An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing for A Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 12) From COM (Commercial) To PD (Planned Development) On Approximately 48.98 Acres Of Real Property Located At The Southwest Corner Of The Intersection Of S.R. 52 And Land O’Lakes Blvd; And A Text Amendment Amending Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.37: - Tibbets Land At Gowers Corner Subarea Policy; And A Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Amending Subarea Map 2-9 (37) Tibbets Land; 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 with the inclusion of the Conditions discussed which included to add to the subarea policy to have a land use equivalency matrix in the MPUD by a roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Feb 20, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Feb 20, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PEG-24-0031 in full →Heard once. PEG-24-0031 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Feb 20, 2024BoardP43▶Adoptedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 15m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 84% of 80 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
P-43 was advertised in the Tampa Bay Times January 3, 2024, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman Mariano.
I had a P forty three as Terry. Yeah, yeah. Yeah.
better.
I And had a a P P forty three is an ordinance, so that means that's good.
Okay. Item P43 is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map two-fifteen, and sheet 12. From COM Commercial to PD Planned Development and approximately forty-eight point nine eight acres of real property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of State Road 52 and Land Lakes Boulevard, and a text amendment amending sub-area policy flu seven one. 3. Uh 7.1.37, Tibbetts Land at Gowers Corner Sub-area Policy, and a Map Amendment to the Future Land O' Lakes Map, Map 2 9, amending Sub-area Map 2-937,
Tibbets Land. And providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer serverability in an effective date. This comes to you with a recommendation of approval from the local planning agency and the planning and economic growth department. department. We have a presentation if one is desired.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. I'd like to hear the presentation in the same and and right behind it actually do the zoning part of it as well. So I can buy them.
Which one now? Um
So it'll be P fifty one to go with P forty As a matter of fact, this I'm gonna have the same request coming up for Forty four and fifty two as well.
Okay.
You can you can do that, you're gonna have to give the public an opportunity to if there is public an opportunity to speak to both of the items um and take separate motions. I'd prefer that you do forty-three and then step down and then do fifty one, but it it's up to you.
Would that be our do we pitch one in order as it is or?
So do forty-three. So have have staff do the have staff do the presentation for forty-three, have the applicant do their presentation for forty-three, get any comments, and then move to fifty-one and and look at it that way. Perfect.
Okay.
Yeah, I yeah.
Ooh.
Okay.
All right. Oops. Good afternoon, Amy Tall with uh Planning and Economic Growth. It's the first time I've had to say that with the new reorganization. Um what you see before you is a small scale comprehensive plan amendment in the name of C Pass twenty-two fifteen Gowers Corner P D. Uh we will read the ordinance into record. You already read it? Okay, never mind. This is the adoption hearing for that. Um, so I'll proceed. So again, this is a comprehensive
plan amendment. It is a small-scale amendment from Calm Commercial to PD plan development. Uh the applicant is proposing a flu amendment from Calm to PD on approximately 48.98 acres to allow for 400 multifamily units and 300,000 square feet of commercial. commercial retail. The subject site is located at the intersection, the south west intersection of State Road 54 and Land O' Lakes Boulevard, sorry. And there is an amendment
to policy flu 7.1.37 for the existing sub-area policy. There's also an accompanying MPD MPUD plan development or MPUD rezoning petition that you'll hear accompanying this. So the subject site here is located in the central market area, again at the southwest corner of State Road 50, or US 41 and Land O' Lakes Boulevard. I'm stuck on State Road 54 right now. The subject site here is your aerial
view of the project location.
Here is a context map to show where the subject site is located in proximity to the area. As you can see, the red area being the subject property is located on the southwest corner of Lando Lakes Boulevard and you and State Road 52. A couple predominant projects in the area, being the Lando Lakes 5241 project, which does a but this project to The west. As you can see also, Project Arthur is in proximity of the area, and we also have the Paw
Materials Industrial Site to the north.
Here's the existing transportation network. We do have the trail US 41 trail system and State Road 52 trail system within the sub-area policy as well as the MPUD conditions of approval. There are conditions to ensure that pedestrian connectivity within the project. As well as along State Road 52 and US 41 are achieved through either a sidewalk or a multi use path.
Here is your conceptual plan that's associated with the sub-area policy for the PD plan development. The pink area is going to prioritize or ensure that employment generating uses are retained in that location. The orange area is going to be your residential uses with a Mutrum component. The pink area does allow for residential to occur, but only if vertically integrated.
There are some wetlands in the area, so this is just your environmental context to see what's going on. Your existing future land use is being commercial currently. And your proposed amendment to PDs, what this would look like on the map. I do want to highlight the fact that the existing Calm Flu allows for a substantially greater amount of entitlements than what the applicant is proposing in the PD flu. So currently, in the existing commercial flu land use classification, they
can achieve up to 1,280,000.
And then up to 1,175 units. What they're proposing is substantially lower. They're proposing 400 units of multifamily, and then they're also proposing 300,000 square feet. So quite a reduction in what is currently available.
And then this is just your snippet of the sub-area policy and the changes that are occurring.
This is going to be your zoning where the MPUD is going to take place. And these are the policies that are supported by the uh proposed amendment.
And with that we recommend approval uh of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and adopt by roll call board. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to
answer.
Yes, sir.
So I I think I'm gonna be okay with this from what Amy's just said. Um So I don't need to hear them both together at this point. But I do want to say the the the big thing for me is they could go with over a thousand apartments or multifamily. It's now coming down.
Yeah.
Well their
suggestion lower money. Right,
yeah. So that's that's that's like it's a it's a it's a very good thing. What I also like to do is uh you talked about the commercial. I don't want to hurt them on the commercial, though if they want to go more intense, I don't want to slow them down on that either though.
Sure. So um actually on the MPUD side, there is a land use equivalency matrix that does allow for any of the residential units to be converted if necessary, so they can get it anyway.
But even if it was more intense, let's say you had some big office complex, I wanted to come in here and take over the site, and I want to make sure that they don't get restricted from that uh commercial opportunity that could be there as well. Okay. Is there a way to modify that?
Um unless we do that here, if they decide to come in in the future and this is already adopted, if it exceeds the 300,000 square feet and the potential muttrand. conversion then they will need to come in for a comp plan amendment.
I'd I'd rather put the flexibility in that now for them so they don't have to come back again. Yeah.
I don't know if that's the
I
mean
it giv it it just give them an up another opportunity. It doesn't change the it doesn't change the multifamily, but if there's something strong or commercial that may want to go More vertical, more intense. I mean it's it's an opportunity, it could be creating a lot of jobs there. I don't know. But I d I don't wanna I don't restrict them from doing that.
Well if they're gonna make a big that to me that'd be a big change from what they're offering here now if they went full blown for what entitlements they'd have. I'd be concerned it didn't come back for us so as we could look at that. Right.
Right. Uh Mr. Chairman Clark Hobby, Hobby and Hobby, PA 109 North Brussel Street, Tampa, Florida. Uh I understand what uh Commissioner Mariano is saying. I wouldn't have any objection if we on just on the company, not the M PUD, because we didn't study it in the MPUD. If we want to change that number from say three hundred thousand a commercial to five hundred, it would still be well beneath that it would be less than half of the existing uh potential entitlements. But also uh realistically, I don't think we're
ever gonna come anywhere near achieving that much anyway. But I understand the commissioner's point about more flexibility on the commercial. So I wouldn't have any problem if the board wanted to change that from three hundred to five hundred because it I think the traffic folks would tell us that's still not net increasing any of the traffic just for the comp plan. I I couldn't do it on the MPUD side though, because we didn't study it for timing and phasing. Okay.
Mr. Chairman Mariano? Yeah, I was uh in Sarasota this weekend, um, visiting my son who was in from Greenwich. Was that at uh area called Lake Lakewood Ranch? Lakewood Ranch. Yeah. I was there too. Oh. Well then maybe you know what the project I'm talking about. Okay. I d I drove through some. I drove through Pultees there and Walked around Lakeside, had lunch actually at Lakeside, which was wonderful. I think you know about it. It's a
mixed use development, surrounded by townhomes and apartments on the water. But at um I I wish I had taken a picture of it. I thought I could get it here online, but I think it's just come in. Um before Google Maps is there, but at the corner of
Fruitville Boulevard maybe? And whatever road you go in to get up to Lakeshore Ranch?
Right.
Um there is a Commercial corner with a lot of apartments. And it has a storage facility. Are you familiar with this project?
Um not but I mean I can envision
Okay we we need to Get some some photos because this is exactly what I talked to the applicant about in my meeting with them, how you integrate. multifamily with commercials. They even had They had a um storage facility, you know, like one of those main companies that's orange and white, maybe that's a branded name that you remember. Um multi-story, but the whole bottom was commercial and retail. and you couldn't even
tell what it was on on one of the sides Uh I g it was so well done and then and then right across the street with on street parking are the apartments And, you know, over here's all the restaurants and it was it was pretty nicely integrated. It it was more of your standard out parcel commercial now as you got back towards the apartments it got higher and higher. But I think it's a great example of how to How to better integrate multifamily On
a site. Um because I I am very fearful we're doing apartment complex, then you gotta get out of your car and drive over here. Another apartment complex all Encapsulated And th and this was just a good e uh It just shows that it does work. So I don't know who's the developer is.
Commissioner Starkey if I might, just for the benef your staff recognizes some of the things like that that you've been saying over the last couple of years because it was your staff that asked us to retain the ability we we we wanted to try to move any apartments off of the hard corner so that you know we weren't just coming in there and eating the hard corner up at this critical intersection uh with more apartments, right? Because we hear the board talking about that. But what staff insisted
and is in the MPUD when we get to that is it does allow vertically integrated units in that area. But the good news is, and this is what the critical thing is, I think, for the Board on the Comp plan and the MPUD is it cuts the potential for multifamily by like sixty percent. So it's not gonna be overwhelmed and really be a multifamily project. That's that's really the key for the comp plan and the M PUD. And when we get into the M PUD stuff, I'll give you some other really good benefits
for the county if we end up having a discussion about that. But there are a lot of them.
I'm just saying. And and I appreciate that how they moved it off the corner. I'm just saying they don't have to be so separated if if it's There are ways to lay it out where they
work together. Your staff asked us to do that and there are conditions that allow that in the MPUD already.
Right.
Okay. Anyway.
Commissioner Starkey, if I may, I'd like to highlight the fact that if you see on this location map, uh the red area is going to be the Gowers Corner that's currently being discussed. Uh the Land O' Lakes 5241 is also a project that has come in around the same time frame, and staff is actually treating both of those projects almost as That's one. And so we're making sure there's levels of connectivity between the two. That's
the way we
need to do it. That one should be, I guess, being proposed or March twelfth, being heard on March twelfth. Sounds like
Well this this is the public meeting so
We need to hear f hear from anyone that's here to speak to it. Do we have anyone sign up to speak to this item?
No,
sir. The right here.
And no one on WebEx.
Seeing no one move audience to speak to this item. Seeing no one move approval.
Second.
I got a motion second by roll call vote.
District two, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford.
Hi.
District 5, Commissioner Mariano. Aye. District 1, Chairman Oakley.