PDE 26-0185 Blackwell Mixed Use PD and Multifamily Office 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, Dec 11, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 22m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 88% of 130 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Item P4 is the first item on the regular agenda and you will be sitting as a local planning agency for this item. This item also has a companion rezoning item P5. And I would like to note that there will be expertise for this item sent to the clerk's office at a later date. P4 is PDE 260185, a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAS 2326, Blackball Mixed Use PD, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet 19 from con commercial to
PD plan development on approximately 15.36 acres of real property located on the north side of State Road 54, approximately 0.3 miles south. southeast of the intersection of State Road 54 and Starkey Boulevard, and a text amendment creating Sub-area Policy 7.1.80 Blackwell Mixed Use PD, and a map amendment to the Future Land Use Map 2-9, adding Sub-area Map 2-980 Blackwell Mixed Use PD to be presented by staff.
All right.
I can take a common one the other ones at work.
Okay. Right, can she present too?
We should you can help again this
for
if you want.
Ms. Amy, uh you you wanna
Can we try to cover four and five of it's of the same property?
Yep, absolutely. We can do them together. So
we just do them together?
Yeah.
Okay. Thank you.
Absolutely. Amy Toll with Planning Development and Economic Growth. Uh before you is PDE 26-0185 in the name of Blackwell Mixed Use PD. It is a comprehensive plan amendment, CPAS 2326.
So today before you is a comprehensive plan amendment from Calm Commercial to PD plan development to allow for a mixed-use development consisting of 290 multifamily dwelling units and 100,000 square feet of commercial, medical, office, and retail uses on approximately 15.36 acres. It is located on the north side of State Road 54, approximately 0.3 miles southeast of the intersection. of State Road 54 and Starkey Boulevard. There is a companion MPD rezoning, and through the
PD flu amendment, we are creating sub-area policy flu 7.1.80. So the project's located in the South Market area and urban service area.
Here's a visualization of the context map of the subject site. As you can see, it is on the east side of the intersection of Starkey Boulevard and State Road 54. To your north, we have Longleaf MPUD as well as Starkey Ranch MPD, already approved, Mitchell Ranch East MPUD to the west of the subject site, and Mitchell SJP MPUD to the south. Also, an eight-foot sidewalk that has been constructed per FDOT widening on the north side
of State Road 54. Here are the entitlements that were already previously approved in those developments. I also added existing commercial along the frontage of State Road 54 adjacent to the parcel, as well as County Place Mobile Home Community Park, which is a 55 and over community.
The aerial imagery of a closer uh image of the subject site. As you can see it's still vacant.
The existing feature land use of Calm commercial. And the proposed future land use of PD?
Here's just a snippet of the proposed sub-area policy that does establish the entitlements for 290 multifamily apartment dwelling units and 100,000 square feet of non-residential uses.
Here's a proposed concept plan for the subject site.
The comprehensive plan policies that the proposed amendment is consistent with.
And then with that, we recommend the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. And then I'll pass it on to the MPUD team to do their presentation as well.
Very good. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Planning Commission members. Welcome, Liam Devine. This is a deserving promotion. I had the privilege of working with Liam in his prior role.
Thank you.
With that being said, I'm Kurt Siverson of Funding Development and Economic Growth. Longtime listener, first time call.
Liam's Liam's gonna be tough on you though. Just just be just be ready.
Just remember Liam, if
you
want
to speak you have to raise your hand.
That's how we do it at the school board.
So this is the Black Well Multifamily and Office Complex MPUD companion item two. It's a conference point amendment. Accounting location. And a quick project overview. Proposed is a rezoning request from an AC agricultural district to an MPD for the maximum development of 290 multifamily units and 50,000 square feet of non-residential, commercial, medical, professional office uses. We're about a north of State Road 54 and approximately a third mile
east of the fifty four and Sarkey Boulevard intersection.
Where's our subject site? Located across from Majill SJP and abutting east of Country Place community. West is the self-sorge facility and north is the Salida Solita development, which is a portion of the uh Starkey Ranch of Beauty. Is our zoning map currently AC proposed on PV? Our future land use is currently Calm. The Illustrated Boundary in Pink reviewed concurrently and heard before me is the Blackwell PD for
two hundred and ninety multifamily units and a hundred thousand square feet of non-residential development for consistency of the MPVD. This provides a more predictable development than the Comflu would have.
So in our context map to visually aren't yourself, the before mentioned neighbors, South, SJP, we can see the trail segment in the Duke Easement, which connects later to the Starkey Ranch, uh along Starkey Boulevard, excuse me.
All right, moving to our master plan.
The proposed master plan illustrates a compact pointing forward design with an extensive pedestrian facility, meaning non residential users, residents and the public can safely circulate internally and externally at the property along fifty four throughout the site and to a northern pedestrian connection to Slovita community.
the design of the central corridor with angled parking, park space, mobility from non-residential users to the residential element, and the amenitization of the stormwater ponds by mini parks, linear parks and walking paths.
the pedestrian network here provides safe access to Longleaf Elementary School, Starkey District Park, Starkey Ranch Library, and the Starkey Ranch K through eight school along the sidewalks of Lake Blance Road, which a northern connection will be made to.
So with that on 54 the volume of State Road 54 is not lost on PDE nor the applicant and the development of the Blackwell MPD Blackwell Multifamily and Office Complex MPD has been conditioned. that the proportional share of the signal at the access of the Blackwell project here, correlating with the Mitchell SJP neighbor of the w south, needs to be tied to the first phase of development. This improvement is not no mobility fee credible.
The Live Local Provision was voluntarily accepted by conditions 47 and 48. And um Oh, for conversation of buffering. Along fifty four, is that my timer?
Along fifty four we have a D type buffer east and west of the project, has an extensive existing tree canopy that the applicant intends to use for their buffering requirement, east and west, and north they have a B type buffer with pedestrian facilities. Connecting into Sobiro. There is a variation request with this application. As to not provide vehicular connections to the
existing pond and wetland system north of the site. And west of the site was made infeasible by the existing orientation of the storage facility. Immediately abutting west is a little service road for the storage center. Be unable to absorb any traffic by the residential users or the non-residential users. Additionally, we would prefer that they maintain a uniform traffic pattern at the signalization of the project.
Yeah.
We recommend approval of the rezoning request subject to the conditions approval to Board of County Commissioners.
All right. Thank you.
All right. If not, I
I had I had one question though. W was there a specific reason, I don't know if this is for you or for Amy, but how come there's a hundred thousand square feet of office retail use in the comp plan and only fifty thousand square foot in the zoning?
So the comprehensive plan amendments sometimes over entitles for the sake of us enabling a substantial modification to the MPD. If they come in later and request an entitlement. bump and their non-residential development to the MPD, it would need to be enabled by their future land use.
Okay. But the transportation needs assessment doesn't need to reflect the higher entitlements in the complaint?
So with Amy Toll Planning Development, so with the comprehensive plan, the existing calm flu at a three point oh far generates a little over a million square feet. So the current proposal of a hundred thousand is well under what can currently or what's currently allowed. So uh timing or a needs assessment is not necessary. Right.
Thank you very much, Amy. Amy, quick question. When I'm looking at the zoning map To both the east and the west, the commercial is all C two. Is there a reason the commercial's being limited to C one commercial in this project?
the applicant pursued C1 and professional office. By their own cord.
Is there any um proposed um changes to median cuts for fifty-four for this or was this are the median cuts gonna be this the as existing um
Well I I I can go ahead and add in here I cause only 'cause I was involved with the property across the street on the Saint John's properties on the Mitchell Ranch. And I I did have a question. I I think they mentioned the signal they're gonna be responsible for their proportion share in the signal. Yeah, in my opinion, when things like this come through, I think it would be helpful for us up here if we can see the adjacent MPDs and how everything works together. 'Cause there's there's quite a bit of work on fifty four that Saint John's is handling, I think that would help paint a clearer
picture with what's going on across the street. So Yeah, I just didn't see it on the concept plan,
so that's why I was wondering.
Answer your question.
Asked and answered, I believe. Okay. I have a question for staff or for Liam, maybe. I mean first Liam's first question to Liam. Um What school is this will these residents be zoned for Longleaf or Storke EK through E?
Starkey K through E. Okay. For elementary and middle.
Thank
you.
Pretty good Lamb. Thanks for
I think he teed that one up. That was a softball part.
I do have a question on um your buffer to the east. I know you said it was a type B and that they would be using um existing vegetation um to meet that requirement because there is a requirement for a visual buffer. So what would they be proposing for areas that have a gap?
So the intent in maintaining the tree canopy is for the natural buffer and supplementing where need be The apple can I would assume would be willing at the request of the Planning Commission to supplement visual screening if requested. Right now there is not a visual screen element other than the natural tree canopy.
And if our new tree ordinance is adopted by the board, they'll get an incentive to save those trees in that buffer.
There you go.
Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Applicant present.
Steve Booth, 3030, Starkey Boulevard and Trinity, representing the applicant. Um I think the staff is done a good job of identifying all the issues that uh we have worked through with the staff. The staff has uh looked at this very closely over the years and uh we certainly endorse everything that has been uh stated here. We do have um the engineer here, Richard Marcel, who can answer any of
the technical questions that you might have. Uh with that being said, I would just uh ask for your approvals. Thank you.
All
right, thank you very much.
All right, was there anybody else here to speak on this particular topic?
I don't see anyone. We
did not have anybody signed up to speak on this item, Mr. Chairman
Mariano. All right, do I have a motion then?
There's no objection.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman we do have somebody signed up online to speak on this item. Uh Jeff Wilson.
Okay. Mr. Wilson, are you present?
Not available.
He's muted, he's uh
Yes. Hello. Do you hear me? We do, yes. yes. It's barely. Yes.
My name is Jeff Rolston.
Mr Wilson, have you been sworn?
I need to be swarm.
Okay, and then you'll need to state your name and your address.
My name is Jeff Wilson. My address is [address removed]. It's [address removed], and actually in the well the home part to the east side of the property we're talking about.
Do
you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God.
I do.
All right, please go ahead.
So again, my name is Jeff Wilson and and I do live adjacent to this lot that we're speaking of. And although I don't represent the full board properly, I uh represent a lot of the neighbors and I've also been watching and lived right on the Highway 54. And so the concerns that I would like to bring out for this black cloud development
are traffic and safety concerns. And much like the first woman that spoke and you know has issues with some of the
Deplore. that they would perform spot speed studies to really evaluate properly what would be required to get in and out of this. They also need to do a full site distance evaluation. With this curve and the speed of the traffic out on 54 is extremely dangerous. I would anticipate that there will be many accidents.
I do see that they are talking in some of your reports of adding additional traffic light. However, it's interesting that that proposal reflected the year 2030, five years from now.
The impact that also needs to be updated with the traffic and volume is that of the Starkey Sileta development, which includes up to 490 plus dwellings. 170 plus are homes, and the five others would be an apartment building. The proposal here at Blackwell has got six buildings as I've seen, four level, quite
impact with number of people. So it was discussed at this east side barrier. There are some trees on the south side of our community, our country bodies. But as you get to the north side, these four-story buildings would be highly visible and that would have been forums.
The Other concerns are the wetland boundaries that are on the north side of the property that are outside of the Starkey Sileta development. the development that they've done at Starkey has been extremely Complete. River has done a awesome job. I've watched every step of this development for uh taking and grading and putting
in s uh retention ponds that would be required for that.
Mr. Wilson, Mr. Wilson, your time has expired, so I if you could wrap it up please, we'd appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Okay, well then I will uh request that it be pushed the approval pushed and delayed for further studies of traffic and wetland protection for this development.
Okay, thank you very much.
You're welcome, thank you for running time.
All right. Oh, is there anybody else, Gi Gian?
No Mr. Chairman Mariano.
So uh anything from the dias? If not, I'd like to hear a motion. Well
do we want to have uh rebut or you like the rebut?
Uh
Um we would make the engineer available in reference to either of those questions if you would like to speak to them. I think staff did a good job of explaining um the access situation uh and of course a uh Mr Marcel can uh address the traffic uh study and um So I would just ask if you would like him to address any of this or whatever.
Well, I for one live right in that area, so I'm keenly aware of the traffic there and I don't see I never have a problem in that p particular area of fifty four. And I drive it every day and every night.
Well and I
so point
out that site distance is a requirement he needs to meet as part of his access management application, so
Staff will make sure that's addressed.
Yeah. Same thing for the wetlands. Yeah.
With that I'd move
to approve um You need to take action on these separately so I would do PC P four first. Item well I'll move to approve item PC four.
We have a motion to approve. Yeah second. Second. We have a second and a third. All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay.
Move to approve item P5.
And we have a second. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Yeah. That's a good job, Mr. Booth, on the uh on that project.
That
was
a good job on that project. Good looking project. Yeah, we're
David and I live in that area, so we're keenly aware of uh of what's going on there and and uh I for one think it's been well put together. So thank you very much.