Zoning Amendment (Regular) – SAV Property Holdings, LLC./New Horizons MPUD Master Planned Unit Development – A Rezoning Request From an R-2 Low Density Residential District to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development to Allow for the Development of 31 Single Family Detached Units and Associated Infrastructure - Central Pasco County - Abutting South of Wells Road, Approximately 675 Feet West of Wells Road & Boyette Road Intersection - Containing Approximately 10.40 Acres.

21:39right. You're gonna do P9. Item P nine is PDE twenty six dash seventy eight fifty eight, the zoning amendment in the name of SAV property holdings, LLC, New Horizons, M P D Master Planning Unit Development, to be presented by staff.

22:04I'm staff. You're staff. Welcome back. I I'm sorry, I'm not following you today for some reason. You're supposed to put a different hat on. Yeah, speak slower, plainer, something. I don't know. I didn't have any earring aids, so

22:19Good afternoon, Planning

22:20Commission members. This is the New Horizons M P Okay.

22:26Here's a rough location within the county.

22:30The proposal is a rezoning request from an R two low density residential district to an MPD master planning unit development for the maximum development of thirty-one single family homes. The project is located within the South Market area, abutting south of the Wells Road extension, approximately six hundred and seventy-five feet west of the Wells Road and Boyette Road intersection.

22:55Here's our site location. This is a relatively unimproved portion of Wells.

23:03Zoning map. The subject site was rezoned to R2 low density residential in the early 2000s with a maximum density of 20 units. An ordinary R2 district would allow 46 homes on 10 acres. So the pre petition today. Is eleven additional homes less than the R2 maximum, but more than they could pursue at the current time.

23:30The future land use designation of this site is residential three, the maximum entitlement being thirty-one units by three units per acre, ten point three three acres required of the site.

23:47It's a context map. The subject site is less than one mile south of the Wesley Chapel District Park, and approximately a quarter. Quarter mile south of the Wesley Chapel Elementary School and High School.

24:03Here's our MPUD master plan. Although faint, there is a ten-foot right-of-way, conveyance along the project frontage and the vehicular access points. The access ingress-egress of the project will be on Wells Road and then Stubbs east and west for potential redevelopment of the neighboring properties.

24:25This is exhibit one, the binding concept plan. This also visually demonstrates the improvement to Wells Road. The roadway typical will be shown later in this presentation. The residential areas are in yellow and the dark green on the south end. Is there open space requirement?

24:45Exhibit two, this is a non-binding concept plan to visually demonstrate the thirty-one homes. All thirty-one homes shall have a minimum width of fifty-five feet the lot that is.

25:00Now, here's the proposed 60-foot roadway typical to improve this segment of Wells Road from Boyette to the project access. There's an existing 50-feet of county-owned right-of-way, to which the applicant proposes to develop as part of this project without reimbursement via mobility fee credits.

25:23Excuse me. The only portion left for future development of this typical would be a second ten foot multi-use path. The ten foot multi-use path to be developed as part of this project will go on the north end of that right-of-way. The developer has conveyed the second subject. Southern 10 feet via right-of-way, which would require right-of-way conveyance of neighbors to ultimately build out Taboyat Road.

25:58Uh Patty, could you move to the next slide? This thing's frozen.

26:14There are two variation requests as part of this project, the first being from LDC section 901.6, 0.11, and this is to not provide a vehicular connection south of the project boundary. That's given the existing residences immediately south of the project. Project in addition to New Dutch lanes inability to support additional vehicular trips. The second variation request is from LDC section 901.2.I.

26:45This is a reduction of the corridor width for Wells Road. This was originally contemplated at 80 feet. However, the typical, the 60-foot typical would provide sufficient vehicular and pedestrian. facility of the proposed density and existing density on this segment of Wells Road.

27:07That PD recommends approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the zoning amendment request with conditions. I'm here if you have questions.

27:15Just a quick one. You said the concept plan was non binding?

27:21The concept plan is binding. The second one here is a non-binding illustration. The only difference being a visual demonstration of the thirty-one homes, whereas the binding concept plan denotes those areas as residential. Okay.

27:37I got it.

27:42Okay. Like other questions. Applicant present.

27:57Thank you. Barbara Woolhite, 6327, Grand Boulevard, Newport Rechie, for the applicant. We were here a couple months ago. Um I was just looking to see if anybody signed up here because we just did a presentation, but um we were here a couple months ago and we had a bunch of neighbors. that were interested in this project. Um, they were all of our neighbors to the east, the Boyette family, member members of the Boyette family. Um they were very interested in the Wells Road and how that was going to be constructed. They have a business of um a

28:30Mm s I describe their business. They sell fruits and vegetables, they have food trucks, kind of a community gathering area. People come have coffee, they eat. So they wanted to make sure that how Wells Road functioned. um in the after, after it was improved. would also work for their business. So we went out. One afternoon, drug your county engineer out with us and went out in sight and met with them And we happy to say we worked out um everything. I worked out a solution for everyone. Something works for the developer, the county,

29:00and that adjacent property owner. So perhaps that's why nobody signed up. Maybe there was somebody here to speak, I don't know. Um but uh that's why you've seen this on your agenda a couple months ago and it took us a little bit to get that done and we're back today and we hope we have your support. Thank you.

29:13Okay, thank you, Marv. Any questions from up here?

29:19Okay, is there anyone here to speak on this topic?

29:26Looks like there isn't.

29:29So any comments from up here? Any emotions?

29:34Yeah.

29:37Except to be curious why it may not have been on the consent agenda. Mm-hmm. Move to approve item P

29:45nine.

29:46Second.

29:47We have a motion, we have a second, any further discussion of P nine. If not all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign? Okay. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

30:06Next.

30:07Agenda item P ten you'll be sitting as the local planning agency for this is PDE twenty six.

30:17Yeah, let's why aren't we doing PC? Say that again.

30:28Uh, I don't know. Okay.

30:36Okay, back to PC eight.