PC6 Palmetto Ridge comprehensive plan amendment to 2,500 units
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, May 20, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, May 20, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 23m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 67% of 106 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
This is uh item P C Six on the Overhead, but perhaps PC five in the agenda itself. Um This is C Pel twenty thirteen Palmetto Ridge. It's a large scale comprehensive plan amendment. Uh located. Within the rural transition area along State Row fifty two, approximately eighteen hundred feet west of the from the intersection at Bellamy Brothers Boulevard and State Row fifty two. Before I go through the proposal and what what the project is
about, I'd like to hand out an updated uh sub area policy that is slightly different from what you have in your packet. Don't worry, it's not like C P E V.
Thank you very much for that.
Uh Uh.
Do we have to receive? Final now. Mm-hmm.
Thank
you. Dave.
Um yeah, I would go ahead and do it.
We have a motion to receive and file.
Move to receive and file. Second.
Thanks, sir. All in favor?
Aye. Aye.
Aye.
Thanks.
So the proposal for this uh comprehensive plan amendment is to the sub-area policy future land use for 7.1.34 Fort King Ranch to allow for an increase in residential units to a total of 2,500 residential units from 1278 previously, and renaming the sub-area uh from Fort King Ranch to Palmetto Ridge. Uh as I mentioned it where the location is within a rural transition area along State Route 52. And w the resolution here is to update the
future land use map two-9 and Sub area map uh two-934, Fort King Ranch to detect the name change. Uh there is an accompanying ma master plan unit development and PUD district that will be forthcoming uh in the future.
Uh uh. Might have to click the next slide because something happened here.
There we are. So here the site location, this is where it is located in the county where the stars on State Road 52. And then in particular along State Road 52 um between Aaron Cutoff here on the west end, Bellamy Brothers on the east end, and this is sort of midway through uh that portion of the corridor.
And this notably it's n within the rural transition area, which is marked on the uh uh map here in the in the green shade.
This is the future land use. Uh it is a planned development currently. with an existing sub area policy that Is that Yeah. Uh it is consistent in the North Market area. The amendment maintains the original intent of the planned development to provide for mixed use development and creation of a neighborhood commercial parcel in close proximity to the residential development while minimizing impacts to wetlands and preserving large open passive recreation areas. and conservation areas on substantial portions of the land. the northern
part of the pr subject part uh Parcel.
Here's uh an aerial of the area in question. Um The existing project does have a large portion of the northern piece already preserved. That preservation uh continues with this amendment as well.
The project is being developed in a clustered and compact manner where the more intense and dense development is nearest to Sierra 52 and away from the northeast Pasco rural area that is to the east of this area. And the proposed development continues to preserve the two thousand acres that which I just pointed out previously. uh of open space at the north end of the development. And there'll be details and standards set forth in the MPD that will help address uh more more directly The uh Rural transition area requirements as well as other land development
code requirements.
These are the rural and urban service areas within the county to give a sense for where it is. Uh The red is the urban service areas of the West Market and South Market area and the various green shades. Which would be this the rural character area, this the rural transition area, the rural protection area, uh to the south and northeast rural itself. in the north and east. Um, th those are the give you some context for where
they are and how they uh relate to one another.
The Sub Bay policy identifies a companion master planning development as the mechanism to implement the standards that will support uh and be consistent with this policy. which is the residential compatibility and transition fall policy flu one ten three. This is a proposed conceptual of the project. That's being proposed. What's not shown here um is the large preservation area uh to the north of this vision road here. Uh as I indicated on the on the uh aerial there's
much more to the uh Palmetto Ridge or formerly known as Fort King Ranch parcel that is currently being preserved.
This is uh proposed conceptual plan uh in context with the surrounding developments. So here to the here's uh Aaron Cutoff or the Collier Parkway extension area. with Conerton and the Conerton downtown uh to the southwest, C PEV immediately adjacent and south of State Road fifty two, uh Palmetto Ridge here with a large preservation area to the north, as I mentioned, and then uh further on east
is the gateway hub area near the I seventy five fifty two in interchange. And then northeast rural beyond. And with connected city, I should mention. uh at the southeast corner of I seventy five and fifty two.
gives you a little context for where the development is in the county. The recommendation to the LPA is to find it consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. I wanted to point out having given you now the uh Updated sub-area policy text. There were just two changes made to the sub-area policy. Um The language was refined, but what was basically added was some specificity to the types of uses that would be um i within the preservation area. So Um
and then the other change was um there was clarity added to the sub area as to what is to be expected for the preservation area and the mechanisms that would be used to preserve it. So I don't have a slide for it, so what I'll do for those at home, I'll I'll go ahead and just read that text. Uh and That will conclude my presentation. So development shall recognize the rural transition area in furtherance in the MPUD approximately two thousand twenty-two acres or fifty-seven percent of the entire project
area located to the north of the future highway vision roadway. parentheses, preservation area, will be preserved for open space, agriculture, stormwater, wetland flood, plain mitigation, recreation, and other limited uses as detailed in the Companion MPUD. Said portion of the project shall be preserved in perpetuity through the use of an irrevocable conservation easement or restrictive covenant, that's the preservation mechanisms, approved by the County Attorney's Office. Well, approved by the county, which is consistent with the MPD's
limited uses approved for the preservation area. All residential density and other development use rights which are not authorized as such limited uses for the preservation area shall be transferred to the portion of the MPUD area south of the Highway Vision Roadway. So those were the just the two changes and the update to the language. If there are any questions.
That would be
question but just as a comment, when you get to the M P D stage You probably need to clarify what you mean by agriculture. Um 'Cause I'm not sure if that's all uses allowed in our agricultural zoning districts or something less than that. And specifically For example, a solar farm is allowed in agricultural zoning districts. I wasn't sure if that was staff's intent for that area or Whether you meant like true farmland. So so
I'm just saying I don't think you need to address it here. This language probably is fine, but when you get to the M P D stage you probably need to be clear about what What that means. Open space, stormwater Wetland floodplain mitigation recreation, but I believe in recreation may need some clarification as well. I mean
We'll we'll work with the uh with the applicants and clarify that in the MPUDs. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman probably should hear from the applicant now.
Yes, on the applicant design line. Okay.
Yeah.
Mr. Two, yes.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Joel two to an associates. Uh can everyone hear me?
Yep.
Thank you. Um and I I did not take the oath because you didn't swear everyone. So Mr. Chairman, if you need to swear me in, I'm happy to do that.
All right, let's do that. Raise your right hand.
And do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so hope you got?
Yes, thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, uh ladies and gentlemen, I'll be very brief. Uh We are in uh 100% agreement with the staff's uh sub-area policy language. I've worked that out. uh previously with staff. So the version that Mr. Pitos gave you today is acceptable to the applicant. And to Mr. Goldstein's points, yes, we understand and we intend in the MPD uh that we will flesh out the details and
the ag uses, the ag uses are intended to be for traditional ag uses. We certainly do not mean um a special exception uh or conditional use for a solar farm. Um and the recreational areas are intended to be. Yeah. uh parklike uses, uh possibly equine uh horse uh uses, things that are entirely consistent without be with that being a preservation area. So no issue about that. I will be happy to work
those out in the uh MPUD details. Uh just just to clarify, this property already is an MPUD, so this will not be a new MPUD. It will be an MPUD modification of the pre-existing, previously approved MPUD. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Any questions from this?
Chris.
I don't I don't have a question, I just have a comment and I'm not opposed to it, but I mean what we've been working with with Mr. Two and the other developers is the idea is to have you know, next to CPAV probably have some kind of high school type facility and the idea is to have we've actually asked for a school site which is shown on the plan um here in Palmetto Ridge, potentially probably for a K eight. Um but I just wanna indicate that, you know, adding another
twelve hundred units along with what was already there, along with some of the other stuff, now we're you know, we're starting to bump into You know, potentially we might need additional school sites. Elsewhere. So I'm just I'm just cautioning that. We start getting much more units out in this area, we're gonna be need to be looking at that. Yeah. And again, I I I I don't I'm not opposed to it, but if we keep adding units, I mean this is a significant addition.
um, you know, we're gonna be in a spot where we're gonna have to figure that out.
So do you have a question you wanna put to Mr.
Two or question, I'm just kinda stating that. Okay, that just a
little bit. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy I'm happy to acknowledge uh that if I could do so for a moment to ease those concerns.
Yes, please go ahead.
Um yeah, Chris, uh as you know, we vetted this uh with you and Mr. Tanello uh before the CREAP. And in fact, I I understand all you have before you is the CPA, unfortunately not the companion, but but I think as you're aware, our our MPUD modification plan Um We are actually increasing the school site size in Palmetto Ridge. I believe originally we reserved an elementary site for you. Based on our discussions with you
and Richard, we've agreed to actually provide what can either be uh both an elementary and middle school site or as you said, a K through eighth site. So we are we're accommodating that. On the north side and Palmetto Ridge, and then and CPEV, as you know, from those proposed variant policies. Uh we are giving you control on each of those MPUDs, and we have we have told all those landowners and CPEV. That at the end of the day you may well need some
type of of site there, maybe even be a high school, and as we've discussed, it may be a technology school that is in keeping with that. So we hear you, we understand. the need and we understand this is a moving target. But I think as far as Palmetto Ridge is concerned, I think it providing the elementary and middle school site uh is certainly probably a fair contribution on its part.
And and Joel, I don't disagree with that. I think that's a a very fair assessment. And so I agree. And I wasn't I wasn't indicating that we're looking for more from Palmetto Ridge. I just wanna in you know and I think you've done a good job of clarifying that that you know, f and and we want to continue discussions and and with staff, but yes, uh on this overall area between CPEV and Palmetto Ridge and Faircloth and there's some others, just making sure we have um you know, the school sites covered,
I'd say so far I think we're okay. But again, I'm just cautioning that if Lots more units come to this area. We're just gonna have to examine that. And and like you said, you've been working with us on that and we appreciate it and I think we're okay for right now.
Fair enough, thank you.
Okay, good. Well
I think it's good we got that on the record though. Um Any other questions?
How how did we how did they get from the 1278 units to the 2500 units?
I'm happy to try to address that, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, go ahead.
Um The original approval, uh, if you look at this acreage, it's a massive project. And even with the set aside of over 2,000 acres on the north side, which which by the way is the largest property set aside I've ever had a private owner developer agree to do in the history of my Forty one years anywhere. Um, but with that said, the the acreage the acreage south of that vision road still was very
much underutilized. Uh, when you do the math on the acreage, we are still at a very moderate suburban density, even with this bump. So the short answer is it was very it was very underentitled originally, and with the infrastructure, the roadways, and the Utilities is simply not economically feasible without having what is a more typical suburban density. And yet, as you'll see, we're able to do that, and yet we're still providing an elementary and a middle school site. We're
also providing a public services site to the county for fire EMS andor sheriff substation. So uh i i it it it is not it is not going to be over entitled, it's going to be actually reasonably entitled if this modification passes.
So Joel the the twelve hundred and seventy eight units was were those fifty foot lots as well, or did the density increase because you got smaller lots?
Um we we didn't we had smaller lots before. We might I and and Diane or or someone from Hyattle know the answer. We might have possibly dropped from fifty to forties, but I believe before it was your typical, it it's always been a small lot clustering concept. uh that we would have smaller lots, have a more compact development footprint, uh, but we we we can get this density with 40s, 50s, 60s. I mean, you know, it it's it's massive in terms of acreage
compared to density.
Yeah, the the only reason I bring that up and I as I look at and I know it's only a conceptual plan, this is only land use amendment, so this is probably a non binding document and all that, but You know, y you are showing fifty foot lots that butt right up to fifty two. Um I I was by far in the minority when I sat up here when C P E V came last meeting or two meetings ago and Um I mean th the argument there was is that even though CPV was CPEV was providing all this infrastructure and all these improvements.
The people up here were all against it. And and and there was a large outcry from from the public about allowing people to do that, yet we're We're gonna allow and we're giving them more density to put more units and and there's density right up on fifty-two here. I d I just I think there's a huge contradiction to only separated by fifty-two. Um
Well actually, yeah, I hear you. I hear you, Jamie, but actually at that C P E V hearing there was no outcry from the there was no outcry from the public. The outcry was from the Economic Development Council. and the school district and not not from the public. Uh we had one objection from a C P E V landowner, but the short answer is I've been assured by High Design that they can set back from in the actual MPUD plan that they'll be able to
set back, provide adequate buffers, and they'll be able to shape an attractive community because it's actually more acreage south of the road. Okay. than you need to accommodate this density if you do a clustered uh development. So there will be open spaces, there will be buffers. We're obviously not going to create a project that's not marketable and and which can't be sold to new home buyers.
No, I I hear you and I I appreciate that Joel. I is if somebody and and I don't again I don't know that the land use is the place to do that, but if somebody can address those concerns that The Economic Development Council brought up about, you know, all of a sudden you have residential and they're gonna come in and they're gonna be this big opposition to this, all this industrial use that we want on this property. I think that as long as that's being considered, I'm okay with it. But I just want to make sure it was
Yeah I no I I I hear you and even though it'll be the subject at the next meeting, we we do believe we believe we have resolved the EDC questions about C P E B for what that's worth. Uh hopefully uh good news there. But but also point out again, this is an approved MPUD, so we already have the residential approved. uh in this project. So this is not a new idea. This thing's been approved for years. And in fact, Fort King Ranch was probably originally approved fifteen years ago
for residential development on fifty two.
Very good.
So one other way of potentially addressing this issue is I do remember that C P V had a requirement for them to post signage Um around the employment areas to put everybody on notice that it was going to be a future Light industrial or employment area. Is that language still in C P E V?
That is in still s in C P E V, yes.
So I think if you the combination of that sign engine then maybe in in Palmetto Ridge if we impose some kind of disclosure requirement to their residents. that across the street is going to be light industrial and employment. That's probably gonna be at least put them on notice that it's going to be there. So Staff just needs to make sure that that's the right-of-way. when C P V comes in, that that signage is something that even the people across the street and fi across fifty two can see. I think P D C's
main concern is that They don't want a bunch of residential coming in there and not knowing that there's going to be light industrial unemployment there. Right. Right. So I think if if staff make sure that that signage and C P V is readily visible to everybody That will probably help address their concern.
Yeah.
I think
you're exactly right. It's a good point.
All right. Um Anything further from the applicant? If not, uh is anyone here to object.
All right. Do we have any other questions from the day?
If not, I'll hear a motion.
Okay. I'll make the motion to approve.
Do we have a motion to approve? Do I have a second?
One second. Chris Poole.
Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye.
Imposed, like sign. Motion carries.
Well.
Okay, Terry, next.
I
believe
item Penny for Pasco.
Uh I was just going to introduce Mr. Liam Devon to present the next item agenda.