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

PC7 Green Creek CPAS 1805 comp plan to commercial

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, Feb 21, 2019

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

Approved minutes

The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Feb 21, 2019

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

What was said

Transcript

Machine transcription of 8m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 36% of 33 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

Mr. Chairman Mariano.

Mr. Chairman Mariano The hearing is running a little long on the first item there. Okay. Um both items P seven and nine.

Uh Their order change? Um P nine wanted to go right after this due to P nine has with withdrawn the request. So P seven will be next.

GreyChair

P seven next, okay.

All right.

Unidentified speakerVoice B

Good afternoon, Mary Duke, Long Range Planning Division. You are now seated as the local planning agency for this case. This is PDD 190062, a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment for CPAS 1805 Green Creek.

This project is located about 778 feet south of Wilderness Lake Boulevard and east of Land of Lakes Boulevard.

Uh proposed is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the map from Res 3 residential three dwelling units per gross acre to COM commercial. The parcel is a 2.51 acre site and Parcel is currently zoned R M H Mobile Home District. The subject property is vacant. and has no known environmental concerns. The site

is located in the central market area. And the applicant is proposing to utilize the subject property for an 8,600 square foot office use and a 9,800 square foot office retail use for a total of about 18,400 square feet of non-residential use. In front of the property, the US 1941 trail, which is 12 foot wide, runs parallel to Land O' Lakes Boulevard.

The existing future land use map um Shows an existing flu as res 3 and the inset down here. To the north, south, and west the flues are res 3, residential, three dwelling units per gross acre. And to the east, the flu is res 9, residential, 9 dwelling units per acre. That is the Calente Resort.

The proposed future land use is COM commercial and that's shown in this map at the bottom as well.

And just

Mm, sorry.

The this chart summarizes the future land uses, existing uses and zoning districts. The

zoning to the north is Calente MPUD. To the south is RMH District. To the east is ONC2 Commercial General District. To the east is MPUD Calente Resorts and to the west is C2 Commercial General.

Sorry.

I'm sorry, this is very sensitive. The existing uses are to the north, Wetlands, Commercial Retail, Wilderness Commons. To the south is vacant lands, to the east is vacant open space, to the west is Land O' Lakes Boulevard, which is an arterial, and again to the west is the US 41 Trail and commercial office uses.

Policy Fully 1.6.1 commercial development enables Criteria F enables commercial infill development of five acres or less in areas that are not designated as com or town center, subject to two criteria being met. The parcel meets the two criteria for commercial infeld development. The c area is considered established as predominantly commercial. uh making it meet the definition of commercial infill within the comprehensive

plan.

Here's the definition of the Calm Commercial Flu. And since the surrounding uses include Wilderness Commons to the north and Shamrock Plaza to the west and Calente Resort to the east, these are believed to be compatible surrounding land uses with the applicant's proposed use comprising of office and commercial uses. A transportation needs assessment was required and the volum volume to capacity ratio On US forty one,

will exceed 1.0 with or without the project in 2040.

The amendment as a whole will add 414 additional PM peak hour trips than under the existing flu for the maximum trip generating use. However, the the developers are proposing uses that have a lesser impact, and that is estimated at only 77 additional PM peak hour trips. The additional 77 peak hour trips generated by the project will be between 0.7 and 1 percent

of the available capacity on the segments. The recommendation is to approve to the Board of County Commissioners the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, CPAS 1805, amending the future land use flu map two-15, sheet 20, from RES 3, residential three dwelling units per gross acre to COM commercial. More than happy to answer any questions you may have.

GreyChair

Okay.

The applicant present.

Is anyone here to speak to this?

Todd Pressman

Uh Mr. Chairman and Board Members, I'll make this very quick. Todd Pressman, 334, East Lake Road No. 102 in Palm Harbor, Florida. Staff's done a very good job. We work closely with them. There are quite a number of notices sent out. We have not heard from anyone in the public. Your staff has told you that they've determined that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's consistent with the uses along the roadway at this area. There is C2 located across the street. There's commercial development of budding to the north, and there's C2. Literally

just virtually to the south as well. Um, considering the roadway is a major arterial and uh that your staff has looked closely at this and came to their conclusions and presented quite a number of um comprehensive plan uh policies that support it. We would ask for your consideration and your support. If there's any questions, we'll be happy to answer them for you.

GreyChair

And I think uh Mike, didn't you have a question about the use? You're asking about earlier? No? No, not this one. This is a good one. Okay. All right. Thanks, sir. Any any uh other questions up here? Okay.

All right. I don't see anybody to object, by the way. Didn't think I saw anybody.

Motion to approve.

Chris Williams

Second.

Second, further discussion? All in favor? Motion carries?