An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan: Providing For Text and Table Revisions For The Villages Of Pasadena Hills (VOPH) Comprehensive Plan Goal FLU 6: Allow Increase Of Land Area In Village Cores Of Villages B and C, Increase Maximum Residential Conversions, And Add Conditions To Transfer Unused Densities To Village Cores, 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
DispositionApproved
Approved Staff’s recommendation of transmittal by a roll call vote with Commissioner Bradford absent from the vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Nov 14, 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, Nov 14, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-24-0026 in full →PDD-24-0026 was taken up 3 times between Oct 10, 2023 and Jan 9, 2024, continued 1 time — this is appearance 2.
- Oct 10, 2023BoardP74▶Continued
- Nov 14, 2023BoardP92▶Approvedthis item
- Jan 9, 2024BoardP57▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 45m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 89% of 217 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Aye. P ninety two.
Item P ninety two was published in the Tampa Times on August second, twenty twenty-three, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.
P92 is PDD 240026. Today we just ask that you take public comment. This is the transmittal hearing, so you're asking we're asking that you direct staff to transmit to the Department of Commerce and other reviewing agencies. This was presented to the Pasadena House Planning and Policy Committee on 816 of 23, the local planning agency who followed it consistent with a comprehensive plan and except for adoption. On 19 of 24 at 130 in Dade City. It's an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for text amendments and table revisions for the villages of
Pasadena Hills. The OPH comprehensive plan goal flu six, allow increase of land area and village village cores of villages B and C, increase maximum residential conversions and add conditions to transfer unused densities to village cores and providing. for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for a repealer, severability, and an effective date.
Like that. Do we want a presentation or any questions for staff?
So
what was the presentation?
Oh. H how long's a presentation?
Um it is my colleague Gavin Covey, um probably just about Five minutes or so?
I I would like to see it.
Okay,
thank you.
Good afternoon. Gavin Covey Planning and Development.
So this is item P D twenty four zero zero twenty six, the Village B and C Text Amendment. And so we're proposing to change three things to the V OPH comprehensive plan. So the first thing we're doing is increasing the land area of village centers in just villages B and C. The second thing we're doing is we're going to increase the allowable conversions of residential entitlements to commercial and retail entitlements. And the third thing is we're adding an additional policy for unused densities in the edge district to be transferred to the core.
So here's the village prototype for you. As you can see in the center, with the red is going to be the commercial and retail uses. Surrounding that is the brown, which is going to be the high density residential, which is 10 dwelling units per acre, and then around that, five dwelling units per acre, and then the outer edge, which will be two dwelling units per acre. So, like I I mentioned before, we're increasing the amount of land dedicated to both the brown. area and the red area in B O P H and we're gonna be increasing it just by ten percent.
So here's our current Village B master plan that we have. With this new proposal this is what we would be allowed to have. Um as you can see y the higher density goes south and north as opposed to this previous one. Oh, I'm so sorry. Which was just uh to the north.
So the second thing that we're doing is we're allowing the residential conversions and so I've done uh just a couple sample ones for us here. So if you convert 20% of the residential units, you can increase uh your commercial entitlements by 36,637 in the village B. If you convert it just to office, you can add an additional 80,000-ish for office uses. And then if you do a 50-50 split, you can do um add an additional eighteen thousand square feet
of commercial and then another 40,000 of office.
And so the last thing we're doing is we're adding that unused density transfer policy. And so this is to allow for unused densities from the neighborhood edge and neighborhood general area to be transferred into the village center. Uh the transfer units may exceed the twin ten dwelling units per acre in the village core. Uh units may be converted to non-residential entitlements and be used in the village center, which is subject to the comprehensive planning policies. Owner must produce signed record document with the intent to transfer the density and cannot exceed the approved entitlement for the MPU
MPUD and the transfer must be within the same village or within the same uh MPUD if across multiple villages. So here are the three uh comprehensive plan policies that support it.
And then this comes with a recommendation of approval or uh with a transmittal to the Department of Commerce and other reviewing agencies. Put you.
Uh Commissioner Starkey.
Can you go back one slide, please? Overall design principles and land use inform and village characteristics. I think these are really important to make a quality place. I'm just adamant that we we're not getting strip malls. Absolutely. And um and that it's uh you know, I'm all for density in the downtown core, but but it needs to be, you know, some vertical density. and not just uh a public surrounded by a lot of apartments. I mean that's that is just not what we
should be doing. So what what requirements do we have in here?
So there's none um that are necessarily going to get in this proposal that'll be promoting that, but overall V O Page has a you know the intent is to provide those village centers and stuff like that in the comprehensive plan. Um I will say V OPH does lack in some of the regulatory stuff to promote. Um like an L D C that would promote those design standards. But a lot of that happens within the M PUD negotiations and stuff like that.
Well, I just want that to be happening in the M P U D negotiations. I mean this just shouldn't be another repeat of what's going on on State Road fifty four and some other places where I think we kinda lost our way a little bit in my opinion and not building anything that's memorable.
Mr. Waven thought if you go back and got him. You have a what we talked about earlier, the big one. Is that the original or the new?
This is the proposed one.
Go to the original. Go to the original.
So VOPH has been being planned for the last two decades. Essentially. Long years. A long time.
Yeah.
I'm concerned
With the level of planning that's gone into this overall project, I'm talking big picture here. That we are I we need to come to a consensus and take a look at the overall V OPH plan, in my opinion, in the Village Course. Because we have already made decisions that aren't in line with the original plan, and that's the plan with the public that's on that's online around the Village Court. And the item today. continues to go against the
plan that's been established and been studied for the last couple of decades.
I'm not opposed to shifting where we need to shift to make make make it work, make it healthy. I don't want to set precedent that we're going to run fast and loose over this project as it starts to come online. We have an opportunity to build something very unique to Pasco County. It's got beautiful topography and can create a fantastic place for folks to live and raise their family and work and so on. So I guess my my question
to the board is when you look at what's proposed and what's been planned for a long, long time And then what? The new the modified proposal is I think we need to set uh uh a direction or understand where where we want to go and do how How rigid do we want to be in discipline on these village cores? Because we're going to start approving potentially products today that aren't in line with the plan and it modifies each the village in my opinion, extensively. And the precedent's
already been set. This board made a decision A few months back. And um Now I've realized what the decision we made and what that precedent was, I may have managed my vote differently.
What can you be more specific?
Well look at the brown, do you have a laser pointer? I think so. So explain the densities in the core when you when you get out. Like we we and how we what the vote was on the McCabe and PUD, for example.
Yeah. Oh, sorry. So I don't remember exactly what happened with it. wasn't the exact planner, but just to give context, um that uh McCabe MPD was approved for ten dwelling units per acre uh in
eastern. What's on it, it was it's ten dwelling units per acre, but we approved multifamily towns and a little piece of residential on there. And during that board meeting, you know, there was back and forth going on. But ultimately what was approved was not What's identified in this V O P H Village Court plan? So we're moving, we're sh we're we're what's been happening is we're We're shifting what's what's going on there and you move to the south with a with a very unique project that we're going
to hear about today which is Really an interesting project. M the heartburn for me isn't necessarily about the project, it's about Does it fit in the plan that we're supposed to be following and all the investment that's been in made to what makes up The village is in the village. Centers. So if we're going to, I think if we're going to start making these decisions, we need to take a broader look at VOPH in the course. to to make a a policy decision on Do we
want to modify the village cores a bit to make them differently but to go in and just piecemeal again again like you talked about Commissioner Starkey We've seen some of the Come to fruition some of the decisions that have been made. We have an opportunity right now Two not make that mistake again. And so I just
Like to get feedback and staff and we've talked extensively on this. I don't want to see the value of this project erode away. We can We can have something really quality here and something uniquely special for Pasco County.
Yeah, and just so I can chime in between y m you Miss Starkey and you Seth, um it kinda just seems like we should do a big comprehensive update to V O P H at this time. It kinda needs it, it hasn't been touched comprehensive, it's been piecemailed uh for the last few years, so Maybe we look at that and and try to figure out what we can put in and make this a better thing.
My my angst is that we took out what I thought was the the rules that made it very special and that was all the T and D requirements. But we have a developer, Mr. Ga Gavin Galvin.
Galvin, yes, correct.
Who's putting his back in. So I think his his area is gonna have higher values than any of the other areas. Um that's what happens in those kind of communities. So uh I'm not against the density s near the downtown the village centers because I think we need those it as long as we We make sure that the people can walk and ride their bikes or whatever to there to make them successful areas where people will, as I like to tell people who come in and see me. Hang
out on a Saturday night, you know, not just drive into a C V S and leave. That's not a that's not making something That's not a village core. That's not a village. That's just The characters.
So to me that's a design a design standard more than density requirements. But y you gotta have the density to make those retail village centers work. As I mentioned to my colleague over there, Commissioner Oakley, if you had more density down here your your stores would be
It's not Commissioner Weightman. Thank you, Chairman, Commissioner Starkey. It's the evolution of the village core. It's the moving of the density where it's not planned to be. That's if you can show the the the before and after if we had a laser pointer that could be a little bit more clear. The plan that we're supposed to be following Or not.
Which is the brown the brown is the higher density?
Sorry. So that's okay, well that's not working for me. Um so yeah. Yeah, sorry.
Is this the point?
That's existing.
And to to help you, that line in the center is a dirt road.
So
the rope hang on, let me finish. the to the land to the side where the lake is, you've got a whole series of landowners, they have no intention of giving up any right away. So that center of that whole thing Doesn't have a chance to happen. What's worse is when you look at now shifting this over. You've got connected cities on the other side? They've got all their densities that are over down the there down in there. A new development's coming right toward the front, right to the south of fifty-two. Uh McCabe Road. And they don't have a connection out there to
Curly Road. Even though Curly Road's gonna be sixth lane. Your connection is gonna be La Marada, which goes at the very bottom of the pitcher, where that road kind of bends out and around. La Marata comes out over there. So you gotta be careful how you assign these densities because if you just put everything right along Curly Road and that road isn't gonna get built and you don't have the connections to the south above, you're gonna have a cluster that's gonna be loaded with traffic that's not ready for it. Um And I will say that. I I'm very happy I
I talked with David Goldstein and our uh county engineer Nick Ern yesterday about this very personal that see the green piece that's in the in the intersection there? That's a retention pond.
The green square on the corner on the interface?
Yeah, the it's a retention pond. So here's the here's the here was here's what the problem is. And this happened the same thing happened up at fifty two in Bellamy Brothers when we took out the neon cowboy. And we took that whole parcel, right. Prime piece of land, and we made a retention pot out of it. Makes no sense. What happens is D O T puts their plans together. We haven't gotten together with them, but talking to David and Nick Juren, uh We're gonna need to get our planners involved every time DOT's gonna do a road, that we get in the mix of it. We go look at that stuff to see what we're
gonna be planning and what's coming in so that doesn't happen again. But that's what's made a a big issue with this whole center right here too. You you can't get the density where the triple retention pond is. So Commissioner Weightman, you run the money. What we plan is not happening. Now, I will tell you the the way this happened was probably about eighteen years ago. We had biannual comprehensive plan amendments and we had some amendments going down here, down by Hancart Road specifically, and that was trying to go from a Res One to a Res, I think nine, maybe Res 6. And
that didn't go anywhere. And that it was at that point in time, uh give Commissioner Schrader credit, he then said, Let's go look at doing an area plan. And that's when the things really started evolving, and that's when the V OPH grabbed ground to come forward. So a lot of time d has been into this, gone through it, but again With what's going on? And when you consider the neighbor next door, we really need to work this connected cities and V O P together as well, but we need to go look at what's gonna go on with these cars because you just don't wanna have a whole bunch of density down the road 'cause it'cause the core
center's not gonna take it because all you can do is push down traffic down there, that's still gonna come back and forth and you may not have the infrastructure in place. Which 'cause I don't know When that's gonna be sixth lane, if it's gonna be sixth lane, and how it's gonna connect down below. And it's it's an issue before we really pull the trigger on the next thing going in there. Commissioner Weightman.
Thanks, Chairman Mariano. Yeah, my concern is is to have consistency. consistency and uniformity, you know, amongst each village and we're following what needs to happen. And it's we kick this this one all. I understand in in your plan, which I guess it's a be a different piece. To make a shift. I'm not opp I'm not opposed. But I just I'm concerned That each one's gonna have a little bit of uniqueness to
it, but that we're gonna get away from what the intended purpose and the design of each village is supposed to be and that we follow the integrity of what's so much work and effort that's been that's been made into this. So, I mean, right here was kind of this this over this side was yeah, look out, I got my I feel like a Power Ranger here.
What's kind of outside the bounds. You go here, that's outside the bounds of what's gonna be what's gonna be planned. And then decisions are gonna meet be made that'll impact What's supposed to be in this core? and it no fault of their own, the project's supposed to be inside this corp, might be having to be you know, they're they're gonna have to give up something for something for a project that's not even following where it's supposed where it's supposed to go. So it's just a a broader conversation.
I'm not calling any particular pro a broader conversation of What? What planning principles and what plan are we gonna follow as we make decisions on on this project? So that's that's in essence of Why I'm bringing this up.
Well and a and a good point too. When you look to the north part where you're just more pointing.
You want your magic pin?
Uh sure.
Why not have some fun with it?
So right in that section right in there there's a bunch of open land that's there. It's been kinda like where they're storing supplies and doing the do the doing the reconstruction. That's like an untouched piece of land that should get more density as opposed to just trying to throw it down over here where There's really not much to support other than internal. And if you get everybody in connected cities, if they're going inside, going to La Marata and and all the stuff that's going on in there where your core center's gonna be, those neighborhood people are probably gonna go that way. So your apartments
that you're looking at down over here It's great that they're captivating their own trips and everything, but a lot of those people there, they're still gonna find their way. And right now there's no easy way for those people in those apartments to get to that point. There's no connection to the north or the south. So again these are Great th great points to bring it out. I know it was gone. I w I read the article in the paper about how you were looking at that stuff about what what's going on. And some of these places coming in are gonna want single family. There's nothing wrong with single family in some of these places. I mean It it's something to to
really take a close look at everything we got going on. Rather than just pulling triggers every time we're getting something that comes before us.
Can can I add something? I think we've made some mistakes. Uh in looking at the Murata, I guess this is their road network. Why are there any p even pedestrian connections to Curley? We we really need to be looking at the connectivity around.
Is
Brett Tippin here?
He is not.
He's not?
He yeah, he's uh at a wedding.
Most of two here.
And That's unfortunate because if we wanted these people to go to that village for Right. They're gonna have to drive down, around, go out, and all all the way around. And it's just the it's not a good transportation plan anyway. I think
Joel too
might be able to
answer any questions. Okay. Let me just see if we have any more questions for staff and we'll bring public comment up and m we'll let Mr. Two come from there. And if he needs extra time to to go further, that's fine 'cause there's uh been here from the get-go on it. Any other questions for staff? All right, so let me open it for public comment, Mr. Chu?
Good afternoon. Joel to [address removed]. Um I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm going to uh gratuitously share some input. I was not involved with the project on Curly Road, so I have no axe to grind, no dog in that fight. But just I think we need to be careful not to conflagrate two different issues. This particular amendment is to give you the chance to concentrate density in village cores, which I know all of you want. One problem you're worried about is
that seeping out. This gives you the chance to help ensure that it gets pushed in. Um the issue you're discussing in my opinion is a totally separate issue, which is an individual MPUD approval issue. The only way these MPUDs get approved in BOPH is if you approve them. And against that The way this works is every time someone comes in with an MPD application of EOPH, they have to not only convince you their MPUD makes sense
in and of itself, At that location, but they have to present to you as a companion to their MPUD plan what the new village plan will be for that total village. So every time you get an application, you get a chance to revisit that overall village configuration. And frankly, if the new MPUD you're being asked to approve doesn't perpetuate the requirements of of that particular village, then it shouldn't be approved. But the only
way they get approved is when this board approves them. So I'm a little confused as to how you perceive we got where we are. Um because all of those came through the board and you simultaneously saw what the new village will be. Now Those nice concentric circles in that plan 15 years ago were planning instruments to simply demonstrate the principle that you're now looking at, which is concentrate densities toward the center, feather them out, make
them walkable, make them connected. That was the concept. And In an MPD you have to deal with the real world because real property ownership lines and real wetlands and real streets on the ground Don't necessarily match up those neat circles. That's why it you cannot no matter how good a planner you are, you can never draw one of these village plans that looks exactly like those concentric circles. Now with that said, it's not hard to
say is my density concentrated toward the center, and then is the next layer of density concentrated around that? And I agree a hundred percent. It depends on where it is. And also remember these villages have different intensity requirements. You have type one villages, type two, two A, two B, three A. So it also depends on what size village that was intended to do. So that's a long-winded explanation. But you do have control over this. I'm not saying don't go back and revisit the whole plan, but I'd hate to see you throw the baby
out with the bathwater when when paying attention to each of those approvals in the context of that village plan, I think will help solve the problem. So and again, I don't know how you got there on this village wasn't my wasn't my application.
Yeah. And And I know it's a little different for public comments, but we're gonna use this expertise. Um I'm working for free now, so it's gonna really take some time here. That's when
you do your best to do it.
Whether they gotta make changes and th and and I get we gotta do some changes. But here's what concerns me. I could have one development on part of it coming in for a thing, for a for development approval, another one for a different part of the same center. And the two of them haven't come together and staff, I think when we get something that comes together in a in a two month window, in mind a two or three day window, they should all get together. And let's go put something together that's gonna work for everything from the get-go. Rather than dividing and conquering who's gonna get in first and who's gonna get
streamlined through for whatever the reasons may be, but to have like two things going when I'm doing some changes as well. I it just I think takes away from the pl the big plan we're trying to put together. It it breaks it all up. And it's not fair for the V O P H people to hear it, the Planning Commissioner hear it, and and then one by one by one they're all coming in. We should be looking at this if we've got a few things coming in. Let's go look at it. Just like the project we're gonna look at later later on today with the hospital and The complex above. We put those together and it made it's gonna make more sense than having
them separate.
Well that's a very co uh very fair comment because initially in the early days we never ran into that because we were lucky if we had one applicant that would write the check to go entitle their property and start a village. So at that point all we had to do was we had to come in with your your with our proposal for our portion and we had to draw you a conceptual village plan that showed you how everything else could play out to prove that we weren't taking more than our fair share. And that's how we did it. But
you're right, now it gets a lot more complicated. I when I was still working, I would have times that I would be engaged for an MPUD in a village and only find out secondhand that at the same time someone was doing another one in that village and that what they were doing was not consistent with what we were doing. And and we would have to reach out and say, wait a minute, we need to all get on the same page. Where is the the street going, where are the connections and what density are you putting where? So I mean you're entirely right. I
think if you have more than one application pending in a village at one time, then you absolutely need to get all of those people in the same room and say, you know, what should this village look like? Because that's a problem. And that was not a problem in the early days.
Okay. Yeah.
But you've got a lot of activity now.
Okay.
Some
somehow we need to be looking at that because if we want to get one One project coming. You look at that and it fits. You don't know about the other one until months later, maybe it comes.
Yeah.
And then maybe it doesn't fit. So somehow or other staff needs to bring these to us. With it fitting in that the circles the way it's supposed to be. ahead of time so we're looking at it and it's fitting. So
And and you should be able to do that if more than the ones pending because everyone who applies, like I said, has to give you their updated version of that Overall Village Plan. So you you re at least you have the two views and you can sit down and compare 'em and see if they work.
Commissioner Weightman. So Professor Two.
So if there's a project in Village Corps that's followed, followed the rules. You're getting ready to rock and roll. And there's another project that says comes in down here. And they're gonna pull away from this one who's following the VOPH plan in the core. And for this one to work, it has to kind of cut a deal so it just, you know, spreads it on out down. You're you would agree or disagree that that's kind of bucking
the intent of what this core is all about and what it represents and what we're trying to accomplish here.
Now if I'm right, this is intersection of Curley and New Clinton, correct? Also New Clinton. known as McCabe, that big primary intersection. The way it would work under the existing rules is once you get, let's just say the Northeast Quadrant got approval and has MPUD approval. Then no one else can take away the entitlements you gave that project. So whoever's there first is vested as to what you gave them for their part because their part, as you say, matched that village plan and you
had no problem. So when applicant number two comes in, number one, they cannot take those other entitlements that have already been granted. And they have to show you that they have logical reasons why you giving them additional density on the south side of that intersection makes sense. And they still have to stay within the overall limits of the entitlements allowed for that village. So it is done on a piecemeal, but they only get to take their fair part of what's left based on where
they're located. And as I understand it, your concern is they extended the high density residential farther down Curley than perhaps you would have thought appropriate. Right? Well they didn't really take away. Not just that,
but take away
Well how did they take was that approved on the northeast corner?
So this right here is done. This right here is done right here.
Okay.
But if you're if when you're talking about who's there first, I mean that comes to staff. There's no subject matter expert here, which is good. Uh
Christy wants to say something.
It depends on whether the northeast corner was already approved. If it was not approved then the new applicant has to demonstrate that they still have an overall village plan that meets with y the intention and requirements for that village center. And so you shouldn't approve the new one if they can't demonstrate that. That's just a theoretical discussion. Presumably they convinced three or more of you that that it fit the overall plan.
All right, let's hear from Christy 'cause I think she wants to get a couple of things in. Thank you, Joel. Mr. Chu?
Christy Barrera with High Design. I actually did work with staff on this amendment language to change villages B and C, so this village here and then the one just east of it to allow instead of a maximum of 25% high density and intensity to 35% high density and intensity. And it was in these two specific villages because New Clinton, McCabe, whatever other names we're calling
it, runs through these villages. And so, yes, 18 years ago, 20 years ago, when we were working on BOPH, we did say that this is a primary road, it's planned to be a six-lane road in the future, but maybe didn't realize how important it would be with the interchange at 52 and 75 being. improved a couple of years ago, this road actually going through now, actually getting utilities in this area, that there's been a lot of demand for development along Clinton Road. And there's
also been a lot of applications. There's three pending in village B right now. There's two pending in village
C right now.
MPUD zonings. So we're all in the zoning stage and staff asked us to work together to come up with a solution because they liked both projects. You know, how can we get higher density for both of these projects? Now the one thing that is important to remember is that we are not increasing the number of units that is approved in either of these villages. What has happened over time is it appears That the number of units that were approved in the villages, we can't actually reach
that maximum because of constraints like wetlands and topography and things like that.
A pond, maybe.
Ponds, stormwater ponds are important, yes. So so we want to have as much density as was planned in Pasina Hills in these areas, but to do that, we have To increase the density around that core area. And in some places it is stretching out. But we think along Curley and especially along Clinton, both of those are planned to be six-lane roads in the future. But along those roads, it does make sense to have higher density and higher intensity uses.
But does it have to be, excuse me, do you want to pass?
Commissioner Starkey goes.
I think part of my frustration is: does it have to be all rental apartments to get density? I mean aren't there other things that could get density and when do we reach the limit of how many rental apartments we want in the area.
Definitely. And so a plan that you haven't seen yet that's actually going to the Pasadena Hills Planning and Policy Committee tomorrow is the one that you were talking about, Commissioner Weightman, in the Northeast Quadrant. And that is going to have mi vertical mixed use in those some of those apartments along um the main road. So something that we've heard you want in the plan is something that we're committed to in that MPD project that will be coming forward to you in January.
Ms. Whitman.
So based on that information, is there any harm in waiting to see what the VOPH policy committee says? I'm sure they'll hear what this board discussion
is today and what staff may bring back to have a maybe have a fresh look over all. I mean there's a lot of subject matter experts that have spent a lot of their time on this project and plan for
So this actually went to the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee in September, I believe. And there was a very lengthy discussion at that time also. But they unanimous unanimously recommended approval of this Comp Plan amendment.
So what about the taking a look at the overall because the the option that's being rescated? I don't my power pin's not that powerful. So the new the new plan would be to essentially shift this range south.
So it's not shifting itself, it's adding more of the brown. So if you go back, it's not taking away any of the brown, it's just adding. It's adding more acreage to be able to get as many of the units as were previously planned in this village.
So the the success of the I shouldn't say success, but I'll say success. So initially you're looking at having the entertainment and the fun things that Commissioner Starkey and I enjoy up here and looking at shifting it down this way.
We're adding more areas where it can occur. So there will be some entertainment. It's a little bit deceiving here because you see that red L. That's actually a hatched area in this updated version where I what I was talking about there will be vertical mixed use and also a standalone non-residential north of Clinton in that project that you'll be seeing in January.
And I I am hopeful for I'm hopeful that who's ever designing that Red area below. You can take that stormwater pond and turn it into an asset. If you line your fillings upright and you put a You know, make it Make that a w A water feature, don't make it a
Something negative, turn that into a positive and work with DOT.
DOT could be tough, but it could happen. Um What I what I look at I look at the red down below on the southern part and I look above I don't see the r any red up there. Any reason why there's no red?
So It's a hatch. I created a new color because I just want to keep you guys on your toes. Um so at the time
Um, we weren't exactly sure where we wanted the non-residential to go, and we wanted to do vertical mixed use. So it's a red dashed line over the brown saying that in that area we want to have be able to do non-residential and residential and mixed use. So that's what that hatched line is supposed to represent: is all of those uses. So north of Clinton, where We're proposing 75,000 square feet of non-residential as an additional uh seven hundred
plus residential units. So there will be a lot of density in our plan what's proposed.
That's but that's McCabe Road, right?
Yes.
It's McCabe, not Clinton.
Yes, I believe the streets I'm saying.
McCabe goes from the interstate all the way across till it hits Prospect at Clinton.
Yes.
Okay.
So I'll just say it would seem to me if we're gonna be looking at these and approvals and we're we're trying to like time when infrastructure's gonna be in place. Around the core is one thing because on the core everybody's gonna get on McCabe and be able to move quick. When you get all the traffic coming up on Curley, that's only two lane road with a big development beside it that could be Anyone coming in from there on the Southern. western side is gonna circle at La Murata and come back down curly and go out. If we don't have
infrastructure in place, how are these people gonna get around and what's the traffic gonna be like between that intersection and the one at prospects?
Well what's the plan for widening curvature when someone goes when it's going to get white?
I don't represent the project the MPUD that's gonna come to you all later today. I do know the curly is eventually planned to be six lanes. Um you know you have the improved intersection at fifty two and the new intersection at Overpass, so there'll be two different ways for people to get to the interstate, north and south.
Okay. Any other questions you wanna ask Christian? Well uh I wanna go back to Steph out of the
going back to what we're doing. We're we're We're actually taking away density from a means. I
mean
you wanna go we should go back over what this amendment is that we're looking at, right? Um
Is there anything you would propose?
I just think you should sub sub uh say state again what it is that we're voting on.
Yeah, I'll just go to the very first time.
Well before we get to what we're voting on, we got we
still
got public comment. I want to ask another question as well.
Okay, do you want me to wake up?
Well let me let me ask you a question. So it's been said before and I I still haven't got the answer even uh for for the past week or two. When is Curly gonna get improved to the sixth lane? Are there sidewalks gonna be going on? What happens at prospect? Who's gonna be building that and is it funded?
So I just I don't know when Curly is gonna be built exactly, but I do know that on the financial plans for connected city and for V OPH they they need to allocate funds and and and build those portions of the road for Curly.
So right now we don't have an actual funding in place or a timeline.
Exactly. I don't have any timeline
And the
reason is impact fee coming in on these units. That money's not available to bill curly until that comes in. So th there's no timeline on how that's built out.
So in in the past we've done we've had a developer put in infrastructure and get reimbursed from their own things back. Right. Uh I know you've hesitated on certain things on Shady Hills, et cetera, to go do that, but this is like a a a prime time where you need to go do it because you if you're gonna approve the development. and you don't have the infrastructure, I'm going to tell you the people aren't going to want to wait for you to get it.
Well I've d basically we did that with Connected City 'cause you didn't have Curry Road being four lane and six lane back then because they hadn't developed that property and as it developed and the money becomes available and you see it changing. The road's width is changing.
Right. And and if if they don't have the funding available even with the build out then where you where are you gonna be? And and like I said, with the if you just allow the all this density and you got a two lane road with no way to get in or out. And when I say that just with constrain, um, you're gonna create a big issue there. And I mean especially up at Prospect with all kids heading to that high school or even to Wesley Chapel. Yeah. So it's it's it's it's it's something that's and it's tricky because especially right here you've got connected cities and these are these are two great things, connected city and V OPH. But
now we're we're just we're getting these little struggles coming in and how we're gonna make this all work. And it may take some more county involvement to to make these things right and and even if we gotta get reimbursed for down the road so be it. But somehow we gotta look at what's coming and when it does come how we're gonna be ready for it. Right.
So Mr. Chairman Mariano you can correct me if I'm wrong, there there is a financial plan within V O P H that Um thinks this through actually. And they have various impact fee that I believe are are set up and set aside and there is a fairly robust system of credits by which a developer you know can get repaid over time through future development for investments in infrastructure. I think that's the general the general way and I I don't want to get the risk of screwing it up. I don't want to say say more about it.
But but that mechanism exists. That was part of the V OPH plan to to build the infrastructure and to get exactly what you're talking about in place. Okay.
All right so just for The public um go ahead and uh do the present uh answer Commissioner Starkey's question about show shows exactly what's going on and then we get another public comment. So
just go further. Quick update again, increasing land area, conversions, you know, transferring from the edge into the center. Like I said, um brown and red area is gonna be increasing by ten percent in just villages B and C off of McCabe Road, um, six and road in the future. Um here's the proposed one like like we've talked about previously. Here's the proposed one um in the future if you choose to transmit and and adopt this in the future. And
then here is just a quick overview of the entitlement again. You know. Getting more of that entertainment stuff if you want it, more options for commercial and retail. Um and then again just density wise from the outer ring into the center ring, becoming more densified, having more people be able to walk to those village centers to get coffee, to get you know, wine, whatever they choose. And then design principles again, densifying walkability, all that good stuff. And then just comes with a transmitter or something.
Can
can you put that
again to the little pictures that were on that one?
This picture.
Can we get zoomed in on that?
I can't really Is it possible in a right hand column?
I think Sonya's gonna try and see if she can zoom in on
Oh yeah, see like see the number one, two, three, the the fourth one down? And then um Yeah, so interesting. Those are all T and D. Those are all re loaded. Seth We looks good. Um, that's what ages well. And then is that commercial, the second one down? The second second from the top.
Yeah, I think the first two are gonna be the commercial, like the centers.
And the third one is also commercial?
Yes.
Maybe residential top. I just wanted a better look at what you were showing here.
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
It was just stated this is transmittal. This is not adoption. It's confusing because it was pro se it its title is for ordinance which would be adoption. And it's on the ordinance section of your agenda. But this actually you actually will have another hearing on this for final adoption once it comes back from the Department of Commerce.
Uh let's go finish we'll go finish back in the public comment. Is everyone from the public who liked to speak to this item?
Mr. Chairman signed up in no one on WebEx for this item.
Um I would say as we go further with this one, I would like to see when it does come back to us that I would like to know the details of when the road's gonna come in, uh how we're gonna deal with that infrastructure piece uh as it does flow. Um I'm okay with doing some changes along the way, but I wanna make sure that we're not gonna just gonna burden everybody until the fees come in place. We need to have a I'd like to
see that before we final adopted, but
yeah.
Move it forward. I make a motion we approve it. Uh
does no one on WebEx either for public comment?
No one's on WebEx for this item.
Uh closing public comment, Commissioner Oakley?
Your m you're moving staff recommendation to transmit. Yeah.
Stamp recommendation.
Okay. Roll
call vote.
District One, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District two, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford.
Yeah, moving.
District five, Chairman Mariano.