LARGE-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - CPAL18(13) Grande Oaks - Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (2-15 AND SHEET 15) Changing from RES-1 (RESIDENTIAL - 1 du/ga) to PD (Planned Development on Approximately 175.72 Acres of Real Property Located at the Southwest Corner of S.R. 52 and Prospect Road Intersection; with Associated Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.53; and an Amendment to the Future Land Use Subarea Map 2-9(53
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionApproved
Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, May 9, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, May 9, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-19-0964 in full →Heard once. PDD-19-0964 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- May 9, 2019PlanningP14▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 30m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 46% of 123 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Sorry, trying to get you to P fourteen.
Take your time.
Almost there. There you go. And here's uh Viviana Martinez.
Good afternoon, Rihanna Martinez, Planning and Development Department. You'll now be acting as a local planning agency.
Uh I wanted to begin by stating into the record that there have been four ex parte that have been submitted to the clerk. One for um Planning Commission Member Michael Cox, Jamie Girardi, Kevin Ryman, and Chuck Gray.
Thank you. Someone noted?
Item P14 pd 190964 is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment in the name of Seapal 1813 Grand Oaks. The project proposes to change the future land use from Res 1 residential 1 dwelling unit per acre to PD Plan development future land use on approximately 175 acres with associated sub-area policies.
Subject properties are located in east central Pasco County. And they are at the southwest corner of State Road fifty two and Prospect Road Intersection.
Some of the surrounding zoning districts include MPUD, Master Plan Unit Development District, C2, uh general commercial district, AC Agricultural and AR Agricultural Residential. Some of the surrounding land uses include Res1 to the north, ROR, Retail Office Residential to the north, village mixed use to the east and to the south. Oops, I'm sorry, to the west and to the south and east is AGR agricultural
rural to the east.
This slide gives you a better idea of the surrounding area. As you can see, the town of St. Leo is abutting the northwest portion of the subject properties and is surrounded by the villages of Pasadena Hills Special Area Plan. The concentric circle shown here, kind of in a dark blue, uh depicts the village center of Village A at the intersection of Clinton Avenue Extension and Prospect Road. It is important to note that the proposed project is not within the Villages of Pasadena Special Area
Plan, only surrounded by it. Again, the project is proposing to go from Res 1 to PD on an undeveloped and vacant piece of property, with the exception of a barn.
This map shows the existing future land use of Res One. And this one shows the proposed uh P D flu.
As previously mentioned, the proposed PDF has associated sub-area policies. The policies require that any rezoning amendments within the subject properties are required to go through an MPD master plan unit development process. The sub-area policies also discuss the minimization of visual intrusion of future development through the utilization of existing.
Yeah. It also encourages a development transition away from Clinton Avenue Extension and Prospect Road. As it goes towards the town of St. Leo to the west, and it also provides a bike and pedestrian connectivity to existing and planned trails. This table shows the maximum square feet in dwelling units allowed on the properties, 340,000 square feet for retail commercial, 60,000 square feet for office, and 900 dwelling unit max
per residential.
Again, the project is not within the villages of Pasadena Hills, but Village A is to the east and it establishes a village establishes a village center at the intersection of Clinton Avenue and Prospect Road that is planned for higher density. and at the center and diminishes as it gets closer to the town and outwards. With the maximum 900 dwelling units, that would result in a density of 5.06 dwelling units per acre, which is appropriate given the surrounding village densities that can allow between four to ten
dwelling units per acre. There's also an associated MPUD gonna be heard today that addresses the site more specifically.
This slide reiterates reiterates the what I previously mentioned on the other slide with the dark blue depicting uh the dark blue circle depicting the village center A. This shows the same using the village's Pasadena Hills map.
And the transportation needs assessment showed that the study area would operate at an acceptable level of service with the proposed development. And with that, Planning and Development recommends that the LPA find the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommends approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you.
All right, thank you. So the applicant's present. You wanna speak now, Ms. Applicant, or you wanna what rate rebut? I g yeah I know you requested extra time, so
we can do it anyway. We we have one presentation, a PowerPoint presentation, just to talk about both the comp plan and the M P U D so we don't uh we didn't want to be repetitive so we have one PowerPoint presentation to be presented by Matt. Okay. I know the town is here if you want to hear from the town and then we can present and be able to explain in our presentation and you know we're butt that's fine too.
Whatever you think best.
So We'll go forward and let the town speak and then we'll give our presentation and and incorporate our rebuttal in that.
Okay. Great. Thank you, Barbara. Okay, who who is here to speak for the city?
Can you state your name and address please?
Richard Christmas [address removed].
And you've
been sworn,
right?
I'm mayor of the town. Um commission. Excuse me?
You have been sworn.
I have been sworn. Thank you. So um Yeah. Pardon me, um we typically don't come to the county's uh planning meetings, so uh so bear with me if you would. Our first uh discussion with the applicant occurred around December uh twenty eighteen at town meeting. Um and that at that time the town uh said we had concerns about the density and the transition uh zone between this development as well to the town. Based
on our concerns, we sent a letter to the Planning Commission, to the chairman of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission themselves outlining our concerns. And that letter is probably in y'all's packet. And I'm not going to go through it because it would be repeating what you already know. After that letter, we had a meeting with the county staff as well as with the developer down in Newport Ritchie. And what we learned at that meeting was in spite of our concerns about the density of the property, uh we learned a lot of things, but one of the things we learned was in spite of the d the
density of that property. Um At that time when they came to the town it was 600 units and then it was up by 150% to 900 units on the 170 acres and that was based on a recommendation from the county staff.
So I presented another concern for the town. Um
Yeah.
Following that meeting, we had a meeting at you know in the town of St. Louis in our monthly meeting. The developer came, we discussed our our meeting our previous meeting with them at that meeting and then we then submitted a second letter Outlining our concerns to the Chairman of the County Board of County Commissioners re-reiterating those issues. So the town is okay with the current zoning. The current zoning is compatible. With the development that is across the street, across State Road fifty two. Uh, which is Lake
Jibeta. One dwelling unit per gross acre. That's what the zoning is right now. We're perfectly fine with that. It also matches up perfectly with the uh the zoning that the um that's the the closest piece of property that touches this this uh development parcel uh is also one unit per acre. So the town is fine with that. We we also understand property owners Rights, landowners' rights. what is being proposed is going beyond what their current rights are. to
something way more dense. And um when I saw the graphic just a minute ago and I just did the math in my head, uh, I see that nine hundred units on 170 acres comes out to something like a little over five unit per acre. But then when you throw in the equivalent of three and a half uh Home Depots and 60,000 square feet of office space, now you're going way more dense than than, you know, even if you were to say you're putting five units per acre, because you got to squeeze
in, you know, the equivalent of three Home Depots and a and 60,000 square feet of office space and then these houses. So with that the town requests denial of the um proposed comprehensive plan change. That's the end of my comments for the uh comprehensive plan.
Go ahead,
David. So did the town object when the villages of Pasadena Hills was created? Yes. He he showed up at the public hearing and objected to the village's past in hills.
I'm sure we went to the meeting at the uh uh Don McBath Activity Center and raised concerns there. And whether or not we sent out a uh a specific letter after that, I couldn't speak to that.
So did y like did you show up at any County meeting, county public moun county meetings like this, like a planning commission, board of county commissioners, opposed to the villages of Pascoina Hills.
I couldn't speak to that. I did not personally show up on notice, but I w there was a period of time that I was not on the town commission.
Do you know if the town sent anybody to proposed the villages about any hills?
I still can't speak to that either.
'Cause the reason I'm asking is because are you aware of the fact that this property almost was in the villages of Pasco Hills?
Well I am aware of that, yes.
Okay, so if it had
been almost was and is is not the same exact thing, right?
I understand that, but it it got removed literally the day of the last had you been there, you would know that it was removed literally the day of the final public hearing passing the Hills. It was it was in all the way up until that day and they elected to be pulled out of it at the very last minute. Um but my question is if it had been in the P villages of Pasco Hills Would you still be a director?
So you want me to give an opinion on something that happened in the past that I wasn't able to do it. Well it
could still could happen. They could annex it to the bill. They could say we want to be able to do that.
So the e the easy answer for me is say yes we would object it objected, right? Because there's no way to prove or disprove that.
Well I'm asking is if they just decided to join the villages of Pas in the Hills, would you still object?
We would have objection to any kind of density like this on the town border, yes.
Okay. It's just interesting to me that nobody from the town was there when we were approving the villages of Palestinian Hills, including when we were trying to decide whether to include this property in or out of it. The town wasn't there at all. But I was there, I'm just telling you from personal memory, there was a big debate at the Board of County Commissioners about whether this property should or should not be in the villages of Palestinian Hills. The town did not weigh in one way or the other. And i if I'm bringing this up because had but for the property owner decided
at the last minute to pull themselves out, they would be in Pasco Hills and one argu could argue they'd already be entitled to the density that they're Seeking today.
Right, and we would not be here right now. But we are here now addressing this. Okay. Not that. We're we're talking about this specifically, right? Which is not part of I heard is not part of Pascina Hills. Is that a is that a correct statement?
It it's not in there today, but my my my question for you is if this was so egregious for this to happen, where was the town with the day we were deciding whether to keep putting in past hills or not? Where were you all?
D y you were also where this property owner came to us to annex into the town when they were trying to work with a deal with a deal with the county and there was also the lawsuit over the uh land bill going on at the same time. They were not sure.
I'm aware of all that, but I'm not sure how that's r relevant to the level of density that's allowed in this project. So
you have a question. Uh mayor. Did the applicant? Request annexation?
The current applicant did not.
They did not.
And has not. Prior owners? Prior to this applicant, this their this this owner, from my understanding, did uh I'm assuming I'm assuming it's the same person. I actually can see who owns the property, but that piece of property was re you know, they came to us asking us if we would annex them in and strung us along for a period of time.
And w and what did the city decide or the town decide to do with the annexation request?
We decided that we were gonna wait for them to bring us a formal proposal.
So they never actually requested annexation.
That's correct. They did not come into the meeting and uh and do it formally through the meeting. It
was
all uh like discussions with uh with the planner and with the with the attorney and uh and with uh the mayor at the time.
Nobody else? All right. All right. Anything else? No, sir. Okay. Anybody else that would like to speak? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Give us your name and address? Look forward to hearing from you.
Arnold Currington, [address removed]. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you for listening to our petitions concerning the Grand Oak's development. I would like to talk about the proposed density. According to the advertised information, there would be 900 homes and 400 square feet of commercial space and office space placed on 178 acres.
This uh amounts to point one four acre per lot or about seven houses per acre. according to my calculations.
Taking a 0.14 acre lot placing a house plus a driveway plus a swimming pool or a patio, I question where there would be room for a grand oak. As a comparison, our neighbor to the north, the Lake Jovita development, encompasses 1,054 acres and currently has 696 homes. Fully built out, it'll have 871 homes. This is fewer homes than the Grand
Oak's proposals, even though the land mass is about six times larger. Lake Javita has many rolling hills and lakes. The Grand Oaks project will occur in only one hillside. I attended the April 8th County Commission meeting where the proposal to change the zoning was introduced. At that meeting the Commission recognized a water conservation group and declared April as Florida Water
Conservation Month. We're thankful for such groups working to preserve our variable resources. So good conservation is bolstered by good planning. And here is an opportunity for you, our appointed officials, to control the density of the planned development and make a real difference in conservation, as well as the quality of life of our residents, both current and in the future. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir.
Anybody else?
Any other speakers? Barbara?
Barbara Will Hight for the record. Matt Armstrong has a presentation that I think will address um those questions. The 600-900 issue, so not to get confused, the zoning is for 600, our request was for 600. When we were working with the planning staff, they thought that there in the future someday may be more demand for additional apartments because it's so close to the university. And so they asked us to add into the comp plan 300 additional units to the 900. We
are zoning 600. If someday there's a demand for more, we have to go back through this process with the public hearing to have 900. So our presentation and the numbers and the density. um is based upon what we're actually zoning it for. So I just want to give that preface because I know that I don't get a lot of numbers thrown out at Chanel. So with that I'll let Matt do do his thing.
Uh good afternoon, Matt Armstrong for the applicant. 855-28th Street South in St. Petersburg is 33712.
Um I'm I'm going to try to set the stage here, the context a little bit of where this is at. I I I was part of the Villages of Pasadena Hills plan many, many years ago, so I I remember that. I remember a lot of the the things we talked about back then and and density and where it goes and where it's right to put it was a big part of that conversation. And trying to respect the area out there. In fact, that whole village is a Passian the Hills plan had its origin in trying not to mess things up out there because
of the hills, because of the scenery, and try to keep these things clustered as much as we can. So density in the right place in the right way can be a good thing because it does conserve the land as opposed to just spreading out. uh all over the place without any kind of respect for for what's there. Um this is the southwest corner or the or the project rather is in the southwest corner. So if you're standing here you're looking uh southwest across to that hillside uh and and up the up the up the slope
to the top. Um so kind of what, where, why, and how. I mean, as as far as uh y'all know, here's 75 and and existing State Road 52 comes along and goes up towards uh San uh Saint Leo this this direction. The new fifty-two alignment will come across through Murata. You've got uh Connected city over here, Maratha is here, and then it comes across and goes through the subject property right about
here. It connects to Clinton Avenue and then it heads on over to Fort King and then 301 and over to US 98. So it's rolling right through there. That construction is supposed to start as early as this year. So we're we're looking at context This is everything that's going on around here. We've got uh the connected city, there you see it in the blue color, uh, right there, right off of 75, the new interchange there. Uh there's an area established
in the comp plan called Gateway Hub. The idea here was to have some of the light industrial and uh employment generating uses here. Uh same thing right on the other side with uh one Pasco Center, some of the industrial projects here. There's Even some spec industrial stuff coming in up here that I've heard about. And then of course you've got St. Leo University tucked in here, Lake Jovita, and then VOPH. And then you're over to Dade City. So we're right in the middle of all of this, and it's
been a long time in the planning to get to this point. So we're we're looking at completing this plant and and really following through on what's been established and what's been set up, uh not trying to change course at this point. Uh we look at the southeast corner of prospect in Clinton that was rezoned uh just uh in March twenty eighteen, thirty-four developable acres. Uh it's much smaller, two hundred and seven residential units. This project that I'm talking about is is right over here. So part of villages
that passed in the hills, right on the east side of Prospect. That that rezoning just went through an MPUD here. We've got uh 6.6 units an acre, 150,000 square feet of commercials, 60,000 square feet of office. Uh we're we're coming in at less than that. Uh again, the idea was to step down. B OPH has a lot in it. We're not we're not in it, uh as has been clearly stated. So the idea was to step down from that, to say, okay, we're not going to bring that same density right up to the town's edge. We're
gonna step that down, we're gonna transition down, we're gonna respect the fact that the town uh doesn't want as much density as what V OPH was was presenting.
Here's what the zoning map looks like. So subject property outlined here, we've got the orange, the line of orange is this is the subject for the MPUD. This spot right here, that's where we abut the town right now. The gentleman that was speaking earlier in Shakespeare Lane, this neighborhood here, so it's a beautiful little neighborhood. These are one-acre lots in here. uh the town halls in uh in the in this general area. Uh the project, the M PUD project butts up to the town right up right around
here. Um here's Prospect Road, there's existing C two, existing C two on the other side, the M PUD for Lake Davida. This is the MPUD that came through recently, part of VOPH in 2018. There's another MPUD right over here that's also part of V OPH that that does but up to the town limit. So we've had a few MPUDs that have come through similar to ours that are adjacent to the town limit fairly recently and
they went through as part of V OPH. I think it's important to note here too. This white dotted line, that's actually the applicant's property as well. So they own this piece, they own the piece that is the subject of the MPD rezoning. as well. So we've worked with county staff to set up some conditions of approval that that try to strengthen and add to the buffers to be a little bit more than what your standard buffer uh would be under the Land Development
Code. Uh we've even looked at uh what it would be to buffer some of this uh to to your own to our own property. Uh but this this piece is not part of the MPD right now, just the stuff towards Prospect Road.
Can I ask a question on that while you're on it? Uh Matt, what is that what is that property that's in the town currently zoned as?
Uh in in the town, I think it's similar to what you've got here on Shakespeare Lane, uh, which I believe, and and Mayor Christmas or town planner could probably state this better than I can, um, that it's a similar zoning to this, probably a one unit per acre residential uh type of zone. Lower density, certainly the town has been very clear in what their their own vision and their own comp plan is. which is to keep that rural character, respect the rural character of the area. Uh despite the fact that the university's across the street, the town has tried
to keep that uh that same uh rural feeling to it, not at as a lower density. So their own comp plan does speak to that. Uh the county's comp plan in this area is is a little bit different in terms of vision. So it it's been a long, a long story where these two things come together.
Um as we talked about the property on the north side of uh existing 52s, C2. We've got C2 uh on on our property, Lake Javita's there in the northwest, uh the university there up on the top of the hill uh is there, has been there for for a long time. Um pretty intense use is there.
We talked about market demand too for this area. It's changing, that's always a balancing act as as to what you do when you need something. And uh there's there's little to existing off campus apartments right now for the university. And they handle a lot of it on on campus. Uh My wife works for them. She went to college there many years ago and housing's always been an interesting issue with with them. But they are nice dorms. But there's probably a need in the future as the university grows in this area for something like that. You've
got the new 52 coming through. Uh and there there will be significant traffic volumes. In fact, uh when Steve Henry was looking at this and working with the county and F D OT, there was a lot of volume coming out under Prospect Road, uh even even coming off the New 52, the amount of left turns off the New 52 on the Prospect going back up to what will become County Road, uh County Road 52. There's there there'll be a lot of traffic in this area. Likely likely a good market for for things to develop there. We're
residential to residential. That's that's compatible. This master plan only allows single family adjacent to the town, so we set up conditions in the MPD that say, okay, when you're up against the town It's only single family residential. You can't have apartments there, you can't have multi-family there, there can't be townhouses there, single family detached next to the town. We've uh written uh conditions to say that larger single family lot sizes would be adjacent to those existing one acre lots in the town. Um what's
that? How big? How big? We we've prob they're probably um you know the si what we said sixties, sixty feet wide. Sixty foot wide lots, probably by one twenty one ten.
That's what's spec'd out on the MPD right now. Of course, with the buffers to significantly enhance buffers over and above what we would typically be required to do in the code. So we've tried to buffer that more than we normally would do. Um and here we're talking about those greater buffers uh than than what's in the code already.
a construction of the multi-use path, so that was something the town uh requested, which was a good idea, to connect uh what will be built on current road fifth State Road fifty two back to the university to tie that in along Prospect to the new multi-use trail that's that's on the new State Road fifty two. So that that uh pedestrian access uh is present uh and and people can get uh to where they need to go without having to have a car.
Um and with that uh that's that's my my piece. I'm open for questions if you have any.
Okay, any questions for Matt?
Anybody from up here?
I said two things to add to that, please. Um one is that I was interested in Mr. Goldstein's questioning about the town and their participation because in twenty ten village parcel C one and village C came forward A dragon. directly adjacent to a town. And we're rezoned for 165 single-family homes on 46 developable acres, which is 3.5 units per acre. We're at three point three units per acre developable acre.
That was three point five along their boundary. So we we have a consistent plan here. uh the county is con being consistent in their planning. The other thing that I I find interesting when somebody stands and says res one, res one, res run is that the Complan frowns on Res One. You can't get a Res One land use density because that is the definition of sprawl. It's in an inefficient land use pattern. And if you look at a lot of the larger lot projects, what do you see? You see no drainage, no sidewalks, no street
lighting, you know, n no parks. It's be Somebody taught me once a really good planner named Francis Channel Marino that density is not your enemy. if i if the roads can accommodate it it is the plan and it's planned for, it's not your enemy because it allows those things as master drainage, street lights, parks, um Sidewalks. In this case, it's it's providing for the ability to have a multi-use trail for the students to get to State Road 52 extension. So with that, um we worked hard with staff on
this project. We're proud of this project. We think it'll be a very good project and a good fit. Um and we'd ask for your recommendation to the BOCC of approval.
All right. Any questions for Barbara?
I hear a motion from somebody.
To be clear, you have two different items before you on this project. You have a language amendment and you have a rezoning, so You need to take them up separately in their voting. Okay. So And and technically I realize everybody spoke, but I would vote on the Land Development Code first and just confirm nobody else wants to speak to the zoning before you take action on that.
Okay. So you're saying item P fourteen nineteen dash zero nine six four? Yes. Yes.
You need to take action on P fourteen first. Right.
So I'll move approval of P
fourteen. Have a motion to approve. Do I have a second?
I'll second.
Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed?