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
DispositionContinued
Continued to the March 21, 2023 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 10, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 10, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 23m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 79% of 155 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Aye. All right. Motion passes. All right, item P sixty-three.
Item P sixty three. Well, no, we did that one. So sorry. I
already did the publication. Okay, thank you. So PD um P63 is PDD Denise Hernandez Planning and Development, sorry. P sixty three is PDD 22 C U07. This is a conditional use for multiple family dwellings in C2 General Commercial District. The applicant is Channel Side Mortgages L L C eighty three forty two New York Avenue. The parcel uh property is located in uh Northwest Pasco County on the south side of New York Avenue, approximately 525 feet east
of Diagonal Road. The it this consists of of two pieces of property that are approximately twelve point zero eight acres. They're currently zone C two, uh General Commercial District.
The future land use on these parcels is ROR Retail Office Residential, which would allow for a mixture of uses of retail, office and residential. The current zoning surrounding the parcels is C2 to the north, AR to the north, C2 to the west, and C2 to the east, and R1 to the the south. R2, I apologize, low density residential district to the south.
The parcel is vacant. They're looking for um multifamily dwellings to develop the property with a total of 84 townhomes in conformance with MF1.
And I've already stated those things. This is the proposed concept plan for the property.
And this comes here with a recommendation of approval with conditions as stated in your agenda packet from the Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did add a condition. um condition number two which states that because the zoning stays as C two The Planning Commission wanted to make sure that if it's going to be developed both commercially and residentially, that the commercial uses are in accordance with C1, not C2, because they're more C one uses are more compatible with residential, as opposed
to C2 uses that have some uses that could be ob obstru obtrusive or obstructive to the neighborhood.
Here with any questions.
No, thank you. So the the reason I pulled it and we did we we did make an exception for where we could have multifamily in a C two district, but if you look at what's around there on just the land use map, can you pull that one up first? Absolutely.
Doesn't appear to go be going backward for me, I apologise.
So th there's C T all a C2 all around it to the to the east and west. There's one little piece to the AR, but that's just to the side. There's actually a C three that's above it as well. Um there could be more heavier industrial coming on both sides of these properties coming in. Um And just as Denise had just said, they're careful as the Planning Commission want to make it C one because of C two could be obtrusive to residential development is exactly why I don't want to see a multifamily
development come into a C two area. So that's why I pulled it and that's why I um I don't support it.
What is that to the left of this?
To the west of it is kind is um it's a tire service. I believe it's called uh Black Dog Tire Service and then there's also truck parking on the property.
What kind of zoning is truck parking?
Well, it's C2, General Commercial District. So I believe that uh what may have happened is that this existed prior to When we did the um self-storage facility type of use. standards, so it's just truck parking on the property that's been there for quite some time.
And then there may be commercial built in coming into that site very shortly.
A what?
A commercial development coming to that site shortly. So again, so again just the fit between multi-family. I'm glad we gave ourselves the option to look at conditional use in a C2 zoning, but this is uh this I don't think it's appropriate place for it.
Well, you've got you've got it to the right, and you've got it, you've got it all along diagonal.
Is the whole property gonna be um housing or is the front still smart?
What they're proposing is uh this is their concept plan, so they're showing eighty four townhome units and um some stormwater and retention along the back. So what they're proposing is all of it to be um town homes.
The the camera.
Commissioner Weightman.
Bay, thank you.
of it in something something else.
So um what
we
should have prepared. Sure. Um and thank you for the question. I think um what we look at with something like this, because it's ROR retail office residential, there has to be a mix of those uses within the ROR section. Um this was brought through, um it's in your Finding of fact number eleven, it was submitted to long range planning for comments as to whether this would be okay within ROR, and they said that um per certain policies that they called out That it
would be acceptable for 84 townhome units. This is a little different than the COM, which really is mostly commercial. um uses ROR allows a Um a mixture of uses within the ROR segment.
So it's called retail office and residential.
But I'm also seeing recidential on this plane.
Correct, within the segment. So let me see if I can pull the segment so I can show you.
No, you're fine. Uh I'm not sure if you can see the ROR, all those areas within that red. that entire section is the ROR segment. So the parcel to the wet to two two one, two, three, four, five, and then even going beyond diagonal road Those are all ROR Retail Office Residential, the parcels to the east, and then going even east of um of Utica Drive, all of those are within ROR. So they so the folks in Long Range Planning and if um if I'm misspeaking,
please um jump in, but I Did also work in long-range planning. What they look at is they look at the segment of the retail office residential to see that there are a mixture of retail office residential uses.
And the layman's terms I'm seeing from diagonal road to the west and going to the east in this this photo that And during all of this we become residential downloads.
Not necessarily. There has to be a that mixture. There's like uh zero to seventy-five percent of retail, office, or residential.
So retail being commercial.
Yeah.
So when they looked at the existing zoning, they saw that the uses there out there are, as you can see, mostly commercial. Um I know there are a v a good bit of parcels that are vacant. Let me see if I could Pull the aerial. Their aerial is shown here and you'll see a lot of these po many of these properties, particularly to the east, are vacant. Parcels to the south have one single family dwelling on them, for example. Or I'm sorry, to the north, I apologize, that are within that that segment as
well. And then you've got multifamily e to the east of um Utica Drive. which has I think it's Pasco Housing Authority owned.
And that's also within I believe it's also within the C two district. No, it's actually MF one.
How many units there? Back to Ron Gorman. Yeah.
Not off the top of my head. It's a very old development. I can check the I can check the parcel cards 'cause it's it's quite old.
It goes back to the the point of saturation.
And while she's looking at that slide, if you take a look right above even where that is, right to the north of it, you've got I one and I two
And down the road is where the that industrial park I mentioned earlier today. It's at the end of New York Avenue. They're talking about a s putting a single at New York and Hicks. So big trucks would be coming down there. It could be a good another good opportunity for some more good commercial coming in there. And again, we're supposed to be creating jobs wherever we can. Hudson needs more jobs, so to put m more multifamily in
Uh Mr Chair, while I look that up the the applicant has stated that he would like to
Sure. And let's bring the applicant up and approach it. Mr. Applicant, I I I haven't met with you, haven't seen the project, I just saw the item and uh I wanted to pull it so Correct.
Please you
have
a name and address for the record. Eric Lindsay, four nine one, Pennsylvania Avenue, Palm Harbor, Florida. Um actually sorry, our civil engineer is and you've
been sworn?
Oh yes, I have.
Jesse Blackstar. Thank you.
All right. I think his uh now Mr Blindstock you can go ahead and you should be able to speak now.
Okay. This is just
a good thing.
six. As As Mr. Mr. Lindsey was saying, he is representing Apple.
Sorry, sir. You also have to I'm sorry, you have to also state that you've been sworn for the record. Have you been sworn?
Yes, I've
been
yes, I've been sworn for the record. Yes, I've been on since we're going to be able to do that.
All right, now you may proceed. Thank you. No
problem. Yeah, so as Mr. Lindsay was saying, he's the representing the owner applicant, and I am the uh consultant uh that's been working on this with Eric and the owners. I I guess uh the the concern that I've got is in understanding and I think uh the long-range plan. folks in describing this pretty well. It's in it's in an area where it's considered to be ROR, so it's there's supposed to be a mix of uses, not all commercial, not all industrial. I think our uh approach to this property is to potentially present it,
market it as a and I don't want to say multifamily, because that opens a door for what traditional multi-tensity might be. Like that's just basically to our east, you know, two parcels over, that's actually MF1. We're just looking to do town homes, not actual apartment or garden style apartments. So it's we've already kind of went on record Instead we would be amenable to that. We are wanting to also leave the door open for them to be either fee simple or rental in that regard. So we want that to be flexible as well. But we're just asking this as a
conditional use, not not particularly going to go out and build towns. The applicants and owners of this property may not develop this themselves. They may develop this themselves. They're just trying to utilize the land development code and get an approval for a conditional use, being the key word as a traditional townhome development, in addition to, not in an exception to, but in addition to the traditional C2 uses that are currently on the property. As part of the last
hearing that we had, she just got through telling or kind of covering this piece, but we were amenable to lessening the intensity of the C2 down to C1. Uh huh. But as far as the concerns I guess Yeah, m Mr. Eric Lindsey's been doing the commercial development probably for as long as I've been doing engineering for twenty five years. When you look at the traffic, the annual daily traffic on a road like New York, I understand it's DQ zoning, but no developer is ever going to build commercial development there. Because no developers
ever got a tenant to be there. You're not going to build a car wash twenty seven hundred a day traffic road here. It's just it's not on US nineteen. It's not on Little Road, it's just on the main thoroughback. That's a challenge and one of the reasons we were looking at trying to look at what other uses would be feasible if you will from a development standpoint and what kind of thing would make sense to go there. Uh and I think that's probably why the ROR overlying or underlying land use is more of a mixed use uh concept
in this area. I get that we have industrial to our north and C2 to our to our east and even C2 to our west. But just and then also I would say geometry the property. I mean to try to develop something here that's got a commercial use, it would be uh be an interesting way to lay the site out from an engineering from a site plans perspective because it's a very deep and not a very wide pretty so one of the things we've talked about internally is we would be potentially amenable to leaving C
uses, if that's the case for the last hearing, up along New York Avenue, but everything to the South potentially being a mixed sub uses in terms of town. That way we still have it commercial along the front end works in it.
Right. I believe. It doesn't seem easy to us as developers to try to have a tenant that we're interested in. Just from the track as well.
Can I ask a It's a little hard to understand them, but I'm doing my best. And I did you have a question too real quick? Uh
you're first.
You know what I what I could see here is something like what that company did on fifty-four. And I'm not I know this is not stakeholding fifty-four, but um O uh offices like warehouse offices? I don't know what you call those where you build industrial buildings and and people buy or rent a bay and they have uh a business. I don't know what those are called. Industrial warehouses? Something
like that? I I could see that.
A warehouse condo kind of thing. Could be a good use for that kind of layup. And then if we change you to C one then you can't do that. Right?
Well the change to C Wall would only be a little bit more than a
You don't have C one uh a rezoning to C one in front of you.
Right.
But that the C one only comes into play if residential is developed. So just for compatibility per so if we decided to develop the entire parcel as C two, then it would be C two. the condition of C One only came into play in the Planning Commission hearing as a function of it being more compatible with the multifamily. those C one uses being more compatible with
Yeah, if y if there was residential, I'll know I see that. But I do think there could be a market for that kind of product if that's something you'd build. I don't know. I do see you have trespassers all over that. Um four wheeling I I guess. So having someone develop it might put an end to that pain in the neck.
With only C two around it's not that big an issue. I get plenty of other issues on other areas with the uh four wheelers. But again this is this as you says, this is a multifamily rezoning, not other options. And again for creating jobs I think we need to keep the job market. They had something else that they were bringing in specific, but they're as they said they're just looking to get it rezoned to go flip it and Put some multifamily in, so I mean
I am curious, I thought we had a rule on if we went from C two to multifamily that there had to be some job creation. Is it not in this area? Are we stricting it?
This is not a rezoning to multifamily. This is a allowing multifamily in C two, which was the change the Board of County Commissioners made um s almost a year ago, I guess.
I thought if we do that you have to go vertical mixed use.
But if it's in the West Market area you don't have to do that pr specifically. Yeah. And to answer the question on the parcel um east of Utica, it's ninety six dwellings, ninety six multifamily units.
Yeah. I mean anything is better than
I'd rather take a chance on waiting for the f some good CTUs coming in. Um anything else, sir?
I don't think else anything else to add other than the other than what Jesse said, which was we'd be um willing to work with the uh staff and with you guys to add commu commercial along uh New York Avenue as a uh function of the development and put the um the multifamily uses to the towards the back of the parcel.
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Okay. Um it's appropriate. I I think it might be best we move to continue this item.
Yeah, continue the item once we have some clarity.
Um if I could, Commissioner Weightman, what type of clarity do you need? We've got a C2 area surrounded by it. Um these folks want to br put in multifamily to it which would keep jobs from coming in. Um again I hadn't met with the applicant before, but literally when I saw it, I just was I couldn't I could understand why staff did it, but I w I wish staff would have probably come to me ahead of time to say Let's go take a look at this because I never would have I would have coached them otherwise to to come forward with this.
I I I make that recommendation just based on hearing hearing the commentary, so um that that's not a correctional called draw the
The motion. Jack, let me ask you, um, you're not okay because I would be okay with commercial up front. And residential in the back. But you're you wouldn't be?
I'd rather see C two. You're gonna have CTU uses all around it. And like I said, this I think there's some other property right to be decided that's gonna be coming in with something, it's gonna be a heavy duty commercial. And the staff says heavy duty commercial is not compatible with residential. So why would I wanna have homeowners in there getting mad about jobs coming in.
So you're gonna pull it.
I I've I pulled it now. Actually I would I would welcome a motion for denial of this.
You need to take public comment if there is any.
All right. Anything else from the applicant?
No, I guess I could I guess I'm just curious, the y you've mentioned a a few times about an adjacent parcel that's coming online. Are are you referring to the parcel to the west?
To the west. I mean we don't know if it's coming in yet, so it's
Nocause I I I I spoke to that property owner actually and he's he he was actually interested in doing something um similar to what what we're proposing.
Okay. Haven't heard that yet? I haven't heard anything near that.
No, I know. I just I have had that conversation with that.
Okay.
All right. This is a public hearing. Is anyone here to speak to this item?
I have no one signed up in person and no one on WebEx for this item.
Okay. Okay, back to the board.
Yeah.
I think it'd be wise for us to get more information on commercial uses.
Well, I I'm struggling here, uh but I tell you I have a C two coming to me that wants to be multifamily and I don't agree with it. It's on State Road fifty four. And I feel I need to be consistent. Although I mean I would have been I would have been okay for a mix on this one just because of of its location, but um
Uh gosh, that's a
tourist. Would it be appropriate to continue this item? Mm-hmm. Time certain. I would
I would agree with that. I'd rather continue it and and work with with um with you guys on it than than just try to force it through.
Okay. All right. I'll be o I'll be okay with that. I don't report when you
wanna continue.
Make your time uncertain so you'll have time to look at it.
That's But that's completely up to the board.
I was gonna suggest over a month, so February twenty first, Fort Ritchie, one thirty.
Okay.
I mean I don't know if you want to wait wanna do March. I'm
good with that. Well if we could do March, give it one more time. Okay. Do March.
Let's see what March is because my system just shut down on me. What day? Of course.
That way we have a time certainly. And he doesn't have to readvertise.
Okay, is that motion?
Here let
me get
you the date. I
apologize. It's coming.
The next uh BCC meeting is March seventh. But it in
date.
March
twenty first.
Well let's let's get it to the other side anyway.
Yeah, let's get it march twenty
first. At one thirty
in New Port Richey.
When is it?
March twenty-one, twenty
twenty-three, one thirty three.
Okay. So my motion is to continue it to March twenty-one at one thirty in uh Newport Ritchie. Of a second that.
Of a second. Okay. And uh thank you Commissioner Weightman for leading the way. All right, uh Roll Call vote.
District one, Commissioner Oakley.
All right.
District two, Commissioner Weightman.
District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford.
Aye.
District five, Chairman Mariano.
Aye.
Okay.