The community got a peek at commissioners’ vision for the future of the North Park Road corridor last week when a map amendment was denied for a section of land at the interchange near I-4.
A public hearing was held as the applicant hoped to change the future land use designation from Commercial and Residential-6 to Residential-20, which would essentially increase the residential entitlements to the 18.2 acres.
The land in question is located south of East Sam Allen Road and west of North Park Road. It lies near the future site of South Florida Baptist Hospital and the applicant’s representative told commissioners that with the massive workforce expected to soon start commuting toward the hospital, as well as the string of developments planned and anticipated along the road, they wanted to increase the number of homes they could put on the property.
The applicant currently has an approved planned development district for 180 dwelling units with access to both Maryland Avenue and North Park Road. It could also be currently considered for “up to 169,230 square feet of commercial/office uses.” If it was approved, the R-20 designation would have up to 364 dwelling units, thus increasing the options for more variety of housing types like townhomes and multi-family. The change hypothetically allowed for “the consideration of up to 19,819 square feet of commercial/office uses or 364 dwelling units (or some combination thereof).”
The proposed change didn’t sit easy with commissioners. And the issue was not with the request for more residential, but rather on the fact that more residential would mean the site would turn away from or reduce its commercial opportunities.
“This city has made major investments into the improvements on Sam Allen Road, the improvements on Park Road, we’ve had FDOT support this, we have interstate intersections, we have other businesses, we have the largest employer in our city, the hospital, that is making an almost $250 million investment and that employee growth is going to be higher,” Lott said. “But we worked to have this entire district here to be a commercial district. And we have it, that’s where it was. This was approved, I think in 2006, 2007, somewhere around that time. And I might be off a year or two, and I think more than ever I believe the decision we made back then with the land use that we have mirrors what the goal and the vision is that this city and this commission has had for Park Road.”
City Manager Bill McDaniel added that he sees this as a commercial area and the current land use is “more conducive to what is going to be going on in this area.” Referring to the area as a “commercial corridor,” he said he believes its current land use designation will be the best one for the spot.
Commissioner Bill Dodson agreed and said that the large increase in residential units that could come with a change in the land use did not represent what the commissioners and the City of Plant City had long planned to have in the area. He said he didn’t “see it as compatible.”
It was Vice Mayor Nate Kilton who took a moment to reflect on the fact that the request in and of itself did technically align with part of the vision for the city. It is common for R-20 land uses to be placed in areas with very good transportation access like those with collectors or arterials, aka near major thoroughfares like I-4. Kilton said he could appreciate “both sides of the argument” and added that he could support the proposal for a few reasons, including the fact that he believes this was an appropriate corridor for multi-family units, especially with the hospital coming across the street. He added he was conflicted about it, but could see where the need could be there for a change of this sort. The others at the dais did not appear to agree.
“I believe we are already sitting with the best use here and I would hate for us to all of the sudden put right in the middle of what our vision was, and then all of the sudden just turn it R-20,” Lott said. “That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. I just don’t support this. I support the fact that we have the proper land use on it today.”
After a lengthy public hearing, commissioners denied the land use change 4-1.