PDE-26-0435

Published agenda

2 appearances between Mar 19, 2026 and Apr 21, 2026, at 2 boards.

OutcomeApproved by the Board of County Commissioners on Apr 21, 2026

Approved Staff’s recommendation with Commissioner Yeager absent from the vote.

Official title

Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) – CPA26 (01) West Market Area ROR (Retail/Office/Residential) Future Land Use (FLU) Density Text Amendment - Providing for a Text Amendment to The Future Land Use Element Appendix Section FLU A-6 and a Text Amendment to the Glossary; and Providing for Additional Text Amendments as Necessary for Internal Consistency; Providing for Repealer, Severability, and an Effective Date.

On a calendar

Mar 19, 2026 → Apr 21, 2026 · click a mark to jump to that appearance

Every appearance2 of 2 are in a recording

Each appearance carries the official title above. Where the county’s wording changed, the change is marked: added and ~~removed~~. Steps with no marks were worded identically.

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 83% of 173 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1Mar 19, 2026
Planning CommissionPC4Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes
Open this item →
30m
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Mr. Chair, would you like to hear item PC four or would you like me to proceed with item PC five? This is on the regular agenda.
Charles GreyChair
Um let's do PC four.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Okay, okay.
Charles GreyChair
So I think five has a companion, right?
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Yes, sir.
County Planner
Good afternoon. Joseph Reinbold, Planning Development, Economic Growth.
This is CPA twenty six zero one, West Market Area ROR, Retail Office Residential Future Land Use Density Text Amendment.
Proposal is a text amendment to the future land use element, appendix section flu A six, and a text amendment to the glossary. Purpose is to establish new density allowing up to 32 dwelling units per developable residential acre for redevelopment development and repurposing projects. The location is ROR flu designated properties located within the West Market area.
Here we have the map of the county with all the different market areas.
Here is specifically the Westmarket area.
And then here in the kind of red-orange color we have all the ROR designated properties.
So the proposed uh amendment is for redevelopment and repurposing projects within the West Market area. It applies to previously developed, underutilized, or obsolete sites. So that'll be your brown field, gray field, and infill sites that have exist existing infrastructure. It does not apply to undeveloped vacant parcels.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Can I slap you there because that's the root of my question?
So if you had a say a thirty acre tract
But let's just say it had a quarter acre that was had an old farm building on it.
Do you consider that to be redevelopment? Or vacant.
County Planner
That would be redevelopment if it had existing structures on it.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
So even though ninety five percent of the tract was vacant
If it just had a small old farm building, you're considering that redevelopment?
County Planner
That would be redevelopment, but there'd also there's also other qualifying factors. Um so in ROR you're gonna have C1 properties, C2 properties, different zonings. So In order to have multifamily residential in the West Market area, um, it has to be C two and then you have to apply through a conditional use process to for that opportunity. So it's on a case-by-case basis.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Yeah, I'm I'm just asking what what qualifies them as redevelopment for the thirty two units per acre.
Because when we did the mobility fear regulations we didn't
if it was largely vacant, in other words, if it was most if it was you know, say n the the majority of the site was vacant. Um and it maybe just had this very small one house. We have lots of large tracks in the county that were basically ag tracks that maybe had an old house on it or an old farm building that
for the that were predominantly vacant tracks. But we didn't we'd not have not historically considered that to be a redevelopment.
because it had a single house on it or a single farm building. Historically we've considered redevelopment to be there was like a it was actually fully developed with a commercial building or uh this uh an entire residential tract of houses or something that are now being demolished. So
I'm not sure I agree with the answer to your original answer to your question to the question. Terry, do you agree with that answer?
Jon Moody
David, can I ask you quickly? Your example is that it's a thirty acre tract with a farmhouse building. If it's a thirty acre tract with
a two thousand square foot commercial building on it.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Well I I don't I don't I don't know where we draw the line. I mean maybe that would would be redevelopment. I just my my problem is that the way they've defined redevelopment, I don't know where that line was drawn. And so when we did the redevelop when we did this in mobility fees, we actually used a percentage of the of the land. We actually have to do that. on it. With that had structures on it that had impervious we actually came up with a specific percentage of it that had to have been developed so we wouldn't have this fight about how
much of it had to have been developed for it to be considered redevelopment. We we didn't leave this to chance later. came up with a percentage and and there is no percentage in this is just so I don't know where you're drawing this line.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Uh so the redevelopment uh definition that's proposed here to be uh to be included into the comprehensive plan says the substantial improvement, reconstruction, or replacement of existing developed property, including the demolition of obsolete or deteriorated structures, reconfiguration of sites, modernization of infrastructure or other activities that reinvest in and revitalize previously developed land.
There are sites along so th this particular upgrade to ROR is dedicated specifically to the West Market area. And specifically you're going to have most of the that ROR along the US-19 corridor and a bit along the State Route 52 and 54 corridors. With regard to th those particular sites that are on on nineteen and fifty two and fifty four, there are not very many uh if at all, I'm trying to remember right now off the top of my head, uh
vacant parcels uh that um would kind of meet the criteria that David is referencing. I mean there's no there's no farmhouses basically in these areas. Um I know the seventy five percent vacant parcel
threshold that was established a couple of years ago. So that that is there, yes. Um we did not include that in this definition. Um thinking to prioritize actual redevelopment rather than putting a a threshold on it. If we do have a a parcel of land that's underutilized within on the US nineteen corridor and it it's sizable enough to accommodate uh potential increase in density, um this would be the
place to to
And
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
if you're comfortable there's no situation I mean I I'm I've seen your map. I mean if you're comfortable there there's no parcels or this is going to be abused by what's effectively vacant farmland. It just happens to have an old structure on it. then I'll live with that answer. Um
Connected City
Can I mean the Mitchell Ranch was a good example of the
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
most
Connected City
recent?
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Yeah, I mean
Connected City
In his
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
definition, that's a good example. Mitchell Ranch just happened to have a house on it, but the the majority of it was just vacant land.
Jon Moody
So in his definition of redevelopment, he says it's the improvement, reconstruction, or replacement of existing developed property. So when I go to the glossary and the comp plan Development is the carrying out of any building activity or mining operation, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land. So I guess where I'm going with that is in your example
of the 30-acre tract with a farmhouse, the area of the tract which contains the farmhouse.
But the rest, if there's been no material change I'm sorry, material change in the use or appearance or structure of the land. is not developed.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Yeah, but somebody could argue that it's all one tract of land.
Well it could be MP too.
ID. They may argue that that partial ID has been developed. So how can we fix it?
Yeah.
Connected City
Well maybe tie it to some sort of density
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
some percentage of the parcel has been developed. I mean, th which is what we did with mobility fees. But Terry's telling me that all the based on the map that he's showing me that m that all of those parcels don't have this issue. I I don't know because I've not I've not studied the map like he has. I mean if he's right, then maybe that this isn't an issue. I don't know. Um maybe there aren't any partials like Mitchell Ranch and this map that well
that have it you know that are largely vacant with a single farmhouse on them. I don't
Jon Moody
know. I'm aware of some that might meet that definition along say US nineteen. I could think of a couple up in Hudson that would You know, they've got a small building up front by the highway, but the rest of the land in the back is in its natural state that it's been that way for forty or fifty years.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
But which I'm just saying that we you know, we all have a picture in our minds when we say redevelopment, we generally think of it as old commercial, old industrial building that needs obsolete, needs to be torn down. Old condos. We don't typically think of Mitchell Ranch as redevelopment. Okay, so But the way this is defined, it Mitchell Ranch arguably constitutes redevelopment. That's that's the issue. I agree
with you. And so green. That's the concern. And when he answered my question originally, he basically said Mitchell Range would be redevelopment.
Jon Moody
Here would be. These are what I'm suggesting is that area of the land which is not developed, even though it may be part of the parcel, perhaps should not qualify as redevelopment. Yes, it may be redevelopment where I tear down an existing structure. or an existing parking lot, but if the if the back fifteen acres was never touched and then it's in its virgin state, then it's hard to say that that's redeveloping.
That's new development. Or even if it's being used for ag
Connected City
purposes
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
not in its virgin state. But the problem of drawing the line that way is that I don't necessarily want to penalize. I get the point, but let's just say it is a true entertainment commercial development, obsolete partial that's got You know, fifty percent of the site had an old and obsolete industrial building. Say the back half was largely vacant. And they want to redevelop it at thirty two units an acre. I don't want to say they can't do the
back half of thirty two units an acre because that was untouched. I mean Okay.
I would still consider that a redevelopment site because it fifty percent of land's being used. Because because they they truly did develop that site with an obsolete industrial building. I'm just trying to make sure this isn't abused by
What is largely a vacant track with an old farm building or an old house. I mean that that's
Connected City
So can you state that, you know, at least twenty five percent of the parcel had to have been developed? In order to qualify for redevelopment. Could
Jon Moody
it be the word on residential? Is that your concern? Your your example was a farmhouse or an old house. Whereas if it's a non residential structure like a restaurant or a store.
Connected City
I think it should have something to do with the percentage of that has a
Jon Moody
structure on it.
Because residential could also include a multifamily building which then I think would fall under your envisionment of something that's developed.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Um I do think that if it's multifamily or commercial that it's less
Jon Moody
likely to to be abused, yes I would require so single family non resident. non-single family residential Okay.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Mean. Darity of a solution to this problem or
Unidentified speakerVoice C
One day that's a good thing.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
I mean if you're representing to me the none of these sites are Hello.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
We we have We have this is a combination of things that happen along the north US nineteen corridor in particular. Um there are some sites in which they're totally wooded, um large tracts of land. Um I'm looking at one right now, for example, that's approximately Ten acres. undeveloped, there's nothing on it, it's just trees. So those types of sites do exist um on the New S 19 corridor. That would be considered uh greenfield development, assuming they somebody
comes in and wants to build something on it. Um to the extent that There has been a plat process and nothing has occurred because there are some places along nineteen in which there's been some kind of subdivision established. You can see the the parcels on the map. Um my understanding is that that would be considered a a a form of development because uh development order has been processed essentially and land has been split, et cetera. Um and so there you could consider the
part of the definition here before underutilized uh sites.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Let me back up for a second because I don't know the purpose of if If the purpose of this policy is you just want to intensify these this corridor
in general, then maybe maybe I don't care. I mean I uh because but but you stated that the purpose is that you wanna encourage it only for redevelopment sites. So
Unidentified speakerVoice C
to f to facilitate the economic burden of having to deal with existing infrastructure, structures, etcetera, that are that may be on the site. And that's what I was getting to next, which is that there are also sites on US nineteen that have, you know, ten, twenty acres and they had built a pad at some point. Maybe there was a building there once upon a time and the and the building went away and all you're left with is a pad and an old parking lot. utility connections are present because you could imagine the connections that were going to that
building that doesn't exist anymore. And so that was part of the logic is okay, let's take some of these sites also, which are under underutilized, uh vacant at this point, and incentivize them for redevelopment. So any kind of teardown, ripping up, redoing of the site is added cost on the redevelopment and if you can incentivize things and allow for a bit more density on the mixed use parcel, um that's what we were that
we were going for, right?
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
I mean, I'm just saying if you're trying to incentivize that type of previously developed property which you're describing I'm not sure this definition gets you there.
Jon Moody
Would it Terry would it be problematic? If
if the general situation is that most of the properties in these ROR corridors are already developed and they're getting older and starting to blight and we want them to redevelop Is it really much of a problem? If we just allow all the properties in the ROR to Go to this proposed Density? If there's only a few that aren't developed
today, does it really make would it really move the needle?
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
I mean, that's where I was going, Bush Rodi, was that I mean
If you're not going to be able to do
if you're really just trying to incentivize these R O R properties in this corridor
Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe just let
Jon Moody
them all go to thirty two units per year.
asking is if is if there's not enough Completely. undeveloped parcels. to make a difference. Does it really matter if one or two that are vacant today get to take advantage of the increased density.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
I mean certainly certainly the the vast majority of the parcels along nineteen, as I've kind of been surveying this as we talk here, would fall under this. I see what your point is. Like if th there's not that many the vast
Jon Moody
majority are undeveloped parcels, so if one of 'em managed that was undeveloped and managed to come in and develop at this density, does it really make any substantive difference that they did it?
Probably not. If if the majority of the corridor was undeveloped, I could see why one might not do that. But if the vast majority of the corridor is already developed, what it doesn't really make much difference.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
I guess it would only make a difference if you were trying to encourage the then to go to the re the true degree development site versus the vacant site.
Jon Moody
Yes. I think what Terry's trying to say is that there aren't that many vacant sites to begin with. in these particular areas.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
It
Charles GreyChair
won't be for me purposing over here.
You have a recommendation, Terry?
If
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Terry's telling me it's not an issue, I'll drop it.
David Engel
And it's
Jon Moody
only in the
David Engel
West part of the area we're talking about. Yeah, I do. Um David Engel, Planning and Economic Development Director.
So I wouldn't exclude the U.S. Include vacant parcels on nineteen because they're just as important as redeveloping an existing facility which has a um uh an ancient building on it that needs to be rehabilitated.
Yeah.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Well then maybe you should
David Engel
I think we should define the geo the geographic area that this applies to. It's just as West Market. Maybe we can provide a more precise definition.
Connected City
It's basically the same. Well you can just increase density of thirty-two for R period, not just for redevelopment.
Unidentified speakerVoice D
Well in the West Market area.
Connected City
Honestly if that's how this is West Market
David Engel
is there i there's a if that's how this has been put
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
in here, I would never raise the issue. Okay. Right. But you had an exclusion for vacant parcels and said this only applied to redevelopment. Yeah, you take that part of it out then.
Connected City
Yeah,
Unidentified speakerVoice C
you could fix that. If if that's the desire, then we can fix that language and make it just applicable across West Market. R O R in the West Market
Jon Moody
area. Right. The idea is to get that corridor looking shiny and new again. Right.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
So we can fix that language. To that effect.
Connected City
That's good. Yeah, I understand the idea of trying to encourage redevelopment, but like you said, most of those parcels are developed already. So By definition it's gonna be mostly redevelopment.
All right. Thank you, Terry.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
So you're just gonna make it apply to all those partials then?
Unidentified speakerVoice C
If that's yeah, if that's the desire of the local planning agency, then we don't see why Why why we should uh counter argue it.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
Okay. I think that solves the problem of trying to figure out what's redevelopment and what isn't.
Connected City
Again, if it was ninety percent vacant in that area, that'd be a different story. But since most of it's not vacant. So If we were
Jon Moody
to make a motion
Do we want to make it on the text of the proposed amendment?
Liam Devine
I have some questions, so I don't know if you're done asking that question, ready to make a motion, but do you know how many acres is ROR in the West Market area?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Hi, I'm Zilly, Playing Development Economic Growth. It is five thousand five hundred and seventy two acres approximately.
Charles GreyChair
Yeah, give or take if you got it.
Yeah.
Liam Devine
Did you set her up for that question? Um a little bit. Um and I'll explain my thought, but I was trying to I asked her earlier today on if she had the acreage for the total acreage of ROR and then what would actually fall into this as redevelopment or repurposing. Um it seems like we might be going in a different direction because I wanted to know how many increase of units that would be from twenty-four to thirty-two. From a student generation point, that
could be potentially a lot of students in that area. So I was trying to figure out what that acreage is so I can figure out some of those numbers of how many students could potentially be generated from going from 24 to 32. I would also note that there's not a current Euclidean zoning district that goes up to 32. So I don't know if the intent is to then require those applicants to go through the MPUD process to allow that, or
if there is another means via conditional use. I know historically past conditional uses. Were or didn't become less restrictive than the code. So I don't know if the intent is to allow those conditional uses to go up to 32 since the Westmarket area does allow conditional uses for multifamily without any commercial integration or affordable housing.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Sure. So the certainly MPUD is always an option that can be used for redevelopment. The vast majority of the ROR in the Westmarket area is under a C1 or C2 mostly C2 zoning. So the conditional use that the C2 would allow would basically follow the future land use. Allowance for density. So if it if it increases to 32 and you have C2 zoning, if ROR increases
to 32 and you have C2 zoning, and there's a redevelopment that's taking place, you could take advantage of the 32 dwelling units per acre through your conditional use process. So likewise with an MPUD, it'd be the same same scenario. uh you would just be following the future land use uh um density designation. As far as the MF1, MF2, and MF3 options of the utility or Euclidean zone, um the y yes, I think MF3 can max out at 24-ish in
there in that area. But we also know that in the land development code the Euclidean zones need to be um updated following Pasco twenty fifty. So that's gonna be one of the projects that we have in the land development code update.
Liam Devine
So, um, my question is, was there a reason why this couldn't wait until twenty fifty? Because it sounds like the timeline for twenty fifty is approaching quickly of how you how fast your timeline is or how like how fast you would like it to be. So w is there a reason why this needed to go now instead of waiting until twenty fifteen
Unidentified speakerVoice C
uh moving through the system the last couple of months. Um It didn't follow, we we opted to not follow the Pasco 2050 timeline at the moment, uh, mainly because of legislative activity happening in Tallahassee on this particular question. Um also, it's been stated objective for many years uh in the County to try to facilitate redevelopment wherever we can within the West Market area. So we we determined that we should advance this, given that we had a couple of projects on the horizon that may. be able to take advantage of this and potentially
even bring affordable housing into the area. So we wanted to try to smoothen that out without dealing with the headwinds of legislative or non-legislative endeavors coming from Tallahassee. Put to put it broadly.
Liam Devine
David So Sorry, can I y hi can you just repeat that number for me? Five thousand five seventy two. Five seventy two?
Connected City
So m maximum of forty four thousand five hundred and seventy six dwelling units if you add eight to every acre, which is of course never gonna happen, but
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
So Commissioner Moody, if you wanted to alter the text, I think what you would do is you would change the language to say just say for projects within the West Market area, the maximum density allowed shall not exceed 32 dwelling units per developable residential acre. You would strike the next sentence and then you would strike the definitions of redevelopment and repurposing.
Cherry.
Charles GreyChair
Joey, did you have that down? Um we got that video.
Jon Moody
Would there be any desire to keep the definitions of redevelopment and repurposing. even if they didn't necessarily apply to this
Particular text amendment.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
We could keep them. Uh and then either continue on with the as part of a this amendment just doesn't hold bearing now on the ROR and West Market issue. Um or we can tap it in or reference him in the future. Tack it onto twenty fifty.
Charles GreyChair
Are you talking about
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
David? Pretty good. I mean if you if they want it would be odd to keep it with this amendment if it's not being used in this amendment. It's probably better to put it with twenty fifty. Okay. All right. Okay. We could do that.
Then you. Well i somebody would have to make a motion to that effect if that's your
Charles GreyChair
Yeah.
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
If that's your request.
Connected City
Yeah.
Well should we finish the presentation 'cause you were part way through your presentation, right? Well, it was really my question and he
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
answered
Jon Moody
my question. Yeah. Well then with that I would move to approve the proposed text amendment striking Yeah. words for redevelopment and repurposing. from the first sentence and strike the last sentence.
from the proposed text amendment. And eliminate the two glossary terms, redevelopment and repurposing.
Connected City
Yeah, a second. Second. Does that sound like that would work legally, David? It definitely addresses my concern
Jaimie GirardiVice Chair
because my concern was with the definition of redevelopment, so that eliminates the definition.
Charles GreyChair
Further discussion? All no in favor? Signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay.
Continue. Anything else? That's it.
County Planner
Thank
Charles GreyChair
you. Thank you.
2Apr 21, 2026
Board of County CommissionersP39Public hearingApproved
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) … (FLU) Density Text Amendment - — Providing for Transmittal of a Text Amendment to … Appendix Section FLU A-6 ~~and a Text Amendment to the Glossary; and Providing for Additional Text Amendments as Necessary for Internal Consistency; Providing for Repealer, Severability, and an Effective Date.~~
Approved minutes
Approved Staff’s recommendation with Commissioner Yeager absent from the vote.
Open this item →
1m
Jack MarianoChair
Uh so item P thirty nine, consent comprehensive plan amendments sends on consent.
Kathryn Starkey
Item P thirty-nine was published in the Tampay Times on March fourth, twenty twenty-six.
Ron Oakley
Item P thirty nine is P D twenty six zero four three five. This is a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPA twenty six oh one West Market Area ROR Retail Office Residential Future Land Use Density Text Amendment providing for transmittal of the text amendment to the future land use element appendix section flu A-6. This comes with a recommendation. To authorize the transmitter of the proposed conference of Planned Text Amendment to the Department of Commerce, Florida Commerce, and other reviewing agencies. And there's a presentation if so desired.
Jack MarianoChair
Anyone care for a presentation?
Okay. All right. It's a public hearing. Is anyone here to speak in uh to comment on item P thirty-nine?
Kathryn Starkey
No one online. No one's online.
Jack MarianoChair
Okay.
So back to the board. Move approved. Second.
All
Jack MarianoChair
in favor say
Jack MarianoChair
aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Item P forty.