LARGE-SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CONSENT) – CPAL19(05) Aiken Mixed-Use – Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (2-15 and Sheet 21) Changing from RES-3 (RESIDENTIAL-3 DU/GA) to PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) on Approximately 25.37 Acres of Real Property Located North of SR 54 Approximately 1400 Feet West of Cypress Creek Road; and a Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.50 – Aiken Mixed-Use; and a Map Amendment to the Future Land Use Map 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9(50) Aiken Mixed Use
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, Aug 8, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Aug 8, 2019
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.
This case, across meetings
PDD-19-0920 in full →Heard once. PDD-19-0920 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Aug 8, 2019PlanningPC2▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 8m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 62% of 39 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Good afternoon, Amy Heiler, Planning and Development. Um item PC two is gonna be uh PDD 190920. It's a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPEL 1905, ACIN Mixed Use. The subject property is located in the South Market area on the north side of State Road 54, approximately 1400 square feet west of Cypress Creek Road. The subject property is uh or the applicant is proposing a large-scale amendment from Res
3, uh residential three dwelling units per gross acre to PD plan development to allow for a mix of uses to include multifamily residential and commercial. What you see here is the proposed inset for the uh future land use uh to P D. And the comprehensive plan consistency that we did the analysis for is consistent with the following policies. And with that, we recommend the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and
recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, uh Commissioner Star Clark Hobby, Hobby and Hobby PA 109 North Brest Street, Tampa, Florida, have been sworn. As staff noted, this site uh is located in the urban service area in the South Market area, in particular in the heavily growing State Road 54 corridor. It already has res three zoning, uh, but as a county we've made a decision. To ask for increased density-intensity along the 54-56 corridor within the South
Market area because we've already provided the services to serve those, and it's the most efficient way of providing goods and services to people in higher density areas there. What we're proposing today and what's before you, we're a little bit out of step on this one, and please forgive me. Normally when you all see a PD land use amendment, you have the MPUD with it. There was an issue with staff about which was being noticed for which date, and so you will see the MPUD
before you in a month on the 5th of September. So all you're seeing today, and you're acting as the LPA for is concerning our change to PD. And all we're proposing here is a mixed-use project that will allow up to 280. units and forty-nine and a half thousand square feet of commercial and office. And I think you all are very familiar with the State Road 54 corridor. This is located at the signalized intersection of 54 and Oak Grove. There's
massive retail and multifamily development all around the area. So I think what the sub area proposes is very consistent. with what the county's vision for the area is. We've been working with staff extensively on a variety of things that are more detailed that are in the MPUD and which we can uh address next month, but I don't think there's any question that adding additional density and intensity on this site as at a signalized arterial intersection on fifty
four is anything but good planning. So I'm happy to answer any questions. I know we have one neighbor we've been uh discussing some uh access issues with and we'll be working with, um, but I'm happy to answer any other questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Howy.
Any questions from here?
All right.
I think you raise your hand, you'd like to come speak.
Yeah.
Yeah.
By way of brief introduction, I live 500 feet from the northwest corner of the Aiken Trust Lot. Originally we thought we were going to be looking at four or five story apartment buildings, peering over into our residence.
Sir, we need your name for the record, right name and address for the record.
Thank
you.
John Pafka, P A D K A. [address removed]. And as I said earlier, that's about 500 feet from the northwest corner of the Sagan Truss Land. you w when you move into a place as I did twenty one years ago, you worry about the neighbors. Well, this neighbor I can trust In 2012 sent us a certified return receipt requested letter through our property manager about they had their force vandalized. I kid you
not. They wanted us to publish on our website about Vandals, not trespassing. There were threats in there about they authorized hunters on the land. This is a 27-acre plot. The threat didn't hold water. When they sent the second letter in January of 2014, I got agitated. I was all set to send a response. My board of directors talked me out of it. Quite frankly, bad neighbors don't make good neighbors. And that's why I'm rising in opposition to what they're
proposing. Because when I went online to look for this thing two weeks ago, all I found was The pre-approval meeting, not open to the public. I'm public. So I'm asking you as the zoning commissioners to extend this thing out so that my board of directors can get behind this and give you guys a response while we don't like it. That's all I gotta say. All right, thank you.
Andy Joe Scaglione, [address removed]. Um good afternoon.
I um have for over twenty years have owned the property uh to the west of this. Uh there's eight acres of C two property. Um I plan to do a quality development there. Uh I have no intention of selling, so I'm very protective of what goes on here. Um I w I want quality and um We're um uh actually having uh constructive conversations as of uh today with the developer um regarding the access uh uh that that
would go into my property. So at this point, not opposing, not supporting, withholding until September fifth and uh Um Just want to thank you for volunteering your time being away from your family and business. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Okay. Was there someone else?
The lady in the dark dress? I
was interested in the Darlington Summary.
Oh, okay. Gotcha.
Mr. Chairman Clark Hobby again. Um I that there's really nothing for there to meet me for me to rebut, but I will say for the benefit of the Planning Commission, I will reach out to the gentleman who spoke, Mr. Copp, I believe it was, and we met with their association once already. We'll meet with them again and make sure we're all speaking the same language on where we're heading on this. Thank you very much.
So Mr. Hobby, when did you guys uh reach out and when did
you noti
notify them?
I think it was about s well, we the official notice was sent maybe four or six weeks ago, but we met with their association maybe six months ago. It's been quite a while. Okay. We met with them early on.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
I
move for approval. Any second. Have a motion and a second for the discussion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Mr. Garries?
Just trying to tee up PC six.