COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (REGULAR) - CPAL 20(10) TWO RIVERS –Providing for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.11: Two Rivers; and a Map Amendment to the Highway Vision Plan and Functional Class Map 7-36.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Partial Approval
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jan 7, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jan 7, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-21-0097 in full →PDD-21-0097 was taken up 4 times between Jan 7, 2021 and Apr 20, 2021, continued 1 time — this is appearance 1.
- Jan 7, 2021PlanningP4▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Feb 9, 2021BoardP58▶Approved
- Apr 7, 2021BoardP47▶Continued
- Apr 20, 2021BoardP46▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 59m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 60% of 225 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
the following item, item P four, will be presented by Amy Heiler.
Good afternoon, Amy Heiler with Planning and Development. The matter that you see here is going to be CPAL 2010 in the name of two rivers, PDD 210097. It's going to be a comprehensive plan text amendment to the existing sub-area as well as a proposed map amendment to the Highway Vision Plan Map. The proposed amendment is going to amend the existing sub-area policy seven sub-area policy flu 7.1.112 rivers
and the Highway Vision Plan Map 7-36 to update the sub-area policies to better reflect today's development environment as well as clean up redundant language. Some of those modifications are to include a land use equivalency matrix. While maintaining the employment generating uses that are existing, provisions for mixed use development as well as its location, update transit provisions and protections on environment impacts and regulations. The location is going to be along State
Road 56, east of Morrist Ridge Road, or Morrist Bridge Road and west of Gall Boulevard. And as a resolution to their provision. proposal, we are recommending to provide a text amendment as well as a map amendment to uh 7-36.
The comprehensive plan, the proposal is consistent with the existing policy flu 7-1 or 7.1.112 rivers, as well as the South Market area. The property is located. This is going to be your visual of in the South Market area as well as the urban service area.
And it's located east, as you see, um, of Morris Ridge Boulevard and west of Gull Ridge, uh, with State Road 56 bisecting. The property is also consisting of approximately three thousand four hundred and five acres.
The existing zoning is going to be AC Agricultural and AR Agricultural Residential. The applicant is submitting an accompanying MPUD master plan once the comprehensive plan is adopted.
This is what your existing future land use looks like. It is currently PD with CON going through the center. The existing PD has the sub-area policy flu 7-7.1.11 to rivers.
So the reason why we are providing um visuals, what we're about to go into now, of the transportation network, is there are some um recommendations that staff would like to provide. that the applicant and staff aren't in agreement in. So I'll show you the applicant's proposal, also show you staff's proposal, and then our recommendation to move to the board. So what you see there pref previously was the
existing network. Um and then we'll go to the next one. Sorry. And that what uh the applicant is proposing is basically reclassifying lanyard road to a residential, removing Oldwoods Avenue connector, and then removing the county line road. So the applicant's proposal to remove those segments is because With the removal of County Line Road, the
property owner owns the development to the south, which is in Hillsborough County. And what they're proposing is to reconnect County Line Road through that property of Hillsborough County. So in the end of the presentation, I'll show you their master plan, which identifies that. The removal of Old Woods Avenue. They're stating that they're showing an alignment on that is consistent with the vision roadmap on their master plan, however, they would like to request a removal of the segment for Indian
Creek system. To avoid unnecessary environmental impacts. And then the removal of lanear road, the applicant is proposing to provide this road as depicted on their master plan, however, they would like to reclassify it from a county collector. So I do have um teams or representation from our transportation team if you have any questions with regards to that, but I'll provide you their comments on why
if you go to the next one. Um, so that's gonna be the final visual of what the applicant is proposing.
And
then we'll go to the next. So, staff's recommendation, they are in support of removing county line road as previously stated because they're just relocating it on the other side of the county boundary. However, they are not in support of removing Oldwoods Avenue nor removing linear or reclassifying that as a residential. And the reasons staff's State is they're not in support of eliminating the Old Woods connection because this
connection will help the network connectivity and avoid the intersection failures at major roadways, as well as lanyar road reclassification. It is considered a north-south connection from County Line Road all the way to State Road 54. If it gets eliminated, There will not be any other north-south road for two miles. And per the land development code, there is a one mile spacing recommendation for collector roadways. So that
is their justification or our justification. And if you go to the next one. Uh oh I didn't put that in there. I might be hidden. I did provide, and it is in your packet as well, the master plan that they're proposing so you can see the visual of where those road networks would be. But with that, um what we're requesting is that the um to the board we're we're seeking an alternative motion. And it looks like that one is
the wrong slide, so I'll read them off to you. So what we're seeking is an alternative motion to the board. We do find the text amendment consistent. However, the map amendment, we're asking either to approve the applicant's proposal to amend the Highway Vision Plan and Functional Classification Map 7-36, approve the proposed. Amendment to the Highway Vision Plan and Functional Classification Map according to the recommendation of the Planning and Development Department, deny the proposed amendment, or
direct PDD to take any other action. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mr. Chair,
I
have
a question.
So can you put the map back up, please?
So on the removal of County Line Road I understand that that's premised on a similar road being Located in Hillborough County. I guess my question is what happens if Hillsboro County doesn't approve the road. Um See, I mean we have no control over Hillsborough County. So I'm a little concerned. with removing a road, if staff thinks that road is needed based on an assumption
that another county is going to provide it. Or allow for it. when we don't control that county. So What How is staff dealing with that issue?
Um we have uh agreed with the applicant and Clark is here to speak more to that if necessary, that the uh MPUD will recognize and provide um that connection and that uh segment if necessary if it's not going or if if something ends up happening in Hillsborough County that it does not get constructed, then yes, the applicant has agreed to provide that connection if necessary.
Can I ask a quick question on that? Let's say that this is a proof. What you just said is correct. What about eight, nine, ten years down the road? Okay. remove the road that Hillsboro County said that we will maintain and they say, Well, we no longer wish to do that.
Sure. Currently it's gonna the proposal is to provide it in a condition of the master, the MPUD that's gonna accompany this. So it will be addressed in the conditions of approval for that rezoning.
So Amy, I guess my question though is why didn't we show it on the vision map as Leave it on the vision map, but just put a note that Maybe removed. If parallel road provided in Hillsboro. I mean My concern with just removing it is If the road isn't provided in Hillsboro then it's effectively disappeared. I mean, I don't know what our basis would be to require The right of way In
Pasco if the road is gone. I mean it seems better to put it put a instead of eliminating it Just add a note on the vision map saying Maybe removed if if alternate roadway provided in Hillsborough.
Right. And if that was if that's how we would like to proceed, we can proceed with that too. And I could give the applicant a moment to um address that too if necessary.
Yeah, that seems like a good idea, David.
Okay.
Can I ask you a question too?
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman Mariano too. Could I address that for the applicant briefly?
Uh yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, David, Purart, I know what we discussed previously was conditioning it in the MPD, and that we would reserve that right away in the MPUD as a backstop, which Clark and I had agreed with you. But unless Clark disagrees, I don't have any objection with your proposal as long as the footnote is clear. What we were concerned about is obviously we can't have the MPUD. He deemed inconsistent. With the vision uh the highway vision plan. So I think as long as
it's appropriately noted that it's not applicable if the connection's made in Hillsboro, then I think we can work with uh Brad Tippen and condition it appropriately in the MPUD. Uh Clark, is that acceptable to you?
Yeah,
this is Clark
Hobby. Yes, Joel, that that's acceptable to us. And Mr. Chairman, if I don't know if Amy's done with her side, but it'd probably be advisable for at least Joel and I and maybe uh couple of other of our staff members to be sworn in before we get going in earnest.
Yeah, that's a great idea. Is there any other questions for Amy?
I guess not, Amy. So thank you very much. We may have more questions for you after. Okay. All right, Clark. Uh let's get you someone in.
All right. If you raise your right hand and do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God.
Ado.
Thank you.
So Mr. Chairman, again, this is Clark Hobby, Hobby and Hobby, PA 109 North Brest Street, Tampa, Florida. As you just heard, I have been sworn and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. And Joel too and I are serving as co-counsel on this matter. And uh We have also available via phone Clark Low Miller from Ardura. uh formerly King and Associates, who's been the project planner on this uh project for a number of years, actually probably
in excess of 10 years. Cynthia Spidel, who's worked on this for a long time as well, who's now at Stearns Weaver, and Steve Henry is our transportation consultant. We are here working on behalf of Eisenhower Property Group, which is Uh going to have an affiliate that's the master developer of the project. So we asked for a little bit of extra time today because I wanted to. bring the Planning Commission up to speed on this project as a whole. And then we can talk
about some of the details on the highway vision map thing. But before I I Forget one thing that's important there. In staff's presentation, I believe they were still showing the Old Woods connection. And I believe subsequent to Amy's staff report being done, we received an email that the MPO representatives were. uh now in agreement with our recommendation to removal the segment of Oldswood that runs across Indian Creek. We were advised of
that via email. So maybe while I'm speaking and our team is presenting that, Amy can be confirming that and then we'll we'll discuss this matter further after our presentation. So For your benefit, and I would ask Denise if she can put up our MPUD master plan now. We can uh start walking you all through the project. And explain to you. This exciting deal.
Okay, if you give me a minute, I'll do that. Just a moment.
Okay. While she's while she's pulling it up, I'll give you all a bit of background. This is a large piece of property. It's about 3,500 acres that uh lies uh between uh US 301 and Morris Bridge Boulevard, Morris Bridge Road. Um where the state road fifty-six extension runs and The project has been a big part of the county's planning of the urban service area and various projects related to transit over the last decade
or so. Uh, and is really kind of the anchor of the eastern end of the urban service area, given that it runs all the way to US 301. The project already has entitlements that are set out in the existing sub-area policies. It's already a PD future land use project, and it's had a couple of starts and stops already since like the mid-2000s. So a lot of planning work's already gone into it. And the
project now with the 56 extends. Extension being completed. uh is really ready to take off and we've got a great developer um team that's going to be running it and I feel like it's gonna be a great project for the county in general. Um you can see the master plan that's uh there and if you can blow it up a little bit, Denise. Thank you. So you can see State Road 56 running to the north uh third of the site. It's important that everyone on Planning
Commission understand. That Uh State Road 56 was built, uh the extension of it over six miles, I believe. uh was built through this project and two others. on the and and getting the third and fourth lanes built together with the first two. On the basis of a loan that the county got from the State Infrastructure Bank, which is an affiliate of DOT. In reliance on uh mobility fee surcharges that
are imposed on development within these three projects, of which Two Rivers is the largest. So basically the county and the applicant owner. work together with two other large projects to make 56 happen all at once. So it's been a collaborative deal for a number of years and the county needs those mobility fee surcharges. to uh pay back the state infrastructure uh bank loan that the county took out. So um Like
I said, having keeping that in mind, there are a series of other plans that the county's undertaken. As part of the development of the urban service area and included this property within it, all based on this project coming to fruition. It's a good mixed-use project. There are commitments that are going to be maintained throughout the project for employment generating uses, which are probably going to be developed in the pink areas that you're seeing by 56 and 3%. three
oh one and Morris Bridge and fifty six. So um there's a lot of good things that are going on here, but I don't want to spoil too much of it because I'm going to ask Clark Low Miller with Ardura. to walk you through the project in general since Clark's been working on this for so long. Clark if you would.
Mm-hmm.
Thanks, Clark. Um I haven't been sworn in officially so I probably should be that for
Raise your right hand then.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to help you God?
Did you hear that? Yep, I
do. Okay.
Thank you.
Sorry. If you can pull the M P D back up, that'd be great.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Clark Lomiller, as Clark Hobby mentioned, I'm with Ardura, formerly King Engineering and Associates at 4921 Memorial Highway, Suite 300. Capital Florida three three six three four Um I have been working on this project on off and on for uh at least 10 years now, uh, and it's changed hands multiple times. We've looked at it. multiple developers and this is the first one that's really Come with a plan that that wants to incorporate walkability,
wants to look at the community first and and the county first with regard to school locations and the and the park location first and foremost. And then also look at kind of the internal connectivity, walkability, and amenities. So let me first start out by saying we we started a program. um the school and park sites first. We wanted to accommodate a large facility. High school, middle school, elementary school, co-located
with the county park, which we've coordinated already with both groups, and they've started looking at the viability of that as an option. Uh this the park areas uh we've we've coordinated with Keith Wiley and some of the cool features of that will be a couple recreational complexes, seven multi-purpose fields, 12 diamonds in an aquatic center. Some playgrounds, dog park, tennis courts, basketball courts, uh, and some other open space elements to really amenitize
that portion or really this portion of the county and really co-locate that with the school facility that I know Chris is familiar with. So really excited about that. I know it's something that really comes in. further on down the road, but we really feel like we wanted to dri uh Account for that first in in the master planning. We've also taken the opportunity to push some of the commercial job creation to the further nodes to create opportunity for accessibility for the surrounding neighborhoods, surrounding rooftops, residents there
that may want, may come here to shop. Work. um to get their groceries. So it's easy access there. And they really focused internally in the yellow areas as you'll see and created a large boulevard loop system. Um really trying to avoid some of the major wetland features, the natural features, uh specifically Indian Creek, which then um connects down into Hillsborough River, class one water body. So it it was really important to us to to try to work our way around
that and not impact that at all. Um but the the loop in the middle. uh is the vision plan and the the connectivity down to the Hillsborough piece, which is one of the main purposes of relocating County Line Road down to the Hillsboro, what what it's called actually in zone called uh Two Rivers Preserve. That connection is already approved on the MPUD down there across Indian Creek, about I don't know you see the Tico right away there, the easement.
So it's probably about a thousand feet south of where the County Line Road would be on Pasco. So just felt it was an unnecessary crossing there, which it's already approved in Hillsborough. So the loop internal uh just on the Pasco property is about three miles and it will be a boulevard multi-purpose trail. Really having some stops and nodes. There's one showing on there right now in the pink area just north of the wetland as a mixed-use parcel. And there's gonna be multiple other ones along there that will support neighborhood
retail, restaurants, other commercial opportunities, coffee shops, things like that to really engage the community. When you complete the loop with the southern piece of the property, it's about six and a half miles. So we're hoping this allows for alternative vehicle opportunities to access the mixed-use areas, the amenities, allow for the opportunity to have 5Ks, 10Ks, marathons, fundruns, even some farmers markets and festivals along that loop
to really create a linear pathway and engagement internal to the property so that folks that live there don't have to. you know, go up to Chansey, get out on on uh Morphridge Road and 301, but really stay internal to their community. our overall goal in master planning this so far has really been to create a community that allows the residents to really not to be cliche, but really to live, work, and play here. And I think with the co-location of the school park facility allows
that. With the location of some of the larger big box opportunities, job creation on the perimeter. And then really keeping all the neighborhood support stuff internal, it allows that opportunity. So they don't have to get in their vehicles and drive out of the neighborhood. They can really stay in there. and go buy golf carts to get all their day-to-day goods. So with that, we're really excited about it and look forward to your support. And I'll turn it back over to Joel or Clark.
I'll I'll I'll take I'll take over here in a minute. In just a few minutes, I I can tell that I think we've had a little bit of misunderstanding with staff on this old Old Woods issue. Um and we received some communications in I think November. from staff saying that they supported removing that. And I'm going to have Steve Henry address it. But let let me talk about uh the changing of the uh Lanier road
that is on our site and the reasons why. We think that's merited. And I would ask Denise if you could throw up the uh overall lineier. exhibit I sent you that shows you uh where it runs north of the site and its general condition. While she's doing that, so as Clark Low Miller said, we have no objection to building warranted and needed vision roads on the site. Um, we're building about 6.7 miles of collector
roads within the site. So we don't have any objection to that. And where they're needed. Warranted and will make a functional difference, we have no problem with it. Linear Road, this is if you see the green line towards the bottom and then running up towards 54, that's Lanier Road directly off of our site. And there are about 75 to 100 homes. uh that directly access Lanier Road. It's a very small right-of-way, and
I believe the right-of-way originally starts from the Zephyr Land Colony Platte, and it's only 30 feet wide, but it's a loaded street with very little right-of-way there. And it runs up to 54 hypothetically, but there's also about a half-mile break in the middle. where there might may not be any right of way and the county doesn't even maintain it. And if and if Denise, if you would pop up a picture or two
that I sent you on that. I think Yeah, this is one of the examples you can see. Um, she'll put it back up in a sec. you can see it's a very, very narrow right-of-way and it's not publicly maintained in the picture. You could see on the left there's actually a a sign. Uh, where the residents are saying, we need you guys to chip in to help maintain this road because it's not being maintained by the county at all. Because of the way that road exists, it will never be
able to function as an unloaded collector road in the sense that highway vision collector arterial does, because there are already so many. Uh houses and units that directly need it for access. They have no other roads that provide access to those units. So even if the road is widened, it will still have units running on it in the way that we are proposing by making it a local street on our side. And to make it very clear, we have no objection
whatsoever to making a connection from 50 C. Up to where Lanier is, we will have a street there, and we're showing that on our MPUD. The only objection we have is making an unloaded collector road in that section because it's just not going to be functional. The county would have to take a lot of right-of-way on the area north of us, and it will still be loaded in any event. So again, a client has no objection to to making the connection there. And our
study in the county show that there's very, very little traffic that will run in that segment. And it just does not merit us building an additional two, three million dollar unloaded collector road. So that's why we're asking for that to be removed. And I do have Steve Henry here. He can answer any of the technical questions on that. But with regard to old woods, again, kind of a little bit blindsided here, we had been advised that staff supported removing
old woods. I'll tell you what I know about it, which is the highway vision map, uh for Oldwoods connection over east of Indian Creek requires another crossing of Indian Creek, which we don't think is permittable. uh because it's a class one uh water body that up to now has had um federal jurisdiction through the core. Maybe that ends up at DEP, but it's still going to be subject to waters of the United
States, because that's a headwater of the Hillsborough River. And furthermore, our studies and the county studies showed that this one segment that you can see the arrow on for Old Woods carries very, very little traffic. And I think the the stuff I got from Steve Henry shows that it's only carrying like 3,000 daily trips, which is very low. and would require a very expensive bridge to cross Indian Creek, which again that we think is going to be very expensive or not permittable
at all. From my perspective, those are the only changes, the only differentiations we have from staff on its recommendations. And Steve, I, you know, if you can get on and explain any of the technical side on Oldwoods or Lanier that I've missed, that would be great.
Yeah, I'm on uh Steve Henry Linkson Associates, 5023 West Laurel, Campo 33607, and I have been sworn. We did look at the the county's build-out model and talking about Lanier and that segment of Lanier from 56 Chansey has got about 1,300 cars per day. So doesn't justify even the build-out of the county doesn't justify a collector roadway. Certainly we're providing the connection uh that will have the the ability
to go from 56 up to 54. It just doesn't, in our view, doesn't need to be a collector road. Uh certainly need the uh the conductivity, but not necessarily a collector road. And from Oldswood, I think that uh uh as Clark had indicated, the volume is a little over 3,000 cars per day, uh, which doesn't justify the enormous cost of a bridge of crossing the Indian Creek that that would uh require. So from our standpoint, we don't see the benefit
in the the volumes on both of those roads to build the collector roadways. uh Oldswood at all because of of the whether it's even permittable and the cost of a bridge to go over there for three thousand cars per day.
So Mr. Chairman, just I wanna a couple of things that I might also clarify. We have a pending M PUD and The issue that David raised about the connection with the property in Hillsborough County, I would reiterate, we will agree to conditions, and it's the same landowner that owns the Hillsborough side of the property and this side of the property. And we know we're going to have a development agreement, or highly likely we'll have a development agreement that will be recorded. And we have no problem working out conditions
or development agreement terms and conditions. Conditions that will lock this in, which is different than the other problems we've had with the city of Tampa and/or Hillsborough County and Pasco County, where we have interconnecting roadways. So we know we're confident we can lock in the conditions in one of those mechanisms to protect Pasco County so that there is the system that's already approved in the Thomas family's PD. In Hillsborough County to ensure that it's built when we need it to make
a connection to Pasco for both counties' benefits. So we have no problem there. Um, and I think that generally covers uh most of our concerns. I I will say this, it sounds to me like there's been a little bit of miscommunication with staff, and it's probably COVID-related. Everybody's working remotely, and we have no problem continue to work with Amir Essen and David as we move forward to uh meeting uh our upcoming
hearing on the transmittal of the plan amendment. Um but from where we we sit and again we'll we're happy to meet with staff again. We've had uh several meetings, but David hasn't been in all of them and it sounds like there's maybe a little bit of communication internally with the county staff. But from where we sit, we want to advance the project. And even if we were to add the He's back at the time of the actual adoption, there shouldn't be any problem removing them now because we can always deal with these as we're dealing with the MPUD
or at the time of the adoption of the plan amendment dealing with this some months from now. Joel, did you have anything further that you wanted to throw in there?
Yeah, I only have one or two very brief points if Denise would be kind enough to put our MPUD plan back up.
Thanks, Denise. Um On the first point, on Lanier, the extension of Lanier, which we are more than happy to include as a required internal subdivision road, just not at collector status. I'd like to point out in response to the Transportation Department point about spacing. It's not as if we're not going to have any north-south roads on the north side of State Route 56
between Morris Bridge and 301. If you look at the plan, we're going to have three different roads, the two, one being Lanier, one being the Sandy. Drive or Sandy Road connection, and the third being Coates Road. And Coates may end up being four lanes because of its proximity to the co-located school and park complex and the employment center. So between Morris Bridge and 301, even with the applicant's
proposal, you're going to have three different connection points north-south. I will venture That Even though we don't have any of these residents to the north up Lanier here in our hearing today, that if they are told that the county is requiring a through collector regional roadway going north through their homes, that there will be massive, massive. Outcry
from those adjacent residents. We're happy to provide the connection so they can come down to 56 to assist them getting out, but we don't want to create the appearance that we're going to funnel a whole bunch of our new project traffic through their front yards. I just don't think that's smart planning, and it's certainly not politically intelligent to do that. So, so our position is we're going to provide plenty of north-south connectivity that will be functional,
but will be less intrusive and less objectionable to those neighbors to the north. Uh if control Joel.
Joel, can I ask you a question related to that? Sure. Is the applicant agreeing that all three of those roads would be public non-gated roadways?
Yes, on the north side we are happy to do that on the north side of fifty-six.
Okay, that was my question.
Right. So we are providing three alternatives. So it is unfair to say that there will be a two-mile gap that we don't provide an alternative north-south roadway. That's simply not actually correct. It it purely has to do with the nature and the classification of this road. Um and and that's all. Now as to Oldwood. Uh we clearly understood staff had in writing agreed to eliminate this theoretical connection across Indian Creek. But
what I want to point out is if you scroll down, we're not, we're not eliminating the Oldswood connection to 301. As you see, we are intentionally looping it, as Clark Lumiller indicated, to make that a main Four Lane Boulevard that comes through and connects directly through the previously approved Hillsburg County connection to 301. So our point is we are providing the exact functional equivalent. At Oldswood
from Morse Bridge to 301. We are doing that, yet we're doing it in an intelligent way and not breaching yet again the tributary system that whether it's the Army Corps or FDEP, the environmental permit folks are not going to be happy with that. We know what happened at Ridge Road, and we don't need to pick a fight that takes years and years to win. So this is the functional equivalent. And there is absolutely no logical reason, in my opinion, why you should force
a connection through here. It is incumbent upon us if you agree to this network. It is incumbent upon us in our timing and phasing study in the MPUD. Steve Henry did demonstrate that this network still will work without that connection. We already know that to be the case because he's already done that much work. So we will make it work. And then my final comment is as I agreed with David, we're happy if it's better for the county and more palatable to staff,
we're happy to show for now this vision road alignment. My suggestion is we make that county road alignment. Right along the southern boundary so it doesn't intrude more on our development site planning than necessary. But let's show it right along this southern boundary with a footnote that says that if this alternative road in Hillsburg County gets built, then we don't have to construct this one. And we only reserve that right away along our boundary in the MPUD until such time as the other roadway. Is
constructed. So those are my comments on the three items. I don't think there's any dispute about County Line Road if that works for David and staff. And I just don't logically see the debate over an additional, it's really an additional Oldswood connection beyond the one that we're making. And it makes no sense from the environmental or the traffic standpoint. That's all I had. Thank you.
Okay, and Joel, uh and David, um Yeah, are we in agreement? Are you in agreement in terms of what the county might agree to uh for the county line road section?
So yes, I agree with Joel's proposal and just for Clark's benefit, it's not that I don't dislike their network in Hillsborough County or have any problem with it. It just that Hillsborough County's been known to threaten us when they don't We don't give them something they want on a different road. And so if for some reason they try to hold us hostage and not d not allow construction of the network to the south, I don't want us to be stuck without any east west road.
Understood. And I think we're in agreement on the Hillsburg side, David. And I know and we had one call where we discussed it, what you're talking about, and we don't have an objection to it. So I think we're fine there. It's really just it's uh linear. And then like I said, feel a little bit blindsided on this old woods thing. I we our transportation folks met with County and we thought that we had an understanding. on that a couple of months ago. So all I can say is we disagree uh about the importance of the road and the justification.
for crossing Indian Creek again and we'll be happy to s discuss it again with staff after today's hearing regardless.
But David, would you are you proposing that it be some kind of timetable or? Um
No, I I'm proposing exactly what Joel said, which is that the the the road county line roads to remain on the vision map where they note that It may be removed. when the network in Hillsborough the parallel network in Hillsborough County is constructed. But that it does need to be constructed. So We can work on the exact language. I'm just my main issue is if for some reason Hillsboro Didn't build that road. I need to make sure that the road is still on the
vision map so that we can reserve the right-of-way for it from this project. I realize that it probably will get built. I'm not saying it won't. But We've had issues with Hillsborough in the past and I don't want him holding us hostage. That's my only concern.
Okay. Yeah, it seems reasonable to me that that we do have three access points. Yeah. Uh good. So That should be adequate, especially since you don't go anywhere.
Mr. Chairman, if you think about it, we actually have five because the project abuts 301 and Moores Bridge Road. So we're showing three other internal ones. Right.
So um Anyway, any comments from the dais from anybody on the board? Any questions?
A common.
I don't know.
If someone's speaking we can't hear them.
It's Peter Hansel speaking too.
Okay
I'm kind of
Can you hear me now?
Yes, sir.
Thank you. I still have a problem with County Land Road. I know what our attorney here said. Uh but it kind of reminds me of what's going on over in Meadow Point with them trying to connect a road between the county of Hillsboro and Pasco County with a couple hundred feet I believe that road is. And there's that dispute's been going on as long as we're going to be able to do That I've lived here. Um it's an east-west road. I think east-west roads are very important. In fact, I just drove this area just uh this past weekend, and and I understand
the necessity for homeschool out there. In fact, there are a number of homes already in development out there, and The the traffic is of A fifty-six is is going to significantly increase within the next, I would say, eight years or less because of the development going on out there presently. Between 301 and uh along fifty six. That's my concern and I I just wanna put that out there that I really have a
concern about east west roads.
All right. Thank you, Peter. That's that's why we're in agreement with staff on this.
Any anybody uh else? Have any questions? Anybody that any board members on the WebEx that have questions?
Okay, well if not, uh I don't think we have anybody else to speak. From the uh Orium, do we? Denise.
I believe we have Amir Jamali from the county, um, if there's any questions for him and clarification on what the county has agreed on.
Okay. Well, if there are no. So this one here. Let me know and we can call him forward. Do we have any questions for Amir? Mr. Cox has a question.
Yeah. Sorry, Mike. That's all right. I'm sorry. Um I just w want a clarification as to the county's position on old um Woods Avenue across the creek there.
Okay.
Amir.
Hello everyone, this is Amir Jamali, Transportation Pioneer with Planning and Development Department. Uh on old wood connection, our position is not to agree to remove this connection because if we remove this connection, uh we lose the only connection, the east-west corridor connection we have. If this connection gets eliminated, then local drivers have to get to SR56 and US01 for their short
trips, which are arterial roadways and high-speed roadways, which is not a safe alternative for local drivers. If we have this roadway, then people they can easily use this connection for their short trip and to get to their local destinations. And I'm not sure. Uh Mr. Hobby claimed that MPU staff have agreed to remove this connection. I'm not sure. Have
they con uh contacted with MPO staff or not?
I'm I'm this is Clark Hobby, and I'm sorry I'm here. I was really referring to you. I I I wasn't present, but I received communication from Steve Henry after he met with you. And I it was my understanding and Steve's understanding that you were okay with eliminating. I would say this for your benefit and for uh the Planning Commission's benefit. The other connection is clearly shown on the site. I through the northern Hillsborough. portion in our loop road system that's all going to be built
with the same property owner with assurances. from the landowner that will probably be recorded for the county. So there is a second connection. The problem we have is if you start adding all these other ones, you're asking us to make Two, three, four. uh crossings of the headwaters of the Hillsboro River. And I don't think it's permittable having worked in this area for a long time. And I do think the current system that Arduro's laid out and been planning around for years will give us the same functional
connections we need to 301. the Morris Bridge and all the way up through the the system to the north.
Yeah, as I said, the problem is the local trips have to go to the major roadways which we don't like. We don't like the people go to the major intersections, which result in the failure and the congestion at the intersection, then the county has to pay for the improvements at the intersection. At that time.
But I I would r respectfully say we're making we're not putting the trips on fifty-six. where there's a way to get to 301 for them to access the remainder of the area that's being div would be developed. On the southwest quadrant of 301. So that's where the trips would go. I understand if we built 15 streets across the river, we could avoid all of the arterials and collectors, but at some point you have to be practical.
Yeah, another problem is when we remove the roadway, we are not just talking about the vehicles. We are also talking about the pedestrians and bicycle. If we remove the roadways, then we obviously we don't have any sidewalk or any bike lane or people to communate commute between these neighboring communities. So my concern is not o only about the private uh vehicles.
I I would say this, those level of issues will be addressed in the MPUD. And we have a great trails plan that Arduro has been working on that shows a lot of connectivity throughout the site. You probably haven't seen that yet because it hasn't been relevant, but I know we can solve these issues in the MPUD, but I really don't think that has anything to do with the collector or curial system. We're going to make great connections and have a great trail plan that will serve the entirety of this community, regardless of
the highway vision map. The highway vision map is not what drives that issue.
And can I add something about the linear roadway? Um Maybe Mr. Henry is right about the um capacity and the traffic volumes. These roadways don't carry so much traffic volumes, but we cannot expect all of the roadways perform at their maximum capacity. Motors Bridge is gonna be
failed or congested, the view over C at least out here is gonna be more than one for Morris Bridge. So we need some relief. If something happens, if some crash happens on Morris Bridge, then we need some relief and some alternative for the drivers. If we remove linear road from the Vision Roadway, so Obviously the network is gonna be congested. If you are saying that we are gonna replace it with a local road, we know that we
cannot replace a collector road with a local road. They are designed for different purposes. Collectors and arterials are designed for providing mobility, not accessibility. Local roads are designed for providing the access to the properties. That's why we have That's why the collectors and arterials are designed for high speed roadways and we have restricted driveway spacing on such roadways. So
to me it doesn't make sense to replace a collector road with a local road.
Steve, I don't do you want to respond to that again? I think we've made our point clear. And I would say this also to Planning Commission. Just remember, we're trying to build with some of these communities something that's more of an urban design that's going to have less of a traditional branding type suburban feel. The more unloaded collector and arterial roads you put through neighborhoods. roads like that, the less of a community you're going to make because you're bifurcating these areas north of 56
into very small areas where people won't feel safe walking across there. And that's not in con it's not in concert with what we're trying to do in the urban service area. Um, Steve, I I would ask that you just respond to any technical sides about it, but I I feel confident we're making the connections and we will distribute the number of trips that are needed for these streets.
Right. I mean, I think we we're we're doing two things, three things. Well one is obviously we're providing additional, we have three connections between um Morris Bridge and 301 uh with the three roads that we're showing on the on the concept plan that we've got here. Uh as far as Lanier, the the real issue becomes is that the likelihood of it ever becoming a collector road north of our our project is slim to none because as you had indicated, that there's 75 to 100
homes are currently front on that road. And the county buying those is virtually impossible. And so the reality is it needs to be a road that functions the same from the 54 to 56, which is a collector road that does provide parallel capacity to Morris Bridge. Does it provide the same as a collector? No, but at the same time, the volumes don't warrant that collector. So I think we're doing the same thing. I get the point of the collector road, but in this instance, because
of the current land uses that are out there, the likelihood of Being able to buy all those homes and develop it as a collector roadway is slim. And so we're providing the same type of facility that will be there north of our project to 54, south to 56. In addition, we're providing an additional north-south connection that will, in addition, help Morris Bridge Road by providing that additional connection to the north. So from that standpoint, I think we're providing that. It's
just in a different format than maybe the the vision road, but I think it's serving the same purpose given the constraints that you've got on on Lanier.
Mr. Chair, can I ask Mir andor Steve a question?
Sure.
Um When you talked about the V C ratio on Mor on Morse Bridge Road, was that in its existing two lane configuration or did you assume it would be widened towards Shown in the either four. I guess probably at least four lanes.
No, David, I was talking about the build out and I was assuming four lane. With four lane, the view of VRC is gonna be about one point zero five or something like that.
Okay.
So it it's so at four lanes, it it is generally at capacity. I mean, obviously none of us are that accurate uh at build-out volume. These are these are build-out volumes. This is assuming that the entire county builds out at the maximum intensity of the land use. So at at build-out, at maximum capacity, we're talking about a 1.05. So again. I I think that we're providing that parallel capacity But I uh given that the what the level of service
of the VC will be for Morris Bridge. at build out of the county, I think we've got a reasonable solution here given the constraints of Lanier.
Mr. Chairman, if it's Joel to may I interject one brief point.
Sure. Sir, go ahead.
We're being asked to build a collector road to nowhere. That's the simple fact. That road is going to go nowhere north of there. If someone thinks it's going north as a regional collector, that person needs to go knock on the doors of those residences up there and explain to them why that's so and deal with that issue. Uh making that a collector, as Clark pointed out, also is contrary to other planning principles. We all know that there are common conflicts
between long-range transportation department desires and actual land use planning. And let me give an example. Mr. Williams has already expressed a desire that we do as much as we can to create pedestrian safety for students to walk to these schools, particularly the elementary schools. And the more of these collector dividers we have, the more unsafe that becomes. With our plan, we can have everyone here on the north side of 56 get around that wetland with a pedestrian
walkway. into that school system and the parts without people having to drive on 56 and without kids being run over. Similarly on the south side, we're going to figure out a way to move that pedestrian movement so that there is at most one primary designated safety crossing to figure out how to get across 56. So, my point is, it's not just all about transportation. It's also about the real world. It's about the school concerns. It's about the safety of these kids and these young families. And at some point,
we have to get out of the ivory tower and deal in realism. And I just I'm having difficulty seeing the logic behind compelling a regional collector for this short segment when we need to spend that money on child. Child safety in schools and park facilities. Thank you.
All right. David, anything else from you?
No, my only the only thing is I think you probably should make a motion on these Roadways one at a time. So we're clear from the clerk what your recommendation is. So you can handle can I just handle County Line, Oldwood. and linear separately so that they make a separate recommendation on each roadway.
Okay, let's uh let's uh start let's start uh the county line road connection.
What would be the wording?
Well I think it it was it's what Joel stated which is that the the road would remain on the vision map With a note that it can be removed when the uh parallel roadway network in Hillsborough County is constructed. So Joel and I can work on the language of the note, but that's effectively what the motion would be.
I would make that motion.
Okay, good.
Jamie Girardi, I'll second.
All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of that motion. All in favor by roll call? Oh same way.
Jamie Gerardi? Hi Michael Cox.
Fine.
Peter Hansel. Roberto Saez
Roberto.
Christopher Poole. Chris Williams. Chairman Charles Gray.
Okay, now uh can we have a motion on a near?
Mr. Chairman Mariano, I'm gonna move that um We um recommend approval of the proposed amendment of the applicant's proposal. Okay.
So recommending the applicants uh vision of Lanier any and do we have a second on that motion.
I'll second it.
We second it. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of that motion? All in favor of that motion signified by roll call.
Jamie Giordy? Bye. Michael Cox?
Bye.
Peter Hansel. Roberto Saez?
I
Mr. Paul? Chris Williams. Chairman Charles Gray.
Hi. And lastly, uh a motion on Oldwoods.
Mr. Chairman Mariano Cox. I'll I'll move that we recommend to the BCC the proposed amendment based on the applicant's Recommendation.
Okay. So we're going to Jamie Jamie Giorgio a second. Recommendation. Do we have a second?
Jamie Giorgio second.
Okay, Jamie. So we we have a
motion and second, any any further discussion? Yeah, I just have that's to delineate the uh Oldwoods Avenue because what you're looking up there is staff recommendation on this one here.
Yeah, it's where it shows Oldwoods, it was it would eliminate that. Yeah.
Okay,
thank
you.
Yeah. So, uh any further discussion on that? On that motion. All right. All in favor of the motion signified by roll call?
Jamie Gerardi? Bye. Michael Cox.
Bye.
Peter Hansel. Roberto Saez. Bye. Christopher Poole. Chris Williams? Chairman Charles Gray.
Then Mr. Chairman, I think you need a motion on the balance of the item.
Okay, now uh subject to the changes that we've just made uh to this application, um, do I have a motion to approve the uh the application as amended?
Jamie,
you're
already so moved.
Okay, we have a motion, a second. My second
All favor?
My roll call?
Jamie Gerardi. Bye. Michael Cox?
Bye.
Peter Hansome. Roberto Saez. Bye. Christopher Poole. Chris Williams. Chairman Charles Gray.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joel and I and our whole team look forward to working with you guys, and we'll be back in in front of you with the MPUD in a few months. Again, we'll give you more details at that time, but we appreciate your time.
All right, buddy, take take care and good job. All right. Thank you. Bye bye. Thank you. I think it'll turn out pretty nice.