Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) – CPA26 (01) West Market Area ROR (Retail/Office/Residential) Future Land Use (FLU) Density Text Amendment - Providing for a Text Amendment to The Future Land Use Element Appendix Section FLU A-6 and a Text Amendment to the Glossary; and Providing for Additional Text Amendments as Necessary for Internal Consistency; Providing for Repealer, Severability, and an Effective Date.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Mar 19, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-26-0435 in full →PDE-26-0435 was taken up 2 times between Mar 19, 2026 and Apr 21, 2026 — this is appearance 1.
- Mar 19, 2026PlanningPC4▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Apr 21, 2026BoardP39▶Approved
What was said
Machine transcription of 30m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 82% of 162 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Mr. Chair, would you like to hear item PC four or would you like me to proceed with item PC five? This is on the regular agenda.
Um let's do PC four.
Okay, okay.
So I think five has a companion, right?
Yes, sir.
Good afternoon. Joseph Reinbold, Planning Development, Economic Growth.
This is CPA twenty six zero one, West Market Area ROR, Retail Office Residential Future Land Use Density Text Amendment.
Proposal is a text amendment to the future land use element, appendix section flu A six, and a text amendment to the glossary. Purpose is to establish new density allowing up to 32 dwelling units per developable residential acre for redevelopment development and repurposing projects. The location is ROR flu designated properties located within the West Market area.
Here we have the map of the county with all the different market areas.
Here is specifically the Westmarket area.
And then here in the kind of red-orange color we have all the ROR designated properties.
So the proposed uh amendment is for redevelopment and repurposing projects within the West Market area. It applies to previously developed, underutilized, or obsolete sites. So that'll be your brown field, gray field, and infill sites that have exist existing infrastructure. It does not apply to undeveloped vacant parcels.
Can I slap you there because that's the root of my question?
So if you had a say a thirty acre tract
But let's just say it had a quarter acre that was had an old farm building on it.
Do you consider that to be redevelopment? Or vacant.
That would be redevelopment if it had existing structures on it.
So even though ninety five percent of the tract was vacant
If it just had a small old farm building, you're considering that redevelopment?
That would be redevelopment, but there'd also there's also other qualifying factors. Um so in ROR you're gonna have C1 properties, C2 properties, different zonings. So In order to have multifamily residential in the West Market area, um, it has to be C two and then you have to apply through a conditional use process to for that opportunity. So it's on a case-by-case basis.
Yeah, I'm I'm just asking what what qualifies them as redevelopment for the thirty two units per acre.
Because when we did the mobility fear regulations we didn't
if it was largely vacant, in other words, if it was most if it was you know, say n the the majority of the site was vacant. Um and it maybe just had this very small one house. We have lots of large tracks in the county that were basically ag tracks that maybe had an old house on it or an old farm building that
for the that were predominantly vacant tracks. But we didn't we'd not have not historically considered that to be a redevelopment.
because it had a single house on it or a single farm building. Historically we've considered redevelopment to be there was like a it was actually fully developed with a commercial building or uh this uh an entire residential tract of houses or something that are now being demolished. So
I'm not sure I agree with the answer to your original answer to your question to the question. Terry, do you agree with that answer?
David, can I ask you quickly? Your example is that it's a thirty acre tract with a farmhouse building. If it's a thirty acre tract with
a two thousand square foot commercial building on it.
Well I I don't I don't I don't know where we draw the line. I mean maybe that would would be redevelopment. I just my my problem is that the way they've defined redevelopment, I don't know where that line was drawn. And so when we did the redevelop when we did this in mobility fees, we actually used a percentage of the of the land. We actually have to do that. on it. With that had structures on it that had impervious we actually came up with a specific percentage of it that had to have been developed so we wouldn't have this fight about how
much of it had to have been developed for it to be considered redevelopment. We we didn't leave this to chance later. came up with a percentage and and there is no percentage in this is just so I don't know where you're drawing this line.
Uh so the redevelopment uh definition that's proposed here to be uh to be included into the comprehensive plan says the substantial improvement, reconstruction, or replacement of existing developed property, including the demolition of obsolete or deteriorated structures, reconfiguration of sites, modernization of infrastructure or other activities that reinvest in and revitalize previously developed land.
There are sites along so th this particular upgrade to ROR is dedicated specifically to the West Market area. And specifically you're going to have most of the that ROR along the US-19 corridor and a bit along the State Route 52 and 54 corridors. With regard to th those particular sites that are on on nineteen and fifty two and fifty four, there are not very many uh if at all, I'm trying to remember right now off the top of my head, uh
vacant parcels uh that um would kind of meet the criteria that David is referencing. I mean there's no there's no farmhouses basically in these areas. Um I know the seventy five percent vacant parcel
threshold that was established a couple of years ago. So that that is there, yes. Um we did not include that in this definition. Um thinking to prioritize actual redevelopment rather than putting a a threshold on it. If we do have a a parcel of land that's underutilized within on the US nineteen corridor and it it's sizable enough to accommodate uh potential increase in density, um this would be the
place to to
And
if you're comfortable there's no situation I mean I I'm I've seen your map. I mean if you're comfortable there there's no parcels or this is going to be abused by what's effectively vacant farmland. It just happens to have an old structure on it. then I'll live with that answer. Um
Can I mean the Mitchell Ranch was a good example of the
most
recent?
Yeah, I mean
In his
definition, that's a good example. Mitchell Ranch just happened to have a house on it, but the the majority of it was just vacant land.
So in his definition of redevelopment, he says it's the improvement, reconstruction, or replacement of existing developed property. So when I go to the glossary and the comp plan Development is the carrying out of any building activity or mining operation, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land. So I guess where I'm going with that is in your example
of the 30-acre tract with a farmhouse, the area of the tract which contains the farmhouse.
But the rest, if there's been no material change I'm sorry, material change in the use or appearance or structure of the land. is not developed.
Yeah, but somebody could argue that it's all one tract of land.
Well it could be MP too.
ID. They may argue that that partial ID has been developed. So how can we fix it?
Yeah.
Well maybe tie it to some sort of density
some percentage of the parcel has been developed. I mean, th which is what we did with mobility fees. But Terry's telling me that all the based on the map that he's showing me that m that all of those parcels don't have this issue. I I don't know because I've not I've not studied the map like he has. I mean if he's right, then maybe that this isn't an issue. I don't know. Um maybe there aren't any partials like Mitchell Ranch and this map that well
that have it you know that are largely vacant with a single farmhouse on them. I don't
know. I'm aware of some that might meet that definition along say US nineteen. I could think of a couple up in Hudson that would You know, they've got a small building up front by the highway, but the rest of the land in the back is in its natural state that it's been that way for forty or fifty years.
But which I'm just saying that we you know, we all have a picture in our minds when we say redevelopment, we generally think of it as old commercial, old industrial building that needs obsolete, needs to be torn down. Old condos. We don't typically think of Mitchell Ranch as redevelopment. Okay, so But the way this is defined, it Mitchell Ranch arguably constitutes redevelopment. That's that's the issue. I agree
with you. And so green. That's the concern. And when he answered my question originally, he basically said Mitchell Range would be redevelopment.
Here would be. These are what I'm suggesting is that area of the land which is not developed, even though it may be part of the parcel, perhaps should not qualify as redevelopment. Yes, it may be redevelopment where I tear down an existing structure. or an existing parking lot, but if the if the back fifteen acres was never touched and then it's in its virgin state, then it's hard to say that that's redeveloping.
That's new development. Or even if it's being used for ag
purposes
not in its virgin state. But the problem of drawing the line that way is that I don't necessarily want to penalize. I get the point, but let's just say it is a true entertainment commercial development, obsolete partial that's got You know, fifty percent of the site had an old and obsolete industrial building. Say the back half was largely vacant. And they want to redevelop it at thirty two units an acre. I don't want to say they can't do the
back half of thirty two units an acre because that was untouched. I mean Okay.
I would still consider that a redevelopment site because it fifty percent of land's being used. Because because they they truly did develop that site with an obsolete industrial building. I'm just trying to make sure this isn't abused by
What is largely a vacant track with an old farm building or an old house. I mean that that's
So can you state that, you know, at least twenty five percent of the parcel had to have been developed? In order to qualify for redevelopment. Could
it be the word on residential? Is that your concern? Your your example was a farmhouse or an old house. Whereas if it's a non residential structure like a restaurant or a store.
I think it should have something to do with the percentage of that has a
structure on it.
Because residential could also include a multifamily building which then I think would fall under your envisionment of something that's developed.
Um I do think that if it's multifamily or commercial that it's less
likely to to be abused, yes I would require so single family non resident. non-single family residential Okay.
Mean. Darity of a solution to this problem or
One day that's a good thing.
I mean if you're representing to me the none of these sites are Hello.
We we have We have this is a combination of things that happen along the north US nineteen corridor in particular. Um there are some sites in which they're totally wooded, um large tracts of land. Um I'm looking at one right now, for example, that's approximately Ten acres. undeveloped, there's nothing on it, it's just trees. So those types of sites do exist um on the New S 19 corridor. That would be considered uh greenfield development, assuming they somebody
comes in and wants to build something on it. Um to the extent that There has been a plat process and nothing has occurred because there are some places along nineteen in which there's been some kind of subdivision established. You can see the the parcels on the map. Um my understanding is that that would be considered a a a form of development because uh development order has been processed essentially and land has been split, et cetera. Um and so there you could consider the
part of the definition here before underutilized uh sites.
Let me back up for a second because I don't know the purpose of if If the purpose of this policy is you just want to intensify these this corridor
in general, then maybe maybe I don't care. I mean I uh because but but you stated that the purpose is that you wanna encourage it only for redevelopment sites. So
to f to facilitate the economic burden of having to deal with existing infrastructure, structures, etcetera, that are that may be on the site. And that's what I was getting to next, which is that there are also sites on US nineteen that have, you know, ten, twenty acres and they had built a pad at some point. Maybe there was a building there once upon a time and the and the building went away and all you're left with is a pad and an old parking lot. utility connections are present because you could imagine the connections that were going to that
building that doesn't exist anymore. And so that was part of the logic is okay, let's take some of these sites also, which are under underutilized, uh vacant at this point, and incentivize them for redevelopment. So any kind of teardown, ripping up, redoing of the site is added cost on the redevelopment and if you can incentivize things and allow for a bit more density on the mixed use parcel, um that's what we were that
we were going for, right?
I mean, I'm just saying if you're trying to incentivize that type of previously developed property which you're describing I'm not sure this definition gets you there.
Would it Terry would it be problematic? If
if the general situation is that most of the properties in these ROR corridors are already developed and they're getting older and starting to blight and we want them to redevelop Is it really much of a problem? If we just allow all the properties in the ROR to Go to this proposed Density? If there's only a few that aren't developed
today, does it really make would it really move the needle?
I mean, that's where I was going, Bush Rodi, was that I mean
If you're not going to be able to do
if you're really just trying to incentivize these R O R properties in this corridor
Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe just let
them all go to thirty two units per year.
asking is if is if there's not enough Completely. undeveloped parcels. to make a difference. Does it really matter if one or two that are vacant today get to take advantage of the increased density.
I mean certainly certainly the the vast majority of the parcels along nineteen, as I've kind of been surveying this as we talk here, would fall under this. I see what your point is. Like if th there's not that many the vast
majority are undeveloped parcels, so if one of 'em managed that was undeveloped and managed to come in and develop at this density, does it really make any substantive difference that they did it?
Probably not. If if the majority of the corridor was undeveloped, I could see why one might not do that. But if the vast majority of the corridor is already developed, what it doesn't really make much difference.
I guess it would only make a difference if you were trying to encourage the then to go to the re the true degree development site versus the vacant site.
Yes. I think what Terry's trying to say is that there aren't that many vacant sites to begin with. in these particular areas.
It
won't be for me purposing over here.
You have a recommendation, Terry?
If
Terry's telling me it's not an issue, I'll drop it.
And it's
only in the
West part of the area we're talking about. Yeah, I do. Um David Engel, Planning and Economic Development Director.
So I wouldn't exclude the U.S. Include vacant parcels on nineteen because they're just as important as redeveloping an existing facility which has a um uh an ancient building on it that needs to be rehabilitated.
Yeah.
Well then maybe you should
I think we should define the geo the geographic area that this applies to. It's just as West Market. Maybe we can provide a more precise definition.
It's basically the same. Well you can just increase density of thirty-two for R period, not just for redevelopment.
Well in the West Market area.
Honestly if that's how this is West Market
is there i there's a if that's how this has been put
in here, I would never raise the issue. Okay. Right. But you had an exclusion for vacant parcels and said this only applied to redevelopment. Yeah, you take that part of it out then.
Yeah,
you could fix that. If if that's the desire, then we can fix that language and make it just applicable across West Market. R O R in the West Market
area. Right. The idea is to get that corridor looking shiny and new again. Right.
So we can fix that language. To that effect.
That's good. Yeah, I understand the idea of trying to encourage redevelopment, but like you said, most of those parcels are developed already. So By definition it's gonna be mostly redevelopment.
All right. Thank you, Terry.
So you're just gonna make it apply to all those partials then?
If that's yeah, if that's the desire of the local planning agency, then we don't see why Why why we should uh counter argue it.
Okay. I think that solves the problem of trying to figure out what's redevelopment and what isn't.
Again, if it was ninety percent vacant in that area, that'd be a different story. But since most of it's not vacant. So If we were
to make a motion
Do we want to make it on the text of the proposed amendment?
I have some questions, so I don't know if you're done asking that question, ready to make a motion, but do you know how many acres is ROR in the West Market area?
Hi, I'm Zilly, Playing Development Economic Growth. It is five thousand five hundred and seventy two acres approximately.
Yeah, give or take if you got it.
Yeah.
Did you set her up for that question? Um a little bit. Um and I'll explain my thought, but I was trying to I asked her earlier today on if she had the acreage for the total acreage of ROR and then what would actually fall into this as redevelopment or repurposing. Um it seems like we might be going in a different direction because I wanted to know how many increase of units that would be from twenty-four to thirty-two. From a student generation point, that
could be potentially a lot of students in that area. So I was trying to figure out what that acreage is so I can figure out some of those numbers of how many students could potentially be generated from going from 24 to 32. I would also note that there's not a current Euclidean zoning district that goes up to 32. So I don't know if the intent is to then require those applicants to go through the MPUD process to allow that, or
if there is another means via conditional use. I know historically past conditional uses. Were or didn't become less restrictive than the code. So I don't know if the intent is to allow those conditional uses to go up to 32 since the Westmarket area does allow conditional uses for multifamily without any commercial integration or affordable housing.
Sure. So the certainly MPUD is always an option that can be used for redevelopment. The vast majority of the ROR in the Westmarket area is under a C1 or C2 mostly C2 zoning. So the conditional use that the C2 would allow would basically follow the future land use. Allowance for density. So if it if it increases to 32 and you have C2 zoning, if ROR increases
to 32 and you have C2 zoning, and there's a redevelopment that's taking place, you could take advantage of the 32 dwelling units per acre through your conditional use process. So likewise with an MPUD, it'd be the same same scenario. uh you would just be following the future land use uh um density designation. As far as the MF1, MF2, and MF3 options of the utility or Euclidean zone, um the y yes, I think MF3 can max out at 24-ish in
there in that area. But we also know that in the land development code the Euclidean zones need to be um updated following Pasco twenty fifty. So that's gonna be one of the projects that we have in the land development code update.
So, um, my question is, was there a reason why this couldn't wait until twenty fifty? Because it sounds like the timeline for twenty fifty is approaching quickly of how you how fast your timeline is or how like how fast you would like it to be. So w is there a reason why this needed to go now instead of waiting until twenty fifteen
uh moving through the system the last couple of months. Um It didn't follow, we we opted to not follow the Pasco 2050 timeline at the moment, uh, mainly because of legislative activity happening in Tallahassee on this particular question. Um also, it's been stated objective for many years uh in the County to try to facilitate redevelopment wherever we can within the West Market area. So we we determined that we should advance this, given that we had a couple of projects on the horizon that may. be able to take advantage of this and potentially
even bring affordable housing into the area. So we wanted to try to smoothen that out without dealing with the headwinds of legislative or non-legislative endeavors coming from Tallahassee. Put to put it broadly.
David So Sorry, can I y hi can you just repeat that number for me? Five thousand five seventy two. Five seventy two?
So m maximum of forty four thousand five hundred and seventy six dwelling units if you add eight to every acre, which is of course never gonna happen, but
So Commissioner Moody, if you wanted to alter the text, I think what you would do is you would change the language to say just say for projects within the West Market area, the maximum density allowed shall not exceed 32 dwelling units per developable residential acre. You would strike the next sentence and then you would strike the definitions of redevelopment and repurposing.
Cherry.
Joey, did you have that down? Um we got that video.
Would there be any desire to keep the definitions of redevelopment and repurposing. even if they didn't necessarily apply to this
Particular text amendment.
We could keep them. Uh and then either continue on with the as part of a this amendment just doesn't hold bearing now on the ROR and West Market issue. Um or we can tap it in or reference him in the future. Tack it onto twenty fifty.
Are you talking about
David? Pretty good. I mean if you if they want it would be odd to keep it with this amendment if it's not being used in this amendment. It's probably better to put it with twenty fifty. Okay. All right. Okay. We could do that.
Then you. Well i somebody would have to make a motion to that effect if that's your
Yeah.
If that's your request.
Yeah.
Well should we finish the presentation 'cause you were part way through your presentation, right? Well, it was really my question and he
answered
my question. Yeah. Well then with that I would move to approve the proposed text amendment striking Yeah. words for redevelopment and repurposing. from the first sentence and strike the last sentence.
from the proposed text amendment. And eliminate the two glossary terms, redevelopment and repurposing.
Yeah, a second. Second. Does that sound like that would work legally, David? It definitely addresses my concern
because my concern was with the definition of redevelopment, so that eliminates the definition.
Further discussion? All no in favor? Signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay.
Continue. Anything else? That's it.
Thank
you. Thank you.