Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) - CPAS22(20) Two Rivers 3 acres – Providing for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (Map 2-15 And Sheet 23) from RES-3 (Residential-3 Du/Ga) to PD (Planned Development) on 3 Acres of real property located northeast of Gall Boulevard approximately .7 miles from State Road 56 intersection with Gall Boulevard to the southwest of the parcel ; and a map amendment to the Future Land Use Map 2-9 modifying Subarea Map 2-9(11) Two Rivers.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
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.
This case, across meetings
PDD-23-0030 in full →PDD-23-0030 was taken up 2 times between Dec 8, 2022 and Jan 24, 2023 — this is appearance 1.
- Dec 8, 2022PlanningPC8▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Jan 24, 2023BoardP39▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 5m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 76% of 33 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
And PC eight. I think John was at you two.
No, David. David. That was me.
Oh no,
David. I can ask my question if I don't know who the staff person is. Okay. So this is really just a clarification question because The the write-up says that the MPD designates this parcel as residential parcel G. But then the write up also says that it's I think going to commercial. So I'm not really clear on whether Is it going to residential or commercial? 'Cause it just says P
D so I don't know what that means. And then is there gonna be if it's going to commercial, is there gonna be a corresponding amendment to the M P D? I can't tell from the way this is written out.
Yes, hi. Um Brian Junker here with the M. Mr Hobby
maybe it'll answer. He maybe it'll help you if he's right behind you, but if you can't answer
Yeah. Um to my understanding, um, it's going to plan development to allow for the commercial use.
Before we get too far, I didn't hear you, but maybe you gave you gave us your name and address.
Um I'm a employee county. My name is Brian Junker. I'm with the long range planning department.
Good, good. I'll have to make sure 'cause sometimes it's hard for them to understand what uh Who they're trying to translate. So go ahead.
Okay. So um this is um permitting to go into a plan amendment to allow for future commercial development on parcel G, but I also have the applicant here that she can also um talk more in depth into that if you wish to hear more details about it.
Yeah, it's really just to clarify I what's unclear to me is whether there's going to be a another amendment to the MPD to change it to commercial or not, because this just says there's no proposed changes to the existing entitlement, so that leads me to believe the MPD's not changing. Thank you. Which makes no sense to me because it's residential currently.
Clark Hobby, Hobby and Hobby PA one oh nine North Brussel Street, Tampa, Florida have been sworn. So David that this a two part deal. You're you're I think you're correct. We're not trying to create something that's inconsistent with the comp plan. The whole point is it's a small triangular piece on three oh one right by the jail, and we don't think it's a good residential partial, but it was a weird scenario in that It was included within the MPUD and labeled as a residential
partial because it had Res 3, but it's the only partial that the Legacy 2 Rivers owner didn't include within the PD future land use that's on the whole ranch. So we're taking it into the PD. and it's going to be labeled commercial on the MPUD map when the MPUD non substantial mod is done.
Okay, I think that's all that's missing from your write up is a statement that there will be
There was something in there, but it it I I grant you it could have been a little bit clearer. There was one statement I thought was at the bottom of page one or on page two, but I uh yes, understood. There there's a companion Yeah, hold on. Yeah, I think that's we probably need to eliminate the last sentence at the bottom of the first paragraph under background.
Yeah. I think what here's what's confusing for everybody. When we take it into the P D, we're not increasing any of the entitlements that exist within the P D itself. So that's what I think Brian was trying to say. It just It's very confusing when you don't know all the ins and outs of the comments.
Right. That's what's missing.
We can do that.
Also, another comment. You don't look like Barbara Willoughby. I don't know.
That was the nature of my ex parte
community. Yeah, that that's why John called that That's why John texted Barbara and she texted me this morning. So yes, I'm not sure.
I think that was on a legacy small scale would be my guess.
I want to correct that too.
Okay. We can do that. Okay. All right. Well let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks. That was the most important one, right?
Yes.
I I'm fine with EM, I just had the c other questions. Okay.
All right. Okay. So if there's no further clarification needed, then uh We have a motion.
Motion to approve. Second.
Motion is second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Uh like a sign for nay. Motion carries.
Just for clarification, does Barbara get the invoice for that?
Both of them.