PC3 Oakstead MPUD density and cross access variation
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, Nov 29, 2018
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, Nov 29, 2018
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 13m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 85% of 60 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. So sir, if you'd like to come up and make a comment.
State your name and address, please.
Yes, my my name is Dennis Priebe and I live at uh [address removed], uh which is part of the Oakstead uh CDD. And I appreciate the opportunity to make comments on this proposed amendment. I have two concerns and I guess uh one one related question. Um as a predicate comment you stated that there were changes made to some of the documents. Were those available online?
No they were not.
All right. Well then then I guess a a predicate issue is not having seen those, the comments and concerns I'm gonna make are based upon the documents that were posted online as of roughly nine o'clock this morning. So if there are changes, uh this gives me a little bit of concern and difficulty in being able to comment on what is apparently before the the board. But be that as it may, let me just express uh my two concerns. The first concern I have is the the the proposal for to uh increase
the density of the overall MPUD from twelve hundred to thirteen hundred and in particular um uh the density of track one C. Пропозол is to allow one hundred town homes potentially to be constructed. Uh that seems to be a very substantial uh density uh for the area encompassed by Track 1C. Please keep in mind that you know that is specific to 1C. It is not a a statement of the remainder of the Oakstead CDD, which is fully
developed. And so what you're going to do is in essence squeeze a hundred a hundred new homes into a very small area, which to me is inconsistent with the overall concept behind the s the Oakstead C D in general and in specifically to the existing homes and and uh uh improvements that are in that uh C D. Uh I guess my my ultimate question is whether or not it's appropriate at this time for the Commission to approve the petition Uh without
requiring greater specificity in terms of green areas, common areas that would help ameliorate uh the density issue that I that I'm raising here. My second concern uh uh deals with uh the proposal to uh create what's called a full access driveway. In order to gain access from Oakstead Boulevard to tracks 1A and 1B. And in my mind, I think there are three serious traffic issues that need to be concerned or need
to be considered. The current layout of uh the SR-54 Oakstead intersection has a potential to create an ongoing safety issue with this driveway, since eastbound SR-54 traffic turning onto Oakstead Boulevard must first travel up a very significant slope. Turning left you have to go up a slope. And then immediately all traffic, whether left turning or right turning on off of westbound, all traffic must immediately navigate a curve on Oakstead Boulevard. And
it it seems to me that that short distance between the completion of the turn process and the curve followed by the driveway uh would potentially create some safety issues and perhaps it would be appropriate uh to engage in further study uh to determine whether or not that in fact is an issue. The second concern I have with respect to the traffic is during weekday morning rush hour and occasionally on weekends. Uh Oakstead Boulevard traffic in the S R fifty four
left turn lane can back up. It's almost guaranteed to during weekday rush hours. And the close proximity of this proposed new driveway to track one A and B could be blocked. By this backed up traffic. And as a result, you're gonna have a situation where cars who are exiting that the parcels 1A and B trying to turn left and then ultimately turn left on to SR-54 would be blocked. And to me, that would create a potential safety hazard given what
I just said about other vehicles having to come around the corner. Um my third concern with respect to that tracks one A and B driveway.
Excuse me, sir. Um your three minutes is up. Okay. So if you could just wrap it up for us.
Uh the only other uh comment I had with respect to that was the uh the the there's an existing cut through that is b that is there. It's been there ever since the original Oakstead uh C uh C D was developed. There is a proposal here in this uh Petition to create an existing, take use, make use of that for track 1C. And I guess my question is, why not funnel traffic tracks 1A and B traffic down to the 1C entrance, make use of the
existing berm, and with you know that berm is far away from the intersection that I described. And it seems to be more appropriate and less of a safety head.
Thank you.
Um Coralyn, you want to adjust those or do you have somebody else?
Really I think the applicant should be addressing some of those
here they can address all those concerns.
Good afternoon. Barbara Wilheite, 2523 Permit Place, New Port Richey Florida, 34655 for the applicant. I have with me Steve Henry, who will has done an access management analysis that was thoroughly reviewed by staff, and he can explain his analyses and address those concerns. The other one has to do with the townhomes. The property right now is approved for 180, 180,000 square feet of commercial. And so it's actually a down zone
in intensity. Um why we're here is to have commercial uses and then townhomes. There's already two townhome products neighborhoods already in Oakstead. So it's nothing unusual. As far as green space in common areas, there's a neighborhood park ordinance that's required for this very reason. We'll have to comply with that. So
We're going from 180,000 square feet to forty thousand square feet of commercial and we're adding those townhomes in between the commercial and the existing neighborhood. And so that's the plan um there. And then we have Steve explain the the uh transportation issues. All right, thank you.
Go afternoon. Steve Henry, Linkson Associates, 5023 West Laurel, Tampa 33607. Uh to address his comments first was the uh the location of the driveway and the eastbound left turn uh and the curve. Uh we have looked at that. We in fact have done a sight distance analysis to evaluate whether or not there's adequate sight distance there for the vehicles exiting to be able to see uh and be people to stop and there is sufficient and we've provided that to staff. They reviewed it and have agreed with with that analysis. And in addition to
as far as the queue, we actually did a detailed queue analysis of that southbound traffic to make sure that in fact with the existing plus R project traffic they would not Can you turn that one down a bit?
There would not be a a Q problem with the operations of that being a full median opening and from our standpoint and looking at that and staff looking at there is not uh gonna be a Q issue with that. All right.
All right. Anything further from the applicant? Okay. So uh Do
I hear a motion? I would Mr. Chairman Mariano. I was just gonna say I always get a little squirrely converting stuff back to Residential, but It's uh multifamily so it won it won't have a big impact on us.
On the school.
Right.
Yeah, I I want to dovetail on that. I yeah, I have a concern when we start taking commercial off of the off the table and going back to any type of residential, it doesn't really help the tax base and the overall plan of that development to begin with was to have that there. So Not really in favor of it.
Okay. So do I have a motion one way or the other? Oh god.
I'm happy to give the gentleman the changes that were handed out, but I don't think any of these changes materially affect the two concerns that he raised or the Three concerns you raised. But if he wants a copy, I'm happy to give him my copy. I don't know where he went.
The only thing I can say about it is that it's Typically in my business it's good policy to separate Commercial. Higher density residential and then low residency res residential. So Conceptually. You know, I think it's really reasonable approach. Um in terms of the tax base. That's a different issue. But uh Anyway, that's that's my view that's my view of it. So I'm open to a motion.
Well I'll move that we uh recommend to the board to deny. Okay, we have a motion to deny.
Any do I have a second?
Maybe we have a moment to add to your conversation.
Um can you wait till we get a see if we get a motion? I don't think you're gonna get a second. We have a motion to deny. We don't have a second so far.
Okay. So the motion dies for lack of a second.
Let me make a comment in reference to this specific project. I'm familiar with the original idea to build over a build over a hundred thousand square footage of office building in this specific parcel. And we need to be realistic. I understand that we need to think about the the revenue that this property will give to the county if it's all retail or comercial. Uh over a hundred thousand square footage in this specific location is nothing that you can collect that amount of money in in
the next five to ten years. I believe that it's a good move. and to build uh the transition between the existing community and the office park or retail that are going to be located at the south side of the parcel with tank houses. So I in favor to move this motion and I believe it's a good plan, it's a good strategy to move this parcel. This is a parcel that has been there with the original plan for offices since two thousand six, if I'm not mistaken, two thousand five,
two thousand six. And have been there for a long time. We understand the recession impact the the business and the office park. But I think it's the time and it's not too much tank houses available. The the the the houses around that area, the value of the houses is around three hundred and fifty to four hundred thousand dollars. I believe the town household will be lower than that. And we are able to offer this property to middle class families that need to move in the area and we need that to
move there. So I I in favor to move the motion to approve it.
So we have a motion to approve. We have a second.
Does that include the changes that were handed out?
Yes.
I'll
second
it. Okay.
All right. All in favor of the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. All right, motion carries.
I was uh I almost seconded your motion, Mr. Co Commissioner Cox. I was on the fence. So If it was more units I probably would have.
Yeah.
Hundred here, a hundred there.
Well, yeah, you're right. That and that equates to a classroom before you know it.
Did you vote did you vote nay?
I did.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
By the way, I When we're doing this in the future, it'd probably good if you vote nay to say nay. Okay. I think it's confusing to the quirk when you say I. I apologize. Okay.
Saint I again.
I apologize. Ooh.