Skip to main content
Pasco Countymeeting record
Not on the published agendaPublic hearingInferred

PC10 LEO San Antonio MPUD

What the county recorded

This item is not from the published agenda

It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.

The source document

Published agenda

The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Apr 21, 2022

The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.

Approved minutes

The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Apr 21, 2022

The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.

What was said

Transcript

Machine transcription of 7m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 41% of 29 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

Read it in the meeting →
Unidentified speakerVoice A

Development Code 901.6.d.11. Street design and dedication requirements require streets within the proposed development to be connected to adjacent areas. And LDC section 905.2.D.5. Perimeter landscape buffering and screening requires permanent perimeter landscaping on all sides of a lot, and a 15-foot type B buffer is required between commercial and office commercial office uses and residential uses. So the staff analysis

indicates there's proposed vehicular connection to the existing commercial uses to the west and golf cart low-speed vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian connections to the east, south, and west in concert with a connected city vision. But a vehicular connection to the easter south would encourage traffic to cut through the proposed residential neighborhood. And two 15-foot buffers adjacent to each other would actually create a 30-foot buffer. In a community that offers walkability and alternative transportation

amenities, a 30-foot buffer would be excessive. And a separation of intensities can actually be accomplished within a reduced landscape buffer width. with occasional interruptions for connections between the commercial and the residential. And here is our proposed master plan.

On August 18th, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning from AC and AR to an MPUD, which was Cannon Ranch, MPUD, and C2, General Commercial District. The subject site is unimproved with agricultural pursuits. The project is in the central market area outside of an urban service or rural area. And the parcel is located within the connected city boundary, but is not requesting to be an entitled connected city property. LDC

section 402.2.8 specifies the variations from the code may be reviewed and approved during the public hearing held on any application for an MPUD zoning amendment. And the variations shall be allowed where the BCC specifically finds that the proposed variations meet or exceed the intent of the code. And staff has reviewed the requested variations and find that they do meet the intent as previously noted. Mm-hmm. The proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County L D C Chapter 400, Subsection 402.2 zoning

amendment and PUD and with the applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. And with that, the PDD recommends approval to the BCC with conditions. And available for any questions.

Unidentified speakerVoice B

Any questions? Tammy, I've got one question just for clarification. Um looking at the um conditions of approval Um number six it talks about the internal buffer buffer between the residential and the commercial use. Can you clarify what are they intending to provide? A

Unidentified speakerVoice A

type A buffer. Um Uh I believe they're going to do fifteen feet, uh just one fifteen foot buffer as opposed to two fifteen feet buffer. Um with trees sixty feet on center and a continuous row of evergreen shrubs.

Unidentified speakerVoice B

This condition and the conditions of approval says that on the non residential areas they're gonna put a ten foot wide buffer. It says a type A buffer to be established on the non residential portion except for the areas of the connectivity. So my question is are they intending to put a fifteen foot buffer on the residential side and then a ten foot buffer?

Unidentified speakerVoice A

No, I believe the intent is just the one buffer.

Unidentified speakerVoice B

Okay, I guess that the reason my confusion was created because the way I read the memorandum was is that they were gonna put the fifteen foot B on the com on the residential and the ten foot on the non on the commercial.

Um maybe the applicant can clarify that? Yeah. I just wasn't sure what the intent was.

So I have the idea.

Barry Bailey

Come on out.

Bruce Landis

Um afternoon commissioners uh county staff for the record Bruce Landis uh representing the applicant. Um My address is thirty eight ten North Dale. Boulevard, suite 100, Tampa, Florida, and I have been sworn. Uh Commissioner, in in answer to your question, uh we are and this is an integrated um commercial and residential area in that interface between the two. We're um planning on a 10-foot buffer on the commercial side of it, and that's where

the buffering would be. There would be no buffering on the residence. Yeah. And so we'll have a lot of pedestrian connections and some motor vehicle connections between the two. So we're hoping for it to be an integrated um community.

So it'll be a ten foot buffer instead of a twenty five foot buffer. Correct. A ten yes, sir. A a ten foot buffer on the commercial side of it.

Unidentified speakerVoice B

Instead of a thirty. Because the code the code requires thirty, right? Fifteen and fifteen?

Bruce Landis

Except for commercial is smaller, I think. In commercial time. So our we're not we're not building a commercial outparcel. We're building something that's that's connected and linked together. Um uh Miss Patty, th I've got one of those graphics that's I think it's entitled interface between commercial and all that. Perhaps you could bring that up. You might build a if you could can you zoom in on that? So so

this kind of illustrates this is what our um uh project architect's working on right now. So Uh that's how it would appear with based upon what we're requesting, so that it looks like an integrated development.

Instead of having a coordinate.

Unidentified speakerVoice B

Yeah, again, it was more of a clarification issue. I just wanted to make sure staff understood that's why it was presented because it looked like it was conflicting information in the memo and in the conditions. So As long as staff's comfortable with it, I I don't have a problem with it. I understand what you're saying. I just wanted to make sure that that was the understanding.

Unidentified speakerVoice C

Okay.

Roberto Saez

I'll officially put that I'll officially put that on the record. Yeah, that's that's uh the intention there was understood, so we'll clarify that language when we go to BCZ. Perfect.

Charles GreyChair

Okay. Very good. Thank you, Baron. Any other questions from up here? All right. Is anybody in the public or anybody else on your side that needs to speak?

I don't see anyone.

All right. That's the case. Here a motion.

Unidentified speakerVoice B

Oh motion for approval?

Charles GreyChair

Second. Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. County Stan.