P4 PDD 227526 Renner rezoning to MPUD 108 homes

1:24:51P4.

1:24:57Good day, Chairman and Commission Members. Jessica Coel with the Pasco Planning Development Department. Item P4 is PDD 227526 in the name of Daryl and Karen Renner for a requested change in zoning from AR Agricultural Residential District to MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for 108 single-family detached units on approximately 50.15 acres. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on September 30th and was continued at the Planning Commission's request to this

1:25:27hearing date. If at the Chair's uh request, I don't have any problems giving the staff presentation, but in the essence of time, um I can give it over to the applicant. I know they have requested extra time.

1:25:38Okay.

1:25:38At your pleasures.

1:25:41All right, we'll uh we'll just wait for that then. If we need if we need it.

1:25:48Thank you, Jasper.

1:26:00Hello, Ms. Terra Penny.

1:26:02Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Cindy Terrapani with Terrapani Planning Strategies. My address is 128 East Tarpon Avenue in Tarpon Springs, and I have been sworn. I represent KB Home, who is the applicant for this rezoning, and we greatly appreciate the opportunity to present this project to you today, continued from your September meeting. After my presentation, we have a couple other members of our team to speak. Uh the first exhibit is just showing you the the really urbanizing area in which this site

1:26:32is located. Um and hopefully I'm gonna do this right. So the site Okay. Press the bull. Top button. So the site is right in here. This is 41, and now I'm going to turn that light off so you can see the rest exhibit. As you know, Land O' Lakes US 41 has been an attractive area for residential for many years due to its due to its convenient location, good access, availability of services, and the natural beauty of the area. And this area has been developed to

1:27:02pre-lakes and reserves to the south, Caliente Resorts, Wilderness Lake Preserves, the Groves, and then Connerton to the north of the Groves. The Bexley North MPD is the green shaded area you see to the west of the Renner site and to the west side of the railroad track. It's 6,800 acres. We're not that big, of course, and it is a DRI scale development with over 11,000 residential units approved and DRI scale commercial and office. Within Bexley, you can see an area which

1:27:33is under development today, the Del Webb area, which is right in this area to the southwest of the Minor site. To the east of the runner is the Arden Preserve MPD, which was approved in 2019. It was approved for 130 single-family homes on 40-foot width, 4,400 square foot lots. Many of these homes are occupied and many more are under construction. To the north of Arden Preserves is Land O' Lakes High School and the School Board Administrative Complex. The Renter MPD and all the properties

1:28:03from the railroad track east all the way to Land O' Lakes Boulevard are all designated Res 3, three units an acre. The Renter project is consistent with that Res 3 because we are proposing single-family detached only. That is allowed, of course, in Res 3, and we are consistent with the density of Res 3. We could go to the next slide, please. I'll have to zoom in a little bit to show you the area in a little more detail and specific. As you can see, the railroad tracks is the west and that pink line is Bexley Road that

1:28:33will can come from the west all the way through Bexley North and then come continue east all the way to US 41, Land O' Lakes. The renter site is the red area that we were just looking at. It's in this area right here.

1:28:48To the immediate north is the proposed Clark MPD that you just uh recommended for approval. And the Art and Preserve project that I mentioned had already received approval is right here. Of course this is US 41 along the east side of that map. We do propose single family homes, which is the exact same land use as exists in the area, approved and existing. To the east of our site, the wetlands on our site will be an effective buffer from the residential in that area. To the northwest, Bexley

1:29:18Road and a 20-foot landscape buffer will create the effective buffer and separation. There's only one house between us from the renter property, then Bexley Road, there's one home, and then the balance of that property going north is Clark. the Clark MPD. And the property to the west and south of Renner is vacant, owned by L S B Corporation, the same entity that does own some property within Bexley North. The project is in compliance with all the major elements of the Land Development Code. Let me just highlight a couple of those. We're protecting all the wetlands

1:29:49on the site. We're not impacting any of the 16 acres of wetlands. We are extending sewer and water lines from Arden Preserve to the site. We're meeting all of our neighborhood park requirements. And most importantly, we're complying fully with the Vision Road requirements. There is a north-south road that will run from Bexley south through our site and dead end at our property. It doesn't connect to anything today. But we are dedicating that 80-foot of right-of-way. We're designing and permitting and constructing that road throughout our property. And secondly, for Bexley

1:30:19Road, we will dedicate a 20-foot strip of rideway and an additional triangular section of rightway at the west end of the site that the staff requested.

1:30:30I believe in front of you today the staff has proposed and they provided to us about an hour and a half before today's hearing a new condition with regard to architectural standards. I'd like to tell you about what we are proposed voluntarily back in June, way before the County Commission started talking about that. First of all, we only have 108 homes in this development. None of those are 40-foot lots, they're all 50-foot lots. And in our with our first group of conditions, KB Holm voluntarily proposed a condition about architectural diversity. And

1:31:01that condition was it's condition 42 in your old packet, and that condition is that the project shall have a minimum of four different architectural home designs which shall be dispersed throughout the development. Like I said, it was presented to us today these new conditions with regard to architectural standards, and my client um has said that he would be in agreement with those as well should you decide to do that. Just very quickly, I'd like to run through the slide just so you can see what the type of design that are proposed in the community. We do have one story and two story homes with

1:31:31a variety of elevations. And again, um we did propose this way before the county commission started talking about it in public because we thought it was an important thing to do. You can just um next slide please. A second design second type of single story, the next slide. Another single story design. Next slide, single story. And then we do have several pages or several examples of two-story home design that you can see there as well. Um we also weren't required to have a neighborhood meeting, but we did have one. Cindy,

1:32:02can you go back for a second? Just a word of advice to you. I would not show those to the Board of County Commissioners without a street tree in the farm or

1:32:10just

1:32:10being honest with you.

1:32:20But I appreciate the suggestion. Just one I just want to say one other thing and then I'd like to turn it over to Mike Razor. We did have a neighborhood meeting. Uh it was virtual, so it was back in May. With all of our neighbors and we've talked to them about the project. I know that there is some concern and perhaps they will be here today, but I just wanted the board to know that we did have a neighborhood meeting and try and address their concerns with the project. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mike.

1:32:44So Cindy, before you leave, so what I heard you say is you're in a group. Your client's okay with a revised condition dealing with architectural

1:32:54The ones that were proposed to us today, um require

1:32:58is your client in agreement with all the other conditions?

1:33:01Well I understand there's no well no, we're not in agre we're agreement with the tree with the street tree. We have no problem with that. I'm not sure what number that is. Um we do have a concern about um which road improvements we are going to do and Shelley Johnson will speak to that. So that is the other condition that's in dispute. So there's really only one condition that we're concerned with.

1:33:20So that's condition sixteen or

1:33:21fifteen and sixteen, I believe, yes. Or maybe it's sixteen and seventeen now.

1:33:26I think it's sixteen and seventeen.

1:33:28Yes, it's regard to uh what road improvements we make and what and then the bonding will build the timing of that improvement.

1:33:35Okay.

1:33:40Good afternoon. Uh for the record, Michael Razor, 19046, Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Tampa, 33647, and I have been sworn. I'm a Florida registered professional engineer with a specialization in traffic engineering with approximately 25 years of experience. I prepared the time and in phasing traffic study for this project, which was performed consistent with the land development code and the project traffic study methodology statement as approved by County Transportation staff. The results of the traffic study identified acceptable traffic operating conditions and

1:34:10consideration of Pasco County Transportation Performance Standard pursuant to the land development code and comprehensive plan. And as discussed at the last Planning Commission regarding the traffic assignment, specifically from Bexley Road to Wisteria Loop North versus South, in regard to access to US-41. The traffic study and the assignment was based on current existing traffic patterns identified from traffic counts, which Which resulted in the distribution to the north versus

1:34:40the south. And also I'd like to note that from this project to US 41, via Wisteria Loop North, once you get from Bexley Road, you can make a left or a a right onto Wisteria Loop. If you head to the north, you have a 35 or 3,400 foot distance to get to US 41. If you wanted to go to the south, it would be 4,200 feet on Wisteria Loop South plus another 3,600 feet on Tower Road, combined total of 7,800 feet, again compared to the 3,400 feet going to the north, so

1:35:102.3 times as long from that triangle portion where you would transfer from Bexley to Wisteria Loop also to the south of Secutus Route, which does support again the existing traffic counts and the district. distribution used in our traffic study and of course I'll be here to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

1:35:32Mm.

1:35:34Good afternoon, Shelley Johnson, [address removed], and I have been sworn. Thank you for your time today. Um we wanted to go through I I know as everyone recalls when we were here on um September thirtieth we got continued by the commission and the request that we were um sent back with was to explore the potential of and if you could go to sheet two on the exhibits if you don't mind. That shows the um the two alignments of Mysteria Lutz. I don't think that's cheap too.

1:36:06Um well nevertheless we were here on the 30th. Um you guys did ask us to go back and explore the potential of moving what is our existing access, which is the existing alignment for Rasterial Loop out to US 41. You asked us and that is our only access. We have no access south. I don't know if that was really brought to the Commission's attention at the last meeting, but this is our only access, the existing Westerial loop. That alignment. So we were asked to go back and look to see if we could potentially move that alignment north onto the Clark MPD,

1:36:36the MPD y'all just approved earlier on consent agenda. And so we did. We've had we I feel like we vetted it very thoroughly, very extensively. We spent the last month talking to staff, talking to our team, talking to the Clark MPD, to DR. Horton's representatives to try to see if we could we could make it work. So what we can define is that the construction cost estimate to build that future extension is I think is a little over $2.7 million. So

1:37:06if you remember what our current wasterior loop extension and substantive road improvement is, is to approve the current alignment and that's going to be around $914,000. So to go in to do that future alignment, we're talking about a $1.88 million dollar gap. and costs that cannot be recouped anywhere. And that's assuming we take a million dollars, almost nine hundred and fourteen, fifteen thousand dollars of credits, we take that in and absorb it on our existing site, we're still left with $1.88 million. and

1:37:37cost that we have nowhere to recoup. We did talk to D.R. Horton about it 'cause we thought, well, I talked to David, we we said, Well maybe D.R. Horton will buy them. We did have a very v couple conversations, two or three conversations To ask if they would buy them in bulk. They would not agree to buy them in bulk. We asked if they would buy them in quarterly increments, the 1.88 uh impact fee credits, if they would not buy them in quarterly increments. We asked uh will you do a joint construction prob project with us? We'll build it with you. They were not agreeable to that.

1:38:08The only thing that they offered up was that they would give us, they potentially, if necessary, and if needed, so it's not a for sure thing, they would buy between 15 and 20 impact fee credit unit increments from us if they needed them to absorb into their MPD, the one you just approved, the 410 unit. My understanding from talking to everybody is they may have other credits to the North because of all the work they're doing that they're gonna have to absorb. So that's why I think you know their position was look, the best we can say is if needed. So we were left with $1.88

1:38:39million and and nowhere to go with it. The second big issue, and I don't know if this was really reiterated during the last commission meeting, was there's a class one wetland where this vision road is supposed to go. And it is going to be severely impacted. So what we determined and the people we've talked to our engineers have determined we're gonna have to do DEP permitting and the best case scenario is two years to get a permit. to even build this alignment. And that's that's a that's a good scenario, two years. I mean we're we're talking about 108 unit

1:39:09development in Res 3 that's ready to go under construction in the spring. So we have this little development stuck and we did look, we tried, and that's the the the things we went through in terms of trying to make this work. So we're stuck with this little development. that's being asked to do what is basically three times, if not more, What a typical development would be required to do in Pasco County to comply with substandard road requirements. And I went back and I read 901.4 because I thought, what you know what are we trying to get to here? And

1:39:39this is what 901.4 says. This is the intent of the substandard road in your code, to ensure that deficiencies on substandard roads impacted by new development are corrected and mitigated. Ensure that deficiencies on substandard roads are mitigated by new development. Our substandard road is the existing flute. It's the existing access. We can mitigate and correct that road. Your staff said that we can do it. Our experts have said we can do it. So we we with although we try and we understand

1:40:09you all are trying to make everybody happy. I mean to to require this little development to try to take on this $2.7 million you know improvement project that literally has nothing to do with it complying with Substandard Road because we can comply with Substandard Road. We're gonna comply with Substandard Road by approving our road and the existing access that we have to the site, the only access we have to the site. Uh you know we are not we don't have to we don't need to do future alignment improvements in order to comply with substantial road requirements. We just don't. So as much as we ri we're trying

1:40:40to be amenable and to try and find a resolution, you know, it's just not a reasonable thing for this little development. to go forward on. So we would we understand your position, we we would request your support um and just to go with the original recommendation coming from staff that we were in agreement with, which is that we you know build that that existing alignment. And and it'll make it better. And I think as you mentioned earlier Um Mr Chair, that you know, ultimately it's gonna help values. I mean the road's gonna be better for 'em. For now. You know, someday some big development will come along and they're gonna handle that big vision

1:41:10road improvement, but it's not this little guy. But I'll be happy to answer any questions.

1:41:14So Shelley, you s made one statement that is not completely accurate. You said that you had no use for the credits and you talked about both the Clark MPD may or may not buy them. Our ordinance is very clear that you can sell those credits anywhere in the same benefit district. So That would be I think believe the whole central the entire central district. You could sell your credits. I mean your your own consultant just talked about all the development around you. Any

1:41:44one of those people could buy your credits.

1:41:47Uh my re my reaction to that is we're talking about a hundred and eight unit development. We're talking a t about a uh the difference between a uh two point seven million dollar road and a one point or nine hundred and fourteen thousand dollar substand on road improvement and ultimately You know how the impact fee credits, they have to build the road before they're gonna get any credits. I don't know if everybody understands that. In other words, KB Holmes would have to build a almost three million dollar road. in order to start getting credits. For this little hundred and eight dot you know unit development. I mean it just

1:42:17from a s from a circumstance and factual it just it just doesn't make sense and it it it it you know it it's not necessary. We can comply with the code by doing the improvements to the existing

1:42:27I understand. I'm just saying I don't want Planning Commission to be under the belief that the only people that could buy those credits.

1:42:36By saying that that Clark you made it sound like Clark and PED was the only people that would buy your credits. That's not an accurate statement.

1:42:49that's gonna buy $1.88 million in impact fee credits. We don't we don't have anybody in the benefit district that We know of that wants to buy 'em right now, we know D.R. Horton doesn't want to buy them, and we know we can't use them except for maybe a million of them at this point. That's kind of where we're stuck. We're we're between a rock and a hard place on it. But we'll be happy to answer any questions.

1:43:09Okay. Did uh anybody else would like to speak?

1:43:18Right.

1:43:22Um Ray Gad, uh again, not here in my official capacity, but rather as a citizen of Pasco County, um [address removed]. Um Mr. Couch and Mr. Nacko couldn't be here today due to competing commitments, so uh I'm also speaking on their behalf as well. Again, I want to reiterate that we are not opposed to the development. We're not opposed to the D.R. Horton development. I will compare the two though. I mean D.R. Horton could have come

1:43:52into this community and pushed forward in using Wisteria Loop, but they chose not to do that. And are taking their traffic out on to 41 via Roaches Run and Causeway Boulevard, which I might add will be great improvements to that area. My concern with this development is again, not that they're building houses, but then when we look at it from a planning perspective, Bexley

1:44:23South and Bexley North. are gonna come uh across that railway track and down Mysteria Loo. And in addition to the traffic that's going to come out of that neighborhood, there are three schools that are planned for the future between Tower Road and Bexley Road, whatever it's called west of the railroad track. And so I think we have an opportunity to get it right from the get-go because eventually this road is going to be problematic. Uh

1:44:53all that traffic coming out of there. is gonna hit a stop sign and then they're gonna hit 41 and it's gonna be a right turn only. So what I'm asking is that we take a future per perspective on this planning and try to get the right the road uh right ahead of time. I can't dispute their figures. I don't know how they got these road figures, they seem high to me. Um but um I think folks have been reasonable. D.R. Horton has agreed to give them land, property, um, ponds,

1:45:23uh they have an opportunity to give fee credits. So I think folks have made an effort to create a situation that's better than the one that was initially proposed. I understand that the wetlands an issue, but wetlands in Pasco County are always an issue. So I would ask that you approve the staff recommendation and thank you very much for your time.

1:45:50Thank you. Is anyone else?

1:46:03Vicki Wall, [address removed]. And

1:46:07you've been sworn by

1:46:09Yes. Yeah. Um one questi first question, have any of you or staff actually been to that site?

1:46:20Yeah. Okay. Well that's promising. Um I do understand too that there is going to be As they stated too, there's going to be a road that will have access from the south. From another party, I realize that's going to happen. And at that time, that's going to impact, because there will be people passing through that subdivision to come out on Bexley Road as well. So at

1:46:51what point does that impact traffic wise? And I'd also like to ask the gentleman what date the traffic study was done, a couple years ago, or was that recent?

1:47:07When they come back up they can answer.

1:47:09Okay. And uh The other thing I want to say is that for s over sixty years this neighborhood has remained the way the forefathers wanted it to be rural density. And I think there's a lot of misunderstanding from the public or lack of understanding from the public about future land use and who decided that. And it isn't

1:47:40decided by the taxpayers. It's decided by usually

1:47:47a consulting group that comes and lays out what they think. And that's not the people that are impacted. So You can just go anywhere and draw anything, but at the end of the day there needs to be consideration for the wetlands, the animals. Because we're taking their habitat all across this county away. And our lifestyles and all the other developments in Land O'

1:48:17Lakes, from Oakstead to Asbell Creek, Wilderness, Conerton, they didn't come into neighborhoods. Those were large, vast tracts of land. So they didn't bother neighborhoods. This is trying to put a concrete jungle in the middle of an established rural neighborhood. And we had eagles this morning, which I have pictures of. That you're taking all that away eventually. Just have respect. That's

1:48:48all.

1:48:50Thank you.

1:48:55Mr. Chairman Clark Hobby Hobby and Hobby PA again. I'm only here because I think Mr. Tanello had a question for me. Do you still have a question or

1:49:03I just wanted you here because

1:49:04if

1:49:05you know there's If some if you're gonna you know Shelley wants to say something I want you to be able to answer the question is Okay

1:49:11just the only thing I would say is we don't have a position about how you all go with this road thing. That's really for the county and KB to decide. The only thing I would say on the record is we are gonna dedicate the right-of-way and we're prepared to dedicate the additional land for the ponds, the mitigation and and Shelley knows all that. Um the issue I think is more of a feasibility with cost and and permitting and stuff. But we don't have a position one way or the other. I'm happy I'll remain here to answer any questions.

1:49:44wasn't really willing to buy any of their credits. So can you speak to that?

1:49:49I I don't really want to talk about private conversations because I think that's really inappropriate because I think we did have a conversation. It was not intended to be something for the public. I would I'm gonna speak in general terms about what any of our de uh Home builder clients would say about fee credits. We generally are willing to buy fee credits when we need them. and the people have them available. And sometimes we'll buy them in some tranches, but we generally do not buy them prospectively

1:50:20in advance in large quantity because for us it's money out the door that we get charged interest on. The different home builders have different amounts of interest that they charge internally to their divisions for spending money on stuff. So and just I'm gonna talk and uh just a vacuum here. We wouldn't go out and buy five million dollars worth of fee credits generally from somebody unless we had an immediate need or close to an immediate need for five million dollars worth of fee credits. We might buy a couple of hundred thousand at a time. As

1:50:50we need them and we'll use them on houses pretty quickly. But that's just a generic term. Again, I don't I really don't want to get in the middle of characterizing private conversations. I don't think that's

1:51:01a

1:51:01good thing.

1:51:09That was sort of a only if Hagman didn't build Roach's Run you would be able to do that.

1:51:17The overwhelming majority of our work off site will not be fee creditable. And it's highly likely that the work on Roach's Run will be done by others.

1:51:35What I'm hearing you say is there is at least a possibility that you would buy their credits over time. Not in a large amount I th

1:51:42I think that's fair to say.

1:51:43Okay.

1:51:45Thanks.

1:51:46Thank you.

1:51:50Okay, anybody else to speak? Shelley, you want to come back up or uh you wanna answer the somebody wanna answer the question about uh stu when the study was done?

1:52:01So are you with the applicant or are you on the other? I

1:52:04know the neighbors. Okay. Yes, sir. Could we

1:52:07have your name and

1:52:07address, please? My name is George Wall. I live at [address removed] for the last forty seven years.

1:52:14Okay.

1:52:15I have eight.

1:52:16George, have you been

1:52:17sworn? I'm sorry? Have you been sworn? I sure did. Okay. Yes. Um What I'm what I'm up here trying to do is I know we all have children and hopefully grandchildren. I have eight grandchildren, four of which live close by. Um, four of them live close by to say they're within uh probably five hundred yards. So it's nice to have them come over to the house and enjoy everything being in the country environment.

1:52:48One of the things that concerned me is years ago we had some bad water flooding to gain us access from Wisteria to down Bexler Road to our residence. And it was quite substantial. We had to use a pickup truck. It was three or four feet of water. I'd say three feet to be honest with you, it could have been a little higher at some point in time. Um And my concern is if you start rerouting a lot of the water, which the water

1:53:19that uh comes from Wisteria flows in the Clark property, Clark property it flows across uh Bexley and uh um uh our neighbor runner his his place and then flows out of it can't sp i it kind of comes in and winds back out again. So if they start diverting water I'm concerned about that. Um I'm also concerned about um the roadways. I'm a senior citizen. I hate to admit it, but I am.

1:53:50Uh I'm concerned about all the traffic that we have out in front of us, the traffic that's being created. There's different periods of time such as when school goes in, school goes out, that it's almost impassable. It really takes you a long time. So if if an emergency vehicle had to come down the road, they would have some difficult response time. Um I don't hope to die anytime soon, but it is a concern for uh me and but better yet my children

1:54:20and my grandchildren if uh they ever have an accident, I'd like to think that they could be protected. Thank you so much for listening to me. I appreciate it and um good day. Thank

1:54:32you,

1:54:32George.

1:54:36Is there anyone else?

1:54:46Daryl Winter, 19750 Bexley Road. I am the landowner and I have been sworn in. You know, we bought this property a number of years ago and Vicky Wall was our realtor. And you know, one of the things that interested us, and we wanted this property, we looked at it for years, was the fact that all the property around us was undeveloped, you know, the Bexley Ranch north, the Bexley Ranch south now. Um and

1:55:16so as I spoke, I you know, part of the Bexley Ranch Obviously sold. We weren't expecting that. We were told that it would probably be in the Bexley family for years and years and years, but things changed and that happened and they sold. So then the north part of the ranch sold, and well, that's in the family, and it will never sell, but it did sell. The Clark property, which you just approved earlier, was a 40-year trust. We don't have to worry about it. But being

1:55:47a little bit naive, 40-year-old trust doesn't mean anything if the man that owns the trust dies. So now you just approve that. My goal for moving out there was to be that rural community where I was there by myself and didn't have to worry about development. But as you can see, that's all changed. So that's one of the motivations for us wanting to leave. One of the main drivers was was the the Vision Road coming through through Bexley, which would obviously take a big chunk of my property all

1:56:17along the facing part of it. And then that north-south road that they described on the map as well is going to come through the middle of my property at some point in time. And that's there was a third vision road that I understand they've taught now taken off that was to intersect with that north south road and head out towards the Bexling Ranch. So that was my motivation for wanting to move away from the development that was there. And I can understand my neighbors

1:56:45Not want to have their lifestyle disrupted, but by the same token, I've had mine change dramatically from what we thought we were gonna move into and be our final home for the rest of our life twenty some odd years ago. So just I appreciate you considering and hearing all the arguments. And uh just I know the county staff has made a recommendation that they approve that road as it was. provided to you and the vision road I know is not part of that and I

1:57:15don't think should be part of it. If the vision road happens, is it gonna be one year, two years, three years, five years? Nobody knows. We've seen other vision roads that have been on the maps for ten, fifteen years, like Ridge Road and some of the others. So just uh appreciate your time and hearing what what people have got to say.

1:57:34Thank you for coming up.

1:57:39All right.

1:57:41So I have a sort of a odd question, but it can I Mr. Hobby, is your traffic engineer for the Clark M P D still here? Can I ask him a question?

1:57:54Only pucking crossing here.

1:57:57You can ask them whatever questions you want after. I just I

1:58:00Can we treat treat this like the Senate hearing one if you start at a standing on the state?

1:58:06We don't want to do anything like this. So Steve Andrew Link issociated five O two three West Laurel, Tampa three. So I guess my question is Yes.

1:58:14Why didn't the Clark M P D show a connection to Steria Loop? I mean, i it obviously has the right away there and it's po it's it's a refute vision road on your property and an existing road that touches your property. Why didn't The Clark MPUD connect to Wisteria.

1:58:32Uh you know, part partially is is marketing and and where they thought the better marketing window was and so that's what they looked at i is you know w what it is at Wisteria versus where it is where where they're proposing to put it in with the new roads and improving the roads and and they came to the conclusion that that was a better marketing window. You have people able to get out to a signal at uh on forty one at Roaches Run. So from their standpoint, they thought that was a better marketing window.

1:59:00So it was only marketing, not safety?

1:59:10Right. Um yeah, i I I don't know if it was necessarily safety, it was obviously capacity. You know, again, getting in and getting out. You've got uh at uh forty one into a stereo you've got a directional median opening. So if you want to go north you have to make a right out and go down and make a U turn. You know, again they they they felt that from an overall you know, access standpoint that the uh the access with Roach's Run provided a better opportunity for their clients and their and their customers to be able to get in and

1:59:40out of the property.

1:59:42Okay.

1:59:44Okay, answer my question. Thank you.

1:59:49We still have the question of when the study was done.

1:59:52Here, oh

1:59:53he's coming up.

1:59:56Again, for the record, Michael Razor. Um there was a question posed regarding when our traffic study was done. It was within the last um twelve months. It was issued December 2020, so it is a recent traffic study, and included in that study were several adjustment factors typical of any traffic study performed in the county and elsewhere, where we actually uh from the traffic counts adjusted up twenty percent for peaks to reflect peak season and COVID. Um And in addition, I'd like to state that The traffic study, uh again, put traffic on Wisteria as that is

2:00:26our us our only access to US forty one. We don't have a choice. We have to go east at the current time. There's no access to the west, south, north. We have to go east. Thank you.

2:00:36Thank you.

2:00:39All right, is that it? Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yes.

2:00:47Please come up for the microphone, please.

2:00:57We have your name and address, please.

2:00:59Mary Chapman, [address removed].

2:01:04Okay Mary, have you been sworn?

2:01:06No.

2:01:08Could she swear?

2:01:13Okay. I have a question about this ac um accessing the Clark property to Roach's Run. Now that's

2:01:22Madam, you realize that the Clark M P D's already been approved.

2:01:26Oh, I know, but I just have a question. Because Causeway Boulevard, which was mentioned, is a private road. and property lines abut the Clark property line. And I'm just wondering How they're going to access

2:01:44So ma'am, the The public hearing for that M P D has really been closed already, so you probably need to just have that conversation with Mr. Hobby, who's I believe still here, or Mr. Henry who just spoke. Yeah the right at the back. We really can't be taking more testimony from the public on the Clark M PD because it this body's already acted on that one. one.

2:02:09Okay. Uh because you know we haven't gotten

2:02:12any kind of

2:02:13implementation on it or anything.

2:02:15You haven't one sort of pardon me?

2:02:16We haven't gotten any kind of notification on it except this letter for today.

2:02:22Right, but the chair asked for public comment on that one earlier and nobody s spoke.

2:02:28Okay. Well I'm not familiar with this kind of thing, so I guess I missed the boat on that one. But uh I just

2:02:36Well Mr. Hobby's right back there.

2:02:40Mr. Hobby can answer your questions and if you'll have another chance to speak on it when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners.

2:02:46Okay.

2:02:47Okay.

2:02:47Thank you.

2:02:48Thank you. He's right back there in the middle.

2:02:55He's the guy with the target on his chest.

2:03:03All right. I guess uh Shelley, we're back to you.

2:03:09Yes, I just wanna I rate a couple things. Um I I think Mike reiterated we have one access that's we don't we can't go south, we can't go east, we can't go west. We've got to go out with Stereo Loop. That's our only access on this property, otherwise we're landlocked. Um someone had raised the question again about it being a rural area. This is a central market area, it's a res three, we're developing it in accordance with its existing land use, what it's planning. Um we're not asking for a land use change. Um I think Mike effectively

2:03:40addressed all the traffic questions that came up last time and today. Um and there was uh the last question about flooding and obviously you know that'll be something that we'll deal with when we get to site plan. But um we do appreciate your time today. We did try to make it work, but this this little development is can't can't can't feasibly take on that project. We can comply by utilizing our existing material investors, bring it up to bring it up to standards. Everyone agrees we can bring it up to standards. I think it'll be a better road for everybody out there. And um obviously as you mentioned

2:04:10earlier, you know it'll it'll help values we think too as well. So We thank you for your time.

2:04:15Shelley, can can I ask you before you sit down, so the two point eight million dollar number that you threw out before as far as the the cost to complete that vision road, what does that consist of? Is that the physical construction does or what what is that cost

2:04:29consist of? I believe it includes permitting and physical construction. Engineering permitting and physical construction.

2:04:35Okay, so there's no no consideration of because as I understand in the Clark MPUD, all the right-of-way is gonna be dedicated as is that so there there is no right-of-acquisition or any other land costs, that's just physical

2:04:46construction

2:04:46costs.

2:04:46Yeah, and I I think a lot of it and I don't wanna misspeak, but I think a lot of it's tr is driven to by um the class one wetland that's gonna be impacting the DEP permitting, which is obviously significant. So

2:04:57Okay, thank you. And

2:04:58that's Shelley, that's just the cost of the yellow road. I'll speak to the old the map that was up there.

2:05:03That's just the yellow segment of road? Yeah. Just that one section. Just that small section on Clark, yeah.

2:05:09And and just for clarification, I know that I think you had mentioned condition sixteen was the condition sixteen and seventeen I believe are the ones you guys are objecting to. What is what is your client willing to do versus what that condition's requiring? And can you give us a brief summary of that?

2:05:24Yeah, absolutely. Um if you go back to the original um condition that we came to the commission with on the nineteenth that staff was in support of or on the thirtieth, I apologize, in September. It basically addresses our improvement of the existing mysterious loop so that we can bring it up to standard. If you look at number 16, 15 now has become 16. And if you look at that, it basically, I think it was just an oversight maybe when the agenda was put together, but it basically is written as if we have to do both improvements. So now we're looking at a four or five million

2:05:55dollar improvement versus just you know one of them. So obviously that just puts it even more further out of the easy.

2:06:02Yeah. I have I don't know if I can't.

2:06:05I don't think the sixteen I don't think the sixteen A and C chain, they're rejecting to sixteen B, which is the real line.

2:06:15So it would be I can approach the bench if you want or provide it, but it's the existing 15 on the original recommendation approval by staff. And I do have a copy of it here.

2:06:24And Dave that that B would consist of the yellow segment that's highlighted on the right. I believe

2:06:28they instead of building the yellow segment, they want to build the they want to improve the existing roadway, the V segment, I guess you could call it. Yes.

2:06:40Yeah, the way I don't know the way that was the the kit condition was revised. I think staff was under the impression that the commission was wanting us to build both roads, fix both you know, do both roads. So it was uh the way it's written now is it's

2:06:50I d I don't think in my opinion that's not what staff dropped it. They wanted you to just build the O road, not the existing V road. Right.

2:07:00Nevertheless, condition number fifteen on the original is you know what we're I hear what you're saying, David, I'll have to look and I don't have it sitting in front of me but um

2:07:09So Shelley, just to be clear, so at the last meeting I remember specifically asking the question Would you build the realign road? And the answer we received was yes, but we won't do both. So Was that not an accurate answer back then?

2:07:29Well I think that what ended up happening when we went back and started to really vet it, we started to realize what kind of a issue we had. And I think a lot of it was due to the easy thing.

2:07:38I was no I was being truthful. I think at the time. I flat out

2:07:41asked. I

2:07:41flat out

2:07:42asked.

2:07:43Well let me let me just say that my client was

2:07:45The answer I received was yes, but we will not do both.

2:07:48You

2:07:49want me to get the tape?

2:07:50No, no, I'm not say I'm I'll I'll let you finish and then I'll I'll respond, definitely.

2:07:54But costs and increases the standard.

2:07:57Right. I think what ended up happening is initially that day, yes, we were like, okay, 'cause we're we're trying we tried to make it work. We went back and actually looked at everything. I mean we had the full intention of doing it. Obviously we spent a lot of they spent a lot of time and money and all of us c on paying us consultants to try to vet this issue in the last month. Um and it just didn't work. So yes, at that time I totally agree with that. So you do admit

2:08:16that you did say yes, that you would build a little bit of a little bit of a little bit

2:08:19at that time, yes, we've said yes.

2:08:21excuse me, we don't speak from the floor. Well you can bring him

2:08:24up if you want.

2:08:26I think my client was of the impression that yes, they could maybe they could do it and we did say that. I would not deny that at all. I don't I would have no reason to, if it's the truth. Um and ultimately when we went back and looked at the cost it was the biggest.

2:08:37Well my concern is there's there's objectors who One of the road builds. Specifically the sheriff and Mr Couch. Who may have left that meeting thinking that your client was willing to build a rear line road and didn't show up today because there was a representation to this planning commission that you were willing to build that realign road.

2:09:00Well, I mean I would disagree with that, but I mean obviously that's you know, your perspective. I think that, you know, they're they were well aware that there was a lot of stuff still up in the air when we walked out of that meeting. I mean that was my impression, my feeling.

2:09:13I think you left them the impression that you would build that road. So then that's probably why staff put a condition saying you would build it.

2:09:20No, and I don't think we've repres represented to staff that we're gonna that we were gonna build it either. I'll

2:09:25be happy to play the tape for you.

2:09:26I'm not talking David Where your client

2:09:28specifically said they would build the real line road. Do you want us to go play the team?

2:09:32I'm not saying that we did not say that at the prior meeting. I think I've said that. What I'm trying to say is that when we went back after we were in the middle of the year,

2:09:40we reconsidered what you said.

2:09:42Um yeah, we w we looked at what we s what the cost was and uh obviously a decision had not been made on it so we were we vetted it, looked at a cost at it to see if we could do it and determine it's just too much. But yeah, I'm I'm not gonna deny that we thought we could potentially do it, yes. And we made that representation. And we we looked at it.

2:10:00I don't want to.

2:10:03Michael Dade the KV Home, I have been sworn. I did make that statement, David, that we would build the Vision Road alternative presented by the opposition group. However, upon further review, our engineer came up with a minimal construction alone of 2.8 million versus our original estimate that well we either do the sub Standard road, or we'll build this road that the residents want, thinking it was an even Stephen trade.

2:10:33Even if it was a little oval, we probably would have done it. Then we found out that it impacts a giant wetland. The new 404 permitting with the DEP could take over two years. And that is an additional cost that hasn't been factored in. So the magnitude of that improvement has grown exponentially. Does that answer the I was being truthful with the facts I had at the time.

2:10:58Okay. Okay.

2:11:00Thank you.

2:11:05Yeah, I think um

2:11:07So it's obviously up to the Planning Commission about what you do with this. The only thing I would say that is if you intend to make them build the Vision Road, you do need to add language saying that they would get mobility fee credits for the additional cost because that language is not I think staff intended to put that language in and just never did.

2:11:28Okay.

2:11:30Yeah, I think, at least from my perspective, I I left that meeting thinking that it was an either or and uh I think it was clear that at the time that the Planning Commission felt that w that the envision road was the the best alternative for all concerned and for future development. Uh to account for future development. So So um

2:11:57It's up to up to the commission. You who has any questions? Does anybody have any questions? I I personally I just I I I just think that

2:12:08It's not it's not our responsibility to make a development financially feasible. You know, we don't want to make it more difficult, but We know there's gonna be substantial traffic coming from Bexley Road. And to bring it to think that we're gonna bring it onto a Wisteria at that that hard left turn is to me is we're just putting off a bad situation.

2:12:40Conversely and and play Dell's advocate for a second and ask if if the renter M P D's not approved or they do not do those improvements to the Vision Road, what happens then? That traffic's still gonna come from Bexley?

2:12:53And then the county would probably have to construct the road.

2:12:59Well, I d I don't remember what Bexley's conditions said in terms of that connection and whether it can be made without making improvements. I don't know. Maybe staff knows but I don't remember what it says.

2:13:15Does anybody on staff happen to know?

2:13:18But I will I will tell you that it's probably gonna be very far in the future before that part of us in North makes that connection.

2:13:29In my opinion, the Renner M P D would put traffic on that road far b

2:13:35It at a date that's much sooner than Buxley was.

2:13:40Because Bexley is other way you've heard of it. Renner, this is the only way in and out of that project. Bexley has Sun Lake Boulevard, which is their major access point, so they have no need to make this connection in any time soon.

2:13:57Also with Bexley David, I know that I looked at it a little bit and that they do use Tower Road a lot to get out.

2:14:02Tower Road's another. So they really have two other ways. They have Tower Road that goes down to Ashley what it used to be Ashley Glen, I don't forget what it is. Bexley Boulevard or whatever it is now. But they have two two connections out to State Route fifty four. And eventu and I will also say Sun Link Boulevard will connect to Ridge Road, which will also go to 41. So the Bexley connection to this road is it's on the Vision Network, but I would not assume that it's going to

2:14:32occur any time soon.

2:14:45All right. Well

2:14:50Anybody like to make a motion?

2:14:56I'll make a motion for approval with the condition that David put in about the um I don't know, can you restate that, David?

2:15:03Well are you wanting to condition sixteen as is but adding mobility pre-credits?

2:15:08Yes.

2:15:08Okay. So then the motion would be to approve the conditions as presented with an addition to condition sixteen that they're entitled the applicant shall be entitled to mobility fee credits for the additional costs of building the realign. With jury loop through the Clark MPD, subject to the applicant entering into a separate development agreement.

2:15:34All right. Then we have a motion. Do we have a second?

2:15:49I mean I I'll just add, I mean, obviously I I I understand and and yes I I completely agree that the representation was made that it was gonna be an either or. I mean you guys were willing to do either one. I understand the fact that now, you know, costs and and there are significant impacts and there's significant costs associated with the construction of that road. And I think that does put A pretty tremendous burden on this single 108, 110, whatever it is, unit development.

2:16:18But you understand that we're we're we're not responsible for making their project feasible. We're responsible for making sure that the county ends up with a workable situation. So

2:16:32That I do understand. What i is there anything else I I guess just looking at I don't know enough about future plans, but what is the property to the west that will also use Bexley?

2:16:41To the west

2:16:43of Renner.

2:16:45Over here.

2:16:46Mm-hmm. Between the railroad tracks and the renter property.

2:16:49Does staff know what the zoning is or comp line is of the property to the west of Renner M P D?

2:16:55Yes, so the zoning on that is AC. And regulators.

2:17:06Press three.

2:17:09So I think you could probably assume that if they came out with a res three, three units per acre density that

2:17:16they likely would you know, assuming they could deal with the roadway issues, they they would staff would probably recommend approval.

2:17:27Yeah, I think I I share Jamie's concern about putting all of it on this one particular

2:17:38David, can I ask you so adding the mobility fee credits to the mix, I mean, what does that offset for them? Is there any way to

2:17:45Well what it allows that what it allows them to do is they get credits. So they build the road, they get credits. I think Shelley's point is they could use certainly use those credits for the 108 units they're building, but they probably would have excess credits that they the amount the the cost of the road would likely exceed the amount they could use on site. Sure. Understood. So that's why we got into discussion about potentially selling the excess credits. to either Clark MPUD or somebody

2:18:15else. Our ordinance allows for credits to be sold any to any development in the same benefit district or adjacent benefit districts under certain circumstances. So And I don't know that I have the staff as a map of the entire benefit district, but it's fairly large. It's basically the whole central area of the county. Basically from the Sun Coast to the interstate, they could sell the credits anywhere in that area. And we know the

2:18:42development going on in that area. Sure.

2:18:46And I I mean e again, I I don't necessarily want to rehash a hundred percent of the last meeting and the last time we're here, but Uh again Can somebody give me a cliff notes version of the concern with the intersection? I know obviously I was out there the intersection, the existing intersections not great. I mean the existing conditions of the roadways out there, widthwise everything else are not great. Um but I I just my question is is there any hybrid condition or interim improvements that could be made that would maybe appease everybody?

2:19:18So it it depends on whether you're talking about the con the condition of the pavement or the geometry. So staff, I believe, and is Essen online or somebody?

2:19:31Yes, we have them all online.

2:19:32I mean staff can it probably Essen can probably explain to you what the existing condition of the roadway is, but staff was initially requiring them to Bring that existing roadway up to county standards in terms of its pavement condition. What staff was not necessarily addressing was the existing alignment of the the the geometry and alignment of that road.

2:19:55I think they were trying to avoid just that sharp left turn.

2:19:58No, I I and I I mean again I was out there today, I was out there this morning and I I saw that there's limited pavement width, there the limited

2:20:06So you could assume that if they complied with the original condition, the one that was being imposed at the last meeting, that That would address pavement width and pavement condition. Okay. What it will not address is

2:20:23Don't well the the g well you see it the way it's intersection.

2:20:29And I I guess that's my question. Is there any hybrid I mean it sounds like we've acknowledged that the vision road construction is a ways out, unless these folks do it. Is there any interim condition that would make the geometry of that intersection? feasible and meet everybody's concerns.

2:20:48So you're talking about the sort of Yeah.

2:20:52I mean i i is there anything that can be done to realign that portion of the intersection for people that turn left to miss the wetland further to the north?

2:21:00Well

2:21:02And I I'm not an engineer, but I guess the question would be I'll ask the engineers, could the vision road be f brought further south so it's not impacting the class one wetland as much? Or if maybe not not at all? It doesn't look like it.

2:21:18This is uh this is Async Koreo uh in Girl Penny for Uh they should road um It's not

2:21:26set in stone. But

2:21:28it can be you know propose a different alignment that would avoid perhaps the mercantil.

2:21:38I don't know how far south that class one wetland goes. Does anybody know?

2:21:44Are you are you I'm sorry, are you up to answer that question? You're up here to answer that question.

2:21:50Well, uh I'm Paul Skidmore. I'm with Florida Land Design and Permitting, uh, 3030 Starkey Boulevard. I have been sworn. Uh it's my understanding that Category One wetland goes all the way down to the existing Wisteria Roadway and then discharges under the roadway. And the other question regarding that intersection there, my client is willing to try to improve that intersection during the substandard roadway improvements.

2:22:23What do you mean by that? Because I think that's what Mr. Jordy's question is. What would you do to the intersection other than fix the pavement width and condition?

2:22:32Well we could realign it. Uh I do believe that there's a sufficient right-of-way in that area because that is a part that's platted. Uh I believe it's a 70-foot right-of-way that uh we could straighten out that kink in the road if if it will fit in the right of way and um

2:22:52Well I thought you just said the wetland came all the way down there.

2:22:55Well the wetland comes all the way you can see right there, category one, it even shows it going over the roadway, but it stops on either side of the roadway. And there's a pipe under the road that dr that provides the drainage for it.

2:23:08Yeah, but you're talking about moving the road.

2:23:10No, no, we're just talking about moving where the the intersection is between Wisteria and Bexley and Wisteria going south. It's got a real big kink in it. If you have the aerial up, I think we could take a better look at it. And

2:23:26j just for confirmation from staff, even though that map shows in category two, it is category one?

2:23:31It is, yes.

2:23:37Well, technically staff does not categorize wetlands until they've gone out and done a field study. I don't know if staff has done that or not.

2:23:52Well this is what you're talking about, right? Right. Correct. So I mean this doesn't come all the way to here.

2:24:00Mm-hmm.

2:24:07I mean SN is correct that that vision roads the alignment of vision roads can be changed. Mm-hmm. Um

2:24:21If I may describe the current situation, there's essentially three skewed intersections which could be modified to create one T intersection with traditional ninety degree angles. Uh that would improve the the the current situation in regard to the SKUs and the the quote hard left turns. Especially accompanied with the appropriate signage. But currently it's a it's essentially three

2:24:51skewed intersections functioning as one. So there are alternatives that could be employed to modify that to operate in a more traditional fashion.

2:25:05So Uh Mr. Dardin, if that's something that you're proposing, I In my opinion this probably would need to be continued until you could get a drawing that shows what that would look like 'cause it You know, unless you're willing to defer that to the Board of County Commissioners. But I mean that if that's important to your recommendation

2:25:27How I don't think staff can just drop a condition in these conditions that says they're gonna do that we would need some kind of sketch showing what they're going to do to that intersection.

2:25:39Well I I think I'd like to hear at least I mean personally I think this needs to be continued anyways because I there was a representation made that it was an either or and they would be willing to construct a vision road. Now that they're not, if there's consideration of some other alternative, or does that even address the concerns of the residents in the area?

2:26:02That's what I'm saying. I think they would need to provide some sketch of what they're doing and then let's see what the residents say about it. I agree.

2:26:13Okay, so we have a we had a motion and we did not have a second, so that motion dies for lack of a second. So do we have another motion?

2:26:23I'll make a motion to continue. Uh Denise, I guess you'd have to look that up for us. We don't have it in Newport, Ritchie?

2:26:29Yeah.

2:26:30Following the eighteenth. Yeah, November eighteenth, we're fine with that. I just wanted to tell you that.

2:26:35Okay. Uh so we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, any further discussion of the motion?

2:26:43I mean again I just in light of a I hate to keep continuing things and kicking can the can down the road, but I think just in light of everything we've heard today, I I don't know that we have a choice and that gives the Jason owners the opportunity to come back out to the public hearing. So

2:27:00Okay. So we have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Aye. Motion carries. So it's continued until what date?

2:27:17November eighteenth, twenty twenty one, one thirty in Newport Ritchie.

2:27:20Okay.