PC2 PEG-247780 C2 zoning with deed restrictions
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
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Apr 4, 2024
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Apr 4, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 33m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 88% of 141 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Liam Devine Planning and Economic Growth. This is item PC2, PEG twenty-four-seven seven eight zero in the name of Russell K and Leanne Chin Lai.
The proposal is a Euclidean rezoning from an AC agricultural district to C2 General Commercial District. The future land use is currently Res 6, although I would like to note the board is hearing a comp plan amendment on Tuesday, April 10th. For com commercial, which you guys have seen before, and recommended approval for. The proposed use for the property is to develop a property with a small commercial center with approximately 21,000 square feet in conformance with the C2 General Commercial District standards, and the subject
site is located on the east side of US Highway 301 and approximately 200 feet north of Marque Drive.
The subject site is located in the North Market area and is located in Area 3, the Rural Characteristic Area Character Area, sorry, and is outside of the urban concentration areas.
Here is our context map. There are several trails in the area.
Here's a little bit more zoomed in of that context.
And a closer zoomed in aerial. The surrounding feature lane uses Res 6. And the surrounding zoning to the north and east is AC, to the south is RMH and R2, and to the west is AC and C2. The subject site is undeveloped on approximately 3.49 acres, and as stated before, CPAS 2212 will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on April 10th. Access
to the property is from US 301, which is an F dot maintain our trailer road, and the applicant has volunteered to record deed restrictions as provided in your agenda packet. These are the same deed restrictions that were presented at the Comp Plain hearing. And this is coming with recommendation for approval. um from planning and economic growth. I'm here if you have any questions.
Any questions from the highest here? Sure.
So Did the applicant actually proffer these restrictions on uses or were they asked to agree to these restrictions on uses?
So I can't speak for my long-range planning services staff, but the applicant can certainly I believe staff asked if they would be willing to volunteer to agree to those deed restrictions as prevented in your packet, but I'll let the applicant speak since that was with um our long-range planning folks and was noted um from their comments. Okay. Well we'll wait to hear from the
applicant. Well for one of them, the Lib Local one I can tell you that the board has directed that to occur.
Okay.
Okay.
Uh good afternoon. Uh Ann Pollock, 433 Central Avenue in St. Pete, representing the owners uh today on this application. I wanted to uh thank Liam for the presentation um and give you a little more context on what we're proposing here. Uh the Finleys own a HVAC repair business and uh they want to open up a shop to uh sell the parts and to to do repairs. He'd like to use the remainder of the the di proposed
development to lease out to other um tradesmen and uh professionals um in for office space and and retail space up here. Uh he's requesting C two because this would allow his proposed use um and that is sort of the the initial reason that we came in with the C2. We feel that the use is compatible with the area. It's located on 301. There's a wide variety of uses in the surrounding area, including
pastures and residences, but also plenty of commercial uses. Surrounding development in the vicinity of a commercial nature is older, less regulated in design and impact, and includes things like uh used car sales, uh truck sales, open storage, outdoor industry, and that and that sort. Uh this approval will allow for commercial development in an area that is already has some commercial but uh too be a much uh a much of an improvement
to the area. It will provide a commercial center that allows retail and these uses and satisfy the business and commercial needs of the surrounding residents.
Currently uh in the surrounding area there are, like I said, some pretty intense commercial uses and what we're proposing here is uh much less intense. But in addition, we have uh agreed to that deed restriction. Uh the county did ask initially as they were reviewing this if we would add those uses um and and restrict
them. The last time you were here, I think you referred to them as dirty uses?
That's what the county how the county had referred to them as us, dirty uses, yeah. Um but really what we find is the most impactful uses that are allowed in s in the C2 zoning are the ones that are being prohibited. So these include um car washes, uh used vehicle sales, standalone warehousing, um auto repair garages, lumber yards, Um and a lot of uh sales of of items that you would generally have uh the the equipment outside
that you're selling. Um so in addition to that, the remaining C2 uses generally within the code require that those be located internal to the business. And so that's what we're proposing here as well. Um uses that are essentially indoors. Uh this is a concept plan that you know we're we're looking at. Uh of course we have to meet all county requirements, including building and fire code. Um we've
agreed to uh the deed restriction regarding parking and lighting uh and expect to provide uh buffering and landscaping and screening along the edges, particularly where it abutts. Yeah. to the extent that um uh the the additional uh stormwater pond that's proposed there essentially provides a additional setback um from the residential properties. The last thing I really want to get into, um, and
then I'm here of course for questions, is that this is a project that will bring jobs to the area. You know, you mentioned Live Local and uh the I know the county has really been making an effort to move away from just being a bedroom community. to ensuring that we have commercial uses coming in into appropriate areas. And in this case, not only of course the deed restriction will limit him from uh using Live Local and developing
residential, but the goal is here to allow him to build his business and to provide space for other people in the area. So uh his current business has four employees He expects to need six more if he's able to open up his shop here. So that addition to the six or eight other spaces that would be coming in would allow for additional jobs and economic development in this area. So we do think that it complements the
area that we are providing. the r the limitations in order to limit any impacts and that ultimately it will be a benefit to the county and to the community. So thank you so much.
Can you show your site plan? Can you show the proposed site plan?
Yeah.
We initially had the um access on both to the north and the south.
But we met with a neighbor to the east and who uses that northern driveway.
So is this the site plan you actually desire to construct?
I don't know that that will ultimately be what is constructed. Maybe it's two buildings instead of one. Um, but generally something to that extent. Uh but again, um, you know, as we go through the the site development process and fine tune what comes in, that's what we'd be doing.
Here's where I'm going with this. There's as part of the quote, voluntary deed restrictions, you're agreeing to put the parking on the side of the building. Or at the rear of the building. Not in front of the building. But I see a site plan here where the parking's at the front of the building. Which isn't uncommon. That's what I would expect from a retail strip center. Especially one out in a rural area. where the tenants can be seen from the
roadway so that they are known that they're there. and that they can be successful businesses. And I'm trying to figure out why we're trying to require an urban form of retail development in a quite rural area. When I think it will be to the detriment Of your client's tenants. I'm trying to figure out why we would require such a thing.
I think based on my first of all the the deed restriction actually allows for a single uh as shown here with a single s side of parking on the front in order to allow for the um the the full driveway that drives around and we we asked for this particularly because we weren't gonna use the northern driveway in order to protect the the neighbor. Um so we put in language to allow uh that um small row
of parking on the front. But and and of course I I can't speak exactly to the county's desires here, but based on my conversations, the goal is to um create to to sort of set a precedent for future development in this area. They're looking at the Lacucci Plan and um Really trying to incorporate
n new design guidelines uh as part of this. And so that's that's what we're you know, we're willing to do that if it helps the community but
Okay. I appreciate your honesty.
Yeah questions? I'm gonna have questions for staff.
Thank you.
Any other questions from here? No.
All right. Uh is there anybody like to speak?
Against it. Have questions about it? Okay, I don't see anyone. So we have questions for staff? Sure. Gonna have a few.
I guess the first one is why are we trying to impose an urban form of development in a very rural area. And the next question, because I'm sure it's gonna tie in. Is that in the steed restriction they're quote voluntarily agreeing that they'll comply with any approved Greater Lakouchee Community Plan, which I'd swear you testified to this board. was a non binding concept plan. So it's either binding
or it's not.
Yeah.
Thank you,
Mr.
Chairman. Uh Terry Pito's Planning Economic Growth.
This portion of US 301 is being planned for expansion. The intensity levels along US 301 are not uh going to be they're not now considered rural and they're not probably Going to be rural once 301 is fully expanded. But more than that, this is in the east market area, and the east market area looks for small town formulation of buildings.
So in this particular context, we had neighbors to the north and east concerned about the proximity of the youth. And the developer worked to bring the building as close as possible to US 301 while still providing uh parking at the front of the building for ease of use. Uh understanding that yes, this is not urban, but it can have town-like dimensions.
Um So I think that that would help
exactly. So the main reason to bring it c closer to the road was to provide a bigger buffer to the surrounding
one reason.
Um
So can you tell me about the Why the uses that you're asking them to restrict against are dirty uses?
Um I've never characterized them as dirty uses. Um I would I think I said that at the Compland um stage where I wouldn't I wouldn't have used that term dirty uses. So I don't necessarily consider them dirty uses. Um
then what's so offensive about these uses that they couldn't be at this location?
Some of these uses are uh
may contain nuisance.
Like s for example a lumber yard. What
what what's a nuisance about a lumber yard? Noise. Noise.
Um but other others of these uses may be um Associated with low employment generation along the the three oh one frontage.
Nobody works at the lumber yard?
Well they do. So um I can't speak to all the uses and what the rationale was to speak to to limit them specifically but
they just pick them out of the air?
I mean somebody came up with the list of uses.
So I I can tell you s these deed restrictions were worked out prior to the zoning stage and was presented in your Comp Plan amendment packet. I believe that they were using similar uses that the board has approved and tried to stay away from and that's where I I believe that staff was pulling some of those uses from similar deed restrictions, from other directive, from
Well, I'm questioning some of those. If I could ask Mr. Peppers, I gave you a file that had use photos.
Well I'm trying to figure out what's offensive about the lawnmower sale.
How that's gonna disrupt the character of the community.
That's one of the exceptions. Yeah. Could we go to the next photos?
Oh okay, so if lawn mowers are offensive and they have out things displayed outdoors, what about the place that sells the jet skis and the ATVs? Is that on loud use? Is that offensive? Can I have the next photo? What about tractors, since we're up in the rural area and you have a poochie? Are those much different than lawnmowers? But those we could put tractors out there, but we can't put lawnmowers out there. Can we go to the next photo? What about
RV sales? That's down in holiday.
Is that a blight on the landscape? Any more so than the lawnmowers? How about the next photo? I used cars. CarMax, that's one of those buy here, pay here lots, right? And all they sell is used cars. I understand what we're trying to stop. But I think we need to work a little more on that language. Or maybe we need to create a different zoning district. to address those kinds of things. 'Cause I don't want to zone out Car Max. How
about the next one? Oh look, there's used cars too. And they're in a building.
A glass building. We can see all those. But those are used cars. Next. What about equipment rentals? How's that different from the lawnmowers? But none of those restrict none of those of deep restricted out of here. We just pick on the lawnmowers and the used cars. Next. Ah, the lumber yard. They don't sell any lumber, but they sell shingles. Is that okay? They might have noise, they might have those forklifts that go beep, beep, beep, beep,
beep, you know, and they back up. Next. Same thing there. building materials of stone. windows, siding, doors, no longer.
But all those could be there too. Next. How about type? Is that more offensive than less offensive than lumber, the pipe? Next. There's more Pike, that's right there in Hudson. And the next one? This is my favorite one, the sheds. The sheds that the building department seems to have a problem if you want to put in your backyard because they're so worried about the hurricanes blowing the sheds away, but we can stack 'em all up on the side of the road.
Is that the right? Less offensive than the lawnmowers? Or the septic tanks? Do we have a proliferation of septic tank sales yards in the county that we're trying to zone out? 'Cause I haven't seen too many of those, especially on these f we don't sell too many septic tanks on all these forty foot wide lots we approve.
My problem is I want them to have a successful business.
And
We have a list of use that someone's arbitrarily decided they don't like for whatever reason or the other. I'm trying to figure out what's offensive about archery. All the noise that comes from Let Silent Bowl. Indoors. Yeah. An indoor archery range, right? That Of course you can't hear the indoor shooting range either that I like to go to. and used cars. God help us
for the used cars. Do you remember during COVID when there was no new cars being manufactured and nobody could buy a new car? And we all needed used cars. So where are people supposed to buy used cars? We just had a bridge. in the fifth largest port in this country go down. That's seven hundred and fifty thousand cars come into which means there's gonna be a problem with getting new cars into the United States. So there might be a market for used cars. And I know the gentleman doesn't want to sell used cars, he wants to open his H B A
C business. My problem with this is I'm seeing these deed restrictions. getting inserted into every one of these MPUDs and everybody's worried about traffic. But well there's gonna have to be a lot of traffic on the road for us all to go find a used car lot because it's not gonna be allowed here and allowed here and I'm gonna have to drive forty miles to find a used car. That's ridiculous. If we wanna do something about what's offensive to us about used car lots, and I know what it is, it's Jack's Buy Pay Here. Right?
That's with all the feather banners and the cars parked up on the right-way. That's what we're offended by. then we create restrictions or send code enforcement out to go enforce the restrictions we already have on the books about those places. But I don't want to zone these places out or develop better codes and standards to address the what you perceive to be offensive about these uses. I don't want to hamstring these people. I think these are common, everyday
working people struggling They're gonna take their savings, their hard earned savings, and they're gonna try to build something so that they can build a business. They're out in a rural area, and all of a sudden we're trying to impose an urban design standard on 'em. We're trying to impose a plan that we get we get told is a non-binding concept plan. In fact they didn't County Commission didn't even want it coming back to us because it's a non-binding concept plan. But we're gonna bind them to it. So I
don't want to leave the impression that I'm against this development. I'm absolutely for it. I just don't want to hamstring this applicant with a bunch of deed restrictions, and I appreciate the live local one. I'm 100% in support of that. But I don't want to hamstring them with a bunch of restrictions. when I can p point out twenty other examples of things that would be quote just as offensive as these quote dirty uses that would absolutely be allowed because you didn't think of 'em or you didn't list 'em. And by the way, that took me about fifteen minutes this
morning to come up with those, so That's where I'm at with the case.
Okay. Any comments? Carrier. This
is a a voluntary deed restriction. If the applicant wanted to debate the removal of these uses from the list of the deed restriction, they could have entered into that debate. They themselves volunteer to agree to it. Some of these uses do appear in deed restrictions fairly regularly for various reasons, all case-by-case basis. But fundamentally at the end of the day, it's a voluntary
offered deed restriction.
Well I I may be off base here a little bit, but I think part of what John was saying is making sure that they are voluntary and and not Yeah they agreed they agreed to it because it was suggested to them and and it was a support.
Right. I get I understand. But I I think that's the point, not really trying to set the precedent of people knowing that they're gonna be expected to do this when they come in. And it just truly needs to be voluntary and I think that's come up multiple times here at this at these meetings.
What would you propose for a fix for for this? What would you like to see? all C2
uses BL out. Yeah. Yes, I think they should. We have a Euclidean zoning district that has these uses allowed in C2. If the staff Or the Board of Commissioners feels like there should be uses that aren't or shouldn't be in the C two district? then they should amend the allowable list of uses in the C2 district instead of doing this on a case-by-case by case by case basis
or Maybe they should be C one. Unfortunately he wants to do H V V H V A C. That's not allowed in the the C one. He needs a C two for a contractor's office. But
I understand y you say they're voluntary. But I know how this game works. you're gonna volunteer to do this or you're not getting staff support. when we come make the recommendation to the Planning Commission. I know how that wor I know how it works. This isn't my first rodeo.
So I think they should be allowed to have the C2s. uses. I don't actually think they have any intention of selling septic tanks out there. I don't think based on that site plan that they're going to be selling used cars. But you know, he's gonna have an H V A C shop. I don't think it's unreasonable that maybe some guy's gonna sell or fix lawnmowers. But you know, people have if you buy a lawnmower and it breaks down Somebody's gotta be able to fix it. I don't know what's so offensive about fixing a lawnmower.
Or fixing a car. We all I know how many people rode the bus here today? We all drove our cars. All our cars need oil changes. They all need air filters. They all need tires.
Sometimes they need other repairs. There has to be a place to get your car repaired. What's so offensive about getting cars repaired?
So I don't think they should be restricted against such uses. I think they should be allowed as we said it At the outset of this meeting there was some discussion about property rights and I think they have the right to use the property. According to the zoning. According to the zoning, yes.
Liam, you wanna add something?
I just have some clear I I don't think a motion was made, but I would like to to clarify something. Um I don't know if the comp plan I know the comp plan amendment that was already approved these deed restrictions were presented with. I don't think there's any sub-area policies or anything requiring them to do these deed restrictions in that comp plan amendment. Um I don't know if they didn't have these, if staff would have a different recommendation, but from what I'm hearing is are are you suggesting just to remove all the deed
restrictions except for
Yes.
Okay. I that's what I'm saying.
That would be my suggestion. And if I were to make a motion, that's probably going to be my motion.
Okay. Then the only other thing because this was a voluntary deed restriction, I would ask the applicant to come back up and and say they're voluntary and agreeing to that as well. Okay.
Okay.
Can I ask the applicant to come back up? Yes. If I were to make a motion to remove the deed restrictions against the uses and against the adherence to any greater Lakuchi plan and any requirement to put your parking on the side of the building, would you be opposed to that? That does not include the little local. I would still be asking them to
voluntarily agree um to include the Lib Local B restriction, yes.
Uh we certainly Or would be supportive of having restrictions removed from development of this property. I think um like you said, we're not proposing any of the uses that are listed there and we don't have any plans to put them in. Uh but to the extent we have the you know the the freedom I guess
The less restrictions the better of course, but but you know, w we're we're committing that that's not what we're planning on building anyway. And we're you know, the intent is to to comply with the code. uh a as it is. So, you know, to the extent that we um you know, there are code provisions that uh have limits on lighting or parking, we would certainly comply with that as well.
We have land development code. requirements already that address shoebox style lights. I actually thought that was kind of funny. We want to impose an urban style of development but we're worried about dark skies 'cause we're out in the rural area. Uh I
I I would just say that to the extent this affects our comprehensive plan amendment, you know, we're we're still trying to have both approved and um uh not it it was the it was the the planners there that asked for this and I don't wanna throw us under the bus by getting rid of this and potentially you know, losing support for the comprehensive plan amendment. So um, you know, that that would be
if there's any
I make the presumption that if the Board we make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners w w will we Well we whatever we vote on here is not binding on the commissioners. It's a recommendation to the commissioners and the commissioners. that they'll I'm sure they'll come to their own conclusions. But That would be my recommendation.
We we have the the hearing before the board on the comp plan amendment next week. So we would just Well I know the commissioners listened
to these meetings,
so
All right.
Yeah. Yeah ultimately you make a good point because you're it's not so much about what this particular owner's trying to do, it's if they ever sell a property for whatever reason, you know, now they're not limited to what they can sell for. They're The new property owners can come in and do whatever is allowable in the C two's district, so that's gonna help help your client.
Well I think the the the bigger issue for me is why are we doing this on a We're all of a sudden in the last two years zoning by deed restriction. I got the idea we moved to Houston. Not Pasco County. We have a zoning code. We have listed permitted uses. in our Euclidean zoning code. If there are ones that we don't think oughta be in there, well then maybe we need to go in public hearing and amend the zoning code. But we're we're doing this
on a parcel by parcel by parcel basis. So if his property across the street was already zoned, C two, he gets to do this but you can't do it because you came in later. I
Well I wanna be clear though, for Live Local we don't have that option. I understand. Because the state came in and said
I understand. This has nothing to do with Live Local.
I understand, but I'm saying you can't completely get rid of deed restrictions for that reason because The state told us we can't. I it doesn't matter whether we change the zoning code. Our zoning doesn't even allow multifamily C two, but the state says we have to. So the only way we can control that is ready to reserve. I completely understand. I just didn't want you to think that we can get rid of them completely.
Yeah, I think there are reasons why in f i in under any application that we would want to restrict certain uses, there may be reasons, maybe legitimate reasons, but I don't think there are any is any reason necessarily in this case to make wholesale restrictions for without reason. And that's
what I'm seeing is I don't have any good reason here not to do that. I'm in a rural area.
Yeah.
I'm I'm kinda thinking maybe septic tense he might sell out here.
Yeah. for having grown up in this county. It's probably been decades and decades since I've driven by a roadside septic tape sales yard. Haven't seen many of those proliferating around the county.
It's
coming.
Well
it's coming.
I currently take my lawnmower to Brooksville, so I don't probably have a lawnmower place right there.
Okay, I think we've asked the audience if there's anybody who wants to speak. Or has has anybody
been missed? I'd move to recommend approval of item PC two to the Board of County Commissioners. removing all of the deed restrictions with the recommendation not to require the voluntary deed restrictions other than the applicant's gracious voluntary proffer of the live local restriction.
Yeah, suck it. So we have a motion and a second. And I assume there's no further discussion. If not, all in favor in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, signed. Okay, I'm just curious.