P8 PDD-20-0223 Village of Pasadena Hills comprehensive plan amendment
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, Jan 9, 2020
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jan 9, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 6m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 91% of 201 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
All right. Let me find out what's going on with the clicker and we'll move on to the regular agenda.
Hey Denise. I have a pointer, that'll help.
Okay, I got it done. There was just something going on with the
This is old timey there.
Oh my god.
I think so. No, I have that if we're
not on the regular agenda. Yeah, right. Yeah. Or P eight. Is
that
right? P P eight. P eight. Yeah.
About same.
Okay, great.
Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ernie Monaco. I am a manager of special districts for Pasco County, of which there are two dependent special districts: Village of Pasadena Hills and Connected City. Just to refresh your memory, these limited single-purpose dependent districts are created to prevent urban sprawl, manage environmental and conservation resources, and to help assist the County to deliver capital infrastructure, facilities, and services in an efficient manner so as not to overburden
the local governments and taxpayers. In fact, their origins are in Chapter 189, Part 2 of the Florida statutes, and actually in your stewardship ordinance booklet, which is one of those four, the first two pages actually describe the purpose and intent of the village of Pasadena Hills dependent special district. Each of these districts, referred to as stewardship districts, have a unique set of enabling documents. And you can see in your packet there's a there's a proposed financial plan. Proposed Compreh Plan Amendment, Proposed
Land Development Code, which includes the Sto Stewardship Ordinance and the Master Roadway Plan. That part will be another item. Right now we're going to focus on the Comprehensive Plan. Today I bring to you two items, the first of which is here, P8, PDD 20-0223, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Large Scale 20-005, Village of Pasadena Hills, Chapter 2 revisions. Uh let me do this right now quickly then just
pass out We don't need anything else.
Ernie we have a lot of books up here. Are you passing out more books? 'Cause we have all these books here. Are you sure books? No, we're f we're full. We got We have a bunch of books up here. What are you passing out?
I'm passing out the revised ordinance that goes with this, because that I think the I just think we have. Okay. I'm gonna give you both ordinance.
Right for the two final weeks.
Uh you don't really need to because this is this is something that's just staff is it's a modified version of what was uploaded.
Okay. So this the car basic
It's a land development code.
No worries.
Thank you.
Yeah.
What I'd like to do today is actually give you a brief history of how we got to where we are today, and then to continue to go through the slides to demonstrate the Complan consistency. And then I'd like to after that turn it over to Pat Gastaway, who's from Height Design, who was hired by the property owners group to put together.
Can I stop you for a second? They need to take their conversation outside 'cause it's
Sir, you you all can discuss that out in the hall.
Okay. Okay. What I'd like to do today is give you guys a start over, please. A brief history of how we got to where we are today. Then I will continue with the slide presentation on the Comm Plan Amendment. And then I will turn it over to Pat Gasway from Height Design, who was hired by the property owners group of the villages of Pasadena Hills. And he's actually pr present the nitty-gritty, the actual specific details to the revisions of the V O P H update. Yeah. So these just I make a note here that these revisions are actually a
joint effort between the planning staff and our very talented and very precise legal legal beagle here, David G over there, as well as with Height Design planners and Joel II representing the legal for VOPH property owners group. We met weekly for a few hours a week. We hashed out a lot of things. It was actually pretty I I I find it very enjoyable because a lot of his working sessions and negotiations and talking about things. Because I went through this with Connected City. So I actually enjoyed it a lot. And I'm really thankful these guys are smart and intelligent. Anyway, we
wanted to do a lot of good work, and I think we've actually the product group does represent that. So following Pat's presentation, the public hearing and your vote, I will then present the other Land Development Code amendment requesting that in order to implement the the actual plans for the amended Uh C P A L. Let me look at the project overview. Oops, I keep going back here. Hang on, sorry. Okay, here we go. Okay. We would like you to find the proposed revisions as a result of the twenty nineteen VOPH update, amending
Chapter two, future land use six to be consistent with the Pasco County comprehensive plan. Quick location here is the village of Pasadena Hills. It's bounded on the west by Curly Road. on the north by Clinton Avenue, on the east by US 301, and on the south by Elin Boulevard. Specifically what we would like to resolve, I don't just read the Company's Plan Amendment title in a sense. Oh I'm sorry, I got the wrong earlier. I'm looking at Pittman here. Okay. Um the
village of Pasadena Hills proposed flu amendment chapter two goal flu six text and figures pH dash one through p. eight, pH twelve through pH fifteen, and tables p. two through tables p. four. You have that in the booklet as well as a red line version that was in the Sire Brief history. So Back in 2008, the County Comprehensive Plan was amended to include the villages of Pasadena Hills. The physical plan was very innovative at the time. It included village centers with mixed uses, residents that could actually walk
to the village center because they're all within a quarter of a mile, gridded streets for efficiency for traffic, buffers around each village, and precise requirements for the number of schools that were required. whether needed, protections for view corridor and environmental areas. The area plan actually won a well deserved APA award and these features are still intact. By 2012, the VOP financial plan was adopted demonstrating how private developers would cover the cost of road infrastructure through the Mobility Fee Program. And I want to add
as well that the Mobility Fee Program for Prazic County also won an award. So the VLPH property owners group covered the original cost and the new update that you have in your packets in exchange for future development fee credits. Development fee credits are actually a better and easier way for the county to fund a lot of these special areas plans. We do this in connected city as well. But like every plan There's always a need to update whenever the conditions and the resources, the funding opportunities, the technologies, and the market demands change over time. And
this is the case here. Despite the rebounding recovery in Pasco County these last few years, VOPH has had some very distinct development disadvantages. There were higher surcharges imposed than elsewhere in the county. There was a lack of utilities in close proximity. There were also Was a mandatory TND requirement, which is rather unique. The surcharges needed to be reduced so that VOPH would be more competitive and create a more level playing field. The property owners group met again. They had hired Height Design to update the plans
to include more accurate road construction cost estimates, because we had just done connected cities, so we had we had access to real prices. The beneficial and unexpected Funding sources that came in from external entities like Connect the City and F DOT. There was more accurate school land acquisition costs. The county had purchased the land for the superpark, and there was also some changes to the actual borders of VOPH. With Connected City, Ashley Grows was actually transferred to Connected City because it was under one developer now. We did want to extend the infrastructure, particularly
gigabit infrastructure, across the street. And finally, Zephyrhills actually annexed some outlying parcels. So there was a lot of need to update the plan, which is why we're here today. Across the street in Connected Cities, Connected City residents are allowed to use their golf carts and they would be accessing the VOPH superpark. Well we as planners wanted the same opportunities for the VOPH residents. We want them to use their golf carts on particular paths that will give them access to the village centers, all village centers, as well as Because if they wanted to go to the Crystal Lagoon, for example, when they were ever
public public events, they would be able to do that. So we really tried very hard to make those two communities very easily a seamless transition between the two. So anyway, the update needed to reflect all these new changes and opportunities that have arisen. Let me focus on the Complan consistency before I turn it over to Pat for the details. Let me go.
Wait, I'm going backwards. Hold on. Hang on. Okay, proposed new revisions. I'm just gonna give you a quickly synopsis of the new revisions in the Com Plan. Uh the TND is no nutritional neighborhood design is no longer mandatory in VOPH villages. It's the only place where it was mandatory. It's still an option. It's always an option. And actually, I have discounted rates for mobility fees as well if you grab that option. But now it's an incentive option and it's consistent with other areas of the county. In exchange, we felt like the alternative transportation facilities would become mandatory. These are basically
the golf cart paths. It's an easy way to explain it. Making this consistent with Connected City and allowing the Connected City and VOP residents the option of using their golf course, the superpark, the commercial centers, and the schools. And then the development applicants must now host, this is mandatory, a publicly noticed village meeting at least 30 days prior to the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee. So those are basically in a nutshell the new stuff. There's a lot of text revisions, there are clarifications. Pat will go over some of those things as well. I
think it's important to note that there are no changes to the number of entitlements. There's no changes to the number of residential units. There's no no changes to the intensity of non-residential uses in square feet. Sometimes people think we get these things we're changing things. We're not touching that stuff. I'm gonna just list a few policies here that shows uh consistency. I just make a note right now there is one we are still to resolve. There was some concerns raised by parks and natural resources, very last minute stuff, but we wanna make sure that they're happy. about
uh linkages and we're gonna meet with them on Tuesday. So if we just can hold that off until we resolve it, which I'm sure we will be able to resolve, let me at least go through these policies here that are consistency. So we have policy flu six establishing the long-term vision, smart growth, long-term mobility, successful tr uh transitions, urban services, capital construction of infrastructure. So, you know, so I said earlier that long-term plans have to be reviewed because conditions change, markets change, and things of that nature. So it was very important that would justify this. Also, the addition of alternative transportation
facilities for VOPH residents, connected city residents, adds the access to the superpark, the schools, commercial centers, construction costs, new external contributions for roadway improvements have also impact the financial plan. So we are bringing this up to date.
Policy flu 6.1.3 mechanisms for urban development. Since the Pasadena Hills area plan is an overlay to the Pasco County future land use map, tax revisions were needed to clarify, and this was important, that any rezoning or similar action which results in an increase in density or intensity, even if no Complan Amendment is required, it does require adherence to the VOPH regulations and a financial plan fee structure. When we were reviewing past Applications that have come in this the way the text was written early was very confusing at times. And we needed to make sure that we understood this that everyone understood
this is an option. You can always develop your property and what's under existing existing zoning and not have to be subject to the surcharges that are expected. Okay? So uh but compliance with uh other regulations otherwise is required. Uh policy flu 6.4 connected multimodal transportation system, allowing additional means of transportation, golf carts, electric personal assistance, mobility devices, mopeds, micromobility devices are the requirement to construct alternative transportation facilities and
to allow these additional means of transport expands this policy and incorporates new technologies available today. So we're coming. With a recommendation, the local planning agency file the proposed amendment, Com Plan amendment, consistent with the Com plan and to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Um I'd like to now uh uh in uh introduce actually Joel wanted to say something? Just and then Pat.
Good afternoon, Joel to an associate. I am land use counsel for the property owners group who comprise the village of Pasadena Hills. I just have a couple procedural uh explanations to give and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Gasway to briefly summarize these proposed changes. You, as the Planning Commission, of course, have fairly recently inherited this oversight responsibility to some extent for Pasadena Hills based upon the termination of the DRC and the transfer
of many of those powers and responsibilities to you. But just it by way of explanation, Pasadena Hills, as Ernie pointed out, was established in 2008. as the prototype. It was the first special area plan district we did with a separate stewardship district. Uh so we've been living with this now coming up on twelve years, ironically. But as Ernie pointed out, despite some great planning and great capital improvement budgeting, the marketplace
simply didn't embrace it, and we're here to try to address that. And this is being done as a concerted action. As they did originally, the property owners group is funding all of the consulting expense to support the county-initiated amendment. They did that with the original enabling documents. They have, let's say, a few million dollars invested to this date in the planning of this area. Um Many of the matters, the individual
approvals based upon the stewardship district structure, they pass through, as I believe you're aware, they pass through the VOPH policy and planning committee. They have an advisory board basically like yours appointed by the board. But at this point what they review are the individual zoning requests, and that's why this is a little different for you. You're not used to seeing this on a regular basis because those individual MPUDs are required to go through that advisory board and
then they make the recommendation to the BCC. However, based upon the restructuring that the county's done now, the comprehensive plan amendment that deals with the overall policy structure. The comprehensive plan amendments ha obviously have to come through you now as the local planning agency. And in addition, because the stewardship ordinance itself was codified in the land development code, that amendment of the land development code has to come through you for your recommendation. Now we took we took
all of these items to the policy and planning committee Last month. Uh so that they could recommend review and recommend approval of the financial plan. So it gets a little Technical and complicated. They have to present the recommendation on the financial plan, which is the capital budget. You need to present the recommendation on the comprehensive plan amendment and the stewardship district ordinance revision. But with that said, Pat is going to present to you the exact same overview that
he presented to them. He gave them the full overview so they could see their pieces and yours. And Pat's also going to give you the full overview so you can see all those pieces, since both of you obviously have responsibility and jurisdiction over the pieces. But we think it helps if you see the entire picture to better understand the pieces we're asking you to recommend approval for. With that said, uh and to expedite things, PET is going to present the full overview one time, not repeated on
the two agenda items, uh, even though I'm sure Mr. Goldstein will tell you you need to take official action separately on the two agenda items. But he's going to give you the overview once Feel free to ask any questions you have at any time and we'll do our best to help you understand uh uh this monstrosity that uh is documented uh before you. So ha I'm happy to answer anything procedurally and Pat will get into all the details with you. Thank you.
Can I ask one quick question if I may? Yes, sir.
Is this uh Ben Hurley? Is that after the attorney that passed away a number of years ago?
Correct. Uh this goes back to 2008. Originally Ben Harrell represented uh a portion of these ownership groups. I represented a portion and he and I were collaborating uh Owned this and unfortunately it was it was during that adoption process and prior to the final adoption that Ben unexpectedly passed away and that's why the county named this district in in memory of Ben uh because he had was instrumental in initiating
the original concept. And that's why
he was a I met him a number of years ago and he was a very kind person.
Wonder wonderful gentleman. But that's exactly correct. And that that's part of the history of this is David and I were working with Ben on it and uh probably about halfway through that process he he he passed away unexpectedly and uh David and I wrapped it up and the commission saw fit to name the district in in Ben's memory.
But the other question I really have in here is is So this is a large complex area with a lot of people from living in here. We only see one high school, one elementary school, it looks like two universities. Do you think that's sufficient for an area this
is that's a good question and Mr. Gasway's going to explain uh what a great job uh the school district has done and uh um
but I No what I'm saying is the numbers are a lot better than what you're seeing.
There are eleven my recollection is there are eleven school sites here and I think eight of them are already uh committed or or acquired.
I understand what we will give us I haven't had a chance to
It'll be part of Pat's presentation and he'll summarize that for you. And of course, Richard is here to uh to back that up. But we've worked with the school district on that. And the truth is we're actually in better shape what from what you hear in a moment, we're actually in better shape in this area on meeting school demand than we po probably are in most of our other active development areas, thanks to the school board being very proactive in this. Yeah.
So Joel, before you speak uh be before Pat speaks, um, can we just see if there's any public comment on this because Pat may want to tailor his presentation to respond to any public comments we get. If we have any so
So
it's one person, okay?
Melanie Romagnoli, City of Dade City, Community and Economic Development Director. And I just have a general comment. Um, it's not an objection whatsoever. Um one of the things since um leaving the county and working for the city that we've discovered is that a lot of the planning areas are also part of a utility service area and a joint planning area for annexation with the city. This is the Northeast Rural and as well as Villages of Pasadena Hills. And my general comment is we need to make sure that we are in concert
with each other on when properties annex into the city, under whose jurisdiction that this is going to fall. And in previous conversations um around Zephyrhills with all the annexations, there was some confusion. So if if I can have um uh possibly Mr. Goldstein address If they come into the city, are they underneath the VOPH or Northeast Royal versus the city's jurisdiction when it comes to comp plan, future land use and um zoning changes and amendments?
So the short answer is that
It does if there's if any of the properties in V O P H are annexed into whether it's the city of Dade City or Zephyrhills, it will not affect the boundaries of the district. Now there are some things that were already annexed that I believe Ernie's team has cleaned up to make it clear in these new boundaries that they're not included in these district boundaries. However As a general rule, if you there's new annexations, it doesn't change the boundaries of the district or the tax increment district that was created for this
area. That being said, if a property is annexed, um The city in theory could change the land use and zoning of the property, but it remains under county land use and zoning until that happens. There is a policy in these plant in these books, if you want to read them all, um that does say that annexations are discouraged in this area because um they do have a Financial impact on the remainder
of Pasco and Hills. Specifically, there's surcharges, there's tax increment revenue, there's fees that are paid in this district that if they are then annexed into the city of Dade City, there won't the county won't. Recover those fees and it could actually cause some of the infrastructure in the area to not be able to be funded. So I would caution Dade City. We made the same caution to Zephyrhills when we met with them, be careful what
you're doing in this area. Because if you're annexing property and you don't have a plan to serve it with infrastructure, um, and you're not going to collect the same fees that The county would it could impact projects that the county and cities are jointly funding. Um and so we made it very clear to the city of Zupper Hills that The county would not look kindly on annexations in this area.
Understood. The the issue lies in that we have a we currently have an interlocal agreement with the county stating there will be no contest with properties being annexed within this area and they cross. That's the issue that we need to just get straightened out from county to city to make sure that we're all the same
thing.
Um if there's property that clearly Yeah. Isn't gonna have an impact on the financial plan, but it may be that we can just remove them from the boundaries now. Um I encourage you to sit have a meeting with Ernie and his staff to go over that 'cause we had a meeting with Zephyrhills to try to hash some of this out. Sounds like we need a similar meeting with Dade City.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Joel, did you want to add anything to that or you're gonna thank you? Okay.
We agree.
Okay.
All right.
My name is Pat Gasway. I'm with Hype Design and we've uh enjoyed the luxury of working on this special area plan since uh about 2007. Um since its original adoption in two thousand and eight, our firms uh represented numerous property owners um within this special study area. And so we've had many years of um opportunity to implement uh the Um
rules and regulations that we'll be talking about today. So not only did we have the luxury of participating in the original creation along with many other people, but we've had the luxury of actually working with these words to try and create a development pattern that makes good sense for Pasco County.
The amount of uh of ground to cover here is a bunch and um and this is a a relatively high level summary of the differences between where we are currently in our adoption and where we are proposing to be. Um when when it uh w when it's unclear because of of the the the nature of the complexity of it or the unfamiliarity of it that any of you might have, Don't hesitate to
stop me. I can pick back up wherever you want to uh to make sure that we get any questions you might have answered. Um Let's see. This really started
many years ago with a group of property owners that brought forward the idea that this area would benefit from very specific planning and a very long-term implementation strategy. And recently we had another group of property owners, many of which common to that first property owners group, that came back and said. Said we really should revisit where we are. Times change, as Ernie pointed out, things are different. And the property owners group really wanted to create a more
level playing field in Pasadena Hills that otherwise exists in the remainder of the county. Um in in being able to try and do that, they wanted to remove some negative market factors, the the two biggest ones that we'll be dealing with today. Um and and I will point out one one nuance here. That says phase one because there will be two phases of this. This first phase deals with eliminating
um two large negative market factors. The excessive development fees in terms of surcharges charged above and beyond the existing mobility fees or impact fees that apply in this suburban area, as well as a mandatory TND development requirement that is currently in the rules. When when we look at the those
two things, those two elements cross a bunch of uh of these books. The regulatory uh framework that actually implements these things is a combination of four different things. One of them is the stewardship district ordinance itself, which is the second item on your agenda today. Um the The first one is the comprehensive plan overlay that applies to the entirety of this landmass. In addition to the stewardship
district ordinance, there is a master roadway plan that implements a roadway grid network that supports the transportation in this area. And most importantly, at the original adoption, the goal. was to create a fiscally neutral financial plan that put the burden of of infrastructure costs on new development. A wise move and uh and that financial plan demonstrates a strategy in which to be able to do that effectively
over a long period of time.
When we first look at this agenda item, the comprehensive plan revisions that we're pursuing, first eliminating the mandatory TND form of development and requiring a mandatory alternative transportation facility in the multimodal network that serves this area. clarifying conformance with the financial plan and stewardship district for increases in density or intensity without
the need for a comprehensive plan amendment. So for example, if somebody had opportunity because of their existing land use, but they wanted to increase their zoning to take advantage of that opportunity, in the current adoption, the language is a little bit unclear. We've clarified that. When it comes to clarifying the the protection of the Corps Reserve areas.
You heard we've had a little bit of comment from staff. We'll be doing some more work on that. Um in in addition to that we clarified the rural enclave buffers, right? So rural enclaves that existed during the adoption of this back in 2008 had requirements for some buffers. They were recommendations. Now we're changing those recommendations to minimums which are far more clear and definable for implementation. It's the beauty of having. gone through, you know, twelve
years of implementation of those rules to understand where the clarity needed to be added. In addition to that, we're we're requiring a mandatory neighborhood meeting for applications prior to the to the policy and planning committee. Actually, our our firm's been responsible for numerous uh rezoning within the area, and that's something that our firm actually elected to do even though it wasn't a requirement, and demonstrated to us there's great virtue in having that meeting.
Um and and we'll we'll talk about those in a little bit of detail. Uh for example, when when you look at this, uh this is actually a specific portion, uh it's a village master plan of one of the thirteen villages that's been adopted in the villages of Pascine Hills. Um the the this uh this network of of land masses have have multiple colors, right? The red is the is the village center itself. The brown is actually the high intensity node
that surrounds it. That is a minimum four dwelling units per acre, maximum ten dwelling units per acre intensity. In addition to that we have this this tan area that surrounds the brown. That has up to five dwelling units per acre and then outside the tan are these yellow areas here those are a maximum of two units per acre. The the rules in the comprehensive
plan overlay that's currently adopted requires everything that is more dense than three and a half units per acre to be developed in the T ⁇ D form of development. Uh and and what we have found relative to the market that is a very high level of mandatory implementation of that form of development, and our revisions are now eliminating that mandate and replacing it with the choice that
we have elsewhere in the county. You can still do TND, you can do T-O-D, right? Transportation-oriented design. And you can do mixed-use transportation reduction measures. I don't know who came up with that. But mudderum is yet again another form of development choice. And those are driven by incentives as opposed to mandates. So developers have the luxury of electing any of those forms of development. that leads them
to that choice is reduced mobility fees that allow them the desire to make that choice if they so choose.
As part of the comprehensive plan, we are now including a mandatory alternative transportation network being embedded in our vehicular roadway network. This is exactly the same type of roadway network that we adopted in the connected city, the 8,000 acres adjacent to this 22,000 acre area. And what it leads to is a very vital and important point port
for all of the additional transportation outside the the typical things that you might think of for vehicular networks. So we've got golf carts, we've got bikes, pedestrians, and other personal mobility choices that can be included now within these rights of way of the master roadway plan. Because we've adopted it previously in the connected city, we now will be creating a 30,000 acre
area where it is a seamless network of interconnected roadways that all conform with this same vehicular and alternative transportation network. It is a great way to be able to facilitate transportation of the residents within these two areas to utilize the superpark without having to require them to get in their cars.
We clarified the mandatory conformance with the Financial Plan and Stewardship District for intensity or density increases without a comprehensive plan amendment. That that language uh was at at you know in 2008 you think you're really clear and then you go through you know a dozen years and you figure out yeah it probably could have said that a little bit better and so now we've clarified that language. So when you Enjoy intensity or density increases, you are subject to the requirements of
the financial plan in the stewardship district.
We also gave some clarity here to the core reserve areas. So the Category One wetlands and the 50 feet of vegetated uplands, upland of those wetlands, as well as 50 feet of contiguous 100-year floodplain areas in addition to those class 1 wetlands. That's the item where staff is giving us is giving us some additional feedback and we'll be working with them between now and the next public hearing in
order to arrive at at uh some clarity that makes sure that all of us are in concert together.
The Rural Enclave Buffers
in the current adoption it gives this type of guidance but without the specific clarity of minimums and some more specificity with regard to the plantings and opportunities that can happen within that buffer. So for example, For example, this would be large lot rural enclave, and this would be the OPH you know development patterns. This 50-foot minimum buffer area
is defined as having multiple options where the inclusion of the retention of existing vegetation, hedges, mandatory minimum number of trees, and the The locations of berms or fences are specifically defined and those are the things that get hashed out, especially with the adjacent property owners during the mandatory public meeting that we have prior to the hearing of the first application
at the policy and planning committee.
Again, those neighborhood meetings, we found them to be invaluable. We understand that the points that the existing constituency has in adjacency to the application and gives us a good bit of clarity on how to effectively move forward maintaining a compatible application.
Um you're not hearing an item today for the financial plan. It is not required to be heard by the Planning Commission. But I thought it would be an interest an important element of the regulatory framework to understand. The financial plan revisions kind of fall under four basic categories. One are general things like the adoption of the Connected City Capital Improvement Plan cost methodology. Um the the second thing is the reduction
of residential units by twenty percent. And that only exists in the calculations in the financial plan. I'm going to say that one more time 'cause it's a little bit subtle. Right. You heard Ernie say we're not reducing any of the entitlements within the comprehensive plan. They all still are in effect. But in the financial plan, in an abundance of caution, we're saying in our experience what we found is the total maximum allowable entitlement intensity. might not be arrived at.
And if our denominator, right, the costs of these capital improvements divided by the number of units and square feet that are going to pay for it, if our denominator um is larger than we think might ultimately be, then we've understated the required surcharges. So in an abundance of caution, we've taken twenty percent of those entitlements. We've taken twenty percent of our denominator and reduced it. Having that that smaller denominator
equals a higher surcharge. We believe that's prudent based on our experience in working in this marketplace, and certainly after the last 12 years, we recognize that to be a bright uh element in our assumptions, and don't forget the financial plan gets has a mandatory update where at least every five years we need to come back and do exactly what we're doing today. Analyze it, update the surcharges, and readopt them so as to
keep pace with the cost increases that we witness and with changes in the marketplace. Um We also reflected the preferred forms of development. consistently with those assumptions made elsewhere in the remainder of the county. In addition to those general things under transportation, we eliminated some roads funded by outside sources. Thank you very much, Legislature, for bringing dollars to our doorstep and solving
some of our required infrastructure. The second thing, we adopted the Connected City External Impact. So when we look at at the monies that we're raising. with mobility fees and surcharges, we recognize we're going to take twenty percent of that money and and know we're going to be spending it outside the special area plan limit. Alternative transportation facilities have been added in the financial plan, not just in the
comprehensive plan. And we've also added some primary roadways for increased vehicular transportation capacity. In addition to that We look we worked with the school board. And we recognized the school purchases to date. School board's been very active and very effective in being able to purchase numerous sites for well less than what we budgeted previously. So they saved all of us money. Bless
their hearts. In addition to that, we recognize the school sites that have been committed to by developers who have gone through the process in their zoning applications to date. We also recognized the number of students that are going to be necessary through build-out. So we're looking at the specific level of entitlements that we're dealing with. We've made sure that we accommodated the 11 schools, we'll talk about that a little bit more in detail, with the 11 schools that we need in
total: high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools, so that we can accommodate the expected enrollment. moment for these entitlements. In addition to that, we we looked at the park land since the original adoption. Um, the the parks and recreation uh monies that have been spent have effectively purchased the land that is necessary for the two district parks and the regional park. We consolidated them into a superpark, a
single facility that has all of those facilities. facilities in it, capitalizing on the efficiency of that methodology. And the amount of money that the land was purchased for is substantively less than what we had budgeted for. So we were able to make no change in that parkland surcharge.
First thing we'll talk about: the capital improvement plan cost methodology. Really hard to read here, but when you open up your book, you'll see each one of those fuzzy little rows right there is a different type of roadway. Each one of those cross sections are very specific, detailed, drawn by engineers, and there is a cost estimate with each one of those items specifically in. Included in this adoption. So we took all those specific cross-sections, created engineering cost estimates,
and then said, okay, this cost, we're going to add 10% contingency, and we're going to add additional percentages. I wish I could read that at my age. But design, CEI, and landscaping allowances have been added to those produced. Predictable costs founded on the county's manual of costs to be used in financial guarantees. If you were going through the development process, you want to record a plat, you would
put a performance bond in place for infrastructure necessary. Those costs are estimated utilizing a manual prepared by Pasco County. Those are the costs that. that we use in our engineering cost estimates for all of those lineal feet of curb, all those square yards of asphalt, all of the alternative transportation facilities that we are including in each of those cross sections. You gotta ask yourself, how are we doing? Because we've got a little experience,
right? We did this right next door in the connected city. So we went back and looked at three specific examples. This one happens not to be in the connected city, but it's a nice example of a large collector road. So these three examples, 3,000 feet of Rangeland Boulevard, a couple of thousand feet of Murata Boulevard in the Connected City. and just shy of a mile of overpass road in the connected city. When you look at all
of these calculations, what you find is we took the contractor's pay application, right? The specific contract the contractor was paid for the construction of those facilities. and and compared it to the costs that we would have calculated based on the connected city. And we also looked at the current way the financial plan in the villages of Pasadena Hills calculates costs. It's founded on the F D OT costs
right a very different set of numbers. And what we see in these these three examples, the the the contractor's costs are on average about 22% less than the methodology that we adopted in the connected city. And it is eighty-four percent less. Than the F DOT numbers. And consequently, what the Board of County Commissioners did is they looked at this methodology and agreed that
the methodology for the connected city was more in line with the way that we are actually seeing construction costs come back from the contractors.
Uh this is the where we talk about, you know, currently the entitlements in the comprehensive plan are about 42,000 dwelling units. And in the comprehensive plan, we reduce those in the financial plan to about 33,000, a 20% reduction in the the total number of units. Again, not diminishing the entitlements that people may. enjoy, but recognizing the calculation of the surcharges would be a little bit higher, a little
bit more conservative if we assumed fewer units in the implementation. When we do that, we also reflected the preferred forms of development, right? So TND, MUDRAM, and conventional forms of development are all all have percentages assumed in our implementation strategy over the rest of the financial plan horizon. There is, of course, no change to the non-residential entitlements
at all. regardless of whether it's the entitlements in the comp plan overlay or in the financial plan.
We eliminated some roads funded by outside sources. Clinton Avenue, thank you very much state. Highland Boulevard, right, which is this segment here, about seven million dollars of infrastructure is being funded by the Connected City. In addition to that, the Connected City is also funding about $3 million of that segment of Curley Road in its realigned condition. And in addition to that, the
Zephyrhills bypass has now been elected to be reduced from a six-lane planned road to a four-lane divided highway. So those those reductions or eliminations have substantive effect in the calculation of the required surcharge to balance the fiscal requirements for transportation.
When we look in in our in our laundry list of costs, when you look at your at your budget, you'll see that there's about a $41 million reduction in our external facilities because of electing to utilize that same 20% calculation that we adopted in the connected city. A bunch of things got funded like the interchange at um at I seventy five and overpass road.
In addition to that, we added alternative transportation facilities. This is an example. This is a two-lane road. That two-lane road has two additional lanes established for alternative transportation. In addition to that, we also have sidewalk facilities for bikes and PEDs. Uh in in addition to that, there's a different typical section we can we can show you. When you have a four-lane divided facility, we have those those now this is
a slow speed road. When when we get to higher speed roads where we have higher volumes of traffic, we take those facilities and take them out of the road bed. and put them on their own individual trails outside the road. those facilities are now mandatory. in the LPH.
In this particular slide, we added a couple of substantive changes to the roads. These red roads that you see on this map, those are intermediate facilities, those are two-lane roads. The other roads are four-lane facilities like Overpass Road here.
And Hancart Road. The two new substantive changes in facilities are the change of New River Boulevard from the Xerfor Hills Bypass up to Overpass Road. That changed from a two-lane road to a four-lane divided highway. In addition to that, we have Kiefer Road. All the way from Curly. to US 301 where we're changing that cross-section from a two-lane road to a four-lane divided highway.
When we look at the school land, the Pasco County School Board did a needs analysis in this special study area. In looking at that special study area, they recognized that, yes, as in accordance with the initial adoption, we need 11 schools to support the entitlements that are coming in that area. A combination of high school, middle schools, and elementary schools. That big green blob right there is the limits of the superpark.
Um you can see The c the county has purchased three sites Those three sites have multiple schools within them. They've spent about $7 million to date. We also recognize these three purple facilities there, those sites have been committed to by the owners of those properties who've gone through the zoning process already. And what that does is it leaves an additional
two schools that need to be incorporated in the future planning as we go through the long-range planning horizon here in this particular uh study area. So 7 million to date, another 5 million in these committed facilities, and another 2.7 million that will be necessary in the two facilities that will come in the future. When you go through this rigorous calculation based on the entitlements
that we expect in the financial plan, what you discover is that Again, two more schools that need to be incorporated in the planning and the overall budget for school land is less. Consequently, the surcharge to supplement the current impact fee for school land has gone down. I'll get to the punchline in a second.
S what we said in in the parkland, thank goodness the the Parks and Rec uh had the luxury of being able to work with some property owners that are in the OPH and were able to acquire the superpark facilities for substantively less, about thirty thousand dollars an acre instead of the fifty thousand dollars an acre that was in the original budget. Consequently we Could have reduced the surcharge, but we left the surcharge the same in order to allow
some funding for future interest because right now the county has borrowed money from the environmental land acquisition program as well as the other uh benefit districts for uh parkland and those loans need to be paid back. We've allowed the surcharge to be able to accommodate some of that interest that may be necessary until those loans are paid off.
Okay, so what's the punchline? The uh the summary of the development fees. Uh we've got three basic surcharges that operate in the villages of Pasadena Hills. Transportation surcharge is now going to be $259 per single family dwelling unit. That's usually the measuring stick that we use. Um there's a different fee for each family. type of land use, but the one that we use to to commonly evaluate the changes is
a single family detached unit. The school land surcharge has gone down to $112. So the transportation surcharge has been reduced by $5,208. The legislature did us a tremendous favor by allowing a bunch of funding to come to this particular area. Um school land has a savings of $732. per single family dwelling unit. The parkland surcharge
has had no change. So when you add these savings, there's a $5,940 savings per residential unit. in terms of the surcharges that are going to be charged in order to have a fiscally neutral financial plan. Uh and and consequently th this chart has gotten more robust because there are different fees for conventional Different fees for mul for Mudderham, different fees for TND, and different
fees for TOD as well, just like in the rest of the county. facilitating choice.
In addition to the financial plan that supports all the decisions that we make in the comprehensive plan overlay, there's a stewardship district ordinance. We did many things. The easy way to say it is we updated the ordinance to implement all of the changes that I just talked about in the comprehensive plan as well as the financial plan. In addition to that, we've increased the administrative fee in VOPH. Currently it's 200. We increased it to 400
in order to be able to accommodate the additional things that are necessary in VOPH that the staff wouldn't have to do outside VOPH. In in transportation We added a transportation analysis that is specific to the villages of Pasadine Hills. It's unlike timing and phasing that you would typically hear in an application coming forward elsewhere in the county because we have a mandatory grid system of streets, and the analysis says: instead of
analyzing the entirety of the area that may be affected, we analyze the specific roadway network adopted by ordinance that you are going to have an application with. then and we determine what portions of that network is necessary to sus to safely support the implementation of that application. So A new transportation analysis and we updated the percentage of the internal roads alloc or the internal road
costs allocated to roadways and the portion allocated to bike and PED. Bike and PED facilities in VOPH are much more robust than they are in the remainder of the county. Uh the remainder of county, I think, is a right now at about two percent of the total roadway costs are being allocated to bike and ped facilities in VOPH, that boosts up to ten percent. So almost a five-fold increase in the amount of money that's dedicated to those. non
vehicular improvements. We also added something that's not been done in the county. We've added the opportunity to create a VOPH fee credit registry. So when you build one of these big pieces of infrastructure as an applicant, you create an a mobility fee credit. And those fee credits may be larger than all of the credits that you can utilize in your development. You
may not have enough density or intensity to recover all of the investment that you've made on behalf of this financial plan. And consequently, we're creating a a fee credit registry where others within V OPH can identify who they can go to in order to purchase unused credits. Um all of that was accomplished in this revision, as well as we've updated a master roadway plan. That roadway
plan Again, founded on very specific engineering cross-sections and quantity and unit price calculations that demonstrate the costs associated with each of those roads instead of using very gross and oftentimes not applicable F DOT average statewide costs.
In addition to that We've detailed all of these intersection geometries so that people can understand the additional right-of-way that may be necessary at the intersection of either a two-lane by two lane or a six-lane by four lane. All of those are now detailed and shown specifically for predictability. If you tell people what you expect, they're far more likely to do it. In addition to that, there are
exhibits that are shown on aerial photography that demonstrates the rights of way for all of those roadways that are required in the roadway network so that again not only the public but also the development industry can be put on notice, these are the roadways that we expect to be in your development plans.
I realize that's like drinking from the fire hose. That's a lot of ground to cover, especially on things that you may not have been familiar with during that process. uh happy to to go back and and to talk about anything that that wasn't particularly clear.
All right. Great. Any questions from up here?
The only comment that I have is uh I I I not disagree with anything, but the only problem that I have is that why we didn't receive these books a few days before this meeting to review this and get familiar with that. That's the only comment that I have. Okay. Does it make any sense?
You actually received a re a red line version of the changes as well as a text that wasn't in the book format, but that came with your Sire packages when we put them on on there. This this is today because all it is is it took what was in the SIRE and basically put it into formats actually easier to handle. But it's the same information you had before.
for a couple of days. So it's just we need to be informed when it's something that compreh e that So much information. I no disagree with the plan. I love the plans, but it's just to be able and be Sure that we have all the information information we needed to make the right decision. That's all. I believe that it's no ha wasn't handled proper. Okay.
Hardy, while you're there, so I did get a couple phone calls about the um the rezoning, the density increases that occur outside the villages. And I know that we clarified that language To kind of level the playing field between the villages, the density increases in the villages that are subject to all these requirements, and then the density increases outside the villages that are it wasn't clear whether they were subject to these requirements.
Like the enclaves, you're talking about like outside the countryside?
Any the countryside, anything outside the
villages.
So we've added language to make it clear that if they're increasing density, they're subject to these requirements.
Yeah.
The only concern that I've heard well, I've heard a couple concerns, but one potential concern is As you saw on the agenda today, we have some density increases where they're just adding one unit. Yes. Okay, so we need to figure out is there some de minimis threshold on those density increases outside the village that you're not subject to the plan because I'm not sure we intended you know a single rezoning to add one unit. I don't know what the right threshold is. I don't know if it's
a threshold we use for timing and phasing or for something else. Right. But there probably is some de minimis level of density or intensity increase. outside the villages that shouldn't subject you to the plan and we need to run that I know I propaganders group may wanna because You know, we're trying to level the playing field for them. I mean, we don't want large rezoning occurring outside the villages that don't have similar requirements, but I doubt that even that group would object to a a rezoning for one unit. But
w I don't know where the right threshold is, but we need to think about that before this gets to the Board of County Commissioners.
Right. And I suggest we're meeting on Tuesday anyway, so let's talk put that on the agenda.
Is that like David said, is that 10 units, 50 units, 100
units? We have to quantify
it. Right. What's a development trigger that you legitimately become a development if you're known to be a development, you need to be treated like all the other developments.
No. That's reasonable. Yeah.
So we just need to think about that. And then the other comment that's somewhat related to that is the all the zonings that occurred prior to V O P H and what level of density increases are they getting, if any, without triggering this plan. And so we need it's the same conversation but we need it's related. Okay, we will handle that.
You have a somebody behind you that wants to speak.
One one more question, quickly if I could, Mr. Chair. Um it appears in the southeast corner on some of the maps that I'm looking at they're still city designated property within the boundary of the POP. Is that correct?
We're
I got what let's go ahead and get up to the microphone so we can get it on.
You know, years after we first started this, there have been those changes. Okay. And we are in the process now of comparing property tax maps. We had meetings with Zephyrhills, like what David has said earlier, hold off, you know, stop doing this because it affects other things. And so we're looking at all those things put together. We will have a final map that will match that and will match. And it'll be the actual official at least twenty nineteen OPH boundary with parcel numbers. Okay.
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman Members of the Commission, Renee Brown, Natural Resources Manager. Both Ernie and Pat mentioned that we had some concerns, so I thought I should clarify what those are to you. Um our concerns pertain to the proposed changes to the core reserves and open space system. The core reserves are based on Category One wetlands and named lakes, but they also include upland habitats associated with these wetlands. and they are described in the comprehensive plan amendment. And a significant
part of the comprehensive environmental protection strategy that they've outlined in their comprehensive plan amendment. There are three components to this comprehensive environmental protection strategy. All three of them relate to the core reserves. And the core reserves took considerable effort to identify and put in place. So we feel that more due diligence is needed before we can agree to any proposed changes. We are planning to meet with them next week. We also plan to conduct a thorough analysis of Propose additions and removals of each habitat
type and conduct a field review so we can verify these in the field. So I just wanted to clarify that. And um we look forward to meeting with them next week.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah, you can I assume that means you're gonna work on that before you go to the commission meeting. Yeah, BCC. Okay. Anything else from up here?
I was just gonna mention from the school perspective we met with David, I met with Joel and Pat and Christy and we've this was back in October, so we've gone through all this and we support going forward with this. We have enough school sites so we're good.
Yeah.
Okay, can you? All right. Do I hear a motion?
I make a motion that we approve the uh the comprehensive plan.
We probably need to go ahead and take action on P eight first and then do P nine.
Okay, eight. Well that we approve PA P eight as presented.
I'll second that.
The motion is second for the discussion. All in favor? Opposed? Okay.