PC2 Enclave at Livingston Master Plan Unit Development
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Sep 18, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 30m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 86% of 147 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Excellent. Moving to our regular agenda here, item PC two is item PDE 257781, a zoning amendment in the name of Encalib at Livingston to be presented by staff.
All right, thank you.
Good afternoon, William Vermillion, Planning Development, Economic Growth. This is Enclave at Livingston Master Plan Unit Development, PDE 257781.
You'll remember this project from February, March, April, May, all the way to September. So we'll give a brief refresh and then some of the applicants changes that were related to transportation concerns that we had at the last hearing. The current zoning is AR Agricultural Residential, going to master planned unit development with a future land use of Residential Six. This is 178 townhomes. On approximately forty six point three acres, that comes out to roughly
three point eight acres. dwelling units an acre density so well under that residential six future land use. This is directly west of twenty mile level road and east of the Collier Parkway. And State Road fifty four intersection.
Here's the location map.
Here is a contextual map. of the property here. You can see that the subject site is outlined in blue. In red you have the Livingston Road extension as it travels north. along the existing twenty mile level road, the Academy at the Lakes, as well as the Catholic Church and the Terabella MPUD. which is a mixture of multifamily townhomes, single family detached. And uh roughly a hundred
thousand square feet of medical office and sixty thousand square feet of shopping center.
The overall location map aerial.
The current zoning and the future land use of Residential Six. Here's the MPD master plan. The the keynotes to point out on this are the category one wetlands that encumber the property. Moving into the binding concept plan or the binding MPD plan, whatever the nomenclature is these days. You can see the red townhomes in the centralized portion of this are the rear loaded townhomes that are alley access, and then along the periphery
of the project the orange townhomes are front loaded.
for the access portion here, the portion of the exhibit. Previously there had been two options as it related to twenty mile level road and the Livingston Avenue extension. This is the final roadway exhibit showing that twenty mile level road will remain open. And we'll mm have the uh the turn there into the Living Av Avenue the Livingston Avenue extension. along with the eight foot path that will be constructed within this right away as
it enters into this object property.
This is the right-of-way typical section for Livingston Avenue.
and into the changes that have happened Since the Planning Commission has last saw this, mostly surrounding transportation, So As was indicated on the plan you just saw as well as the roadway exhibit, this project is extending Livingston Avenue north to the project access and dedicating right away to the northern boundary. which is included in the cost feasible plan for twenty fifty's LRT P.
A new timing and phasing was conducted. Um for this. The previous timing and phasing as was brought up in May had utilized the old twenty forty five LRTP and the subsequent cost affordable plan. So this new timing and phasing contemplated the twenty fifty cost feasible plan.
Uh like I Briefly spoke to on a previous slide. Uh at one point in time there was two options for twenty mile level road. At this point in time, now the proposal is for the twenty mile level road to not be closed. and will be realigned to intersect with a new section of Livingston Avenue Vision Road as shown on Exhibit 2 as previously shown. There is now also restrictions on construction access, uh, some of the citizens in the past Um had some concerns about construction
access that would be happening on existing 20 mile level road. there is now existing condition twenty five in your conditions of approval ex uh a agenda packet which speaks to the restrictions on construction and twenty mile level road.
And to be specific.
The applicant shall stabilize Livingston Road and use the extension for construction access. Twenty mile level road shall only be used to construct utility improvements and to mobilize equipment to stabilize Livingston Road extension.
And the the larger transportation improvement that impacts the intersection and its capacity currently at Livingston Avenue and State Road fifty four. is the applicant is constructing a left turn lane a shared through and right turn lane and one right turn lane at that intersection. And what that does, while of course, this project can't fully mitigate for the volume capacity ratio that we currently see On fifty four today.
Um which is above a one point oh what they can do is to lower the V C ratio at this intersection, by improving more capacity with the right turn lane. and the through lane, which then subsequently changes the timing. for the residents at that intersection. Mr. Steve Henry and the county engineer are here. If you'd like a more in-depth analysis about how much the V C ratio changes and the timing changes subsequently. There's one variation
analysis from this from 9016 D11. That's to not provide an interconnect to the south. As previously shown on the master plan. The southern portion of the property is largely encumbered by Category One wetlands and an existing platted townhome project. With that that comes with a recommendation of approval with conditions. I'm here for any questions.
Okay. Any questions?
I I my only question is about the um kind of the vision road for Livingston, 'cause if you look at the original vision plan it looks like Livingston heads due north and kind of cuts through the corner of the property. True. So is the plan now to make the new vision road of Livingston basically a twenty mile stretch or twenty mile uh level?
Let me back up to the master plan. So originally when GIS did the overlay for the Vision Road, they utilized map seven thirty five from the comprehensive plan, which is just an approximation of all the vision roads in the county. That was overlaid via GIS. Right. So when this project came in, What that would do is put that right away directly in the middle of that category one wetland as it moved northbound. So this alignment in dedicating its right away shifted the alignment along the property boundary in between that wetland
and the floodplain area you can see there on the right side of the road. We don't have any further plans. for the alignment as it moves north. Um so What the GIS layer shows. Currently based off seven thirty five, you can see an approximate Like the county does not have an alignment past this property boundary.
But for now the um the vision road for Livingston uh through the uh east side of this property is to kind of basically follow the current twenty mile level road curve, correct? That'd
be
correct. So that's what it looks like, you know, with your master plan that it that occurs and it connects with the existing twenty mile level. And so in theory, that twenty mile level road will become Livingston, at least to the northern boundary of the county until more plans are made.
Right, until it goes back over to um Collier. You can see on seven thirty-five and on GIS you get to a certain point north. not until you it's south of Plantation Palms in the baseball fields where it cuts across moving west to then connect with Collier Parkway. Um but that exact alignment.
So that's the reason for the large dedication of the right of way there on the edge eastern edge of the property is so that you have the ability to maybe 'cause right now it looks like a pretty sharp curve that's going to be there from Livingston as it curves into twenty mile. level. So that right of way allow you to maybe straighten out the curve in the future or is that the idea?
Oh I was speaking to off when I was speaking about I was speaking far north outside of the property. I understand that. Okay. Yes. That
was my follow up question. Okay,
yes.
Okay.
Any other questions?
Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else to speak here on this? Barb? Uh Mr. Peter.
Oh I'm sorry.
forgot the order here, Barbara. Okay.
No one else on the list.
We have individual sign up for
Claire.
Good afternoon, Barbara Wilhite, [address removed]. Our presentation focuses on what's changed since May fifteenth, twenty twenty five, when we had a full hearing before you all. And I know we're gonna have another hearing today and I think it's great. We've been actually talking to neighbors here, trying to work different questions out, and so more participation to me is better. But our presentation focuses on what we've done since May 15th. You also have a um a PowerPoint that
I handed out, which is our PowerPoint exactly as it was presented on May 15th.
So as staff has pointed out to you, we added a a new construction access condition This was a result of a neighborhood meeting, a voluntary neighborhood meeting that we had, and we were asked that question, what can you do about construction access? We really want to limit construction access on existing 20-mile-level road. So this is the condition that came out of that.
We got new traffic counts, we updated so we've been doing things bet between May and now. We updated our timing phasing analysis. Analysis still shows an existing level of service sufficiency for the intersection of State Road 54 and Livingston. Um it shows that the overall delay may increase 3.6 seconds. With project traffic. I think it's important to get some context of our project versus the existing deficiency. That exists at that intersection. The
code is very clear at 901, um, that's a like an eye test here, 901-2H3. that this project is not responsible for reducing or eliminating the existing deficiencies. But we didn't stop there 'cause we could have said, look, we're our And then we're not going to be able We're only like three point six seconds additional delay. We could have said that, we could have cited cited this and said we're not responsible to do anything more, but we didn't stop there. We looked at, okay, what can we do? What can this one project
do? A project that's consistent with the land use, in a great location, what can it do? And a great project. So one was and you've heard Livingston Avenue is a Vision Road. and we propose to extend that vision road to the to the project access You can see it's in your cost feasible, your vision improvement. and that is your ultimate um vision road network. We provide right of way further as as Mr. Pontless has pointed
out. So not only just to our entrance, but also all the way to our property line to allow for the future extension north of our entrance of
Yeah. Exactly how that goes when it leaves our what the portion that we're gonna do and our tie back in, a temporary tie back in to existing 20-mile-level road. That's up to the county. So but we're providing we're doing it up to our entrance, we're providing right of way on our north property and ultimately where the Vision Road goes after that, the county will have to do further analysis.
We who have heard about an intersection movement. This is one of the main things we did. Like I said, we didn't stop at the fact that we don't are not responsible for existing deficiencies and we're only gonna add 3.6 second delay to that intersection with our traffic. We didn't stop there. We spent months looking at what we can do to this intersection. Remember, this is DOT's roadway, so we had to coordinate with F DOT, Pasco County. Um Links and Associates. And we they came up with this improvement that you see described here that will increase the capacity of the intersection. Does it fix, does it fix? Magically
fifty-four doesn't have any issues anymore? No. But it is something that this project can do, and it does really it does reduce the VC ratio that's existing out there today. As a result of the improvement.
We also pay mobility fees, as you know, and the project will pay mobility fees. So that is My presentation, there was a couple housekeeping things that I wanted to do because I promised the residents they were um one of our neighbors was was kind to point out that I had a screw up in my in our conditions of approval. So if you look at uh twenty-four Condition twenty-four. There's a second paragraph there that if you read it talking about fencing and closing twenty mile over road. I kept wondering why we
kept getting the question why, you know, that aren't you closing twenty mile of a road? And I'm like, no, we're just realigning it. Well that's because this second paragraph is in here. And it should need to be removed. So on the record, we'd like to if you if you choose to move this forward today and recommend approval, if you'll include removing the second paragraph of condition 24. The other thing that we wanted to put on the record is that our conditions show our minimum product at 20 feet wide. Um our proposal is and what we've been
showing in m in meetings and including our neighborhood meeting was twenty four minimum twenty four foot product. I caught that inconsistency. My teams never do never say something and then do something else in our paperwork. So we'll want to move that minimum product to 24. Again, you can include that in a motion if that's your desire at the end of the public hearing. The other thing is we have heard from our neighbor to the south in in Huntington Ridge. We have a common property boundary, town home to townhome. It's actually will be a side of
one of our townhome buildings to their rear. and the question was, what's what are you gonna do about buffering? What's the proposal for buffering? Your code, because it's town home to townhome, doesn't require a buffer, just a setback. But we told the the um the resident that we would put on the record and add to our conditions between now and and the board, assuming this moves forward to the board. Um that we will do a ten foot tight B buffer. um at our common pound on our common property boundary with Huntington Ridge. And
we will include an opaque fence. Right now with type B, you don't you can do a hedge instead of a fence, but we told our neighbor that we would we would add that we will do an opaque fence, no wood or no chain length, because that's what your code says. So we wanted to put that on the record as well. My team is here. We can present again what we presented in May, but I think what I'd like to do is is let's hear people's concerns and questions and then we'll come back and and talk some more. Okay.
All right.
Mr. Chair, the first individual signed up to speak on this item is a Melissa Blackburn via WebEx. Okay.
Melissa, are you present?
Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Have you been sworn, Melissa?
Fantastic. My name is Melissa Blackburn. I live at [address removed]. One question that I did have, and I know it's mentioned in this plan about
further, let me just uh have you sworn, okay? So No
sorry, thank you.
You raise your right hand, I can see you. So
Yes.
Don't try to trick me.
Not tricking you.
You start from at this point. What are you about to give us the two? So what you got?
Yes.
Okay. Jeremy, thank you.
Thank you. I was my main question is around the traffic with this development. I'm in Terrabella right there in the same area. And I know it's mentioned about adding a left turn lane, straight and right-I think headed northbound. However, we have that today. So are we talking about adding existing lanes to what is there today?
Well go y go ahead with your questions and we'll answer those when the applicant comes back up.
Yeah, that's my main question is, you know, I have concern. I have children that live in this neighborhood. It's a heavily utilized intersection. We've had several fatality accidents at that intersection. exit from the neighborhood at Via Bella is already very congested. So many of us use the Livingston exit because of the traffic light. And so my concern is on the traffic at that main intersection and causing more strain there on an already, you know, troubled area.
Okay. Thank you. We'll try to get that answer for you.
Thank you.
Who'd be next? Mr. Chair, the next individual signed up to speak is a Patty Draper.
Patty?
I have not been sworn.
Oh. Yeah. You just couldn't you had to tell me you want to be honest, right?
Do I have to do that?
You swear from the testimony about the given truth of God. Yes.
Good afternoon. I have a um small seven slide presentation. um as an overview for Huntington Ridge. I spoke with Barb and Jeremy earlier and some of our concerns have been addressed. Um and I feel pretty comfortable that um You know, we'll come to some kind of resolution. I don't know whether you guys want to see this or not.
Before we go any further, um I just need your full name and address. Of course you do.
I'm Patty Draper, [address removed]. Okay. I'm
just do you know how much time your happ your presentation is gonna take?
No, so I'm gonna take
Okay, just very quickly. Um again I'm gonna receive
and file.
second. I'm sorry.
Again, Huntington Ridge Overview. We are a small gated 900 unit townhome community between 20 Mile Level and Collie Parkway. On the on the next slide, while we do share the same concerns as our neighbors on 20-mile level in regards to traffic and flooding, even though the FEMA maps for that area haven't been updated since 2014, we do share those concerns. But for this presentation on slide two, We
want to focus on the north side of Huntington Ridge where we have the two buildings in the little red box and a small retention pond. The next slide shows the original Um plan by Stanley Martin that were given given to us at the May meeting. And it does show a 15-foot type B buffer along the west side of the property with its labeled number eight. Um but
no buffer or setback is designated against the Huntington Ridge townhomes, which again are the bottom of that Cal-de-sac area. Now I will say in talking to Barb and to Jeremy That seems to have been addressed and it's in the record that there's going to be a offense and some type of a buffer there. So that's already been part of the record. I just felt like As Huntington Ridge, we needed to go on the record too to to talk to you guys. Um very quickly the
next one shows elevation concerns. Again, Jeremy has Talk to me about the elevation. The problem there is that the applicant's property line is higher, property is higher than Huntington Ridge, and you can see the slope into the backyard of our townhomes. We can estimate that that slope is anywhere between two and a half and Four feet.
Next slide is just um showing the runoff behind those two. Our residents are constantly working back there to ensure that the drainage continues. We've had to change vegetation, we've had to change Um we've had to trench and it's all because we have had runoff in the past from the different elevations there. Um Last one is the retention pond where the stormwater flows. Um this water
in there shows just two days of heavy rain. There was uh no hurricanes. It basically was just two days of heavy rain. And as I looked on the map on
Keep going.
As I looked on the map of what we were given by um Stanley Martin, you can see where our retention pond and their two retention ponds butt right up against each other. So again, again, we were very, very concerned about any runoff increasing some flooding into our our area. Um But again, Jeremy, thank you. He's addressed it with us. He's somewhat made us comfortable with what's going on. And then I just want
to um just say in conclusion Uh why I was gonna come in here and ask you guys. I'm sorry. Ask you guys to either Deny or at least postpone. The concerns we have here. I feel like in talking to Barbara and Jeremy, our concerns have been addressed with the ten foot fence and some type of a buffer there. But um I feel like the privacy and the security of Huntington Ridge
needs to be maintained and our property values are concerned about us too with that. the development going on. So Thank you very much for your time. We do appreciate it.
So can I just ask to clarify the you know again the LDC doesn't require any any buffer in between like developments, but um they you said they have agreed to offense and
they have agreed to offense on the property line, Jeremy? On the property line, I think there's still some questions whether there's gonna be a buffer there too.
Yeah, I think what
Barbara said was is they were offering a ten foot type B buffer with an opaque fence.
Okay.
Yeah. Is that right?
I just just wanted to clarify that.
Okay.
So you no longer with with those changes, you no longer have opposition to the to the project?
I feel like we can work with uh. With the developer.
Very good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Next. Mr. Chair, we do not have more individuals pre-registered to speak on this auto.
Okay. Very good. Well great. Uh Barbara, would you have any comments on c uh we had a few questions there that are still left unanswered, I think.
And Jeremy is the civil engineer that that she's referring to. You some of you might have been wondering who she was talking to.
Jeremy Calch with Tampa Civil. Um I would like for Steve to go through and and tell you about the improvement that he's proposed to the fifty-four Livingston intersection. Uh Ms. Blackburn had asked about that from Terabella. And then of course if if you want to hear about the drainage discussion between Hunter Huntington Ridge and Jeremy Couch, um, Ms. Draper. We can certainly have Jeremy talk about that, but I'd rather have the neighbors and talking neighbor to neighbor. Um and if if if they have any more questions, they've got hopefully have my phone number and I'll get them in
touch with my team. So I think it'd be helpful for Steve to explain that improvement to the intersection, uh, which Ms. Ms. Blackburn asked about. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much, Steve.
Good afternoon. Steve Henry, Linkson Associates, 5023 West Laurel, and I have been sworn. Um do we have an Elmo?
And I've got extra cop copies if anybody wants one. Uh but essentially what we're doing is again, this is a relatively small project, so we w looked at the intersection and trying to figure out what this project could potentially do to help the intersection, help the capacity of it. And when you look northbound, the the right turn volume there is almost three hundred cars in an hour. The through volume's only fifty. So what we were proposing and you can see it here and how well
Yeah, let me uh
Mm-hmm. Okay.
Okay, okay.
I see.
Thank you. Got one more?
But essentially what we're doing is
um Steve, let's get a motion to receive and file. So moved. Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
So so what we're doing is to try to help balance that is we're taking the the existing through lane and making it a shared through right. And so what that will do is allow, you know, a little better distribution of the traffic between those two lanes. Um and we have spoken to uh both DOT and the county uh and they are supportive of of this geometry. It doesn't really change the timing of the signal because that northbound lane, it doesn't change, you know, it'll it'll run with the south. It's just a matter of being able to put
some of those right turns into the through lane because right now it when that When it happens, the right turn backs up into the through lane. So this way it allows that to function a little bit better. And that's what we're proposing here.
Okay.
But we're not adding we're not adding a lane, we're just modifying the lane geometry and the signals.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay. So I'm uh I don't did uh Jeremy want to speak too or no? It's not necessary. I
don't think it's necessary. I'm making sure that um Mr Aper has his phone number so so they can continue to talk. Um so So I did I was remiss to ask you to receive and file my PowerPoints. So if you could receive and file those two PowerPoints that I had given to you all. We
did. So moved. Second. Motion and second any further discussion all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye aye. Those like sign.
So I can catalog those three things again for the record. Um along our Huntington Ridge common property boundary, 10 foot type B buffer with a mand with an opaque fence, no wood or chain link. Remove the second paragraph of condition twenty-four. change our minimum lit width for our townhomes from twenty two twenty four, which also addresses Ms. Draper's Mrs. Draper's concern about
Twenty-four foot townhomes are a very nice townhome product. So we'd like to add that as well to make sure that you know we're gonna do what we say we're gonna do regarding the quality of these townhomes. And we're available if you have any more questions. Thank you.
Any questions? If not, air motion.
Anybody? So Yeah, I'm I'll move approval of the uh item with the modifications to the conditions as stated by Ms. Wilhite.
Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign? Okay.
Alright.