Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) – CPAS23(13) Chancey And SR 39 – Providing For A Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 23) Changing From RES-9 (Residential-9 Du/Ga) To COM (Commercial) On Approximately 4.84 Acres Of Real Property Located At The Southwest Intersection Of Chancey Road And SR 39 (Paul S Buckman Hwy).

1:21:09Good afternoon. Ebro Stevens Planning and Development. Before you is PDD 240001, small-scale, comprehensive plan amendment in the name of C Pass 2313, Chansey and 39.

1:21:27The proposal is a comprehensive plan amendment to amend Future Land Use Map, Map 2-15 and Sheet 23 from Res9, residential 9 dwelling units per gross acre, to Calm Commercial to remedy a conflicting zoning and to allow for general commercial uses on approximately 4.84 acres. The subject site is located at the southwest intersection of Chansey Road and State Road 39.

1:21:57The property is located in the East Market area.

1:22:03Here is an aerial.

1:22:11Context map.

1:22:23Existing future land use, as I mentioned before, res9.

1:22:34and proposed.

1:22:38Commercial.

1:22:45And zoning.

1:22:52I see one neighborhood commercial district.

1:22:58The proposed amendment is consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies. Policy 2143, transitional land uses. Policy through 161, Commercial Development. Policy Plu 162, Location of Commercial Development. and policy flu 814, the East Market Area Establishment.

1:23:21And with that, staff recommend the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. I will take any questions you may have.

1:23:33Anything from up here? Free rose?

1:23:38Okay.

1:23:41And remember that Chris recused himself from this one. Is the applicant present?

1:23:49Please state your name and address and confirm that you've been sworn.

1:23:52Yes, sure. Uh my name is Patricia Ortiz. Uh my address is twenty-eight ten North Central Avenue, Tampa, Florida, three three six oh two. I think Eve Rose did a great job preparing her uh staff report and presenting this case and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

1:24:12There's the there's a companion rezoning that's coming with this.

1:24:15There is not a companion rezoning associated with this at this moment. Um there could be a rezoning in the future, but um during our pre-application meetings um we it was indicated that we couldn't run a re companion rezoning at the same time. Um I'm not sure if a rezoning Is actually going to happen, but it is a conflict zoning right now. The um subject property is designated residential nine on the future land use

1:24:46map and it's C one on the zoning map. So we do need to uh resolve that conflict zoning before really doing Thank you very much.

1:24:58And would we be coming back looking for C two or to keep it at C one?

1:25:02There has been some discussion to come back at C two, but at this point there is no zoning application filed. Um I haven't been retained to do a rezoning on this property. So uh the project boundaries at this moment are just a land use map amendment?

1:25:25Okay. Anything else up here?

1:25:29Okay. Well thank you. Thank you. Uh is there anybody else here to speak on this item?

1:25:37Okay, if not I'll entertain a motion. Or further discussion?

1:25:42Okay.

1:25:45Yeah, I guess my my concern's only we'll we'll address that at the zoning stage is you know, what what kind of use it's gonna be backing up to that neighborhood that's there, so

1:25:53Well so if I'm understanding this correct, this resolves a conflict zoning. Correct. So they are they can have C that makes sense. If once we change this flu they can have the C one uses, although I'm not convinced, I mean, wouldn't they have fallen under the commercial node criteria? They could have develop this as C one anyways. Right. Even though it was a conflict.

1:26:16Yeah, I just came back up to um let you all know that um we uh When we did our initial studies we did a transportation needs analysis and we based the uses um on gas station and fast food, the worst case scenario as is required yeah, for C two. So um Th through this land use amendment, um certainly

1:26:47C one uses would be allowed because the property is zoned C one, but it would i potentially would allow for a potential rezoning to commercial

1:26:57two. This is probably a question for staff. What I'm not seeing, I'm seeing a subdivision under construction that wraps around this property and there's no interconnection. for the people in this subdivision to get to this property without going on to Chansey or State Road thirty nine.

1:27:17Or am I missing something?

1:27:20So that when it's under construction, that was probably a relatively new Subdivision project, how'd that get past the The gatekeepers.

1:27:36Are are you asking me that question? No,

1:27:37I think

1:27:38that's a question

1:27:38for

1:27:38staff.

1:27:40Um unfortunately I'm not seeing anything in uh the subdivision plans overlaid on the aerial and I'm not seeing any way that there could be an interconnect.

1:27:49No.

1:27:50It looks like the th there were right there was right away given for the subdivision, but there's no internal interconnection. Missed opportunity.

1:28:08Noted? Yeah, I mean the aerial shows it's clear. I don't know how much of this has been developed since that aerial was taken. Mm-hmm.

1:28:20Denise, do we know anything about the adjacent neighborhood? Adjacent subdivision?

1:28:24I'm pulling the information on it right now. Just give me a few seconds.

1:28:34The memo says it's Legacy Hills and Pv D.

1:28:38Does that mean it's old?

1:29:24To the to answer the question there isn't an certainly isn't an interconnect, I'm gonna go to the rezoning action to see if there was a request. for a variation in order to not have that interconnect, which is very common. So I'll take a look if you give me a few moments.

1:29:45Denise, do you know the date of the MPD?

1:30:02That's all looks like it's all developed out.

1:30:05Yes, the M PUD is a long time ago. It's the Felici Feliciano M PUD, um, October of two thousand and five. Oh, okay.

1:30:14Well.

1:30:17That's why it's called Legacy.

1:30:19So you were right. Happily named.

1:30:23I guess it's really irrelevant. The point is moved anyways, is just

1:30:35Okay, so uh Well Denise looks that up. Is there any other questions up here?

1:30:45Again, keeping in mind this is just to clear up conflict zoning to bring the uh land use and comp plan to be compliant with the zoning.

1:30:59I would guess at some point you're gonna see a rezoning application for what it's worth.

1:31:09Does that I mean does the do we need the answer from the needs really? It's a moot point.

1:31:16I don't see anything in the MPUD that requires interconnection. Again, it's a two thousand five MPUD that has been revived throughout the years through um through extensions, um executive order extensions and um it's now been platted so there's vesting, so Um in terms of what they had to do, they just had to construct they were off site improvements required to construct on Chansey Road and construct uh northbound tur left turn lanes on State Road um thirty

1:31:46nine. So and there aren't any requirements for interconnections to that parcel. Sin of the past.

1:31:53Just blaming on the old county administrator.

1:31:57Okay, yeah. If there's no further discussion, is there a motion?

1:32:01Move to approve item PC fifteen. I'll suck it.

1:32:05I motion and a second. All in favor?

1:32:08Aye.

1:32:09Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

1:32:16All right.

1:32:19I do not vote on that

1:32:20one, yes.

1:32:23Uh PC sixteen.