LARGE-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (REGULAR) - CPAL 20(12) HAY ROAD – Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (Map 2-15 and Sheet 21) from RES-6 (RESIDENTIAL-6 DU/GA) and IL (INDUSTRIAL-LIGHT) to RES-24 (RESIDENTIAL-24 DU/GA) on Approx. 28.22 Acres of Real Property Located at the Intersection of Wesley Chapel Blvd & Hay Road

1:24:36I think we have one more. Dewey Denise?

1:24:40We have one more item and Amy Heiler will be presenting the item.

1:24:47Okay, hello again. Amy Heiler, Planning and Development. What you'll see here is a proposed comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAL 2112 Hay Road. And it is it is PDD 210179. What the applicant is proposing is a future land use map amendment from map 2-15 and sheet 21 to amend the future land use from res 6 residential 6 dwelling units per gross acre and IL Light Industrial

1:25:18or Industrial Light to Res 24 residential 24 dwelling units per gross acre to allow for the development of a hundred earth. 400 apartment units. The proposal is located at the intersection of Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Hay Road. And as stated, the resolution is to amend maps 2-15 and sheet 21.

1:25:40Okay.

1:25:42And the comprehensive plan is consistent with the following policies of policy flu 1.8.8, employment center purpose, policy flu 8.1.2, the South Market area, as well as policy flu 1.6.3, transitional land use. And this is a location map in the South Market area and urban service area. The visual uh for your aerial is located uh along Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Hay Road, approximately

1:26:12two miles north of State Road fifty t 54.

1:26:17And the existing zoning is AC agricultural and I1 industrial. The small pink portion is going to be your I-1. Um the proposed development is also uh or the applicant is also proposing and accompanying MPUD with this. Uh the The reasoning why we're going to Res 24 for 400 units is because of the restrictions of the wetlands on site. So the developable acres with the 400 units would equate to approximately

1:26:4713 dwelling units per gross acre. And because the comprehensive plan does not have any future land use between a Res 12 and a Res 24, we're proposing Res 24 and And the applicant will cap um the development at 400 units in the MPUD.

1:27:04Distinct future land use. This is just a visual. You'll see the striped area is going to be a res 6. The light gray is IL.

1:27:15And then um the proposed land unit would be res twenty four so And with that, this was supposed to be updated again. Since this is a proposal for apartment units or apartment complex within the county, it is directed to seek an alternative motion. So the same as before, either propose the approve the proposed large-scale comprehensive plan amendment according to the Planning and Development Apartment. uh

1:27:46department, uh approve the proposed large scale comprehensive plan amendment with modified conditions, deny the large scale modified or the large scale comprehensive plan amendment, excuse me, or direct PDD to take other action. And I'm be happy to answer any questions. Jul too is the uh representative for the apple.

1:28:07Mr. Chairman before the applicant speaks to Amy. I'm not sure if I understand your second alternative. It Is there is there any sub degree associated with this plan amendment?

1:28:19No, um this is just a straight future land use amendment from res six to res twenty-four. But because it's a partners, we're just seeking the alternative action.

1:28:28I understand that, but I'm not sure it's an ad adequate alternative to say with modified conditions because There are no conditions you put on a Plan amendment unless you have a sub area policy. So

1:28:41I understand.

1:28:42My point is, I think you need to modify the language of your alternative. I'm not even sure that is a viable alternative, is my point.

1:28:50Yeah, I understand.

1:28:53Update that for transmetal.

1:28:56So what's the c what's the fix, David? Yeah, what's

1:29:00The Planning Commission can can recommend approval or denial. That's up to the Planning Commission. My point is approving it with modified conditions is not really an option. to You would just you would make a motion for approval or denial, whichever you want to do.

1:29:17And that would include the limit to thirteen units per acre?

1:29:20The limit I think will be in the M P D as Amy stated. I don't think the they'll they're proposing the limit in the plan amendment.

1:29:27Right. Okay.

1:29:30Right.

1:29:33So does anybody have any questions?

1:29:35Amy.

1:29:38Mr. Chairman Mariano Cox, I have a a couple general questions.

1:29:46mainly dealing with the level Of entitled multifamily apartments already in the county. Um You know, I'm when I look at this project, uh, I'm concerned about the traffic impact. On to Wesley Chapel Boulevard. And um I've heard multiple occasions, especially after the last Planning Commission meeting. of the

1:30:16level of apartments um that we have already in the county and the existing entitlements that are in the county. So I'd like to hear from the Planning Department just general conversation about How many apartments are already Entitled And does that fulfill the potential need. that the county is projecting.

1:30:48Who'd like to speak to that? Amy?

1:30:50Um I think as as of now, we I personally do not have those numbers for you, but we can get those numbers if necessary and and you know answer that question for you to see how much is entitled. I know we have some projects going on internally that kind of speak to that, so we could probably give you those numbers.

1:31:11I know we have a certain don't we have a certain area designated uh which limits the construction of new apartments.

1:31:20More district two right now is is where it's being

1:31:26Okay, so Anything outside District Two is not within those boundaries.

1:31:31Correct. And then we also have the urban service area which promotes that level of development.

1:31:36Okay. So would this request be impacted by those Is it within those

1:31:42are it is within District Two, but it is also within the urban service area.

1:31:47Uh-huh. Mr. Chairman Mariano take motions on this particular project?

1:31:52Well, are there any questions or concerns?

1:31:55Well the app the applicant would like to uh present.

1:32:00Yeah, Joel j just one second. You I definitely give you your your

1:32:05Yeah, I would I would say uh Chris Poole, I'd say I I share Mr. Cox's concerns with the uh with the project overall. Um I think his comments to staff are are very valid regarding trying to get uh more of an understanding of of um what the uh what that looks like for the so I I I

1:32:25Sure, Mr. Cox

1:32:27turns too.

1:32:28All right. Well so that we can get a better picture of what's really being asked here. Um Joel, if you'd like to make your presentation, we can get maybe some of these questions answered.

1:32:39Yes, sir, Mr. Gray. I'm happy to. And uh thank you all for just a few moments here. And obviously the applicant and I are well aware of some political concerns about more multifamily apartments in Pasco County, and I intend to address that head on. First, let's talk about what the planning principles are, what your comprehensive plan says, and how this property fits into that. As we all know, Uh the county, including the Planning

1:33:09Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, are obligated to follow their own adopted comprehensive plan unless and until the County Commission, pursuing to law, changes that comprehensive plan. So what we're dealing with here as a proper legal matter and a proper comprehensive plan matter is we have to deal with what's adopted. And here's what's adopted. This is an infill site. It's an undeveloped infill site. It

1:33:40is in the South Market area. The County Commission long ago designated the South Market Area for mixed use. uh employment supporting density and actually encourages and emphasizes higher density residential in this South Market area. So that's point number one is that this property owner, this collection of property owners and their proposed developer, Florenority

1:34:10Development. They've actually identified an infill site that the comprehensive plan and the adopted policies of the County Commission direct them to go to. So that's number one. Number two, the property already is designated res six, which is a multifamily designation. Um it it already is recognized as appropriate for multifamily use. Part of it is industrial because it happens

1:34:41to be under this ownership. So it's not like we're asking to change bag land or single family residential land to multifamily. It already is multifamily and it's recognized. in the South Market area. Even more importantly, it is sandwiched. by industrial commerce park on the entire eastern boundary. Its southern boundary is contiguous with a very large employment center. designation

1:35:11under the comprehensive plan. So we have a large employment center on our south. And employment center, as was pointed out on your first item today, it actually has a mandatory multifamily component of 20%. So you're going to have multifamily apartments in the parcel, the large parcel, contiguous with us to the south. The comp plan also says under the employment center designation that you are to encourage higher density residential development adjacent

1:35:42to employment centers. So my definition, and that's the policy that Amy referred to under policy 1.8.8. You are supposed to encourage multifamily use such as what we're proposing adjacent to this employment center. Finally, the parcel to the west was recently recommended for approval by your planning commission and approved by the County Commission for multifamily development. It has a townhome project under construction by Matamy Homes. So

1:36:12you've just recommended approval for multifamily on our western boundary, and your comp plan has an employment center on the eastern boundary, and we have an industrial. Park Commerce Center to our east. So my question is given this linear narrow parcel. that has multiple wetlands in it and limited developable area, what pre tail would the property owner sell their property for development as other than multifamily?

1:36:43So I submit that this is the poster child according to the adopted comprehensive plan and the applicable policies. It is the poster child and compels a conclusion. That the plan amendment is appropriate and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Significantly, the staff, the staff, which is well aware of the political issue, the staff has professionally, independently, and logically concluded with their findings of fact that everything

1:37:13I just told you is correct and that it is consistent with the comp plan. Now on the the locational item, uh Ms. Heidler, I'm sure unintentionally, but she she misspoke a little bit. In response to your question, she said that the multifamily locational criteria that the board adopted by resolution recently, that that applied to District 2. That is not correct. Um, the County Commission very specifically in

1:37:44public hearing, and I attended them, they very specifically narrowed the specific corridor in which the board as a group, we're getting any one individual commissioner's prerogative, but the board as a group voted. And I believe it ultimately was an unanimous vote, but they voted to define that corridor as the state road 5654 corridor, and it specifically excluded this County Road 54, aka

1:38:14Westley Chapel Boulevard. It excluded that from those restrictions. So the correct factual answer to your question is that not only is this parcel in the urban service area. Not only is it in the South Market area, but it is outside. It was not included by the County Commission in the court or along 5456, where the board adopted some interim locational criteria. So the legal fact is, in my opinion, and

1:38:45what the established board policy is, that this site is entirely appropriate for multifamily development. And in fact, as an infill site, based upon the applicable comprehensive plan policies, it should be approved and recommended for approval. Uh so I urge you to Well, or your oath to do, and that is to apply your independent judgment and planning principles, and specifically to apply the comprehensive plan

1:39:15as it's drafted today. to apply that board resolution as it's drafted today and not to speculate or conjure what the County Commission might do in the future. I've said this before and I said it at the public hearing. If and when the County Commission decides that it is prepared to ban apartments and passions, your

1:39:35time required I forgot about two minutes ago, but I'm trying to be uh generous.

1:39:41I'll I'll wrap up in one sentence. If the board wants to change the policy, they need to go through the process, change their comprehensive plan, delete the Mount South Market area, or modify it. But as long as it's in place, this needs to be approved.

1:39:58All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate that clarification. Any uh any questions for Mr. Two?

1:40:06Mr. Chairman M

1:40:12Anybody on uh WebEx uh have any questions?

1:40:15Yeah, Mr. Chairman Mariano Cox. Um can we address the traffic uh concerns? Love that.

1:40:24I I can, is that what you're asking, the applicant? Yes, sir. Yeah, we uh, Mr. Cox, we were required to uh have our transportation consultant, Steve Henry, he did that analysis with your transportation staff, and they concluded as a factual and professional matter that there was no needs analysis required because the previously approved trip under our prior designation because of the industrial area. Actually, are greater than what our trips will be with limited to 400 multifamily units.

1:40:55So we in fact will have a decrease of the theoretical density from the prior plan categories as compared to this cap with 400 units. We still will have to go through the normal timing and phasing analysis as part of the MPUD. So you will still have uh, and that'll come back. through you guys, you're still gonna have the MPUD and you're still gonna have the traffic analysis. But uh our our study indicates that there's absolutely no problem here. There's no capacity issue. And our access

1:41:25is at a fully signalized intersection, uh, which already exists.

1:41:31Okay,

1:41:32fair enough.

1:41:33Mr. Cox, the only thing I would add to that is the winding of of Wesley Chapel Boulevard using the county's capital improvement plan. And it's scheduled, I believe, in the next few years.

1:41:44Okay. Yeah, you've addressed my concerns. I mean m you know, Mr. Chairman, I I I would just say this that the the issue of the the apartments continues to come up, but The facts are that the comp plan allows for the use of these properties in this fashion. So and if the county commission doesn't want any more of them built, then they need to put their big boy and girl girl

1:42:14pants on and change the comp plan. But until they do that, I don't see where um a project like this should be denied.

1:42:26Well, I disagree with that one, that's for sure.

1:42:28Well, that's okay. Were you making a motion, Michael?

1:42:32I'll make the motion that we request based on increased traffic. parking congestion which is minimal out there, but I'm more concerned about public safety. I live in that area. They just recently put that light. At the intersection. There are uh on building of uh

1:42:55Warm.

1:42:57Find it out there.

1:43:02So that's going in out there right next to this area, by the way. Uh-huh. It's uh I don't know it's anything. So therefore I request that we deny this. Based on traffic, parking, and law enforcement. Oh see.

1:43:19Um So we have a motion. Uh we have a second to that motion.

1:43:29Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yes. Here hearing no second to the motion, I'll move for approval.

1:43:36All right. So having a second to the uh motion that was made. We have a s another motion to approve the applicant. uh have the application. We have a second to that motion.

1:43:49This Jamie Girardi. Uh I'll second that motion uh along the same lines as Mike. I mean th there's I I don't see where we have basis to deny this and I I I've agree and I find it s You know, in in agreement and conformance with the comp plan.

1:44:05Mr. Chair, before you take the full um the vote. Um I do want to mention that there is no one at the public comment kiosk on this item, nor have we received any emails of objection or any letters of objection on just for the thank you.

1:44:20Thank you very much.

1:44:27Yeah, I'm gonna ask for that comment in just a minute. Um so we have a motion and a second. Any further comment on the motion?

1:44:34Yeah, I have a few words. There are a number of

1:44:43Mr. Chairman Mr. Hansel's breaking up. We really can't hear him at all.

1:44:48Mr. Hansel speaking. Yeah, I'm I want to address the issue of the the the abundance of con of apartments in this area. Uh as we know, or as you may know, there is one right in front of my community Lexington knows, uh which is not fully uh it's not full yet. There are uh there is one that is recently built at the intersection of say Wesley Chapel Boulevard and 50 54 basically across the street or near the

1:45:18uh Outlet Mall. That area. Uh there was recently one that was approved on Bruce B. Down. So What I'm trying to tell you folks is we have an overabundance of apartments in that area. I thought the county at some point in time would do a study on the number of vacancies. There is no need. for another apartment complex up here. It's that simple. And in a few few

1:45:48years And I don't know how many years down the road. But you can anticipate some of these apartment complexes that are being built by individuals or corporations with relatively deep pockets will sometime in that near future find that there's a number of vacancies One day is Huge.

1:46:12Will begin to deteriorate. Seen it happen in other big cities. Saurian. I would request again that you rethink your vote and vote no. That's all I have to say.

1:46:26Okay. Any are are there any other comments or concerns?

1:46:29Yeah, Mr. Chairman M Let me just address Mr. Hansel. I I mean I agree with you on what you're saying. Yeah, I personally think that there are plenty of apartments right now. But the fact is is that this request is consistent with the comp plan. And ultimately a decision to deny would have to be Yeah. defensible in a court.

1:47:00And I don't quite frankly I I do not believe that it's defensible right now. And if the County Commission doesn't want to see any more of them built, then the County Commission needs to change the comp plan. It's just that simple.

1:47:18Yeah, well that's I think that's my my concern too. You you know, we need to We would deny something like this. We need a leg to stand on and You know.

1:47:31Sorry, I would like to make a comment. Oberto Sáez

1:47:37I'm sorry, Roberto.

1:47:38I would like to make a comment and in reference to this. In our last board meeting in 2020, and I went through a similar um project in Wesley Chapel, an apartment complex, and I I was of a strong opposition to development of this part. At the same time, after some research, I agree with Mr. Cox. We need at the level of the County Commission made the changes to be able to sustain

1:48:09any kind of actions or deny for a developer who wanna do this type of apartment complex in Pasco County. Um I will I I will go against this project, but I'm pretty sure we cannot go farther. We uh we can uh have our opposition, but at the same time We cannot do much. in to to stop this kind of development until the County Commission make the adjustment and the changes that need to be done. So just

1:48:39want to put that out of there. And I agree with Mr. Cox and I agree with the with Mr. Hall so It's all I can say at this point. It's trustrated and like we cannot do much. We have our hand tight.

1:48:55All right, Roberto. Thank you. Okay, any other comments?

1:49:03Then uh If we could uh have a vote uh by roll call. Please. All in favor? Signified by a Opposed, nay.

1:49:18Jamie Girardi?

1:49:19Bye.

1:49:21Michael Cox.

1:49:23Bye.

1:49:25Peter Hansel. Roberto Saez

1:49:28Night.

1:49:30Christopher Poole. Chris Williams. Chairman Charles Gray.

1:49:37All right.

1:49:45I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I think I heard five to two to approve, but I it wasn't very loud. Is that correct?

1:49:54It was weird. Five to two for sure.

1:49:57Okay, five. Five to two. And thank you all for your time. We appreciate it.

1:50:03All right, thank you.