Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) - CPAS24(03) Lake Park CPA - Providing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (MAP 2-15 and Sheet No. 03) Changing from COM (COMMERCIAL) to RES-6 (RESIDENTIAL 6 – Du/Ga) on Approximately 2.57 Acres of Real Property Located at the Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Hudson Ave and Hicks Road.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionApproved
Approved the item per Staff’s recommendation.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Nov 21, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Nov 21, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-25-0046 in full →PDE-25-0046 was taken up 2 times between Nov 21, 2024 and Jan 28, 2025 — this is appearance 1.
- Nov 21, 2024PlanningPC6▶Approvedthis item
- Jan 28, 2025BoardP35▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 11m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 100% of 48 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay. So mm so we pulled uh
PC six. So Mr. Chairman I don't necessarily need a presentation on it. I just I'd send staff some questions. Okay.
Um And the first of them relates to the discussion about the trail interconnects To the park. Which is I guess item three on page five of the agenda. Um A statement there's a statement there that there's the applicant's proposing multiple connections to the park. But then the MP when I read the M P D it doesn't necessarily require those connections so if there's a sort of an internal conflict between the two. So The
staff could address that.
Right, thank you. David Engel, I'm the Planning and Economic Development Director for Pasco County. Relative to the question about the trail interconnection, a lack of consistency between the Com Plan amendment and the actual MPUD. Uh we have requested to have an interconnection with the neighborhood park that it is adjacent to this property. Uh at first uh parks has indicated that they didn't want to pursue an interconnection. They had some issues with it. But we've had some dynamic discussions with the Parks and
Recreation Um Department uh at and uh Commissioner Mariano was engaged with us and parks is willing to allow and entertain an interconnection. uh into the neighborhood park. So it's our um proposal to have the LPA sign off on this project today, but before it gets to the board um on twelve on one twenty eight at the board's uh January meeting here in New Port Richey, we will have revised and created that interconnection.
Okay. So What I'm hearing you say, David, is that you'll have to amend A P. nine, the M P D to The to make the interconnect more Mandatory, is that what I'm hearing? Yes. Okay. The bottom line is the compliant amendment is correct, then that there will be in fact connections. Yes, sir. But the MPD will have to be modified to reflect that. It will. Okay, is the applicant okay with this?
Yeah.
Because the applicant's gone back and forth unfortunate. I feel bad for Barbara on this one because she's been whipsawed on this thing.
Yes, Barbara Will Hyde, [address removed]. It's very easy because I have the set of documents that show the connections. There's two of them in all the conditions that go with it. And I have a set of documents that you see today that don't. Pursuant to a meeting that occurred this morning with Commissioner Mariano and uh Keith Wiley from Natural Resources and Parks, Mr. Ingle, myself, the client that's here, we're moving back into the set of documents that have the connections. Um that's the direction we're going. I have to add a little bit of
language, talk about gating, because it's important to the uh Parks Department that we actually have a gate so that um comments from the fut comments in the future um about people coming from the park into the neighborhood and the ne and the neighborhood's upset about that. So we're working through some of that language, but we're gonna go back and to where we were um a few weeks ago with the documents that even you looked at and the language you looked at regarding the connections and the and the offsite connection to uh their sidewalk within the veterans park to our
north.
So I guess on that issue you're look so when we get to AP nine You're looking for recommendation that we approve it with that modification We just talked about related to the interconnect to the park.
Yes, please. We there is no meeting um in dis in December uh in Newport Ritchie. And so we needed to make this meeting so we could do New Port Richey don't go to the board until it's back in Newport Ritchie and they're not back in Newport Ritchie until the twenty-eighth of January. So we have time to get all the language acceptable to everybody. Okay. Thank you.
And when when Barbara refers to a gate, it'll be a fob controlled gate so only the residents can get ingress and egress to and from. So the general public can meander through their neighborhood. They have to use the county sidewalk system.
Okay.
Good near.
Okay, so then my other question related to the analysis, the comp plant analysis under one point eight point seven. And my question relates to I think it's a potential conflict between staff's analysis and some statements that were made in the sheriff's comments. Related to kind of the tax generation analysis of these
Um I'll let David Engel kind of weigh in on this, but I I think the memo I'll let David Engel speak first and then I'll give you my thoughts.
Well well thank you, Mr. Goldstein. So uh flu policy one point eight point seven is a holistic statement and a goal. to look at the county at large and try to create more revenue producing than revenue consuming development. And we do that all the time. The question arose over a uh piece of property that's in included in this parcel. It's a commercial zone property at the moment. We're proposing to uh and and asking the board to allow us to integrate that with the residential project
before you. The reason is is that the area is overentitled right now for CT commercial. We have a lot of existing commercial in that Hicks Road, um Hudson Avenue intersection. And because of the traffic congestion and uh unfortunately generating traffic that would cause uh a lot of road improvements. We've uh we agree with the applicant in this case. So uh just from the standpoint of the big picture, uh my office uh had uh contracted Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council to produce a study for the Board of County Commissioners about two years ago because we're underentitled for industrial in the in the county and overentitled for commercial and residential. So we've embraced that, we've been working with that as a a policy. uh template and now that we're doing renewing the Com plan and rewriting it now, we're gonna produce a lot more uh revenue generating development in the county. So that That's that's why we we're agreeable to eliminating the C two and
uh we are working forward to creating a more revenue-centric plan for the county.
So David I I think The reason I brought this up is because the way this is worded in the memo, the comparison is to the vacant land. And I'm not sure that's the right comparison to be making on a plan amendment, 'cause if you did that, any plan amendment would show more tax generation To me the comparison should be the existing flu Now if your argument is that that com under the existing flu will is unlikely to develop because of the oversaturation. And never
therefore will never generate the tax revenue that was assumed that as a reasonable argument But that's not what the agenda memo says.
Well that that's that's correct. The agenda memo did not address that. But from my experience and understanding of this area, that property's been sitting vacant for years. And um and it could have been commercially developed with the other parcels in and around that neighborhood. So the
question is though whether that would be developed after that neighborhood exists, because there may be some more demand for commercial with the introduction of those Extra residential units.
Well a at originally and it was approved and the approvals I think uh good till two thousand twenty-seven. uh for three hundred and thirty townhouses. Uh but because of changes of market and preference by the district commissioner, we're doing fifty five foot wide single family homes. So we're actually reducing the intensity from 330 townhouses to a hundred single family detached homes. So um and there is plenty of commercial there. The biggest issue was uh access to the
question What you're telling me verbally. You're telling me verbally The the market's oversaturated for commercial in this area and that by concentrating the commercial at Little Road you may actually have more tax generation at Little Road because you're concentrating the commercial at That's how I'm reading. between the lines of what you're telling me Verbally. My only point is that your analysis in the memo doesn't say any of that. Well you are correct.
There's a statement by the Sheriff's Office later that implies the opposite. So that's why I'm I'm Want to get this reconciled.
Well I and I appreciate you doing that because, you know, frankly, I just discovered all this stuff this morning. I don't read every every c condition of approval or agenda document to that detail. But um you're right and we will clean it up. Okay.
Those are all those were really all my questions. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Thanks. Thank you, David. Mm-hmm.
Okay.
So
we still have to um
a recommendation on P C six. Right, and sounds like Mr. Engel's got the message on how to fix the agenda memo if you want to So
we should make motions on PC six and nine.
Well I would do them separately, do P six P C six first. Yeah.
All right. Do we know your motion to approve? So moved. Well let me back up. I'm sorry. Barbara did you want to say anything about PC six? Okay.
Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Most like sign. Motion carries.
PC nine, please, do we have a motion?
So moved? To be clear, that's you're moving approval with the amended condition related to The trail interconnects to the portal. Correct. Okay, sir. So be negotiated by staff and the applicant after After this meeting?
Correct. What David said.
I'll
still
second that. And it's still seconded, yeah. Okay, we have a motion and a second further discussion. Not all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Okay, motion carries.
Okay, where does that leave us? Roberto.