Wellington’s Equestrian Preserve Committee had a discussion during its meeting Wednesday, June 10 on what the Equestrian Preserve Area could look like at build-out.
Growth Management Director Bob Basehart led off the discussion, pointing out that property development in the preserve would be no greater or less than specific densities described in the comprehensive plan.
Committee Chair Linda Elie asked why there would be a minimum required density, and Basehart said it is found in the infrastructure planning section.
“It makes economic sense to have a specific range of densities or intensities that can occur in a given area if part of the planning process is also planning for the development of infrastructure,” Basehart said. “If you build infrastructure for a 15-unit-to-the-acre development and somebody comes along and wants to develop that whole area or portions of it at one unit to the acre, you’ve sized your infrastructure — your roads, your water lines, your sewer lines — for 20 times the intensity that’s being built, and that’s not fiscally responsible.”
Wellington Projects Manager Mike O’Dell explained how staff arrived at the numbers for the equestrian overlay.
“One of the questions asked by this committee was what is the maximum, and we also provided you with the minimum,” O’Dell said. “We provided you with the current standards, and we wanted to talk to you a little bit about how we arrived at the numbers. Our first step into this arena of trying to figure this out was to go to the future land use map and look at those areas and see what those ranges reveal.”
Committee Member Houston Meigs asked O’Dell to explain where the map’s projections of density came from, and Basehart said they are part of the planning process.
“We have a comprehensive plan, which provides the goals, the objectives and the policies to achieve those in a textual format for the various elements,” O’Dell said. “The future land use map is part of the comprehensive plan. It’s part of the land use element, and it’s based on the overall program. It represents a blueprint for the future development of the community.”
He said the plan was drafted initially by staff, then reviewed by the Planning, Zoning & Adjustment Board, at public meetings and by the Florida Department of Community Affairs before adoption by the Wellington Village Council.
Basehart said plans can be changed, but staff was trying to get an idea of what the overlay would be at build-out, explaining that the comp plan provides a range of possibilities.
O’Dell said they had created a map with the maximum and minimum numbers, as well as the current number.
“Right now, if we look at the property appraiser’s worksheets and maps, we have 1,652 platted or subdivided properties within the Equestrian Preserve Area,” he said. “If we go back to the minimum of that, looking at what those individual subareas were allowed, we would be somewhere around 837. If you go to the other side of the equation, the maximum that would be allowed within those same subareas would push you close to 4,000 parcels of land.”
O’Dell pointed out that some areas, such as Little Ranches, are largely built out and not likely to change significantly.
“We have some 1-acre lots in there,” he said. “We have some 5-acre lots in there that could be subdivided, but for the most part, we see that community as relatively stable.”
With 139 parcels currently, it could go to as many as 432, but Wellington staff does not foresee that happening.
Sub-area B, which is Saddle Trail Park and Paddock Park, have 374 parcels with the possibility of the larger lots subdivided to one home per acre.
“It could go up to a total of about 751, which would be a net add of 377. The trend, however, in Paddock Park and Saddle Trail, is actually a reduction,” O’Dell said. “We see a combining and unifying of lots, so the likelihood of that being subdivided below the current platted 2 and 3 acres is probably very minimal.”
Sub-area C, also referred to as Section 34, takes up most of Wellington’s southern reaches. With the largest of the tracts, it has 563 developed properties out of 747 total properties on the future land use map, leaving the potential of 184 more developed properties, he said.
Sub-area D, which includes the Country Place planned unit development, has the majority of the equestrian venues, as well as available open spaces of land.
“In sub-area D, there are 459 parcels of land today,” O’Dell said. “This property also has a designation for the most part of one unit to the acre, so there is the possibility of going up to 1,463 units in that particular area. There are some large landowners in that particular area, so that would be a net add of over 1,000 units. It does have the greatest potential for development, and most likely, over time, will see some form of development, either in the form of expansion of the venues or in the development of residences of some sort.”
The greatest potential for growth is probably sub-areas C and D, with D being the highest probability, he said.
O’Dell predicted that the build-out for the entire Equestrian Preserve Area will probably not be the maximum of 4,000 units, but something less than 3,000.
Elie asked about the build-out of sub-area D, and O’Dell said the trends in the Country Place PUD is toward the 2.5-acre to 5-acre lots, and that there are currently 441 lots in that PUD, of which homes have been built on about half.
He added that the trend is for 2-acre to 3-acre lots in the entire area.
“That’s kind of the minimum that we see,” he said, although there is potential for some areas, including some of the polo fields, to be subdivided.
O’Dell explained that Section 34 has been largely developed as polo fields, but the owners have kept the underlying residential potential. “What’s remaining is about 92 units in that parcel of land down there,” he said.
Meigs said the development potential in Section 34 is more clear than in the other sub-areas.
“It has got the roads in there already, and it’s all set up as 5 acres,” he said. “You look at it and you see the polo fields, but you also can see the 5-acre potential. With this other piece, Mr. [Mark] Bellissimo’s piece, there isn’t that level of certainty.”
Meigs said that what the map shows and what the zoning maps say for sub-area D are not necessarily compatible.
O’Dell agreed, but added that the map he had presented had attempted to break down sub-areas C and D so that they were easier to see.
“You can get more of an individual feel as to what they have to offer,” he said. “You can see the PUD because those numbers have actually been approved through the permitting process.”
O’Dell explained that sub-area D has the greatest potential for development that has not actually been approved.
“Whether it’s part of a venue or part of an actual division of properties for residential use, we see these properties as having the greatest potential to do that,” O’Dell said, explaining that Section 34 has some of the largest areas of land, such as the 38-acre Crab Orchard parcel, with the potential to be subdivided into 38 lots, although it has only one farm on it now.
O’Dell said a property such as Crab Orchard would have to go through the approval process, and 1-acre lots are not considered viable in that area.
“I’m hearing pretty loud and clear that 2 to 3 acres is pretty much what you’re looking at as a minimum lot size,” he said.
In other business, the committee reappointed Elie as chair and Michael Whitlow as vice chair.
