Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Regular) – CPA24(03) Elite 52 PD – Providing for Transmittal of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 and Sheet 12) from AG (Agricultural) and AG/R (Agricultural/Rural) to PD (Planned Development) on Approximately 156 Acres of Real Property Located North of State Road 52 Approximately .60 Mile East of the Intersection of State Road 52 and US Highway 41; And a Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.81 – Elite 52 PD; And a Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9(81) Elite 52 PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.

1:08:21Thank

1:08:21you.

1:08:23Item P54 is PDE 260016. This is a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPA 2403 Elite 52 PD. It's providing for the transmittal of a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and Sheet 12 from AG Agricultural and AGR Agricultural Rural to PD plan development on approximately 156 acres of real property located north of State. fifty two approximately point six mile east of the intersection of State Route fifty two and US Highway 41 and

1:08:53a text amendment creating sub-area policy flu seven one eight one uh seven dot one dot one. Uh Elite 52 PD and a MAP amendment to the future land use map two-nine, adding sub-area map two-nine eighty-one, Elite 52 PD, and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repeal reservability and effective date. This comes with a recommendation to authorize transmittal of the post-comprehensive plan amendment to the Department of Commerce, Florida Commerce, and other reviewing agencies. And there's a presentation of so desired.

1:09:24Would anyone like to see a presentation? No, thank you. Any public comment?

1:09:29I have three signed up and one online.

1:09:33Uh yes ma'am, who's in person.

1:09:36Caitlyn Buell.

1:09:43Name address for the record, have you been sworn?

1:09:46I

1:09:46have

1:09:46been sworn. My name is Caitlin Buell, B U E L L. My address is [address removed]. Okay. Um So I I'm a flight nurse and a private pilot. I live in pilot country with my husband who's also a pilot. I kept hearing in the Planning Commission meeting that the density was compatible. However, the neighborhoods surrounding this proposed development are one, five, and ten acre lots, while this development has lots which are 0.165

1:10:17acres. It seems like there are some mental gymnastics required to call that compatible density. These lots are small enough that a two-story house built on it will be quite close to my property line and it will loom over the privacy barrier, making the barrier ineffective. I am totally good with having a couple neighbors back there, but that is not what this is. This would put five or six second story windows right at my property line. There will be nowhere to hide. This is going to obliterate any privacy I

1:10:47have in my backyard or in my pool. The houses are planned to be too high and too close for me to be able to even regain my privacy with planting trees or building a wall. The concept plan uh happens to prove my point. The applicant owns the house in pilot country that backs up to the park area of this planned development. This guy knows it would suck to have five second story windows peering into his backyard, and he has protected his own property from it, while inflicting it on his neighbors. I

1:11:17support his effort to maintain his own privacy, just as I hope you all will su Sorry, support his neighbors in achieving the same. I see two possible solutions here which I hope you will consider. One is to limit the houses bordering pilot country to a single story, or two, instead of having these lots packed in like sardines, make them half acre lots that would allow the houses to be set farther back from the property line to make the privacy barrier effective. In conclusion, the combination of the

1:11:47height of the buildings and their density creates an overwhelming change to pilot country residents' privacy. If either the height or the density were changed, then I would support this plan. Thank you for hearing me out.

1:11:59Thank you. Next.

1:12:01Next up is

1:12:01crisp build.

1:12:09Hello all Christopher Buell, [address removed]. Uh I haven't sworn. My wife and I, wife just spoke, were at the Planning Commission that predated this uh three or four weeks ago as well. A couple open topics for me that were coming from that. One of them was there was nothing that you know they were advertising that there was an enhanced privacy barrier between pilot country and the development. But there was nothing in there that actually defined what the

1:12:40plants or trees that they were going to plant as part of the privacy barrier or what the actual fence was gonna be. Um so if it's just gonna be a white vinyl fence that's gonna blow over in the next storm or if it's gonna be some meaningful trees along with that. Um so that was would be something I thought was an open Item from the Planning Commission that I'd like to hear more about. The other one is a follow-up. It was the tree mitigation for all the clearing that was done on the northern part of the property

1:13:11while it was agricultural. And it's my understanding that there's a five-year waiting period if it's going to go and get rezoned into housing. or unless there's a plan for the remitigation for the trees. And if there are, it would be great if that was put between us and uh the housing development to um reinforce the privacy barrier between the two. But those were open um issues from the previous meeting that I would like to to hear about. Again, like my wife said, you know,

1:13:41we're not opposed to developing um behind us there they can do what they like with their land, but it would be um helpful uh to our property values as well as theirs if everything wasn't crammed in and there was something that defined what um the privacy barrier was gonna be. Third concern is just the um level of flooding that we get in our neighborhood and the water mitigation coming from that part of the property to the east. Previous owners

1:14:12did a significant amount of landfill dumping on the southern part of that property in the last decade that's made the flooding significantly worse into our neighborhood because instead of all the water from that property flowing south towards 52 and getting cleared, it now all goes west into the southeast corner of our neighborhood. Which is flooding over the wetland section there, and there's nowhere else for it to go. Um so I know there's supposed to be um uh

1:14:42Yeah, part of the Water Commission is gonna go out and do their planning purposes and stuff like that. I'm not sure that they are aware that there's berms up there that are larger than this room. Uh and previous dumping that's already lifted uh the grade for a lot of that property already, making the flooding a lot worse. But thanks for your consideration.

1:15:04questions staff can answer on the tree. tree uh timeline there. Next.

1:15:11Next up is Mark Bodd.

1:15:14So

1:15:18I've been sworn and uh my address Mark Budd. My address is [address removed]. And I was also here at the previous meeting. I have very similar concerns as the previous um speakers. Uh I also w talk about the inconsistency of the lot sizes from the Basco Trails community and our community and this right in the middle. Um I've always been uh concerned

1:15:49about the zoning around the airport and I made those uh concerns safety concerns and incompatible land use concerns in previous uh meetings concerning the airport. Zoning around the airport. So I'm not going to reiterate those. Um It I've been there for Twenty five years. I have a nice view out the back. It's beautiful. I understand that uh You know, there's progress to be made. I'm

1:16:19not against any of that. But uh the density that's there is pretty much five times what we have. And I can picture out the bit in my back yard now. I'm gonna be looking at potentially uh multi story, t at least two story with uh thirty five foot foot restriction. But if I get up close to my property line I'm gonna be looking forty five degrees up and nothing but walls with ten foot uh clearance

1:16:49between 'em, which it's gonna really destroy all the property values along that western side of Pilot County. And so I'm not not in favor of that kind of uh density at all. And I agree with uh Caitlin. And her husband that if you're gonna you know the density either has to be reduced Or the the height of the houses have to be reduced to ensure that it's at least somewhat compatible with the s uh surrounding

1:17:20communities and doesn't destroy our property values. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Anyone else?

1:17:28Yes, I have someone signed up online, Spencer Brass.

1:17:32Mr. Brass?

1:17:36Yes,

1:17:36Commissioner, can you

1:17:37hear me? We

1:17:38sure can.

1:17:41Go ahead. I've got

1:17:43to spend [address removed]. And

1:17:46we're gonna

1:17:50call

1:17:50about

1:17:50this

1:17:51project. it's been a

1:17:52long time

1:17:54and appreciate your support. Yes, I have been stormed.

1:17:59Okay, thank you. Made a little delay there.

1:18:03And I'm available to answer any questions that that may come up.

1:18:06Thank you, Ms. Ms. Wolheit.

1:18:13Did you want to call for any more public comment? No

1:18:16one else

1:18:16has signed it. Just want to make sure keeping things in order. Barbara Wilhite, 6327 Grand Boulevard for the applicant. As Spencer Brass my client has said, we've worked on this for a while. When we originally brought this project forward, we came forward with 300 townhomes at a density of 5.5 units per developable acre. We did that with looking at the the development that had gone on and that had been improved on the west side of the airport, which was 40-foot lots

1:18:47and apartments. So townhomes were were consistent. The other thing that has happened, so our density now, we've decreased it to 108 single-family detached homes. along our western border sixty foot lots and then the the balancer fifty foot lots. Our density is now two um point oh two units per acre. So And my client did that after meeting with the the homeowners and the residents. That's when he decided

1:19:17to step back and and change the project to what you see today. To answer regarding the enhanced buffer, we brought forward from the beginning an enhanced buffer along that western boundary. When we came to Planning Commission, I mean heard the concerns of the neighbors. the um Planning Commission asked if we could go at it again and have an enhanced enhanced buffer. So we did. The question always comes up, what are you gonna plant? How close are they gonna be? And how tall at planting? So

1:19:47we answered those questions. We we came up with a s uh southern red cedar. Those are the right-of-way. that planting will be twelve feet high. And they're unlike a tree who Like this and then goes up, right? Those are are wide to begin with and then they fill themselves in. So you have a pretty much a very a solid buffer. The code would require our trees to be 30 feet on center, and these will be 12 on center. Again, 12 feet at planting. We're

1:20:18required to have a six foot high wall or fence and we will have an eight foot high wall or fence. We'll have our shrubs on the outside of the fence towards the neighbors, the eight-foot high fence, and then the the twelve feet high at planting southern red cedars.

1:20:38Regarding the safety concerns and the zoning concerns rega around the airport y after a long time. You have an airport protection ordinance. And you you studied, you had pr hired professionals to go do noise studies and to guide you and your staff did a lot of work. um as to what's compatible with the airport. And you have an ordinance, we are following that ordinance, this these uses are compatible with your airport ordinance that you adopted. uh and we'll have to follow all the requirements of that ordinance.

1:21:09I we did note again this is for the Comp Plan amendment, but we will be bringing back an MPUD. Um It's all ready 'cause it went to Planning Commission as the MPUD and the zone and the comp plan, but because you have a transmittal hearing you just have the comp plan before you. But we did note Christy uh Barrera's here from Height Design. And we On our plans it has thirty five feet as the maximum height. That is always confusing to me. You know, what is 35 feet? Is that two stories? Is that three stories? We can modify our plan coming

1:21:39to the with the MPUD that comes to you at your next hearing after this is transmitted if you approve it to two stories so it's clear instead of a height. And then with regard to flooding, I took notes regarding that. Um Ms. Barrera is here from Height Design. She also is taking those notes. That is important to them as they design a project, that they understand those localized issues. The um the allegations regarding where the park area is located adjacent to the owner. I didn't even know that.

1:22:10And and Christy didn't know that until it was raised at um at Planning Commission. Height design laid it out because that was the best location, centralized location for the park and also made a nice look as you come through the project and you come up to the park and then go right or left.

1:22:29The tree. I w all the things you've heard from the neighbors regarding what somebody did the property is prior to our clients' ownership. whatever it is that regarding tree mitigation, whatever the rules are for what somebody did prior to my clients, uh our clients buying the property, that is is what it is. Um As far as what happens to that. Again, my clients didn't do any of the things that they alleged regarding W they d and they did say previous owner regarding landfill dumping, removal

1:23:00of trees, all those things um were not done by my client, but Certainly they're they own the property so they're responsible for whatever the ordinance requires.

1:23:10I think I hit it ch each of the items. Thank you.

1:23:12Commissioner

1:23:12Starkey.

1:23:13Can

1:23:13you put up that picture? So I was gonna I was wondering what is that house that's jutting out into the property? So is that the owner's You see that see how those trees go into the bat into the other property? Is I'm guessing that must be the owner's house then. 'Cause I was trying to figure out what they meant and what Um

1:23:38Like I l I have no idea. I don't do not know where my clients live. Just

1:23:42give me a thumbs up if that's the owner's house.

1:23:44I yeah I can come point it out for you more specifically if you want.

1:23:48Well I I've just seen that there is a house there that's in the into the property behind it. So interesting. But Uh okay, can you go back to to Barbara's map? Um

1:24:02So uh I've been trying to see it on on here. I did listen to the Planning Commission meeting and they I think it was John Moody who showed that the trees were trees have been taken out. Um Are you saying your client bought the property after the trees were taken out?

1:24:21That's my understanding correct, yes. Spencer is online so he can answer.

1:24:27If somebody'll bring him up and we want him to speak.

1:24:29I can't get Pasco um the property appraiser site is not working today and I can't get Pasco Mapper to work either. Um but I did see those see where that was heavily wooded. And someone took it out. So we do have rules. And what what are the rules? If uh David Allen, do you know what they are?

1:24:51About clear land clearing before you come in to change your zone?

1:24:55So it it would depend on whether I can answer that. Oh you can depend on whether they did it under a agricultural exemption or not, and whether they were properly zoned and did it for a five-year period or not.

1:25:06Well that's what I'm asking. Did they?

1:25:07I have no idea. I don't

1:25:09Well why why why would we not research that before? someone comes in for a rezoning.

1:25:14Well we would when they come in for site plan approval.

1:25:17Yes this is this is a transmitter. Okay so that's that's when that happens.

1:25:22When you come in for site plan approval staff would look to see if they qualify for that exemption or not.

1:25:27So why do we wait till site plan approval? Because then then someone could clear cut their property and then go through all this other stuff.

1:25:35Because that's when we determine tree mitigation for all all tree mitigation is determined at site plan approval.

1:25:42Okay, I think

1:25:45Then then people

1:25:46are

1:25:46just

1:25:46gonna cut away. It's not when it occurs. That's when we address it. So they'll look back.

1:25:53Yes, they'll look back if if But

1:25:55we don't do tree mitigation at the comp plan stage.

1:25:58But but I but you uh how do I say

1:26:02at site plan if if they improperly took down those trees if they don't qualify for the exemption They'll have to mitigate for that tree removal.

1:26:10But when does the clock start ticking? At s at at that moment or or when they started applying for the change?

1:26:18The the clock was already t Th the the clock was ticking on the exemption when they started the removal.

1:26:28But if you're asking when do we when do we start the look back, it's when they come in for site plan approval.

1:26:33Okay, but you'll look let's see okay, so can you can you go back a few ye go back a few

1:26:38years? With all due respect, this this doesn't have to do with what we're voting on today. This is the we can't condition that we can find this out. This does not that subject is not a good thing.

1:26:49So Barbara's saying whatever our rules are, shoot-they'll follow. She's admitting that if they have to mitigate for their removal, they'll have to mitigate for their removal. She's publicly stated that.

1:26:58That's correct. All right, so then the next thing, um, and I if you could go back to can you get rid of that box and I I can deal with it like this. Um so we have the small lots on the left.

1:27:14Which they're not backing up to anyone. although that's not one of our better neighborhoods, I would take that back all day long. Um Uh I'm I am a little concerned of putting sixties up to one acre lot behind one acres. I don't I um I'm not so concerned about the screening because that's the responsibility of both sides. I mean You don't own your view. You don't own

1:27:45your view. So but Is it compatible to put a sixty next to I don't know how I don't know how big those lots are.

1:27:55On the west side you have apartments up against up against their west side. Approved apartments.

1:28:06Well I'm just talking about this this row of houses next to that row of houses. And and then I look over here and they're big lots over here. I I am getting concerned that you you Until someone shows me the other way people are gonna go east and west, north of State Road 52, should we really be increasing? uh putting a lot of density along the northern side of fifty two. We're gonna have a backlog kinda like what we have on fifty four what's gonna happen on fifty four, so I'm I'm

1:28:36wondering if we could not Change out some of those sixties for seventies? Um well

1:28:43we can look at it, Commissioner. This is a transmittal hearing on the comp plan. And they're and the size lots are not in the comp of comp in the comp plan, it's just a number. Looking to my looking to your long range salvage.

1:28:54Maybe the number is needs to be reduced just a little bit for my

1:28:58Well it's a maximum and ultimately if your MPUD, if you transmit the Comp Plan amendment with the numbers that are in it. And then you decide. At the MPD stage it needs to be something different, you can do that still.

1:29:09But we can also transfer it with a less lesser.

1:29:12We we'd be just guessing. Which really isn't fair to the applicant. And you're not you're not. out because you can address this at M P U D. It's perfectly fine to have one number in a comp plan and have less in the zoning. It does happen that way.

1:29:28So if Commissioner Starkey And you can and they can reduce the number in the final adoption of the complaint.

1:29:34That's true. Very true, very true.

1:29:37Transmitting it as it is today and then you try and negotiate down the line or what what would you like to do since there's three of us?

1:29:43Um, well I want to hear what how you guys feel. I'm the only one that's said how I feel, so I don't know what

1:29:50Go show open. Well I d I don't have any problem with the the development that they're proposing uh I think I've already heard that they didn't remove the trees. It could have been done prior on or before then. Not their fault at all. Um I think if there's a buffer here we do need to make sure a buffer is is good for the folks there at Pilot Country and where this where this lies and I think I believe that Spencer will take care of doing

1:30:20the right thing there, so I think it's a good project.

1:30:25So so on those buffers, I think it's also the responsibility of the pilot compa coun uh country residents if They don't own the view from their backyard. If they don't want to see the house, they can also plant trees. So I we always put it on the new develop new person, but I have a little mixed feelings on that, but Um and frankly.

1:30:48I think that'll work out in the

1:30:51process

1:30:51of developing it.

1:30:53And um Barbara, you're saying you're gonna restrict them to two story houses?

1:30:57We can add that to the M P U D 'cause right now it's thirty five feet, which probably could fit three.

1:31:01Yeah. That's wrong. I I I don't I don't see a need for a restriction. But I just think the law should be bigger than some. But that's that happens somewhere else, right? Yeah. That happens

1:31:15when

1:31:15it

1:31:15comes

1:31:15back from college.

1:31:19All right, any any further questions? We have a motion to transmit this item up to Tallahassee for review. I move.

1:31:30Second.

1:31:30Second. Roll call,

1:31:32I guess. Do we have to do is Lisa on?

1:31:36No, it's not. This is not an ordinance adoption even though it's on that section of your but she's not

1:31:41online. Sorry. So all favor?

1:31:43Aye. Aye. Thank you. All right, thank you. B fifty five.