Largo planning board reverses denial, recommends approval of land‑use change at 2179 Bradford Street

The Largo Planning Board on Dec. 4, 2025 recommended approval of a future land‑use map amendment for 2179 Bradford Street, reversing an earlier denial after a successful motion to reconsider.

Staff told the board the 1.45‑acre property currently classified Residential Office Limited (ROL) sits in the Tri City multimodal corridor and was proposed to be reclassified to Residential Office Retail (ROR). Staff said the ROR category allows more auto‑oriented uses — including drive‑through restaurants, self‑storage and gas stations — and recommended denial, arguing the change is inconsistent with several goals and policies in the city’s comprehensive plan, the Tri‑City special area plan (SAP) and Ford Pinellas countywide rules.

Pete Henson, an AICP‑certified planner representing the property owner, said city services are available and that the site’s location within the multimodal corridor and proximity to transit make the ROR designation appropriate. “We’re asking for a category that is basically the third tier down from commercial general,” Henson said, arguing the requested designation is compatible with nearby commercial uses and nearby county classifications. He disputed staff trip‑generation assumptions and said a plausible development would generate roughly 750–850 daily trips — far lower than the extreme commercial scenarios staff modeled.

Public commenters and board members pressed both sides on compatibility and access. Tate Lundquist and another resident identified as Chris asked about an on‑site caretaker, driveway spacing and relocation of the house currently on the property. Chris suggested an alternative approach — reducing parking requirements to allow more housing on the parcel — saying, “Maybe just reducing the parking requirement would allow homes or more apartments.” Henson and staff said there is no purchaser currently contingent on the amendment and that DOT prefers access from Bradford Street rather than Roosevelt Boulevard.

Board members noted the site’s small size, the SAP’s objectives for multimodal connections, and the possible intensity of uses allowed by ROR. One member reminded colleagues that the city commission has expressed a policy preference against adding more car washes and storage facilities. The board first voted to deny staff’s recommendation, a motion that carried 4–3. Members who supported denial cited plan consistency and the potential for more intense, auto‑oriented uses.

After a procedural point and a motion to reconsider, the board reopened the item. On reconsideration the board approved forwarding a recommendation of approval for the land‑use amendment to the City Commission by a 4–3 vote. That recommendation now goes to the City Commission for its decision; staff indicated the item is expected to appear before the commission in early January.

The planning board’s action is advisory; the City Commission will make the final determination and could attach conditions or pursue alternative classifications. The record shows staff compared ROL and ROR uses, cited trip‑generation figures and flagged potential increases in allowable height (from four to eight stories) and impervious surface ratios if ROR were adopted.

Next steps: the City Commission will receive the planning board recommendation and hold its own hearings on the proposed amendment.