PDD 22-118 Seven Oaks MPUD parcel S19 vertical mixed use
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, Dec 9, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Dec 9, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 2h 45m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 60% of 617 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
So now we're gonna move to item P nineteen.
And I believe Mr. Pitos is going to be presenting that item. I do want to mention for housekeeping, the applicant, Mr. Tu and his team have received 45 minutes of time. And Mr. Tomsu has requested five minutes, and those requests have been granted. Thank you.
Attorney Chelsea Waller Dockhard I also requested.
Yeah. Did you? Thank you so much, Mr.
No, we didn't.
all right.
Hi, Gary.
Mm-hmm. Catch up to us.
Here
we go. Thank you. Good afternoon. Uh Mr. Chairman Mariano. Uh it's already been a long day. Okay. Uh Before the board, the Planning Commission board today. is going to be uh seven oaks MPUD parcel S19, PDD 22 uh 118. This was previously before the Planning Commission uh as PDD 217507.
Um, this item has returned to the Planning Commission at the request of the Board of County Commissioners, due to their being uh identified insufficient public notice given for the September ninth uh public hearing on the part of Part of the county, the Planning and Development Department. The BCC remanded this item back to the Planning Commission for redo with sufficient public notice, which has been done.
So the applicant previously proposed to modify the Seven Oaks MPUD master plan unit development to add multifamily as a land use as an allowed alternate use on parcel S nineteen.
Yeah. Utilizing the approved land use equivalency matrix to accomplish this. The previous application centered mainly on just multifamily for parcel S19. It was a standalone land use. Currently the allowed primary use on parcel S nineteen is retail and office, and the allowed alternate use should say is retail and the allowed alternate use is office. Parcel S ninete is partially built out and contains a major retailer, various small retail shops, and some
outparcels, and I'll show that in an aerial image shortly. Uh the applicant, since uh the Board of County Commissioners remanded the project back to the Planning Commission in October. The applicant has modified the proposal. uh for the 7 Oaks MPD to add both multifamily as an allowed land use on parcel S19 and 20,000 square feet of commercial retail office space on the same parcel as a vertically integrated mixed use building.
Here's the aerial and
I get my mouse.
There we are.
So this is the partial build-out of parcel S19, indicating with the large big box here and the various small-scale retail operations that are up along 056. And then the red highlight is indeed the subject parcel for today's public hearing.
This is illustrating the zoning in the area, which is all MPUD, the 7 Oaks MPUD, and the subject parcels highlighted. And this is showing the future land use for the area.
Uh this map is illustrating the location of parcel S nineteen and the overall seven oaks MUD and development area. And get my cursor up again.
Yeah.
Um
This edge along here is I-75. uh the hypoten yes the hypotenuse is i75 this long piece right here is the Bruce B. Downes portion of uh seven oaks then the southern edge down below is the stairwell 56 and uh it then goes up and around the couple of wetlands there at the southwest corner of what would complete the triangle there. And so you can see that parcel S nineteen. Uh is
largely built out on the on the east side and on the west side there are numerous uh interconnects that have been proposed uh by the prod uh early on by the MPUD into parcel S19.
On August nineteenth of nineteen eighty-six, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Saddlebrook Village Development and Regional Impact, DRI, uh through those resolutions and rezoning petitions. Um the MPUD and master plan have been modified several times since the original approval to add uses. modify uses and to revise primary and alternate approved uses and associated land use equivalency matrix. The most recent modification was in November of 2019. which allowed a brewery as
an allowed use.
So as it was proposed previously and presented at the Planning Commission back in September. at an insufficiently Uh Published public meeting. Uh the modifications to the MPUD were found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan as detailed in that agenda memo, PD D twenty one seven five oh seven, and the analysis contained in o in the memo OEG twenty one ten eighty four. As it is currently proposed, as what was submitted to the
Planning and Development Department in uh early to mid-November, reviewed and then forwarded to the Planning Commission here for consideration. As it is currently proposed with vertically integrated mixed use development, the modifications to the MPUD are found to be consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan as outlined in the current agenda memo, PDD 220118. Which still references the OEG memo that was previously identified. Here I think it's good to take a quick break
and discuss some of the main differences between the application as you heard it in September, though it was insufficiently publicly noticed. And the current application. So in in the original application review, there was 82,000 square feet identified as potential for a commercial retail office. And this was based on the entitlement that existed on the on the on the property. And so an analysis was conducted illustrating how the 82,000 square feet of commercial
retail office. Um was essentially more economically impactful for the county, more valuable in revenue generation, et cetera, than a standalone multifamily land use.
In the current proposal, the comparison is made uh against uh 60,000 square feet of commercial retail office. It was through a number of discussions with the developers who are in the business of identifying what is available and can be feasibly built on a constrained site. Their argument was that 60,000 square feet was feasible to be built on the property. And so there was a
rough analysis conducted on D go back.
and and essentially the highlighted parcel here. Can sixty thousand square feet of commercial retail office, uh be developed on that site with minor or no modifications to the land development code. And the the rough analysis indicated that it was feasible that sixty thousand could fit on the property. What it amounted to was basically a uh Let me get my cursor up again. Um a building if you located a 60,000 square foot building
on the on the back side, on the north side of the drive aisle here. you would essentially be required uh close to 90,000 square feet of parking lot around that building to accommodate the necessary parking totals. And then there was some residual uh square footage required for buffer yards and all the other uh trappings of a site plan. And so having done that, um 60,000 square feet was identified as a as reasonable to actually be built versus the 82,000 maximum entitlement
on that property. Um and so the point of the analysis from uh September and the point of the analysis uh uh today is how does the multifamily plus the commercial retail office make up the delta to the impact uh uh to the economic impact of the county with sixty versus sixty thousand square feet. The comprehensive plan policies talk about um a property being revenue generating. It
does not necessarily say that you have to beat another land use per se. Although that is at the discretion and obviously the best choice to pick, that you want the more most lucrative land use to prevail. In this case, um
The three hundred and twenty multifamily uh
Establish a value. That was short of the o of the original uh analysis with the entitlement of eighty two thousand square feet. It was it also uh established a value that was short of the sixty thousand square foot analysis. And so the question here is how do you make up the difference uh between multifamily and the sixty thousand square feet. So sixty thousand square feet of commercial retail is out of that the values are in the in the report. I off the top of my head I don't remember them outright, but Um
The question is how do you make up that value in adding 20,000 square feet of commercial retail to make it a vertically mixed-use integrated building? or development uh makes up that value difference, brings them at par, and then even exceeds it in in some of the areas. And as a result, by doing this exercise, um We've identified that a mixed use vertically integrated building. uh does meet the comprehensive plan policies that were previously identified. Um
Presently seven oaks. I come forward.
Presently, Seven Oakley is developed as a mixed-use community with residential office and commercial uses in recreational facilities. As proposed, a proposed land use change from commercial office to a standalone residential multifamily is still not consistent with policy flu 187-1810. That's what I was explaining in the analysis. In addition, it would not be consistent with policy 144, ED policy 144 and 162. Uh there was also a public reliance factor from Section Flu A two to consider um
in which Residents did not reasonably foresee an or accommodate impacts previously uncontemplated for additional standalone multifamily residential densities and the impacts those could have on local parks, trails, and other infrastructure. These factors are largely remedied by the inclusion of commercial office space in a mixed-use building. Mixed-use vertically integrated developments ultimately outperform single-use developments, and this is Um uh often identified in uh numerous planning literature and American
Planning Association. Uh previously it was not consistent with the following LDC sections. And I've listed those out here. And what you see in red. are the responses that one might have uh to these particular sections Of the land development code for the current application that's before the Planning Commission today. So preservation of land use, of land for employment is a legitimate public purpose, and maintaining the existing use is furthers that public purpose. So preservation is
maintained with the currently proposed project and now generates more jobs than previously proposed. Um Higher operational costs to the county was a factor that we were looking at. These are now offset by non-residential revenues. This is what I mean by making up the delta between. What was originally proposed as a standalone 320 multifamily building to a mixed use building. Potential strain on utilities and capacity. Again, there is now an offset by non-residential
revenues. Additional demands on larger district regional parks system not sufficiently mitigated by impact fee. These are now partial these are now somewhat offset by non-residential revenues again. um as the twenty thousand square feet of
R uh non residential, uh creates Local tax impacts and revenues for the for the county. Additional 76 students in the school system. Uh this is still a factor with 320 multifamilies still being present on the site. But it should be noted that multifamily land uses do produce less impact to schools than single family development. Not nevertheless, the additional seventy-six students are not mitigated by the mixture with commercial office. Uh existing
commercial office users do not do these things. uh the above uh bullets. Um this is a fact, but the introduction of commercial retail office uses offsets those the uh the a lot of these impacts. um which is a goal of mixed use development. And then the site has constraints that make it unsuitable for standalone multifamily development. Multifamily is still going to create impacts to the site. Clearly, there's a lot of site planning to be done. However, a parking garage. Has been committed with
this project and is actually built into the economic analysis that was discussed. is a significant development feature of the new proposal, which mitigates and controls land use impacts associated with parking and traffic circulation through from and into the site. You have a more controlled environment versus spread out surface parking lot. So there are three options. Uh
Let's see.
Elle pense lui. You can advance the slide if you can. Thank you.
There we go. So there are three uh options for recommendation for this. Um the Planning Development Department is identifying option one as the prevalent option. uh to approve the project with conditions. uh approve the the vertically integrated mixed use development with 320 multifamily plus the 20,000 square feet of commercial office retail, which is separate and different from the uh amenities that the apartment complex would provide. Uh
option two would be to deny the project. Uh And then option three would be to direct another course of action. I do have as part of this presentation, if you advance the slides, in case there's some discussion and we need to reference. the comprehensive plan policies the future land use and the economic development plus the land development code sections that I referenced. We do have those slides available for further discussion. That'll complete my presentation. Right. Yeah.
Yeah. Um so Terry First is a cleanup question. So Typically, when these items come to Planning Commission and the Board, the agenda memo discusses any variations from the land development code. that the applicant is seeking. And I recognize that in this one's unique because you were first recommending denial. And then you switched it to approval. But Somewhere in that switch, you didn't neither you or the applicant appear to have identified any
LDC variations that you're seeking. And it appears there's some variations being sought from parking and or neighborhood parks. And so I guess what I'm asking for either you or the applicant to do is state what are those variations that are being sought. With this application and his staff recommending approval of them as being consistent with the intent of the code. Um Because the agenda memo doesn't say
One way or another. Normally when an MPUD comes through Planning commission and the board, those are identified. And Staff says why they're recommending approval of the variations. Again, I'm not blaming you because of the unique this is a unique scenario where you went from denial to approval, but Somehow during that transition that got missed. And so I think to clean up the record, I think somebody, whether it's you or the applicant, need to state What are the variations that are being sought and then
Why if you're recommending approval of them, why? Okay, so think about that while you sit down. Okay, so that's the first thing. Let me take a seat and then I'll I can come back to that. And then my other comment or question relates to the Remy analysis because We got an email the Planning Commission all got an email from s an individual claiming that the REME analysis done by the applicant was flawed. Um, and I guess my question for
you ha is since the Office of Economic Growth did the original Remy analysis. Have they seen or approved the new one, the revised one for the new proposal?
Or was that only reviewed by planning staff? I'm I'm just asking how did what process did it go through when the new one came in.
Yeah. I did have a discussion with OEG briefly about it. Um I have to go back into my notes. I did review the REMI analysis both by OEG and And the revised figures provided by the applicant. Um, and they seemed reasonable to me. But let me go back to my notes uh to double check. the conversation that I had with O V G and then I can give you a a more direct answer on that one.
Well, if it was only you, did you review the argument that it was flawed or do you have any comment on that? I
I haven't seen those emails. If if they came in yesterday I was out of pocket.
I think you were sent a copy of them as well. I I just think somebody needs to address it, whether it's you or the applicant, there's an assertion that the new Remy analysis was flawed. I'd feel more comfortable if our Office of Economic Growth Had reviewed it and said it was a little bit more than a little bit. consistent with their original analysis, but it sounds like they didn't. So I think somebody needs to address that assertion. Let me
take a seat and I'll I'll
So and then the third question for you to think about. while you sit down is It appears that your argument on schools, parks, and libraries is that the
that the non-residential uses, the vertically integrated non-residential uses will generate enough profit, so to speak, in terms of tax revenue to offset the What we're not getting for those facilities and impact fee. Is that effectively what you're arguing? That's yeah,
that's the general argument.
So
Is there any math to back that up or you're just kind of uh just Making that assumption that the that they'll that they'll Did there'll be enough profit from
I mean, I agree with you that commercial uses generate I don't want to use the word profit, but they effectively are. They're they're g they're they're generating far more taxes than they're consuming in service s and services. So It appears that you're arguing that that profit can be used off so the loss. But is I guess my question is that just an assumption or is it you have math behind that?
I I I think there's some math behind it. Um
The the exercise was to meet or beat what was originally analyzed as the economic development impact of a straight up Commercial office, retail, development. Uh so That's identified in OEG twenty-one uh forget the rest of the numbers of it in the OEG memo that was attached. to this application. Uh and then of course there there was a revision on the number of the amount of square footage
that you could actually fit on that site. uh down to sixty thousand. But still the exercise was the same. How do you meet or beat the value that sixty thousand, straight sixty thousand commercial office retail could uh would generate. And so um if we were okay with the the that being as the ceiling, the most economic value you can actually extract from that property. meeting that point or potentially even exceeding that. Um
We considered it to be the to be to be sufficient at that point for it to have Um the offsets necessary for the parks and the uh libraries and other systems. Because the the the overall impact was exceeding what what a single use economic value would have produced.
Yeah,
applicant has anything to add. All right, before we start, uh we'll have to take a five minute recess.
Yeah, this is really funny. Yeah. Right.
Right.
No, we didn't come back to some. I just thought I'd ask some interest. Yeah,
there there are, there's like I there's the handicap release, but I don't know where they how they end up. Yeah, though as you can tell we're having And I don't know why too many OSUs are killing me.
Yeah, of course.
When you get a chance, when you promote less less than
two point seats. So So I'll
you promote one different we're too right. Yeah.
That we get to me.
Now, hopefully Yeah.
Hopefully I can get them to speak. Or be heard. I don't know.
What? Scrollers. I I don't know. Is not season.
Yeah, it's just Okay. Yeah, because we do not want to split when it
Please sahida. Required. She's gone. She was out there before.
Oh yeah, so doing the second August is gone. Phase four um items again. She must have got to be different. Sure. And so the voice. Yeah, it doesn't already.
Same that you can see the functies on whatever YouTube.
Yeah, it was going to be a record. It's um even good enough. Oh, it's okay. Leave my hope in this. That's fine. Well it's a picture. Finally.
I think. It isn't comprehensive plan. Oh yeah, that's
Okay.
Denise, this is Christy Barrera. Are you able to hear me in the room?
Brad, are you able to hear me on WebEx?
Christine I can hear you on W.
I can hear you on WebEx.
Okay, but it sounds like maybe the room can't hear us.
They they may have shut it down because they're in recess.
Okay. I thought I heard Denise saying, hopefully we can get those people online to be able to heard. So I was just trying to test it in between. Okay.
Yeah, so I'm not I'm not sure. If you want to text or or email uh Denise, she may be able to. You can hear it. To work something out, do a test.
Okay, sounds good. I'll do that. Thanks, Brad.
I can hear, I can hear him just fine on
Okay. Okay.
Listen.
What do you think? Well then so I will be full of start. Fantastic.
Which is like
Okay.
Yeah, I guess we're right. Mm-hmm.
But okay. Sorry, I guess that's actually.
Okay, click a bottle. Oh touched up with signs. Or we wouldn't have it. That is not horrible. Okay. Well I'm sure it's That's the other thing that's fine.
I mean it's all the scope question. This is treatment or a couple of minutes. Yeah.
I should have to be like the first thing in the morning because in the morning everybody goes in twice. Yeah, just uh Look, I think it's probably different that you're interested, but they're just looking at these donuts, they're kind of long so. Here are the thoughts now. Yeah, I don't know. They're not like the long buttons that are displayed. They're long, so next time like they're sort of shape. But then draw something on top.
I could
just
So much.
Okay,
Mr. Mr. Yeah, um the green works on the weekend there's like right-of-way people decide because our main
Uh oh yes.
What's up?
Test, test.
Okay, so that works. You didn't hear that in the room, did you? Sorry.
Test, there's nothing coming through the in the room
at all.
Craig, I got a uh an email from someone watching on YouTube that said they can hear us on YouTube as well. So the WebEx feed and YouTube, apparently you can hear.
Yeah, thanks, Brad. We're ha it what it is, we're having issues relaying the The online volume in the room. So everybody online can hear fine, but we can't hear anybody from online here in the room.
We start over. This is Denise Hernandez. Um that please of the planning. I'm being told by the folks in WUF USF.
One second, I can't We're getting started, so everybody be quiet, please.
I'm being told by the USF folks that they cannot hear the Planning Commission members very well. So if you would please speak closer into your microphones this way, please. Thank you. Okay. And we are using this mic. on the left, so please speak into this mic on the left. Thank you.
Okay, before we get started with the applicant, I think uh Chris, did you have a question?
Yeah, I was gonna suggest that uh if uh Mr. Pitos could run us through the economic uh output comparison that is provided in the agenda packet, that might answer some of David's questions that that he brought up initially, but uh I'd like to just run through it anyway to really understand that uh that particular document.
Barry.
There you are.
I mean I should overall this other one. Yeah, yeah.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
David's to the The most current analysis that was done.
Six.
Oh.
Usually.
Yeah.
I don't know, it said that somebody would have to make a big deal two dozen square office.
That's an hour. Yeah. Yeah, barely understandings. Yeah. I I hear ya.
No question up there. They uh Rice.
I think it was parking in park.
On your left, Harry.
Uh yeah,
Found.
Yeah, it's on two pages. Yeah, it wasn't. It was portrait format, not landscape.
Is there a sound well there? Yeah, so it's the time.
So we can start with the only Gmail.
So it's good. Should we have a page number in the overall? Shouldn't come forward. Okay.
While we're you're looking that up, can I ask Mr. Williams a question? Yes, please do.
One of the questions I asked. So The school impact fee that's currently being charged, is it In your opinion, is it? sufficient to mitigate school impacts? Or is it under are we undercharging for schools or are we is it currently sufficient?
Well the Traditionally the impact fee are never a hundred percent of What? the true impact is. And that goes for not just multifamily, but single family as well. I don't know what the
I guess what I'm asking is because I know the county recently increased school stock fee. The reason I'm asking the question is because for parks and libraries, we know that we're undercharging for impacts. I'm asking you for schools.
If we're if we are undercharging by how much, I mean, do you know, or are we charging about what it you need for to address the impact of schools?
Well, we ha I mean that W that was when we did the last update to our study. So r remember we phased it in over three years. Right,
but it's now been fully phased in. Correct. So my question is do you have any evidence that it's insufficient to meet the impact?
So I'd have to go back and read the study, but again I'm I'm saying that study was done about four years ago. before the increases in construction and material costs,
et
cetera.
So it's possible it doesn't because you've had increases in construction costs since then?
Oh, I would I would for sure say that it's below. I just don't have a hard number of how much that answers my question.
As a point of order, I'm gonna object to that. I don't know why Mr. Goldstein set it down this path. That question certainly is not asked on any other zoning remote. Excuse me,
Joel.
Well, but this is if you're just waiting for
presentation. we make your presentation. And you can object out
of order
whatever you want.
It's out of order for him to be doing that. And for the record you're out of order
right now.
Thank you.
Mr. Pitos's agenda memo has a statement about impact to schools, parks and libraries. I'm just trying to figure out whether the impact fee does or does or not address those impacts. That's it's really the point of the question. It's directly relevant to what's in Mr. Pitos's memo.
And this is Nicarios Pito's Planning and Development Department. Um What's on the overhead is the original OEG
That was submitted uh part of the application package back in September when this was being uh analyzed at that time. And so the
It's hard for me to see from here. So the top uh analysis, let me see if I have it open in my
So the analysis is broken up into two parts, one that includes the construction phase and one that does not include the construction phase in order to uh you know tally out uh certain values associated with construction. So um They're both looking at 320 multifamily apartments versus the commercial use entitlements that were on the property. And what this model indicated was that as a standalone use, Um
the in the in the we're looking at the top uh table that the standalone use would create one hundred and eighteen uh employment jobs, uh personal income uh to the project, presumably. At about six point eight million. The economic value or output of the of the site developed as
320 unit multifamily apartments is about $18.5 million. The gross county product would be $11.1 million. And then there would be a county revenue over the average of 10 years of about $431,700. And then this was then compared against the current MPUD entitlements. So there you would have 160 jobs generated at an income of 8.3 million. the output would be greater
at twenty point eight million. There would be a greater gross county product at $12.9 million and then county revenues at about $654,000. And the pattern continues in the bottom table, in which the standalone commercial entitlements would outpace, significantly outpace the standalone 320 unit multifamily apartments. There's a delta there between the two. as standalone
uses. When in the in the uh in the next tables that we'll show, and that was essentially what the OEG memo concluded. What the next tables will show, if we can go to the next attachment. And I'll bring it up on my computer so I can see. Better. Yeah, that the other one. Okay. Now this one's gonna be a little bit more difficult to see, so uh because it was an Excel file that got turned into a PDF. So we'll have to be we'll have to scroll down a little bit to capture
all the columns as we move across them. But this was uh uh And it's uh an extrapolation from the OEG memorandum. And We can see the same a similar comparison. Um Two what the OEG memo indicated at at the top. So it's s kind of summarizing what the deficits are or the deltas are between a standalone commercially entitled property and uh 320
multi-unit standalone. uh apartments. And uh this uh analysis indicates what that delta is. And so you can see they're short. Um a multifamily project would be short. uh 42 uh jobs, it would be short 1.4 million dollars, short 2.3 million in uh value added money uh dollars. If you scroll down, you'll get the rest of the table.
the output would be 1.7 million short. And then the there'd be $220,000, five, twenty twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars. in uh less county revenue as compared to The Commercially entitled property.
The revised proposal. Um Which is if
you
scroll
back up now.
Uh again, as I noted earlier, uh this was a uh a comparison against uh a property developed at 60,000 uh square feet standalone commercial. As compared to a vertically integrated mixed use uh development of 320 multi-family uh apartments plus 20,000 square feet of commercial. And you can see uh the numbers uh change here in the
comparison. Um
We'll look at the total line uh for the For the h hold on, Patty. I'm just i illustrating where to look at right now is the line that says total across there. You'll you'll notice that um It would generate about 155 jobs as a mixed use development. eight point eight million uh in per in income to the to the project, twenty three Million, 23.3 million in value added. Um If you scroll down, you'll
see the rest. The uh the economic output is about 14.2 million and in in total county revenues it's 583. When you compare that again, what's actually feasibly uh bit can be actually built on the property. You'll look at the variance line and move across it, and you'll see that it generates actually 44 more jobs. than a sixty thousand square foot development would uh produce. uh more personal uh more personal income in terms of the development potential. So three million dollars
there. Value added would be um A difference of eight point eight more. than if it was just standalone eight eight point eight million more than if it was just standalone commercial. Uh 5.1 million in in economic output more than if it was just uh standalone commercial. And a hundred and twenty seven thousand point uh 127,421 dollars more than if it was just standalone commercial. And so this is how you know we when we
looked at this information, which was extrapolated from the from the OEG memo. Um It turned that it turned out that a as a mixed use building. Uh it's generally more lucrative or mixed use development rather is generally more lucrative than any kind of standalone development might be, which uh is known in in the planning world that mixed mixed use development tends to perform better than single use development.
All right.
you can get a better sense of it. So can
I ask him a question?
Yes. Do you want to go first?
I d uh Terry, my only question Go back to the going back to the OEG memo, what was the purpose of includes construction and does not include construction. Why was there two tables?
I think because uh construction values can um
influence a project initially. Um, but when you're trying to average them out over ten years. Um It's not quite construction happens once and then the building's there. So you're you're looking at the values with the construction phase and then the values without the construction phase.
What what's more important? From the planning world.
I think in uh I think in the the case of the mammal it's merely illustrating that in both instances. The
Currently commercially entitled property. is more valuable. than a standalone 320 multiunit family. So it was merely to illustrate that no matter how you turned it in that case. Uh the commercial was outperforming the multifamily residential.
Should just straight up the reason I was asking the question, I think it and all the all the Planning Commission members up here got the same question that the the new memo or the new analysis did not include the not con does not include construction phase. So that's why I'm trying to determine Is that important or is it not important? I mean it's a valid point. I don't see without construction here, but is that a valid question?
I th again I think the the main reason why it was included twice in this case was to illustrate that it was clearly outperforming in both scenarios. I don't know that I don't think that it's necessarily important to focus on either one. It it is merely there to illustrate that it was talked before me. The commercial standalone is outperforming in both instances, whether you take the construction or you don't, it's still outperforming.
Well, and reading the objection from the resident, it appears that was their objection. Was the Well
that yeah, and I don't know that we I mean, it's not obvious to me that without construction it is outperforming, but if you're saying it does, then That's my question.
David, do you have any further? I was just gonna ask the same question Mr. Gerardi did, which is why the second analysis didn't have a no construction phase scenario and the first one did.
Or I a corollary to that would be did staff look at it from a No construction fit. 'Cause it may be that even if you look at it from a No construction phase scenario that the revised proposal still breaks even or comes out ahead, but We don't know 'cause we don't have that analysis.
But I I think what's consistent at least between Um the two documents is that Uh in in the sixty thousand in the comparison against the sixty thousand square foot commercial uh development potential. It was talking about construction phase. So you you could compare uh in this case the the c the two tables that talk about the construction phase specifically. And uh in
that sense.
It illustrates an outperformance even with the construction impacts. So even if you were to take away the construction impacts, the expectation is that. Um It's gonna uh be outperforming in some in some categories. Um I think I did also have a In the agenda memo. Just gotta pull it up really quick.
Bird
Sand.
Did I answer your question?
Well I I mean Yeah, so we we get hung up on this for for a long time and I don't know that's necessarily the intent. I just am trying to determine is is a valid point made with the person's objection or not.
So in the agenda memo, I noted that
In the stock analysis, the mixed use development fares better, generating more employment, more personal income, more value added, more output, and greater revenue. Though not illustrated in the attachment, if the mixed use development were compared against original maximum entitlement of 86,000 square feet, the mixed use development would be short on employment by five, and in the deficit in terms of counting revenue generated by $70,360. the mixed use development would still outpace the personal income value added and economic output. Um So
Uh at least then uh in the agenda memo I at least I'm giving a comparison against the eighty six thousand square foot performance as well.
But isn't that comparison still with the includes the construction phase? Yeah, yeah, that would be with W with
the construction phase analysis.
I guess the ultimate question is did did anybody do a similar analysis? for a no construction phase included.
I I did not do the non-construction phase. Um, we can ask the the developer or the development team if they if they did.
And I guess let me um ask a somewhat related but unrelated question. The eight min so in the c one that includes the construction phase looks like it's a value added of Eight million eight hundred and twenty three thousand one hundred and sixty. Does anybody know how much that helps us in terms of ad valorem revenue? Like what the the ad valorem benefit is of that much Value added, because it probably equates to some ad valorem dollar amount, right?
Well Uh currently the applicant does is what I'm hearing. Okay. The reason I'm asking is because it relates to my prior question, which is How much additional taxes are we getting and is that enough to kinda offset what we're not getting for park impact fee, library impact fee and maybe schools. That because
Uh let me just start I guess my what I'm saying is I agree with the general premise that Commercial generates a profit for the school system. the libraries and parks. We get a prop a profit off of that. I'm just trying to figure out whether anybody's done the math of how much profit we're getting. And is that enough to offset what we're not getting in the impact fee? That was my question. Maybe somebody can answer it. So
So in response to Mr. Goldstein's question, so I I looked it up. And so back when the impact fee was the increase in the impact fee was approved back in 2017. The impact fee where we are today is ninety two percent of what the full impact fee was to be calculated in twenty seventeen.
The impact fee is about eight percent short. Correct. From what your
true cost is. Correct. But again, not not not looking at What's happened in the last four years and all that stuff. But back back of twenty seventeen it was not. So
it's significantly less short than we are in park impact fee, 'cause park impact fee I think Keith told me were less than fifty percent of what we should be charging. Correct. Yeah, libraries is probably similar. So
So certainly with the approval of the raise and impact fee back in twenty seventeen, we got a lot closer.
Yeah.
But we're still short.
And the root of my question was since we appear to be short on those things, I was just trying to figure out is there enough ad valorem revenue coming in from this new proposal to kind of offset what we're short? And hopefully somebody can answer that at some point. But anyway, go ahead. Sorry.
Okay, anything else from Terry? No. Okay. We'll hear from the applicant.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, Joel to an associate's land use counsel for the applicant, and I have been sworn. We're going to divide the presentation among our expert team. I do represent Stock Development Company along with Hike Design, our planning experts, Lynx and Associates, our transportation experts, and John Burns Real Estate Consulting, our market experts. Has Mr. Pitos explained this is a rehearing upon Ryan from the BCC
regarding the Planning Commission's prior September 9 hearing due to a failure to advertise in the newspaper by the Planning Department. However, the property was properly posted and the direct mail notices were sent by the applicant just to clarify that it was simply the newspaper ad that didn't get placed inadvertently by staff. This matter has not yet been heard by the County Commission. Uh it was heard by your planning commission, but one member
was absent on September 9th. And two of you heard the testimony, but due to unavoidable personal conflicts had to leave prior to any motion and any action. So three of you did not participate in the prior decision. In the three months since that first Planning Commission hearing. The applicant and the PDD staff have agreed to a modification of the request. And in fact, if you went back and looked at your prior
agenda memorandum for the September 9th hearing. You'll recall that staff recommended denial. But then in alternative motion number one, they actually recommended that you consider approval if the applicant could do a vertical mixed use project and retain some measure of the retail office component along with the apartments. So during the three-month hiatus, we went back and reviewed that. Current
market conditions, as you all know, are extremely favorable, probably more favorable than they've ever been in this sector. They re-crunch the math and they determine that in fact they do believe that they have a reasonable chance that they can make some measure of retail or office mix with the apartments work at this location, and they're willing to give it a go.
Consequently, we worked that out. We agreed to all the conditions of approval that are set forth in your package. And PDD staff, as you heard, they now recommend approval for the application as modified to include the 320 multifamily units and not less than 20,000 square feet of retail or office uses as set forth in those conditions. We have a little bit of housekeeping I would like to do with your permission, Mr. Chairman. I need to introduce some documents in the record.
Um, I'm in a little bit of a procedural quandary, so I want to reintroduce the prior index of documents that you actually received and filed at the prior hearing. But because of the advertising defect, I want to make sure they're in the record uh for this case.
Sure. To be clear, could you just do a motion to receive and file the prior record so we can
Make a motion to receive and file.
Second. I've also second any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay.
Sorry. I've also provided the transcript from the prior hearing of the testimony because it's my desire not to repeat all of the base testimony, and I'd like to have that received into it. We have the actual court reporter's transcript that I provided to the clerk.
We have a motion to receive.
So move.
Second. Further discussion, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, the third item is we have a very small supplemental index of documents that pertain to the modified proposal that were not in the prior binder. I provided those to Mr. Pitos and the clerk, and I have a copy for the board if you would see fit to introduce that.
Okay. We have a motion.
Motion to receive and file.
Second. Further discussion, all in favor?
Aye. Joel, since this is new, what can you Summarize what's in this new binder?
Yes, everything that's in the binder was in your agenda package. With one exception, and that is the very last item, which are BCC adopted. uh ordinance and resolution, which I will explain in my presentation, and I'll direct you to those last two items.
Okay.
This is just a succinct grouping of the items that are particularly relevant now, many to the questions you've already asked of Mr. Pito's related to the mixed use modification, so that you don't necessarily have to go through the prior three-inch binder. Okay. With that said, uh I'm going to do our brief presentation uh in my case and turn it over, and then I'm going to come back. at the end of our presentation and do my best to help address Mr. Goldstein's
questions and the other questions, but to try to keep a sense of order here before we get to those questions. In terms of entitlement background, just to remind you and summarize from the prior hearing. Seven Oaks, D R I, and MQD. Already includes vested entitlements for parcel S19. And they already authorize a loom conversion. Of retail square feet. previously
allocated to parcel S nineteen. Only a portion of the previously allocated retail on parcel S19 is needed under the Loom conversion to arrive at the 320 multifamily units. We gave you that math calculation last hearing. It's in the original binder, but it only takes a portion to achieve 320 multifamily. Moreover, the remaining
retail square feet you then have Easily covers the 20,000 square feet of retail office that we're now willing to add to the multifamily. So there's no question about the pre-existing vested entitlements under the MPUD. Now I am going to digress here because I believe this goes to one of Mr. Goldstein's points. I understand all the questions about whether impact fees in the county really cover the costs. You
can make that argument and ask that question in every single zoning that ever comes before you. So on every retail, every multifamily, every office. In every one of those cases, you could say, well, wait a minute, we can't approve this development. Our impact fees don't cover that cost. Well, then modify your impact fee ordinance. to cover the cost. But I submit that's not an appropriate question, and that's why I objected, that's not an appropriate question to ask in an individual zoning.
That may be a great question to ask at a board meeting when you're setting impact fee. But not to deny zoning. Your ordinance is what it is, and everyone has to abide by it.
Importantly, in going to this vertical mixed use option. Every Project I've had in the last two or three years. that had multifamily units. The staff and the BCC have begged my clients to agree to do vertical mixed use. They beg for everyone to do it. No one will ever do it. The irony here is this Developer. First
time they've ever come to Pasco County, as you remember. They are now agreeing to do that which the board. And the staff repeatedly beg people to do. And yet we're going to have a discussion about the exact economic numbers, whether it's good or bad. We're going to nitpick the analysis. I
hold hold on. Okay. Let me just make sure you understand, I think you already do understand, as chairman, I am allowed to hear any question from any member of this of this board at any point. So don't stand there and question who we can ask who what questions we can ask or who we can who we can receive them from. Let's stick to the point, make your presentation on the property, and let's get through it.
Well I understand that Mr. Chairman Mariano
or that answer is not relevant.
You've already said that. So let's move on.
I want to make it clear. Okay, as to the mixed use configuration. The BCC has long supported multifamily use in a mixed use configuration. And in fact, this is evidenced by the board's Twenty twenty policy memorandum. From last June. regarding multifamily, locational, and design criteria. And one of the last two items, Mr. Chairman,
in the binder I gave you is a copy of that policy memorandum that was officially adopted by the board that officially said that multifamily projects should be in a mixed use setting. It even contemplated them in what we call a horizontal mixed use setting where they are mixed with retail and office in a project. More importantly, in the Very recent this year, Ordinance 21-07 in
May of this year, 2021. This commission recommended and the board approved a change in the C2 conditional use ordinance, which you probably will recall that you could no longer automatically seek multifamily as a conditional use in a C2 commercial zone. And the Planning Commission recommended approval of that change, and the board adopted ordinance 21-07 this past May. In that ordinance, which I included
as the second item at the end that I mentioned in the today's index. In that binder, it expressly carves out. and says that multifamily in a vertical mixed use Is allowed. In other words, they exempted that from the new prohibition and express acknowledgement that when they were trying to disfavor multifamily, they did not mean that to include multifamily in a vertical mixed use
configuration. So it's our position that what we're proposing to do today, which was requested by staff, in the prior agenda memorandum is directly supported by existing BCC policy, which tells us that multifamily in a vertical mixed-use setting is in fact favored. Not disfavored. And finally, I want to summarize briefly as discussed at the prior PC hearing. Number one, the DRI has been approved and the
entitlements vested for decades. Number two. The DRI and MPUD allow 1,726 multifamily units in total. One thousand seven hundred twenty-six. Only five hundred fifty eight. of those multifamily units to date have been constructed within seven oaks. Therefore, if we convert The
retail to three hundred and twenty units. There still will only be 878 multifamily units in an MPUD. already approved for 1,726, which is only 50.8% of the allowable units. So again, this is partially the answer to Mr. Goldstein's point about has anybody analyzed impacts on schools, libraries, parks? The
short answer is yes. The MPUD was based upon vested impacts for 1,726 units. So that analysis has already been done. done for the 320.
But do we do you know how many the original developer I mean, 'cause some of those multifilm units could have been sold to other parcels. in the M P D or D R I. Did then that leftover number you're talking about, does it take into account what the original developer sold to other Parcels in the D RI and MPUD.
It takes into account exactly how many are approved invested in the MPUD and how many, in fact, are constructed. Okay, and we have the right to the next 320 to go construct. So again, we are asking for already approved, vested, analyzed units. This is not a new impact.
But
okay,
my my question though is If that were the case, then why do you even need to convert at all?
Because
Under The master plan, as you know. We have retail allocated. to S nineteen. And we have to convert our retail to remain trip neutral. To the multifamily units, which the loom allows, which has been done over 15 times as testified to by the Planning and Development Partner Department, I believe Ms. Hernandez at the last hearing. And the county has never
rejected or objected to the automatic loom conversion. Okay. I'm
not. Har I'm not asking about the conversion. I'm asking Was your client assigned retail entitlements or or multifamily entitlements?
Well you know you know the answer to that. It's what's on the parcel. It runs with the parcel. It has retail as primary, okay, office as secondary, but the approved MPUD and DRI expressly allow us to trade that for multifamily. I'm
not actually arguing or questioning the conversion that you're requesting.
Yes, you are.
No, I'm asking about you're saying that there was these all these multifamily entitlements out there that you could use. My question is, is there enough left over once the other multifamily parcels
Use them.
That answer is yes, because many of those parcels have already converted to retail or other uses. So in fact, the ones that are designated for multifamily use, there still are enough entitlements for all of them to be developed. And in fact, it appears likely it will never be developed at the full one thousand seven hundred twenty six multifamily.
Yeah. All the other multifamily gets developed, there's still 320 left over. Yes, sir. That's what you're saying.
Yes, sir.
That was my question. Okay.
As I just stated, point number four is we, in our opinion, we have legally invoked the loom conversion as a matter of right. I sent that notice to PDD months ago, and we believe we have the right to do it. And as I said, point five, the county has administratively approved over 15 of these loom conversions within seven oaks and has never once objected, never challenged it. They've approved everyone administratively. So again.
This urbanized infill location is the comp plan poster child for a vertically mixed use project. I don't know why. That's not clear. It should have been clear from the beginning, but this is positioned exactly as the county's adopted comp plan goals and policies say one should do. And with all respect, and I'm not trying to antagonize anyone, but to deny this modified request. For the vertical mixed use project
that PDD asked at the last hearing for us to do, and which the board policy says is the board's policy, to deny that under these circumstances, in our opinion, would be arbitrary and capricious. And we respectfully urge you to please recommend approval as modified. I'm going to turn this over to my client, Keith Gelder, the principal at stock development to actually explain project to you. So hopefully we can focus on what is being offered and what it will look like and what
it can do for the community and get beyond some of these logistical issues. Thank you.
Joel, before you leave, is somebody else can address my question about the variation requests?
I'm coming back to that after they present. Okay. I'm trying not to disrupt our presentation. No,
that's that's fine. I just want to make sure you were gonna address it later. Go ahead.
I promise we'll get those after the uh two presenters, three presenters. Thank you.
Can we uh get the PowerPoint, please? Okay.
Figure out how to make this clicker work. Mm-hmm.
Too many.
Good afternoon. Uh Keith Gelder with Stock Development. Uh we're the applicant uh for the property. Uh I have been sworn. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Unfortunately, I was not able to present in person last time due to COVID. So I'm happy to share this presentation with you. Just wanted to touch briefly about our company and who we are. I covered a lot of this in the last presentation. Many of this imagery on our projects is located in your in your packets. So I'll just be brief, but
again, I wanted to just remind you who we are, what we build, and that we bring uh we build a high quality product. Our company's uh been in business since 2001. We've built over 6,000 units of all product types throughout the state of Florida, single-family, multifamily townhomes, apartments, and condos uh throughout the state. We have active projects all up and down the west coast of Florida. We are based in Naples. This would be our first project in Pasco.
Um here I'll just flip through uh some imagery of completed projects and and proposed just to give you a flavor of what we build. Again, very high quality, lifestyle driven projects. We build uh large clubhouses. Um You know, filled with beautiful amenities. We put golf simulators, we put bowling alleys, we put catering kitchens, uh group fitness, yoga spin facilities, uh resort style pools. You know, our our clubhouses have volume ceilings. This is uh a recently completed clubhouse
with a 40 foot tall entry uh foyer uh in the great room. These are more imagery of our completed pool areas, uh outdoor gaming, pool cabanas, grilling stations uh to really promote outdoor lifestyle and living.
And then again, yeah. Um so as as Joel mentioned, um since since we were last here, we've worked uh really hard to recon reconcept the project, uh comply with Staff's recommendation to incorporate mixed use. We um We surveyed the market, we met with brokers, we reviewed our product design, we looked at our construction costs, we toured several projects, and then we looked at other projects for inspiration throughout the country, primarily in Florida. Here
are four examples. These are all, you know, this is an urban urban style. When people say vertical mixed use, this is this is what it looks like. You know, so we took a lot of uh a lot of time to do our due due diligence um to look at product types. Um and review the marketability of uh of this concept. Can I ask you a question? So
w so what are what are some examples of like the retailer office that you have And these other projects like What what type of retail office are you putting in them?
Oh, so this ne none of these are our proposed project. I was simply showing you these to show this is what this is what first floor uh commercial with residential above looks like. But did you do these projects or no?
I'm sorry?
Did you no these these are all these are all just representative samples. Oh okay, okay. So you didn't do these. Okay, I'm sorry. I thought you did. Okay. No, we didn't. So, you know, as as we envision the concept for this product and as it continues to evolve, the top left is a uh an earlier sort of watercolor sketch that we did, um, which which has evolved a little bit, um, but sort of represents the design intent uh for the property. The bottom right um was one project in particular um that I came across recently
that I felt uh the vision that we have for this property. In particular, this the the lower right, the project is Ellington at Oviedo Park, just outside of Orlando. Um it's very comparable to to our property in very man in many ways. It's in a suburban location. It's integrated with neighborhood retail. It's four-story product, has ground floor retail. This particular project has 12,000. has beautiful, uh beautiful architecture design
uh and attractive landscaping, um, all of which you know we intend to do and is consistent with uh the type of product that we build.
Here's an updated site plan. Again, as this is all moved very quickly, so uh this is a updated site plan of of of the site itself. Um so You've got uh the northern building has uh remained largely the same under the prior concept. Uh the southern building uh has undergone the biggest change. That building is where we intend to incorporate the twenty thousand square feet of first floor retail. Um And the other big change is going from surface parking
to a parking garage. Obviously that's a big cost implication. Parking garages are not inexpensive. We've reviewed the numbers. We believe we can make the economics work. We think it works in this type of setting. It services dual purpose. It serves us both. both the retail um and the residential. Um and in addition to that, um I've highlighted the blue on street parking, which all the parking uh on all three drive aisles uh
was reviewed previously reviewed and approved by staff. These spaces in particular are angled parking. One good thing about uh this parking um configuration specifically is it provides um an element of traffic calming, right? People generally slow down and it helps reduce uh pedestrian conflicts uh throughout the project. So in the upper right uh is a rendering of what that looks like. That is looking eastward, um, down towards the Sam's Club parking lot. And
you could see Once you layer in uh the streets uh the streetscapes, street trees and landscaping, uh it's a beautiful end product.
Can I can I ask you a question about your parking garage? Is there? Available for just the residents of your complex, or can anybody who wants to shop at the shops Or say Sam's Club or somewhere else park in that parking garage?
Yeah, so the programming obviously hasn't been fully defined, but typically what you'll find in a setting like this is the first floor uh is typically open to the public or the residents on a first come, first served basis. And the floors above are typically access controlled to the residential owned. So this the sum of I guess the first floor of the parking garage and the on street spaces is more than sufficient to support the retail.
If This were approved, would you be okay with the condition that the first floor be available publicly available? Yeah, I I think that's appropriate. I
I don't have any problem with that.
Okay, thank you.
So this this slide uh shows our uh pedestrian connectivity and all the sidewalks we have planned, but I also want to highlight uh we're making no changes to any of the access points or drive aisles. So everything that you see today that exists in terms of drive aisles will remain. Um so um I think that's an important distinction. Also, uh the blue shows all the proposed sidewalks, and you you can see it's a pretty extensive sidewalk. Um you know, pathway network that connects um, you know, it it it completes the shopping center. It connects
to H Oak's Boulevard in the West. Um, it provides accessibility to the sidewalks along 56 uh and the bus stop on 56 and also connects to all the existing pathways uh that are already in place to serve um and access the SAMS Club uh storefront as well. The next couple slides are are just uh on the right-again, just quick renderings of each of the drive aisles just to help give you an idea. Um You know, once uh once it's landscape
and and the buildings are in place, you know, what you can expect to see. Um on all three dry aisles.
Similarly, to the south, obviously you have a large uh large retention pond to the west. Um, and then you have that's the the southern access drive aisle between the project and the existing Owl parcels.
Um here's a quick sketch of um of s some of the um Uh the neighborhood park summary, that was um that was one of the items uh that's in the conditions of approvals uh to answer your prior question. Um there is approved deviations in there with specific language and what meets the requirements. Here are the proposed locations based on uh the new concept plan um of how we're how we're getting there. And here's just some quick renderings just to show you, you know, the lifestyle of uh what we
envision for kind of the pool area uh for the residential in the north.
And then Similarly, um Just quick renderings of the green space. So on the northwest. Portion of the project, we plant a dog park, uh shown in the top right. And the lower left shows uh you know an image of the in it'll be interior uh green space now um and well landscape for outdoor amenities.
Um so I had some information in here on the fiscal impact analysis that was touched on earlier. I think we we covered that uh in pretty good detail. Um The the only thing I want to add to that is uh in terms of the 86,000 original number that was presented in the original analysis, um I think the market has pretty much spoken that big box entitlements retail. um are really not feasible in in this Amazon driven market. So specifically,
it's been 15 years since that SAM Club SAMS Club was built. Those properties have been actively listed for five years prior to us putting in our contract. Both brokers um have provided letters, uh which should be in your supplemental binder. attesting to the fact that there is there has been no interest in in pursuing those big box retail entitlements. So that is uh that supports our rationale and reasoning why we don't think that level of intensity uh is really feasible
in today's market. We have engaged Acre Commercial Real Estate. They're a professional commercial leasing firm. They have offices in Tampa and Orlando, have extensive experience in mixed use, vertical mixed use specifically projects in Tampa and Orlando. Our company as well has experience in horizontal and mixed use properties. So I just wanted to share that with you as well.
Um this slide answers one of the um prior questions about um the ad valorem tax revenue. So I just want to hit on that. So I I provided this slide specifically because I pulled every single tax bill for the last six new construction properties in Pasco County. So I'd be happy to pull all those tax bills and submit them as part of our supplemental record. Those are the uh Those are the twenty twenty, I believe. Uh we we prepared this before the new ones I think came out. So when you average
those out for 320 units, it's it's eight hundred fifty thousand dollars per year. That those are real numbers. They're not They're not the Remy numbers, they're not some other calculation. That's what you're actually billing these projects and that's what we would pay. um for our project. Actually, that's probably light because there's an additional 20,000 of uh retail that would be on top of that value. So s so similarly, um Actually I want to go back just just one slide. One
other item I wanted to notice. Um If you pull the tax bill for the adjacent Sam's Club, that building's a hundred and thirty-five thousand square feet. That they're tet they contributed uh $383,000. Last year. And our project's gonna generate over eight or fifty thousand. So You can debate the REMU numbers all day long. Those are the real tax bills. You'd be happy to pull them all and verify them. But that shows the difference in what we're going to contribute versus a commercial alternative. Uh similarly
on impact fee, again, this one's not updated for the additional 20,000 square feet, but here uh $3 million uh is what this project will contribute in impact fee. So uh and if you wanted to uh look at parks specifically, I think when you look at um Oh I'm sorry, schools. Uh the eighteen seventy three times three hundred and twenty, I think that Uh rounds out to uh Somebody do the math. A significant number. Yeah. Yeah. Uh so
I just can I give you a piece of advice? Uh some of these fees are now higher than what you have here. Much higher. Um you need to probably if I were you You need to ask your consultant to update these numbers. to deal with the fact that some of the fees are higher and the fact that and to include the twenty thousand square feet. I I think you're not Help in your case anybody, not including current fees. or the amount for the twenty thousand of retail
office. I mean office doesn't pay impact fee, but retail does. I just I know these fees are low with I mean I think even the school number's low isn't the
school for
is forty eight eighty four per year. And mobility has bit has gone up significantly since that number. So You need to update your numbers.
Even though Joel claims these numbers are irrelevant, I you have them in your presentation, which somewhat destroys his relevance argument. Um so But you should be using current numbers. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Well, on top of that, if I'm not sure.
And I would say the same thing about Dirad Valorum is is You should be putting in your re You you only put the apartments in there, you should be putting in Whatever the retail and office will generate. Absolutely. We will uh we will definitely incorporate that in the blaming you. I'm blaming whoever presented this or prepared this. Maybe it was you, I don't know.
It was me. I can I can't blame anyone in my office. So uh there was a lot of there was a lot I was focusing on the economics of uh this concept. So I'm just saying if you're gonna focus on economics, you should use current numbers. That's all I'm saying. Well, if that wasn't enough, we have additional obligations. We'll be contributing $430,000 to repayment of the CDD debt for the master infrastructure for Seven Oaks. And in addition to that, we'll be contributing $100,000 per year towards the operation and maintenance, the Seven Oak CDD.
Oops. So are you are you done? I was asking you a question, but maybe if you're not done, go ahead. Sorry.
Uh I was just gonna close. Uh we build great product. We're really excited about this project. You know, we found a way to to make vertical mixed use work. Um, we think we will come up with a great design. We've come up with some great concepts. Um again, this pro this project or this property has remained vacant for 15 years. So um, you know, I think through this creativity um and this project, I think we we can we can add uh a beautiful project uh to contribute to the Pasco County tax base. We think it's a highest and best use. Uh we think our company has experience uh and
capabilities to execute it. So Thank you for letting me share my vision. Looking forward to Bring this project to fruition.
Thank you. Yeah, one more question.
So
Yeah. The condition you
You showed a parking deck in your graphic, but then the actual written conditions say Structured parking is also allowed but should not be required. Do you know why it says that? I mean, do you think you can meet your parking requirements without a parking deck?
No, I imagine it was probably left in there for for the flexibility, but I I I believe it will be needed to provide this fish and parking. So
So Would you have any objection to that being changed to structuring parking shall be provided? No. No objection. And so and I guess the follow up to that is Do you think with the deck? Do you still need a parking variation from the code or is that going to Is the only I'm trying to figure out what variation you're seeking on parking. Is it once you build the deck? Is it just that you don't want to have to provide additional spaces for the retail and office or are you Also
seeking a deviation for the number of units.
Uh Joel too, can I take a crack at that because I talked to Terry about this. The prior parking requirements of 1.5 for one bedroom, 2.0 space per unit for a two or three bedroom is exactly what's been approved uniformly on all the multifamily projects. And that's why we requested it here and staff agreed.
That is a variation. And in the application narrative, I can appreciate it's not in your agenda right-up, but in the application narrative, it's fairly clearly, it's very clearly spelled out with all the justifications we've given in every one of those. And in the staff review comments, they agreed that that was sufficient and it was consistent with the prior alternative standards. And the staff actually wrote the condition. For the parking that we've put in the conditions. That's number one. The discussion Terry and
I had is because Keith hasn't had a chance for the architect to specifically design it. We know it's going to require structured parking just because of the physical requirement to get both 20,000 square feet and the units on the space. So it's going to have to go structured. We would like to keep the minimum parking requirement at what was approved for the apartments for the simple reason that in the mixed-use setting, with the pedestrian-friendly nature of the internal capture and more importantly the fact that most of the retail
office visitors will be there when the residents are off at work. that for the most part there's a symbiotic relationship on those spaces. He undoubtedly will probably have more on site now with the structured parking, but because we don't have a number, we would appreciate it if the minimum stayed what staff's approved. But like Keith said, he's okay with saying that the structured parking shall be provided. So that way I'm
So you'd be okay if that was revised to say structured parking shall be required and the first floor shall be avail publicly available.
Correct. No question, that's that's the way to do these projects. So we're happy to do that. Um
I I do think it's relevant because if you're not providing any parking for the retail and office. That would be problematic if the entire deck was was exclusively for the residents.
Yeah, and there was no intention of making the entire deck. Like Keith said, that it it's almost become customary now that you typically have the first floor. That is accessible to public. And then you and then the guests, the residential guests also can use it, which helps with parking. And then you create your exclusive exclusivity and your security for your residents by simply putting the key pass on the second floor so that only the residents, you know, just like in a private
condo in an urban setting, only the residents can get. Past that first level. So we're we're happy with those changes.
That answers my question. Thank you.
Um key Spanish? Uh Steve Henry. Steve Henry's going to briefly address the access because I know that Mr. Anderson had a question about the drive-thru aisle last hearing. He's going to try to clear that up.
I mean, think I I'm not Christy Barrera, so if I can
No, you sure are.
Okay, here we go. Steve Henry Linkson Associates 5023 West Laurel Tampa 33607, and I have been sworn. Um, we've been involved with Seven Oaks for more than 20 years. We in fact did the original phase two analysis for this project. The subject parcel that we're talking about today, S19, was actually allocated 400,000 square feet in that original analysis. This parcel now, what is left, is about 119,522 square feet. And
what we have done is then use the matrix to convert that um to the three hundred and twenty apartments and obviously we're leaving the twenty thousand square feet of retail.
Um
What this graphic here shows the comparison of what the current 119,522 square feet is allocated under the original analysis that was done for the parcel in comparison to the multifamily and the retail that is part of the project. So this these figures have been updated to include both the multifamily and retail. And as you can see, the original uh retail was 424. It is now 270. So there's
a significant reduction in the traffic that was actually analyzed and the external improvements were mitigated for and constructed to accommodate.
In addition, we have used the Loom, again, been the traffic engineer on this project. We've done virtually every parcel within Seven Oaks and have used the Matrix numerous times to trade from retail to multifamily, multifamily to other uses within the parcel. Um one of the things that that came up last time was the parking along the drive aisles and the concern there. And I've got uh uh Diane's gonna hand out some graphics. What what we have done is when you look at that, I'm gonna make sure that's
okay if we can hand out uh some examples. Uh Sure. Uh so what what we've got here, she's gonna hand it
back to you.
Motion receiving file.
Second. Further discussion, all in favor? Aye.
So what we've got is on the south side of the building, uh on the southern drive aisle, which is a right in, right out to Ancient Oaks Boulevard, we're gonna have some parallel parking. And in a you know, mixed use development, that that type of parking is very common. And what we've got here, and actually we we've just handing out is actually longleaf. When you look at Longleaf, their main entrance and their retail, ground level retail and residential has on-street
parking, has parallel parking. And then in addition to that, the next drive aisle up, which is the full access that goes in. That's gonna have uh as Mr. Uh Gilmer had indicated, it's gonna have angled parking. And what I've included in the package there is the West Chase. Westchase is is a very successful mixed use uh TND development in Tampa. And that particular one that I have given is the
main access. It actually has a signal. that goes uh to Lineball Avenue into West Chase. That also has angled parking, it has ground level retail, it has sidewalks adjacent to the retail. exactly what we are proposing here. So there's no difference from that. And then the rear, we've got the um 90 degree parking that's there. That one we we've done the counts out there. That's a very low volume driveway. That's the rear of the SAMS. We only counted when we did the counts, we counted
26 cars during the peak hour. So that's a very low volume driveway. And we'd expect that from our standpoint, because of the parking garage and where the retail is, obviously the most of the traffic is going to be on that. main drive aisle. But again, when you look at these types of facilities, that is expected, the these T and D's, and that's kind of what you want is from a pedestrian standpoint, a traffic standpoint, is to have that traffic calming effect is what these do. So that concludes my presentation, unless you've got any questions.
I have one question.
The two examples you gave, West Chase and Longleaf, um, I'm familiar with both of them, but Neither one of them has a Sam's Club kind of right in the middle of it. Do you think do you still think Your parking configuration can work. Next to a Samsung
club? We know what the volumes are and the answer is yes.
that significant going in and out of there that that that would not function adequately. Yes.
In fact I would s I would suspect that that West Chase probably has significantly more traffic on their driveway than this driveway does. It it that is their main entrance. That is their signal to get in and out there. This is obviously a a It it's a full access, but it is not the main access. And so from that standpoint, I don't I believe that the West Chase would actually have more traffic than what we have counted on this. And we've counted this this driveway numerous times over the years.
Any other
questions for Mr. Henry?
And and just Mr. Tweet saying that there are multiple accesses to that retail development. This is not the only access to it. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Next.
Uh, Mr. Chairman, we're going to go to Leslie Deutsch next, our market consultant, who is via WebEx, and I know there's some logistics, but while they're getting that teed up, if I may, to get back to Mr. Goldstein's point, and I just reviewed this with Ms. Hernandez, in the applicant is application in our narrative, we do specifically spell out the neighborhood park alternative standard based. Based on what has been done in other multifamily projects. And in fact, if you go into Escela, into the
Parks and Recreation Review comments, they did their analysis, they found it met the intent of the code and consistent with their prior waivers. And they provided us the exact approval verbiage that we put in the conditions. Similarly, the on-site parking uh The parking spaces on the drive aisles, uh, the size of the parking spaces all was specifically set forth in the application narrative as waivers, and they were reviewed
and analyzed in a cella in the review comments. So I guess my suggestion would be is if you do see fit to recommend approval. including those Alternative standards or those waivers, it'll be very easy for PDD to simply go into the existing file, extract that, amend the agenda memo going to the board so that they have the justification points on each of those waivers to David's point. It's in the record. It just was not pulled. and
put in your agenda memo, probably for the reason David said that originally there was a recommendation for denial. than the approval. And to be honest with you, we've all been moving pretty quickly. to get here today with everything else, you know, that's on everyone's plate. So it is in the record and and Denise has looked at that and and confirmed that if you have any questions on that point. And with that said, do we have Ms. Deutsch? I think she's gonna have to do it the same way you did the priority.
Do you have anything new to add from our last presentation? 'Cause I I I mean I'm not sure we all really need to hear from her again. Right.
We're happy to not we're happy to have her not present. Uh if there's anyone on the commission that would like to hear the market analysis again, we can do it. If they're comfortable on that particular aspect, we're happy to waive it. It was in the record before. And as I said, we've introduced the transcript now from the court reporter. So technically it's in the file. But we're happy to not waste.
I'm saying unless that's why I asked, does she have anything new to add from her last one?
No, it it it that was the last update that had been prepared.
Well, it's up to the Planning Commission, but you've already incorporated everything she said before. So I mean you don't have to. Yeah, I I I don't think there's no reason to hear. The only one didn't hear was Mr. Gerardi and I don't think I was watching. Okay, okay, he was watching. Okay. So
Well, we're happy to wave that. Thank you. And just my couple of of concluding points. We're actually going to finish uh 15 minutes ahead of our line of time, I'm happy to say. But back to Mr. Goldstein's original points, the parking and parks issues. I think we've covered that, that it is in the Acela file, it's in the record. And if you see fit to move this forward, then PDD can get that updated in the agenda for the BCC.
As to the RIMI model, and I just wanted to discuss that briefly, uh, I haven't seen the letter that you apparently got from some resident questioning that, but I just want to explain how we did that at at PDD's request. We accepted David Ingall's model and his math that had been presented to you at the prior hearing. We accepted that. We simply took that on a per square foot basis and did a straight mathematical extrapolation
of per square foot, which is the way the model does it, and we simply calculated. Let me back up. He had a figure for the 320 apartments. We took that, didn't change it. He had a figure for 86,000 square feet. We simply took his per square foot number for the 86,000, reduced it to 20,000, and added that impact to the residential. So it's just a straight mathematical extrapolation. No
voodoo. Nobody fiddled with a model. Nobody changed the model. No one re-ran the model. What? We just did a mathematical extrapolation to it. So that's how the numbers were arrived at. The reason we consolidated and presented the combined impact of construction impact, which is temporary but substantial. and the permanent impact, which is forever, is because common sense tells us that both are impacts. Both are positive economic impact.
So why would you not analyze, we analyze the total impact of retail and the total impact of mixed use. And the point is that under both scenarios, the total impact Of mixed use is greater in every single category. So that's why it was done that way. And then lastly, the RIMI model. to my knowledge, really doesn't factor in that direct ad valorem tax bill. Okay. It's a different
economic engine it analyzes. But as Keith pointed out, he pulled the last six multifamily projects completed, CO'd, and assessed by the tax collector and Bill Sent. So the numbers he's given you are the actual numbers to which David is right. We need to add the 20,000 square feet of retail. It'll be an even bigger number. So the point is we're going to generate a million a year. in forever ad valorem taxes. So I haven't
had any other multifamily project that ever had to analyze economic impact, just being honest with you. the six or eight that have been approved this calendar year that came through here and got approved by the board, none of them had to analyze economic impact. For some reason, we've had to analyze the economic impact, and the mixed-use solution still produces the most positive economic impact. So for all these reasons, we would greatly appreciate your
agreeing with the current staff recommendation, recommending approval. With the requested waivers that are set forth in the application narrative and forwarding this to the commission. And thank you very much.
All right, thank you. Is there anyone here to uh speak uh uh with questions or objections? Okay, if you want us to come forward and uh state your name and address. And your uh concerns? And have you been sworn? Yes, sir.
I have been sworn in uh John Tomsu, J O N T O M S U. Chief Coordinator, uh Southern Oaks Resident Council, [address removed] Good afternoon. Merry Christmas. Uh thank you for the additional time. It's a wonderful birthday present. I know that you are all here to be the gatekeepers for sound decisions related to planning and development opportunities for the citizens and landowners of Pasco County and making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. I
also know that the applicant and the representatives will do and say everything and anything. In order to get this deal done, the applicant is not the landowner. Debartello and Walmart are the landowners for these two parcels. The applicant has no ties to our county, or community, and their sole driver is financial gain and a reference for future development opportunities. Misinformation, half-truths, and liberal interpretation of the policies, laws, and guidelines are the primary tools this applicant uses to convince you that the rezoning in this area is a good idea. On September
9th, Mr. 2 pointed out that there were no sites in Seven Oaks for sale to build apartments. This is inaccurate. Sites N2A and N2B are designated primary use multifamily and are for sale. mister two also indicated there are many examples of loom conversions to multifamily. I'm unable to find any evidence of this. Prior loom conversions were to support more commercial entitlements. Mr Too's reference to routinely granted park waivers holds little merit when the new development north of Seven Oaks has planned for excessive parks and amenities for those
future residents. specific to parks. The applicant applicant's designs are false and cannot support the dog park. The area is currently a storm runoff and drainage. You cannot do backfill. Mr. Two and Mr. Henry, the traffic engineer, indicated that 320 apartments will produce fewer peak hour trips than commercial. When I requested the traffic study referenced by the applicant, I was assuming actual data was collected and an investigation in the area occurred. This is not the case. The traffic study
is simply using the existing formula, nothing more. There was no traffic pattern analysis, actual current volumes, or any other data collection to support existing traffic capacity. with the planned volume of residents crammed into this small area. Again, portrayal of the data to confuse the issue of peak trips versus overall trips and leaving out the pattern of trips versus commercial of sorry, for commercial versus residential is key to finding is key to hiding the facts from all of you. Moreover, if the primary entry for traffic
is Ancient Oaks Boulevard, one would conclude the primary exit is also Ancient Oaks Boulevard. To accommodate this exit requires left turns and U turns, where allowed, out of the area. The alternative is the use of the roundabout by the clock tower. These traffic patterns have not been analyzed or projected in pattern. Banner. Lastly, the entry for PM peak. To Seven Oaks, into the left lane, with part of the vehicles still in the primary 56 roadway or creating a stop condition on 56 left lane,
waiting to enter the left-hand turn into the Seven Oaks area. The applicant's arguments that the residential proposal was superior in all ways to the existing commercial entitlement are questionable now that the applicant is trying to accommodate commercial space into the plan and remain at 320 units. Why was this property why has this property remained vacant? One of the property owners is Walmart. The original plans for a market there were scrapped with the d when their direction changed within the company and their sale for the property to a potential buyer includes evaluations for c corporate
competition. With their other Sam's Club brand. For a property rights from a property rights perspective The current property owner's actual market. Sorry, the current property owners actually market the property as, quote, located at the entrance of Seven Oaks, a 2,000 acre award-winning master plan community, end quote. The fact that the landowner calls out the master plan community suggests the only one who thinks this is a good idea to rezone is the applicant under contract. In fact, on September 9th, Mr. Poole asked if
the applicant would consider a vertical mixed use, and Mr. Two responded that the applicant, quote, believes there is no present market for that product at this location. He would build it if they thought that there was a market, because they do mixed mixed-use projects. He honestly and legitimately sees no viability for mixed vertical mixed use at this location, end quote. The only market condition that's changed between September 9th and today is the applicant's awareness of the significant opposition from the public at large and that there were significant rules and laws that undermined their plans. Finally, the applicant
Has submitted a new petition including a Sparts Remy analysis. We've already discussed that. As I noted in the previous Planning Commission meeting on this meeting on this issue, This rezoning effort is a square peg round hole scenario. Apartments exist in Seven Oaks today. We understand the MPUD has accommodations for more. The issue at hand is that there is no need to rezone this commercial ear. commercial area to support residential when other opportunities are already zoned in Seven Oaks to support this. Please recommend denial of the modification to
the to the MPUD, to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you and Merry Christmas again.
All right, thank you. Are any questions? Before he sits down. No questions? All right. Who's ne anybody next?
You go.
Josh.
Good afternoon. I'm Attorney Chelsea Waller-Dothard. I am here representing the uh Seven Oak CDD. My address is 380-38 Meridian Avenue, Dade City, Florida, and I have been sworn. Um The question before the commission today is is this not is this project appropriate for Pasco County? It's is it appropriate for parcel S nineteen? I highly doubt anyone begged the applicant to put a mixed use development inside parcel S19. And if they did, why did they
first start with just multifamily use? Essentially, they're trying their second chance at the apple, or bite at the apple, whatever the expression is. But let's look at the original MPUD. Much thought and deliberation went into this MPUD. It provides for a gradual transition between the different land uses and helps minimize visual and noise impacts on different land uses. This also helped establish the separate and distinct identities of the community with a clear separation between the
residential areas and the retail and office areas. Over 2,400 homes exist in Seven Oaks, and these residents relied on the original MPUD when they purchased their homes within Seven Oaks.
So the applicant's new proposal still deviates from that established pattern of the MPUD, and such departure will result in the property to be inconsistent and and incompatible with the surrounding uses by creating sort of a hodgepodge uh character that would disrupt um the established identities of the community. Employment generating uses is a major issue, and that is well discussed in the agenda memorandum. The new proposal decreases the approved 86,000 square
feet of commercial down to 20,000 square feet and increases the number of residents. This is only going to create an even bigger gap for employment issues. Doesn't support the need for jobs and commercial use in this area. And last hearing, you heard from residents who complained about the lack of offices. Lack of doctor's offices that are needed. And this certainly doesn't help. Um
We've received their updated economic and fiscal impact analysis. There are some serious concerns with the um the truthfulness and the cor accuracy of those analysis. Um they didn't provide analysis for non-construction. And I think what's safe to assume that it wasn't included because it wasn't in their favor. So those are some serious concerns with with the analysis that the applicant is presenting today. Um, new apartments. There are multiple apartment
complexes within the area. Enclave apartments are directly across the street. There are apartments within Seven Oaks. There's some behind the brewery just down the street. And now Mass Capital is building an apartment complex on the north of Seven Oaks, adjacent to the new Bayfront Hospital. This area in question is becoming way too saturated. We don't need Any more apartment complexes, we need office space. Um traffic. Traffic is already a huge problem in that area, um,
especially with all the added growth. All the residential communities um are popping up all along fifty six on the east side of Bruce Bowns, which only exacerbates traffic, especially being that fifty-six takes you to the interstate. Hello. The only access point into the proposed apartment complex and office space is through Ancient Oaks Boulevard, which we saw on the screen, the purple lines going through. That is a major access point used by residents of Seven Oaks. At the first Planning Commission
hearing, myself and other Seven Oaks or Seven Oaks residents expressed their disapproval with 320 apartments because of the additional traffic that this apartment complex will generate in the area and specifically on Ancient Oaks Boulevard. Ironically, at that time the applicant argued that multifamily use generates less traffic than commercial use. So here we are again with the same concerns about traffic from 320 departments. But now they're adding on twenty thousand square feet of office. This is going to
be a huge disaster for the traffic. But let's talk about space. Pasco County grew more than 19% in the last decade, according to the US Census Bureau, and Wesley Chapel is one of the fastest growing submarkets in Tampa Bay. And this commission helps shape what our county will look like. Most people move to Pasco County because they want more space. They don't want to be on top of each other. But here the applicant is cramming 320 units and 20,000 square feet of office space and
now a parking garage on just 10.6 acres. So let's look at other apartment complexes in the area. Enclave across the street has 312 units on 43 acres. The apartment complex on the north side of Seven Oaks that's going in now, next to the hospital, will have 248 units on 16 acres. This space is way too small for this project. If Pasco County starts approving projects like this, it will set a dangerous
precedent And it will be we will become the next South Tampa or Orlando. And that's not what the current residents want. That's not Pasco County. This Planning Commission got it right the first time and it should outright deny this rezoning. Once again, we've gone from bad to worse. And I don't think third time is going to be the charm. So we would request an outright denial. Thank you.
I believe you're gonna speak. Can we please come forward?
Can you state your name and address, please? And have you been sworn?
Yes, my name is uh Jack Christensen and I am the uh current chairman of the board of the Seven Oak C D. I live in [address removed]. I'll keep my mark remarks simple. Uh I'd like us if I can just to ask you to step back a little bit from the proceedings today, because we've we've been pretty much in the weeds on details of where the buildings are going to be and where the economic impact is going to be and so forth. And I'd
like to take us back twenty years ago when this development was first generated.
Mixed. Communities are not novel. We are already a mixed community. We're both urban. We're both suburban. We're both residential. We're both commercial. The difference is we had demarcations when we built this or started in this community to keep the commercial interest on the peripheral. of the community where they have access to the highways and to the main thoroughfare Ancient Oaks. We kept the residential inside the area
where the two were quite separated. Now that plan is being violated. What I see from the stock development are beautiful buildings with pools and exercise facilities and everything. We just think that is better suited somewhere else, not shoehorned into this little lot in the parking lot of Sam's Club. I don't I haven't heard the traffic issues sufficiently examined. Uh if we're asking about who it affects
uh the most whose rights are being protected here, it should be the residents in Seven Oaks. Not the county at large. As president of the C D D, we get seventy I think ninety-seven thousand dollars a year. in C D D fees from this property. I haven't seen it properly addressed if it gets changed. how the deficit's gonna be made up when it goes to a residential Zoning. And now with this 20,000 retail,
that's gonna mitigate it back the other way. But we sustain we we prepare to have a substantial reduction in our revenues because of this. It seems that it's all in favor of Stock development benefits from it. Sam's Club and Walmart and and uh Uh The others of the property owners, they benefit from getting rid of a piece of property that they haven't repaired to in 17 years get a bona fide commercial interest in there. So they've satisfied with shoehorning
this uh residential. As President Obama once said When Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket in two thousand eight. This looks like they're putting lipstick on a pig. And I think that this second bite at the apple that company have have asked you to look at is we couldn't sell you the residential property on its own. But if we sneak in a little commercial interest, maybe that will grease
the skids. And we'll get at the end. I implore you. On the benef on the behalf of the residents of Seven Oaks. That you deny this petition? Let stock development build somewhere else, not in Southern Oaks. Thank you.
All right. Well thank you. I think you the lipstick and pig comment probably didn't help your case any, but Uh Yeah, I think we need to stick to the facts.
So Ciao.
Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna briefly respond to two or three points in rebuttal, and then Mr. Henry is gonna respond to the traffic comments. First, uh on the first question or or comment was about land use transitions. And if we can go to the very beginning of our PowerPoint to the very first slide, which is the site aerial.
Uh we we went through this in detail at the first hearing, but in fact this site, as I said, is the poster child for an urban infill mixed use site because if you're talking about land use transitions, we have we have strip retail out parcels in front of us. We have a big box retail east of us. We have an existing professional office center north of us. We have a multifamily existing northeast of us. And we have multifamily existing west of us. So I don't
think there's any question but that putting multifamily where you already have multifamily retail in office is appropriate. That also goes into the question about deviation from the MQD pattern. Now The first speaker said we were deviating from the MPD pattern. The last speaker said that the MPUD pattern from the beginning. was to keep the residential inside and the other uses on the perimeter. The latter speaker is correct. And
if you look at the MQD plan, and we pointed this out last hearing, all of the single family residential is self-contained within Seven Oaks. And for all of the changes that have been made the last 35 years, the integrity of that internal single family community has basically been maintained. What the plant and what has happened is that all the other uses have been kept on the perimeter. The retail, the office We're on the
extreme southern perimeter. So in fact we are locating exactly on the perimeter where all the non-single family uses have been located for 35 years.
One comment was the seriousness of concerns. Uh we now know from the second speaker, I guess it was, no, the first speaker, where the Remy model letter came from.
If there's a seriousness of concern with the Remy model The REMI model was generated by your Office of Economic Growth. That's their model, their calculations. As I said, all we did was we took Mr. Ingall's calculations and we performed what used to be fifth grade math. It's probably now third grade math, but it's simply a division and multiplication function. You divide the retail output by the retail square feet, get the per square feet number,
and multiply it times your new 20,000 square feet. That's all we did. So if there's a question about the REMI model, then there's a question about whatever the Office of Economic Growth did to run it to begin with. We didn't run that model. It was used against us. Initially, we simply took their own math and showed that with the new changes, we produced the benefit. Um As to the C D D issue, and we may not have
made this clear, but we discussed it at the prior hearing, and Keith put it up today. As you know, the CDD legal documents and structure are totally independent of this proceeding in the zoning. They're adopted and approved by the county. They are in place. This parcel has a mandatory assessment on it. It has a lump sum payment. for a bond and it has an annual maintenance fee. Those will not change. No matter what the use is. It's on the tax bill. Mr.
Gelder's company and whoever owns this is going to have to keep stroking that same check. So I don't know where the quote CDD deficit is coming from, because in fact they're going to get the same money they get every year from Debarlow and Walmart. There's just going to be another name on the on the check signing the check. So that's simply a factor.
Do those assessments? Increase if you add Because of the you're adding residential. In other words I get your point that they have to pay C D assessments. But typically when you At least in my C V D. You pay a higher assessment if you're doing more development. In other words, a more intense develop you would You just you would pay a higher assessment. Are you are you going to pay higher assessment
because We're going to pay whatever the C D D documents require us to pay? That's my point. That's a separate legal structure. And whatever those documents say and whatever their assessment methodology is That's what will be done. I don't know. I'm not the CDD lawyer, but it has it's not material to the zoning because it is controlled by a separate structure. And whatever that structure is, that's for the C D D lawyer. uh to tell their
board and whatever they legally can impose, that's what we have to pay. So it's a non it's a non-zoning issue, is my point. It's a C D D.
I guess your point is if the C D D has a higher assessment for Three hundred twenty residential units you'll pay it.
Yeah. If it it if there's a legitimate methodology in the C D D documents, we will abide by it.
And then lastly on the traffic and access comments, I'm gonna turn it over to Mr. Henry. I'm finished. Whenever Steve says his last word, we're done, unless you have questions.
All right, thank you. I have I have a question or unless you want me to wait till after Oh go ahead. Comment on I know the comment was made about N2 and one of those other parcels. Can you comment on that? about them being for
sale.
Yeah, or or that they're designated multifamily or
well there are uh we put up the map before uh Mr. Williams there still are a couple parcels other than this one that still have multifamily as either a permitted or an alternate use. There are two or three of them on the I-75 boundary that were converted to retail for the car dealerships. But as I said earlier in response to Mr. Goldstein, We're only up to 800 in change of the units. There's another 800 in change
left. And to my knowledge, they're just those couple of other parcels that have multifamily as a remaining permitted or alternate use. But yeah, there are a couple of parcels there. My client looked all over that area when he bought this one. So he contracted to buy what was available. And here's Steve. Thank you.
Sure, you can't you can't speak you can't
speak again. Yeah,
I think that's a good idea.
And I and I and also I can talk to those parcels. I I have done several Loom conversions, people looking to convert those to retail and other other land uses. So they they are actively being looked at by other uses besides multifamily.
Sure. Thank
you. Uh but anyway, to uh to address the traffic questions, I I guess I wasn't clear. Um based on their comments, but We did the analysis, the original analysis for this project. That particular parcel was allocated 400,000 square feet. There's left 119,000 square feet. Generates 424 PM peak hour trips. With our project, we will be 206 difference. That's less traffic. So the
issue of if you approve this, you're going to have an impact on ancient oaks, yes, less traffic. on Ancient Oaks versus what is currently approved for that parcel today.
To clarify I think what the comment was That you're looking at PM peak. Have you looked at whether it's a reduction in daily or AMP? I mean other
Other measurements, other than it it is a reduction in daily. We have not looked at at the AM, but I can tell you we've also done monitoring. out there. We've also looked at the access points, looked at the existing traffic, look at what we're going to add to that traffic, and they still operate at an acceptable level of service with what with with the existing traffic. Plus with the addition of this proposed project. the accesses there will still operate at acceptable level of service and meet your code for the extra. You
know how
much the reduction in daily trips is? Pardon? You know how much the reduction in daily
trips
is? I I off the top of my head, I do not know. Yeah, yeah, because when we did the The D R I And it was all based on P and peak hour. So that that's what the comparison
is.
You know that commercial and residential are different. peaks. Sure. Absolutely. So I I think that's basically what his argument was. Is it you're looking at it? Just one hour. And so but daily would
be all hours. Basically. So And generally speaking, retail on a daily basis generates more traffic on a daily basis than multifamily does. on on an AM basis. I my initial reaction would be given the amount of reduction from retail to residential, it is probably less. But again, I I can't say here absolutely, but the likelihood is that it would still be less AM traffic than what we're proposing,
what what was currently approved. would be more traffic than what we're asking for in AM. But again, I haven't run those numbers, but just given the size of the amount of development left on that parcel. That would be my uh Opinion. But we again looking at it, we we've done monitoring out there, we've done counts out there. We actually before the monitoring requirement was removed from the DRIs, we monitored that every year to look at what the traffic is and and and those numbers. But from our
standpoint, this project would be less traffic, less impact on Ancient Oaks Boulevard than what is currently approved there.
Chairman Mariano Swedos Planning and Development Department. Uh would it be okay if I requested a five minute uh break to the proceeding?
Sure,
absolutely. How long do you meet Gary? What's that? How
long do you need? Uh
Five minutes or so.
Okay. Alright. Broadcast a recess for five minutes.
Chest, test.
Okay.
There it is.
Right. I I think so just in a second here they'll bring up All right.
It's got a lot of notes here.
Uh I think the slide before that.
Right.
Uh one more.
Oh, I'm the other way then. I'm sorry.
Speak.
That one.
Yes. Thank you.
Sure.
Whenever you're ready, Mr. Chairman Mariano. To resume. I'm fat. Oh, we're all fat. Good? Yes. So uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this is Nictoris Pito's Planning Development Staff. uh for staff again. Um I wanted to mention uh just a couple of things based on the comments that we've heard and answer some of the questions also that were posed earlier in the in the meeting. Um with regard to uh parks, uh and the question of parks, uh as the applicant noted,
there's a record in the Acela. So um parks was generally what was okay with the reduction of the neighborhood park, um noting that there's It would be uh an extra burden on county parks that that would be caused by the 320 units. However, they were okay with this because the project will essentially provide its own exclusive amenities that residents there would would pay for. So there would be amenities built into the into their project that would offset Uh any
any Local park impacts from more people going to a place that they didn't have options to go to. Um so because they have an option locally. It's it's been done in other projects where those can those uh variations have have have occurred.
Terry, uh just to for my own clarification, so those amenities that we looked at When they were showing swimming pools and All the all that kind of stuff. Those were the actual That's what's gonna be built. That's not just a representation of what might be built.
I think the applicant would have to speak to that, but uh what we've seen in other projects is that um these types of developments have built those types of amenities. I'm not sure they were exactly
okay. Well maybe we can ask that question before we finish, but Uh because there was a M another part of the representation. It was said several times that this is only a representation of what's not the actual Yeah, so we'll we'll we'll get to that. Okay, thank you, Terry.
The the other thing that I wanted to mention was uh policy flu one eight seven. Um it focuses on uh contribute Yeah, it says Pasco County shall encourage development, which will contribute more to the county in revenue than it will consume in services. Yeah. Uh I just want to uh note that that's that's kind of the test of this policy. Um it it's not necessarily a a kind of race for who generates the highest uh net revenue. So it's it's not
asking for highest net revenue, it's simply asking for um A development that's going to contribute more to the county in revenue than it will consume in services. Um, having said that, I think to end to get back to uh Mr. Girardi's question earlier regarding um the significance of the construction versus the non-construction phase uh the value um analysis. Um so I've been conferring with staff on the side
w with regard to the uh Uh different analyses why there's an inclusion of construction and why there's an exclusion of constructions. Um basically uh in it it's in order to outline when residential development can get credit for certain types of um uh for for transient employment which gets averaged over a 10 year period basically. So there there's a distinction that is there and it is purposeful.
I I may have glossed over it earlier in the hearing that I just want to correct. um my my record for that. So I do think that we need to work with um the applicant and OEG to get the other shoe, so to speak, that we have the uh the analysis with the inclusion of the construction. But we should I think we should get the analysis for the exclusion of the construction. So we'd be willing to work with OEG and the applicant to get that in time for the Border County
Commissioner so that they have a full picture of what that looks like there as well.
That's what that's what I had to say, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Terry, while you're on that point. And it's up to Planet Commission what they do, but I'm just saying if you're gonna fully analyze this before the BCC You're right. It does say contribute more in taxes and more in revenue than it will consume services. The reason I asked about the impact fee is because It does consume parks, libraries and schools. I mean those are services that it consumes. And impact fee do offset part of that consumption. That's why I asked the question whether the increase in
revenue from the taxes will offset what we're not capturing through impact because I think it is directly relevant to this policy and so The analysis was showing a profit or especially when he updates his numbers. Okay. Show the f the true ad valorem impact of that. Additional
Project. It may be that it does offset. that Delta and impact fee. Like a problem. Mike, this might quick lance, I think it probably does, but uh what's the harm in doing the math?
Right. And and and that's part of the reason why I wanted to correct myself from earlier and make sure that we can get the other shoe on this one. For the board.
Okay.
Yeah, good
point.
All right, Terry, thank you. Um Mm. So yeah, Joel, will you wanna come up? In case we have some questions before we have a motion. Um My qu my question you heard.
Yeah, the part question. I'm gonna let Keith answer the second part as to exactly what amenities he's going to build, but The park waiver that the parks department gave us, they're very careful about that. What they say is we agree that your park minimum is X point whatever acreage. And then what they say is if you build these following amenities, then you get to take credit for that square footage against your park requirement. If you don't build them, then you've got to
do the park requirement. So they they don't take it at your word either. To actually get the offset, you have to construct that area. Well that said, Keith can quickly tell you the amenities that the
the two if you need the if you need two areas of concern that I had were that we did have adequate park facilities, that the new residents there weren't gonna be impacting park facilities that already existed. And um and the other aspect of it was Um The traffic. Uh and uh we've already think Mr. Henry's addressed that.
Yes.
I'm a I would like to see him Readdress Uh for the county commission. The daily Numbers. I think that's a valid question.
We're happy to do that. We'll we'll put on the record that he'll he'll modify that and do both daily trips and the the reason of course he did PMP because that's how the current approval is measured by the county, but we're happy to also do daily. And like I said, if we don't build those amenities, then we don't get credit against the park requirement. Right. At all, so we're committed to doing that. So Any other questions for the team?
I have a series of questions. I don't know if you want to let Keith up ask the Answer the park question.
Sure. So I I think the conditions of approval outline what counts and what doesn't count. And it does require the minimum that we have to provide. So we will provide the minimum at least and we will follow the definition of the condition of approval. So With respect to what's actually provided. You know intend to provide as many of the components that I shared with you in our prior projects. Um and we will follow the definition and and the requirements to comply and
provide all those things. So obviously this project still has to go through permitting and design. Um so it remains conceptual at this point, but it's in our best interest to provide all the things that I shared with you because in essence that's what that's what we believe separates us from a marketing standpoint is providing those robust on-site amenities, and we'll provide as many as we can provide in the project to market to our customers. Does that answer your question?
Majority, you may want to look at condition ten, which is I don't know what page it is in your packet because it's a big packet, but it's page seven oh eight. Of seven forty nine on my Screen.
So that outlines that one min one acre minimum will be provided on site. What what is the and and I'm assuming the there's a request for variation here from the code, which just says what what does the code require? I mean, what are we going from? Three acres to one acre or
Right. It uh the the code technically requires one per hundred units, which would be three point two, but as you know, there's not a single multi multifamily project that's been approved at that level. So it's always approved at less. And what they do is even though you heavily monetize these and they serve the same function, as Mr. Gray said, they still want some green space in addition to those amenities. So that's why you have the one acre minimum, that it doesn't matter how many of those amenities he provides: fitness
center, pool, rec room, they've still got to provide the one acre of the green traditional. And that's why he was showing those on the on the site plan. So the on the
slide that you guys showed, I think somebody brought up that one of the areas shown was a pond or was a DRA or something like that. That's irrelevant. You still have to provide an acre. If you can't provide it there, you gotta find somewhere else to provide it.
But that's correct. But believe it or not, and as an engineer, you understand the cost of this, he's actually going to recontain that with underground drainage so that he can put that dog park over the top of it. That's the kind of money they're spending here to amenitize this uh project.
So to be clear though, I'm not sure Joel stated that entirely correctly. It's one acre. But that can be both outdoor and indoor, the way I'm reading. Condition tan. Correct. The exact configuration parks the parks department has to approve at some point in the future, but it It's one acre, but that can be either outdoor and or indoor space. That makes sense. And
it's and it
is
entirely consistent w with what they've approved in all of our multifamily projects the last year.
Right. No, that would not that doesn't count. And there is, if you recall too, there is already a large trail system around that lake directly across H Oaks Boulevard. There's a large existing outdoor trail. trail system around that lake that is part of the MPD. That's right. that we have access to and that we will be paying into the association for that. You know, for that benefit.
Yeah, I'm I just I guess just while while I had the floor, I've just got a couple other questions here, just go through all mine and get 'em out of the way. Um Talk about the parking variation that's being requested. Um My understanding and I know this is outlined in condition
There's several statements in here made in condition It's
whatever it
is, something
B. Yeah, it's in um boy, it's a long one.
Yeah.
Thirty thirty-four under land use. Then it's in subpart B uh
716 of your package. There's
a
couple of things that I guess just of
And and I don't think this condition's changed from the last time you came
to
where you were asking for a variation for the
multifamily components and for the parking. But then there's also a section that looks like it's been added that eliminates you or removes you from providing any additional parking for the retail.
Well that was that was actually You know, it's routinely suggested by the county, to be honest with you, to encourage people to do mixed use. There've been two others approved this year that I handled. They said if you'll do mixed use, we're not going to have you require additional parking because a lot of people here think that things are overparked. And you encourage more pedestrian cross-connection activity if you don't overpark. They don't like big parking fields. So it's kind of catch-22,
to be honest with you. We get pushed to not overpark. The ratio we have of 1.5 one bedroom and two spaces per two and three-bedroom, that will actually generate more spaces than have been approved. The rule that they've been approving. is one point nine space per unit, regardless of unit type. And in some cases as low as one point seven. So our numbers are actually higher than most of the others we've had approved in the last two years. And as we said, the other way we address this, I
hear what you're saying, but that's why we committed to Mr. Goldstein that number one, we we have to do structured parking and that we have to make that first floor available to non-residents. So the simple fact is if you combine this with the structured parking requirement. We're going to be parking at higher than this. This is the minimum.
because of the structured parking. But in all fairness, until he gets his engineer and his architect. to actually do this. You know, we can't we can't get that number. But you know, we're subject to site plan control and trust me, staff will be on the parking.
Okay. Thank you. All right. And uh let's see. Um It I didn't see it outlined in the conditions, but again, there's multiple pages here on the conditions, but is there a timing for the requirement of the mixed use component? Yeah,
it it it will be built with the building. The thing about vertical mixed juice is you don't have a choice. You can't build your second, third, and fourth floors if you don't build your first. So he will have to build out that first floor space when he builds the building. Now no one can promise you when the tenant's gonna sign the lease and off often open the coffee shop and the boutique. and you know, whatever else. So there's certainly no one has a crystal ball to know when commercial tenants will sign up and open a business, but he
will provide the space. the commercial space concurrent with the initial building construction.
So Joel just Maybe this is something that requires clarification. 'Cause Mr. Jordy may have a point. The condition says that you have to put Twenty thousand square feet of retailer office shall be located on the ground floor of one or more buildings. It doesn't technically say You have to put it in the first Building. So
We we we're okay that it has to be built as part of the initial construction. Trust me, he's not building this one building at a time. He's going to build the entire project. I mean, that's the way multifamily gets built. But we're fine with that, David, if if we say that the retail office space has to be built concurrent with the initial building construction. that that's entirely appropriate and not a problem. Because that's clearly his intent.
Um, I I I had a comment here on the traffic and I think somebody made a question about the traffic, people coming out of the facility on the Ancient Oak Boulevard. They'd have no way to mi if I understood them correctly, they indicated that they have no way to go out unless they went to the roundabout. to turn around. There there's two median openings at each one of the driveways. So I I just I I don't know where that comment was coming from, but Um Also, I guess just kind of just general comment. I mean Mr.
Henry up
here. No, I I I just was clarity. Mr. Henry says
you're correct. They're median openings at both of those.
I mean in and really just a couple of just general comments from up here. I mean, I I guess you can probably attest to this, but This isn't really your second bite at the apple and I don't think your client wanted to come back and pay you to come back again. This was something that you had to come back when we're forced to get back to the book. We got
whacked. Right.
And then I I again I I've heard it over and over again, just even sitting up here, that uh, you know, the commission and everybody pushes for these vertical mixed use projects and I think it's a really kind of commend your client for willing to step out and look and do something like this. I mean You know, I I I keep hearing, you know, the point was made about we're trying to cramp too much into a spa small space. Well, I hear planning language every day where they say they want density. Okay, so which one is it? Do you want density? Do you w what do you want? So I guess th those are my points. I mean uh
this developer again, I I hear it all the time too, even from the commission that There's too much multifamily. There's too much multifamily. Well, believe it or not, and whether anybody wants to admit it, it this is a business. I mean, he's here to make money and I don't think he would go out on a limb. to to do this project if he didn't think there was the need there for this project. So I guess I I just wanted to make that point before anybody else says anything else. Thank you. Thanks.
That's why you're right now.
That's why I'm against against
it.
Uh can I make a comment, Chairman? Yes. Uh I still having the same issues that I have uh on September. Again. Maybe I need to recuse myself because I live in Seven Oak. That is something that David need to tell me if I have to, but I totally.
I don't think the mere fact that you there's there's Sorry? Over what two thousand residents who live in Seven Oakes. I don't think the mere fact that you live in this community is enough to I I agree with you.
I just wanna be clear and say it in in public. And I I live there and I go through this uh road every single day. I cannot imagine. The number of uh units that you are proposing are going to be managed in the proper way in the traffic ways. So That's what I against this project. Loud and clear.
Is it is it the traffic that concerns you,
Roberta?
The size of this lot, again, I love vertical structure. Nothing wrong against that. We need more vertical buildings in this county. No doubt about it. My background as an architect, my background as a general contractor. I love this type of structure. That's why I'm I live there. I know the size of the land very well. And I believe the size of this land is so small for the product that you are going to deliver. This product can be really well done in another part of Seven Ox.
It's not about Seven Ox, it's about the access to this. B these uh development in the specific area that they are proposing. So it's size of the line. Location And traffic.
Pas
Thank you for
you.
No, sir. I I uh A couple of things strike me. One is How long this land has been vacant. Uh and we and we are making uh Seismic shift away from big box stores. Um It's also not lost on me that The M PUD has seventeen hundred plus units. At its access and granting and and this
would appear Um I mean it falls far, far, far short of that. Um I I did express concerns at at the uh last meeting uh about the parking. I I think the Plan. And uh the type of parking they're putting in on the primary uh drive that will take you to Sam's, I think does mitigate uh some of the concerns that I had. Um
And I again to to Jamie's point, I think the economics, if we have someone here that uh believes in this uh And I and and frankly А фром май перспективу Um We have a a housing shortage in Basco County. Um that I see every day. from uh from my position. So Um At this point I'm I'm in favor of the proposal.
Yeah, I mean again what's what's been represented here today and I I believe what I what I've heard staff say is is the two things that they're asking for the variation for for, which would tend to lead people to believe that the parcel's too small. If you have to ask for a variance, the parcel's too small for what you're trying to do. But what they're asking for the variation on is stuff that's granted to every other multifamily. Project. The the smaller park area. And then for the reduction in the parking spaces, um, I mean, they're making other provisions, the provision of the parking
deck. I mean, so they're they're doing things to mitigate what they're asking for the variation from, which again is the same thing that other multifamily projects have asked for and have been granted. So That's why my position is where it is.
Okay,
Chris.
Sure. Um You know, I understand Ms. Mr. Sayez's concerns, but I I agree with J what Jamie is saying. I you know, I think this is
Perfect location for a project like this. And I and I appreciate them going back and now doing some commercial on the first floor. I think that's awesome. And um You know, people are able to walk to those those amenities, which is what we want. And uh from the school's perspective, as Mr. Two has already said, you know, those entitlements were there from the get go. And so the the school district has has planned for for that and so they're well under that. So from
the school's perspective, we don't have an issue with um those multifamily units and as and as I say every time. You know, multifamily generates fewer students than um that same number of single family houses. So uh to me, this is uh a good location for this project.
Right. So if there are no further comments, I'd be open to a motion.
I I'll make a motion to approve just with the addition of those those couple of items that were addressed that the updated REMI analysis and then the the looking at the additional or the total daily trips for the traffic. So
I'll second the second.
To be clear, does that include modifying the structured parking condition to say that it's required and that The fur the ground floor will be publicly accessible. Precisely. And does it also include the requirement that the Minimum twenty thousand square feet of retail and office be constructed with the initial building construction.
Yes, sir.
Okay. Just wanted to make sure that was part of your motion. All
four of those things.
Like I said. You you read his
mind.
Good job, David.
Exactly. Okay, so we have a motion and I think we have a second. Yes, sir. All right. Any further discussion of the motion? All favor the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Those like sign. Again. Okay.
All right. Motion carries.