PC8 Wesley Chapel Owner multifamily amended deed restriction

1:51:44Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Planning Commission members, we'll now move on to item P eight. Um, item P eight uh will be presented by Christina Costa. I do want to mention that on item P eight, um, the following applicants are signed up. Um it's Barbara Wilhite, Steve Henry, Roy Mazer, George Ortega. We also have um some folks that are on. that should be on WebEx and uh put Patricia Herbert and Lane Mendelson and

1:52:15there is a gentleman uh by the name of Greg Gregory Williams who's at the kiosk to speak on this item in addition there is an email that was requested that it be read into record on this item so just want to give you that that information and I'm gonna queue up the presentation and have that to you in a second Second.

1:52:33Okay.

1:52:34All right.

1:52:40This is Christina Acosta from Planning and Development. Item P eight is PDD 20-7484. multifamily high density district to multifamily Multifamily high density district with amended deed restriction in the name of Wesley Chapel Owner L L C.

1:53:00The project is located on the east side of Old Pasco Road, approximately 600 feet north of Oakley Boulevard.

1:53:08On August 6, 2019, the BCC adopted petition number 7398, changing the vote the zoning of the subject site from R2, residential low density district, to multiple family high density district with deed restriction. The applicant proposes to rezone the property in order to amend the previously recorded deed restriction associated with the site, which restricted the property to 210 single family attached units and prohibited apartments. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to an amended deed restriction limiting

1:53:38the residential development on the property to a maximum of 210 townhomes or 400 multifamily apartments and 100 townhomes.

1:53:50And here is a look at the surrounding zoning.

1:53:56And uh the future land use is mixed use for the area.

1:54:03And access will be from Old Pasco Road. This comes to you with a recommendation of approval, and I am here to answer questions.

1:54:12Okay. Any questions? Okay.

1:54:18So that, I mean it's already zoned MF, so the only difference is this would allow apartments, correct?

1:54:27So it has already been approved for multifamily use, but there was a deed restriction limiting the site to only townhomes with a maximum of 210 units. So this is because they want to amend the deed restriction, they're having to come back through a full rezoning process and notice all the neighbors.

1:54:52So again, their intent is not the town townhomes. It's how many apartment units?

1:54:58Well, the the intent is to do either 210 townhomes, which is what they they initially had the approval for and what the initial deed restriction was was allowing. So either that or 400 apartments and 100 townhomes.

1:55:15So it could it could still go either way. It's just to to loosen the restrictions on the site.

1:55:27I I have a question to to Chris on, you know, if we're talking about an increase in capacity on the property to 400 multifamily and 100 townhomes. school capacity issues related, rated that

1:55:40increased intensity. No uh no, not in that area, just because Qual Hollow Elements capacity and um Close proximity to the new middle and high school uh that we just built. Um and really it's 400. apartments versus 200 townhomes, there's not a whole lot of difference in student generation rates for that.

1:56:05Okay.

1:56:07Well, additional comments on this one would be and might be more to the applicant, but uh traffic. I mean we we heard that uh just before and we're talking about PC three that the widening roll Pasco is not intended to four-lane until 27-28 timeframe. Um You know, the potential of increasing that capacity and putting that many more cars on the road there. Um For example, there was just a pedestrian death just down the old Pasco Road from this

1:56:37intersection uh yesterday, I think Wednesday, as a matter of fact. So I've concern with the the additional potential traffic impacts. And then I do know, as some of the uh the opposition is is pointed out, that there are significant flooding issues in that area. Um that uh would seem to be exacerbated by some density.

1:57:02Okay.

1:57:03Anything else, Chris? No, my concern, sir. All right. Anything.

1:57:08Yeah, I guess the the only question I had in going through this was. The original deed restriction. It looks like the original deed restriction was placed on the property in 2019 is when it was approved. I guess I don't know, can somebody kind of touch on what the history was that something that the board made them do was that something that the developer chose to do at the time and then now they're coming back to revise it. I guess what was the history there?

1:57:34Mr. Chairman, I can speak to that.

1:57:37Okay. Go ahead.

1:57:41Barbara Wilhite, 5327, Graham Boulevard, New Port Richey Florida, 34652. I have been sworn. The history on that is as we brought this property forward through rezoning last year. Klein's intention was to do townhomes. Um Yeah. there was a discussion amongst the board about apartments. And so last year there wasn't a lot of clarity about the board's direction on apartments. And so because of

1:58:11that and because the client was intending to do townhomes. We could avoid the whole apartment discussion. I recommended that the client do a deed restriction for townhomes. As time goes forward We have a market that's much changing as we as we speak. We have a world that's changing as we speak. And we also have more clarity from the board. The board changed in in excuse me, in February of this year, the board, and you're gonna hear more about this from Mr. Pitoz because he's got a presentation

1:58:41to you, but the board met in a work session and said they were concerned about the 54-56 corridor. And so we have some more clarity on that regarding apartments and you'll hear from Mr. Pitos about what the board did at their last meeting. Also, since that time, this Planning Commission and approved south of here, recommended approval for apartments. in the M Mistuse land use across from the grove. Um and the board approved. Uh unanimously. Um the

1:59:12chairman was sick that day, but The board unanimously approved an apartment project, apartment and townhomes south of here. So it's with that history that I bring forward this rezoning to remove that restriction. I do have my it will I think we should wait to talk about traffic and flooding until we hear from the residents. But from a land use perspective This is a mixed use, land use. It allows up to 32 units per acre. We're proposing and I would like to say that I we As

1:59:42my client has learned more about the property relative to its potential apartment site. We can drop our request to just 350 multifamily apartment units or the 210 townhomes. So we would just revise that to be 350 as opposed to the uh 400 and 100. So it's either be 350 apartments or 210 townhomes. But but at 350 units and 7.3 units per acre, the county has planned this area. And I think that's I

2:00:13think what you we're gonna see when you because I've read all the correspondence is El pet. We have existing homes, but we have a county planned. as to how they provision as to the growth of this area. We have the schools that you hear have capacity for this use. Um, we have a new interchange plan to the north. Overpass interchange, which will be constructed in the next couple of years. The county is prioritizing improvements to Old Pasco Road. You heard there's a safety improvement that's imminent. um capital but

2:00:43in the CIP for for next year, this year, next year. And I know that they are working diligently to go through the process so that they can widen all of the road to to four lanes.

2:00:55I guess my point is it's that this is going to be a major north-south corridor parallel to an interstate in between in this property system between two um Do and what would what will be two interchanges? the property immediately to the north. is allowed for townhomes and apartments. The property zone to the south is zoned MF that allows townhome apartments. We have apartments. To the south in Pasco Woods. We have other MU's that are allowed for town departments. So This is the

2:01:25county's plan. We Growth follows infrastructure and this is the county and and growth follows the land use plan. And that's exactly what we have here. There's just nothing different with regarding what we're asking for the uses on this property that then the property directly to the north. They're allowed. Hartmans or townhomes. I don't know that my client will do apartments. Um Or count you know, which one will choose, but it you know, he is he does own the property and and should have be

2:01:56able to have uses on his property that are consistent with with the um with the other property owners. Directly to the south to the north and south. I'll be there for the talk about traffic and flooding. Let's go ahead and listen to the residents. Um And then we can have uh Steve Henry talk about traffic. He knows a lot about what's going on. You heard him speaking to the item before to the south on Otasca Road. And we have Ray Mazor from WRA who knows the property very, very, very well from a drainage standpoint.

2:02:26Okay, let's hear from the uh People that have questions.

2:02:33Mr. Chair, we do have Mr. Gregory Williams at the kiosk. We did have Ms. Patricia Herbert signed up to speak, but she's not on. And uh we have, I will check to see if uh Lane Mendelssohn is on WebEx. Is Lane Mendelssohn on?

2:02:55No they are not.

2:02:57Okay, so we have Greg William Gregory Williams at the kiosk. Would you like to have him speak? And then I also have an email to read into the record. Gotcha.

2:03:07Okay.

2:03:08Mr. Williams, would you please provide your name and address for the record and please wait to be sworn in? Thank you.

2:03:15Yes, uh Gregory S. Williams, [address removed] I'm an adjacent property owner within 350 feet of the proposed development. I'm a neighborhood organizer, non compensated. Sorry, can

2:03:31you

2:03:31please?

2:03:32Sir, would you please wait to be uh sworn in? Thank you, sir. Can you please raise

2:03:36your right hand?

2:03:37Raise your right hand, please. Thank you.

2:03:39Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give is the truth so help you God?

2:03:42Yes, I do.

2:03:44Thank you.

2:03:46So this is concerning uh petition 7484. At the previous zoning commission meeting, whether they were going to do uh detached or attached garages um on the subject parcel, the uh Representative of the petitioner stated to the planners, the community, that no apartments would be built on the subject land parcel. Subsequently BOCC approved for attached garages. We've then received notice that the development permit was

2:04:16going to be issued to construct the 210 townhouses. Now comes before you the petitioner in the 11th hour seeking to reduce the number of townhouses to 100 units and add 400 multifamily apartments. This is unacceptable and perceived by myself and our neighbors as chicanery on the part of the developer to catch the neighborhood off guard and sneak in additional dwelling units to increase land development profits. at the long-term expense of neighbors, the neighborhood, and the environment. A

2:04:46partition has been circulating fifty-nine Could sign petitions thus far from local property owners, neighbors from Quail Hollow and Wesley Chapel Acres. is in possession of the planning department. I have another three, another 43 signed petitions that I will be sending in tomorrow that brings the total to 102 in counting. We do have uh It's clear, read the petitions. The neighbors do not want multifamily apartments. We'd be okay with the two

2:05:17hundred and ten townhouses. Let's build it. Let's go with that. But we also have to address the seasonal flooding. It's a major concern. The Grove has already increased the flooding. 400 more apartments is certainly gonna add to that. We don't need any more apartments. The neighbors, the property owners have spoken. We have Pasco Woods, 200 apartments. The park at Wesley Chapel just opened. 248 multifamily apartments. The petitioner's request is

2:05:47more than the sum of these. We trust that the Pasco County Planning Commission Will have the courage, common sense, and integrity to push back against the developer for the sake of doing what is right for the neighborhood, the local community. and the existing adjacent property owners. This last minute attempt, 11th hour attempt by the developer to increase the population density and land use has not gone unnoticed. Pasco County's motto of Open spaces vibrant.

2:06:19We and we it is, that's the motto, and we deserve it to stay that way. We need the Planning Commission's protection. and ask the Planning Commission to deny this petition. for the construction of multi-family apartments. Please. It's very important. We're all long-term residents. We have vested property rights. We do not want any more apartments in the neighborhood. There's enough now. Thanks.

2:06:51Thank

2:06:52you.

2:06:55All right. Do we have any questions for the uh One person that spoke in opposition who has uh some 100 uh signatures.

2:07:08Any questions? All right. So uh any comments from the applicant then?

2:07:16Would you like me to read the email first and then

2:07:20go ahead.

2:07:20Um would you please time me? Because this pr this email has three minutes as well. So I will I will start now. Thank you. Okay,

2:07:29go ahead.

2:07:29This is uh Rebecca Darland, [address removed] Rezoning Petition 7484, addition of high density residential. I oppose approval of high density apartments proposed to the site on Old Pasco Road. I am a homeowner in close proximity and enjoy a low density zoning. The proposed high density residential development does not fit with the character. Of this neighborhood, which is predominantly density. It is not consistent with predominant

2:08:00characteristics and not complementary. There are legitimate precedents of high density development disrupting the enjoyment of established low density residential owners because of impact to natural environment, water runoff, wildlife, increased population, guarantees, increased crime, safety concerns for residents. low density neighborhood traffic congestion. The infrastructure for roadways are not suitable. There is no infrastructure for public service, transit, sidewalks, services to this

2:08:30proposed high-density development. Traversing this area for local residents has seen an increase in accidents still unmitigated by improvements to roads. The ongoing road improvements will not be enough to support the additional population. There are legitimate fears from residents of Declining market values due to economy now and additional development of high density apartments is typically historically known in many areas to further decrease surrounding low density property value. Simply, residents don't want to look

2:09:00at development right near their own properties that resembles commercial and bring that increase of activity. There is no need for this change in density as new development of high density apartments nearby have been completed and are not showing demand. There will be certain economic impacts forthcoming to increase available housing where for when foreclosure moratoriums are lifted, as associated with recent COVID-19 pandemic and unemployment. Therefore, no case for additional housing seems valid to proceed at this time. improvements

2:09:31to infrastructure would be a bur burden on the county and local resident taxpayers. Thank you, Rebecca Darland.

2:09:38All right.

2:09:42Okay. Are we all set on that end of it? Okay.

2:09:46Yes, Mr. Chairman

2:09:47Mariano from the applicant.

2:09:51I'll go ahead and let Steve Henry talk about traffic and El Pasco Road. And then let's have Ray Mazur talk about drainage. And then I can come back and kind of sum things up for you.

2:10:05Okay. We just uh gotta make sure we get everybody in on the time limit. That's all.

2:10:17Are they online?

2:10:20Did you have these online?

2:10:25There we go. Sorry about that. Uh uh, this is Steve Henry. Um I have been sworn, address 5023 West Laurel, Tampa 33607. So a couple things about uh El Pasco Road. Um based on counts, recent counts that we've done out there, it is operating at an acceptable level of service. Um in addition to that, when you compare the trip generation between the 210 townhomes versus the 350 apartments.

2:10:55It's a difference of about 33 trips during the PM peak hour. Which is about a 2% of the capacity of Old Pasco Road. So the increase in traffic associated with going from the townhomes to apartments is insignificant. And again, as we had indicated, there's currently a construction project. ongoing at Old Pasco and Quail Hollow. There is safety improvements for this year. And then they're currently under design for the or

2:11:26programmed to design for the future four length.

2:11:34Let's see. That's it. Yes.

2:11:39Are you finished or

2:11:42I think that was fine, Steve, unless this committee has any questions.

2:11:48Uh any questions?

2:11:52I'll ask about the traff uh timing of the traffic counts. You said there are recent traffic counts on Steve. Um what what do we what time frame are we talking about recent?

2:12:01We we did three day counts uh back May of last year. So rocket covet. Uh, during school, three day counts on Old Pasco Road.

2:12:11Okay. Thank you.

2:12:16Okay. Boy

2:12:17Major here to speak to Stormwater.

2:12:23Uh I have not been born in. Here about stormwater. Wedding.

2:12:31Yes. Roy, go ahead.

2:12:32I need to be forne in.

2:12:35Okay. You raise your right hand.

2:12:38Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give as it truths to help you God?

2:12:43I do. I do. Roy Major, 4260 West Lineball Avenue, Tampa, WRA Engineering. I'm a licensed professional engineer and a certified planner. I've been retained to discuss stormwater. We are well aware of the drainage pattern. There is a kind of hourglass-shaped wetland in the south-central part of the site. That wetland receives water from the southern part of the site. It also receives water from the groves development. As that wetland

2:13:13stages up, it then flows northeast. Down the right-of-way and into the natural channel and then tense it off to the northwest. We are well aware of that drainage pattern and are uh uh have the engineering uh understanding capacity to uh to design around that and with that. That knowledge. Site will go through environmental resource permitting with the Southwest Florida

2:13:44Water Management District, as all developments of this type do, as well as we'll have to go through Pasco County for that approval through them. And so the primary drainage item here is that wetland receiving water. staging up and then flowing northeast down the right of way into the natural channel. We're well aware of that and and feel uh the project can accommodate that drainage pattern.

2:14:12Okay.

2:14:15Question. Henry?

2:14:20Okay. Barbara, do you have any final comments?

2:14:24Sure, sure. I would just say We're not sneaking anything in. I've explained, you know, how this came to be. Um we made sure that this was This deed restriction came through a rezoning process, full notice, and two public hearing, so absolutely not trying to sneak anything in. Um We have giving the right-of-way for the four this will be a four-lane road, urban section of road. The right-of-way is all coming off of my client's property. much to our um you know that is not the norm. Usually it's

2:14:54split. The right-of-way is half from the one side and half from the other. This one has all the right-of-way coming from our side, so it's not the impact. the neighbors on the west side. Um, so they won't have to uh give up their property as as my client has done in in connection with the zoning of his property. He's giving up dedicating um donating all the right away from our side. The don't want any more apartments, you know, just really isn't a s isn't a criteria for the decision you need to make. Um you should look at it from a zoning and

2:15:24land use standpoint. And I I think your staff report very Very concise, very well done to explain what the zoning is, what the land use is, and and why this is absolutely consistent with that.

2:15:37Okay. We just ran out of time, so that's good timing. Um Any questions or comments from the board?

2:15:49Yeah, my my I guess the only concern I have is that You know, I envisage you. you know, a country kind of an area out there. Yeah, and if you put townhomes in it, you got residential property that's owned. You put compartments in it, you got transient people.

2:16:10I just don't know if it's compatible.

2:16:14Yeah, I guess the only thing I'll add to that is I mean, this is a unique piece of property. On one side you've got what you're talking about, and on the other side you've got the grove that's starting to build out and starting, I mean, there's really the big push for the redevelopment there. They're putting a lot of money in that development in and of itself. Um, so it's it's different use on each side. South and east is the Grove and the west and and north is more rural. Um No, I don't I I really don't think that this is the place, but you know, maybe

2:16:45that lends itself to if they go the apartment route, is there some way to connect it to the grove? Um, not as part of that project, but tie it in. But again, it's probably not something we that needs to. stage as some orders gets deferred to development the site plan stage. So

2:17:01I could answer the question, Mr. Gerardi. I can answer the question about the relationship to the grove. Sure. We have an easement agreement between the Grove. I represent the Grove as well. And so we have an easement that allows us to have a connection, a vehicular connection and pedestrian connection between the projects. So the projects are working together and the Grove is very excited about having our project and density to help them with their project. So um yeah, there will be that connectivity

2:17:31that already thought of, already planned, and there's a recorded easement to that effect.

2:17:37Yeah. Um what is your what are your thoughts, Chris?

2:17:42Well, I I think the uh yeah, I'm a little bit concerned about the transient nature of, you know, putting three hundred and fifty apartments there. I think uh two hundred and ten townhomes is is a already in the books it's already improved use for that i'd i'd lean more towards towards that direction um Yeah, it it I assume that uh you know the deed restriction or whatever is gonna go with this would be would be uh revised to reflect the uh 350 apartments and and all that, obviously, to to take that into account. But

2:18:12um I just I think the uh The appropriate use. There is two hundred ten tannels that are already approved on that. I think that's the appropriate use for this property.

2:18:23Yes. I don't I I agree with Jamie. I don't I don't have a big issue with changing this over. I mean there's there's again the groves there, you got um the industrial park to the north. Um there's four-lane road that's gonna be dividing the uh less dense. uh from this so I don't I don't have an issue.

2:18:50And Roberto, any comments?

2:18:52To be honest with you, I pass that area almost every single day. I live in Westby Chapel, really close to that area. I cannot imagine the nightmare to put 350 uh new families in that area at this point. I cannot support it. I think that what is uh approved already is is okay. But uh I don't think it would be a good idea another apartment complex in there.

2:19:23Okay. Anything else? Anybody on the board? Okay, if not, uh Do we have a motion?

2:19:38Do we have an e motion?

2:19:41I can move a motion to deny.

2:19:45All right, so we have a motion to deny. And do we have a second?

2:19:51Uh all second.

2:19:54Can can I get the motion maker to generally state his reasons so we can cite the appropriate reasons? It just goes to the porn.

2:20:06So the resource basically is uh I'm sorry, I have some feedback in the center.

2:20:16Hello?

2:20:17Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead, Roberto. Say it again.

2:20:23Again. In it's uh again as I mentioned to you guys, um My main reason is the number of units and the traffic impact in that area. I hear that the traffic was uh studio was doing in May of last year. I understand that. But just uh at the corner, so all Paxco Road and 54, there are new apartment complex that are in the process to get it done, and that was before. That was

2:20:53after that analysis. So my main concern is traffic and number of families, of course, services, school, all is part of that.

2:21:04So would that be item number one? Yes. Okay.

2:21:11Well, if you could just give staff some I'm not sure it's just item number one. I I just wanted him to state his reasons so staff could cite the appropriate sections of the code, but I don't think it's that would be limited to number one.

2:21:25I'm not looking at the list.

2:21:26May I may I read the list? I'm trying to share my screen to show the planning commission commission members the list of review considerations. Um may I read it because I'm having a very difficult time and I I do have the IT people next to me and it's still not working. Okay. May I do that, Mr. Chair?

2:21:47So um the reasons are The existing land use pattern. Whether the approval of the request would result in a creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Whether the existing district boundaries are logically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for the change. Whether changed or changing conditions make passage of the proposed amendment necessary. And of course, you would put that in the negative if you, you know, whether the proposed change will affect living

2:22:17conditions in the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods. Whether there is adequate access from a standard roadway to the site and whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect traffic safety. Whether the proposed change might result in the reduction of light or air to adjacent properties or areas, whether the proposed change might result in lower property values in adjacent areas, whether the proposed whether the property as rezoned could be developed in a manner which will would comply

2:22:47with other existing county and state regulations governing development. Whether the proposed change would result in or act as a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with the existing regulations, whether the property for which the subject of the proposed change is a suitable location. a suitable site or location for the uses available under a proposed zoning district, whether certain portions of the property are not suitable for development under the proposed zoning classification. Whether adequate public facilities are available

2:23:17to the site, including but not limited to water and sewer facilities, whether the property is developable under the proposed zoning classification without appropriate public facilities, including but not limited to water and sewer facilities. Whether the site proposed for zoning change would be subject to flooding and the effect of such flooding on the proposed or possible improvements on the site. the physical characteristics of the site and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the site usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The

2:23:48potential need for expansion of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed development, including the consideration of the results of timing and phasing analysis performed pursuant to section 901.2.12 transportation analysis. Whether the proposed zoning change is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies set forward in the set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan, whether maintaining the existing zoning classification accomplishes a legitimate public purpose that protects the integrity of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive

2:24:18plan, the public's reliance upon the existing zoning, or other another legitimate public purpose as determined by application. applicable law.

2:24:27Okay. So Roberta, are you looking at the list?

2:24:31I know look in the list, I hear the list, but uh there are a few items that basically 80% of the items apply, but uh affect living condition is one of those. The traffic system would be safety will be uh will be a condition that for me is one of the main ones. And of course the The traffic start for how busy will be and the safety of the of the people who drive around there every single day. It's clear that this will lower the property

2:25:02value of the existing properties around the area. Um I I think with that is more than enough. And the land use patterns also.

2:25:13Oh based upon what you said.

2:25:16This time was I fired.

2:25:19Well, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I think staff can figure it out from what he said which criteria to sell.

2:25:26Okay, very good.

2:25:27I think that that was sufficient.

2:25:31Thank you.

2:25:33Um, unfortunately, he's gonna have to state that again. I apologize just I'm running like probably three different things while he's speaking. So um If you would state that again, I'm sorry, Roberto.

2:25:44Denise, can we just get it from the minutes? As long as the clerk

2:25:47we'll get it from the minutes. Thank you. Okay,

2:25:49thank you.

2:25:53Okay. We have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion of the motion?

2:26:02Okay. I'll take a roll call vote.

2:26:05Jamie Girardi? Roberto size.

2:26:09Bay.

2:26:11Christopher Poole?

2:26:14Chris Williams?

2:26:15No.

2:26:16Chairman Charles Gray. Aye.

2:26:20So the vote was three to two with Jimmy Girardi and Chris Williams voting nay. The motion passes.