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 01) From RES-6 (Residential 6 Du/Ga) To COM (Commercial) On Approximately 3.49 Acres Of Real Property Located On The East Side Of US Highway 301 Approximately 750 Feet South Of US-98; 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 by a roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Apr 10, 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, Apr 10, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PEG-24-0068 in full →Heard once. PEG-24-0068 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Apr 10, 2024BoardP40▶Adoptedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 9m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 89% of 73 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
P forty.
Item P forty was published in the Tampa Times on February 21, 2024, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.
Thank you Mr. Chairman M P forty is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan providing Pull that
mic over to you uh
providing I don't know it's not today. Yeah. Providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map two-fifteen and sheet zero one from res six, residential six dwelling units per gross acre to comm commercial on approximately three point four nine acres of real property located on the east side of U.S. Highway 301, approximately 750 feet south of US 98. And providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer, serverability, and an effective. date. This comes to you with a recommendation
to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, adopt the ordinance by vote vocal vote. We can do a presentation if the board would like.
Okay, would the board like to hear a presentation?
I'm okay.
Hmm.
I'm good.
Good. Um So this public hearing, does anyone we have someone speak to this? Is that I asked for the public
Yeah. Well this or this would be an applicant presentation, so or there there should be an applicant for this one. It's not county initiated. So you'd call the applicant first and then a member to the public.
Okay. All right. If reaction would like to come forward?
Name and address for the record.
Uh good afternoon. Ann Pollock, uh 433 Central Avenue in St. Pete representing the applicant. Uh we're here today uh requesting this comprehensive plan amendment. Uh the owner um owns a small HVAC business here in the county and would like to open up a small uh retail center to sell uh uh parts and and do repairs. He'd like to use the remainder to lease out the um the the spaces
to other small businesses, um small trades, neighborhood commercial office, and and that sort. We feel that the the our application is uh consistent with the comprehensive plan, uh the intent of the The comm designation is to encourage job creating uses. Mr. Finley expects, he has about four employees now, he expects to have to have at least another six to run this business. And uh with the addition of the other uh
spaces, we expect more jobs to come in to this area. Uh the area is surrounded by uh pastures and residential as well as significant uh commercial. Uh to the north is ninety eight which has shops and um other businesses including um uh used car and um open storage and and other small businesses. This will allow for an improved uh development in the area while mo more fully satisfying the commercial and business needs of the surrounding
residents. The applicant is uh working to um uh work with the neighbor to modify the access uh to the north so that we're not intruding with the the neighbors access to get out onto 301. And the owner plans to build fencing and buffering on the rear, including stormwater and that sort, in order to provide a good buffer. Uh the the issue that I wanted to raise today is that as part of this uh application,
uh Planning Commission staff uh I'm sorry, long-range planning staff uh requested that we voluntarily agree to a deed restriction limiting uses and providing uh some other um development restrictions as well as the Live Local Act uh deed restriction. The applicant volunteered to comply. Those uses are not planned to be used here, but you know, certainly agreed in order to gain the staff
support and the county support of this. This was presented at the Planning Commission on this matter. Uh we are also going through a contemporaneous uh rezoning request to C2. and we had our Planning Commission meeting last week and at the Planning Commission The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the rezoning but without the deed restrictions, other than live local. They they kept that. um feeling that it was inappropriate
and unnecessary to include the deed restrictions for this owner um in order to comply with the requirements of code and the appropriateness of the um the the commercial use going forward. I don't think that long-range planning staff thinks that um I do think commercial is uh long-range planning staff thinks uh commercial is an appropriate use for this property. Uh but I did want to raise the issue with regard to the deed restrictions. And um we
we're of course at the board's pleasure regarding that, but I wanted to make you aware of uh what sort of the chronology of what happened. happened with those deed restrictions. And with that I'm adding the other thing. Are there
deed restrictions on this property?
I'm sorry?
There are deed restrictions on this property?
There would be as part of these approvals.
Ones that were agreed with was staffed.
I I mean I have some questions for staff when about
the deed
restriction.
Okay. Staff let staff come back up.
I can take a reason.
That's a bit like.
Okay. All right Terry question.
Terry Fruit.
Wait a minute. If I can ask Terry, which is the companion rezoning on this on this agenda? So th th this wouldn't even be an appropriate you the board can have the discussion, but it wouldn't it would this is a zoning issue, not a comp plan issue.
That's correct. Okay.
Well what is that?
Commission recommendation is would be an issue that you would take up next.
It's not. Um so that'll be back before you at some point.
This is
the comp plan.
Okay, I think you had that said that
differently.
All right, well then I have plenty of time to ask you about the restrictions. So I I won't bother taking it.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
Is anyone in the audience here this is a public hearing, is anyone in the audience here to s speak to this item?
I have no one signed up and no one on WebEx for this item.
All right, no move approval. Move approval. Move approval.
Second.
Got a motion and second. All those in favor say aye.
Oh I need a roll call vote. Thank you.
District two, Commissioner Weightman. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Um okay
do you mind if I ask a question real quick? Um and I I didn't hear it. Is there a a multi-use path going up this side of this road?
Little piece of property.
Did they talk about that? Or does that
This road's being uh redone.
There's existing pedestrian infrastructure along with Brundage. There's a sidewalk, my understanding. But as you can see from the uh map on the overhead, there are a number of trails that are crisscrossing the area that are not yet fully reached into the southern parts of the Rakuchi.
So um but we would talk about that at the rezoning not at this
Well making
sure there's a reservation.
The rezoning would be a Euclidean rezoning, so the C2 zoning. So uh we wouldn't we we would not be able to condition them on that rezoning, but there would there would be discussions about that when they submit for site plans. Any kind of uh connectivity. But they're only a small portion of the 301 frontage, so it's not a it's not a it's a three-acre site, so it's not a sort of a sort of a s
I just want to make sure that they know there's probably a multi-use path coming on one side of the that road that will need to be accommodated.
That conversation will come up later.
He said that w that we couldn't bring it up later.
It won't be in your rezoning, but they will have that discussion in the site plan statement. Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay. So I got a motion and a second by low call vote.
I'm gonna redo it. District two, Commissioner Weightman. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford. District five, Commissioner Mariano.
Aye.
District one, Chairman Oakley.
Aye. Motion pass four zero. Move on to P forty one.