ZONING AMENDMENT (REGULAR) – Grande Oaks MPUD Master Planned Unit Development – Iafrate Properties, LLC, – A Rezoning Request From an A-C Agricultural, A-R Agricultural-Residential and C-2 General Commercial Zoning Districts to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development Zoning District to Allow a Mixed Use Development on Approximately 177.75 Acres. Sections 6 & 7, Township 25 and Range 21.

1:18:28All right. So does staff want to do presentation on P fifteen now?

1:18:36Good afternoon, Chairman Gray and members of the Commission. My name is Gus Karpis, uh current planning. So we are here to speak a little bit more about Grand Oaks. Uh P15 RZ 7351, uh rezoning for Uh zoning amendment for Grand Oaks, MPUD Master Planned Unit Development, rezoning request from AC Agriculture, A1 Agriculture Residential, and C2 General Commercial Zoning Districts

1:19:07to an MPUD uh Master Planned Unit Development to allow a mixed use development on approximately 177 acres. Uh On 177 acres, as you see, uh you've seen some of these slides already with Viviana. The property is located on the southwest corner of State Road 52 and Prospect Road intersection. Uh the current uh again uh I'm trying to see the slide there. The current Zoning

1:19:39districts there are uh again AC, AR and C two. They're again looking to look make that an MPUD zoning. The current or future land use for the property is Res One. Uh you have made a motion to uh amend that and approve that emotion. And then we're looking at a slide here that shows the county-defined rural areas. This property is not located in that area. Uh here you're showing that uh village A

1:20:09and that uh commercial area, that central market area uh in relation to the property. You also see the town of St. Leo is to the northwest of the subject property. You also have village A to the east. and Village C of the villages of Pasadena Hill. Uh uh around the subject property along with the Clinton Avenue extension which is gonna bisect this property. Um attached is the master plan with the conceptual

1:20:40uh access points.

1:20:44Okay, so the request specifically uh as I think Barbara did state is the the rezoning from the agriculture, agricultural residential, general commercial to an MPUD master plan development allowing uh six hundred single-family detached villas. town homes and multifamily uh units. Also uh uh three hundred three hundred and forty thousand square foot of commercial development and

1:21:14sixty thousand square foot of office development development on 177 acres. Uh they were seeking the correspondent camp comprehensive plan amendments, which you just discussed and uh recommended for approval. Um the proposed main access to this property is off of Prospect Road south of the intersection of the existing State Road 52, which is an existing signal uh signalized uh intersection. Uh

1:21:45you did see this also with uh Viviana's slide, the existing zoning and the existing uses on the property. So I don't know if you'd like me to go through them again. Uh the proposed development is located in central market area and outside the urban service area and rural area. Uh the proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County Land Development Code, Chapter 400, Subsection 402.2, Zoning Amendment, Master Planned Unit Development,

1:22:15and with the applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Development Department recommends approval based on the following criteria. Uh the proposal does step down the density and creates appropriate transition between the higher densities of the villages of Pasadena Hills to the town of St. Leo. The proposed development will be beneficial, we feel, to the town of St. Louis and St. Louis University by providing both needed residential

1:22:46options and non-residential services for the students near campus. And by providing out entitlements outside the borders of the town of Saint Leo, uh by providing uh entitlements outside the borders of town of Saint Leo, allowing the town to meet the service needs of their students, faculty, and residents while maintaining the integrity of their own comprehensive plan goals by pr uh of providing a rural feel within the town borders. Uh

1:23:16that is what I have. If there's any questions, thank you for listening.

1:23:20Okay.

1:23:22Any questions

1:23:23up here? All right.

1:23:28Well maybe this is just a clarification thing for me. Um but when I look at the approval con the conditions of approval, there's There's a couple different dimensional standards for single family residential. When I look at the MPD master plan, there's only one.

1:23:43Okay.

1:23:44Can somebody clarify where I mean I know it says it when it when it abuts or I think it either says abuts or adjacent, I'm trying to remember problems here pulling it up, but

1:23:52Sure. Barbara Wilhite. So the master plan always sets forth a typical lot tail that's the m detail that's the minimum. but we have a condition for the lots adjacent to the existent residential lots in the town that provide for a larger um larger dimensional standards. standards. So that's in cond on page

1:24:11ten. Is staff gonna know how to Interpret that or there's not I mean it's I'm trying to We can clear enough for whenever you go in for a site plan.

1:24:19We'll make a notation before the board meeting um to tie our condition together. We can do that.

1:24:25Okay. Very good. Thank you.

1:24:30Okay, any other questions? Okay. Any objections?

1:24:37Yes, sir. Well, Mr.

1:24:39Chairman before you take the objection, just 'Cause technically the applicant we get to speak again unless she's willing to waive that.

1:24:49She can rebut, yeah.

1:24:50Well I know, but she's allowed to make initial presentation on the Wikipedia. I just want to make sure she's okay now.

1:24:54We're d we're going to defer.

1:24:56Okay. Thank

1:24:56you. Thank you. Thanks for keeping me straight there. No problem.

1:25:03Yes. Richard Christmas, [address removed]. Um I'd like to reiterate my concerns that I had when we talked about the comprehensive plan change. Um You know, I want to be clear the town is not saying no to development. Um, just that the development next to the town needs to be compatible with the town sensitive to the topography and is not an eyesore that's in the view um that would be something similar to what you might see if you were driving down State Road fifty and you were

1:25:33going to Claremont and you look at a bunch of houses where the orange trees used to be and I think that the county did that when they were developed in the rural view corridor. Uh I believe some people went over there and took a look at that and they said Well we don't want that over here. Well this is the first opportunity For uh the county to look at the first hills when you're coming east on State Road 52 is the hills of St. Leo and San Antonio. Um So um We had at our last uh meeting,

1:26:03we had the president of St. Louis University, Dr. Sunis. and he gave us the long range plan for the university and a discussion about how he is going to uh wishes to uh expand the West Campus. And the West Campus is going to include uh more dormitories. At no point did he talk about There was a need for what this development is going to bring. He did not say that they needed more apartment building off campus housing. He didn't say anything like that. He was uh happy with having students on campus. He's happy

1:26:33with the with the common artist and and the uh and the and the kind of a life college experience that those folks uh experience. There was no talk that well I wish there was more housing for these people to have uh off campus. Mm-hmm. Um So with that, rather than going through everything I went in through before, I also the town request that the zoning change is denied. Thank you.

1:26:58Mr. Christmas.

1:27:32Good afternoon. Tom Ashburn, next gen land planners, 5601, Clouds Peak Drive, Lutz, Florida, 33558.

1:27:44You know, the one thing that hasn't been mentioned and didn't show up on any of the maps that the county staff presents you or the developer presents you. is the topography of this property. And it's that topography that makes the mayor hinted at it, but it's what's makes this a unique property as well as St. Leo a unique town in Pasco County. And One of the town's greatest concerns was how this development would appear because the town's comprehensive

1:28:15plan values view corridors very highly. and emphasizes that they should be preserved. as much as possible to maintain that rural character and that rural feel to the town. Because this development sits on top of a hill that's to the east of the town We did some analysis through GIS and CAD and produced the graphic that you see up on the screen now. That shows you a point On

1:28:45the property, the Grand Oak's property that would be twenty feet above the ground and we've assumed, you know, a one story structure. Rather than saying it would be the full two stories. And where that would be visible from within the town. And what you can see is everything in green there. the development on the Grand Oak's property would be visible from the town. We did this for a number of points, and almost in every instance we found that most of the town would be able to see the development of Grand Oaks. And

1:29:16again, the mayor brought up the point about Claremont because this is really the first instance where Pasco County is faced with this challenge. as to how to deal with hillside development and the visual impacts that it has, not only on people driving through St. Leo, but every day on the people that live in St. Leo. So With this said, and I want to turn you back to the uh comprehensive plan amendment you just approved. One of the policies in that plan amendment

1:29:46was to minimize any visual intrusion of development and respect scenic viewsheds. And yet the sixty-two conditions that are attached to this planned development zoning Don't include any that deal with this issue. We think that there are ways to deal with this rather than just assuming that existing trees, which will probably all be cut down to for this development, will provide that kind of um visual barrier to make these houses more less visible to the town of St. Leo. And

1:30:17the town had great foresight in this. Back when their land development code was developed. They looked at codes around the country. They found one in California, a town that had a lot of hillside development. and they they put into our land development code pictures of how d hillside development should work. Uh and we've gone back to that now and and we've taken a couple sections of that. We'd be happy to share that with county staff, but we think there are ways beyond just stating in the uh plan

1:30:47amendment. that visual protection of view sheds should be provided. We think that there are conditions that should be added to the plan development to ensure this to the town. Thank you.

1:31:10Okay, do we have a motion? Move the receiving file. Sorry.

1:31:14Second.

1:31:15Motion to receive and file and the second all in favor. Aye.

1:31:31Mm-hmm.

1:31:34Yeah. Yeah.

1:31:41Yeah, this is

1:31:42good.

1:31:44What was he doing?

1:31:55Okay. Anyone else? From the town?

1:32:02All right then. A Matt or Barbara?

1:32:11Uh yeah

1:32:11Matt Matt Armstrong again for the applicant. Uh I I very much appreciate this this exercise and effort. You know, I I myself I grew up in Colorado, we dealt with this a lot. What can you see from where trying to protect the hillside? Claremont was always a big issue and and uh as Mr. Ashburn stated the the county has tried to deal with that as much as possible out in the northeast uh where we've got a lot of topography and it's it's tough because and to some extent you you you say okay well what what can you put on top and and what what does it look like? And

1:32:41the university itself is is up on top of the hill. Granted it's been there for a long time and the buildings are very beautiful and I think everybody genuinely uh genu uh genuinely likes it to be there. But gets it gets a little bit challenging. at a at a point like this to to say well what is it what is it that goes up there and how does it look and and all those types of things. I I think at a zoning level the idea of clustering things together as much as you can where it's not just completely spread out. If you cluster it you can buffer it and you can try

1:33:12to minimize the overall impact because you've contained it into one spot as opposed to letting it spread out like clear. Um because uh as as Mr. Ashburn stated, that's that's not something I don't think anybody wants to have happen here. Uh so um with that I I I respect what they've done here and

1:33:29and

1:33:29uh

1:33:30What's the policy, uh Matt, and you probably know this as well as anybody, is in terms of uh clearing the hillside. I mean there's beautiful trees on that property. What's the plan there?

1:33:40Well d as far as the trees go, that would default to the the tree ordinance that that protects it that protects it the same as it does if it's on a flat s site or if it's on a slope. Uh so trees.

1:33:52Yeah

1:33:52and

1:33:53flatten the trees.

1:33:56So you can't tell from this picture, but some of the other aerials that we had there, um most of that site doesn't have trees on it. There's a couple of spots where some grand oaks would be there and the tree ordinance would kick in. A lot of it uh I think was cleared probably a long time ago for for grazing. Yeah, a lot

1:34:12of it's pasture, but there are some nice, really nice oaks.

1:34:15There are. There are. And I and I think that's

1:34:17and I assume there'd be some special effort made to

1:34:21Yeah, and and yeah, through site planning and and and meeting the code requirements for at the point of a pr preliminary site plan.

1:34:28Mm-hmm.

1:34:30I would just add that the the trees and and talking about viewshevs, the trees are within the town on the um Order Benedictine's property. um in between our property and State Road fifty two, we are not adjacent to State Road 52 where we're high or adjacent to state road fifty two where we're low. So it's the the town has significant trees and prop and in between our property and and the town and state route fifty-two, as well as a significant category one wetland system,

1:35:00um which won't be able to be um cut down. So they do have that within their jurisdiction.

1:35:08Yeah, I just say from uh you know, uh I I know what you're talking about about Claremont because I've it looks pretty hideous. But you know, that was all Orange Grove. These are big oaks, these are things that are gonna hide the housing and um as long as they're And not cleared. I I I don't think you're gonna have the same effect, in my personal opinion. I don't know what the rest of the board thinks, but I think it's really a little bit of apples and

1:35:38oranges. Excuse my pun. But uh it's uh

1:35:46I don't think it's gonna have the same effect as as what you have over there because they went and just wiped out all the orange groves and put houses where the oranges were. So I just share that for my

1:36:01Yeah, my peop my um colleagues up here and I'd like to hear their comments.

1:36:10Anything? Anybody?

1:36:11Well I'm I'm not sure if you're referring to me as one of your colleagues, but I'm gonna make a comment with buttons. But um please keep in mind though that the state's about to build a major road right through this property. So um there's gonna be some trees taken down for that road. I I don't want anybody to think that Regardless of what they do from a development standpoint,

1:36:35those are gonna happen. Yeah.

1:36:36There's gonna be some impact because of the road that's coming through. So it's not gonna be a pristine hill or regardless of what they do.

1:36:45Mm-hmm.

1:36:48Yeah. Mr. Chairman Move for approval.

1:36:54We have a second.

1:36:56One second.

1:36:57We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries.

1:37:15Okay.

1:37:32Land, should we have one more? Yeah.

1:37:38I knew we'd get you up here sooner or later.