PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

                                                                                                                                                                       

 

TO:        Honorable Chairman and                               DATE:    9/16/02              FILE:   ZN02-269

Members of the Board of

County Commissioners

 

 

THRU:    Bipin Parikh, P.E.                                           SUBJECT:     Suncoast Estates MPUD Master

Assistant County Administrator                                           Planned Unit Development/Substantial

(Development Services)                                                      Change Pursuant to Pasco County

Land Development Code, Section 522.6

BCC Meeting Date:  9/24/02, 9:30 a.m.,

NPR

 

FROM:   Debra M. Zampetti                                          REFERENCES:   

Zoning/Code Compliance

Administrator

 

                                                                                                                                                                       

 

 

It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:

 

On September 11, 2002, the Zoning Administrator informed the Board of County Commissioners by memorandum that a substantial change existed with respect to an amendment to the Suncoast Estates MPUD Master Planned Unit Development.  This Board of County Commissioners eventually continued the matter to give the applicant’s representative, Joel Tew, Esquire, an opportunity to rebut the determination of the zoning official.

 

Prior to the hearing on August 28, 2002, the Zoning Administrator met with Mr. Tew who presented a document in support of his contention that any changes were minor or nonsubstantial.  That document is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.  Staff was informed that the percentages were derived from the increase in dwelling units per acre.  The calculations were checked and found to be grossly inaccurate.  In fact, when the increases in density were figured for increase in density per acre, it was found that the substantial deviation was greater than anticipated.

 

On September 11, 2002, in anticipation of the arguments of staff, Mr. Tew argued that the "overall" density changed by 13 percent.  The "overall" change in dwelling units per acre changed by 45 percent (see Exhibit 4).  He abandoned his dwelling-unit-per-acre theory because that proved to be a substantial change.

 

522      MASTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

 

§ 522.5   Master Planned Unit Developments

 

F.      Form and Effect of Master Planned Unit Development Plan Approval

 

If a Master Planned Unit Development Plan is recommended for approval, and the Board of County Commissioners concurs with such recommenda­tion, a written master development plan approval shall be issued which recites all conditions to be imposed upon the development.  After the rendering of such a written approval:

 

2.         Development of the Master Planned Unit Development site shall substantially conform to the densities or intensities, or ranges of densities or intensities, approved by the Board of County Commis­sioners for the entire site and for each phase or increment of the Master Planned Unit Development Plan.

 

Staff submits that changes that exceed 30, 40, 50 and 60 percent in each phase should not be considered in substantial conformance with the original approval of the MPUD Master Planned Unit Development.  A determination with respect to whether a change is substantial is a two-tier process: change in density overall and change in density in each phase.  If either is excessive, then there is a substantial deviation—such is the case herein.

 

For additional guidance, staff relies on the conditions approved by this Board of County Commissioners on November 19, 2000, which provide in part:

 

Upon submittal of an amendment request of the developer and upon recommendation of the Zoning Administrator, the Development Review Committee may amend residential use designations to intensify or deintensify development; i.e., R-3 Medium Density Residential to R-4 High Density Residential, or MF-1 Multiple Family Medium Density to R-4 High Density Residential, provided that:

 

The number of units and density do not increase by more than 20 percent within any specific increment shown on the Master Development Plan and there is a corresponding increase or decrease, as appropriate, in some other increment to indicate that the total unit cap of 807 is not exceeded.

 

Although the number of units has not increased above the approved limitation of 807, the number of units and density increased by more than 20 percent within any specific increment shown on the master plan.  In three of the remaining four villages, the density per acre increased by more than 30 percent.  The number of units increased by more than 50 percent in two of the four remaining villages.

 

In addition, Master Planned Unit Development amendments must be reviewed in accordance with Section 522.6 of the Land Development Code to determine if the proposed changes are substantial.  Specifically, Section 522.6(D) provides:

 

For the purposes of this Section, the Zoning Administrator shall be empowered to determine whether the preliminary or preliminary site plan presented for review constitutes a substantial change to the original Planned Unit Development approval.  If the Zoning Administrator determines that such a substantial change exists, he shall inform the Board of County Commissioners by memorandum to the Board  of County Commissioners.  If the Board of County Commissioners determines, based upon such memorandum, that a substantial change exists, it shall initiate appropriate notice and hearing for the purpose of reviewing and taking action upon such change.

 

Nonsubstantial changes to the Master Planned Unit Development may be approved by the Zoning Administrator without the necessity of a public hearing.

 

The Suncoast Estates f.k.a. Robert Van Worp, Trustee, obtained approval of an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development on December 19, 2000.  The applicant was limited to 807 residential units.  The subject site contains 273.12 gross acres and is designated as RES-3 (Residential - 3 du/ga).

 

The Master Site Plan was approved for five villages and is attached as Exhibit 1.  The applicant is currently seeking to amend the Master Site Plan and do the following:

 

1.                  Eliminate one village.

 

2.                  The proposed redistribution of density is as follows:

 

a.                  Village 1:  Decrease acreage from 39 to 32 (18 percent decrease).  Increase the number of dwelling units from 349 to 373 (seven percent increase).  Increase dwelling units per- gross-acre from 8.9 to 11.7 (32 percent increase).

 

b.                  Village 2:  Decrease acreage from 29 to 27 (seven percent decrease).  Increase the number of dwelling units from 101 to 152 (50 percent increase).  Increase dwelling units  per-gross-acre from 3.5 to 5.6 (60 percent increase).

 

c.                   Village 3:  Decrease in acreage from 60 to 55 (8.5 percent decrease).  Increase the number of dwelling units from 155 to 236 (52 percent increase).  Increase dwelling units  per-gross-acre from 2.6 to 4.3 (66 percent increase).

 

d.                  Village 4:  Decrease acreage from 28 to 14 (50 percent decrease).  Decrease the number of dwelling units from 94 to 46 (51 percent decrease).  Decrease dwelling units per-gross- acre from 3.3 to 3.4 (three percent decrease).

 

Section 522.6(C) of the Land Development Codes provides that a substantial change is deemed to exist where:

 

3.                  There is a proposed increase of greater than five (5) percent in the total number of dwelling units proposed for the Master Planned Unit Development.

 

FINDING:  There is no substantial change as the applicant has not exceeded the approved limitation.


4.                  There is a proposed major redistribution of density within individual phases of the Master Planned Unit Development.

 

FINDING: Based upon the changes as reflected above, a major redistribution of density has occurred in all four villages (phases).  Additionally, one phase was completely eliminated.

 

5.                  There is a decrease of proposed preservation or conservation areas involving more than five (5) percent of the original area set forth in the Master Planned Unit Development Plan.

 

FINDING:  There has been no decrease in preservation or conservation areas.

 

6.                  There is an increase in the size of areas proposed for nonresidential uses of more than five (5) percent.

 

FINDING:  There are no commercial uses proposed.

 

7.                  There is a substantial increase in the adverse impact of the development due to modifications or failure to comply with conditions or stipulations authorized in the original approval.

 

FINDING:  At this time, there does not appear to be adverse impact of the development due to the proposed modifications.

 

Accordingly, there is a substantial deviation pursuant to the conditions of approval of the Suncoast Estates MPUD Master Planned Unit Development, and there is a substantial deviation pursuant to  Sections 522.5 and 522.6 of the Land Development Code.

 

ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:

 

The Board of County Commissioners may consider the following:

 

8.                  The Board of County Commissioners concurs with the Zoning/Code Compliance Administrator that a substantial change  exists and directs staff to set the necessary public hearing for the proposed amendments to the MPUD Master Planned Unit Development.

 

9.                  The Board of County Commissioners does not concur with the Zoning/Code Compliance Administrator, the proposed changes are not substantial, and no public hearing will be necessary with respect to the proposed amendments to the MPUD Master Planned Unit Development.

 

RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:

 

The Zoning/Code Compliance Division recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Alternative No. 1 and direct staff to set the necessary public hearing for the purpose of review and take action upon such change.

 

No funding is required for this action.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

10.              Approved Master Site Plan (Exhibit 1)

11.              Proposed Master Site Plan (Exhibit 2)

12.              Outline of Redistribution by Suncoast Estates (Exhibit 3)

13.              Outline of Redistribution by Staff (Exhibit 4)

 

 

DMZ/ai/f091604

 

 

 

APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR

 

DATE                                             

 

BY