Gagney MPUD rezoning
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
This archive found it in the recording: a call to order, a recess, or business the board never listed. The county recorded nothing about it, so everything below is our reading.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Sep 9, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 14m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 89% of 70 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
So P 55 was advertised in the Tampa Bay Times June 24th, 2026, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.
This is the zoning amendment for the Gagney MPUDs item to the previously discussed comprehensive plan amendment.
Looks like this is still the CPA presentation.
Okay.
This is the right title, but then you go into ordinance there and it's for the CPA?
Well that? By memory? I don't know.
I'm just Wait none.
We got him nervous after last last meeting.
He's a little gun shy up there. Yeah,
I know, right?
Look
at him. Don't don't dive into that.
He's duck look, he can go duck behind that.
I got I got the vest on underneath the shirt, don't worry.
Oh yeah, check back in.
Fantastic. Thank you, Mr. Siversen. This is the companion rezoning request to the previously presented comprehensive plan amendment to Res 24 from Res 9. The MPD seeks to entitle 300 multifamily apartments and 30,000 square feet of commercial on approximately 18 acres at the aforementioned location, south side of Chansey Road, on the east side of Gall Boulevard.
The current zoning, uh like Ms. Johnson said, the previous site of the expired RUX MPU with the Cobblestone MPD to the south, which is currently being built out by MI Homes.
This is the MPU master plan, which shows the driveway access on 301, the shared access with the residential neighborhood, as you make your way out to Crystal Springs, but more informatively is the binding concept plan for the multifamily units here. You can see that the the applicant worked with um with staff here. Uh Mr. Galvin, Bennett, and uh Ms. Johnson worked with staff here for the building orientation of the multifamily. You can see that most of the parking is
internal, shielded by the buildings. Um the bulk of the buildings oriented to the uh to the east-west roadway to the south as you make your way to Crystal Springs. Which will be improved from the southern terminus up to the intersection of Chansey Boulevard with the proper pedestrian facilities, the pathway, both on Crystal Springs, on the portion of Chansey Road, on the southern piece, and then ultimately a part of FDOT's widening of Gul Boulevard. Uh the
cent centralized amenity also shielded by the buildings. There are conditions of approval um about how the non-residential use should form up in relation to that northern uh multifamily piece. There's specific conditions of approval which talk about the building orientation of the non-residential use as well and how how they can use the access way there. Um To act as screening for the parking for the non-residential use away from the multifamily as well. The applicant
uh worked with the C D D attorney for the neighborhood to the south. Um they will be responsible for putting in pedestrian flashers and speed bumps. along that north-south road of the adjacent CDD. Uh the neighbors were concerned about traffic coming through their neighborhood as it they share the same internal access road. But that this uh this development will be putting in some of those pedestrian safety measures at their own cost.
This comes with a recommendation uh of approval with conditions from the Planning Commission, Planning Development, Economic Growth. I'm available for more for more additional questions that the board may have.
Questions, comments?
Didn't change much of opinion to me. Um I'm looking at a commercial piece. It's i yes it says it's thirty thousand square feet of commercial, but that footprint looks very similar to what was on the map before. Maybe it just shows differently. But I'm wondering why it wouldn't hang to more commercial, just even that last piece of apartment right there. Could be much more viable for an eatery or some type of fun place for people to go. It was set up differently. With that one building even in there just takes
away even more of a viability of what com commercial could be in a positive way.
No. The applicant? I think it's a good plan.
Do
you want me to do the swear-in procedures since we're
um yes, yes, we'll do the swearing in for anyone that's speaking on this? Okay.
So if for anyone that's speaking on this item or any future item, if you are going to speak, um will you stand to be sworn in? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is a true so help you God? Thank you.
Thank you. Shelley Johnson again, 6400 Madison Street, and I have been sworn. I again we're here to answer any questions. I mean ultimately the reason that the commercial is where it is is there's an actual comm designation over that. The 30,000 square feet is what they ultimately have determined could you know potentially work on that site. One thing to keep in com uh that I think is really relevant on the commercial is there's actually a wall. Yeah. So there's only so much of that commercial property that can actually be utilized. It has to be set back, you
know, farther from the wallhead than, you know, if it was sitting there and the wallhead wasn't in the vicinity. So it there's only so much of it that can actually be utilized under the county ordinances, which is also, you know, kind of stymy how much commercial can go there in addition to losing that access along the way. you know, to be able to have even heavier commercials. So um you'll see that the access is, you know, going out to Crystal Springs Road and then they'll have the shared access with the the multifame will have the shared access with the cobblestone to the south. So
I I have a question. Ms. Stocky. Um I can't tell from the map, but um where is the nearest multifamily complex to this?
Um if you pull up my PowerPoint, it's the very last page um of my PowerPoint that I sent in. And it has the five mile radius um of where And you can see and i you did have a study done, you have the Florida Housing Report that was done in twenty twenty five and as you can see with the map I think actually conveys this is that the east side um and tripling in the co Lakeshore even further east um there's really a shortage of multifamily housing um and
that was from you know your own Florida housing report from twenty twenty five. So um and you can see much of the some of it some of this in the five mile radius is built, some of it is not, but you can see most of it goes you know is further west um and then of course further north up uh three oh one. Yeah. There's So there's little there's little multifamily housing. You know, your your your East Market transition or East Market policy area, you know, calls for, you know, trying to t in this area to s put develop development along your corridors, which is what they're trying to do, um, and to
also try to maintain some affordable housing, you know, qu quality housing for, you know, affordable housing for for workers and employees and that kind of thing, which obviously this multifamily site would service. So
Yeah, that's why I'm for
Wait, Mr. Chairman Mariano. Shelley. Um we didn't realize that we were not gonna have a full board until late yesterday. So I just wanna make sure you're aware that we don't have a full board and you need three votes to approve this. Are you sure you wanna proceed today with a vote?
Um I can talk to my client about it. I th I think so. Um, you know. We've been in the process for a long time on this, so
I just want to make sure you wanna proceed.
Yeah, let me ask him really quick.
Talk about that. Would we be able to continue it to the next board hearing versus another thirty days or
Before we go, we have a c a little bit more discussion since we're we're doing this. Commissioner Weightman Shelly, if you go back to Whichever slide had showed the layout. There we go.
Based on the well head.
I don't know. Based on the well head there.
Mm-hmm. And what Commissioner Oakley was alluding to, you square off the triangle And remove it. the multifamily box. that's on the north side that m you know, butts the commercial piece. That's what you were getting at, right? Correct. to give you more flexibility to work around the wellhead that's there and add more commercial and then
you'd have essentially you know, a a much broader opportunity for a mixed-use node with a very similar layout.
Um I can we can definitely, you know, talk about that um with the client. I will tell you that um I don't know that the com parcel because there's only so much of this parcel that has the com designation and the rest has residential. Um I don't know if it goes
after.
It's not inappropriate. There are traffic concerns. With D O T.
Yeah. Seems like you're on the brink of of of finding some level of a compromise for for use here that's not inappropriate and you're getting the best of both worlds.
Yeah, and I do hear you. I mean that's definitely um something we can go back and talk about if we're gonna be continued, so
They probably would have to readvertise though, because the only advertised plan amendment is from res nine to res twenty four.
That's fine. I can readvertise it.
Alright. So talk a little further too to you can pretty much take your line squared from that thin piece that's there, draw it across so the triangle just goes right across. And then if you wanted to look at something, maybe it was in the commercial where you had some structures down below and put a level building above it or something like that. Something like that could work. You'd lose that one building but you'd pick up a lot more commercial and I'd be much more prone to be favorable to that than I am right now.
Yeah, we can definitely look at that. I'm not sure and I'll have to we'll have to measure it to see how far that that com parcel goes down um and we'll go from there because obviously that's where it would have to be at. So change it to
that if you wanted to. Ms. Wilhite, yeah. Where's the well head on this property you're you're talking about?
Um I think it's and I have not looked at it in a long time, it's across the street. It's a five year wellhead, I think. Across the street? Yeah. Across the street on the other side of three oh one is what my memory is ser observed about it, but um it does impact the setback on the commercial property. Um it does t force some further setback in terms of the utilization.
Um no. What is that? I think it's one of the big one of your main well wellheads. I think it's a five year I apologize, I didn't pull the information on that, so
Anybody know if it's fire or something?
But we can definitely, you know, look at um moving see where we can move that line further south. I can talk to the client to Mr. Galvin about it for sure.
Okay.
So Shelley, if you need to readvertise, do you need more than a thirty-day continuance, I guess is the question, or I'll guess I'll ask staff the same question if it if they're gonna look to readvertise this how long of a continuance do you all need?
There it is.
David Engel, Planning Development, Economic Growth. So on that map that's on your presentation board, that turquoise blue area is the wellhead protection area and it shows the penetration into the commercial portion of this property. Oh no. Uh on the continuance Uh what's that? I just had discussions with Mr. Petos and we were looking for uh October 9th as the continued hearing date. And we do we are requesting a re re readvertising and re-notice.
So you feel like you can re-advertise in and make that date? That's my question.
Can we advertise?
Ten line or whatever it is.
We we should have enough time to advertise for the October Dade City meeting. Okay.
As from a planning standpoint, we'll take a look at whatever the uh applicants come back with.