Pasco BOCC Meeting, 08.21.2018 - Afternoon Session (2 of 3)

good afternoon commissioners in the Colville payment management public works this is a hideaway trail traffic calming project and there's one Street involve this project there are two traffic calming devices to be installed the estimated cost is 13,000 dollars and the maximum assessment unit is three hundred and sixty-eight dollars and for the four cents this is just an overview of the votes we had in 4% responding to the petition 75% was in favor of the project and eight twenty five percent voted against the project and this repayment is over 25 sorry sorry a five-year period a five-year period at 4.25 percent interest and that's just some notes on the the voting because it's a little bit different from our regular P best projects this is located just just east of Seven Springs and that's it there's our photographs needed for for this presentation want to speak on this break on this item sir please state your name and address for the record and also whether if you have been sworn Steve Hoskins 73-69 hideaway trail okay please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that you the testimony you're about to give is the truth so help you God I do thank you basically we just have a ton of speeding it's been going on forever we're connected to a back portion of the neighborhood and literally they fly up at about 45 to 50 so I don't think there's any opposition to it but I just want to let you know that I'm for it no opposition to the be vests okay thank you well this is my district you know I would move approval let's make sure that there's no one else is there anyone else I want to speak to this item seeing none being done I make the motion to approve this motion me I'm afraid of a second it all those in favor say aye aye by some proof next item publication is on the Tampa Bay Times for item P 16 on July 20th 2018 commissioners this is the Pebble Beach project Eva's project there are three streets in this project the estimated project cost is two hundred and sixty nine thousand dollars and seventy two hundred and sixty nine thousand and seventy eight dollars the equivalent residential units is three thousand two hundred and eighty one dollars the discounted amount is forty six thousand seven hundred and seventy dollars and the maximum cost per year you after this count is two thousand seven hundred and eleven dollars in terms of would count there were 82 possible votes 67% were responded to the petition fifty one percent were in favor for the nine percent were against the repayment is over a ten-year period at 4.25 percent interest and that's just a location map a couple photographs of the conditions with streets within the project the staff is recommending approval at this this is an approval but it's they voted it down I'll be looking for it's not a point for it I thought I saw give what percent they vote for it fifty one fifty one percent sixty one fifty five 150 100 okay I thought I saw this option so thank you ours anybody

denied the density increase based on the following issues in the land development code 402 point two point F and 402 point one point e impact of the proposed development development on the surrounding area the impact to the surrounding land uses would be detrimental to those planted Lots that already exists the 95 in phase 1 when first approved Serengeti phase 2 was approved for 69 Lots they're proposing to increase phase 2 to 134 Lots when they were all the infrastructure that was built for phase 1 and 2 was built for 164 lines 95 in phase 1 and 69 in phase 2 so the infrastructure is in but it does it wouldn't support the additional 59 units what are you saying the road doesn't handle what what infrastructure does not help in the land development code we have a tier of streets type 1 type 2 type 3 type for each Street has a hierarchy of how many Lots travel on that Street so so let's say there's a Serengeti Boulevard is the main Boulevard which comes through so I'm gonna say a type 2 Street is a I have it written down it has 11 foot of pavement so a type 2 Street carries so many units a type 2 Street is supposed to carry between 101 to 200 units a type 2 Street is a 50-foot right-of-way with a 12-foot pavement so this was built in accordance with what was approved so the type 2 street for Serengeti goes I think up to about here and that where that red arrow where that circle is there by right if you're gonna add the additional Lots to phase 2 the type 2 street would have to be taken to about there so that's an increase from 1 foot of pavement from there to there because right now it's only a type 3 street I know this is if this is a lot of numbers and everything but it's all about pavement width so type 3 streets have 11 feet pavement type 4 streets have 10-foot pavement and type 2 streets have 12-foot pavement it's to carry the track to the traffic and you're talking about per Lane yes per lane thank you thank you Jeff per Lane there are all 50-foot right-of-way and it's a 12 foot one paved lane so it's you know 12 20 24 so when it starts phase 2 you're saying it goes from instead of being a 12-foot Lane on each side it would be an 11 foot which would be down to 22 foot total right right it would go from 11 to 10 to the back to the rear so in the rear here where these smaller streets are Lexia ends in a cul-de-sac right those are type force so they would only have 10-foot paper but in the county if I'm not mistaken Prospect Road is less than 11 feet prospect we can't this is apples and oranges okay Prospect is supposed to be one of our collector roads it's supposed to be 142 feet wide well Commissioner Oakley Prospect was built before we had the standards the choral ins talking to you about okay the 11 foot Road won't hold up the track additional traffic you're saying going to the back no all I'm saying is that when the infrastructure was built for Serengeti now in 2006-7 whenever it was built it was built for that approval

that happened in 2005 and six or I have it written down so the infrastructure was built for a hundred and sixty four units that's how it was built out for for total total front and rear right so you got 95 of those on the front and 95 whole is in fact nine ninety-five is fine it's the additional units and phase two that they're asking for that throws that account over yes so if it was still remained at 69 this would be just fine they could go in start selling houses fix their Lots move in get this approved get new construction plans approved go but if they're gonna come in and they get an increase to the 134 then they're gonna there's going to need to be addition more paperwork for them to process in order to get their construction plans approved which is alternative standards okay because the streets aren't built to carry the additional so if they built additional the extra foot on each side of that road for the phrase - then that would meet that criteria and that wouldn't be a problem yes they could fix it yes of course okay absolutely all right and just so I'm clear was plotted for this the faced who was plotted for 69 Lots but the plot expired correct so it was so faced who was never planted only phase one was planted so phase two was never planted but it was approved for 69 units and the construction plans is this where I was so whether the proposed change will adversely affect in media and surrounding neighborhoods within the immediate neighborhood there will be an increase in traffic due to the additional number of units proposed 259 the residents presently in Serengeti were under the assumption that there were there would only be 69 Lots in Phase two when they purchased their lives the applicant is now proposing 134 with only one major street for access which is Serengeti Boulevard the increase in traffic will directly affect those residents that live already in Phase one so they have an additional trips coming through their development that they never that they never intended to be there they only thought that 69 were going to be there that's fine everybody was happy whether the proposed change might result in lower property values in the adjacent areas the applicant is proposing reduced lot sizes of approximately fifty five hundred square feet the planted Lots with in phase one are close to quarter acre the homes within phase one are valued from approximately 250 to over 350,000 dollars the small light Lots will less likely be valued at a lower lower rate which will affect those home values and phase one as a comparable for the proposed Lots with in Phase two Lots within the adjacent subdivision Lone Star have been bailed at from approximately 125 thousand to one hundred and eighty thousand per the property appraised there's office Lonestar is this subdivision directly directly and abutting the south of this development whether the proposed zoning change whether the property is rezone could be

developed in a matter which complies with governing regulations the subject property had received a prior MPD rezoning to allow a hundred and seventy dwelling units the property also had received a preliminary construction plan approval for the development of one hundred and sixty four units the density was already approved and was found to be consistent by the land development code in the comprar lion at that time so therefore the hundred and seventy dwelling units could be developed in a manner which complied with the zoning regulations and state regulations as is weather maintaining the existing zoning classification accomplishes a legitimate public purpose that protects the integrity of the goals objectives policies of the Comprehensive Plan the public's reliance upon the existing zoning or another legitimate public purpose as determined by applicable bylaw keeping the density at a hundred and seventy dwelling units would accomplish a legitimate public purpose because the residents in phase one of Serengeti had relied upon an approval construction plan showing 69 Lots on larger Lots in Phase two so when these when the residences of Serengeti phase one came to buy their Lots they were shown a plan they were shown a plan [Music] you'll have you'll have time to speak in just a moment sir continue please so the comprehensive plan considering of existing development patterns and approved development in the area the development pattern in the immediate area is larger Lots phase one of Serengeti was approved for 95 Lots which are approximately a quarter acre in size consideration of environmental and cultural features and community care characters the character of the development was less dense with larger Lots the proposed higher density with smaller Lots is out of character for the area of in the community phase 2 density increases is from 69 Welling units to 134 there's public reliance on approved plan of development on August 11 2005 the DRC approved the preliminary construction stormwater management plan for both phase 1 and 2 of the Serengeti development although the previously approved MPU D for Serengeti allowed for a total of 170 single-family detached dwelling units the plans were only approved for 160 for the public relied upon this approved plan of development for the Serengeti development would have a total of 164 dwelling units on larger Lots this is the approved construction plan for phase one and two this is the proposed concept plan for the additional units in Phase two so it's virtually almost Lots are cut in half so would that like like I said PDD staff is denial to the DRC was based on those facts but this is coming to before you with the DRC recommendation of approval with conditions does anybody have any questions for you please tell us what the condition but there's a lot of them do you want order and mr2 is gonna go over some of the newer conditions did you want did

you want because the older conditions most of them from we're based on the previous MP UD but there are some new conditions and mr2 is gonna have some changes to them so he'll be he'll bring them forward hey questions for Cortland okay the Afghan rap becomes representative mr. chair before the applicant gets up we've you've agreed to give the applicant one hour and the opposition attorney one hour that includes only idle time across examination time expert witness time any time they gotta decide how to use it but they only get an hour and Nicole's gonna be keeping time sir if you could state your name and address for the record and whether he didn't sworn in addition could you restate your objection for the record I'm sure we didn't catch it yes Thank You mr. chairman ladies and gentlemen Joel tutu and associates land use counsel Palm Harbor Florida I represent the owner and applicant which is dune Florida Land one sub LLC my objection was that the staff member was purporting to testify under oath to the board as to alleged representations made by the prior developer to the property owners that the staff owner can possibly have personal knowledge of so I don't know where they got that information where she had it but she simply has it wouldn't be substantial competent evidence because she has no ability to know that she wasn't there and to my knowledge she is not a resident so that's the objection for the record I want to back up and start at the beginning we do have some housekeeping since we have an objection represented by counsel they have a court reporter not my court reporter but I want to make sure the records complete in case there is a challenge to this I do want to incorporate by reference the DRC record that we created we had a lengthy two hour Plus DRC hearing where all the objections were made step position was made this was thoroughly vetted by your development review committee I believe it was in fact its last official act probably much did chagrin having to listen to it but it was the last act of your development review committee and the fact that you have a development review committee recommendation for approval before you where it was voted upon by your County Administrator in your department heads most of whom are here today who supported us and that your staff continues to argue against the recommendation is probably the poster child for why it's a good idea that you have eliminated DRC and gone another route so kudos for that obviously an uncomfortable position because your administrator and department heads respectfully disagreed with Ms Howell in her position well that said before I get in the substance I'd like to note that when this was initially presented to staff I was not involved because it was not controversial staff actually indicated they would support this for the record and only later decided they wouldn't support it after their work community objections and the applicant was told

specifically that the only basis for the reversal in that position was that there were existing resident objections and obviously DRC wait all this and came to the opposite conclusion I also want to incorporate into the record the PowerPoint that I'm going to go through we provide an electronic file of that it is the same PowerPoint we used at DRC but I want to make sure the record is clear that our PowerPoint is included in the record and then when I get to the point in time after the background presentation we do have some proposed revised conditions that are in direct response to one on one Commissioner meetings that we've had as allowed by law documented by disclosure forms attended by the chief assistant county attorney but we received many questions several requests some different ideas and suggestions to try to respond two things that either had been expressed to commissioners by residents or were concerns of commissioners independently some of which overlapped and some of which were different so you're going to see a smorgasbord of requests collectively made by commissioners that we're going to make every good faith effort to adequately address today we did prepare these revisions in advance with the County Attorney's office and with miss Howell and staff has signed off on the wording and the structure of those conditions in the event you see fit to approve them so they have been vetted with their County Attorney's Office they have been vetted with your staff for your consideration but now I'd like to back up before we get to that I'd like to talk about the overall if we may this project is a request for an MD MD modification to add 59 residential units in Phase two with new lot dimension requirements now those lot dimension requirements have morphed based upon inquiries from commissioners since the DRC approval the DRC recommended approval of a 50-foot minimum lot width with the standard dimensional criteria that we had submitted but again capped at 59 additional units the existing mqd was approved at 170 Lots we're proposing to go to 229 a total increase of 59 the project is in a res 3 district which allows nearly 500 units I'm going to show you the slide with that count we're requesting an increase to 229 when the underlying land use district allows nearly 500 and that's counting only the developable uplands with no credit for massive wetland areas that I think most of you're aware that's just looking at the net developable acreage we could get almost 500 units if staff is correct for example that my zoning has expired as to Phase two which I disputed at DRC because I think arguably were vested and that I hopefully could convince the board to prove a vested rights determination but if staff is correct and we have no zoning on Phase two then I could come back and apply for a standard res 3 zoning with townhouses as you just approved at the project before me and as I've been approved all over the place in the last three or four

years in every zoning I've done in front of you which has been dozens with 50-foot Lots and townhome units so we either have zoning or we don't have something now we agreed at DRC to put aside that debate and what we really want to do is to do what DRC did to approve the EM pewdie so that is reinstated work out a reasonable solution on Phase two to get the project out of the quicksand which brings me to the first point this is simply a stalled development project like it or not and no matter how great it would be if we could do something different the market doesn't care about desires or emotion or anything else the market is cruel it's a mathematical equation and it is what it is this project was approved in 2004 the M pewdie was right at the front of the big run-up the construction plans as Courtland stated were approved in 2005 everyone was so ambitious at the time and so convinced that the dream would never end that they did the full construction plans for the whole project which would never never happen today after the lessons we learned from 2008 to 2013 it was originated as a concept not by my client not by Metro Development Group its manager was initiated totally as a concept by Lexington Holmes who at the time was having some success in Pasco County with these large estate size Lots and they're the ones that zoned it they're the ones that chose to do the whole thing and things went south in 2008 they went bankrupt the bank took it back Lexington had gotten Metro to develop the lots for them Metro got hammered they lost 16 million dollars on the initial subdivision the land and subdivision infrastructure cost was 16 almost 17 million dollars in the ground out there never to be regained since 2006 when the construction was done in 12 years there are 22 existing homes in the project not for lack of trying god bless the residents who bought and built their I understand that I would feel exactly the way they feel if I bought and live there I understand that 100% and so does Metro development but in 12 years when only 22 homes are built the market has told you there's a problem now what is Metro doing they'll never get that investment back but they understand and respect the situation the current residents are rented the simple fact is the residents aren't alone there because phase one on the Left demonstrates that yes there are 22 homes that are constructed but there are still 57 Lots in phase one owned by the applicant this applicant still owns 60% of the Lots in phase one in addition to the 22 homes there are 16 vacant lots in phase one without homes built but thirteen of those appear to be owned by single investor entity that is not building houses someone apparently bought 13 investment Lots probably on the cheap to sit on them until something can be resolved so Metro has stuck with 60% of the phase 1 lots and the way they approach this they didn't come in and ask to try to retool everything they

said look we're all in this together and phase 1 Metro committed on the record at DRC they told me to reiterate here today they're committing on the record they're going to ride it out in phase 1 with their 57 lots their 90-foot lots they discounted those two $25,000 they've even discounted them to $20,000 they have closed on two of those year-to-date they are spending about $20,000 a month on television advertising and have been doing so for several months so they're spending a couple hundred thousand a year in advertising to sell 225 thousand dollar yacht Lots per year that math doesn't work and so what we're going to have to do if we can't figure out a solution they're simply going to shut the project down they're going to wait until either the market does something different or some other solution is found and they're not going to continue to invest in the project they can't they're going to continue to invest in the other projects they have with you the economic development projects the other communities and keep trying to help build Pasco County but this project will not be feasible it is not feasible as to what people were promised this is a copy of the actual recorded deed restriction that was recorded back at the beginning in 2006 it covered not only phase one but also phase two it covered the entirety of phase one and phase two and if you look at the very first page section 2.0 - the commitment was that each residence in the total community would have a minimum living area of 1,800 square feet I have read the deed restrictions front to back there was absolutely no representation as to minimum lot size there was no representation that any product would not be changed or that the world would not change and as you know I personally had despite doing this for 39 years the last 20 being in your County I am not aware of any mqd that I ever worked on that we did not come back and do an amendment on it simply doesn't happen everybody takes their best guess when they're approving hundreds of units where the markets headed what will work but invariably the market determines what happens but the only representation that was made was 1,800 square foot minimum living area this product is being advertised by Avalon builder not related to Metro they're an independent builder they have lots in Serengeti phase one and they are advertising a number of products three or four different price points this is the lowest price point the smallest size but this home exceeds the minimum square footage in the deed restrictions and is being marketed independently that's going to happen with respect to the Lots that Metro doesn't own we can't control that so regardless of what is done for the Metro Lots other people that have Lots in phase one can build anything it's 1,800 square feet or larger no miss Howell discuss some code provisions talking about consistency with surrounding neighborhoods and that is a very good point and I'm glad you brought that up this exhibit shows you

ten existing approved communities in the immediate sub market in the immediate planning area the same planning area that have approvals and serengeti is virtually in the middle of those I'm going to read off the next exhibit has the details but I want to leave the picture off I'm going to read off from the next exhibit the minimum lot sizes which are approved in every one of the adjacent subdivisions no exception lakeside to the to the West 40-foot Lots 41 foot paired single-family or attached homes 16 foot townhomes legends point our adjacent neighbor to the west right across Hayes Road directly 55 foot Lots Lone Star Ranch our immediate neighbor to the south 50-foot Lots 60 foot townhomes I'm sorry 16 foot townhomes and 16 foot single-family attached so 50 foot single-family 16 foot single attached and townhomes Suncoast lakes just to the south of 50 to 50 foot Lots Greenfield just northeast of us on the exact opposite side of the expressway with the same expressway issues that we're going to have in the back 50-foot Lots 60 foot lot 40-foot lot 16 foot Town Hall Plantation Oaks to our West 50 foot lot 80 foot duplex lot essentially a 40 foot individual lot meadow Oaks just to our West 45 foot to 70 foot lots and 25 foot single-family attached Lots Quail Ridge just on the other side of the Sun cuts 25 foot single-family attached 50 foot single family lots Deerfield Lakes 50 foot lot 70 foot lot 25 foot attached 16 foot Town Hall Cypress Preserve 40 foot lot 45 foot lot 50 foot lot 55 foot lot 30 foot attached 16-foot Town Hall in short every one of the 10 projects you have approved the closest 10 foot project you have ever proved to Serengeti had the exact minimum lot size and the type of lot mix that we're proposing to try to get out of this quagmire so we're not doing anything inconsistent with the neighborhood in fact we are the anomaly in the neighborhood we're the fish-out-of-water because we're the only community we can find approved in Pasco County that has exclusively 90 foot Lots the only one and that's why it's sitting here unfortunately this is the detail that I just read to you now the question about lot values because the lot was said about that home values at DRC and you're going to hear it today rather than speculating on I think my house is worth this or I think my house is worth that or oh gosh this is going to appreciate our values we did our best to find actual empirical market data to present to you factually so that you can draw your own conclusions as to what this is likely to do to existing values these are the actual existing property appraiser assessments just value in Serengeti for every lot and every existing home we got them from the property appraiser we asked the property appraiser so I know the statute says appraised on a hundred percent but we all know that that isn't exactly done what do you do if you really want to approximate fair market value they said gross ours up by fifteen percent more

and you'll be in the ballpark we did that we grossed them up by fifteen percent and they demonstrate that the average current home and this is an average of all the values is three hundred and sixty eight thousand dollars and on a per square foot on a per heated square foot basis that existing home lot package now this is the house and the lot is a hundred and thirteen dollars a square foot so we said okay and we went to a qualified market appraiser not a broker not a speculator we went to Marty Engleman at Tropical at valuation advisory in Tampa and we without giving in any direction we said Marty we need you to go pull actual comparable sales we're not talking about listings we want actual comparable sales in every one of the surrounding communities and we want you to tell us two things get us a comparison a market velocity of sales based upon various lot sizes to see what's happening with the 50s versus the 90s and what you also tell us what do you find is the combination lot home value in the surrounding communities that I just read to you for the 50-foot Lots for the homes that are on 50-foot Lots because the argument we were getting is if we have 50-foot Lots it's going to devalue my home on my 90-foot lot and so he pulled that the first thing that's most instructive is this exhibit as to this is the actual sales velocity in the previous 12 months and if you look at the top lake side which I pointed out to you just west of us had a hundred 9 actual closings in the last 12 months lakeshore Ranch had 88 actual closings in the last 12 months they had those with 50-foot Lots whereas Serengeti had two we had to lock closings while they're having 109 and 88 and when you look at this graphic and see that Serengeti doesn't even register on the bar chart due to lack of velocity and again these are based upon actual sales that's not us saying oh gosh we can't sell the 90s aren't selling the 50s are this is the market telling you that 90s aren't selling but that 50s are so then we took it to the next step to get to that per square foot price we said okay mr. appraiser I want you to pull up lakeside phase 1 lakeside phase 2 Cypress preserve deer fill lakes and Connerton all communities in this portion of the county that have mixed la product and he computed based on actual sales in the last 12 months what a 50-foot lot with a whole package our 50 footers with a home package what was the actual price per square foot that those buyers received in comparable communities and it's amazing it goes from 96 dollars to 115 dollars a square foot with 3 of the 5 being at 112 112 and 115 now why is that interesting is the house on the 50-foot lot the market is telling you has exactly the same value as the Lots in Serengeti on the 90-foot lot that also tells you why we can't give away a 90 foot lot because there's no incremental value to it and and in addition like the one gentleman said on the earlier matter a lot of these purchasers want that nice house in a beautiful community like Serengeti

they don't want to mow the grass and for these size Lots you have to give them a John Deere tractor as they're closing gift a toaster who doesn't help you'd literally have to give them a John Deere tractor at the closing to mow the yard and most people don't let that John Deere might like it so then we have the detail the backup he dug way into Cypress reserve if you're interested lakeside - so that you can see that it's actual comparable sales but that's the answer now let's get to the issue at hand the issue at hand is what are the pros and cons unfortunately of having an existing phase one in a community with larger Lots that is partially developed and a phase in the back that isn't built with homes at all fully developed full site development but not built with homes and the way to get there is the entrance through the existing larger estate sized homes this is the poster child for that it's the lakeside project just west of us and the interesting thing is that on August 23rd 2016 almost two years to the day from us standing here this County Commission this very County Commission approved a Phase two redo of phase two modification to convert it to these smaller next Lots and it has 40 phase 2 you guys have proved right in our neighborhood it has 40 foot Lots 55 foot Lots 80 foot Lots 41 foot villas has 60 foot Lots so they came in with exactly the smorgasbord that we're talking about driving through the existing larger subdivision now go back and look interestingly at the velocity chart guess which one is number two on the hit list lake would face a lakeside phase two so in just two years that you modified that for them in Phase two they shot up to over a hundred closings in the last 12 months after being stagnated so what that demonstrates is you made a very good decision on lakeside phase two you were correct you helped solve a market problem you did it in a responsible manner now we discussed this at DRC and I'm going to concede that if we had the reverse situation where if the large Lots had already been built in the back and the front part was the part that we hadn't built and we were now trying to down size the front part to smaller Lots so that everyone coming to these larger Lots and homes had to drive through the smaller community I think that would be a less desirable situation so we were kind of lucky that Lexington started where they did and it may have been entirely luck we're also lucky they didn't build it all in the back but the good news is coming into the marketing window you've got these big fine Lots in these beautiful homes in this beautiful community and if you're an existing resident there unless you meet a new friend on the back forty and hopefully they will but unless you meet a new friend back there you and your own houseguests don't ever have to drive back there next to the Suncoast expressway because you don't have to go there to get to your home and neither do your houseguests so I think it is a fortunate circumstance that that's the way geographically it's laid out now

let's talk about that a little bit we have on the Phase two the unbuilt home section we have an issue being up against the Suncoast parkland now that never became an issue in phase one because it has such physical separation but the truth is it probably would have been hard to sell those estate homes in the back next to the expressway even if the market hadn't collapsed in 2008 that probably wasn't the smartest thing to plan and if we were coming in here today if core Lynn is correct that I have no zoning on phase two and I got to come in and start from scratch with my res 3 land use we're certainly going to grow it draw a land plan that now makes sense that has smaller townhome more dense product at least in one or two rows next to that expressway and then a mix of 50 60 foot Lots in front of that that's how we would all design it you guys approved those every County Commission meeting and you've approved them all over the county for the last 3-4 years that's how you would design this so for us to say that we will keep everything in phase 1 Metro will sit on those 57 90 foot Lots in Phase one ever how long it takes to sell them if you'll just give us enough relief and phase 2 to do what the market is telling us is necessary that which is entirely consistent with the surrounding 10 communities including the one you last approved in December of 2016 then we think we can get out of this now here's the other thing before I get to the revised conditions here's the other thing that we think will actually happen it is not our intention to do harm to the existing residents because that also is not our intention to do harm to ourselves for our existing 57 Lots there we have a 60% stake in phase 1 and if we honestly thought that we were going to destroy the ultimate value of those Lots they if we can build this value back those are worth more than the new lot will be worth in Phase two so we would not be doing if in our professional development judgment we thought this was going to destroy values in phase one we wouldn't be doing this because it would make no sense but what's going to happen is we're going to get the white is currently a hot product market we're probably going to give some empty nesters if they don't need a John Deere tractor we're going to be able to open the demographic have some younger professionals move to the back with young families and we're gonna talk about how we accommodate that and some empty nesters we're going to get some traction there'll be models they'll be there'll be traffic coming in to see them a lot of people are going to drive past that beautiful large lot area in phase one seeing this traffic and they're gonna say you know that's really nice back there but it's kind of next to the Suncoast expressway and it might get a little loud and by the way those are really some beautiful Big Lots in the front and they're gonna spin around after they get the brochures from the model and they're going to go back to the front and say you know what maybe we

can actually afford one of these how much are they that's what's going to happen here and as they say a rising tide floats all boats we've got to find the catalyst for the rising tide and we're not saying this is the perfect answer but it dar sure is the only one we've been able to come up with is you know as they say it's the economy stupid don't argue with the market the markets go to beat you if you think you're smarter than the market you've lost again so that's where we're going now if I can transition as I said we were able I think because it was reasonable I made exactly this substantive argument to your D'Arcy members and they agreed that although it was in a perfect world and it was unfortunate for the existing residents in the situation that it could either sit there the way it is dead in the water to change or we can try to do something to fix the problem and your department heads concluded that we're gonna try to help fix the problem and so they've recommended to you that you do that despite that because we knew we still had resident opposition we met with each of you individually as you know with the with the county attorney and I heard from you different items that concerned some of you and that you thought would be responsive to some of the issues you had heard from residents so we went back based upon your specific questions your specific suggestions and in some cases some very specific requests including some strong arm-twisting and we went back and we rewrote these to respond specifically to those items and with your permission I was asked by the county attorney and staff that that I be the one to distribute these which I'm happy to do if you would be kind enough to receive them into the record move to receive thank you and just as an aside while we're settling in to look at these I went back and looked at the zoning history to talk about how the market changes and how about trends change and you'll see this actually if you look at the details in the staff report this very property was approved in the mid 80s for mobile home park so the world does change and at that time obviously no one thought any the better or less of it right in response to the direct inquiries that we received from commissioners we have made changes which fall into six simple categories so without getting lost into the weeds on the wording and again the wording has been vetted by the County Attorney's Office and staff and they both are ok with it if you see fit to make the changes the six subsidy items starting from front to back condition number nine in phase one to meet the neighborhood park requirement for the total subdivision we created a very large passive recreation park area and because there's so many wetlands and so many set-aside areas there's actually a large 6.5 acre parcel that was set aside and committed to be a passive recreation park area 6.5 acres well the whole even at our 229 units we are only required to have 2.2 nine acres so we already had

three times that number however it's heavily wood it it's beautiful and it's perfect for passive recreation but it's not cleared and so the concern was that the LDC now presently requires you to have as part of your neighborhood park a completely cleared 10,000 square foot minimum open play area and so the request was made we know you've already dedicated six and a half acres for the park but it really doesn't provide the open play area plus we're thinking that in the back as I said we may now draw some professionals on the smaller Lots at a competitive price entry so we have agreed and committed in the conditions that in Phase two we will add a minimum 10,000 square foot open play area that meets the current code requirements and that will be in addition to the six and a five six and a half acre park that's already present in phase one and it will be accessible by car and pedestrian and bicycle from both phases so there is an additional open play area including anyone that moves into phase one that has kids it's nice item one a new open player item two was a specific request that we get very aggressive on number one the obligation to connect to the Suncoast trail through that back phase and at Commissioner Mariano's suggestion hopefully with a board resolution to the Expressway Authority to encourage them to actually approve that including the county as a co applicant this condition obligates Metro to build that connection to do it in the way approved by the county so that during emergency events the county can require to be locked if required if there's a fire if there's an accident etc but we're obligated to make that connection that's item two the third request which I know at least came from Commissioner Starkey and I think one or two others Commissioner Mariano I think I got this at least twice was if we're connecting to the Suncoast trail then they look went back and they looked at the approved construction plans and this was approved without what would be your current pedestrian bicycle trail requirement for a minimum eight foot eight foot trail so we were asked and Metro has agreed to actually go back and retrofit phase one from the main entrance on Hayes Road through phase one through phase two to the trail connection by either revamping and expanding one of the existing sidewalks or building a totally new trail on the other side either way we'll have an 8 foot bicycle pedestrian trail connection all the way through that was item 3 item 4 was Commissioner Mariano's request strong request that we provide some off-site sidewalk mitigation on Hayes Road and down at the public center on 52 actually at the Uji at the Withlacoochee facility just north of the Publix the sidewalk was extended up by Withlacoochee to their northern boundary there's then 4,300 feet a missing sidewalk on Hayes Road if you go all the way to our projects northern boundary and Commissioner Mariano has requested it's like I said 4,300 feet it's almost a mile it's going to be a substantial expense but the county attorney's office

and staff is supporting bicycle pedestrian Mobility fee credits if we'll spend the money to do it and Metro has committed in the conditions now to build that off-site sidewalk as a precursor to Phase two that will get us to the north boundary so that you then I think just have one more property going north maybe a couple to get to the high school so it's obviously a good idea to get that sidewalk going and we're happy to do that then turning internally to what we can do to help respond to the concern of the residents that the 50-foot lot with it's unfortunate that that's how we need to measure it because that's what gets everybody excited is the 50-foot lot with so we looked at it and as you know it's just a good argument that the way you determine lot minimums is by lot square footage and overall lot size and so what we did is we came back we have tremendous depth on these phase two lots they're not going to change because the millions has already been spent on the road and the utilities and electric so so that pad we have it is what it is so what we did and this was a specific response to virtually every commissioner asked us this question in the one-on-one meetings could we make a commitment and could we better clarify exactly what these lot sizes would be and we said yes we've got to go back to the engineer we've got to do some calcining to do two things in Phase two yes we need to stick with that minimum 50-foot width just because of the lineal distance we have and the cul-de-sacs to deal with frontline but we agreed to do two things to try to create a better aesthetic and to have a less of an in-your-face feel to make it look aesthetically like they were a bigger a larger estate first thing is we we substantially increase the front lot setbacks we're proposing and willing to do 35 feet to the garage to my knowledge I've never approved of never had a project in Pasco County that it had as much as a 35 foot minimum setback to the garage for residential and 30 feet to the residents itself so we're willing to push all of those in phase 2 back so that you get a bigger a more open feel when you're driving through there secondly we're prepared to commit and to come in the conditions reflect that not more not more than 10% which would be 22 of these know will be 13 because we have 134 Lots in Phase two if we're approved so not more than 13 Lots would actually be less than 6,000 square feet and of course 6,000 square feet actually is your standard 60 foot lot not 50 foot so you're going to have virtually no Lots that square footage-wise are truly what you know is a 50 foot lot and we'll have we'll have not more than 10 percent that are less than six thousand square feet we will have not more then 40 percent which are less than 7500 square feet which is your typical 75 foot lot and we commit in the conditions that at least 60 percent of the Phase two Lots must be 7500 square feet or larger which would be a 75 footer or bigger we also know from the estimate that the engineer

gave us that if you truly average the average lot size in Phase two if we have a 50 foot front the average lot size because of the depth there will be 95 hundred square feet and we in fact will have 38 Lots nearly one third of the Lots in Phase two that will be a quarter acre or larger which is the size of the square footage in phase one so we're getting hammered for needing a 50 foot front lot minimum when I think the fair analysis is well these will be mixed lot sizes they will be substantially larger than a standard 50 foot lot they'll have an additional front setback and it's going to create a nice appearance so we're happy to meet those requests that various commissioners have made we certainly hope that sufficient is going to cost us let's say several thousand dollars more for the trail and the off-site sidewalk but because we have nowhere to go now except down or nowhere we're happy to do it if that's a reasonable compromise and we can move this forward so with that said we'll hold the rest of our time for any rebuttal mr. Lawson is here and we'll be happy in rebuttal to address anything that needs to be covered out for the residents speak and we ask you to follow the recommendation of your development review committee as its last final act please don't reverse them in their last final act and and approve this with these additional conditions that we presented in response to individual commissioners suggestions thank you any questions for Joel that concern Afton far as the road being 11 feet rather than 12 that just comes up yeah I'm sorry I meant to address that thank you okay first of all I don't recall coral in arguing that specific item at the DRC hearing specifically I do recall it coming up in either a staff comment or something we got before DRC I looked at that before and I asked for the specific code reference that they were relying upon I read that code reference and it didn't say that and I responded and told them that so I want to reserve my right that that's not what it says however if that is what it says then we will do exactly what was acknowledged in the questioning to you that obviously when we come in for our construction plan approval if that is an accurate legitimate requirement now then we have to do one of two things we either have to get an alternate standard approved which is in the county's discretion oh we're going to have to add a foot teach side of those roads when we're building the trail and beside walk so the short answer is if that's a requirement we have to do it and it'll just be an additional cost but we'll do it if the ultimate standard isn't approved but again I reserve the right to debate that because I did look at the code section she gave me it did not say that what I looked at it thank you real quick job yes sir well I just wanted to it was interesting so I I just texted that Thomas deep who was the developer of Erised EDA that he was the contractor part developer and I asked for the width of the road in Harris Teeter because it's kind of summer because it's one

long road and the width of the road in aresty does 20 feet no sidewalks so everybody's in the street turns 20 feet [Music] and of course our construction plans were approved I mean we built what was approved but like I said if the current requirement is different and if we convince everyone that it's reasonable to do it the way it is then we have to do it Joe let me ask you a question now and I appreciate you taking the time to meet with me I didn't meet with the residents till after we sat down which I told you have you spoken to the residence or the replicate represent the representation of the residents their attorney to present these things to kinda maybe work it out before we got here today and putting this in front of us there I heard through the grapevine I mean have you personally spoke to him her no I have not now and explain why I only heard through the grapevine that they had legal counsel because Todd Pressman represented them at DRC and and we I talked to Todd before DRC so I did not know directly that they have counsel and the counsel did not reach out to me we also were told frankly at DRC that short of building the 90-foot lots they weren't interested so you know we you don't know if you don't ask I'm just an again I'm not saying that day you're right or wrong I'm just asking yeah and and the flip side of that is if they've hired me as Hatley I knew her I did cooperatively we did a zoning project and Looch she knew where to find me and she's worked with me before and we've resolved issues before so you mentioned in your new I had to start wearing these the last couple months here in the club yeah you mentioned on the lot size let me let me find where I'm going here sorry one second here you need the condition yes sir it's own page it starts on page eight in a red line at the bottom okay I got it thank you so I guess my question is children why the need to add 59 more well okay good question if you're only going with 50 footers okay you can fit the 59 more what we're telling you is when you do the math of 50 footers in there given the depth of those lots we're giving you the math on how big those Lots really are because that was the question we were asked we were saying yes we have lots that are 50 foot wide but they are really big 50 footers which sounds like an oxymoron but there are big 50 footers because they are so deep so if we don't get relief on the lot width we can't achieve any additional density as long as we're stuck at the 90 foot width we can only get what we have so we have to go to a minimum 50 foot width but when you when the engineer lays those out and plats them what you're going to see is even if they're 50 foot in width you're going to see that the total square footage and that lot are the numbers we have committed to that the lots are going to be the square foot size of most of them 75 footers because all the Lots you approve everywhere everything we've done the last three or four years every

project I put up here if you look at those dimensions in the exhibit those are 50 by 110 those are 60 by 110 those are 70 by 110 that's how big the standard building lot is in the Pasco County market these Lots are going to average almost 200 feet deep that's the other logic and pushing the house back if you have that depth and you still got room for the pool in the back and the kids to play in the back push the house back get them back off the street so that when you drive through there that now you know anything closer to you looks bigger and tighter so if you get it back is going to create more of a visual appearance that there's more room between the houses that's the idea so this may continue on with something else - so you said you know you met with all the commissioners and some suggestions were given to you and your Mickey were willing to make some additional investments has have you had spoken well you City haven't spoken with their council but um I met with yourselves I met with the residents some of the residents I should say that came to the meeting that day one thing one of the conversations I had with them and maybe this will come up later I'm not sure is that and we I think you and I had this conversation briefly and correct me if I'm wrong maybe we did it when we met but blocking off I think we did right so so blocking off phase one and phase two since you're willing to make such lured investments on the on the trail and the sidewalks on a park what do you guesstimate the investment would be to build an additional entrance north which would could connect to I think that's word as Killa manju Oh Caleb no Kilimanjaro Kilimanjaro see these puzzles don't even work hearing beauty glasses that even work yes in that area we we do not own that track to the north we can't build a road across somebody's land we don't own and that's therefore not a viable option how long do you think important how long do you think it is from Hayes Road to Kilimanjaro oh wow probably almost a mile three-quarters of a mile I mean that's a that's probably a two million dollar road before you plus go buy the land from somebody that doesn't want to sell it to you because they're gonna want to develop it one day so they're not you know plus look at the 60 million dollars we already said we were going to improve Hayes Road and add all those turning lanes and build that entrance and so the discussion we had was alternate access there's existing access to the south that the staff has you know as as an emergency asked access and our position on that is we were to make an emergency only by staff in the residence we made an emergency only if somebody wants it open we're okay with it being open or we're okay with it staying as emergency we just need to be told what to do but no where's that connect to it goes through loans start them to 52 but you know then you're gonna have the Lonestar residence although the truth is you require every community to have cross access when you do it in every to horn where does it

connect to advance to it comes it comes out of the very southeastern part of phase one so it doesn't cut it so okay so but there are a handful of lots there handful of Lots in phase one that would be affected that are owned by others a small number what would be affected in the southeastern part that's why you know we're we're willing to do whatever but the community was obvious develop with intent of being a unified community the homeowner association is for the entire community the trail I mean why would we connect to trail from faith with the Suncoast if it's not going to be a unified community we certainly will not build a sidewalk down he's rude if we can't do through phase one to get to our new sidewalk so I mean I just don't see that as a viable option I mean I appreciate the effort and I appreciate the concern but it's simply not up it's not a practical solution to build a new road to the north through property that we don't own or control we couldn't afford to do that we wouldn't restart the project if we had to build a new road like that thank you okay you're sitting back 30 feet from the residence and 35 on the garage 35 on the garage is that how much more is that than a setback already full ten feet billion feet pulpit in feet right so most of the Lots you're talking about and the second phase are a lot deeper than 100 feet they've got to be one third years they're all there virtually all we counted Mike and I counted and and I actually word it that way the lots that are 1/3 or deeper we've committed to that additional setback right and mike says that he only has literally a handful of lots probably five or less that aren't at least 130 deep they basically go from 130 to nearly 200 yeah so we're going to have no problem pushing they don't get good space in front of the homes and you're gonna provide those homes with more lot actually exactly yeah still have room in the back for a pool and a large play area for the kids if if they want and probably still they'll definitely still need that John Deere tractor the reason I moved to my townhouse on the tarp and I was tired of mowing that that other yard on the golf course I just wasn't interested in that anymore mr. Mariano Thank You bloedow most of the questions I was looking at but gentleman asked a question when you had your market analysis done by the Marty I guess down in Tampa of the ones you listed you left out Lone Star as far as the comparisons and the reason I mentioned is just in the staff analysis when it compares the Lone Star to this I'm just wonder why that was left out as part of your analysis or his analysis I think he was looking at what he thought were the most comparable in terms of the quality of a project and so the ones he pulled is the comparables were the ones in the immediate area that had the 50-foot Lots that he thought were the most comparable product but we can we can get that data while you're up here appreciate it so tell me a little bit more about how phase 2 has been marketed we haven't a

stupid marketed at all just obviously and I went out there took a gain or two and there's no Lots divided it's correct it's just grass they did everything others right they did everything other than draw the lot line and plant that's exactly correct imma let mr. Lawson introduce himself since he's in charge of that process for Metro and he can talk to you about what efforts they to try to move Phase two and also his continuing efforts to market those Lots in phase one so because the reason let me just get you real quick so because the reason I ask is that it's very in my opinion this is my opinion it's very hard to sell a product when it doesn't look somewhat finished ie the Lots aren't finished it's not mowed it's not being kept up with so it might be very difficult to sell that product it's actually being taken care of well I can actually take a stab at that one because I get hard all the time to go contract for land that looks like Starkey ranch before you had any houses that's not even zoned the the beautiful property but the bill I guess I'm getting at a developer builder that's in this game which is the buyer for a Phase two they see all beyond that that what they're interested in is location lot size and is my infrastructure there so a builder that's gonna go in there and Bill face - they are not confused and bothered at all by the fact that that land back there the grass may not have been cut last week because every piece of proper they look at has wetlands and trees and pasture and it's just a big line on the on the the GIS map so the we're not we're not trying to one off the it now if we were trying to one off retail Lots yeah to home buyers in the back then then yes I mean I can see that point phase twos a bulk sale to a developer builders don't like right oh yeah no it's a bulk sale in reality the only product that's been marketed so far has been phase one not correct well they've been trying to sell phage to trust management but as the course as a as a book so but you're still selling individual locker things we're not going to get into the trap and phase two that we that we we bought at phase one was there so it was what it was but we're not gonna get in the trap on phase two of doing one offs on 90 foot lights in the minute you got to buyers then nobody's going to let us change face - so thank goodness there hasn't been there's been no sales in phase two but we can't possibly start doing one-off cells in Phase two we see how when off cells worked in phase one so far you know not good as my can address the bulk mr. chairman well mr. Lawson is coming up well mr. to has indicated in the beginning of his argument that he disagrees with staffs position if they're MP UD plan has expired they really couldn't mark it phase two as individual Lots because they can't move forward with planning they the and move forward with construction drawing they have to come to you for an approval

of some kind which they're here for today mr. chairman just close I saw some of the acknowledgments in here so who we met with but I meant were the residents twice and I met with the applicant twice name and address for the record and state that you have been sworn I have been sworn I'm Mike Lawson I'm with Metro Development Group I'm located in Tampa Florida mr. chairman commissioners good afternoon in regard to phase two the infrastructure was put in back in oh six oh seven I was never planted and in our world it's we look at it as a partially approved piece of property when we're talking to builders we have nothing for what product we wish to sell being a 50-foot minimum and again that's a minimum with these Lots are going to be different widths beyond 50 plus or minus but until we have entitlements that we can sell that type of product we can't really talk to builders because we don't have entitlements to sell the product that they're interested in buying you know I don't know I thought it was 2017 in the findings last year I think you took about the NPD they're competing I'm performing back to what mr. Stein's Thursday August 11 2017 2017 win what month August so when you have a plan a piece of property then a builder can enter into bona fide sell contracts with home buyers so we are turning through phase one we are very actively marketing this project and certainly I would love to show your efforts during the rebuttal we're advertising on television we're doing Facebook were doing direct mails we're on our metro places website our metro development group website have been for a couple years and I still are very slow so we're like Joe said early we wanted closing don't so far this year just two Lots which has been the consistent pattern on this property on the 90 foot wide lots and we're gonna stay committed to phase one I think phase 2 given a product that's more competitive on the surrounding market and I think mr. England's approach also was looking at more active projects as well mr. Morano versus zone star which has been completed for quite a while but we can look that information up and and follow up with you on that if you wish mr. Lawson so you're so Metro itself this whole sold two Lots this year has anybody else I don't know if the the investment owner of the 13 Lots if they've sold any Lots - they've owned them for several years and my understanding there's nothing been sold there we haven't looked on the property appraisers records recently if they've been any movement of those Lots out there so it's Avalon it's building on your lives yes Avalon is under contract with us to sell our Lots the model home they're using we constructed for them to help with their capital expenditure and we are aggressively giving them abilities to discount their homes discount the log packages to get momentum going in this project phase two but the higher density product that's more conducive to market conditions will allow us to continue our commitment and

and stay in phase one lot sells we think we know that with additional sells traffic and velocity that the Phase two product will offer is gonna create more traffic internally and it's going to move the 90-foot order Hut's faster as well which is we all want that in the community but the integrity of phase one will be left as it is it's not going to be changed in any way my can you repeat how much you spent annually to advertise our current contract is running from June through August it's forty two thousand dollars and we are marketing in Northwest Hillsborough County East Pasco West Pasco and Hernando County and we're going to be extending that contract from August to December and probably starting at two 9090 no ago through April we're also doing a large billboard digital billboard off of i-75 in Fletcher starting today so and I've been I've seen the commercials I'm just I'm asking I live close I haven't seen it but I again up I believe you I'm just asking that question I didn't get the number earlier when Joe was here any other questions from Mike can I just follow so Mitchell license he mentioned give a contract now through August advertise just fought with Commissioner or chairman Wells this question and you're you think that'll be extended through April of 2009 to 2019 yes and that's for television television television yes 20,000 a month that's just for this product just for Serengeti let me say just strictly just that's just for sharing good e-commerce and I have people and I can show that during your boat oh I can show you that I trust good I believe you I just wanted I'm try to look at date stuff yes sir okay through so through eight we've been advertising and we've been on television commercials for months okay when'd you start advertising on TV it was several months ago so this year yes yes I started advertising on TV this yeah it's been on the metro places website for nearly two years okay start advertising TV a few months ago in 2008 my understanding all right just so I understand so you're saying you didn't start advertising for Serengeti until June of this year no before June it's been several months for television advertising okay we've been advertising we've been doing direct mails we do Facebook sells we have it on our metro Places website which I mean as far as the 42,000 a year that's that's something just started this year yeah that's probably about eight months in total so far mr. chairman so we're gonna hear from that the other attorney and then there's rebuttal and so we can ask more questions okay mr. chair we don't count the question-and-answer time towards their hours and I think they have about 16 minutes left the applicant has about 16 minutes left for rebuttal okay thank you thank you Mike Thank You commissioner okay if the residents attorney would like to representative would like to come forward Thank You commissioners I'm Pamela Jo Hatley my address is one four five one seven North 18th Street Tampa I represent Jim Truex who is a resident

and owner in Serengeti he lives that he owns 1571 v Serengeti Boulevard before I get into my presentation I need to address some things that were stated on the record by mr. two and starting with something that was stated about the homeowner association it was represented that the homeowner association declarations of covenants were presented to you on the screen there was an orm page and a date of recording there those were not the original declaration of covenants that was actually an amendment it said right on the face of the document that it was an amendment it was recorded in October of 2006 I have the original Declaration of covenants conditions and restrictions for Serengeti they were they were recorded November 4th 2005 at Ord 679 page 601 and in Section 2.02 they required the size of each residence to two thousand square feet and I would like to submit this document into the record for clarification they that was in 2005 then when did it go to 1800 square feet thousand six two thousand six Commissioner Starkey in 2006 the amendment that mr. to showed to the board was recorded October 3rd 2006 at ORMC 1692 it was argued that the Metro Development Group was not involved in planning this community and that it was actually Lexington homes that was responsible for that but I would like to point out the document I just submitted to the record and also this amendment that you were shown by mr. to assigned by Serengeti Development LLC by the Ryan group LLC its managing member and by John M Ryan its managing member so they were indeed involved and I would like to submit this document to the record it's the first amendment to the Declaration of covenants conditions and restrictions for Serengeti this board has to make a decision regarding the rezoning request and the decision has to be supported by competent substantial evidence now competent substantial evidence does not include argument of attorneys Florida courts have held consistently that argument of attorneys we are advocates for our clients our testimony is not competent substantial evidence there was no tendering of any expert witness during mr. twos argument mr. two did not tender himself as an expert witness in any areas such as marketing real estate sales real estate brokerage economic development or economics and yet he made argument in all of those areas mr. two did not bring an expert witness today to present the reports that were submitted to you on the screen regarding marketing and real estate sales and economics and the impact of any of those things there was no expert witness here that I could cross-examine her asked questions or that this board could I couldn't see the report I couldn't examine the report I could only see what was shown on the screen so I object to that on the basis of hearsay and on the basis that of due process that there was no expert witness here behind that report that we could

ask questions that I could ask questions or the board could ask questions or the residents of Serengeti could ask questions of that is not competent substantial evidence if this case were approved or denied today and went up on appeal a court would not recognize that as competent substantial evidence it's simply argument of an attorney in addition to that this board has to make a decision supported by competent substantial evidence but based on the criteria in Pasco County's own local laws it's planning documents its land development code it's comprehensive plan the decision you make today on this request has to be based on the criteria in your own code many of the items that were brought up in mr. twos argument and that were brought up before the development review committee had to do with issues such as the project being stalled we can't sell these Lots we haven't sold Lots here in a long long time we wouldn't have designed this community this way if we had done it to start with we would have put mixed size Lots in here these are not relevant these are not criteria in Pasco County's code or its comprehensive plan they're not criteria on which your decision today has to be based so those issues while compelling but perhaps compelling because the developer is arguing that if we don't get this approval we're gonna go belly-up on this development compelling yes but it's not a criteria in your land development code or comprehensive plan now back to my presentation mr. Truax objects to the changes that are being requested to reduce the lot sizes reduce the frontage and reduce the setbacks and increase the number of Lots I'm going to present a quick overview of what the law is in Florida at the state level and also at this County's level state and local law that governs how quasi-judicial decisions are made that governs how rezoning decisions are made the leading case on this is the Board of County Commissioners a Brevard County versus Snyder that was Florida Supreme Court case in 1993 I'm sure this board is familiar with that case because it is widely quoted in your comprehensive plan and the land development code in Pasco County for example the Pasco County 2025 comprehensive plan at the future land use element appendix in Section FL UA - two quotes that Florida Supreme Court decision and states that what the burden is it for an applicant when they're asking for a rezoning it says that landowners seeking to rezone property or seeking a quasi-judicial approval or of any quasi judicial application the landowner has the burden of proving that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and complies with the procedural requirements of the land development code at this point the burden shifts so if the applicant meets hits its burden to show that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the land development code procedures then the burden shifts to the county to show that there is a

legitimate public interest or a legitimate public purpose in maintaining the status quo now the comprehensive plan defines legitimate public purpose and one of those ways is public reliance on an approved plan of development you've heard a lot about public reliance today and I'm going to present real evidence from the citizens in Serengeti about that public reliance the citizens in Sarah's Serengeti the homeowners there will tell you and the evidence the competent substantial evidence that we will present today will show that the homeowners in Serengeti bought their homes in reliance on this county's approval of the Serengeti community plan the whole unified community plan and the testimony of mr. - and mr. Lawson admitted that it was to be a unified community phase one and phase two they saw what was on the ground they saw phase two phase 1 rather which is platted and they saw the property in Phase two which the roads were paved the Lots were laid out electricity and facilities were put in you've heard testimony on that today by your staff and by the applicant so they not only relied on the county's approval and the plat and the zoning but also what they saw on the ground not to mention what they also were told by the sellers of those homes and they can speak to that when the applicant comes to this County requesting an approval for this rezoning the applicant has to as I said prove a consistency with the comp plan and with the land development code procedures and it has to do that by presenting competent substantial evidence there is competent substantial evidence already in the record before this board there is competent substantial evidence in the form of this County's own professional staff who made a presentation to you today and who showed the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and the land development code and went by step by step provision by provision demonstrating to this board what those criteria are those are the criteria that this board must focus on in making its decision whether to approve or deny this request and it's decision has to be supported by competent substantial evidence there was talk today of entitlement there was talk today of the property being in res 3 land use designation and future land use designation now the case that I mentioned the Florida Supreme Court case in Snyder brevard county versus snyder spoke to that as well and coincidentally the county's comprehensive plan also quotes that the county's comprehensive plan states at policy 1.9.3 that the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan sets forth the long-range potential uses of the property in the context of a lawful planning horizon and provides for a wide array of potential zoning classifications within each land use designation a property owner is not entitled to all zoning classifications or even the most potentially dense or intense zoning classification within a within a land use designation numerous

planning timing compatibility public facility and other generally acceptable planning issues affect the appropriateness of an of assigning a particular zoning classification or approving a particular land use regarding a particular parcel of property so it isn't just the future land use designation that is not the only criteria on which this board must make its decision and and a land owner is not entitled to the greatest density under that land use designation if the county has a legitimate public purpose for maintaining the status quo then a county is not compelled to grant a zoning request it's not compelled to grant an up zoning or more density what are some of those additional things that the county has to look at well the Pasco County's Comprehensive Plan it's at policy 1.10.10 nning application for compatibility with existing uses and appropriate timing under that policy the county has to look at the existing land uses in the community including the densities it has to consider existing development patterns in the community and it also has to consider the community character what is the community character in Serengeti well the residents are here to tell you they live there they see it every day and they are fact witnesses and they are going to testify about the facts regarding the community character of Serengeti which is their community now the county's professional staff presented a report to the development review committee the same report that was presented to this board today and that was discussed and shown on the screen and staff went through the Comprehensive Plan provisions and also went through the land development code provisions at section four point I'm sorry for zero two point two point F the standards of review that require a consideration of the impact of this proposal on surrounding land uses and the provisions at four zero two point one point II which is the review considerations that this board must consider that talked about the impact of this request on the living conditions in the immediate neighbourhood that of Serengeti staff found that there would be an impact on phase one if there were these additional Lots approved in Phase two and that it would be a detrimental impact to the properties in phase one staff found that living conditions would be impacted because of the additional traffic created by the additional Lots staff found that that there was public reliance which is again which is one of those criteria this board has to consider the reliance public reliance and staff also sound that there was a legitimate public purpose to support denial based on that reliance of the approved plan for Serengeti where there is a legitimate public purpose for maintaining the status quo and there is very is a reason for denial for this app for this request and this dn't the denial the decision to deny this request would be supported by competent substantial evidence which we are going to present today we have

expert witnesses and we have fact witnesses so a denial of this request is supported by the evidence is supported by a legitimate public purpose and like the court said in the Snyder case if there's a legitimate public purpose then the application should be denied and I just want to reiterate that although the applicant argues it can't sell Lots the way they're configured that's not a consideration under state or local law I also want to point out before I bring the witnesses up that we do have a few citizen witnesses today they are fact witnesses and I want to make this point on the record that Florida courts have consistently held that we're local lay individuals with first-hand knowledge of the vicinity who are heard in opposition at a public hearing as qualified they are as qualified as expert witnesses to offer views on factual matters related to how a proposal will affect them and their community I want to say that again the courts have held that lay witnesses fact witnesses are as qualified as expert witnesses to offer views on factual matters related to how a proposal will affect them and their community so the testimony of the lay witnesses here today the residents of Serengeti is not to be taken lightly it is competent substantial evidence that will support a decision by this board and there they're testing money according to Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County versus Clearwater second District Court of Appeal case in 1983 the court found that lay witness testimony is to be accorded great weight as to their cumulative objections so mr. Truex is my client and he will be testifying on the record in a few moments we request that this board find as staff did as your professional staff did found this request to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan we request that the board do as well and deny the request for the additional Lots in phase two and the reduced frontages and the reduced setbacks now my first witness I'm going to call is Steve Allison who is a professional planner and as mr. Allison comes forward I would like to present into the record his resume and also his report his report was submitted to the the development review committee but I want to I want to submit it to this board thank you and I'll just want to state on the record that mr. Allison is a a professional planner with about 40 years of experience he has a master's degree in urban planning and much experience Thank You mr. Allison please state your name and address for the record and whether you have been sworn my name is my name is Steve sorry my name is Steve Allison my mailing address is P o box a 283 for Tampa I've been having some voice issues recently so I apologize for that but I will struggle through this presentation sir did you say you were sworn I'm sorry I didn't hear thank you just to start with a couple of reactions amplify some of the things that Pamela Hatley said in regard to the presentation by mr. - these are just off the cuff up observations it was

indicated that through the charts and sales of nearby properties that a different product than what's available in Serengeti is what's hot in the market right now my observation is that's true but that's exactly why these folks bought their property in Serengeti it's something different it's something considerably different and when as was kind of indicated by mr. - when we go about predicting the market we have to remember that it always does change and with the influx of developments of that type coming into this area Serengeti over time may become even more our unique and desirable secondly it I was actually glad to hear that Metro is retaining interest in numerous lots in phase one that keeps them invested in the community but given with the residents of experience with the participation of Metro historically I don't know what assurance they have that they plan to maintain those the existing development standards that are applicable to those phase one Lots finally and family hit on this very effectively from a legal standpoint but we're not here making in a marketing decision we're here mega team making a planning decision based upon specific criteria that exists in your land development code and in your comprehensive plan I had submitted I don't know when it became a part of the record I know it was a part of the record at the DRC I don't think it was actually discussed at that point but I performed a planning analysis I don't know whether all of you have seen that at at this point any quizzical looks that suggests that they probably you probably have not but it is has been introduced as a part of the record for several several months given that it doesn't appear that there's Universal familiarity with it all highlights some of what I think are the key findings there's and I won't go into reading the entire report because that would not only take too long but would probably bore everyone to uncomfortable levels Serengeti homeowners made their purchase decisions when not only the plans of the developer but a master PUD had been approved by this board not your these particular individuals but by this governmental body that was in place that was part of the evidence available whether every one of those owners went and looked at that individually I don't have the ability to say but I think it's fair to presume that they had some expectation that this development was going to be developed as shown in multiple documents so to buy into that and have that changed many years later is a situation that is not unique in the sense that large long term pew tees commonly changed that's that certainly occurs with virtually any in PUD or PUD of that nature it's the nature or it's the extent and type of change here that makes it truly unique in my many years in this field the general area of this request of the existing phase one Serengeti exhibit the quasi character development is relatively sporadic large tracks are currently

undeveloped there's environmental environmentally sensitive parcels both within Serengeti and in the general area there's numerous physical features that that describe the Serengeti neighborhood itself of course the most notable are the vast expanse expanses of wetlands but also and certainly those contribute to the quasi rural feel but there's also unique infrastructure infrastructure features such as the the wooden bridges the old-style streetlights that mimic gas there's things about about the area the homes the way they're plaited with the setbacks and and lot sizes it allows for a very large building footprints which in turn contributes to the likelihood that homes will be custom-built they have a lot of space within their building footprint to build that's among the reasons not the sole reason but certainly among the reasons why I think every house but one in the existing community has a three-car garage it's just part of the of the large large home character the nature of this particular request is quite unusual the as I said modifications there are to be expected but they rarely propose such a fundamental shift to the overall development concept originally envisioned particularly where substantial portions of the overall development are already developed they bought into something they thought that was good now the rugs being pulled out from under a man's e'en I'm sorry but we're going to do something whereas you have 15 thousands of wear foot minimum lofts at least as of before I came here today there was a proposal for 5500 square foot Lots now there were some statements made about compromise lot sizes by mr. Chu in his presentation those are good I don't think those have been communicated with with the residents here maybe there's room for further dialogue that certainly hasn't occurred to my knowledge to date one of the initial provisions of your land development code and 102 point 2 point C 4 is to implement a development review process that is equitable in terms of preservation of the rights of property owners the property rights of the phase 1 homeowners are directly undermined by this proposal they made a good-faith decision to purchase their property in reliance upon a publicly available master plan that had been formally approved again by this board certainly no the zoning plan is set in stone and over time you do expect some modifications but to change the very essence and character of development at this point in its development history it was highly unusual and does not respect there existing property rights in my view in terms of compatibility issues that's really the key and a lot of Zoning decisions current standards treats property as a single integrated property or single integrated development the proposal really bifurcates it into two very distinct and separate yet they same share the same infrastructure if alternative access to phase two were

possible we would likely not be having this particular conversation might be having other conversations but if they were able to access other than through the existing phase one and I know that would be difficult and expensive but if that were the case they might even come more close to realizing their maximum revs three development potential I feel the compatibility is not achieved by the president my modification it would undermine a currently stable and harmonious land use relationship phase two development was substantially less in the characteristic in intrinsic open feel of the overall development impacts of the new development would pose unwarranted in inappropriate impacts on existing phase one development and these concepts are elsewhere developed in this and I can see that this report is getting more boring by the moment they are discussed in multiple places in this document and again it is part of the record I think the proposal fails on the transitional site planning concepts most particular among those is that you will rarely if ever see a development and mr. to I think even acknowledge this to some degree you will very rarely I don't recollect a situation where the least intensive portions of development are built up front in a single closed street network with the higher intensity uses at the rear you know if this were a mixed-use development you wouldn't put single family homes up at the front and your neighborhood Publix at the back you put your Publix at the front and the neighborhood home the second family homes in the back the same applies with this kind of disparity in residential development it is completely backwards to any generally accepted site planning concept within the planning profession in addition when you do have transitions and again these are backwards but you usually accomplish those transitions gradually you might start up front with some townhomes and transition into some 5,000 square-foot detached Lots and then in the rear you might have your estate Lots here we have 15,000 square foot Lots bingo 5500 square foot Lots there is no appropriate transition in lot sizes or use for that matter I don't want to eat up any more time because I think there's very compelling testimony from a number of residents I've heard it I met with a couple of you during this process when I heard their reasons for for why they chose their and Getti for why Serengeti is the reason they live in Basco County for why they've searched the entire Bay Area and said this is it this is my dream this is what I want I want to leave plenty of time for them I will answer any questions that you if you have just one question you were quoting a study I bet something that will get put in front of my desk it talks about the Journal of housing economics was that the one you're - all right so can we get a copy that that's up before the paintings over at some point family you have a copy of [Music] we gave you one at the neighborhood meeting it was submitted into the record I believe at the DRC by the communities

represented at that time I think I might have two or three more copies with me I'll check but you give us one copy we can have our staff make a copy sure sure so well I've been added up here for six years and then I was on the LPA as a school board member for a few years before that it seems to me I've seen an awful lot of rezoning especially when the market changed would you agree that a lot of projects in order to not go belly-up or for whatever reason just desires in the marketplace have maybe have come in for rezoning well I will acknowledge that this is a time where I think a lot of pent-up pent-up demand seems to be flooding the yeah I mean I'm as busy as I can possibly be busier than I want to be and almost every engineering firm I know was in the same boat so the market market is robust with that question and lots of projects are getting rezone I mean cuz we see it all the time I think we had some today so I had three last night okay