Conditional Use Request (Consent) – Channelside Mortgages LLC/8342 New York Ave – Conditional Use for Multiple-Family Dwellings in a C-2 General Commercial District – Southwest Pasco County – South Side of New York Avenue Approximately 525 Feet East of Diagonal Road – Containing Approximately 12.08 Acres File Number PDD23-CU07
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Dec 8, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Dec 8, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 12m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 86% of 87 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
All right, so we'll we'll go back to uh item PC seven. Is that
you?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Liam Divine, Planning and Development. Item PC seven, P D D twenty three-CU07. In the name of Channel Side Mortgages, LLC slash eight three four four four four four two New York Avenue. It is a conditional use request for multifamily dwelling units in a C2 General Commercial District.
The subject site is currently located on the south side of New York Avenue, approximately five hundred and twenty-five feet east of Diagonal Road. Here is an aerial view of the property.
The surrounding future land use to the north is IL. To the east and west is both ROR, and to the south is Res 6 and ROR. The surrounding zoning to the north is A R and C2, to the east and west is both C2, and to the south is R2.
The subject subject site is currently vacant and was previously used as a driving range and restaurant on approximately 12.08 acres. The applicant is requesting a conditional use for multifamily dwelling units in a C2 General Commercial District. The applicant proposes to develop the property with 84 townhomes in conformance with the MF1 Multifamily Medium Density District Standards for development. The surrounding area is characterized by commercial and residential development and the subject site has a feature land use classification on Land use classification
of ROR under the comprehensive plan. Here is the conceptual view of the site.
And this is coming with a recommendation for approval with conditions from Planning Development Department.
All right. If somebody asked to have that polled, was that you? I did. John?
Um question for staff. I had talked to Brad just before the meeting and Dick and I'd like your input. If we approve the conditional use for these townhomes, are they obligated to use the conditional use and development of the property? In other words, are they obligated to develop this property as townhomes? Because the zoning is still going to remain C2.
So they're not obligated to and act their Conditional use. So so they were not obligated to have the townhomes there. So if they wanted to come in under C two and develop as C two, they would be able to do that.
And could they Split the baby and develop a portion of the parcel as C two and a portion as town homes.
Yes.
The only thing I would caution you on that part, Liam, is that the dense the conditional use has a density cap which was based on the acreage. So to clarify Liam's point, I'm not sure they get the same level of density that's in the conditional use if they'd split the baby. Does that make sense?
Yeah, I understand that. So the point is they can develop a mix of town homes and commer C2 uses if we approve this conditional use.
I think they could, but we'd have to sort of re examine the conditions and maximum density under the conditional use because Like I said, I don't think they're gonna get eighty four units. There may be a way to get eighty four units, maybe it's vertically integrated or something, but I if the commercial use is taking up some of the acreage that may affect their unit count.
I understand.
Right. But I generally agree with Liam that just because you get a conditional use approval doesn't mean that you're precluded from doing what the underlying zoning allows. They'd have to come in for a new site plan approval,
right?
Correct. I mean they're strictly site
plan approved.
You're basically saying that you're okay with this site potentially being multifamily under the conditions the staff has recommended.
Up to those number of dwelling units.
Yes.
Which is one of the conditions.
And what my concern is, is that we may be going into a period of residential slowdown and we get a portion of these townhome units developed and then it becomes
beneficial to the owner of the remainder of the property to sell it off for C two uses, which would then maybe possibly incompatible with the town hopes.
Hmm.
I'm I'm confused on your question. What was your question?
I'm it's not
question,
it's comment. That's what the nature of my concern is.
So you your concern is that multifamily townhomes next to C two commercial district could be not compatible?
I believe that they intend to develop it as townhomes, but I see it as a possibility. Some questioning the vehicle by which we're doing this.
Okay. So you're saying that you'd prefer it if it was an MF? Zoning?
Perhaps, perhaps, and Mr. Tippin suggested that my concern could result in a nice mixed use development, which I wouldn't be opposed to either, but C two uses might not be appropriate with residential uses, whereas C one uses might.
Well you probably
should let the applicant make a presentation.
And I'll make it clear I'm not opposed to town homes being developed under this property.
Can you state
your name and
address, please? No problem. Good afternoon, Jesse Blackstock with Blackstock Engineering Unlimited. It's 1646 West Snow Avenue, Tampo, Florida. But rather than giving a presentation, I think we just go straight to the issue at hand. I mean I'm the the uh I mean
you said your name was Jesse.
Jesse Blackstock. Okay.
Have you been sworn?
I have. Okay, thank you. I was gonna say I'm representing the applicant and landowner. They're here in tow with me. We were probably answering questions to ourselves while you're asking questions. So the intent would be to do one or the other. So there's no intent to have commercial out front with townhomes in the back. It would either be all C two or all M F one, and M F one specifically being townhomes.
Right. And I don't
want to read in that I'm accusing you or making it. No, we understand the question.
Understood. I think the main reasoning behind doing a conditional use is we get here a lot faster than we would if we were doing a rezoning. A lot more steps involved and it just gets us to the get goal line a lot quicker. So that's the intent. So if there's a condition that needs to be written in, we actually have no concern with that if there's one able to be written in, that was either one or the other. So
I mean so you could con it is a conditional use, so you could condition it on there not being commercial uses unless they're in a vertically integrated mixed use form. I mean that is something the Planning Commission has the authority to do.
Uh you can condition it on being either or.
But I think what I'm hearing the commission Commissioner Oakley say is that he wouldn't be have an objection to retail uses if it was vertically integrated with the residents. It doesn't
necessarily have to be vertically integrated, I just don't think it's appropriate that we have, you know, a paint and body shop next to the town homes. But if we had a butcher baker or a candlestick maker there, maybe that would be appropriate.
Mm-hmm. Well, a body shop is probably not gonna vertically integrate with multifamily. So I mean you effectively cure you're effectively.
They're not under any obligation to develop this property and plat it as 84 townhomes. They can come in here next week and file a site plan for a plat of 42 townhomes and reserve the rest for commercial development.
There's nothing in this CU that obligates them to develop this as town homes. So I'm saying that if there's the potential that it could end up with some mixed use
that we limit the you could impose a condition that said if developed residentially
Any retail uses shall be limited to C one uses or something. I mean you could be where I'm going, yeah. Okay, then you can that's a condition that you could impose if the applicants agree with it.
We are. That's fine. We are intended to build one or the other, but that's fine if we need to put that in there. Word as such. Yeah. That seems to solve the problem. Okay. Okay. And you're good with it? We're good with that as long as we stick with C2 if we do 100% C two. I mean that's the w I guess that's the I mean I think the concern is the mixture of the two being on top of each other. I totally understand what you're asking.
Bingo.
My personal opinion is this a better C2
site or C three site than it is for town homes.
It's a large site for twelve acres, yeah you could put a public supermarket there probably on twelve acres, but a little more traffic. than eighty four telephones. Yeah. It's a little deep for our public s
and we are
so and it's next to a you know
recycling operation with an air curtain incinerator out there.
And I hear Publix is open in body shops now, so
in the liquor stores.
Mr. Chairman I have a question. Um so if if you do town homes, uh I didn't see what are there any transportation um improvements you'll need to make. Not that
I'm aware of we're under the threshold for uh trip generation because it's only eighty four units at this point for the fifty, but of course that'll be I'm sure discussed during site plan review with the Sons group. I'm sure as far as maybe a potential for a turn line or something, but at all based on traffic on
the 'cause I think you said it'd probably be lower than what what
Yeah, I mean that's the thing. I mean twelve acres at C two is an intense amount of square footage and potential trips, but that would definitely probably
Okay, thank you.
All right, so um is there anyone here to object? Do you have anybody else to speak on your end? No. No. Okay. Thank you, Doug. Thank you. Anyone here else here that's here to object or ask questions? If not, then I'd like to hear a motion.
I will move to approve item PC
seven with the condition that if it is developed with any commercial uses in conjunction with residential uses, that those be C1 limited to C1 uses.
Also.
Dam, are you okay with that how that was stated or are you you wanna say something?
I I have a I I have a clarificate
Clarification question. So when you say C one uses, i so C one to C two is a waterfall district. So C one permitted uses and C one special exception uses are then allowed in in C two. So when you say C one uses, are you since it is C two
allowable
use permit? So the permitted uses only. Okay. That's just my clarification.
Special exception or conditional use. Correct. Okay.
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Liam. All right, so we have a motion. I think we understand the motion. We have a second, right? Any further discussion of the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Okay. Motion carries.
You good?