An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 05) From RES-1 (Residential-1 Du/Ga) To PD (Planned Development) On Approximately 178.13 Acres Of Real Property Located At The South Side Of County Line Road; And A Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy Flu 7.1.65 - Northridge; And A Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9(65) Northridge; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionAdopted
Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jul 12, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jul 12, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-22-0029 in full →PDD-22-0029 was taken up 4 times between Oct 26, 2021 and Jul 12, 2022, continued 1 time — this is appearance 4.
- Oct 26, 2021BoardR59▶No disposition in the minutes
- Apr 5, 2022BoardP55▶Approved
- Jun 7, 2022BoardP81▶Continued
- Jul 12, 2022BoardP92▶Adoptedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 11m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 88% of 78 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Item P ninety two was published in the Tampay Times on February sixteenth, twenty twenty two.
P ninety two is P D D twenty two zero zero two nine. Uh this item is the adoption for this uh comprehensive plan amendment. We're asking that you accept uh public comment and adopt by roll call vote. This was presented to the local planning agency on March third of twenty twenty two and um it was transmitted by the board on April fifth, twenty twenty two. Sorry for the feedback, not sure what's happening. It's an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use
map, map 2-15 and Sheet O five from Res One, residential one dwelling unit for gross acre to PD Plan Development and approximately 178.13 acres of real property located at the south side of County Line Road. And and the text amendment creating sub-area policy flu 7.1.65 North Ridge and a map amendment to the future land use map two-9, adding sub-area map two-nine sixty-five North Ridge, and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer separability, and an effective date.
If you would please accept public comment and adopt the item by roll call vote.
All right. Uh
Commissioner Mariano. Thank you. I
got
a couple of questions. Um in the agenda item it it talks about how the county line uh the sewer agreement we had with Hernando County has now been extinguished. Uh I know Mr. Carbella's gonna be working with uh Hernando County to try to bring something back to us maybe better and stronger than it was before. Uh I'm just make I want to make sure that we're not bound by anything here that they can get back to us to say that this is a bad development to be because of that being done. Because the development just can't take place until that
sewer lines are in. Is that correct?
That's correct and you will see that in the MP the M P request that happens in P one hundred. So there's um there's things that will
keep that from happen.
Things that will have to happen before.
Okay. Uh on an on another note and I'm trying to get my computer so I'm pulling it up, but when I as I was reading it Uh it said that uh if they built the rear entry uh product that they'd be uh able to use moderum discounts. And I will tell you for the area it's gonna need a lot of transportation improvements. Um and I want to make sure that we take that clause out. Um I did talk to the applicant about this. Um
I think my colleague is telling me that they that might not be in the comp plan part of it. Is that accurate? That's in the MPUV? No complaint. I think we need to discuss that in P100.
That would be your in your MPV. P100.
So if I'm looking at ninety-two, it's also got listed as retail commercial office at forty thousand square feet. I think that number's supposed to be four hundred thousand square feet. That shows on the map is like for ten acres, which would be more appropriate. More um accurate.
So my my colleague who did the comprehensive plan amendment is shaking his head in the negative. It should be forty thousand square feet.
No, we need a discussion about that. 'Cause it does show ten acres of land which closer to the forty thousand number I mean four hundred thousand number. I don't know how that would get missed.
So I believe you have the applicant here as well that can address that. I but um again my colleague who wrote the comprehensive plan amended the sub-area policy is telling me that the intent is for forty thousand square feet of commercial. But no when we go to the MP. What's going on with the
SAM?
Sorry, I'll I'll walk away. My voice majorly carry so you don't really even need me on that microphone.
It's dope doing it.
And Am I o am I okay?
So my understanding, and of course this isn't within the MPUD, that there's a possibility of having a loom as well to get more commercial square footage by reducing residential square footage. But again, my colleague who proc processed the comprehensive plan amendment is telling me that 40,000 square feet is the is the max.
So I when I had my meetings, this was all designed to go to 10. acres which is more than forty four hundred thousand square feet, so I have an objection to that. Um And I'm not looking for all residential, I want to see commercial up there. And I'm and and I'm told it's supposed to happen in the MPUD anyway, so I I'd like to see get get that adjusted or have the conversation about it.
Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? We'll have the applicant come up and talk about the project.
Okay. Let's hear from the applicant.
Barbara Will Hyde, sixty three twenty seven, Graham Boulevard, Newport Ritchie, three four six five two. Good afternoon, Commissioners. So the number is that we included in our traffic analysis was forty thousand square feet and that was based upon five parcels at eight thousand square feet apiece, which is common Um square footage for uh the acreage um that they have there. If if if the county wants us to add more, um, as long as staff didn't object, we certainly could change the
number. Do
you have the Do you have any site layout or anything? So
I don't have staff has not given their presentation. I just came up to answer the question. I mean well I guess Denise did, but it was a it wasn't a PowerPoint presentation.
Alright, so if I could, let me ask talk ask the alpha kind of question? So Barbara, how do we see it on the map which shows 10 acres? Which equates closer to forty thousand square feet, but at the same time we see this here at forty thousand. And that was something I told you was a
Mm-hmm.
What what what what are we missing here as far as why is why isn't that show that number showed to be four hundred thousand exposed to four?
Well it's it's forty and that's the that's the number that the The team. For those acreage based upon their experience in laying out commercial uses for those acres That's the square footage they thought was appropriate for that location.
So the ten acres of land is supposed to get forty thousand square feet of commercial? Yeah,
five parcels at eight thousand square feet apiece is where they come up with came up with forty. Now I could bring up
Is that like five drive through something?
Well it's not they don't have it's it's approved as commercial, we don't have it breaking down into us users yet, but it is that's how the numbers arrived at. And I can have our engineer who you know worked with the client to come up with the appropriate numbers for that because you don't want to overentitle it. So there's the
master plan the map.
Yeah, I mean we're not really talking about P one hundred, but if you wanted to see what the complexion is proposed, because yeah, that's where it would be.
But the Com Plan does set those numbers, so I wouldn't want you to go past the and say let's just deal with it in the M P D when the Comm plan's a P D, so it sets those numbers as well.
It doesn't set the acreage for the commercial, it sets the number, but it says forty as the number.
I'm thoroughly confused. Um Denise, let me ask you another cut question.
So so if I'm gonna set this up for Ten acres of commercial. They can fill it as intense as they want. I'm not worried about that. Why would it have such a low number there?
Um I I I believe Barbara stated that her that's the analysis that her transportation team put together. For forty forty thousand square feet of commercial.
On ten acres of land. On on four for four parts. So let me say this. So th the the ten acres of land that's set up there, it can't be anything else except for retail or commercial. They can't for residential.
That's correct.
All right. We'll deal with MPD
next.
But understand you're capping it. In the comp plan.
Yeah.
Because this is a this is a P D comp plan. Okay. So their entitlements will be forty thousand square feet of commercial. Unless they unless they switch it to the metal take and matrix unless they take residential and convert it to commercial. Um Madam Chairman
M
Commissioner Moore. I'm getting dizzy. I
don't
I'm sorry.
Maybe Denise or Robert you can answer this. Just going back to um Commissioner Oakley's statement about about the forty thousand if but Mr. Steis here said it would be capped at forty thousand. Is that correct, sir?
Yes.
Okay. You can actually I would assume on ten acres you can probably fit more if you wanted to, right? Just just just on the ten acres, this is you might go vertical or something like that. You c you can always raise the maximum to satisfy probably commissioners concerns. Doesn't mean you have to fill it.
Yes, if the county was comfortable they wanted to change the number in these documents, that could occur. And we probably need to make sure we add to the sub-area policy the loom language. So if you if you do adopt this sub-area policy in this comp plan, let's reference the loom and if you do want to do the different number, um
In case the market changes or something like that and there's a there's a larger need for and you realize okay, well we we need there's a there's the there's a need for more, you know, whether it be sixty or seventy or eighty thousand, you could move it up. Right. Hmm.
Madam Chairman Mari Commissioner Moore. The the problem with that is all of their analysis was done on forty thousand for this comprehensive plan amendment that we sent to DEO was based on forty thousand. So unless they use a loom to convert All these numbers need to be recalculated for whatever the
It would have to go back it would have to go back to DO again.
Yeah. In theory,
yes. Okay. I got you. Okay. Just
I'm not a slower guy. Look at t try to help look
for
solutions. No, appreciate it. Okay.
Okay.
Um is that your That's I'm I'm gonna I don't know if there's any public comment, so I'm just gonna Okay wait. We'll see if there's any public comment. I'm looking I'm here looking at the map.
Uh i are there any other public people who wish to speak on this P ninety two.
Madam Chair, I do not have anyone signed up and no one's on WebEx with this item.
I it's to the board. So no one will approve. Well. Second. Sorry. All in favor? Aye. Roll call vote. I'm sorry it's an ordinance. It's a roll call vote.
District One, Commissioner Oakley.
Aye.
District two, Commissioner Moore. Aye. District four, Commissioner Fitzpatrick. Aye. District five, Commissioner Mariano. Aye. District three, Chairman Starkey.
Aye. All right. Um P ninety three. And that's a rezoning I think. No, one more ordinance. Okay.