PC7 Crossways MPUD zoning from AC to MPUD
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, Jun 6, 2024
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, Jun 6, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 54m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 87% of 322 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay, so we're gonna move on to item PC seven for presentation. Okay and that will be um Mr. Jacob Gates will be presenting the item.
Okay, I just say it's clear, uh we're coming back to PC nine later. Okay, so you get a chance to speak. Okay.
We're back we're on PC seven.
Mm-hmm.
Good afternoon, gentlemen of the Planning Commission. This is Deja Bou. Once again, the Crossways MPUD is here to be presented on June 6, 24, 2024, Dade City Planning Commission.
There have been some substantial changes since the last time this was presented on October 5th of 2023.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Basic overview is similar. The biggest changes are to utilities and the size of the development itself in terms of entitlements. Zoning amendment from AC Agricultural District to the MPUD Master Plan United Development District. The future land use is ROR for a small sliver parcel to the north, and most of the MPUD is Route 6. The purpose is to allow up to 130 single family detached dwelling units on 29 and a half acres.
And there is a secondary option that I will be elaborating on later. The location is to the northeast of US Highway 98 and west of Old Lakeland Highway. This is the generalized location just to the southwest of us currently.
And this is a context map.
And the nearest MPUD is the Triple J M PUD to the southwest.
Jacob, before you leave this slide, can I ask you where is this M P D in relation to the
Cherry Hill M P D that went to the board? It's more than I would say more than ten miles away.
Okay.
Yes. To the east, to the southeast of the Cherry Hills M Pud.
This is the standard location map of an aerial. We have the current zoning district.
The future land use. You can see the R War sliver at the top.
This is the master plan oriented north first because standard it's read in a different direction just so you can see how it relates to the location map. And this is the master plan as it's read. There have been several notes on the master plan. You will note the change in entitlements, you will note the change in the notes box, and the change in the note that the access
points will meet the intent of the code. Can you go over what those changes are? I sure can. Absolutely.
So the applicant reduced the proposed units in response to the Plan Commission's concerns and comments on October 5th, 2023. The density would have been five point nine six. If you recall, the maximum amount allowed in the previous version of this MPUD was 176 dwelling units. Now the maximum allowed amount is 130 units. That would reduce the density from 5.96
dwelling units per acre to 4.4 dwelling units per acre for option A. And option B, which I will show in the next slide, is 1.3 dwelling units per acre. They both fall under the maximum density allowed by the project's future land use classifications. which could have allowed the hundred and seventy six units back in October.
Is there any note about a wall or a fence? I think we had a discussion. There
there is. There's a condition of approval for the fence. Or excuse me, the wall. It's a basic. Yes. I'll find the specific one here. It's condition of approval number 58. Okay. I'll read it out loud for the record. Developers agreed to install an eight-foot-tall masonry wall bordering the southern side of the MPUD, specifically the northern western sides of parcel number eighteen twenty-five-twenty-two zero zero zero zero zero zero three
zero zero zero zero eight zero, and the western side of parcel number eight. Excuse me, one eight two five two two two zero zero zero zero zero three zero zero zero zero seven zero. The masonry wall shall be constructed prior to first record plat approval. Record required landscaping shall be on the side facing the wall away from the MPP. So Mr. Hall, who owns the property to the south, who is here today, will have have
the landscaping facing his property so he's not staring at an eight foot wall.
Okay.
Next slide. So this is to illustrate the different entitlements that the applicant could choose to pursue given market conditions. The first unit is to pursue 75 40-foot-wide single-family detached lots. and 75 50 foot wide single-family detached lots for 130 residential units total. 4.4 dwelling units per acre, and option B is pursue
half acre size lots for the single family detached lots, which would be 40 units total, which would be 1.35 dwelling units per acre. And the terms of the MPD are such that based on market conditions the applicant could choose to pursue either A or B at their discretion. I will also illustrate one of the reasons why the disparity is so different and why it specifically happens a lot.
Clear me up one. Says forty foot wide, seventy five units, fifty foot wide, seventy five units, total a hundred and thirty, but seventy five and seventy five is a hundred and fifty.
Excuse me, that's uh typo it's sixty five. Okay. Mine mistake.
Jacob it just to back up, yes you said it was at their option, but the way I read the conditions if they don't get access to county utilities it's not really at their option. Yes. That's they they they can't build 130 units unless they have access to cash. That's so it's that's correct.
Correct.
That's that's the if I remember this correctly, and I'm sorry 'cause this was October or whatever we heard. Yes, sir. It wasn't that they didn't have access to the utilities, it was it was a long way. Okay,
correct. Right. Well the agenda memo says that they're not our utility department is not confident they're willing to provide utility service to the site. So I'm only just trying to correct the record because Jacob said it was at their option and I that's not exactly what it
says. Alright, I'm done. I'm sorry, so I'm confused. So now utilities is saying that they don't have capacity.
They're not saying they don't have capacity, at least the way I read the memo and Jacob's Can elaborate on this. Yes. They're not sure whether they're willing to provide water and
sewer service to the site. That and the option where they would have to connect to Pasco County Water and Sewer is option A. Because there's no way we could allow one hundred and thirty units with septic and well serving each unit. However, the half acre option allows them to pursue well in septic for their utilities on each of the residential lots.
So option A really is subject to getting sewer and water. Exactly. It's not really an option, it's subject to it.
Yeah, option B is if they can't connect. Yes. Option kind of time limit on
you're gonna ask the same thing. Yep. This it's the standard six years because we have there's no way to tell the future if in six years or a handful of years lines may improve and it may be more feasible to connect to Pasco Water and Sewer. That's why we left option A on the table. Just in case things improve. So Pasco County Utilities
is not committing to provide capacity at the site
currently? Not at this time. Okay. But we left language and the conditions of approval and we communicated with the But doesn't Mr. EUV
expire after six years?
It does. It's up to them if they want to extend the expiration date or if they want to pursue utilities. From Pasco County water and sewer just before the six-year mark. Say five years, four years, there's no telling what the
capacity may be. I
want
to be clear about the expiration date. Every time the governor declares a state of emergency in the state of Florida, those durates durations get extended by six months plus the duration of the state of emergency. So it's not uncommon for MPDs to get multiple state of emergency extensions.
Right. I understand that. I just I don't know that he answered the Maybe he did answer the question, maybe I didn't understand the answer. Is there a drop dead date by which they have to decide I'm either gonna pursue sewer or I'm gonna pursue septic, one or one or the other.
The the drop dead date is the expiration of M P D. So the the the subtext is that if they want to build sooner, they will have to pursue option B. So it's up to their discretion in the long term if they want to pursue option A or option B. But in order to pursue faster, they would have to choose option B because as of right now, after communication with with Mr. Adolfo Gonzalez, Pascoa
County Utilities, they're not confident that they would be willing to provide water for this project. Is
there a reason
they're
not
willing? So the nearest utility line is actually a well that's deep and serves the residential neighborhoods to the south of the total beverage destruction and the industrial business to the south of this APUD. The concern is that they may not be able to reach it to this project and be able to serve with
that well in particular. However, if they're a
question of capacity.
Yes, it's a question of capacity, but it's not necessarily that they don't have capacity. They're just trying to preserve the the system as it stands.
If if you don't mind, uh there is someone here from Utilities who may be able to answer the question. Mr. Atef Hanna is here.
Thank you, James.
Uh Hannah with Pasco County Utilities, it's actually capacity more than anything. The line on uh the line is the water line is connected to the sunburst wells which is at the capacity. So we cannot provide any more.
Okay, so it
is
a capacity. It is
capacity. Okay. Yeah. So thank you. Well just to be clear, do you where's the closest line where you have Half capacity.
Uh this area of the county has actually it's not connected to Temba Way water. So they're all wells and most of these wells actually are serving uh their intended c customers at this point. They cannot take on more.
Okay, well, presumably there's some line is it fifty miles away? Where's the closest line that is served by Tampa Bay Water?
That would be we're talking about uh closer to uh
We would go probably fifty six and it it's way west of this carrier. Uh fifty six and we'll say um ten miles or more island and area.
A long
way away. Yeah. A long, long way.
W is that also where the nearest wastewater collection point would be?
Uh it's far from the wastewater, definitely.
Well, can you just have just hypothetically and I realize it's probably unlikely, but hypothetically if the developer were willing to extend it the water lines from the fifty six Island Boulevard area, would you then agree to provide service?
If
it was at their cost. I mean it's like it's it's a long way to get there. Uh it it's anything is possible. That's why if you leave it open that's fine. But I I would say it's really far from the central water.
Okay.
Thank you, Adam.
Jacob, not not to get off subject, but can s Treble J is just a south easier. Can somebody kinda refresh us on the entitlements and the if there is a timeline on on that one that we're aware
of? Yeah, there there is some information about this one in particular to the west. Triple J Ranch uh R Z six six four seven is unexpired. It was approved. prior to the implementation in February 2008 of the six year standard expiration date, so it's unexpired at this time. It was approved for six hundred and thirty-six dwelling units on November eighth, two thousand six. However, that has not Bayonet
Point. It has not been touched since that time. There has been no extension, there has been no modification. Um, and not to speculate, but I assume one of the issues may be concerns about utilities for Triple J that makes it prohibitively expensive for them at that time.
Okay. And you have the questions from up.
I got one more. Denise, can you uh just elaborate on that with the Triple J? Would it ever be uh expire?
So uh so basically as Jacob stated, so in uh in two thousand and six which is when Triple J was approved, um there was that we didn't that particular MPUD did not have a standard condition for expiration. Um however I would imagine that in the conditions there are there is information regarding for them to do um traffic impact study which that's what happened back then. So that's probably expired. So they would have to redo that
in order to bring it forward again.
That that is correct. We would not allow a traffic impact study from two thousand six to to stand. It's just not feasible.
So so my question is why um do we even why is option A even on the table when it looks like it's almost impossible to connect?
It's it's on the table because we don't know necessarily during the the six years from approval by the BCC, hypothetical approval of BCC to expiration or any extensions therein, if utilities will become um easier to obtain. You know, we have no idea what technological advancements, we have no idea what the extensions may be. So putting it on the table is a just in case. It's planning ahead, not to use it on. But
it is planning ahead just in case things may improve to the point that they can actually pursue Pasco County Suriname War.
Okay.
Any questions from Jacob, let me just ask a question. I mean, are they doing it solely so they can invest with for the 40-foot lots? Is that the real reason they're doing that? I mean I can't because I can't
speculate. Because otherwise
they could just submit an MPD modification or new request whenever they have water. The only thing they're arguably losing is this kind potential vesting of forty foot lots, which I'm not sure the board really wants to see anyway. Um so Is that the real
main reason they're doing that? I That has not been said to me to be the real reason they're doing that. Um I do have in my the memo, the agenda memo, that they're technically because the comments were committed were entered prior to August 8th, 2023, they're not bound by PM 26, which put you know, to stop on forty foot wide lots in Pasco County unless they meet tons of requirements and then the revision in February that
made them even more restrictive. Um I can't say necessarily that that's the reason they're choosing to pursue the 40 foot fifty foot option to vest, but it's a possibility. I can't weigh one way or the other.
Feel strongly both ways.
Mm.
He feels very strongly both ways.
That's
a
plausible result.
Anything else, David? I guess one last question. So Does Dade City have any plans to extend water and sewer to this area of the is it in any kind of service area that maybe we need to get you back up the tough. I don't do you know whether Dade City has any plans to extend water or sewer
to this area? To my knowledge, I don't believe that they have plans. I but I can't speculate one way or the other. Uh when the plans were first entered uh they did have Dade C listed as a water provider, however that changed to Pasco Water, Pasco sewer, so it could be that they were talking to Dade City and that they discovered like well it's it's not as feasible for us to connect to them. It might be more feasible to connect to Pasco, Water. That's a possibility. I
can't speculate the conversations that happen in the background. So
How far is it from the um the utility point utility area and date city, that agreed area. Uh
I'm not familiar
with those
lines. Uh ATEP, would you know? Yeah.
Deb, can you you're gonna have to come back up to answer any questions, sorry?
Actually, I'll see you lovely.
Would you be able to back up to the context arc? Yes.
Thank you very much.
About two miles a day. Yeah, two and a quarter it's about that. There's no
important models. It's about that. It's about two and a quarter miles away.
Is it up on Clinton I take it or in that 'cause I mean City Day City comes all the way down to Townsend Road then
uh three oh one. Golf. Three oh
one, okay.
So it extends up three oh one that way and it's going to be very difficult to extend our service area to reach to that
area to be honest.
It's gonna be very difficult for the Dade City to actually extend their service area, utility to service area to get to that uh parcel right here. Because of the cost of the line extensions or cost of the line and they they have to I mean I don't know if it's feasible for them to go beyond all this area to serve the
So they have to to do their due diligence probably to
do something
like that.
Has Dade City been asked about it at all?
I I I'm not sure because
anybody know that?
The applicant representative is here at the Chairman Mariano.
So it's unlikely they're planning on expanding their distribution system when they So we're using lines.
So even if the lines were cost feasible, they have a plant capacity issue?
Right now they do, yes. Okay.
I I'm aware that there are uh wastewater uh issues because of the which uh is it uh share? I don't think something so but the water I we probably still some issues to get there too because so they're not connected to uh a Temper B water that uh they can get more water.
as they want.
Yeah, actually I was looking at Zephyrhills, it was two and a two and a quarter, so the Dade City City limits is about a three quarters of a mile where it extends down.
And I I think but the city's also got a utility service agreement area that extends past the city limits right now. But they do have a wastewater capacity issue for s issue for sure. Um
Just 'cause that's city boundary do we know that there any lines that extend all the way out there? It looks like it's generally agricultural out in the Yeah. The far region.
It's just city boundary, yeah. Yeah.
Okay. Well as a as a general rule of the city's also a little reluctant to extend lines to areas that are not in their annex it. Because they're gonna want the tax base if they're gonna extend their lines that far.
Okay.
Any other questions?
We have a few slides just in case there's background information. Um surrounding conditions. if there were questions about right of way.
and the policy notes on PM26 exemption. However, even though they're not bound by PM26, they did agree to voluntary architectural control rules as well as landscaping standards.
Alright.
Okay, I think we had one person that wanted to ask a question.
Well, you need to hear from the alphabet first.
Okay.
Thank
you, Shelly. Do you want to speak now or do you want to wait and see what the questions are?
Um I just wanted to add two things. Um I did wanna he just mentioned we did ag they did voluntarily agree to the architectural designs and stuff for PM even though it didn't apply to them. Um and then that boundary of Dade City, there are no lines, but that boundary, that annexation boundary, that particular property is the Crosswinds property, and Dade City last week um because I represent that property as well, just approved um twenty five hundred single family homes and three hundred and fifty thousand square feet of commercial on that property.
So um it is gonna be a fairly Dunse property at that right now there is no service that we're aware of. Um and on this particular property we are looking to, you know, get service from the county and if that can't happen then we will, you know, go ahead and go to the half acre lots. So
All right.
Okay. Um, if there are no questions then I think did we have one speaker, one person that wanted to speak.
Yes, we do. Um we have Mr. Charles Hall.
Mr. Hall, could you just give us your full name and address and you've been sworn, right?
Charles Hall, [address removed]. Thank you for allowing me to express some concerns that I have. Did I first a clarification the gentleman from the county did he say the well the county well that is in close proximity to crossways is at capacity
Well, let's get clarification. I I don't I don't know exactly what he said about that. But if you ought to come forward please.
Mm-hmm.
I tap and again with uh Pasco County Attorney. Yes. It's uh that area is between I can show you here. Uh this is the Dade City service area and this is the Zephyrhills area and the project is right here. It's uh it's served that line right here is served by a well.
There's a well it's
a rough Well, it's a s no that's a lot we're talking about a commercial well, uh a larger well.
That's what I'm talking about. Yes. Right there on 98.
Yes. There's a huge tank. Yes. That is
a well. Yes. Did you say that is that capacity and they cannot get water from that well?
It's a capacity to serve what is serving right now.
Okay, so Crossways cannot draw water from that well. No. Okay, thank you. You're
welcome.
Okay, first thing the a development of 130 houses, even the forty houses, does not fit the rural area that is currently in that location. Um
I know the I know progress is going to occur. When when they do get the approval Are they going to be required to have in place any m mitigating factors for the dust that will be caused by all the construction. We live right ad right adjacent. to the the crossways development. I told you that last time. Any any mitigation factors in in
place there? And uh about the water tape.
if that many people um
I if they that many people are allowed to move in there and our water table drops. What are my options with my well? If it drops below my well.
And what about sinkholes in the area? Sinkholes are caused when all the water is used and there's a uh a an empty space under the w under the dirt. It falls in, correct? My sister who lives adjacent to the crossways development. She's had sinkhole issues twice with her house.
And with the septic tanks, is there a health issue with that many septic tanks going with the 40 houses? That many septic tanks going in over our water supply?
And the last issue I would like to raise is the, and I brought this up at the last meeting in October. That many more cars on Old Lakeland Highway. Yeah it could be five to six hundred more vehicles a day. And I asked, how's that going to affect our ingress and egress from our property? And their representative said, don't worry about it. They're going to put turn lanes in. for their development.
How's that going to help me? I don't understand that.
Okay.
Well we'll try to get some answers for you and uh if you have any other do you have any other questions.
I just want to be on record with those Yeah, that's what I can think of right now.
Okay.
Thank you.
Well thank you very much. When the applicant comes back up, hopefully she was making notes and she can respond to those. Okay, is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak? If not, then we'll have the applicant.
Thank you, Shelley Johnson again. 6400 Madison Street and I have been sworn. Um the dust control, there'll be permitting requirements that they have to deal with dust mitigation and put silt fencing up and all those things. As far as the number for the well-inseptic option that's in this MPUD, that was something that we cleared with the utility director. Um and I believe they have to pull their permits from DEP in order to do wells and those kinds of things. So that'll be all heavily regulated as well. um in terms of not impacting other wells and the water table
and all that stuff.
All right. And what about traffic?
What's that?
Traffic. Yeah, he asked about that.
Oh traffic US ninety eight. They actually did a traffic study for a hundred and seventy six units. Um but again they're only doing a hundred and thirty, you know, if we they can get water and server to the site at some point in the next six years. Um Uh but you know it's just ninety eight so I don't I don't think there's any huge traffic mitigation. There's a hundred foot of right away I think that they're being ha required to dedicate. on Old Lakeland Highway on US ninety eight. Um You know, and th they'll do access improvements and all the access management studies and all that good stuff when they come in for site plan um
to determine what turn lanes and stuff need to go into.
I don't know what the level source it was there was no issues though. It didn't trigger any additional mitigation. So but I'm sure there'll be access mitigation, you know, lanes and stuff.
Well they intend to widen the road there.
Yeah, they're giving um a a hundred foot of right away I think is what the county asked for under the corridor table. along US ninety eight in front of the property. Okay.
Any other questions? Anybody?
Only to provide a little bit more context. Um because I actually spoke to Mr. Hall downstairs before the meeting started, okay and he expressed the sinkhole issue. 807.4 C5 specifically cites the water table as the geotech report. So at time of site development permit, they will be required to make note of the water table. And also if there is an issue with the water table drive. dropping that geotech report would keep that into account.
Well, I'll respectfully disagree with that as somebody who has to Submit those reports. No, they don't. Yeah. makes note of where the water table is so that we can design stormwater systems and that but we don't do drawdown analyses for wells and the like and got a geologist here on the board who I think is over here nodding his head that yeah that's the case. So I understand. I disagree with you.
I d I defer to your attention, Mr. Hate. John's absolutely correct, yeah that's it's not that's not the intention of the geotech reports that we do, really the studies that we do are are generally just port drainage design, stormwater.
Understandable.
Yeah.
Yeah. But it didn't mean wells would need a consumptive use permit, right, from Swift Mode? No.
Not a residential well. No. If they were to do a community water supply well, they would they well and That only happens if they exceed a certain diameter and I think that's once they hit larger than five inches is when they trip the consumptive use permit requirement. So I don't anticipate anybody's residential well as that five inch diameter. Certainly not. If they are they're probably violating these water restrictions that we're trying to make
Can I ask a question about traffic? Of course. So Jacob I I do appreciate you including the timing and the phase analysis in the write-up, but I don't see any summary there's no conclusion. If there is I'm not I'm missing it. Where would I find the general conclusion about the level of service and this traffic study? Like when I Typically when I see one from Steve Henry or Mike Razor there's a conclusion section where it says, We did the analysis and
this is what we concluded. I'm not seeing it in this Traffic study, do you know where I would find it? But there's anybody on track traffic people online that can tell me where I can find the conclusion? Uh between this is us and can you hear me? Yes.
Oh yeah.
We could hear you a minute ago.
Essen, are you still around?
What were you what were you gonna say?
Well maybe circumstances. We shouldn't hear you but you're cutting out.
Maybe the applicant knows the answer before I can find the conclusion.
I think this is a mean I can respond as an camera.
Okay.
The level of service on the segment of all Link and I is Tell OST. which is better than the T which is the threshold for the mitigation. Actually we have no failure of the capsule here.
Okay, and that's with the project traffic?
Yes. Actually the project we're creating impact is not significant. The uh impact is just only one PMP cover on this statement or on this side of the US in the ODIM library.
And Amir, where could I find this information in the traffic study? 'Cause I'm
the we can do you have a study or not?
The the con for context a mirror. Amir, I actually have the traffic study in front of me. The applicant was kind enough to bring it up. Uh page nine, six conclusions, it says in the last sentence, stud study area links and intersections have been determined to operate at acceptable levels of service with and without project traffic. Okay.
Maybe I I have a different version
or maybe I'm just not looking. Th there is. It it's in our version too in the Okay. I mean it. So page eight has a table four for peak hour L O S
Mm-hmm. I'll find it. Good go ahead. I believe you. Thank you.
Okay. Very well. All right. Anything else? Uh not this
time. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to to advance.
All right. Thank you. John, anybody?
I guess the only issue I still have is the forty foot lots. I mean I I understand that this predates the uh the uh PM twenty six, but um we know the direction of the the board is to go toward go Away from 40 foot lots to go to 50 foot lots. Um especially in this situation where it's a slim and none chance it's we're gonna be able to connect the utilities. Um you know, that may happen in six years, sure, but uh you know I I I'm
still not crazy about the idea of the 40-foot lots. It almost feels like like what was mentioned before that this is just uh an attention. to get this approved in order to um take advantage of being grandfathered in for the 40 foot lots. So I guess that's probably the only issue I I have with it. I'd be more inclined to to vote for all 50 foot lots uh for that option A.
To to eliminate option A
well
and just leave option B as the associated that would that
would be even more ideal in my opinion. But if if we were going to leave option A on the table, I'd like to see it all be fifty foot lots, just because that's the direction of the the B BCC and has been that way since twenty twenty-three.
Mm-hmm. Uh Shelley, would the applicant be amenable to removing the option for 40 foot lots and instead doing all fifty-foot lots for option A? She's she's
talking to the applicant right now.
Matt, do you have any questions you want to teach?
Yeah, I think what if we're if we're planning for the unknown looking at uh condition condition thirty that uh they can construct septic tanks if Pasco County utilities declines a connection. I'd like to see that include Dade City, not knowing what Dade City might do in the next six years. Uh they're slated to build a new wastewater plant, who knows how they grow. So um if that would be an or Dade City, I think I'd always look for any opportunity we can to avoid more septic tanks or spending
millions of dollars around the state to get rid of them now. So that'd be
yeah. We can definitely revise conditions of approval with the consent of the applicant to also seek out Dade City or Zephyrhills as an option.
All fifty foot lots, what would the resultant density be at that? I mean what do we have to do?
So it would probably fall under let's see. Sorry.
Hundred and
twenty yeah, it's it'd probably be about a hundred and twenty, twenty two hundred and ten. And it'd be less than three units per per acre.
I mean I I still struggle with that amount of density in this in this area regardless of what Dade City just approved. Just to the north, uh what would that be, northwest of this area. I just I I tend to side with Mr. Hall on the the rural nature of this this area and putting that much density in this area, regardless of whether it's option A or option B, I just I I still I still struggle with that honestly. on this project.
I'm struggling with it you wanna have your cake and you wanna eat it too.
that there's an option on the table. I feel like you gotta choose one or the other. And in this case it doesn't sound like Water and sewer is a feasible option, maybe it is one in the future.
But you can always act you can always get a modification at that point or seek a modification.
Yeah. They can. At that point the modification would be wouldn't allow the 40-foot lots, is that
Well, to go well accepting they'd have to have a minimum of a half acre lots. Which that'd solve your density problem for sure. But Are there compli I'm sorry 'cause I've been having trouble accessing the internet up here. The other day I listened to the board discussion on Cherry Hill, which Basically the same proposal was being made. I even think we're at the same developer, aren't we? That that is correct. it
was a it was an either or situation and what I heard, at least I thought I heard, was that there was some hesitancy um on the board to approve something if they didn't know water and sewer was going to be available to the property and I think in that case didn't they ultimately vote to continue the thing basically indefinitely. You know, I mean That's correct. There was what I was trying to find and I'm referring to the Internet access, David was Um
Jeff Steinsnyder indicated to the board when it was time to consider motions, he cited a comp plan policy regarding utilities and I'm not able to
And to land employment code provisions. Can you tell
us what those are?
Yes, I believe it's policy eight. Policy water eight point one four.
I'll give you the ones
that he cited in the second.
Because technically under the comprehensive plan, uh Pasco utilities was re the applicant was required to connect to Pasco utilities. However, Adolpha Gonzalez cited a different aspect of the comp plan, citing, you know, the capacity issues that Mr. Autef Hannah previously mentioned.
Yeah and and from my own perspective. I'm fine. If utilities can't serve it whether there's a willingness or capacity problem and I believe it's more capacity problem, whether there's not an ability to serve, then you can't entitle something to the maximum possible density at forty foot wide lots. Unfortunately your choice is half acre lots and wells and septic tanks. And I feel like you gotta make a choice. I mean y y You want this, you want that, you
w
So
otherwise stick with your Euclid or come in and ask for a Euclidean zoning district. You're asking for an MPUD, you're asking for an entitlement, but you can't tell us exactly what entitlement you want. Well I might want this entitlement and I w might want that entitlement. That would be a circus if every developer came in here and asked for entitlements in an either-or situation. Today it's two choices. The next guy could come in and say, Well, I got five options I want to present.
This this is an alternative to a loom.
Let's get back to uh what what
David has to say. So to answer your question, uh Mr. Steinsteiner cited three things. Two provisions. One is 402.1 E13, and that requires you to evaluate whether there's adequate public facilities serving the site, including water and sewer facilities, and 402.2 F2, which also requires you to evaluate the adequacy of existing public services, including utilities. And then he also cited Comp Plan Policy 1.2.
ten point one, which is your general compati compatibility policy, which among other issues, including compatibility of the land use, requires you to evaluate the appropriate timing of the proposal based on public facilities, including water and sewer facilities.
Okay. Well i I mean, if if I can just read the flavor of the board, I think what what we're coming up against is either You're gonna go with one or the other. or you're gonna get a denial. So I I'm I'm just thinking it makes more sense and then you can if things change in the future they come back and and change it if they haven't developed.
That's what it would seem like to me. I mean if I were in the the applicant's place. I'd take my water I'd take my well in septic today and I can always come back and ask for an M P U D modification or a new M P U D if water and sewer should m miraculously become available out in this area. at some point in the future, if you get denied, you're back with the existing Sonning that you got.
So, I mean I'm just telling you what I think the the board might go with. It rather than go and get get a denial. Option A was removed. Just take a option A out of there and he'd probably be okay.
Probably.
Thank you. Shelley Johnson again, uh 6400 Madison Street. I have been sworn in applicant's representative. They're fine with doing the subject in the well. So we'll just agree to that option.
Okay.
All right. So if there are no more questions, thank you very much. You're very welcome. I don't think there are more questions. And uh so if there are no more questions, can I hear a motion please?
I move approval PC seven with the removal of option A, first option. I'm just limiting it to forty f forty uh units on half acre lots.
So that's also going to require a number of commission conditions to be amended or second.
I'll second for discussion purposes.
Okay, we have a motion and we have a second for
discussion. So the discussion I want to have is this is the problem that I see with the either-or proposal. A master plan was submitted based on 40 and 50 foot-wide lots, and now we're talking talking about an approval of half acre lots to accommodate well in septic.
And to David's point, now we have a variety of conditions. Is there a second master plan to address this half acre lot situation?
So during the negotiation process they agreed to utilize the same layout and stormwater mitigation and have a park regardless of if they chose option A or option
Right. But what I'm getting at and And then just is just going forward in the future. And I'll I'll leave it to the county attorney to fix whatever conditions we need to fix here. But it would seem to me if you're gonna come here and we're gonna have option A, option B, option C, then you've gotta come here with a set of conditions that address each option, a master plan that addresses each option and
So but David if you can guide us with those things I would appreciate it.
It's gonna be very difficult for me to on the fly tell you every condition that would need to be removed or amended. But I mean there could be many. For example, even our architectural requirements typically would not apply to half acre lots. So and there's a number of conditions dealing with architectural requirements. There their mobility plan, I don't know if it's gonna still be the same with 40 Half acre lots.
Would
it be better? Can I make a suggestion um in light of the fact that it appears as though you you really didn't have any uh intention of immediately developing the property, why don't we just continue it to the next meeting here, give it give David a chance to you know to go over it with you, Shelley, and make sure we have the appropriate changes to the conditions. And then then vote.
We want to be reasonable but we wanna be thorough.
I mean we'd rather not get continued 'cause we've been continued once already. I mean I I would hope that maybe in between here and now we could address some of those conditions with regards to architectural designs that wouldn't be applicable. My client did agree that regardless with which design we were going with A or B that they would agree to these conditions, but Um You know, if we're definitely going with B. I don't know if there's some way we can work through that as we uh you know, uh I know there's different things like that. Yeah, I don't think it's gonna be that hard. They're pretty obvious which ones probably would not really think.
Um I'm just quickly looking through
the
contextual design.
More so to staff, I would have Just
a for instance, if they have half acre lots, is there a I think our R two zoning district would be something similar. Half is that right or R one lot. Half
acre lots is usually R one
twenty thousand square
foot lots, a little
bit less. If we were in the R one Euclidean district, there would still be minimum lot widths, minimum setbacks. The the conditions aren't set up to address those things is what I'm getting at.
Uh they are. They're if you go to condition number thirty seven we actually utilize
There are standards for the half acre lots, th d but you'd have to pull out all of the standards for the forty and forty foot. Yes. I mean I just haven't Okay. I can't tell you sitting here today every single condition that would need to be potentially amended. But but if you continue it or even if theory I don't know when this is scheduled to go to the board. Uh seven nine. And when is your agenda deadline for seven nine? I believe that is six
eighteen or six nineteen. And do you do you think that Yes I guess I'm asking you and Mr. Pitos, do you think you can modify all this and make that agenda divine? Yes, sir.
I was marking it up as we speak.
Sounds like you've been on top of it. I have. That's less than a lot of things.
Sounds like you were
prepared for this outcome.
Yeah, right. Yeah. Well I wanted to allow as many options as possible for the applicant and also allow the opportunity for the PC to comment
on that. Personally I appreciate the way you've handled it. You've done a good job.
Thanks, sir. So It sounds like staff was able to amend the conditions or remove and modify the conditions as necessary to implement the motion. So it's really up to the
It's up to the Planning Commission about whether you wanna try to move it forward or continue it so you can see all of the amended conditions. I can't tell you what to do. You all need to decide.
So you wanna modify your motion?
Two
Continue or to what are you doing? I
mean you can either recommend approval with the removal of option A and requ and direct staff to amend all the conditions related to option A.
That was that was my thought.
Okay.
Yes, that is second to discussion. So that that's your motion. Okay. You all probably need to act on that motion. Alright.
If I could just make one clarification before we do that, does does conditional item thirty remain they still gotta verify they can't get a connection before they do well as in subject? I'm sorry didn't take the question.
So does does conditional item thirty remain they they've got they've got to confirm they can't get a utilities connection before they construct wells in septic?
I think that would be one that we I think that condition twenty six, twenty seven, twenty eight, twenty nine and thirty all need to be reevaluated in line of the motion. Because I think we're talking about only doing well in septic, so most of a lot of what's in even condition thirty said that twenty six, twenty seven and twenty nine don't apply if they're doing well in septic. So
I guess I'm just thinking that if it's still the idea is this wasn't gonna happen for a while, if there's utilities out there, even if it's just forty houses, do you wanna do wells in septic?
Well, they can come back and apply if there's m if there is s sewer and water ava available.
I think the what I'm hearing the direction from the Planning Commission is you just want us to assume that this isn't gonna be a well-inceptic project. Right. Is that accurate?
Unless if they and if it changes they can come back and reapply.
Right. That would be a whole new proposal. Right.
That's my perception of where it should go.
then we would modify con those utility conditions uh accordingly. Okay, so you want
to restate your motion.
So moved approval of PC7 with removal of option A for the 40 and 50 foot lots, allowing only for the 40 half acre lots, and modification of all the conditions that's associated with that, pertinent to that.
To make the appropriate changes.
Okay, and that's you're still the second
I'll second that.
Okay, any further discussion? Not all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye, aye. Opposed, like sign. A motion carries. Thank you all. Five minute break.