project so that there can be room in the area between the driveways to plant trees rather than trying to plant them where the wheels of the cars are just gonna run over them. And it seemed to me that would create something that's consistent. And I did speak with utilities about that yesterday and they have they told me they have no objection to allowing Traditionally we've required

32:43a ten foot utility easement behind the sidewalk. And I spoke to Mr. Allen and Mr. Allen told me that he had no objection to allowing the water main to be under the sidewalk with then five foot of easement to accommodate the dry utilities, cable TV and telephone and the like in that portion of the easement. And so it would seem to me if we didn't have to burden this applicant's project with ten foot of easement and only five, that that would accommodate better

33:13room for planting.

33:14So I think the dilemma we have here and this is by no means the applicant's whole Here's the The condition you see in the 52 Groves DVD is based on language in the existing memo, Terry Pitos's existing memo related, I think it's PM10, related to 40-fifth 40-50-foot lots and townhomes. The language you see in 4G is based on the future memo. that

33:45has not been adopted by the board yet, that that was Clark anticipating the board adopting new standards and so

33:53I but to answer your general question, if the applicant's okay using the language from four G, yes you could do that language instead of the language in fifty two rows, but the I don't know if the applicant's had a chance to see it. So

34:06I will disclose that I met with the applicant about it yesterday in my office so that she wasn't shocked by my exhibit here.

34:14So yes, we're fine with that language. The intent of our catch all that says we'll be subject to the town home standards memo is that We'll get the benefit of that memo and the burden of that memo when it comes out. That's the intent of that catch-all condition. But I appreciate the pointing that out and we can change that language before the board.

34:36And Dave is correct, that language came from the adopted BOC Memo B O C C memo that's on the books today.

34:45And then just a question or comment for staff. I think it would be helpful to the Planning Commission if the BOCC adopts memos regarding standards for townhomes or forty foot lots if perhaps it was shared with us. So We've got that available to us too.

35:06We can make them

35:06available.

35:11So did you want to make that a motion that we replace

35:15Well I don't know. We still a public hearing. We haven't asked if there's opposition yet. So Yeah,

35:20we're just don't want you to forget about that that that particular issue. But I doubt the public testimony is gonna be focused on that issue, but

35:30Okay.

35:32Can I ask a question for clarification? Sure. Thank you. Barbara, I'd like to ask When I read through the all the documentation

35:42I read four elements to this particular rezoning. It's going to go from an R three Which I understand. They're going to remove the light industrial zoning for the district to an MPUD to allow for these 231 multiple homes. My concern has been, and from what I've read, is that there's there's a certain type of movement afoot that says we're taking commercial land for light industry or for And

36:13I think the other element that I have not addressed one in here is the uh Uh manufacturing and light industrial zoning districts will go to basically homes, correct? That's the intent of this, is take these two elements of that current zoning and rezone it into 231 or plus or minus homes, town homes. My concern is that

36:40There has been articles about the fact that we're taking

36:45light industry or industry type of property zoning which create jobs and it's the concern has been that these jobs or this type of property is being transferred to homes even though we call them town homes they're still homes.

37:07I can address that?

37:09Please.

37:09So I agree with your statement generally. That's where we start at. We start at and we look at them and I can tell you everybody looks at this really carefully, not only my team, but we've met with PDC, Economic Growth Director, County Attorney's Office, this planning staff, that particular and then the board, because we've already and you it's this has come before you. What you have to do is you that's where we start at, but then you look at a particular piece of Well what's that configuration of light industrial? How many acres is? Does it have any frontage? In this case the frontage of this parcel

37:39is all category one wetlands. There is no frontage and that's why town homes make a lot of sense because they'll be tucked back in between the wetlands. But when we looked at the actual parcel There was no intent of that to be industrial. It's just a fragment, it's just left over. But what we do is we actually try to look at properties that are actually good for industrial. So at the same time as this is going through, taking a couple acres of industrial off the books, we put three hundred acres on the books at a place where they belongs, Sunko's Parkway. So I agree with you, it's a starting

38:10point, you shall not convert Non residential to residential. So totally correct. But you gotta look at is this the right place for industrial? Will it actually develop here? What is the best use for this for this location? And going through all of that. It's been determined by the staff, all the people that I mentioned. This commission already reviewed that Comp Point amendment and recommended approval and the board's already transmitted it. So I agree with your statement. We do watch for that and we've

38:40been asked that question many times, but the location here is not an imp uh industrial location with the category of one wetlands with no visibility, it's not a commercial location, it's an odd configuration of what is industrial. So we do think this is a much better project. We do need homes, we need fee simple homes. They'll be really nice um tucked in between the wetlands. They'll make a very, very nice residential project that you'll be proud of.

39:05D Denise, was there a slide in there that showed the neighbouring zone?

39:09Yes, there should be.

39:26Okay, so it's that sliver in the south southwest corner? Was industrial? Oh, and then the at the bottom as well.

39:39It's towards the the light industrial. The non residential is the south along State Road fifty two. But it sits amongst the wetlands behind.

39:58Yeah, it's hard to see

39:59it.

40:00Well, if I can let me just finish my question and I I will be quiet at least for a few minutes. Um it begs the question on if this at one time in history was to be developed into industrial and commercial use, then what has changed and I don't know what the change would be and I don't know if anybody here can explain it. Why we're all of a sudden moving into residential. Was it miss zoned or incorrectly zoned in the in the front end of this and it should have been allocated for residential

40:30residency or residence to uh be developed in that manner or are we going to continue to look at each parcel that is uh zoned currently for industrial or manufacturing for what I would consider employment and you can define that any Way and is that in the future? Those that are zoned in that matter going to be converted over to rooftops. That's the question I beg to get clarification on. I think there needs to be some kind of sanitation in the in all these residential costs,

41:01because every time I read these, it's taking something zoned in a particular manner, and now we're going to convert it to rooftops. That's it I know none of us have an answer for that. I just

41:10Well I agree with the starting point. We don't want to do that. But not every location And and your answer about the comp plan is we have a thirty year old comp plan. There are weird things in there all over the place and I don't think there's any meaningful intent to have industrial Mixed in with category one wetlands with no frontage with residential on its backside. So you'd have to drive through the industrial for the residential. That land use pattern does and zoning as it exists today doesn't

41:41make sense. So that's you have to look at 'em you have to look at 'em. Generally I I agree with you and we're very mindful of that and I can tell you that this went through thorough review. Many, many people said the same thing and looked at it, and after they looked at it, they said We think it's justified. We don't think it's a viable industrial or commercial location. And that's why we're agreeing to change it. It will make a much better townhome project. We have locations where we want to have commercial This isn't a commercial location, it's not even at a at an intersection.

42:11Um so it doesn't meet it doesn't make sense for commercial. So we went through all of that and I agree with you. And but we also look at the opportunities to do meaningful industrial. So while we are very carefully considered this one and changing it to rooftops. We took off seven hundred rooftops on three hundred acres on s softwind lanes within the last couple of months. Seven hundred rooftops we took off. It made it industrial. So It is a very important issue that you're pointing out. It was not taken lightly um with we just walked in and

42:42said we're gonna do rooftops where you want industrial. It was very well thought out and uh supported by everybody that's reviewed it so far.

42:50So the comment's not directed at this particular project. It's kind of a broad umbrella thing.

42:56I do I do want to point out though that the Planning Commission already voted to Change the comprehensive plan land use designation for this partial to residential. That's been you've all have already agreed to make this property residential when you approve the comprehensive plan amendment. So I don't I don't think you can keep it industrial anymore, now that you've agreed to make it residential. Am I making sense?

43:22Uh well that I I no not really because from what I have read in the documentation and what I see in front of me is that it's going fr from in Elyss' four zoning to another one here. But I okay, let me finish please. Okay. But I all I'm saying is that what I see here is that there are four zoning elements to this piece of property now and it's gonna go from two meaning it's gonna go from a past to a present. I don't have any problem with this particular project per se. My concern

43:52has been a rooftops versus uh industrial property. And when we read through these documentations, and like I said there were over three hundred pages in this last one, I think three hundred and eighty six I believe. And I I I made a concerted effort to read through each one and I read And have me understand David, that it goes from from the current zoning, which is what I read here, and then to what you just indicated to a different zoning. So that's the confusion I see within myself then.

44:22I I don't disagree with you that it's a concern. Okay, the underlying concern I agree is a valid concern and and Barbara agrees it's a valid concern. My point is is that

44:33What is the cur what is the land use that this what's the land use change that this board already recommended approval of? It was to go to what? Res nine?

44:42Res six.

44:43Res six,

44:43correct.

44:45So You as a planning commission you recommended approval of the change the underlying land use of this property to Res 6. My point is is that the industrial zoning is no longer it's not consistent with Res 6. You can no longer approve industrial zoning in a res six future land use anymore. That's the point I'm trying to make. My point is if you had a cons that concern The better time to raise that concern would be before we Change the feature land use

45:15to Red Six. But the r the reason we did that

45:18I recall the hearing. One of the primary reasons cited was the comprehensive plan policy, and I'm sorry because I can't recite the number, but it has to do with IL and IH uses having adjacency to category one wetlands, and that was the primary reason was that because this property is burdened with a significant amount of wetlands that it wasn't appropriate. appropriate to develop it in an industrial manner.

45:48Yeah, I don't disagree. I just I guess the point I'm trying to make is The underlying concern that you're raising was addressed by staff in that prior land use amendment. They there's a very lengthy staff report that they generated explaining

46:05trying to address the concern you're raising. My point is that now that it's almost res I mean, as far as this body's concerned, it is res six now, because you recommended approval of res six. Board hasn't approved it yet, but you have. You can no longer keep it industrial once it's res six. That's my point I'm trying to make.

46:22I understand.

46:24So I'm only pointing this out for the future that if you have that kind of concern, I'd rather you raise it at the comprehensive plan amendment stage Then at the zoning state.

46:33And I think the bigger concern that you might have, Peter, has to do with the the legislation that was passed wherein if they commit to a certain amount of affordable or workforce housing, they can come in and convert C two or I one uses to be residential and we don't have a say in the matter. I think that's probably the bigger concern, but that's not what the situation is for this particular

47:01that would have been allowed under the prior zoning, but not under not under the One that they're seeking to zone two.

47:08Right.

47:09Yeah.

47:09Addresses that concern by actually changing it.

47:13I'm not going to belabor the point anymore. I thank you.

47:16No, it's well taken, Mr. Hansen. Definitely.

47:19But

47:20But I'm but we have three hundred acres that we've just converted. So it's g in an area where we're gonna have quite a bit of industrial. So we're gonna we're gonna get it right.

47:28I'm gonna stay mute. Thank you. And that's uh Angelique right there across the street, right? Yeah. Across

47:35the street.

47:36Yes.

47:39All right.

47:40So

47:40just east of North Sun Lake Boulevard that goes down into Angeline.

47:44Other questions for the applicant?

47:47So it's a pretty heavy heavy residential area. It's going to be anyway.

47:51All right, does anybody else to speak on this thought uh topic?

47:57Mr. Chairman signed signed to speak on this matter.

48:02So we don't have no one to speak, uh hear a motion. I'd like to move

48:07to approve item PC two with a change to condition nine to be

48:17helpful?

48:18Yes.

48:18Okay, replace condition ninety in the fifty-two Rows property with the last sentence of condition 46 in the 4G Ranch MPD application.

48:33And I would also like to add that if driveway flares are to be eliminated that that be supported by a wheel tracking template that shows that We will not be running over the roots of the trees by doing so.

48:50Well, if the Planning Commission's preference is that

48:57See because the last sentence of i of 46 and 4G does not talk about eliminating driveway flutters, which may be why you liked it better. That's only that language only exists in 9D of 52 rows. If the Planning Commission doesn't as a whole has concerns about eliminating dryway flares, you could request that planning staff replace their standard language in 9D with

49:27what's in the last sentence of condition 46. Otherwise, I mean if I didn't what I'd hate to see happen is, since this is boilerplate language, if you're going to raise that concern with every one about the elimination

49:41Mm-hmm.

49:43I would too, but I think the problem was that this is part of an existing board policy memo and I don't think I have the right to change a board policy. I can suggest to the board that they change their policy memo, but I can't change it.

49:55Well, Mr. Pitos could probably figure out a way to do it.

50:00Why don't you make that part of your motion, uh John? That we replaced that. sections. So I'm

50:08I'm not sure you're you're hurting the underlying intent of the board. The underlying intent of the board was try to remove an impediment to installing landscaping. If you're s 'cause the last sentence of condition forty six does do that. It just doesn't get into the elimination of drywood flares. I I just don't want to see What I hate to see happen is you're pulling every MPD from consent just because of the dryway flare issue

50:32if it's easily fixed. I would agree and what I would like to see is consistency in conditions of approval where we have these situations. So yes, your first Legal interpretation is my motion.

50:56Yeah so so so while I'll registate the the the motion it was to replace condition nine D in fifty two Rows M P U D with the last sentence of condition forty six and the four D Ranch M PUD. I think you should take action on that motion and then we can talk about the boiler pulley.

51:16Okay.

51:16Oh second. We have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion on that motion? And that just to recur and that includes also approval of the application. The amended application. Yes. Okay.

51:28All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Most like signed. Okay.

51:33So on the boilerplate, I r recognize that you can't control Board of County Commissioners, but if you Would like to make a motion that the boilerplate in section nine it's the origin of section ninety be replaced with the last sentence of condition forty six on a going forward basis. I think that there's a way for Mr Ms Snyder and Mr. Pitos to find a way to make that happen. So moved.

52:02And thank

52:03you.

52:05Yeah, fair enough. I'll I'll second that, John.

52:12Okay, so for clarity

52:15I guess j just for clarity, when you say the last sentence, is that the sentence it starts with additionally? Or is that the sentence it starts with in such phases?

52:23The one that's he I'm not sure you need the the the part that says in such phases, but it's the s it's the It's gonna be fine.

52:35So it's the last two sentences. I'm not sure you need to freeze in such phases, but it'd be to allow additional room for trees and landscaping utility easement and then the rest of it, basically.

52:43Okay. So it's two sentences.

52:45Yeah, sorry,

52:45two sentences. That's okay. No, I just wanted to clarify. That's fine. That's my intent.

52:49I understand. Okay. Just

52:50clarifying for the clerk.

52:52So I have a motion?

52:53So

52:54Do we have a second? Okay. Derek second. Other discussion? All in favor? Signified by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay, now we have a place for the trees.

53:09So can I just ask Ms. Snyder that can you convey that message to the other MPD reviewers so that we're not having multiple MPDs pulled from consent over a dryway flare issue? Thank you.

53:24Thank you, Ms. Snyder.