[2:11] .

[2:13] >> welcome, everyone, to

[2:16] tonight's AUGUST 24th, 2026,

[2:17] zoning hearing master hearing.

[2:21] My name is steve luce and I'll

[2:22] be handling tonight's hearing.

[2:23] At this point in time, if we

[2:25] could all rise for the pledge of

[2:29] allegiance.

[2:43] [Pledge of allegiance]

[2:44] Thank y'all.

[2:51] You MAY be seated.

[2:52] At that point in time I would

[2:56] like to introduce MS. Michelle

[2:56] heinrich from development

[2:57] services staff who will

[2:59] introduce the other staff

[3:01] members and go over any changes

[3:03] to this evening's agenda.

[3:04] Michelle?

[3:04] >> thank you.

[3:05] Michelle heinrich, development

[3:07] services.

[3:09] Up here at the dais from the

[3:11] county attorney's office is

[3:12] jared delfino, with the planning

[3:14] commission staff we have lily

[3:15] linehan, and with transportation

[3:16] staff, richard perez.

[3:21] And we do have some housekeeping

[3:22] items to announce for anyone

[3:24] who's waiting for any of the

[3:26] cases.

[3:27] Let me see.

[3:29] We have three cases that have

[3:30] been withdrawn.

[3:36] Those include major mod 26-0154.

[3:39] 26-0206.

[3:42] And 26-0979.

[3:44] And the remaining cases that

[3:46] I'll announce have been

[3:51] continued to the SEPTEMBER

[3:59] 28th, zhm hearing 26-0215,

[4:05] 26-0237, pd 26-0281, pd 26-0283,

[4:14] major mod 26-0546, pd 26-0665,

[4:23] pd 26-0706, major mod 26-0735,

[4:25] or -- planned development

[4:32] 26-0799, planned development

[4:41] 26-0801, pd 26-0802, pd 26-0957,

[4:46] major mod 26-970, and standard

[4:49] rezoning 26-1158.

[4:54] And we don't any unpublished

[4:55] changes to the agenda to

[4:56] announce.

[4:56] >> all right.

[4:58] Regarding any today's hearing is

[4:59] there any any additional seating

[5:01] for anyone who can't find a seat

[5:02] inside this.

[5:04] >> yes, we do have the overflow

[5:05] room available on the first

[5:06] floor.

[5:06] It is the glass room when you

[5:08] exit the elevator to your right.

[5:10] There should be chairs and a tv

[5:12] there so you can watch the

[5:12] hearing.

[5:13] >> okay and there is generally

[5:15] enough time between applications

[5:17] that they can come up when their

[5:19] item is on the agenda.

[5:19] >> mm-hmm.

[5:20] >> okay.

[5:20] >> yes.

[5:21] >> very good.

[5:22] I have a few instructions to

[5:26] read into the record.

[5:27] The county attorney's office has

[5:29] a few instructions into

[5:30] into read

[5:31] into the record and then we will

[5:32] get started with tonight's

[5:32] cases.

[5:35] Our hearing today -- consists of

[5:36] japed items that require a

[5:38] public hearing by the zoning

[5:38] hearing master.

[5:40] I will conduct a hearing on each

[5:43] agenda item, will file a

[5:46] recommendation within 15 working

[5:48] days after the conclusion of

[5:49] tonight's hearing.

[5:50] Those recommendations are then

[5:53] sent to the board of county

[5:54] commissioners who will make the

[5:55] final decisions.

[5:57] Our hearing officering will be

[5:57] informal.

[5:59] I will ask questions related to

[6:01] scope of direct testimony.

[6:03] i MAY call and question

[6:07] witnesses as I deem appropriate,

[6:09] and I will decide all questions

[6:09] of procedure.

[6:12] I will take evidence but will

[6:14] exclude evidence that is

[6:16] irrelevant, immaterial or unduly

[6:16] repetitious.

[6:18] Evidence MAY be presented in

[6:19] written form and all testimony

[6:22] must be under oath.

[6:23] Hearsay evidence MAY be used to

[6:25] supplement or explain other

[6:26] evidence but shall not b

[6:30] sufficient alone to support a

[6:31] finding by me unless it would be

[6:33] admissible over objections in a

[6:35] civil action.

[6:37] Regarding the order of

[6:39] presentation for each item,

[6:40] first MS. Heinrich will

[6:43] introduce the case on the

[6:44] agenda, then the applicant and

[6:45] their witnesses will have any

[6:48] minutes to present their case.

[6:51] And development services staff

[6:52] will have five minutes to

[6:53] present their case.

[6:55] Then the planning commission

[6:58] staff will have five minutes to

[6:59] present their position.

[7:00] Next, proponents, those people

[7:02] in support of an application,

[7:05] will have 15 minutes.

[7:07] And those people opposed, the

[7:08] opponents will have 15 minutes

[7:08] total.

[7:10] Then development services will

[7:13] have an opportunity to provide

[7:14] additional comments.

[7:15] They have five minutes for that

[7:16] purpose.

[7:17] And finally, the applicant will

[7:21] have five minutes for rebuttal.

[7:22] Regarding the time for

[7:25] proponents or opponents, the

[7:27] 15-minute time frame is a total

[7:29] time for each category.

[7:30] If there are a number of people

[7:32] to speak, we will add up the

[7:36] total number of people, and the

[7:38] 15 minutes will be divided as

[7:38] equally as possible.

[7:41] You MAY wish to designate a

[7:42] single spokesperson to more

[7:45] efficiently use the time.

[7:46] When you come up to the podium

[7:48] to speak, please start by giving

[7:51] your name and address for the

[7:51] record.

[7:53] The meeting is being recorded

[7:56] and we want mike sure we

[7:58] accurate -- make sure we

[7:59] accurately document who is

[7:59] speaking on the record.

[8:00] When you are done speaking,

[8:01] please sign in with the clerk's

[8:04] office with your name, address,

[8:05] and the application number of

[8:08] the agenda item you are speaking

[8:08] to.

[8:10] The pad we sign in is at the end

[8:11] of the podium.

[8:12] If you could raise your hand,

[8:14] that's where you go to put in

[8:15] your name and address and the

[8:18] case you're speaking to.

[8:19] At that point in time, the

[8:20] county attorney's office will

[8:21] have a few instructions to also

[8:23] read into the record.

[8:25] >> good evening, jared fell

[8:26] delfino,

[8:29] assistant county attorney.

[8:30] Tonight's hearing is the first

[8:31] step of a tw-step rezoning

[8:32] process.

[8:34] This is the time for applicants

[8:35] andthrusted parties to present

[8:36] evidence and testimony.

[8:37] Any evidence presented tonight

[8:38] will become part of the complete

[8:39] factual record of each

[8:41] application and no additional

[8:42] evidence can be introduced after

[8:44] the closing of an application.

[8:45] The second step of the rezoning

[8:49] process is a public meeting for

[8:49] for -- before the board of

[8:50] county commissioners where the

[8:51] board will make a decision on

[8:52] each application heard tonight.

[8:53] Tonights' applications are

[8:54] scheduled to be heard by the

[8:57] board at its OCTOBER 13th,

[8:59] 2026, land use meeting, unless a

[9:01] different date is stated by

[9:01] staff.

[9:02] When considering applications,

[9:03] the board will only review the

[9:04] record and the recommendation

[9:05] made by the land use hearing

[9:08] officer for each application.

[9:09] The land use hearing officer

[9:10] will file a recommendation for

[9:12] each application heard tonight

[9:16] on SEPTEMBER 15th, 2026.

[9:16] The board of county

[9:17] commissioners has established a

[9:18] policy that directs which

[9:21] rezoning and major modifications

[9:24] applications are to be placed on

[9:25] the consent agenda at the

[9:26] board's land use meeting.

[9:28] The following applications MAY

[9:29] not be placed on the consent

[9:30] agenda.

[9:31] One, applications that propose

[9:32] to add density outside the urban

[9:34] service area.

[9:36] Two, applications on roadways

[9:39] with failing level of service.

[9:40] Applications that do not have

[9:41] consistent recommendations of

[9:41] approval.

[9:44] And applications that have had

[9:44] evidence or testimony in

[9:45] opposition provided to the

[9:47] record by non-applicant parties

[9:49] of record, either prior to or at

[9:51] tonight's public hearing.

[9:52] The board will allow testimony

[9:54] by any party of record at its

[9:55] public meeting to consider the

[9:56] land use hearing officer's

[9:58] recommendation for any item on

[9:59] the regular agenda.

[10:01] Testimony by a party of record

[10:02] shall be limited to the record

[10:04] of the proceedings before the

[10:07] land use hearing officer unless

[10:08] additional evidence has been

[10:09] found admissible in accordance

[10:12] with section 10.03.04d of the

[10:13] land development code.

[10:15] A party of record is an

[10:18] individual who fits into at

[10:19] least one of the four following

[10:20] categories.

[10:21] First, someone who is present

[10:22] tonight and presents testimony

[10:23] or documentary evidence.

[10:25] Second, someone who has been

[10:26] certified by the U.S. Postal

[10:28] service as having been mailed

[10:29] notice of tonight's hearing.

[10:30] Third someone who has submitted

[10:31] documentary evidence to the

[10:33] master file triste two business

[10:34] daz -- at least two business

[10:35] days prior to tonight's hearing.

[10:36] Or fourth, someone who has

[10:37] submitted documentary evidence

[10:39] by proxy at tonight's hearing.

[10:40] The content of oral argument

[10:41] before the board shall be

[10:42] limited to the content of the

[10:43] testimony and other evidence

[10:45] submitted verbally or in writing

[10:47] to the land use hearing officer.

[10:48] It is the role of the county

[10:50] attorney's office to ensure that

[10:51] only individuals who have met

[10:52] these requirements are allowed

[10:54] to speak before the board to

[10:56] ensure that no new evidence or

[10:57] testimony is introduced or

[10:58] allowed at the board's public

[10:59] hearing.

[11:01] For these reasons, please make

[11:02] sure all information you wish

[11:03] the board to consider at its

[11:05] public meeting is entered in

[11:06] tonight's record.

[11:06] Thank you.

[11:08] >> okay, thank you very much.

[11:10] All testimony must be provided

[11:12] under oath.

[11:14] Therefore, if you plan to speak

[11:15] tonight, please stand and raise

[11:17] your right hand so I MAY swear

[11:20] you in.

[11:28] [Swearing in]

[11:29] Okay, thank you.

[11:31] You MAY be seated.

[11:32] Okay, and with that we are done

[11:33] with the introductions and

[11:34] instructions.

[11:35] MS. Heinrich, we're ready for

[11:37] the first tiem.

[11:38] >> our first application is item

[11:42] c.1, standard rezoning 26-1168.

[11:45] The applicant is requesting to

[11:46] rezone property from cg with

[11:47] restrictions to cg with

[11:50] restrictions.

[11:51] Michelle mont ball no will

[11:53] provide staff findings after

[11:56] applicant's presentation.

[12:04] >> the applicant, please.

[12:06] >> yes, my name is larry -- do

[12:08] you want me to just present

[12:09] myself?

[12:09] >> okay.

[12:10] Go ahead.

[12:12] >> okay, my name's larry

[12:12] pallner.

[12:17] I'm inengineer of recordf with

[12:19] rc -- altmotsprings, florida.

[12:22] I am here at the pleasure of the

[12:23] board.

[12:24] We are just removing one of the

[12:26] restrictions to allow for --

[12:27] >> I'm trying to listen.

[12:33] I can't listen.

[12:34] >> I'm sorry, sir.

[12:35] Somebody tried to speak over

[12:39] you, but please proceed.

[12:40] >> okay.

[12:42] The purpose of this rezone is to

[12:44] remove one of the restrictions.

[12:48] The original restrictions on the

[12:51] property were no automotive

[12:53] sales, no adult shop, and no

[12:54] agricultural sales of large

[12:56] equipment.

[12:58] We do not plan on selling large

[13:02] equipment like I don't know,

[13:03] giant -- or anything like that.

[13:05] This is just a small business

[13:07] that sells planting supplies.

[13:08] But we wanted to make sure that

[13:11] the restriction did not

[13:12] adversely affect the business.

[13:14] And that's the whole purpose of

[13:15] this rezone.

[13:16] >> okay, very good.

[13:17] Thank you, sir.

[13:21] >> you're welcome.

[13:22] >> all right, and development

[13:28] services staff?

[13:31] >> the applicant's requesting to

[13:33] revise rezoning restrictions of

[13:34] existing commercial -- the

[13:36] request is to remove the

[13:37] language prohibiting sales and

[13:38] rental of farm and gardening

[13:39] equipment.

[13:40] The property is currently

[13:41] occupied by a farm and garden

[13:42] supply center which does not

[13:43] expressly permit the sales and

[13:44] rental of farm and garden

[13:44] equipment.

[13:46] If approved, both uses would be

[13:47] permitted.

[13:49] The property's located on

[13:50] linebaugh avenue near the

[13:52] intersection of north dale mabry

[13:53] with the area with commercial

[13:55] and office uses.

[13:57] Staff finds the rezoning

[13:57] supportable.

[13:58] I'm available if you have any

[13:59] questions.

[13:59] >> no questions.

[14:00] Thank you.

[14:04] And planning commission staff?

[14:05] >> lilyann linehan, planning

[14:06] commission stat.

[14:06] The subject property is within

[14:08] the office commercial 20 future

[14:09] land use category.

[14:10] It's within the urban service

[14:11] area and located within the

[14:12] limits of the greater

[14:13] carrollwood northdale community

[14:14] plan.

[14:16] It is currently developed with

[14:17] commercial uses and surrounded

[14:19] by mainly heavy an light

[14:20] commercial uses, near the west

[14:22] linebaugh avenue north dale

[14:24] mabry highway intersection.

[14:25] And in the surrounding area the

[14:28] land use is consists of the

[14:28] primarily commercial development

[14:30] with some public, quasi-public

[14:31] institutional and residential

[14:32] uses to the east and west of the

[14:32] site.

[14:34] And there are some light

[14:35] industrial uses located to the

[14:35] south.

[14:36] Collectively these existing land

[14:39] use patterns establishes a

[14:40] predominantly commercial context

[14:42] that supports the proposed

[14:42] rezoning.

[14:43] It's compatible with the

[14:44] surrounding area and consistent

[14:47] with flu's objective 3.1 and

[14:49] policy 3.1.3, which require

[14:50] developments to be compatible

[14:52] with the surrounding areas.

[14:54] It also satisfies the intent of

[14:56] flu's objective 4.4 and policy

[14:57] 4.4.1, which require new

[14:58] development to be compatible

[14:59] with the surrounding

[15:00] neighborhood.

[15:01] The removal of the restriction

[15:02] for the sale of farm and garden

[15:04] equipment will not negatively

[15:05] impact the surrounding

[15:06] neighborhood, which consists of

[15:08] heavy and light commercial uses,

[15:09] and the applicant is stilt

[15:10] leaving the other original --

[15:13] still leaving the other original

[15:14] restrictions, domestic vehicles,

[15:15] pleasure craft, hobby vehicles

[15:17] and prohibits sexually oriented

[15:17] business.

[15:18] And the original planning

[15:19] commission findings were

[15:20] contingent upon these

[15:21] restrictions.

[15:23] The addition of farm and garden

[15:23] equipment sales will further the

[15:25] operation of the existing

[15:26] agricultural plant nursery, and

[15:27] would result in compatible

[15:28] development.

[15:30] And lastly, the addition of the

[15:31] sale of farm and garden

[15:32] equipment is supported by

[15:35] several policies under objective

[15:37] 5.1, which state that in

[15:38] recognition of the importance of

[15:40] agricultural as an industry and

[15:41] a valuable economic resource,

[15:42] that hillsborough county shall

[15:44] promote the economic viability

[15:45] of agricultural activities by

[15:47] recognizing and providing for

[15:48] its unique characteristics and

[15:49] land use planning and land

[15:51] development regulations.

[15:52] So based upon the above

[15:54] considerations, the following

[15:55] goals, objectives and policies,

[15:56] planning commission staff finds

[15:57] the proposed rezoning consistent

[15:58] with the unincorporated

[15:59] hillsborough county

[16:00] comprehensive plan, subject to

[16:01] the restrictions proposed by

[16:03] development services department.

[16:04] >> thank you.

[16:06] At this point in time s

[16:07] , is there

[16:08] anyone in the audience that

[16:09] wishes to speak in support of

[16:12] the application?

[16:14] Seeing no one responding, anyone

[16:16] in the audience wish to speak in

[16:21] opposition to the application?

[16:23] Seeingnone responding, staff,

[16:24] anything further?

[16:26] >> no, sir.

[16:29] >> applicant, opportunity for

[16:30] rebuttal.

[16:40] Sir, are you good?

[16:42] All right.

[16:43] I don't know what happened to

[16:44] him, but I think we're good on

[16:46] this one.

[16:46] Okay.

[16:47] >> I have no rebuttal.

[16:48] i'm sorry.

[16:49] >> [Laughter]

[16:49] >> okay.

[16:51] Thank you.

[16:52] All right, with that that

[16:54] concludes this application.

[16:55] MS. Heinrich, we're ready for

[16:55] the next item.

[16:57] >> our next application is item

[17:01] c.2, standard rezoning 26-1184.

[17:03] The applicant is requesting to

[17:07] rezone property from as-1 to

[17:07] rsc-9

[17:09] rsc-9 with eare strictions.

[17:10] Sierra janes

[17:15] jane?Eetion good

[17:17] evening, kami corbett, suite

[17:18] 1100, tampa, florida.

[17:20] Here representing mattamy

[17:20] homes

[17:20] .

[17:22] This is pretty straightforward.

[17:24] This is a standard rezoning

[17:25] request to rsc-9 restricted.

[17:27] The restriction is to the four

[17:28] units to the acre that's allowed

[17:31] by the comprehensive plan.

[17:34] The site that's outlined and

[17:34] dashicide

[17:36] dashed is actually a site we

[17:37] rezoned earlier rast year, and

[17:38] this is a continuation of that.

[17:41] You can just see this exhibit.

[17:45] We're going from as-1 to rsc-9

[17:46] restricted.

[17:52] We have minimum lot widths of 50 feet, I'm sorry, 60 feet with

[17:53] 7200-foot lots.

[17:56] And a maximum density of four

[17:57] dwelling units per acre.

[17:58] These are some examples of the

[18:00] product that mattamy builds.

[18:02] They do a really nice job.

[18:03] Staff has found this consistent

[18:04] and compatible with the

[18:05] comprehensive plan and the land

[18:07] development code, and we have no

[18:08] objections from any reviewing

[18:09] agencies and we're herer

[18:11] here to

[18:12] answer any questions should you

[18:13] have any.

[18:14] >> no questions, thank you.

[18:20] Development services staff?

[18:21] >> good evening.

[18:22] Sierra james with development

[18:22] services.

[18:24] The applicant is requesting to

[18:26] rezone the site from as-1 to

[18:29] rsc-9 with the following

[18:30] applicant proposed restrictions.

[18:32] Development will pee limited to

[18:33] four de -- be limited to four

[18:35] dwelling units per acre.

[18:38] 7,200 square feet minimum lot

[18:40] feet, and -- the subject site is

[18:41] located within the riverview

[18:43] community plan area off

[18:44] raulerson road.

[18:45] Much of the surrounding area

[18:46] consists of single-family

[18:48] residential uses, notably

[18:51] properties to the north are

[18:52] zoned rsc-9 with similar

[18:53] restrictions.

[18:54] Based on these considerations,

[18:56] staff find the proposed rezoning

[18:56] approvable.

[18:57] >> yeah, thank you.

[18:58] >> thank you.

[18:58] >> all right, planning

[19:01] commission staff.

[19:02] >> lilyann linehan, planning

[19:03] commission staff.

[19:04] The subject property is located

[19:05] within the residential 4

[19:07] louisiana category, is -- land

[19:09] use category, within the urban

[19:10] service area.

[19:11] >> andrew ross: and -- the

[19:12] intent of the residential 4

[19:15] category is for low density

[19:16] residential development, which

[19:18] aligns with the proposed use for

[19:20] single-family detached units.

[19:21] The maximum potential under this

[19:24] category is four dwelling units

[19:25] per grows acre and the maximum

[19:26] nonresidential development

[19:28] palings is 0.25 far.

[19:30] The planning commissiongisted

[19:31] to add a restriction to the

[19:32] wrezoning which would limit the

[19:34] residential development to a

[19:35] maximum of four dwelling units

[19:37] and align with the residential 4

[19:38] future land use category.

[19:40] The applicant agreed to add this

[19:41] restriction which made a total

[19:42] of three restrictions.

[19:44] The other two include a minimum

[19:45] lot width of 60 feet and to have

[19:49] a minimum lot area of 7,207

[19:50] square feet.

[19:51] The surrounding land use site

[19:53] pattern consists primarily of

[19:54] residential uses with some

[19:55] agricultural land to the north

[19:57] and this request would provide a

[19:57] compatible use that is

[19:58] consistent with the surrounding

[19:59] residential uses and existing

[20:00] character.

[20:02] And is consistent with objective

[20:05] 3.1 and its associated related

[20:06] policies.

[20:08] The surrounding zoning pattern

[20:09] consists of agricultural-rural

[20:12] to the east, rsc-3 to the south,

[20:13] as-1 to the west, and rsc-9 to

[20:15] the north.

[20:17] This requested rezoning from

[20:19] as-1 to the rsc-9 restricted is

[20:20] consistent with the existing

[20:22] zoning and development pattern

[20:23] in the vicinity and therefore

[20:26] the request is consistent with

[20:28] objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1.

[20:29] And lastly the site is within

[20:31] the riverview community plan,

[20:32] which desires to reflect the

[20:34] vision of the riverview district

[20:35] concept map.

[20:36] It is within the residential

[20:38] district on this map, which

[20:39] encourages residential

[20:40] development that complements the

[20:42] sounderring area.

[20:43] Surrounding area and promotes

[20:43] housing diversity.

[20:45] The request would provide

[20:46] additional housing opportunities

[20:47] in an area already

[20:49] characterizedases a residential

[20:49] district.

[20:51] So based upon these

[20:52] considerations, planning

[20:53] commission staff finds the

[20:53] proposed planned development

[20:55] consistent with the

[20:56] unincorporated hillsborough

[20:56] county comprehensive plan,

[20:58] subject to the conditions

[20:59] proposed by the development

[21:00] services department.

[21:00] >> okay.

[21:01] Thank you.

[21:04] At that point, is there anyone

[21:05] in the audience that wishes to

[21:07] speak in support of the

[21:10] application?

[21:11] Seeing no one responding, anyone

[21:14] in the audience wish to speak in

[21:15] opposition to the application?

[21:17] >> yes, please.

[21:20] >> yes, ma'am.

[21:26] >> mary iamb pieri, can you hear

[21:26] me?

[21:27] >> yes.

[21:28] >> okay.

[21:29] Mute the tv.

[21:32] Sorry.

[21:35] We had a meet and greet with the

[21:36] consultants, and the builders,

[21:37] which was wonderful.

[21:40] Answered a lot of our questions.

[21:41] Just want to kind of make sure

[21:45] that they're going to stick to

[21:46] the plan since the other three

[21:47] developments in the area have

[21:49] not stuck to the plan.

[21:50] I got to lower this.

[21:52] I'm sorry.

[21:54] We want to make sure she did

[21:56] mention raulerson road.

[21:57] We want to make sure that there

[22:00] is no egress to raulerson road

[22:02] other than the emergency locked

[22:03] entrance.

[22:06] That was very important to us.

[22:08] We want to make sure that that's

[22:08] for sure.

[22:09] Actually I think I'm the only

[22:10] one that going to be here

[22:11] because everybody's feeling

[22:12] totally defeated again since

[22:15] this is our third neighborhood.

[22:18] We wanted to have the street

[22:20] lights to be covered at the top

[22:22] and pointing down into their

[22:22] roadway.

[22:23] Quy discussed that with the

[22:24] builder also.

[22:26] We wanted requesting an

[22:33] eight-foot fence between

[22:34] their properties and outs

[22:36] instead of the six -- ours

[22:38] instead of the six-foot one.

[22:39] Compliance is another issue we

[22:39] continue to have a problem with

[22:40] in all of these developments

[22:44] that back up to our rural

[22:45] acreage.

[22:46] They need to comply with the

[22:49] work days and times, including

[22:50] there crews that they hire, the

[22:54] construction crews, the roofers,

[22:56] not landscapers, the concrete

[22:58] trucks, the framing crews.

[22:59] Been quite the problem in the

[23:00] past, and we're going to be

[23:01] doing this for another two years

[23:06] since this project is the

[23:08] 11 acres, the other project is

[23:10] the first phase, which backs up

[23:12] to it.

[23:13] Anyhow, regardless we want to

[23:14] make sure that they're going to

[23:16] honor what they're supposed to

[23:17] honor.

[23:19] They weren't sure about if they

[23:20] were utilizing natural gas or

[23:20] not.

[23:24] We were curious about that.

[23:25] I don't know if that'll get

[23:25] answered later.

[23:30] We do have issues about the

[23:30] density.

[23:32] Are schools are at just about

[23:32] full capacity.

[23:34] We gave them a copy of all of

[23:35] those percentages.

[23:40] We have six schools in this area

[23:41] right across the street from

[23:41] each other.

[23:42] Blah blah blah.

[23:43] It's tearable to get in and out

[23:43] of here.

[23:45] You can't until after the school

[23:51] buses are gone.

[23:53] We're hoping that that gets

[23:53] addressed.

[23:55] We don't know how but we're

[23:57] hoping that gets a second look.

[23:58] The drilling of the wells, if

[24:00] they're drilling any wells for

[24:01] reclaimed sprinklers, one of the

[24:02] neighbors just mentioned that,

[24:05] and I thought that was discussed

[24:06] they weren't going to have any

[24:07] wells on that property.

[24:08] Our wells have never been the

[24:10] same since they -- last two

[24:11] neighborhoods in.

[24:12] A few of them have collapsed.

[24:13] We've had to pull them up.

[24:16] We've had to redrill.

[24:19] Very expensive.

[24:22] Pump stations are a concern.

[24:23] There

[24:24] the new neighborhoods that are

[24:25] all around our acreage, they

[24:26] have a pump station but they're

[24:28] not muntered 24 hours day --

[24:30] monitored 24 hours a day, so we

[24:32] could go a day and a half, two

[24:34] day the sirens going off from

[24:36] their pumpstition

[24:37] pump stations.

[24:38] I understand phase 1 and phase 2

[24:39] are going to have separate pump

[24:41] stations, so that of course is

[24:43] another concern.

[24:45] Just a curious question about

[24:48] the notices.

[24:49] Like they just said this was

[24:50] done a year ago.

[24:52] We got a notice put on the

[24:53] street JULY 15th.

[24:55] That was the first notice that

[24:56] we all saw.

[24:57] inletters came shortly after

[25:00] that.

[25:01] I guess I can call the county

[25:04] tomorrow and find out about how

[25:06] many other notices they put up

[25:08] last year here and at the cat

[25:12] house project.

[25:13] I'm the only one here because

[25:16] everybody's feeling pretty

[25:20] voiceless and bulldozed over.

[25:22] We used to be country.

[25:24] We have a little one-lane dead

[25:25] end road we live on.

[25:28] We can't get off our property

[25:29] onto boyette road either.

[25:30] Takes forever if you want to go

[25:33] out and go in a different

[25:33] direction.

[25:34] Was hoping all this building

[25:36] wasn't going to keep happening

[25:38] and hit out here for at least

[25:40] ten more years.

[25:42] Not much property left since we

[25:44] just drove down the road and saw

[25:45] the girl scout camp has sold

[25:50] more property.

[25:51] There was no notice for that.

[25:52] Nobody saw any signs for that

[25:53] but it looks like it's going to

[25:54] be quite a big project down

[25:57] there too.

[25:59] So we've lost our overall area.

[26:00] We're very, very concerned about

[26:03] the wildlife, the turtles.

[26:05] We have a number of foxes,

[26:10] coyotes, armadillos, possums,

[26:11] raccoons, the bocat we have not

[26:14] seen him for quite awhile now.

[26:14] One of the other neighbors on

[26:16] the adjoining properties to this

[26:17] on hill crest they were

[26:19] concerneduct the drainage to

[26:21] their property also since these

[26:22] homes are going to be at a

[26:29] higher elevation than theirs.

[26:30] I thank you for your time and

[26:31] consideration, and I just hope

[26:32] the county just keeps following

[26:34] policy and doesn't just let

[26:35] these buildings bulldoze over

[26:35] them.

[26:36] Thank you for your time.

[26:37] >> thank you, ma'am.

[26:38] Is there anyone else in the

[26:45] audience that wishes to speak in

[26:45] opposition?

[26:46] Seeing no one responding, staff,

[26:50] anything further?

[26:51] >> I'll just note for the

[26:54] citizen who just spoke, we don't

[26:56] have any restrictions in regards

[26:57] to some of the items that she

[26:58] talked about.

[27:01] Just to let her know and

[27:04] specifically in terms of the

[27:07] emergency access, and where that

[27:09] might be if it's necessary, and

[27:13] anything with a perimeter fence.

[27:14] I know he shengzed

[27:16] she mentioned eight feet.

[27:17] The highest you can go is six

[27:20] feet unless you obtain a

[27:20] variance.

[27:21] >> cay.

[27:25] To clarify, it's a request for

[27:26] euclidian zoning, right.

[27:27] >> yes.

[27:27] >> it's not a planned

[27:28] development, right?

[27:28] >> correct.

[27:30] >> that's why you only addressed

[27:33] a few items.

[27:34] >> correct.

[27:34] >> okay.

[27:35] Very good.

[27:35] Thank you.

[27:36] At this point in time, the

[27:40] applicant has an opportunity for

[27:40] rebuttal.

[27:41] >> I think I would just say as

[27:43] you are aware and as the county

[27:45] is aware, a lot of the issues

[27:48] with respect to access and

[27:49] drainage and those types of

[27:50] things happen at site

[27:52] development, and we're happy to

[27:54] keep a dialogue going with the

[27:55] neighborhood.

[27:57] The builder actually did the

[27:57] community meeting, and they

[27:58] would continue to meet with the

[28:00] community and try to address any

[28:01] concerns that they have.

[28:03] With that we don't anything

[28:03] further to offer.

[28:04] >> all right, very good, thank

[28:06] you, ma'am.

[28:08] With that, that concludes this

[28:10] item.

[28:11] MS. Heinrich, we're ready if the

[28:12] next case.

[28:14] >> -- for the next case.

[28:15] >> next item is major mod

[28:16] application 26-00

[28:17] 0062.

[28:18] The applicant is requesting a

[28:23] major modification to pd

[28:24] 77-0123.

[28:25] Sam ball with development

[28:27] services has reviewed this and

[28:28] will provide staff findings

[28:29] after the applicant fts

[28:34] ppresentation.

[28:38] >> good even, MR. Luce, tiler

[28:41] hudson, 400 north ashly drive.

[28:42] Going to go ahead and jump into

[28:43] a powerpoint.

[28:45] The site is located just sort of

[28:47] behind a publix, behind public

[28:51] storage and general retail

[28:53] commercial cluster.

[28:54] Apollo beach boulevard.

[28:54] Nine acres.

[28:57] This is a part of dri59,

[28:59] specifically this is in pocket

[29:00] 62b, so a lot going on in this

[29:04] dri from 1979.

[29:06] The project we're proposing is

[29:07] a multifamily apartment building

[29:10] four stories in height, 237

[29:12] total units with access off of

[29:13] apollo beach boulevard, this

[29:16] would really sit sort of

[29:17] squarely in the green pastural

[29:20] land behind the publix right

[29:20] now.

[29:22] We are not in much of a dispute

[29:23] with staff about the things that

[29:25] typically cause disputes in

[29:27] these chambers, which are things

[29:30] about compatibility or even the

[29:31] use of multifamily.

[29:34] This is really a fairly ideal

[29:35] multifamily infill site.

[29:36] Not really fighting about

[29:37] height.

[29:40] We're not really in disagreement

[29:42] about buffers, screening, things

[29:44] like that.

[29:45] After some time, we are I think

[29:47] no longer in disagreement about

[29:48] the administrative variances and

[29:50] design exceptions that the staff

[29:54] report indicated those were

[29:55] recommended for disapproval, but

[29:57] I believe that has been squared

[29:58] away.

[30:00] What we are disputing is about a

[30:01] couple of words in the dri

[30:03] development order, so of course

[30:05] the apollo beach dri was

[30:06] implemented through a

[30:08] development order resolution in

[30:10] 1979 as typical for DRIs of

[30:11] that vintage it's been amended a

[30:14] couple of times.

[30:15] But the section on trip

[30:16] generation has not been.

[30:19] Like most DRIs, the coin of

[30:23] the realm is -- trips.

[30:24] That is the -- and while there

[30:26] is a reference in the context of

[30:30] land use exchanges to

[30:31] referencing equivalent trip

[30:34] generation based on ite, we

[30:35] don't dispute that ite is the

[30:36] correct what.

[30:37] That is what you should be

[30:39] looking for the trip genraigz

[30:41] numbers.

[30:45] The dispute we have is that

[30:46] staff -- the reason that's

[30:47] problematic for us, and steve

[30:49] henry is going to speak about

[30:50] this in greater depth is there

[30:52] is no A.M. Trip baseline in the

[30:53] development order.

[30:55] We have a bundle of vested

[30:56] rights arising from the

[30:57] ownership of the property going

[31:00] back to 1979 nat

[31:02] 1979 that said that P.M.

[31:04] Trips are how you alculate these

[31:05] conversions.

[31:07] So we're talking about apples.

[31:09] Staff is asking us to consider

[31:09] orfgz.

[31:11] Orange are good but they have no

[31:12] business in affecting the

[31:14] conversion we're seeking here by

[31:14] this.

[31:15] So yald

[31:18] I would ask steve to touch on

[31:19] a couple of the points on the

[31:20] slide, and then I will be bak

[31:23] to wrab it up.

[31:24] >> okay.

[31:27] >> good evening, steve henry,

[31:30] tmc, 5023 west laurel, tampa,

[31:30] 33607.

[31:33] As tyler had indicated, talked

[31:34] to you a little bit about the

[31:34] traffic.

[31:37] So the reality is we actually

[31:39] did the original traffic

[31:42] analysis for apollo beach.

[31:44] We did the phase 2, phase 3

[31:44] analysis.

[31:46] All those were based on the P.M.

[31:47] Peak hour.

[31:49] I

[31:51] I've actually got a cape of the

[31:52] analysis we can enter -- copy of

[31:54] the analysis we can enter into

[31:55] the record if need be.

[31:56] But in addition to that we did

[31:59] the dj farms dri analysis that

[32:01] was based on P.M. Peak hour.

[32:05] We updated the loom based on

[32:05] P.M. Peak hour.

[32:08] We also did the southshore dri,

[32:09] which was also we updated the

[32:11] loom for that one.

[32:13] Had based on P.M. Peak hour.

[32:18] So the reality is when you're

[32:19] looking at the trips associated

[32:20] with it, the analysis for all

[32:23] DRIs are based on P.M. Peak

[32:23] hour.

[32:25] So now to be asked to do A.M.,

[32:26] the staff had to actually go

[32:29] through an analysis to determine

[32:30] what A.M. Trips were even

[32:32] supposed to be analyzing since

[32:33] they weren't in the dri.

[32:34] So from our standpoint we

[32:38] believe the P.M. Peak hour is

[32:39] the reasonable equiv whreans for

[32:41] the purposes of -- equivalency

[32:43] for the purposes of evaluating

[32:45] land use equivalencies.

[32:46] >> okay.

[32:51] >> thank you.

[32:54] >> and that slide just says what

[32:55] steve just said.

[32:57] So the way the dominoes have

[32:59] fallen here is we have some

[33:01] staff opposition to this

[33:02] request: really comes down from

[33:03] a very narrow basis which is

[33:05] what's the appropriate exchange

[33:11] methodology for a 1979dri that

[33:16] only provides for P.M. Trips for

[33:17] the coin of realm.

[33:18] What we have proposed to do we

[33:20] think this is redundant.

[33:21] We think it's not necessary but

[33:23] we have file

[33:24] filed a D.O. Amendment

[33:26] to say what we think it already

[33:27] says, which is that when we talk

[33:31] about these land use exchanges,

[33:35] it's about P.M. Trips as

[33:35] provided in the original

[33:36] development order.

[33:38] I think if that is approved

[33:39] whether staff recommends its

[33:40] approval is a separate thing.

[33:42] If that were approved that would

[33:43] allay any doubt here, but again

[33:47] we just see this as just an add

[33:49] on cures mechanism.

[33:52] We do dispute the premise that

[33:53] A.M. Peak trips have anything to

[33:53] do.

[33:54] That's completely irrelevant to

[33:55] staff's analysis on the

[34:00] conversion, so with that, I will

[34:02] just note in closing this is a

[34:03] pretty substantial impact fee

[34:05] generator for the sieflt this

[34:05] is.

[34:06] Site.

[34:07] This is an infill housing, there

[34:08] is multifamily in the periphery.

[34:10] It is a blank piece of land near

[34:11] a maimer road behind a publix

[34:13] and some employment centers.

[34:14] With that, appreciate your time.

[34:15] Thank you.

[34:17] >> yeah, if I could, because

[34:20] read the staff report, and

[34:21] they're taking the position,

[34:22] maybe it's information you

[34:23] tbroided to

[34:25] provided to them, that the site

[34:29] is currently entitled for I

[34:32] don't know, 34, 35,000 square

[34:33] feet of retail.

[34:34] >> that's what we're seeking to

[34:35] convert.

[34:38] We're seeking to convert 35,000.

[34:41] >> that's what you think the

[34:45] entitlements are on this

[34:45] 9.48 acres.

[34:47] >> correct, converting that

[34:48] to -- units 72 so if you

[34:49] .

[34:51] >> so if you could, or steeive

[34:53] henry, walk me through how you

[34:54] get from the 35,000 square feet

[35:14] of retail to 237 units?

[35:15] >> well, the staff had done it

[35:17] based on P.M. Peak hour.

[35:18] But what they also then looked

[35:19] at was A.M. Peak hour.

[35:21] So the P.M. Peak hour gets us

[35:22] where we want to be.

[35:23] >> explain that to me.

[35:28] Walk me through that.

[35:29] >> okay.

[35:31] And I will, because we didn't

[35:32] actually that.

[35:34] Those were done by staff.

[35:41] So I will pull that out here.

[35:42] But essentially what staff was

[35:44] looking at was, and they were

[35:47] looking at both the inbound and

[35:48] outbound trips, and then you

[35:50] look at the equivalency of those

[35:53] trips to get there.

[35:55] And again I will have to go

[35:55] through the number.

[35:56] Really it was a matter of from

[35:59] our standpoint we were asked to

[36:01] look at what's the reasonable

[36:02] rate?

[36:03] Was it P.M.?

[36:04] A.M.?

[36:05] We were asked to look at that so

[36:06] I have actually run through the

[36:06] numbers.

[36:08] I'm happy to do that.

[36:10] >> all right, well let's back up

[36:12] a step then and just

[36:12] intuitively.

[36:15] You've done traffic for a while.

[36:15] >> yes.

[36:17] >> 35,000 square feet of retail

[36:24] is that equivalent to 237 units?

[36:25] >> yes, again, P.M. Peak hour

[36:27] when you look at the gross

[36:28] trips, that would be probably

[36:29] equiv

[36:31] quivalency.

[36:32] >> okay.

[36:33] >> and again I'm happy to look

[36:34] at the numbers again because we

[36:40] were just simply looking at what

[36:41] was the reasonable, A.M. Or

[36:43] P.M., so dwrid

[36:44] I didn't run through

[36:46] the actual calculations.

[36:46] I can do that.

[36:49] >> can I ask the county staff,

[36:51] transportation planner the same

[36:52] question, maybe you come back on

[36:54] rebuttal and show me the math.

[36:55] >> sure, absolutely.

[36:56] We can definitely do that.

[36:59] >> very good.

[37:00] Thanks.

[37:02] Does that conclude, MR. Hudson,

[37:03] your presentation?

[37:05] All right, at this point in

[37:10] time, development services

[37:10] staff.

[37:11] >> good evenings sam ball with

[37:12] hillsborough county development

[37:15] services.

[37:17] the applicant is requesting a

[37:18] major modification to pocket

[37:21] scob of pd 77-0123 to allow for

[37:23] the development of 237

[37:25] multifamily dwellings through an

[37:27] exchange of commercial or office

[37:28] use entitlements.

[37:30] This application is being heard

[37:31] concurrentdly

[37:33] concurrently with a modification

[37:36] to the apollo beach dri under

[37:38] dri do26-2245.

[37:40] The subject property is located

[37:43] in the apollo beach community

[37:44] planning area.

[37:46] The development site adjoined

[37:48] properties within the same pd on

[37:50] all sides which are approved and

[37:51] developed for a mix of office

[37:55] and commercial uses that include

[37:56] retail, light industrial, and

[37:58] mini warehousing.

[38:00] Additional uses in the area

[38:03] include a religious institution,

[38:05] multifamily, single-family,

[38:09] conventional single-family

[38:10] dwellings, multiuser office

[38:12] complex and a mobile home park.

[38:18] Balkt 62b is approved for 4 --

[38:18] commercial or office square foot

[38:19] use.

[38:21] The proposes

[38:28] -- allowing for the 237multifamily dwellings and

[38:29] established vehicular and

[38:31] pedestrian access points along

[38:33] apollo beach boulevard and

[38:34] pedestrian cross-access for the

[38:35] property located to the north

[38:38] and south.

[38:40] The application includes a p

[38:41] dvariation request to the

[38:41] buffering and screening

[38:44] requirements of ldc section

[38:46] 60606, that if approved would

[38:47] reduce the required buffer and

[38:49] screening permits from a 30-foot

[38:51] c to a 10-foot b between the

[38:52] proposed building envelope and

[38:53] the light industrial site to the

[38:54] north.

[38:55] the activities associated with

[38:57] the light industrial use to the

[38:59] north are contained within a

[39:01] structure position of

[39:02] approximately 120 feet north of

[39:03] the property boundary.

[39:05] The manufacturing -- the

[39:06] industrial facility to the north

[39:09] is also gened from the subject

[39:10] property -- developed from

[39:11] subject property dense

[39:12] vegetation and protected

[39:12] wetlands.

[39:15] The load docks of the industrial

[39:17] facilities are located more than

[39:18] 275 feet from the proposed

[39:20] development, and are are

[39:22] oriented towards the opposite

[39:23] direction.

[39:24] Based on these findings, staff

[39:28] finds the approval of, finds

[39:30] that the approval of the

[39:31] requested waiver will have

[39:32] minimal impacts.

[39:33] Staff finds the proposed

[39:34] development compatible with the

[39:36] area based on zoning and

[39:37] development pattern in the area,

[39:40] and the above considerations.

[39:41] However, there proposed number

[39:42] of residential units would be

[39:43] provided through a conversion of

[39:44] commercial entitlements to

[39:47] residential entitlements as

[39:47] provided for

[39:50] for in the appaleo

[39:50] beach dri.

[39:53] The trip exchange requires at

[39:54] least 310,003 square feet

[39:56] instead of the 34,511 square

[39:58] feet proposed buy applicant due

[40:01] to directional daily inbound and

[40:02] outbound directional A.M. And

[40:04] inbound and directional P.M.

[40:06] Inbound trips.

[40:07] Due to this final consideration,

[40:09] staff finds the request not

[40:10] supportable.

[40:11] That concludes my presentation

[40:14] if you have any questions.

[40:15] >> okay.

[40:18] Only with regard to traffic.

[40:19] So I would like to hear from the

[40:21] transportation planner for the

[40:22] county.

[40:23] >> okay.

[40:24] James ratliff.

[40:24] >> okay.

[40:27] Thank you.

[40:28] >> good evening, james ratliff,

[40:30] development services,

[40:30] transportation --

[40:32] >> same question unless you have

[40:34] other comments you want to make,

[40:35] but the question I had for the

[40:37] applicant's transportation

[40:38] planner, show me the math.

[40:40] How do you get from 34,511

[40:44] square feet of retail to 237

[40:46] multifamily units.

[40:47] >> sure.

[40:48] Let me start by saying I think

[40:49] you asked the question whether

[40:51] the things they were presenting

[40:52] about how the other projects had

[40:54] been done, dg farms, was

[40:55] something that was presented to

[40:56] us.

[40:57] That data was provided.

[41:00] This went up to the director of

[41:01] development review which

[41:02] essentially interpreted what the

[41:03] development order states in

[41:04] terms of how we would analyze

[41:05] this project.

[41:07] They also then I believe cept

[41:08] that information to the county

[41:11] attorney's office who again

[41:15] agreed with staff's

[41:15] interpretation of how the

[41:16] development order reads so not

[41:18] with responding what was done in

[41:19] those other projects we have to

[41:19] review this project based on

[41:21] what this development order

[41:21] says.

[41:22] Not what's usual or customary

[41:26] but what was approved.

[41:28] So in terms of the map, let's

[41:30] see, I haven't used this thing

[41:31] in about 20 years.

[41:33] >> sorry, you haveilatal

[41:34] you have a little

[41:35] homework.

[41:36] I gave the other side homework

[41:36] too.

[41:51] >> and going to need to zoom.

[41:52] Okay.

[41:55] So if that's hopefully you can

[41:57] see that.

[41:58] Sales this is essentially a

[42:00] two-part problem.

[42:02] So the first part is the

[42:03] exchange of equivalent uses, and

[42:04] then the second part of the

[42:07] problem is assuming that the

[42:08] exchange was done correctly,

[42:10] kind of a subpart to the

[42:13] question, is do they control the

[42:15] entitlements necessary to

[42:16] effectuate the exchange.

[42:17] And the third or main problem is

[42:19] does that exchange violate the

[42:20] trip cap.

[42:23] So those are kind of separate

[42:24] but related issues.

[42:27] And in the dri development order

[42:28] again it introduces this concept

[42:31] for this particular dri of

[42:32] directional equivalency, and the

[42:34] tripp cap only looks at P.M.

[42:36] Peak hour.

[42:37] But with regard to the exchange,

[42:41] we look at all three periods and

[42:42] directional equivalency as well.

[42:44] So what you can see here is this

[42:45] first line basically shows what

[42:47] they're proposing to exchanger

[42:52] too, which is 237 dwelling

[42:53] units of apartments four stories

[42:54] or higher and that's an

[42:55] important consideration because

[42:56] the particular code they used

[42:57] higher the apartments are, the

[42:58] lower the traffic they generate

[43:00] per unit.

[43:02] So that's what that first line

[43:03] is showing.

[43:05] The next line is essentially

[43:08] taking of the 870,464 square

[43:10] feet of commercial entitlements,

[43:12] we said well, how much do we

[43:13] have to reduce that number by in

[43:18] order to achieve equiverancy inquiv lane in

[43:19] all three team pire I understand

[43:21] in -- periods in both the

[43:24] inbound and outbound.

[43:26] Average daily equivalency

[43:27] inbound and outbound, so on and

[43:28] so forth.

[43:29] So it took quite a bit of

[43:32] nonresidential entitlements to

[43:36] achieve an A.M. Peak hour

[43:36] equivalency.

[43:37] And that's because the code that

[43:40] was utilized when the code was

[43:41] studied, generates a relatively

[43:44] lower number, you know, of

[43:46] outbound A.M. Trips.

[43:48] So in order to get the number

[43:50] and of outbound A.M. Trips to be

[43:51] equivalent for residential,

[43:54] which generates right a lot of

[43:55] outbound A.M. Trips everybody's

[43:55] leaving for work in the morning

[43:59] you have to exchange 310,364

[44:02] square feet in order to achieve

[44:04] that outbound equivalency.

[44:04] In

[44:06] >> okay, so that's what you're

[44:07] saying.

[44:09] You're saying they have to

[44:10] exchange 310,000 square feet of

[44:14] retail to get to 237 units.

[44:15] >> correct, and it's all because

[44:17] of this one column right here,

[44:19] which is the outbound, in order

[44:22] to get that 71 units, to be

[44:23] equivalent, right you have a lot

[44:24] of overage in these other

[44:28] categories, it's that one

[44:29] directional equiv

[44:30] quivalency in the

[44:33] A.M. Outbound nat that was the

[44:34] controlling factor.

[44:34] >> got it.

[44:34] Okay.

[44:35] I understand.

[44:38] >> and then the second part of

[44:39] the test was assuming they had

[44:41] the entitlements to exchange and

[44:43] they could do that, then how

[44:47] does it interact with the trip

[44:48] cap.

[44:49] So and according to this it

[44:51] would exceed the cap by 10

[44:51] trips.

[44:52] He mentioned that you know they

[44:54] were looking at a potential do

[44:56] element as a curative mechanism

[44:57] I believe, but again that's not

[44:59] of record as of now so we

[45:02] reviewed this case based on

[45:04] what's currently being proposed,

[45:06] and you know, possibility we

[45:08] wouldn't support that even if

[45:09] proposed but the point being

[45:10] it's not being proposed

[45:11] currently so we're reviewing it

[45:13] as it currently sits.

[45:14] >> okay.

[45:14] All right.

[45:15] That's helpful.

[45:17] Thank you.

[45:17] >> sure.

[45:18] >> at this point in time,

[45:22] planning commission staff.

[45:23] >> lillian line 00, planning

[45:23] commission staff.

[45:25] The site is designated office

[45:26] commercial 20 on the future land

[45:28] use map and is within the urban

[45:29] service area and within the

[45:31] limits of the apollo beach

[45:33] community plan and southshore

[45:34] area-wide systems plan.

[45:35] Site's also part of a

[45:36] development of regional impact

[45:38] development order, and planning

[45:40] commission staff finding is cub

[45:42] tingance upon the application

[45:44] being in compliance with the

[45:44] dri.

[45:45] The intent of the office

[45:47] commercial 20 category is to

[45:48] accommodate commercial and

[45:49] office development while still

[45:51] allowing for the consideration

[45:52] of compatible residential uses

[45:54] and the proposed residential

[45:55] development exceeds the base

[45:57] density of the 20 dwelling units

[45:59] per acre allowed under this

[45:59] category.

[46:01] However, because of the dri, the

[46:02] proposed units utilize a portion

[46:04] of the remaining residential

[46:05] entitlements, and there

[46:06] therefore the

[46:07] proposal is consistent with the

[46:08] intent of the oc-20 category,

[46:10] subject to its compliance with

[46:12] the dri.

[46:15] Flu's objective 1.1 and of the

[46:16] future land use section directs

[46:19] 80% of the county's growth into

[46:20] the urban service area, and

[46:22] flu's policy 3.1.3 requires new

[46:23] development to be compatible

[46:25] with the surrounding uses.

[46:25] The proposed residential

[46:26] development is compatible with

[46:28] the surrounding development

[46:30] pattern, which includes light

[46:31] industrial and commercial uses

[46:32] with residential development

[46:34] farther west along apollo beach

[46:35] boulevard.

[46:37] Proposed development also meets

[46:40] the intent of flu's objective

[46:42] 4.4, policies 4.4.1, regarding

[46:43] compatibility with surrounding

[46:44] neighborhoods, while the apollo

[46:46] beach community plan discourages

[46:47] residential development that

[46:49] exceeds 50 feet in height, the

[46:50] subject site is located within

[46:52] an intensive future land use

[46:54] designation of office commercial

[46:56] 20 and an established commercial

[46:56] node.

[46:58] Given the surrounding commercial

[46:59] intensity and the location along

[47:01] apollo beach boulevard and U.S.

[47:02] Highway 41, the proposed

[47:03] building height is considered

[47:05] compatible with the surrounding

[47:06] area.

[47:08] And lastly, the major --

[47:09] proposed major modification is

[47:10] consistent with the vision of

[47:11] the apollo beach community plan

[47:13] and southshore area-wide systems

[47:14] plans, by supporting development

[47:16] within an established activity

[47:18] center, and providing additional

[47:19] residential opportunities in an

[47:21] area served by existing urban

[47:22] infrastructure.

[47:23] So based upon these

[47:24] considerations, planning

[47:26] commission staff finds the

[47:28] proposed major modification

[47:30] consistent with the

[47:31] unincorporated hillsborough

[47:31] county comprehensive plan

[47:33] subject to conditions proposed

[47:34] by development services and in

[47:35] compliants with the requirements

[47:36] of the dri.

[47:40] >> okay, thank you.

[47:41] All right at this in time, is

[47:44] there anyone in the audience

[47:45] that wishes to speak in support

[47:48] of the application?

[47:49] No one responding.

[47:50] Anyone in the audience wish to

[47:52] speak in opposition to the

[47:53] application?

[47:54] >> good evening, chair.

[47:55] I believe we have eight people

[47:59] signed up online to speak.

[48:00] >> okay.

[48:05] First person, please proceed.

[48:06] >> brad, are you able to hear

[48:07] me?

[48:09] >> I am, is I'm sorry, I didn't

[48:09] know I was first.

[48:12] My name is brad ahlgren a

[48:14] business owner at 208 apollo

[48:17] beach boulevard, about 350 feet

[48:18] southeast of the proposed

[48:20] development.

[48:22] And as I've said on the record,

[48:24] that I've submitted, I'm not

[48:25] opposed to progress.

[48:29] I'm not opposed to improvements,

[48:32] however, I believe this

[48:33] application would be to the

[48:36] detriment of the community, and

[48:38] a few things were said tonight

[48:39] that the applicant was not

[48:41] really in opposition to the

[48:42] staff on heights and setbacks

[48:46] and things like that.

[48:50] In my submission to the county,

[48:51] I've had viriance with that is

[48:55] we do have opposition to the

[48:55] height.

[48:59] We do have opposition to the

[49:00] setbacks.

[49:01] And I trust that you all have

[49:05] had a chance to read that

[49:06] submission on the record.

[49:07] However, I would like to speak

[49:10] with, speak about the

[49:12] comprehensive plan objective

[49:17] 2.2, which sets the density, let

[49:17] me pull that up.

[49:22] That sets maximum density, and I

[49:25] don't believe any dri or trip

[49:29] conversion can allow excess

[49:30] density nat

[49:32] that the objective

[49:32] withholds.

[49:36] So for oc-20 it allows up to

[49:37] about 189 units.

[49:40] I don't believe the dri

[49:41] conversions, the trip

[49:42] conversions can now exceed

[49:44] something that the objective

[49:45] withholds.

[49:46] So I do have an you should

[49:48] issue with that.

[49:51] And then I also have submitted

[49:52] on record that I don't believe

[49:55] it is in, it is consistent also

[49:59] with policy 3.1 in the scale,

[50:02] the mass, the bulk of structure,

[50:04] pedestrian and vehicular traffic

[50:06] and so for the record, I've put

[50:09] 6 points down that I believe

[50:13] support and corroborate that

[50:16] with video evidence, with just

[50:19] document evidence from the

[50:20] traffic engineer and e and from

[50:22] others and so -- how much time

[50:24] do I have with eight people?

[50:25] Two minutes?

[50:27] >> yeah, if you divide it by

[50:28] eight, there's roughly two

[50:28] minutes a person.

[50:30] >> a little under two.

[50:32] I'm probably very close to that

[50:33] so I will have to yield my time,

[50:35] but I trust that you all have

[50:41] read that document, and towards

[50:42] the end there I'm asking you do

[50:44] not grant variances on the

[50:46] setback or the height.

[50:51] Keep consistent with the plan.

[50:53] These plans were put in place.

[50:54] They're good plans just as you

[50:56] were looking at the dri and trip

[50:57] conversion, I believe the

[50:58] comprehensive plan should take

[50:59] precedent over all of that.

[51:01] So I'm opposed to it.

[51:02] >> all right, very good, thank

[51:03] you, sir.

[51:06] All right, next person woo who

[51:08] wishes to speak in opposition?

[51:09] >> laura?

[51:12] >> that's me.

[51:12] Hi.

[51:14] My name is laura craig.

[51:17] I live at 6348 cocoa lane in

[51:19] apollo beach.

[51:22] And I'm here to voice my concern

[51:26] over these major modifications.

[51:27] First and foremost you guys talk

[51:29] about P.M. And A.M. Traffic.

[51:31] Did anybody did these stud ation

[51:32] actually live in apailo beach

[51:35] and go down the A.M. And P.M.

[51:37] Times that they did these

[51:40] studies in?

[51:44] The schools, the traffic is just

[51:44] horrendous.

[51:46] Apollo beach boulevard is two

[51:48] lanes in, two lanes out.

[51:50] You have one car that fits into

[51:53] the turning lanes.

[51:54] There has not been any

[51:57] improvement to apollo beach

[51:58] boulevard in many, many years.

[51:58] There

[52:03] there was a 2025 study, proposed

[52:04] improvements, they were under

[52:04] review.

[52:06] one of those being taken one of

[52:08] those lanes and putting it into

[52:10] a golf cart and bicycle lane so

[52:12] that cuts two lanes down to one.

[52:19] You want to go and put 237 units

[52:21] chroughly you figure two people

[52:23] per unit minimum, roughly 500

[52:23] people.

[52:25] Everybody has a car.

[52:26] In and out.

[52:34] There is just no, I didn't hear

[52:35] anything to go and address the

[52:36] infrastructure about this, and

[52:37] not to mention the pick-up lines

[52:42] that extend down going east on

[52:43] apollo beach boulevard to the

[52:44] school.

[52:45] It extends all the way down

[52:47] apollo beach boulevard, and all

[52:49] the way down dickman boulevard.

[52:51] It's or dickman road.

[52:52] It's impossible.

[52:53] I'm surprised that there hasn't

[52:56] been a major accident as of yet

[52:58] or any children being hurt or

[53:02] killed by crossing these streets

[53:05] because it's a 35-mile per an

[53:07] hour zone, people use it for 50,

[53:09] 60-mile depending on how fast

[53:09] they want.

[53:11] So that's my issue with traffic.

[53:13] It's so close to 41 and apollo

[53:14] beach boulevard intersection.

[53:18] There's approximately 33 to

[53:19] 35,000 vehicles that pass

[53:24] through that intersection

[53:25] already.

[53:25] On the other side of 41.

[53:26] They already built I don't know

[53:31] how many hundreds of apartment

[53:31] buildings.

[53:33] Thaich already proposed another

[53:39] 250 apartments on the south side

[53:42] of paseo almar and 41.

[53:45] And to go and voice evacuation.

[53:47] We're in a flood zone.

[53:50] We were flooded.

[53:50] Two years ago.

[53:51] The whole apollo beach

[53:52] boulevard.

[53:54] how do you plan on getting 30,

[53:58] right now as -- it estimated

[54:00] about 33,000 people live in

[54:01] apollo beach.

[54:03] How do you expect to get all of

[54:05] these people out in case of an

[54:05] emergency?

[54:07] There is one way in and one way

[54:07] out.

[54:09] It's, there is, and there is no

[54:11] evacuation plan in any re view.

[54:14] There is nothing.

[54:15] Nobody, when we sound the siren,

[54:19] it's time to go.

[54:21] You also have to go and contend

[54:22] with the water shortage.

[54:25] We're only allowed to go and

[54:27] water our grass or plants or

[54:29] whatever once a week and you're

[54:30] only allowed 15 or 20 minutes

[54:34] and now you plan on doing 237

[54:35] more people in a five-story

[54:36] building which by the way does

[54:37] not, is not compatible with

[54:38] apollo beach.

[54:40] You don't -- there is nothing

[54:43] over two stories.

[54:45] They are trying to get -- there

[54:51] are two other complexes trying

[54:53] to -- the waterset complex, the

[54:55] one I mentioned, and we're not

[54:57] mentioning the hotel, the

[54:58] condominiums that they want to

[54:59] do on surfside boulevard which

[55:04] is another 50 to 55 condominiums

[55:06] with retail.

[55:07] They don't know retail or no

[55:08] retail, they haven't decided

[55:11] yet.

[55:12] So between the water shortages,

[55:13] the traffic issues, the road is

[55:15] in horrible condition.

[55:17] I mean, you have to weave and

[55:21] dodge potholes, and sinkholes,

[55:23] and then they come in and they

[55:27] do a shoddy job patching it

[55:28] anyway.

[55:30] Ask r and this doesn't even

[55:30] address the amount of people

[55:32] that are going to be -- how many

[55:33] kids are going to go going into

[55:34] the schools.

[55:37] I mean, they're already

[55:38] overcrowded.

[55:39] We have five schools right

[55:41] around us and traffic is just

[55:42] insane.

[55:42] I don't leave my house until

[55:43] after 10:00 in the morning

[55:47] because you can't get through.

[55:48] And then I make sure I'm home by

[55:49] 2:00 because the traffic coming

[55:53] home from school is crazy.

[55:55] And then at 4:00 all the traffic

[55:57] coming in from tampa, people

[55:57] working.

[56:02] The traffic has made this once

[56:04] paradise into a nightmare.

[56:05] You don't even want to leave

[56:05] your house.

[56:08] So I don't think that the, what

[56:13] the developer or the, these

[56:15] kuddies are show -- studies are

[56:16] showing is the actual impact of

[56:19] what you're try doing here.

[56:21] You know, you're sounding like

[56:22] yore all

[56:24] you all live in tampa but how

[56:25] about flooding?

[56:26] You guys go and deal with

[56:27] flooding.

[56:28] The pipes over here, they're all

[56:29] 50 years old plus, they're all

[56:30] breaking.

[56:31] My road already had three issues

[56:34] with pipes bursting.

[56:36] So it's just not, it's not

[56:37] compatible.

[56:40] Again, I'm not just like the

[56:41] gentleman before me said, I'm

[56:42] not against growth but I am

[56:48] against this unbridled

[56:48] development, and it's

[56:51] unfortunate that we live in an

[56:52] unincorporated hillsborough

[56:53] county because we don't have a

[56:53] voice.

[56:55] We are the voice.

[56:55] And it seems like we're not

[56:58] being listened to.

[56:58] you

[57:01] you know, we moved here for a

[57:04] reason, and that reason is being

[57:06] eroded so quickly that it makes

[57:07] your head spin.

[57:08] You know, they have waterset

[57:09] that's already gone all the way

[57:12] down through 19th street.

[57:14] There is no more rural land.

[57:14] There is none.

[57:16] What used to be tomato farms and

[57:16] cattle farms is nothing.

[57:20] It's just houses and houses and

[57:20] houses.

[57:29] So yes, I am, there are high

[57:30] density projects with everything

[57:31] around and now they approved

[57:33] costco and target across the

[57:35] street from the high school on

[57:35] big bend.

[57:37] It's going to be even more of a

[57:37] nightmare.

[57:40] I mean to get up it used to take

[57:41] me 15 minutes to get up to 75.

[57:43] I'm lucky if I could get up

[57:45] there in 35 minutes.

[57:46] Do the

[57:50] to the highway and then get on

[57:54] 75 to get up to brandon.

[57:59] It's a 10-mile trip, 45 minutes.

[57:59] So.

[58:00] >> ma'am, let's -- there are a

[58:01] few more people that want to

[58:02] speak.

[58:02] >> I know, I'm sorry.

[58:03] I'm done.

[58:04] I'm done, yes, I just hone that

[58:06] these developers give, there's

[58:09] no thought to the quality of

[58:13] life, and I respectfully ask for

[58:14] this major modification to be

[58:14] denied.

[58:15] Thank you.

[58:15] >> all right.

[58:16] Thank yo, ma'am.

[58:18] Okay, next person that wishes to

[58:22] speak in opposition.

[58:23] >> lynne banks.

[58:24] >> hello, can you hear me?

[58:26] >> yes, hi, my name is

[58:28] lynnebanks and I live at 102 st. George court.

[58:31] Back in APRIL I put together a

[58:33] petition as a member of the over

[58:36] 500 unit caribbean isles

[58:38] waterfront mobile home community

[58:38] co-op.

[58:40] I want to express our

[58:42] significant concern and oppose

[58:44] the construction of this huge

[58:44] apartment building and the

[58:47] reasons are as follows.

[58:48] Number 1 I want to completely

[58:53] support the documentation

[58:56] ubmitted by brad ahlgren his

[58:57] analysis of the entire process

[59:00] is absolutelyright

[59:01] absolutelyright on.

[59:04] Number two, the problem at

[59:06] caribbean ieltz rr is water

[59:08] runoff and our canals are

[59:09] filling up with silt and other

[59:11] items causing our canals to be

[59:12] overrun with silt and filling

[59:13] in.

[59:13] Our community spent almost a

[59:14] million dollars in the las

[59:17] couple of years dredging the

[59:20] community that has been touted

[59:21] as a waterfront boating

[59:22] community.

[59:23] Many people can

[59:25] cannot even get

[59:27] their boats off the lifts let

[59:29] alone navigate to tampa bay to

[59:30] enjoy the wonderful environment

[59:31] we have.

[59:32] Number one concern would be to

[59:32] ask the developer if he is

[59:34] willing to put up a million

[59:36] dollar surety bond to address

[59:37] all damages and issues that MAY

[59:39] affect the caribbean isles

[59:41] mobile home community and the

[59:42] future if this plan should go

[59:46] through.

[59:47] I think this is certainly

[59:47] reasonable.

[59:48] If there is no damage, there is

[59:48] no cost.

[59:49] If there is damage we would like

[59:50] to be compensated for the

[59:51] ability to use our canals that

[59:54] we purchased over the last 40 to

[59:58] 50 years.

[1:00:00] Secondly as a retired law

[1:00:01] enforcement officer having

[1:00:03] watched everything going up and

[1:00:04] down apollo beach boulevard, I

[1:00:05] am appalled that the traffic

[1:00:07] study was number one,

[1:00:08] inaccurate, and number two, it

[1:00:12] hasn't been significantly and

[1:00:13] adequately documented or

[1:00:16] finalized as to the amount of

[1:00:19] traffic problems that could be

[1:00:21] if this apartment building goes

[1:00:21] through.

[1:00:22] There is no ability to put in

[1:00:23] left turn lanes, right turn

[1:00:25] lanes, there is no ability for

[1:00:26] traffic to get across apollo

[1:00:27] beach boulevard to go north and

[1:00:29] south, and what the developer is

[1:00:31] proposing is absolutely

[1:00:35] ridiculous from a staff

[1:00:35] perspective.

[1:00:37] You can't ask trucks, fire

[1:00:37] department engines, or

[1:00:38] ambulances or anything else to

[1:00:41] make u-turns at the south end of

[1:00:42] the north end of this building

[1:00:43] so that's not going to work for

[1:00:44] them.

[1:00:46] Plus we also had a golf cart

[1:00:50] fatality at the road apollo

[1:00:52] beach -- where curib crn

[1:00:54] caribbean isles

[1:00:55] gets off apollo beach biewbd

[1:00:56] tat was never documented, that

[1:01:00] was in DECEMBER of 2024.

[1:01:01] So I think the traffic study

[1:01:01] needs to be done.

[1:01:03] I also think that we are in

[1:01:06] agreement that a final traffic

[1:01:07] study from hillsborough county

[1:01:09] as to what the plan is for

[1:01:11] apollo beach boulevard from the

[1:01:11] -

[1:01:13] bay all the way to highway 41.

[1:01:15] It's absolutely ooze i

[1:01:18] -- as I can

[1:01:19] only imagine as everybody agrees

[1:01:20] is a nightmare.

[1:01:24] Nobody would want to drive on

[1:01:24] that.

[1:01:25] Thirdly the height is not cub

[1:01:30] forming to the 50-foot

[1:01:31] guidelines.

[1:01:32] A 65-foot building I will be

[1:01:35] able to change the televisions

[1:01:37] with my remote control to the

[1:01:39] people that live on the third,

[1:01:40] fourth, and fifth building if

[1:01:41] this should go through.

[1:01:42] What irritates us to no end is

[1:01:44] that because the zoning

[1:01:46] purpose -- notification purposes

[1:01:49] are only 350 feet, you MISS

[1:01:51] Notifying caribbean isles

[1:01:52] community by about 125 feet.

[1:01:55] Which we consider completely

[1:01:56] unfair and actually kind of

[1:01:57] disappointing because it sounds

[1:01:59] like the developer was trying to

[1:02:02] hide from us.

[1:02:03] So the heighth is awful.

[1:02:05] There are no other four or

[1:02:06] five-story buildings west o

[1:02:08] highway 41, and what's going on

[1:02:10] east of highway 41 is already at

[1:02:14] a 40% or more vacancy.

[1:02:16] They are not filling these

[1:02:16] buildings up.

[1:02:19] Nobody can afford them.

[1:02:20] Lastly, as was pointed out in

[1:02:26] the documentation from

[1:02:27] MR. Ahlgren, the sewer and water

[1:02:28] issues going to be a huge

[1:02:28] concern.

[1:02:30] The wastewater is not able to be

[1:02:31] handled right now with what is

[1:02:32] in place.

[1:02:33] You start building more of these

[1:02:34] buildings without having a plan

[1:02:37] in place, who's going to pay for

[1:02:37] that?

[1:02:39] That's going to have to come out

[1:02:41] of taxes someplace.

[1:02:42] There is absolutely no way

[1:02:43] you're going to put in a new

[1:02:44] water treatment plant without

[1:02:46] costing everybody in appallee

[1:02:47] beach

[1:02:50] appalleeobeach an exorbitant amount of

[1:02:50] money.

[1:02:53] So with that said I'm going to

[1:02:55] defer my time to anybody else

[1:02:55] that wants to speak.

[1:02:57] Just remember we have over 500

[1:02:59] people in our community, and 350

[1:03:01] of them signed a petition

[1:03:03] against and opposing this

[1:03:03] development.

[1:03:05] Please stick to the rules and

[1:03:06] the regulations that have been

[1:03:08] written and that have been

[1:03:08] planned.

[1:03:10] Major modifications don't need

[1:03:11] to be addressed right now.

[1:03:13] I think that's just totally

[1:03:14] unheard of.

[1:03:15] Thank you for your time.

[1:03:16] >> okay, thank you, ma'am.

[1:03:18] All right, about out of 15

[1:03:18] minutes.

[1:03:19] How many more people wish to

[1:03:23] speak in opposition?

[1:03:25] I see one, two, people.

[1:03:28] Three?

[1:03:29] Okay.

[1:03:31] I'm going to grant --

[1:03:33] >> there are people in the

[1:03:33] audience as well.

[1:03:34] >> and there are people in the

[1:03:35] audience.

[1:03:35] Raise your hands.

[1:03:36] I got two people if

[1:03:38] in the audience

[1:03:39] as well, so that's five.

[1:03:44] Grant five more minutes.

[1:03:46] That please keep that in mind.

[1:03:48] That's a minute per person

[1:03:52] unless you have a designated

[1:03:53] speaker.

[1:03:56] Next speaker, please.

[1:03:57] >> mary lavry.

[1:03:59] >> 123 st. Martins way in

[1:04:01] appallee beach, and I'm speaking

[1:04:05] then in opposition to this.

[1:04:07] My concerns are with the

[1:04:09] existing traffic and the

[1:04:11] intensity as lynne banks had

[1:04:13] stated that there was a death

[1:04:17] from our community tat was not

[1:04:18] documented in the -- that was

[1:04:18] not documented in the traffic

[1:04:19] study.

[1:04:23] I also want to talk about the

[1:04:24] 237 unit dri.

[1:04:27] Thank you for acknowledging that

[1:04:29] there are still questions with

[1:04:30] that exchange because it did not

[1:04:36] make sense to me.

[1:04:37] , 435,000 square feet being

[1:04:42] changed into 310,000 square feet

[1:04:44] so that was a shortage of

[1:04:45] 275,000 square feet.

[1:04:47] It did not make sense the math

[1:04:51] did nt make sense to me.

[1:04:55] Speaking about the height and

[1:04:55] compatibility.

[1:04:57] We in apollo beach really only

[1:04:59] have two-story buildings so

[1:05:03] having this now go to four story

[1:05:04] buildings,

[1:05:05] , that's definitely not

[1:05:06] compatible.

[1:05:10] We probably need to have ayes on eyes on

[1:05:11] whether than paperwork submitted

[1:05:13] to say yes, it's curppatible.

[1:05:14] There is also concern for

[1:05:16] drainage and the environmental.

[1:05:20] As lynne also spoke about, we

[1:05:22] are in a canal community, and

[1:05:25] those canals are significantly

[1:05:28] impacting our way of life, and

[1:05:33] there is also then concern about

[1:05:36] the coastal evacuation that has

[1:05:39] not been addressed soy where, so I would

[1:05:41] request the board that the

[1:05:43] transportation access changes

[1:05:50] have not really been resolved.

[1:05:53] The 237 unit dri entitlement

[1:05:56] exchange remains deficient.

[1:05:58] The transportation staff

[1:05:59] concerns are -- continues to

[1:06:00] object.

[1:06:02] And there is specific questions

[1:06:04] regarding the intensity, the

[1:06:11] drainage and community,

[1:06:12] cumulative impacts.

[1:06:13] Transportation impacts have not

[1:06:16] been answered fully and for

[1:06:17] these reasons I respectfully ask

[1:06:18] the board not to approve.

[1:06:19] >> okay, thank you, ma'am.

[1:06:26] Next person, please.

[1:06:27] >> michelle read.

[1:06:27] Thank

[1:06:31] reed, thank you verymuch.

[1:06:32] Can you hear me.

[1:06:32] >> yes.

[1:06:33] >> the traffic is a problem.

[1:06:34] I come out

[1:06:35] out of our small

[1:06:36] community on gulf and sea and

[1:06:38] there are no adequate turnoffs

[1:06:38] anywhere.

[1:06:39] It is very dangerous to cross

[1:06:43] from the south side of apollo

[1:06:43] beach boulevard to the north

[1:06:45] side in any u-turn fashion and

[1:06:46] vice versa.

[1:06:48] It is just extremely dangerous

[1:06:49] and you just wait and wait and

[1:06:50] wait.

[1:06:51] I would like to give the rest of

[1:06:59] my time to MR. Ahlgren to speak

[1:07:00] to the six points.

[1:07:02] >> can you please give your

[1:07:03] address.

[1:07:05] >> 423 island cay way, apollo

[1:07:06] beach.

[1:07:14] >> okay, next person, please.

[1:07:16] >> mauro vitone and I believe

[1:07:17] besides him we had two more

[1:07:21] people signed up online.

[1:07:25] >> hi, mario vittone.

[1:07:26] We're the lght industrial

[1:07:28] building to the north of the

[1:07:29] property, and with nine acres.

[1:07:31] I need 30 seconds.

[1:07:35] Our concern is just the impact.

[1:07:38] All we want to do with our land

[1:07:41] is develop it as the pd says to

[1:07:44] develop it, just with more, we

[1:07:48] want to put about 20 more light

[1:07:49] units for the people of apollo

[1:07:51] beach to work in apollo beach.

[1:07:53] We're just looking to put up

[1:07:54] some places that small

[1:07:56] businesses can open up there.

[1:07:59] So our concern is that we'll --

[1:08:02] if this development will impact

[1:08:03] the amount of square footage we

[1:08:04] have left when it comes time for

[1:08:05] us to develop our land.

[1:08:06] That's it.

[1:08:07] And so it's not really -- I'm

[1:08:11] not for or against the property.

[1:08:12] Mostly because we moved out of

[1:08:13] apollo beach because of traffic,

[1:08:15] so we escaped it but it sounds

[1:08:17] like a valid complaint but for

[1:08:18] us, my concern is just what it

[1:08:21] does to the, ours, chis the last

[1:08:23] remaining land to be developed.

[1:08:24] R in

[1:08:25] in the zone.

[1:08:26] Thanks very much.

[1:08:26] >> thank you, sir.

[1:08:30] All right, next person, please.

[1:08:35] >> rick french.

[1:08:46] Rick, are you there?

[1:08:50] >> rick, are you there?

[1:08:50] >> hello?

[1:08:53] Hello?

[1:08:53] >> hello, rick.

[1:08:54] >> well, if you don't mind, I'm

[1:08:55] going to put him on hold, there

[1:08:57] are a couple of people in the

[1:08:58] audience that raised their hand.

[1:08:59] I wanted

[1:09:02] that wanted to speak in

[1:09:02] opposition.

[1:09:03] If you could please come

[1:09:07] forward.

[1:09:08] Good evening.

[1:09:08] >> good evening.

[1:09:09] Thank you.

[1:09:10] My name is robert dauby.

[1:09:14] I live at 1407 jupawno loop,

[1:09:14] apollo beach.

[1:09:17] I moved to florida.

[1:09:19] It'll be five years in JANUARY

[1:09:21] because california turned into a

[1:09:23] ses pit of certain things.

[1:09:28] In areas of crime and the

[1:09:29] whatnot hoping florida was a

[1:09:30] little different than it is.

[1:09:34] it's a terrific state except

[1:09:36] this, I am all for live local

[1:09:39] thing nat is nice but the

[1:09:40] section 8 housing and there are

[1:09:42] a lot of vouchers in california

[1:09:45] and those crime rates do ego up

[1:09:46] and has not been addressed yet.

[1:09:48] Crime rates go up in those areas

[1:09:49] unless there is a real good

[1:09:51] screening of people that come

[1:09:51] in.

[1:09:52] I have experienced, I have a

[1:09:52] 7-year-old.

[1:09:57] The traffic is, is out -- it's

[1:09:58] crazy.

[1:09:59] I've seen it increase since I

[1:10:01] first got here five years ago.

[1:10:02] It's just increased and as they

[1:10:04] said there are the costcos,

[1:10:06] there's this, the wal-mart,

[1:10:07] they're building up like crazy.

[1:10:08] There are homes all over the

[1:10:09] place, and there is, you know to

[1:10:11] put this here in apollo beach,

[1:10:11] it'll

[1:10:13] it'll hurt land values and if

[1:10:15] that happens, I think then

[1:10:16] developers that are putting this

[1:10:19] kind of thing in should be held

[1:10:20] responsible.

[1:10:20] >> okay.

[1:10:20] Thank you.

[1:10:21] >> all right.

[1:10:21] >> thank you, sir.

[1:10:24] All right, one last speaker.

[1:10:26] Sir, can I get you to sign in?

[1:10:27] >> oh, sorry.

[1:10:31] >> get the last speaker here.

[1:10:32] Because time's up.

[1:10:35] >> I live at 6510 dolphin cove

[1:10:36] drive.

[1:10:37] There are a lot of reasons to

[1:10:39] not approve this, major

[1:10:40] modification, I think we heard

[1:10:41] them here this evening, there is

[1:10:44] a lot of stuff with the traffic

[1:10:46] counts that you know like I hope

[1:10:47] everybody realizes the inbound

[1:10:48] and outbound traffic is based

[1:10:50] probably on the 237 units but

[1:10:51] there is also a low income

[1:10:52] apartment building that was

[1:10:54] already approved that no one

[1:10:55] could stop right beside this

[1:10:57] current one that's up for

[1:10:58] approval.

[1:10:58] In addition to that, we

[1:11:00] obviously heard that the

[1:11:01] traffic's awful but that traffic

[1:11:03] signal right there at 41 and

[1:11:05] boulevard to substandard, it

[1:11:07] cannot handle the traffic that

[1:11:08] goes there currently.

[1:11:09] It was originally designed for a

[1:11:11] t intersection now it's a

[1:11:12] four-way.

[1:11:12] It was also the county is

[1:11:14] getting ready to approve

[1:11:15] administrative variance for

[1:11:17] median spacing, the boulevard is

[1:11:19] substandard as it is.

[1:11:20] So I don't know why we would go

[1:11:21] approve a variance.

[1:11:22] In addition the county is also

[1:11:23] going to approve a design

[1:11:26] exception but the rode is --

[1:11:27] road is substandardo even if you

[1:11:28] acquire more right-of-way or get

[1:11:29] more right-of-way to put a

[1:11:31] shared use path in there, it's

[1:11:32] still, there are no other shared

[1:11:34] use paths there so why are we

[1:11:34] jumping through hoops to approve

[1:11:35] somebody that -- approve

[1:11:39] something that nobody wants.

[1:11:40] >> okay, I'm done.

[1:11:40] >> thank you, sir.

[1:11:44] All right, with that,

[1:11:45] development services staff,

[1:11:49] anything further?

[1:11:51] >> nothing further.

[1:11:52] Nope, transportation is saying

[1:11:57] no as well.

[1:12:02] >> applicant has opportunity for

[1:12:03] rebuttal.

[1:12:04] >> evening hearing mast, lots to

[1:12:05] cover in five minutes.

[1:12:07] Don't want to be late with

[1:12:09] homework so MR. Henry is going

[1:12:10] to talk about the assignment you

[1:12:19] gave him, and then I'll be back.

[1:12:21] >> we looked at the P.M. Peak

[1:12:24] hour, and so as MR. Ratliff

[1:12:26] ratliff had

[1:12:27] indicated we were looking at

[1:12:30] inbound and outbound so in this

[1:12:31] case the A.M. Peak hour, the

[1:12:33] apartments on top which match

[1:12:36] MR. Ratliff's table, is 57 cars.

[1:12:39] So that's the inbound for the

[1:12:40] apartments.

[1:12:43] So we compare that to the retail

[1:12:46] trips and for 36,000 square

[1:12:49] feet, it's about 57 trips

[1:12:51] inbound in the P.M. And about 60

[1:12:52] outbound.

[1:12:54] So that's how you get that

[1:12:55] equivalency based on the actual

[1:12:56] trip generation.

[1:12:57] So now again, when you look at

[1:12:59] A.M., that's where the

[1:13:00] difference is because of the

[1:13:01] trip generation and A.M.

[1:13:03] But this gives you what that is

[1:13:04] for the P.M. Which we believe is

[1:13:05] the appropriate --

[1:13:07] >> as far as you know,

[1:13:09] development services,

[1:13:13] transportation staff, do not,

[1:13:14] they are going to argue with you

[1:13:16] about the P.M. Peam

[1:13:17] peak hour.

[1:13:19] >> it's they are going to agree

[1:13:21] with the numbers, it's a

[1:13:24] question of whether you do A.M.

[1:13:24] Or P.M.?

[1:13:26] >> you agree on the numbers?

[1:13:28] >> on trip generation, when he

[1:13:30] did his table, he did worst

[1:13:32] case, which was the outbound in

[1:13:33] the A.M.

[1:13:35] >> all right, so I got it.

[1:13:44] >> thank you.

[1:13:46] >> close briefly, in 1979 the

[1:13:47] county commission adopt

[1:13:47] addevelopment plan for this

[1:13:49] area, and that

[1:13:52] preceded a lott of the

[1:13:53] externalities of growth you

[1:13:54] heard about.

[1:13:57] you hear about it every time

[1:13:58] you're on this side of the

[1:13:59] podium.

[1:14:02] -- how much growth we've had.

[1:14:04] And some other infrastructure

[1:14:05] shortages we have had.

[1:14:07] This is popular to note but it's

[1:14:07] through developments of any kind

[1:14:09] that new rev nigh comes into the

[1:14:10] county, and it's the new

[1:14:11] buildings that fill the

[1:14:12] potholes.

[1:14:14] That's just math, that's how it

[1:14:15] is.

[1:14:16] The comprehensive plan, one of

[1:14:17] the folks in opposition,

[1:14:19] mentioned that the comprehensive

[1:14:21] plan imposes some type of

[1:14:22] ceiling on the density that

[1:14:23] we're piercing.

[1:14:25] This is a vested development

[1:14:27] order that goes back to 1979.

[1:14:29] And the trips and the uses that

[1:14:31] are attended to that are vested

[1:14:32] rights that run with the

[1:14:32] property.

[1:14:33] And again, what we're really

[1:14:38] talking about is how those r are

[1:14:38] exchanged.

[1:14:39] We believe to be true to the

[1:14:41] text it aligns with our

[1:14:43] interpretation and our proposed

[1:14:45] conversion that that is the most

[1:14:46] legally defensible, strict

[1:14:48] reading of the way the text as

[1:14:51] it is and as it's been since

[1:14:52] 1979 and appreciate your

[1:14:52] patience tonight.

[1:14:54] I have nothing further.

[1:14:54] Thanks.

[1:14:55] >> thank you, sir.

[1:14:56] Okay.

[1:14:57] With that, that concludes this

[1:14:58] application.

[1:14:59] MS. Heinrich, we're ready for

[1:15:01] the next case.

[1:15:02] >> our next application is item

[1:15:06] d.2, pd 26-0363.

[1:15:08] The applicant is requesting to

[1:15:11] rezone property from pd 1373 to

[1:15:12] planned development.

[1:15:16] I've viewed this for development

[1:15:17] services and will provide staff

[1:15:18] findings after the applicant's

[1:15:19] presentation.

[1:15:31] >>> okay, the applicant, please.

[1:15:32] >> good evening, hearing

[1:15:34] officer, staff members, todd

[1:15:36] pressman, 200 second avenue

[1:15:38] south, number 451 in

[1:15:39] st. Petersburg.

[1:15:43] This r intrrks pd 26-0363.

[1:15:47] Planning commission finds

[1:15:48] consistent, development services

[1:15:49] supports.

[1:15:50] There are no agency objections.

[1:15:51] We are located in the seffner

[1:15:53] mango area, 4.11 acres.

[1:15:54] You can see that we're close to

[1:15:57] I-75 and mlk, JR. Boulevard.

[1:16:01] We're located on lakewood drive

[1:16:05] abutting south end jim john lane

[1:16:06] as shown by the property

[1:16:06] appraiser.

[1:16:08] So the issue is the pd for 14

[1:16:10] single-family homes.

[1:16:11] It was previously approved for

[1:16:15] four to six single-family homes.

[1:16:17] This is the proposed pd again

[1:16:19] for 14 single-family homes.

[1:16:20] It is being removed out of a

[1:16:25] much larger pd, a companion prs

[1:16:28] is filed.

[1:16:31] And the existing pd is primarily

[1:16:33] mobile home community.

[1:16:35] This is being removed for the

[1:16:38] single-family as indicated.

[1:16:43] And that larger pd is a 425 unit

[1:16:45] mobile home community.

[1:16:46] Zoning is really sort of a mix

[1:16:49] on the residential side.

[1:16:52] You see rsc-6, you see as-1, a

[1:16:55] lot of PDs, it is a variable

[1:16:59] residential area but primarily

[1:17:01] almost exclusively residential.

[1:17:03] This is just to show you an

[1:17:04] aerial to the side you can see

[1:17:05] the scrairious

[1:17:07] various types of residential

[1:17:10] from mobile homes to

[1:17:11] single-family.

[1:17:12] Planning commission does note

[1:17:13] we're compatible.

[1:17:14] Could be consider for

[1:17:16] considered for up to

[1:17:18] three to six dwelling units and

[1:17:20] they note the intent supports

[1:17:21] goal 2 of the seffner mango

[1:17:22] community plan.

[1:17:23] Development services note while

[1:17:26] it's located residential area

[1:17:26] featuring single-family detached

[1:17:28] mobile home park uses,

[1:17:29] single-family residential,

[1:17:32] again, a nice mix of different

[1:17:33] various types.

[1:17:35] The proposed density is one of

[1:17:37] the maximum in the rs9 future

[1:17:42] land use category.

[1:17:43] Hearing officer, I will tell you

[1:17:45] we sent out 26 notices two

[1:17:46] times.

[1:17:49] There are two letters in the

[1:17:49] file.

[1:17:53] One has to do with referring to

[1:17:54] clear road improvements or

[1:17:55] traffic study would make safety,

[1:17:57] and would make safety and

[1:17:59] congestion worse.

[1:18:00] The county transportation

[1:18:04] department does indicate no

[1:18:04] objections.

[1:18:06] And our transportation expert is

[1:18:07] here.

[1:18:11] The other letter has to do with

[1:18:12] no infrastructure being

[1:18:13] considered when of course

[1:18:16] infrastructure is considered for

[1:18:17] the location.

[1:18:21] And concerned about lakewood

[1:18:23] only having two lanes and there

[1:18:26] are trees that should not be cut

[1:18:27] down, but of course as a

[1:18:28] standard, that's not an issue at

[1:18:30] the moment, and that's an issue

[1:18:32] of course that would have to go

[1:18:32] through quite a few departments

[1:18:33] and approvals as it would come

[1:18:35] in for site plan.

[1:18:38] So with that, if you have any

[1:18:39] questions or concerns, I'd be

[1:18:46] happy to answer them.

[1:18:48] Jason, jason, are you here?

[1:18:49] Do you want to make any comments

[1:18:52] if you feel necessary?

[1:18:55] If you would allow.

[1:18:55] >> sure.

[1:18:57] >> good evening: thank you.

[1:19:00] My name is jason rinard.

[1:19:01] I'm 3242 henderson boulevard,

[1:19:02] tampa, florida.

[1:19:04] I'm a landscape architect with

[1:19:05] the group that's looked at this

[1:19:07] from the civil and

[1:19:08] transportation components.

[1:19:11] We just wanted to kind of

[1:19:12] reiterate what todd just talked

[1:19:12] about.

[1:19:14] We are going to have to

[1:19:16] obviously moving forward if this

[1:19:18] is approved we will move forward

[1:19:19] working with, you know,

[1:19:20] requirements of land development

[1:19:22] code in terms of the trees.

[1:19:23] We understand we would certainly

[1:19:25] have to do an arborist report to

[1:19:27] determine if there are grand

[1:19:28] trees along lakewood drive and

[1:19:29] certainly any impacts we would

[1:19:31] have to address as part of that

[1:19:32] process.

[1:19:33] So we

[1:19:35] we fully support we would

[1:19:36] have to meet that criteria.

[1:19:37] >> okay, very good.

[1:19:38] Thank you, sir.

[1:19:41] Please sign in.

[1:19:41] Okay.

[1:19:44] All right, MR. Pressman, that

[1:19:46] conclude your presentation?

[1:19:47] >> yes, sir, thank you.

[1:19:49] >> all right, thank you.

[1:19:49] All right.

[1:19:51] Development services staff.

[1:19:52] >> michelle heinrich,

[1:19:54] development services.

[1:19:57] Staff reviewed a 4.11-acre

[1:19:58] parcel located on the west side

[1:20:00] of lakewood drive south of clay

[1:20:01] pit road.

[1:20:02] the subject site is located

[1:20:05] within the res 9 future land use

[1:20:06] category and within the urban

[1:20:09] service area.

[1:20:11] The subject parcel is parcel b

[1:20:14] within pd 18-1373.

[1:20:16] And parcel a as you heard from

[1:20:17] applicant, the remainder part of

[1:20:21] this pd, is approved for a 425

[1:20:25] space mobile home park.

[1:20:26] Parcel b alone is permitted for

[1:20:28] four single-family lots, which

[1:20:31] can be subdivided or left on one

[1:20:32] parcel.

[1:20:34] To recognize the removal of this

[1:20:38] parcel from pd 18-1373, the

[1:20:41] applicant has filed a companion

[1:20:42] prs application.

[1:20:43] The site is located within area

[1:20:45] developed with single-family

[1:20:47] detached residential, and mobile

[1:20:48] home park uses, all within the

[1:20:52] res 9 future land use category.

[1:20:54] The applicant's request is for

[1:20:55] 14 single-family lots resulting

[1:20:57] in a density of 3.4 units per

[1:20:58] acre.

[1:20:59] Proposed development standards

[1:21:01] are comparable to the rsc-9

[1:21:02] standard zoning district.

[1:21:03] Staff received no objections

[1:21:05] from reviewing agencies, and

[1:21:07] finds the request supportable

[1:21:08] subject to proposed conditions

[1:21:11] of approval.

[1:21:14] >> just for the record, how big

[1:21:19] was the parent pd that this is

[1:21:23] being sort of taken away from?

[1:21:25] >> for that one idon't know how

[1:21:29] large the original pd is.

[1:21:32] It is just visually when I've

[1:21:33] looked at that site plan it is

[1:21:35] quite large, takes up almost a

[1:21:36] city block.

[1:21:38] >> yeah.

[1:21:43] And it's has approval for 400

[1:21:45] and something mobile home park

[1:21:45] spaces.

[1:21:46] >> mm-hmm.

[1:21:47] >> is density calculated the

[1:21:53] same way for mobile home park

[1:21:54] spaces?

[1:21:54] >> it is.

[1:21:57] >> so there is no issue with

[1:22:01] this track contributing to thick the

[1:22:03] acreage needed to maintain the

[1:22:07] 425 face mobile home park?

[1:22:08] >> no.

[1:22:08] In

[1:22:09] .

[1:22:10] >> okay, so thootsler

[1:22:12] that's not an issue.

[1:22:13] >> correct, not an issue.

[1:22:14] >> all right, planning

[1:22:15] commission staff.

[1:22:16] >> lilyann linehan, planning

[1:22:17] commission staff.

[1:22:18] Subject property is within the

[1:22:19] residential 9 future land use

[1:22:20] category, and in the urban

[1:22:21] service area, and within the

[1:22:22] limits of the seffner mango

[1:22:25] community plan.

[1:22:26] Objective 1.1 of future land use

[1:22:27] section directs 80% of the

[1:22:29] county's anticipated growth into

[1:22:31] the urban service area, flu's

[1:22:33] policy 3.1.3 requires that new

[1:22:34] development be compatible with

[1:22:35] the surrounding uses, and

[1:22:36] recognizes that compatibility

[1:22:38] does not mean the same as but

[1:22:39] refers to the sensitivity of the

[1:22:40] development proposals and

[1:22:41] preserving the character of

[1:22:43] existing development.

[1:22:45] And additionally objective 4.4

[1:22:48] and policy 4.4.1 require new

[1:22:49] development to be compatible

[1:22:50] with the surrounding

[1:22:51] neighborhood.

[1:22:52] In this case, single-family two

[1:22:54] two-family and multifamily uses

[1:22:56] are present in the immediate

[1:22:56] vicinity of the site and the

[1:22:57] existing land use pattern

[1:22:59] establishes a predominantly

[1:23:00] residential context that

[1:23:01] supports the proposed

[1:23:02] development.

[1:23:03] the intent of the residential 9

[1:23:05] category is to recognize low to

[1:23:08] medium density residential uses

[1:23:09] and residential 9 future land

[1:23:10] use surrounds the subject site

[1:23:13] to the north, south, and east,

[1:23:14] while residential 12 and urban

[1:23:16] mixed use 20 is to the west.

[1:23:18] The request is to allow 14 units

[1:23:19] and is consistent with the uses

[1:23:21] allowed under the residential 9

[1:23:22] future land use category, and

[1:23:25] therefore, is consistent with

[1:23:26] future land use section goal 2

[1:23:28] and objective 2.1.

[1:23:29] Additionally the request

[1:23:31] supports the intent of goal 2 of

[1:23:32] the seffner mango community plan

[1:23:34] and its associated strategies,

[1:23:36] by providing additional housing

[1:23:37] opportunities while maintaining

[1:23:39] compatibility with the character

[1:23:40] and development pattern of the

[1:23:41] surrounding area.

[1:23:43] Based upon the above

[1:23:44] considerations and the following

[1:23:46] goals, objectives, and policies,

[1:23:47] planning commission staff finds

[1:23:48] the proposed planned development

[1:23:49] consistent with the

[1:23:50] unincorporated hillsborough

[1:23:52] county comprehensive plan

[1:23:53] subject to the conditions

[1:23:54] proposed by the hillsborough

[1:23:55] county development services

[1:23:56] department.

[1:23:56] >> okay.

[1:23:58] Thank you.

[1:24:00] At this point in time, is there

[1:24:02] anyone in the audience that

[1:24:03] wishes to speak in support of

[1:24:04] the application?

[1:24:06] No one responding, anyone in the

[1:24:08] audience wish to speak in

[1:24:12] opposition to the application?

[1:24:14] Seeing no one responding, staff,

[1:24:16] anything further?

[1:24:18] >> no, sir.

[1:24:19] >> applicant, opportunity for

[1:24:19] rebuttal.

[1:24:20] >> we're good, thank you.

[1:24:21] >> very good.

[1:24:22] All right, with that, that

[1:24:25] concludes this application.

[1:24:25] MS. Heinrich, we're ready for

[1:24:26] the next case.

[1:24:31] >> our next item is item d.3, pd

[1:24:31] 26-0445.

[1:24:33] The applicant is requesting to

[1:24:35] rezone property from cg to

[1:24:37] planned development.

[1:24:40] Tangia chapela with development

[1:24:43] services has reviewed this and

[1:24:44] will present staff's findings

[1:24:47] after applicant's presentation.

[1:24:48] >> applicant, penalize.

[1:24:53] >> good evening hearing officer.

[1:24:56] -- this is pd 26-0445.

[1:24:57] Planning commission finds

[1:24:59] consistent, meets the locational

[1:25:00] criteria.

[1:25:05] It reduces the average trips by

[1:25:08] 3,438, reduces the A.M. Peaks

[1:25:11] tremendously, 256, 234

[1:25:13] respectively, no objections by

[1:25:14] seven agencies.

[1:25:15] We are in the general town 'n'

[1:25:19] country area,.55 acres.

[1:25:24] The issue is cg to pd to

[1:25:26] specifically allow 11,979 square

[1:25:27] feet of professional services,

[1:25:30] health practitioners, officer,

[1:25:33] medccialtion dental, laboratory,

[1:25:35] medical offices, clinical with

[1:25:37] emergency services scheduled by

[1:25:38] physicians.

[1:25:40] The floor would be open area for

[1:25:41] permitted uses so we're located

[1:25:42] on west waters avenue as you can

[1:25:44] see here.

[1:25:46] Per property appraiser.

[1:25:48] Surrounding uses are shopping

[1:25:49] center across the street,

[1:25:51] shopping center to the west,

[1:25:53] apartments, which are located to

[1:25:56] the east and to the south.

[1:25:58] This is a close aerial that you

[1:25:59] can see in regard to the

[1:26:00] apartments and the shopping

[1:26:01] center next door.

[1:26:07] the site is currently vacant.

[1:26:09] Waters avenue carries

[1:26:10] approximately 47,500 vehicles

[1:26:12] per day, very intensive arterial

[1:26:13] roadway.

[1:26:16] So again the issue is for more

[1:26:19] or less business professional

[1:26:21] offices, which is a down zoning

[1:26:22] from the commercial general that

[1:26:27] it is now, and that is the main

[1:26:28] direction, the main issue here

[1:26:30] is a significant down zoning of

[1:26:31] the uses.

[1:26:35] So looking at the pd plan on

[1:26:37] waters avenue, I've outlined the

[1:26:39] building footprint as proposed.

[1:26:46] We're showing a 15-foot building

[1:26:47] setback -- on the east to the

[1:26:49] rear of the apartments are

[1:26:52] significantly further back,

[1:26:55] 75 feet, going back to the

[1:26:56] aerial as you can see there's a

[1:27:01] lot of separation to the south.

[1:27:03] >> okay if you could just to

[1:27:06] clarify for me the building

[1:27:08] footprint is sort of a darker

[1:27:10] solid black line?

[1:27:10] >> yes.

[1:27:13] >> and that building location is

[1:27:15] closest to waters avenue?

[1:27:17] >> yes.

[1:27:17] >> okay.

[1:27:19] And if you don't mind, regarding

[1:27:24] the just to clarify, the office

[1:27:25] space, is there parking below

[1:27:26] the building?

[1:27:29] >> parking would be below, yes,

[1:27:30] below the building and some

[1:27:32] would be to the rear.

[1:27:34] As you note there is a note on

[1:27:36] the conceptual plan for the

[1:27:36] parking.

[1:27:37] >> so there is parking below and

[1:27:39] there are two floors of office

[1:27:39] space?

[1:27:40] >> three floors -- well,

[1:27:41] proposed three floors of office

[1:27:43] space, and then a fourth which

[1:27:45] is really an open.

[1:27:47] >> okay so three floors of

[1:27:49] office space and that fourth

[1:27:51] floor is gathering spot of some

[1:27:51] kind.

[1:27:52] >> is it what?

[1:27:53] >> gathering spot.

[1:27:53] >> yep.

[1:27:54] >> of some kind.

[1:27:57] >> yep.

[1:27:57] >> okay.

[1:27:58] >> okay and so the height

[1:28:00] proposed is 48 feet.

[1:28:03] So does that work?

[1:28:07] >> we know it's a tight site,

[1:28:08] and we know asb

[1:28:10] as weave

[1:28:11] we've gone

[1:28:12] through the process there have

[1:28:14] been a lot of issues to go

[1:28:15] through and we know there is

[1:28:16] going to be some nipping and

[1:28:17] tucking.

[1:28:18] Putting some paper

[1:28:21] pencil to paper for

[1:28:23] site planning it is going to be

[1:28:24] tight.

[1:28:25] Whether that's all going to be

[1:28:27] able to fit into a site, we're

[1:28:28] going to see.

[1:28:31] >> okay, got it.

[1:28:31] >> continue?

[1:28:32] >> go on, yes.

[1:28:34] >> so zoning as I've indicated

[1:28:36] is kcg.

[1:28:40] Cg and cn is predominant.

[1:28:43] Rn16 for multifamily is for the

[1:28:44] east and for the south.

[1:28:46] That corridor is an intensive

[1:28:48] corridor with CGs and CNs

[1:28:50] along waters avenue.

[1:28:51] Future land use is, 12

[1:28:54] r12 which

[1:28:57] allows commercial uses -- p is

[1:29:00] down zoning.

[1:29:01] Development service note --

[1:29:03] permitted in the cg zoning

[1:29:05] category.

[1:29:08] Cg allows car wash, 24 hour

[1:29:10] major minor autoo repair,

[1:29:11] recyclable materiality recover

[1:29:12] deargs material recovery,

[1:29:14] 24-hour shopping centers,

[1:29:15] restaurants to eating

[1:29:19] establishments not drive-thru,

[1:29:20] banks and receptions.

[1:29:22] We have a list of

[1:29:23] restrictions -- actually most of

[1:29:24] these were brought forward by

[1:29:25] the staff which we were

[1:29:29] accepting of them about the

[1:29:31] fourth floor being recessed

[1:29:34] having an opaque wall, no

[1:29:35] balconies, disheeld

[1:29:36] shield lighting,

[1:29:38] screening, and location of

[1:29:40] dumpster and loading services

[1:29:41] would also be controlled.

[1:29:43] Planning commission notes that

[1:29:45] the cg which permits a broad

[1:29:47] range of commercial uses MAY

[1:29:49] generate greater external

[1:29:50] impacts, and that what's

[1:29:52] proposed are generally lower

[1:29:54] intensity and more compatible

[1:29:55] with adjacent multifamily

[1:29:56] residential development.

[1:29:58] I will say too that I did check

[1:29:58] this morning.

[1:30:02] We've had no e-mails or

[1:30:04] communications of opposition or

[1:30:06] concern raised from anyone in

[1:30:07] the public.

[1:30:08] Planning commission continue to

[1:30:10] notes were consistent, directs

[1:30:11] development toward the

[1:30:12] appropriate land use

[1:30:14] arrangement, crring

[1:30:16] considering the

[1:30:17] surrounding uses and miimizes

[1:30:19] impacts or incompatibilities and

[1:30:20] notes restrictions throughed

[1:30:21] planned developments, provides a

[1:30:23] more suitable intensity and

[1:30:25] scale.

[1:30:28] And notes regarding goal 7 that

[1:30:29] it promotes employment

[1:30:31] opportunities and contributes to

[1:30:33] economic growth, and compatible

[1:30:34] development pattern providing

[1:30:35] appropriate transition between

[1:30:36] commercial and residential which

[1:30:39] i think is an important finding

[1:30:40] by the planning commission for

[1:30:43] this particular project.

[1:30:45] Development services finds the

[1:30:45] evelopment compatible with the

[1:30:47] surrounding development pattern.

[1:30:48] Staff further finds the

[1:30:49] requested pd variance related to

[1:30:50] buffering, screening

[1:30:50] supportable.

[1:30:53] So when you look at the site,

[1:30:54] what we would suggest to you is

[1:30:58] that the uses under cg would be

[1:31:02] terribly impacting, terribly

[1:31:03] disrupt fn to

[1:31:04] disruptive to the multifamily,

[1:31:08] which would be permissible now.

[1:31:09] For example car washes, which

[1:31:15] would be 24/7, outdoor banquets,

[1:31:18] outdoor events, auto repair,

[1:31:22] tire repair, restaurants,

[1:31:23] 24-hour restaurants, and just

[1:31:28] for the record, I would like

[1:31:29] to -- one second, if I MAY.

[1:31:31] We did get one -- I'm sorry,

[1:31:32] there was one letter, I

[1:31:36] apologize, there was one email

[1:31:42] of concern specifically about

[1:31:43] stormwater.

[1:31:43] I do have

[1:31:45] have a letter here from the

[1:31:47] engineer that the site is flat

[1:31:49] but does drain south to a north

[1:31:50] direction into a storm sewer

[1:31:52] system within the west waters

[1:31:52] right-of-way.

[1:31:53] The site would be subject of

[1:31:55] course to all meeting stormwater

[1:31:56] requirements of the county and

[1:31:59] swfwmd.

[1:35:57] The applicant is proposing

[1:35:59] enhanced screening along the

[1:36:02] eastern and southern property

[1:36:04] boundaries adjacent.

[1:36:06] This is canopy trees at sa foot

[1:36:08] intervals and this enhanced

[1:36:10] buffering exceeds the standard

[1:36:12] spacing requirements, will help

[1:36:13] reduce visual impacts and

[1:36:14] provides an appropriate

[1:36:15] transition between the proposed

[1:36:17] office use and the surrounding

[1:36:18] residential development.

[1:36:20] And lastly, the proposed

[1:36:22] development meets the locational

[1:36:24] criteria as the site fronts

[1:36:27] along waters avenue and provide

[1:36:28] office uses serving the

[1:36:29] surrounding community.

[1:36:31] Based upon these considerations,

[1:36:32] the prayer

[1:36:33] public to be

[1:36:37] planning commission staff

[1:36:39] finds this consistent subject to

[1:36:40] the conditions proposed by the

[1:36:41] hillsborough county development

[1:36:43] services department.

[1:36:44] >> hearing master: is there

[1:36:44] anyone in the audience that

[1:36:46] wishes to speak in support of

[1:36:48] the application?

[1:36:49] Seeing no one responding.

[1:36:50] Anyone in the audience wish to

[1:36:56] speak in opposition to the

[1:36:56] application?

[1:36:58] Seeing no one responding.

[1:37:00] Staff anything further?

[1:37:03] >> no, sir.

[1:37:04] >> hearing master: michelle, if

[1:37:05] you could, just the terminology.

[1:37:07] In terms of the building itself,

[1:37:11] just to be crystal clear, we say

[1:37:14] four stories and 48 feet.

[1:37:16] How do you -- you have ground

[1:37:17] floor parking.

[1:37:19] So it's below the building.

[1:37:22] And then there's per the

[1:37:23] applicant's testimony three

[1:37:24] floors of office space.

[1:37:27] And then a top floor of the

[1:37:29] community gathering area.

[1:37:33] So that's -- when you sa four

[1:37:36] stories, that's fine.

[1:37:37] >> it would not include -- I

[1:37:38] believe they said the first

[1:37:40] would be open parking.

[1:37:42] >> hearing master: the top, open

[1:37:42] underneath.

[1:37:43] >> right, that would not be

[1:37:44] considered a story.

[1:37:45] >> hearing master: okay, got it.

[1:37:50] Just wanted to make that clear.

[1:37:50] All right, very good.

[1:37:52] At this point in time, the

[1:37:56] applicant has an opportunity for

[1:37:56] rebuttal.

[1:37:58] >> I would just say quickly that

[1:38:01] we did notice 15 persons twice.

[1:38:06] So we're glad that the immediate

[1:38:07] community did not come forward

[1:38:08] with any concerns.

[1:38:09] Thank you.

[1:38:09] >> hearing master: all right,

[1:38:10] very good.

[1:38:11] Thank you, sir.

[1:38:15] With that, that concludes this

[1:38:15] application.

[1:38:17] MS. Heinrich, ready for the next

[1:38:17] case.

[1:38:21] >> next item is d-4, pd 26-0671.

[1:38:23] The applicant is requesting to

[1:38:29] rezone property from ar and pd

[1:38:31] to planned development.

[1:38:33] Tania chapela will provide staff

[1:38:36] findings after the applicant's

[1:38:37] presentation.

[1:38:37] >> hearing master: the

[1:38:40] applicant, please.

[1:38:42] >> kami corbett, 400 north

[1:38:46] ashley drive, suite 1100 tampa,

[1:38:47] florida 33602.

[1:38:50] Subject property is located in

[1:38:51] the urban service area along

[1:38:53] county road 672.

[1:38:55] You can see it's near a lot of

[1:38:57] development that is very similar

[1:38:59] to what we are proposing.

[1:39:01] We are proposing to rezone from

[1:39:03] ar to pd.

[1:39:05] And there is already a pd that's

[1:39:06] approved on part of this site,

[1:39:10] but we're converting the whole

[1:39:11] thing.

[1:39:12] So we are proposing standard

[1:39:16] four units to the acre density

[1:39:19] of 319 units -- I'm sorry.

[1:39:21] Four units to the acre would be

[1:39:24] 319 units of proposed density of

[1:39:26] 2.75 units to the acre with a

[1:39:28] standard 4400 square foot lot

[1:39:30] that is pretty common in this

[1:39:31] area.

[1:39:34] And we have minimum setbacks of

[1:39:35] 20 feet.

[1:39:37] Corners 10.

[1:39:38] Side 5.

[1:39:39] Rear 10.

[1:39:41] Access, you can see is through

[1:39:43] other developments, existing

[1:39:43] developments.

[1:39:46] So the primary access is to balm

[1:39:49] road and we have a cross

[1:39:50] connection to west acadia grove

[1:39:52] line and you can see in the

[1:39:54] staff report that traffic cannot

[1:39:58] use that acadia grove lane.

[1:39:59] >> hearing master: could you

[1:39:59] repeat that?

[1:40:00] >> I believe in the staff report

[1:40:02] there's a condition that

[1:40:03] construction access cannot come

[1:40:05] and use --

[1:40:05] >> hearing master: construction

[1:40:06] access?

[1:40:07] >> yes, construction access

[1:40:08] cannot use.

[1:40:09] >> hearing master: got it.

[1:40:10] >> this has been found

[1:40:11] consistent and compatible with

[1:40:13] the comprehensive plan or many

[1:40:14] policies that staff will review

[1:40:15] when they present their reports

[1:40:17] and in the interest of time, I

[1:40:18] will yield my time and answer

[1:40:20] any questions should you have

[1:40:20] any.

[1:40:21] >> hearing master: no questions.

[1:40:22] Thank you.

[1:40:30] Development services staff.

[1:40:33] >> tania chapela, development

[1:40:33] services.

[1:40:42] I have a revised report.

[1:41:14] >> hearing master: okay.

[1:41:18] >> this is a request to rezone

[1:41:21] approximately 79.9 acres from ar

[1:41:25] and pd 93-0005 to a new planned

[1:41:28] development allowing a maximum

[1:41:31] of 220 single-family detached

[1:41:32] dwelling units.

[1:41:36] The proposed density is

[1:41:37] approximately 2.75 dwelling

[1:41:38] units per acre, below the

[1:41:41] maximum density permitted by the

[1:41:44] res-4 future land use category.

[1:41:48] The project would provide

[1:41:51] minimum 4,400 square foot lots,

[1:41:53] 40-foot lot width and a maximum

[1:41:56] building height of 35 feet.

[1:41:58] The surrounding areas include

[1:41:59] agricultural and single-family

[1:42:01] residential uses to the south

[1:42:04] and the east and approved

[1:42:06] residential development of

[1:42:08] comparable density to the west.

[1:42:09] Staff, therefore, finds the

[1:42:12] proposal compatible with the

[1:42:14] surrounding development pattern.

[1:42:15] Development services staff

[1:42:16] recommends approval subject to

[1:42:19] the proposed conditions.

[1:42:21] I'm presenting a revised report

[1:42:24] to incorporate the

[1:42:24] transportation conditions that

[1:42:26] were missing in the previous

[1:42:30] version of the report.

[1:42:32] >> hearing master: okay, thank

[1:42:33] you.

[1:42:33] Planning commission staff.

[1:42:35] >> lily linehan, planning

[1:42:36] commission staff.

[1:42:37] The subject property is located

[1:42:38] within the residential 4 future

[1:42:39] land use category.

[1:42:41] It's within the urban service

[1:42:42] area and within the limits of

[1:42:49] the balm community plan,

[1:42:51] riverview community plan.

[1:42:52] Objective 1.1 of the future land

[1:42:54] use directs approximately 80% of

[1:42:57] the county's future growth and

[1:42:58] development and F.L.U. Policy

[1:42:59] requires that new development be

[1:43:01] compatible with the surrounding

[1:43:01] area.

[1:43:03] The proposed residential

[1:43:04] community provides an

[1:43:05] appropriate transition between

[1:43:06] the existing agricultural and

[1:43:08] residential land uses and is

[1:43:10] consistent with the established

[1:43:11] development pattern in the

[1:43:12] vicinity.

[1:43:13] Additionally the intent of the

[1:43:14] residential 4 future land use

[1:43:16] category is to designate areas

[1:43:18] that are suitable for low

[1:43:19] density residential development.

[1:43:22] And this designation permits a

[1:43:23] maximum density of four dwelling

[1:43:25] units per gross acre.

[1:43:27] Based on the site's gross

[1:43:30] acreage of 79 acres, under the

[1:43:31] residential 4 designation they

[1:43:33] could be allowed to consider up

[1:43:34] to 319 dwelling units.

[1:43:36] The applicant proposes a

[1:43:38] residential community consisting

[1:43:39] of 220 single-family detached

[1:43:41] dwelling units and the proposed

[1:43:44] development is of a use and of a

[1:43:46] density that does not exceed the

[1:43:48] allowable maximum under the

[1:43:49] residential 4 future land use

[1:43:50] category.

[1:43:51] The development is also

[1:43:53] consistent with the intent of

[1:43:56] F.L.U.'s objective 4.4 and

[1:43:57] policy 4.4.1 which require new

[1:43:58] development to be compatible

[1:43:59] with the character and

[1:44:00] development pattern of

[1:44:01] surrounding properties.

[1:44:02] The proposed residential

[1:44:03] community of single-family

[1:44:04] detached homes is compatible

[1:44:06] with the surrounding development

[1:44:07] pattern and serves as a

[1:44:09] complementary use to the

[1:44:11] existing residential

[1:44:11] neighborhoods, agricultural

[1:44:12] lands and institutional uses in

[1:44:13] the area.

[1:44:14] The proposed planned development

[1:44:17] is consistent with goal 2 of the

[1:44:18] riverview community plan and

[1:44:20] goal 1 of the cultural and

[1:44:23] historical objective of the

[1:44:24] southshore areawide systems plan

[1:44:26] and the proposal preserves on

[1:44:28] site wetlands and adverse

[1:44:30] impacts so it is consistent with

[1:44:32] the applicant comprehensive plan

[1:44:32] policies and objectives that

[1:44:34] cover growth in environmentally

[1:44:35] sensitive areas.

[1:44:36] Based possible the above

[1:44:37] considerations and the following

[1:44:39] goals, objectives and policies,

[1:44:39] planning commission staff finds

[1:44:42] the proposed planned development

[1:44:44] consistent with the

[1:44:45] unincorporated hillsborough

[1:44:45] county comprehensive plan

[1:44:46] subject to the proposed

[1:44:47] conditions by development

[1:44:49] services department.

[1:44:50] >> hearing master: all right.

[1:44:51] Thank you.

[1:44:52] At this point in time, is there

[1:44:53] anyone in the audience that

[1:44:55] wishes to speak in support of

[1:44:58] the application?

[1:45:00] Seeing no one responding.

[1:45:01] Anyone in the audience wish to

[1:45:04] speak in opposition to the

[1:45:10] application?

[1:45:13] Yeah.

[1:45:14] Good evening.

[1:45:17] >> I have been sworn in.

[1:45:17] >> hearing master: okay.

[1:45:18] Good, raise your right hand.

[1:45:20] Do you swear to tell the truth,

[1:45:21] the whole truth and nothing but

[1:45:23] the truth so help you GOD?

[1:45:24] >> so help me GOD.

[1:45:29] My name is al brunner, I live in

[1:45:30] carlton lake road.

[1:45:31] I am the PRESIDENT Of the balm

[1:45:35] civic association.

[1:45:38] And yes, I oppose this

[1:45:40] development along with the other

[1:45:42] developments that have violated

[1:45:44] the balm community development

[1:45:47] plan which this already said is

[1:45:50] within, which is one house per 5 acres.

[1:45:51] We don't want it grouped and we

[1:45:53] don't want it reduced.

[1:45:57] We already have too much traffic

[1:46:02] on that main truck route and

[1:46:03] this adds just one more entry

[1:46:05] point into that road that's just

[1:46:09] a two-lane road.

[1:46:12] Our school is overloaded.

[1:46:13] Sumner high school, during the

[1:46:15] planning and the school board

[1:46:16] folks -- when that went in, they

[1:46:19] didn't plan.

[1:46:20] They did grow so fat.

[1:46:22] Within the second year of

[1:46:25] operation, it was about 70%

[1:46:27] beyond its planned capacity.

[1:46:30] I know, my daughter graduated

[1:46:30] there.

[1:46:32] We don't have the firehouses.

[1:46:35] We don't have the medical

[1:46:37] response.

[1:46:38] Our schools are overloaded and

[1:46:40] all you guys do is approve more

[1:46:41] and more housing.

[1:46:43] Our roads are crap.

[1:46:44] The person -- some of the people

[1:46:47] in opposition to the apollo

[1:46:48] beach that I got to hear before

[1:46:49] I jumped in the car to come

[1:46:51] running down here from balm,

[1:46:55] since I couldn't tune in and be

[1:46:59] made a speaker from online.

[1:47:01] I literally got here right

[1:47:03] before this happened.

[1:47:06] Because I'm busy, I'm working, I

[1:47:10] do a lot of work travel.

[1:47:11] But the area is getting to a

[1:47:13] point where I'm going to take my

[1:47:15] money and our resources --

[1:47:17] because I make good money -- and

[1:47:20] go somewhere else that has good

[1:47:22] planning and a balanced planning

[1:47:23] and governance for all, not a

[1:47:25] select few.

[1:47:26] Get the infrastructure in there.

[1:47:32] Don't get any more housing by

[1:47:33] the tens of thousands.

[1:47:33] -

[1:47:38] you are coming down 674, 85 to

[1:47:39] 15,000 more homes.

[1:47:41] We won't even talk about what

[1:47:44] that does for reduced

[1:47:45] agricultural capacity and

[1:47:49] building for food.

[1:47:51] While we reduce our capacity to

[1:47:52] grow it locally here in

[1:47:54] hillsborough county, we're

[1:47:55] exponentially increasing that

[1:47:56] demand to come from somewhere

[1:47:58] else and assuming that those

[1:47:59] other places aren't doing the

[1:48:02] same thing that we're doing I

[1:48:06] reckless overdevelopment with no

[1:48:06] infrastructure.

[1:48:09] We want to keep one house per 5,

[1:48:10] that's reasonable.

[1:48:12] It doesn't make these houses so

[1:48:13] close together you can spit and

[1:48:15] go across three houses.

[1:48:16] That doesn't produce them to

[1:48:19] make a fire hazard when they are

[1:48:21] separated by five to 10 feet

[1:48:21] apart.

[1:48:22] Where you can actually drive

[1:48:23] into your backyard.

[1:48:28] You can actually have a

[1:48:29] playground.

[1:48:33] We need the right

[1:48:33] infrastructure.

[1:48:34] I am opposed to growth.

[1:48:35] I would fight it and stop it

[1:48:36] where it is.

[1:48:38] I know that won't happen.

[1:48:39] But every time we try to do

[1:48:43] managed growth, this body keeps

[1:48:44] undercutting us and letting the

[1:48:46] developers come in and change

[1:48:48] the rules by coming in here and

[1:48:50] getting more changes.

[1:48:52] Every motion to change is for

[1:48:54] changing agriculture to high

[1:48:54] density.

[1:48:55] And when they do get the

[1:48:56] approval for a lower density, a

[1:48:58] couple of months later they come

[1:49:00] in and ask for more density.

[1:49:04] When they think nobody else is

[1:49:05] watching.

[1:49:07] You are making -- you are not

[1:49:08] doing balanced governance.

[1:49:11] You are not doing balanced

[1:49:11] growth.

[1:49:12] You're putting all the houses in

[1:49:14] one area and no infrastructure

[1:49:17] to get to the jobs or create

[1:49:20] businesses, industrial,

[1:49:20] commercial, etc. That are going

[1:49:24] to generate the incomes without

[1:49:27] making commutes exponentially

[1:49:27] longer.

[1:49:30] I know that there is some issues

[1:49:31] with the state and some of the

[1:49:32] state regulations.

[1:49:35] By GOD, we need to fight it.

[1:49:36] There's people here that want to

[1:49:39] fight it.

[1:49:40] So please, let's do balanced

[1:49:43] governance.

[1:49:46] Let's not violate the community

[1:49:47] development plan that balm has

[1:49:52] had for the last 20 years any

[1:49:52] further.

[1:49:55] 1 to 5, I don't like it.

[1:49:57] I don't like the balm grove.

[1:49:58] It's caused all kinds of

[1:49:59] problems.

[1:50:02] We're having increased number of

[1:50:03] people going on to other

[1:50:04] people's properties as a result

[1:50:05] of it.

[1:50:07] We don't have the -- again, we

[1:50:09] don't have the first responders.

[1:50:11] We don't have the firehouses.

[1:50:13] And everywhere is getting

[1:50:14] exponentially longer.

[1:50:16] As the person in apollo beach

[1:50:19] had said, it's taking them 25

[1:50:21] minutes plus to get just to the

[1:50:23] interstate.

[1:50:26] I live seven miles off the

[1:50:26] interstate.

[1:50:28] I have to plan at least 30

[1:50:29] minutes plus whatever traffic

[1:50:29] jam there is.

[1:50:31] I don't go anywhere during rush

[1:50:33] hour because it takes too

[1:50:34] doggone long.

[1:50:35] Not to mention everybody is

[1:50:37] rushing because everybody is

[1:50:38] trying to get to their place to

[1:50:39] get their demands, whether to

[1:50:42] pick up kids from school or

[1:50:44] extra activities or just get

[1:50:45] gas, just get groceries.

[1:50:46] And they are rushing.

[1:50:50] and we're having more and more

[1:50:50] accidents.

[1:50:52] In addition to the planning of

[1:50:54] just the overloaded

[1:50:55] infrastructure, not to mention

[1:51:00] the lack of water that we have,

[1:51:12] many of the main they areow

[1:51:12] they

[1:51:14] and now

[1:51:16] everybody has to do u-turns that

[1:51:17] generates lines which causes

[1:51:19] more people to drive more

[1:51:20] reckless to get to where they

[1:51:21] want to go and cut more people

[1:51:23] off and more accidents, again

[1:51:25] without the first responders

[1:51:27] that we have in existence

[1:51:27] already.

[1:51:28] We're already behind.

[1:51:29] Thank you for my time.

[1:51:32] >> hearing master: thank you,

[1:51:32] sir.

[1:51:33] Is there anyone else in the

[1:51:39] audience that wishes to speak in

[1:51:39] opposition?

[1:51:41] No one responding.

[1:51:43] Staff, anything further?

[1:51:45] >> no, sir.

[1:51:46] >> hearing master: applicant has

[1:51:49] an opportunity for rebuttal.

[1:51:50] >> sure, kami corbett again.

[1:51:58] Let's go back to one of my

[1:52:00] slides that shows -- on the

[1:52:03] right, you'll see there's an

[1:52:07] existing pd that allows for 200

[1:52:07] units.

[1:52:08] And I have a copy of that I'm

[1:52:16] going to place in the record.

[1:52:17] This will all fit in one place.

[1:52:18] Thank you.

[1:52:20] So that's existing approved

[1:52:20] development.

[1:52:23] And so we are just seeking 220,

[1:52:25] so we're adding 20 additional

[1:52:27] units to what's already

[1:52:27] approved.

[1:52:29] And we're just spreading the

[1:52:31] density around the site.

[1:52:34] The issue of density and

[1:52:35] intensity as far as the balm

[1:52:38] community plan, this subject

[1:52:40] site was previously rp-2 which

[1:52:41] has now been changed by the

[1:52:42] board of county commissioners to

[1:52:44] be inside the urban service

[1:52:46] boundary and res-4.

[1:52:49] And so what we are asking for is

[1:52:51] 2.75 units to the acre.

[1:52:52] Under the old comprehensive

[1:52:54] plan, we would have had to have

[1:52:56] had a minimum density of 75%.

[1:52:57] The board modified that policy

[1:52:59] to allow us to be under, to have

[1:53:01] development that is actually

[1:53:03] under the maximum density that's

[1:53:03] permitted.

[1:53:05] And we are below that.

[1:53:08] So in terms of traffic and

[1:53:10] schools, those are -- this is

[1:53:11] not a legislative decision.

[1:53:13] This is a quasi-judicial

[1:53:14] rezoning decision.

[1:53:15] And there are certain rules that

[1:53:17] are applied and laws that need

[1:53:19] to be applied when analyzing the

[1:53:19] case.

[1:53:21] And that's what the professional

[1:53:22] planners for the county and the

[1:53:23] planning commission have done in

[1:53:23] this case.

[1:53:24] And they have found that the

[1:53:26] proposed request is consistent

[1:53:28] and respectfully request your

[1:53:29] approval.

[1:53:30] >> hearing master: okay, thank

[1:53:31] you, ma'am.

[1:53:34] With that, that concludes this

[1:53:35] application.

[1:53:36] MS. Heinrich, ready for the next

[1:53:36] case.

[1:53:39] >> our next application is item

[1:53:42] d-5, pd 26-0673.

[1:53:43] The applicant is requesting to

[1:53:48] rezone property from rfq 9 to

[1:53:53] planned development.

[1:53:55] Tim lampkin will provide staff

[1:53:57] findings after the applicant's

[1:54:05] presentation.

[1:54:05] >> good evening.

[1:54:08] My name is catherine coyle with

[1:54:11] bogs engineering, 607 south

[1:54:15] alexander striet, plant city

[1:54:19] representing the cdc of tampa

[1:54:20] incorporated.

[1:54:21] The project is located at the

[1:54:23] southeast corner of east 23rd

[1:54:26] avenue and 65th street.

[1:54:29] Next slide.

[1:54:31] The project location, as you can

[1:54:33] see, just to the north of this

[1:54:34] aerial is I-4.

[1:54:36] There's a large wetland along

[1:54:38] that area.

[1:54:40] On the southern portion of this

[1:54:41] aerial, the reason I included it

[1:54:43] is that's columbus broadway.

[1:54:45] That is about 120 feet north of

[1:54:47] that roadway is the city of

[1:54:50] tampa boundary, which is

[1:54:51] predominantly industrial

[1:54:51] commercial along that street.

[1:54:54] And you can see the development

[1:54:55] pattern within the area.

[1:55:00] Next slide.

[1:55:02] Future land use is residential

[1:55:02] 12.

[1:55:04] We are proposing 12 units per

[1:55:05] acre.

[1:55:06] There's no bonus density

[1:55:07] requested for this.

[1:55:10] This is within the urban service

[1:55:10] area.

[1:55:11] And water and sewer service is

[1:55:12] actually provided by the city of

[1:55:18] tampa in this particular

[1:55:19] location.

[1:55:19] Next slide.

[1:55:22] The zoning is rsc-9 currently.

[1:55:25] We're requesting the pd for the

[1:55:26] units in question.

[1:55:27] You'll notice the pattern of

[1:55:30] zoning surrounding the area,

[1:55:32] rsc-9 is the bulk of the body in

[1:55:34] there with pd surrounding from

[1:55:36] different years, ranging all the

[1:55:40] way back to '84 up to 2024.

[1:55:43] There's a scattering of rdc12 as

[1:55:46] well and a couple of commercial

[1:55:47] properties located in this

[1:55:47] particular district.

[1:55:49] immediately to the north is

[1:55:54] rsc-9, rdc12 and cg to the west.

[1:55:55] Rsc-9 to the east.

[1:55:57] Next slide.

[1:56:00] The surrounding uses -- oh, next

[1:56:00] slide, sorry.

[1:56:01] Yeah, there you go.

[1:56:05] The surrounding uses I put in

[1:56:06] there just to show you.

[1:56:10] It's a large -- previous slide,

[1:56:10] please.

[1:56:11] Thank you.

[1:56:15] It's a large block.

[1:56:17] East 23rd avenue is on the

[1:56:18] north.

[1:56:21] East 21t is on the south.

[1:56:23] 65th is on the west side.

[1:56:27] The cg and the rdc12 is on the

[1:56:30] west and that is a small -- it's

[1:56:33] listed as a store commercial.

[1:56:35] It's some type of vending

[1:56:35] company.

[1:56:36] And they have some outdoor

[1:56:38] storage of some equipment.

[1:56:40] Then there's a single-family

[1:56:42] house as well to the north of

[1:56:42] that.

[1:56:43] There's four single-family homes

[1:56:46] to the north side.

[1:56:48] The large parcel to the east is

[1:56:50] actually also owned by the

[1:56:50] county.

[1:56:52] And I just put this in

[1:56:53] reference.

[1:56:54] This property is owned by the

[1:56:55] county as well and it's been

[1:57:00] transferred to the cdc for

[1:57:01] development.

[1:57:02] There are three multi-family

[1:57:03] buildings to the south.

[1:57:05] And then to the southeast, I

[1:57:06] would highlight as well there is

[1:57:08] a public school, an elementary

[1:57:09] school with parking.

[1:57:11] And you can see the parking lot

[1:57:11] there.

[1:57:15] Next slide.

[1:57:18] What's being proposed here,

[1:57:19] single-family residential

[1:57:20] duplex.

[1:57:20] these will be platted as

[1:57:22] single-family and sold fee

[1:57:22] simple.

[1:57:24] This is under agreement with

[1:57:24] hillsborough county affordable

[1:57:27] housing services to develop

[1:57:28] affordable housing for homes

[1:57:33] that are 80% ami and under only.

[1:57:34] It is limited to that.

[1:57:36] 20 units total which meets the

[1:57:38] 12 units per acre density.

[1:57:40] There are 10 fronting 23rd and

[1:57:43] 10 fronting 21st.

[1:57:44] The development, as I mentioned,

[1:57:46] will be subdivided and platted.

[1:57:49] There's a 20-foot front setback,

[1:57:50] 6 feet interior between the

[1:57:53] buildings, so it's 12 feet

[1:57:54] total.

[1:57:56] 20-foot side street to north

[1:57:59] 65th and 26 feet to the east

[1:58:03] side which is lots units 10 and

[1:58:03] 20.

[1:58:05] We did include an additional

[1:58:07] type "b" buffer, a 20-foot

[1:58:09] buffer on the east side as well.

[1:58:10] Not knowing what that future

[1:58:12] development will be, so we

[1:58:15] enhanced that buffer on that

[1:58:15] side.

[1:58:17] And there's large stormwater

[1:58:18] area in the center of the

[1:58:20] property which will then convey

[1:58:21] to 65th.

[1:58:23] Next slide.

[1:58:26] This is the concept elevation as

[1:58:28] of today.

[1:58:30] It does resemble a single-family

[1:58:32] home, however, those are two

[1:58:32] units.

[1:58:36] Each is approximately 1400 to

[1:58:37] 1450 square feet.

[1:58:39] There's two units per building.

[1:58:42] Each one will have three

[1:58:43] bedroom, two to two and a half

[1:58:45] bath and one car garage.

[1:58:46] That's the front elevation and

[1:58:47] that's the rear elevation.

[1:58:48] So we're being careful to make

[1:58:51] sure that both sides actually

[1:58:54] have some ornamentation to them.

[1:58:59] And in summary, next slide.

[1:59:02] As I mentioned, what will be

[1:59:03] developed is affordable housing

[1:59:05] under an active agreement with

[1:59:06] hillsborough county affordable

[1:59:06] housing services.

[1:59:08] The density is consistent with

[1:59:09] r-12 land use category.

[1:59:11] It is located within the urban

[1:59:13] service boundary and serviced by

[1:59:15] the city of tampa water and

[1:59:15] sewer.

[1:59:16] It's compatible with a mix of

[1:59:18] existing residential,

[1:59:18] commercial, institutional uses

[1:59:20] in the surrounding areas.

[1:59:22] It has been found consistent by

[1:59:23] the hillsborough planning

[1:59:24] commission.

[1:59:26] We do agree with those findings.

[1:59:27] Specifically, I would like to

[1:59:29] note in the liveable communities

[1:59:31] element under east lake orient

[1:59:33] park which is this particular

[1:59:36] community, it does note two

[1:59:37] points in particular.

[1:59:39] New residential development to

[1:59:41] provide homeownership are

[1:59:42] preferred, which these are going

[1:59:43] to be fee simple.

[1:59:46] And the plan also speaks to

[1:59:46] support affordable housing

[1:59:47] opportunities that accommodate a

[1:59:48] diverse population and income

[1:59:50] levels that promote

[1:59:53] homeownership which this does.

[1:59:55] This has also been recommended

[1:59:56] as approvable by development

[1:59:57] services staff with no

[1:59:58] objections from other county

[2:00:00] staff or external agencies.

[2:00:01] We respectfully request your

[2:00:02] approval.

[2:00:03] >> hearing master: okay, thank

[2:00:03] you.

[2:00:04] >> thank you.

[2:00:05] >> hearing master: development

[2:00:09] services staff.

[2:00:11] >> good evening, tim lampkin,

[2:00:13] development services.

[2:00:16] The applicant did a really

[2:00:19] thorough overview so I'm going

[2:00:20] to breeze through this.

[2:00:23] They are proposing development

[2:00:26] on approximately 1.71 acres

[2:00:28] located on the northeast corner

[2:00:31] of north 65th street and

[2:00:33] 21st avenue.

[2:00:35] They are proposing to permit the

[2:00:40] development of 20 affordable

[2:00:40] duplexes.

[2:00:43] The subject site has frontage

[2:00:45] along east 23rd and east

[2:00:46] 21st street.

[2:00:48] As the applicant stated with

[2:00:50] the eastern property boundary

[2:00:51] adjacent to vacant hillsborough

[2:00:53] county owned property.

[2:00:55] The property is surrounded by a

[2:00:57] mix of existing residential,

[2:00:58] commercial, institutional.

[2:01:02] There's a school to the

[2:01:02] southeast.

[2:01:04] Duplex development is located to

[2:01:05] the south.

[2:01:08] The school is kinley elementary

[2:01:08] school.

[2:01:09] And commercial development is

[2:01:12] located to the west with a

[2:01:13] single-family residential to the

[2:01:15] north and northwest.

[2:01:17] Overall, the proposed

[2:01:18] development provides an

[2:01:19] appropriate transition between

[2:01:22] the existing duplex development

[2:01:25] to the south, the detached

[2:01:25] single-family residential, to

[2:01:27] the north and northwest.

[2:01:28] The applicant has not proposed

[2:01:30] any variations.

[2:01:32] And based upon the

[2:01:33] considerations, staff finds the

[2:01:35] request approvable.

[2:01:36] Unless you have any questions.

[2:01:38] >> hearing master: no questions.

[2:01:38] Thank you.

[2:01:39] >> hearing master: planning

[2:01:40] commission staff.

[2:01:41] >> lily linehan, planning

[2:01:42] commission staff.

[2:01:44] The subject site is within the

[2:01:45] residential 12 future land use

[2:01:46] category within the urban

[2:01:47] service area and within the

[2:01:49] limits of the east lake orient

[2:01:51] park community plan.

[2:01:54] F.L.U.'s policy 3.1.3 requires

[2:01:54] new development to be compatible

[2:01:56] with surrounding uses.

[2:01:59] And F.L.U. Objective 4.4 and

[2:02:01] F.L.U. Policy 4.4.1 requires new

[2:02:02] development to be compatible

[2:02:03] with the surrounding

[2:02:04] neighborhood.

[2:02:05] The subject site currently

[2:02:07] consists of undeveloped vacant

[2:02:07] land.

[2:02:09] There's single-family,

[2:02:10] two-family residential

[2:02:11] development in the adjacent area

[2:02:16] with some existing

[2:02:16] public/quasi-public

[2:02:17] institutional uses and this mix

[2:02:19] of surrounding land uses

[2:02:21] establishes a land pattern that

[2:02:23] supports two residential units.

[2:02:26] And F.L.U. Objective 3.2 and

[2:02:27] policy 3.2.4 require that

[2:02:29] community plans throughout the

[2:02:30] county be consistent with the

[2:02:30] comprehensive plan.

[2:02:32] And the housing goal of the east

[2:02:33] lake orient park community plan

[2:02:36] seeks to create more housing

[2:02:38] opportunities within the area by

[2:02:40] supporting affordable housing

[2:02:41] opportunities that are used to

[2:02:43] serve and accommodate a diverse

[2:02:44] population and different income

[2:02:46] levels and promote

[2:02:47] homeownership.

[2:02:48] It's also stated that new

[2:02:50] residential developments that

[2:02:52] provide homeownership are

[2:02:53] preferred, however, they are not

[2:02:54] required.

[2:02:56] The addition of duplex style

[2:02:57] residential development where it

[2:03:00] currently exists alongside

[2:03:00] single-family residential

[2:03:01] development further promotes the

[2:03:03] diversity of the existing

[2:03:05] housing stock and provides

[2:03:05] additional affordable housing

[2:03:07] opportunities for community

[2:03:07] residents.

[2:03:10] And the request is for fee

[2:03:11] simple housing so that promotes

[2:03:12] the additional homeownership

[2:03:14] opportunities at an affordable

[2:03:17] rate as explicitly required by

[2:03:18] the community plan.

[2:03:20] Based upon the above

[2:03:21] considerations and following

[2:03:22] goals, objectives and policies,

[2:03:23] planning commission staff finds

[2:03:24] the proposed planned development

[2:03:26] consistent with the

[2:03:27] unincorporated hillsborough

[2:03:28] county comprehensive plan

[2:03:29] subject to the conditions

[2:03:30] proposed by development

[2:03:31] services.

[2:03:33] >> hearing master: okay, thank

[2:03:33] you.

[2:03:35] At this point in time, is there

[2:03:36] anyone in the audience that

[2:03:37] wishes to speak in support of

[2:03:41] the application?

[2:03:44] >> MAY I speak, please?

[2:03:45] >> hearing master: ma'am.

[2:03:48] >> I'm patricia blanton, I live

[2:03:48] right across the street from

[2:03:51] where they want to --

[2:03:51] >> hearing master: ma'am.

[2:03:52] >> yes, sir.

[2:03:53] >> hearing master: are you here

[2:03:55] in support or here in

[2:03:56] opposition?

[2:03:56] >> I live on 23rd avenue.

[2:03:58] And what they want to do is

[2:04:00] right in front of my house.

[2:04:03] What they want to do is put a

[2:04:05] project there.

[2:04:07] >> hearing master: ma'am, I need

[2:04:08] to hear --

[2:04:14] >> I can't hear, sir.

[2:04:14] >> hearing master: michelle,

[2:04:15] could you -- maybe if you get

[2:04:17] closer to her and ask her if

[2:04:24] she's in support or opposition.

[2:04:25] >> I oppose.

[2:04:37] >> hearing master: hold on.

[2:04:38] >> no one is here to oppose it,

[2:04:40] they are just going to push it

[2:04:40] through.

[2:04:41] >> you are here for the

[2:04:43] application that was just

[2:04:43] presented?

[2:04:44] >> the one they just talked

[2:04:45] about.

[2:04:45] >> okay.

[2:04:47] And are you here to talk in

[2:04:49] support or opposition?

[2:04:51] >> I oppose it.

[2:04:51] >> okay.

[2:04:54] I think he's going to first call

[2:04:57] for support.

[2:04:57] >> hearing master: yes.

[2:04:58] >> you're for opposition, so

[2:05:02] just stay close.

[2:05:03] >> okay.

[2:05:04] >> hearing master: just give it

[2:05:04] a sec.

[2:05:05] >> I'm sorry.

[2:05:06] I've been sitting here since you

[2:05:10] opened the doors.

[2:05:11] >> hearing master: understood.

[2:05:12] >> my ticket is running.

[2:05:13] >> hearing master: there's

[2:05:15] probably not anybody here in

[2:05:16] support, but let me just ask.

[2:05:19] >> I wish you could --

[2:05:20] >> hearing master: ma'am.

[2:05:21] Is there anyone in the audience

[2:05:26] wish to speak in support of the

[2:05:26] application?

[2:05:28] No one responding.

[2:05:28] All right, ma'am.

[2:05:32] Now you wish to speak in

[2:05:32] opposition?

[2:05:33] >> you can come on.

[2:05:34] >> hearing master: ma'am, you

[2:05:39] can speak now.

[2:05:39] >> hi.

[2:05:40] >> hearing master: good evening.

[2:05:42] >> I've been in the --

[2:05:43] >> hearing master: ma'am, state

[2:05:44] your name.

[2:05:47] >> I was first grade in kinley.

[2:05:47] Okay.

[2:05:48] >> hearing master: ma'am.

[2:05:50] >> I've seen so much destruction

[2:05:52] here, I can't even tell you how

[2:05:52] bad it is.

[2:05:53] >> hearing master: can you get

[2:05:56] her name for the record.

[2:05:56] Hold on.

[2:05:58] >> I'm sorry.

[2:05:59] I wish I could hear better.

[2:06:01] >> hearing master: that's fine.

[2:06:02] >> state your name.

[2:06:03] >> patricia blanton.

[2:06:07] >> hearing master: and your

[2:06:08] address.

[2:06:10] >> where is the home you are

[2:06:11] talking about?

[2:06:13] >> I'm talking about the

[2:06:16] property on 23rd and 65th

[2:06:16] street.

[2:06:18] >> what is your address?

[2:06:22] >> mine is 6502 23rd avenue.

[2:06:23] >> hearing master: great.

[2:06:23] Go ahead.

[2:06:26] Now you can speak.

[2:06:30] >> last week alone, last week

[2:06:32] alone 65th street they came in

[2:06:34] with bulldozers and just raped

[2:06:37] an area of trees that are like

[2:06:41] over 200 years old, you know.

[2:06:43] In one day, they are all gone.

[2:06:46] They put a sign on the fence

[2:06:49] over the weekend that the

[2:06:52] environmental people were

[2:06:52] approved of burning.

[2:06:55] Not only did they rape the

[2:06:56] trees, but then they wanted to

[2:06:57] burn them.

[2:07:00] I lost it.

[2:07:01] I went and called the

[2:07:02] environmental people.

[2:07:04] Oh, it's been approved already

[2:07:06] on the west side.

[2:07:06] Well, guess what.

[2:07:12] All the houses are on the east

[2:07:12] side.

[2:07:14] Flakes go up, houses would.

[2:07:15] Bye-bye my home.

[2:07:17] Now they want to put a bunch of

[2:07:18] homes.

[2:07:19] They want to put projects in

[2:07:20] front of my house.

[2:07:24] That's what they really want to

[2:07:24] do, you know.

[2:07:28] That whole area is just -- the

[2:07:30] state road department was there.

[2:07:32] They killed the water there.

[2:07:36] And they moved down the '70s

[2:07:38] so the lot has been empty, thank

[2:07:39] GOD.

[2:07:41] It used to be woods there.

[2:07:43] You could swim at the end of the

[2:07:45] street, natural springwater.

[2:07:47] Well, they filled it in.

[2:07:48] You know what they said?

[2:07:51] I was a little girl.

[2:07:53] I asked my mother, why don't

[2:07:56] these people do something about

[2:07:56] this?

[2:07:58] I went as a little girl to this

[2:08:02] guy, what are you doing?

[2:08:04] We are swimming.

[2:08:05] On top of the water the fish

[2:08:07] were dead.

[2:08:09] Oh, he says, oh, mother nature

[2:08:11] will take care of itself.

[2:08:13] Well, guess what.

[2:08:17] They came in, filled it in with

[2:08:18] bricks.

[2:08:19] The land sinks like this.

[2:08:21] There's a natural spring under

[2:08:21] there.

[2:08:23] There's going to be a sinkhole

[2:08:25] there because when it rains, you

[2:08:28] can just see it, where it used

[2:08:29] to be.

[2:08:33] And now they want to put -- oh.

[2:08:35] It hurts my heart to see what

[2:08:38] they are doing to my

[2:08:39] neighborhood.

[2:08:41] I'm so mad right now I'm

[2:08:41] shaking.

[2:08:45] >> hearing master: I can tell.

[2:08:45] Okay.

[2:08:47] >> they are so just -- don't

[2:08:49] they want to breathe?

[2:08:52] There is four recycling plants

[2:08:57] within a mile of my home.

[2:08:58] I have skin cancers.

[2:09:01] i have my own well.

[2:09:02] The water is poisoned.

[2:09:05] I have filters on the shower, in

[2:09:06] the kitchen.

[2:09:07] I buy bottled water.

[2:09:14] I can't even drink my well

[2:09:14] water.

[2:09:20] And they want to put more

[2:09:20] projects.

[2:09:20] What?

[2:09:22] They didn't want more in the

[2:09:23] city?

[2:09:25] They are moving down to my

[2:09:26] neighborhood.

[2:09:29] Nobody is speaking up.

[2:09:30] It's like close your eyes and

[2:09:31] guess what.

[2:09:33] The next day, the next week,

[2:09:35] they are all gone, all those

[2:09:36] trees are gone.

[2:09:40] I went to that man's face this

[2:09:40] morning.

[2:09:42] I was shaking, I was so mad.

[2:09:43] I said don't you burn.

[2:09:47] Please don't burn.

[2:09:49] Recycle, grind those trees up,

[2:09:53] make them into mulch, you know.

[2:09:57] Off of 41, you could take it

[2:09:57] there.

[2:09:58] You know why they didn't want to

[2:10:01] do it that way, because it's the

[2:10:05] quickest, cheapest way of doing

[2:10:09] it.

[2:10:09] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:10:10] >> I'm done.

[2:10:10] I don't know.

[2:10:13] Because in my words, wasting my

[2:10:14] time being here because nobody

[2:10:18] is going to stand up for my

[2:10:18] neighborhood.

[2:10:20] Hey, tell them to wait until 10

[2:10:21] years and I'll be gone and I

[2:10:23] don't have to watch it.

[2:10:24] But you know what.

[2:10:27] My son and my family, that was

[2:10:28] my mother's house.

[2:10:30] I was in that neighborhood when

[2:10:36] I was 5 years old.

[2:10:38] >> hearing master: thank you.

[2:10:42] >> last hurricane on 65th

[2:10:43] street, the people that built a

[2:10:44] new house in the back, they

[2:10:45] built it on a spring.

[2:10:47] And guess what happened.

[2:10:49] The spring rose up.

[2:10:53] They were draining their lot for

[2:10:56] two weeks down the thing.

[2:11:01] And it hit the apartment halfway

[2:11:01] up.

[2:11:03] It's going to happen again.

[2:11:04] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:11:05] >> I had to laugh because I used

[2:11:07] to swim there and they filled it

[2:11:10] in with cement and block and

[2:11:13] built a house on it.

[2:11:14] [Laughter]

[2:11:15] It's all about the money and the

[2:11:19] power in this town.

[2:11:21] I'm a poor rich gal.

[2:11:27] I don't owe anybody, but I don't -- I own my property and

[2:11:31] my truck.

[2:11:32] >> hearing master: yeah.

[2:11:32] All right.

[2:11:33] Thank you, ma'am.

[2:11:35] >> they don't need that many

[2:11:37] buildings in front of my house.

[2:11:38] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:11:42] >> come on!

[2:11:42] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:11:43] Thank you, ma'am.

[2:11:44] >> what's going to happen with

[2:11:47] all the --

[2:11:51] you go down columbus drive on

[2:11:53] 65th street, they turned it

[2:11:56] into trucker haven where all the

[2:11:57] big rigs are.

[2:11:58] And I was afraid.

[2:12:00] That's why I was here today.

[2:12:01] >> hearing master: ma'am.

[2:12:01] >> I was afraid that they were

[2:12:03] going to rezone it to where they

[2:12:06] could allow to do that because

[2:12:08] that's what they'll do.

[2:12:09] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:12:10] >> these truckers don't have any

[2:12:12] place to sleep or park their

[2:12:12] trucks.

[2:12:17] They are parking it on 65th

[2:12:18] street.

[2:12:18] >> hearing master: all right.

[2:12:19] thank you, ma'am.

[2:12:19] Thank you.

[2:12:22] >> I need to calm down.

[2:12:23] >> hearing master: ma'am, let me

[2:12:24] see if there's anyone else that

[2:12:26] wishes to speak.

[2:12:27] Ma'am, if I could get you to

[2:12:27] sign in over here.

[2:12:29] Sign your name over here.

[2:12:30] >> I'm sorry, what?

[2:12:31] >> hearing master: sign your

[2:12:32] name over there.

[2:12:37] >> sign it over there.

[2:12:37] Yeah.

[2:12:38] >> hearing master: thank you,

[2:12:44] ma'am.

[2:12:45] Is there anyone else in the

[2:12:47] audience that wishes to speak in

[2:12:52] opposition to the application?

[2:12:53] No one responding.

[2:12:55] Staff, anything further?

[2:12:56] >> no, sir.

[2:12:57] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:12:58] The applicant has an opportunity

[2:13:02] for rebuttal.

[2:13:04] >> thank you.

[2:13:06] Catherine coyle again for the

[2:13:07] record.

[2:13:08] As I mentioned previously, this

[2:13:10] is under an agreement with

[2:13:12] hillsborough cunty affordable

[2:13:13] housing.

[2:13:14] This will not be projects as

[2:13:14] mentioned.

[2:13:16] These are going to be fee simple

[2:13:18] homes so they will be owned

[2:13:19] individually, each unit.

[2:13:22] There are 10 units facing

[2:13:25] 23rd, which is MS. Blanton's

[2:13:27] street and 10 facing south.

[2:13:29] All I can say is it is the

[2:13:31] intent of the affordable housing

[2:13:32] services department of the

[2:13:33] county to improve this

[2:13:34] neighborhood and establish

[2:13:38] homeownership in this area, to

[2:13:40] better solidify the improvements

[2:13:42] in this area and not overbuild.

[2:13:43] It does meet the density of the

[2:13:45] comprehensive plan.

[2:13:47] there is no additional bonus

[2:13:48] sought.

[2:13:49] There are no variances sought.

[2:13:50] We have added additional buffers

[2:13:53] to the east side and to the west

[2:13:55] as well, 20 plus feet with

[2:13:57] additional plantings.

[2:14:04] And as you saw in the layout --

[2:14:07] I can use the overhead.

[2:14:09] This is, as mentioned -- I

[2:14:10] cannot speak to the spring that

[2:14:11] used to be there or anything.

[2:14:13] But this is a volume sensitive

[2:14:15] piece of property.

[2:14:16] So there is a stormwater issue

[2:14:19] out here which is why there is a

[2:14:22] large stormwater pond planned

[2:14:23] for the center of the project

[2:14:27] that will convey to 65th.

[2:14:28] This will again, as I mentioned,

[2:14:31] tap into public water and sewer

[2:14:33] with the city of tampa.

[2:14:34] There are many properties in

[2:14:36] this area to the north and the

[2:14:37] surrounding area that don't

[2:14:41] actually tap in to the public

[2:14:41] utilities.

[2:14:42] As mentioned by the neighbor,

[2:14:46] with the well and the septic.

[2:14:47] So I cannot speak to the

[2:14:48] condition of her water.

[2:14:50] I can say that they will be

[2:14:51] serviced by the city of tampa

[2:14:56] and not put any additional

[2:14:57] impediments to her water.

[2:14:59] >> hearing master: have you done

[2:15:00] preliminary engineering on the

[2:15:01] site?

[2:15:02] >> we are working through that

[2:15:04] now actually and this pond is

[2:15:05] being sized accordingly.

[2:15:07] >> hearing master: very done any

[2:15:08] geo tech out here?

[2:15:11] >> it was actually just

[2:15:11] completed.

[2:15:12] >> hearing master: all right.

[2:15:13] Anything else?

[2:15:13] >> that's it.

[2:15:16] We just respectfully request

[2:15:16] your recommendation.

[2:15:18] >> hearing master: thank you,

[2:15:19] ma'am.

[2:15:21] With that, that concludes this

[2:15:21] application.

[2:15:24] Ready for the next item.

[2:15:26] >> our next application is item

[2:15:30] d-6, major mod 26-0800.

[2:15:33] The applicant is requesting a

[2:15:37] major modification to pd

[2:15:37] 97-0182.

[2:15:39] This is traveling with a

[2:15:41] comprehensive plan amendment

[2:15:42] and, therefore, both the

[2:15:43] comprehensive plan amendment and

[2:15:45] this rezoning will be heard at

[2:15:48] the OCTOBER 8th bocc cpa

[2:15:51] public hearing.

[2:15:52] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:15:55] The applicant, please.

[2:16:02] >> thank you, good evening.

[2:16:04] Isabella hoff t.1000 north

[2:16:05] ashley drive.

[2:16:07] This is a little bit over

[2:16:09] 24-acre site located in the

[2:16:10] thonotosassa community plan.

[2:16:12] It is also in the rural service

[2:16:13] area.

[2:16:15] And as MS. Heinrich said, there

[2:16:16] is a pending comprehensive plan

[2:16:18] amendment to res-2.

[2:16:20] And the zoning currently is

[2:16:24] approved for 14 residential

[2:16:24] lots.

[2:16:25] >> hearing master: where are you

[2:16:28] in the process with the plan

[2:16:28] amendment?

[2:16:30] >> we went through the first

[2:16:31] public hearing of the planning

[2:16:33] commission and now we're waiting

[2:16:34] for the board.

[2:16:35] >> hearing master: you went to

[2:16:36] the planning commission.

[2:16:36] >> yes.

[2:16:37] We went to the planning

[2:16:37] commission.

[2:16:38] >> hearing master: and it was

[2:16:40] heard and they voted on it?

[2:16:42] >> it was heard and voted for

[2:16:44] denial.

[2:16:44] >> hearing master: denial.

[2:16:47] >> yeah.

[2:16:47] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:16:49] >> and so if you look at the

[2:16:49] -

[2:16:52] area, the surrounding area is

[2:16:53] mostly residential.

[2:16:56] And the lot ranges -- the lot

[2:17:00] size ranges from.2 acres to

[2:17:03] over 5 or 10 acres.

[2:17:08] The residential lots are located -- the more intensive

[2:17:08] uses on the east side while the

[2:17:11] west side is a bit more rural

[2:17:14] and the south side is mostly

[2:17:17] agricultural land.

[2:17:20] So the request is for 30 units

[2:17:21] from the approved 14.

[2:17:24] The density is proposed at 1.2

[2:17:25] dwelling units to the acre.

[2:17:29] And this is to mimic currently

[2:17:31] all the residential 1 mostly

[2:17:34] surrounding the lake.

[2:17:37] And prior to the comp plan

[2:17:41] amendment, the site is about 65%

[2:17:43] of the site is already

[2:17:44] residential 1 while the rear

[2:17:45] portion is ar.

[2:17:52] So the request was for r-2 to

[2:17:53] allow for development for less

[2:17:55] than an acre development.

[2:17:56] What you can see also is with

[2:17:58] the new stormwater rules, it

[2:17:59] takes a large portion of the

[2:18:00] property.

[2:18:01] So, therefore, the development

[2:18:03] is kind of like being pushed in

[2:18:03] the back.

[2:18:05] That's why we are requesting

[2:18:07] that half acre lots.

[2:18:07] However, it's still going to be

[2:18:09] the density that's similar to

[2:18:12] the surrounding area.

[2:18:13] Development services staff found

[2:18:16] it compatible with the

[2:18:17] surrounding area.

[2:18:19] Planning commission, they found

[2:18:20] it inconsistent.

[2:18:24] Mostly when you read the report,

[2:18:27] they basically say that the

[2:18:28] nothing in the rural area should

[2:18:31] be less than 5 acres, one unit

[2:18:33] to 5 acres as shown on the land

[2:18:35] use map.

[2:18:36] However, our site, like I said,

[2:18:38] of about 15 acres is already

[2:18:39] residential 1 plus the 9-acre

[2:18:40] was the ar.

[2:18:43] But the amendment is for

[2:18:44] residential 2 which is 2 units

[2:18:48] to the acre permitting over 40

[2:18:49] units.

[2:18:51] But we're just limiting it to 30

[2:18:52] units.

[2:18:56] They also found naming different

[2:18:58] policies, 3.1.3 and 4.4.1.

[2:19:01] They kept referencing that the

[2:19:02] density is not compatible with

[2:19:03] the area.

[2:19:07] And, therefore, they found it

[2:19:08] inconsistent.

[2:19:11] They also at the same time found

[2:19:13] that the lots for policy

[2:19:15] 4.4.7 -- that the lots around

[2:19:18] the lake are mostly one unit to

[2:19:20] the acre and therefore the land

[2:19:21] fronting the lake should not

[2:19:23] have a density greater than one

[2:19:24] unit pr the acre.

[2:19:26] And because we're doing 1.2,

[2:19:30] they found it inconsistent with

[2:19:30] that.

[2:19:31] And the report goes on and on

[2:19:34] and on just about that the

[2:19:36] density is too intense for the

[2:19:37] area, yet you're supposed to

[2:19:40] review it as a residential 2

[2:19:42] which is two units to the acre.

[2:19:44] And so you go to page 4, they

[2:19:46] keep talking about the proposed

[2:19:47] density is not compatible with

[2:19:48] the existing development

[2:19:49] pattern, even though there's

[2:19:53] lots of smaller sites all along

[2:19:56] the lake.

[2:19:58] They talk about again the

[2:20:00] density, the development

[2:20:00] proposed is not compatible with

[2:20:01] the area.

[2:20:04] And they talk about saying

[2:20:05] that -- I don't know how they

[2:20:06] came up to that, but the

[2:20:08] immediate surrounding area on

[2:20:12] average is density of one per 45 acres.

[2:20:13] Again, I don't exactly now

[2:20:15] know how

[2:20:16] they calculated that.

[2:20:18] So they go on and on about that.

[2:20:23] And then they go to the

[2:20:24] community plan and naming, you

[2:20:26] know, the third goal is that we

[2:20:33] are not meeting the -- I was

[2:20:37] just a bit baffled by the staff

[2:20:38] report.

[2:20:39] When we looked at it, we felt

[2:20:42] like we met all those policies

[2:20:43] that even they had stated.

[2:20:47] We felt like we met those

[2:20:48] policies under the res-2 which

[2:20:50] allows half acre lots, which

[2:20:52] allows two units to the acre and

[2:20:53] everything.

[2:20:56] And so it also per the community

[2:20:58] plan provides a different

[2:21:00] housing style that meets the

[2:21:01] goal number 4.

[2:21:03] It also as you can see on our

[2:21:08] plan, it was protecting the

[2:21:08] environmental features of the

[2:21:10] site which is what we are doing

[2:21:11] on the north side of the

[2:21:14] thonotosassa road.

[2:21:17] And so with that, we felt like

[2:21:18] looking at all those policies

[2:21:22] that we do feel like the request

[2:21:24] pd is consistent with the

[2:21:26] residential 2 future land use.

[2:21:29] And so this kind of concludes my

[2:21:30] application and my presentation

[2:21:30] for now.

[2:21:32] But I'm here if you have any

[2:21:32] questions.

[2:21:33] >> hearing master: all right,

[2:21:34] thank you.

[2:21:35] >> thank you.

[2:21:36] >> hearing master: development

[2:21:52] services staff.

[2:21:54] >> good evening, tania chapela,

[2:21:55] development services.

[2:21:57] I'm presenting a revised report

[2:22:00] with changes to the cpa number

[2:22:03] that was incorrect in the

[2:22:08] first -- it was prior to

[2:22:13] certification condition, I'm

[2:22:14] sorry.

[2:22:16] Pd 26-0800 is a major

[2:22:18] modification to increase the

[2:22:19] approved development from 14 to

[2:22:22] a maximum of 30 single-family

[2:22:24] detached dwelling units.

[2:22:27] The approximately 1.24 units per

[2:22:29] acre density is below the

[2:22:32] maximum anticipated under the

[2:22:33] res-2 future land use

[2:22:36] designation proposed through

[2:22:38] concurrent cpa 26-10.

[2:22:39] The development would provide

[2:22:43] minimum half acre lots.

[2:22:44] 90-foot lot widths and maximum

[2:22:48] building height of 35 feet and

[2:22:49] residential setbacks intended to

[2:22:53] maintain the area's low density

[2:22:53] character.

[2:22:55] The site is within thonotosassa

[2:22:57] community plan area and is

[2:23:01] surrounded by primarily vacant

[2:23:02] agricultural and single-family

[2:23:04] residential properties.

[2:23:06] Staff finds the proposed use and

[2:23:07] development standards comparable

[2:23:09] to the surrounding residential

[2:23:10] pattern.

[2:23:11] The wetland area north of

[2:23:14] thonotosassa road would remain a

[2:23:16] private common area with limited

[2:23:20] passive recreational use and no

[2:23:22] private pleasure craft access.

[2:23:24] The environmental permitting

[2:23:26] requirements would continue to

[2:23:26] apply.

[2:23:28] Based on this consideration,

[2:23:30] staff finds the request

[2:23:31] compatible with the surrounding

[2:23:33] area and recommends approval

[2:23:35] subject to the proposed

[2:23:35] conditions.

[2:23:36] >> hearing master: okay, thank

[2:23:37] you.

[2:23:38] Planning commission staff.

[2:23:39] >> lily linehan, planning

[2:23:40] commission staff.

[2:23:42] This rezoning is concurrent with

[2:23:46] the comprehensive plan amendment

[2:23:48] hc/cpa 26-10 which is a request

[2:23:50] to change the future land use to

[2:23:52] residential 2.

[2:23:54] This has been reviewed as it

[2:23:55] holds the residential 2 future

[2:23:56] land use designation.

[2:23:57] The site is within the rural

[2:23:58] area and within the limits of

[2:24:01] the thonotosassa community plan.

[2:24:05] F.L.U. Objective 1.2 and 1.2.1

[2:24:07] and 1.2.2 defines rural area for

[2:24:10] long-term agricultural uses,

[2:24:11] large lot uses and undeveloped

[2:24:12] natural areas.

[2:24:15] The major modification is for 30

[2:24:18] single-family units on

[2:24:18] 34.22 acres.

[2:24:20] Based on the pending land use

[2:24:21] change to residential 2.

[2:24:24] While the single-family use is

[2:24:26] compatible with the character,

[2:24:27] the density is not compatible

[2:24:28] with the existing rural

[2:24:30] character of the area and based

[2:24:32] on initial staff calculations,

[2:24:33] the immediate surrounding area

[2:24:36] is on average ata density of 1

[2:24:37] dwelling unit per 45 acres with

[2:24:40] the surrounding uses being large

[2:24:41] agricultural rural lots and low

[2:24:43] density residential.

[2:24:44] Additional analysis was done on

[2:24:46] the stone lake ranch area in

[2:24:49] development which is

[2:24:50] approximately 2,100 feet west of

[2:24:52] the subject site and located on

[2:24:54] the west side of lake

[2:24:54] thonotosassa.

[2:24:56] The density of the stone lake

[2:25:00] ranch development equates to

[2:25:03] approximately one dwelling unit

[2:25:06] to 4 gross acres and clustered.

[2:25:07] Based on the analysis of the

[2:25:08] surrounding existing community,

[2:25:10] the proposed density is not

[2:25:11] compatible with the existing

[2:25:13] rural community character.

[2:25:15] Furthermore, F.L.U. Policy 4.4.7

[2:25:18] calls for lands fronting a water

[2:25:20] body to have density and/or

[2:25:23] intensity comparable and

[2:25:26] compatible with others and based

[2:25:27] on the current existing future

[2:25:29] land use categories that

[2:25:31] surround lake thonotosassa, the

[2:25:33] eastern portion of the lake has

[2:25:35] the agricultural rule 1 to 5

[2:25:36] designation and the western

[2:25:38] portion is surrounded by the

[2:25:38] residential 1 designation.

[2:25:40] There are no future land use

[2:25:41] categories along the lake that

[2:25:43] have a density greater than one

[2:25:45] dwelling unit per gross acre.

[2:25:46] While there is a concurrent

[2:25:49] future land use amendment for

[2:25:51] the residential 2 designation,

[2:25:54] F.L.U. Policy 4.4.7 calls for

[2:25:55] comparable density along the

[2:25:56] water bodies outside the urban

[2:25:57] service area.

[2:25:59] A portion fronts along the south

[2:26:00] side of lake thonotosassa.

[2:26:01] Based upon the maximum allowable

[2:26:03] density per the surrounding

[2:26:04] future land use designations,

[2:26:05] the land fronting the lake

[2:26:07] should not have a density that

[2:26:08] exceeds one unit per acre in

[2:26:09] order to be consistent with this

[2:26:10] policy direction.

[2:26:12] The subject site is located

[2:26:14] within the boundaries of the

[2:26:15] thonotosassa community plan.

[2:26:17] Goal 3 of this plan emphasizes

[2:26:18] the importance of maintaining

[2:26:20] the area's rural residential

[2:26:22] character, open space and

[2:26:23] agricultural.

[2:26:24] The proposed modification of 30

[2:26:26] single-family units on half acre

[2:26:28] lots is characterized as smil

[2:26:30] rural development and does not

[2:26:32] maintain the current low density

[2:26:33] rural pattern found within the

[2:26:34] surrounding areas.

[2:26:36] Furthermore, the comprehensive

[2:26:38] plan strategies listed out in

[2:26:40] the thonotosassa community plan

[2:26:42] list out requiring minimum sizes

[2:26:43] of 1 acre for residential

[2:26:45] development within the

[2:26:45] residential 1, agricultural

[2:26:47] state and agricultural rural

[2:26:49] future land use categories.

[2:26:52] And even to protect the area's

[2:26:52] rural character.

[2:26:54] And while the proposed rezoning

[2:26:55] is accompanied by a future land

[2:26:56] use amendment to the residential

[2:26:58] 2 category which is not

[2:27:00] technically required to have a

[2:27:03] minimum lot size of 1 acre,

[2:27:03] according to the community plan,

[2:27:05] the site is adjacent to and

[2:27:06] surrounded by residential 1 and

[2:27:09] agricultural rural 1 to 5

[2:27:10] designations on all sides and

[2:27:11] should remain sensitive to the

[2:27:14] lot size requirements of these

[2:27:14] designations.

[2:27:15] Based upon the above

[2:27:16] considerations and following

[2:27:18] goals and objectives and

[2:27:20] policies of the comprehensive

[2:27:20] plan, planning commission staff

[2:27:22] finds the proposed major

[2:27:25] modification inconsistent.

[2:27:26] >> hearing master: thank you.

[2:27:27] At this point in time, is there

[2:27:28] anyone in the audience that

[2:27:30] wishes to speak in support of

[2:27:36] the application?

[2:27:37] Good evening.

[2:27:38] >> good evening.

[2:27:40] My name is lori walker.

[2:27:45] My address is 13016 country view

[2:27:46] road, dover, florida.

[2:27:49] I live about two miles away from

[2:27:51] this area.

[2:27:53] I just saw the sign for the

[2:27:58] first time -- signs on friday,

[2:28:01] which they were way away from

[2:28:03] the road that's only two lanes

[2:28:06] that people are going down.

[2:28:08] I wouldn't have even seen them

[2:28:12] had the county not have mowed.

[2:28:13] It's heart breaking because we

[2:28:18] were just here a few months

[2:28:18] back.

[2:28:19] Right down the street less than

[2:28:22] a mie away, it's already been

[2:28:24] approved for 14 homes.

[2:28:26] I'm fine with that down

[2:28:27] .

[2:28:30] Down the street, another 14

[2:28:30] homes.

[2:28:31] You know change is going to

[2:28:32] change.

[2:28:33] People are going to buy stuff.

[2:28:34] But we are ag.

[2:28:36] We are res-1.

[2:28:39] We want to continue that.

[2:28:42] Our roads can't handle this.

[2:28:45] The roads are so potholed out,

[2:28:47] they barely fix them.

[2:28:51] Half of the road on the other

[2:28:52] side of the -- on the

[2:28:53] thonotosassa side where they

[2:28:55] want to put two houses, that's

[2:28:57] very low lying.

[2:28:59] It's always flooded out.

[2:29:01] There's cypress over there.

[2:29:02] The road kind of crumbles on

[2:29:07] that side of the road all the

[2:29:07] time.

[2:29:08] The other one that's been

[2:29:10] approved, they are supposed to

[2:29:11] resurface the road.

[2:29:12] That doesn't help.

[2:29:13] It helps somewhat, but that's

[2:29:15] not going to take care of the

[2:29:17] traffic problem.

[2:29:18] Had I have had more time, I

[2:29:22] would have brought video of

[2:29:25] traffic, more people would have

[2:29:25] came.

[2:29:27] We want to keep it where it is.

[2:29:29] We don't want rezoning.

[2:29:33] If they want to do the 14

[2:29:34] houses, most everyone that I

[2:29:37] have talked to, we're okay with

[2:29:37] that.

[2:29:39] Don't rip out everything.

[2:29:40] Don't tear everything down.

[2:29:45] You go down kingsway from

[2:29:46] thonotosassa, they are nice

[2:29:47] homes that are being built on

[2:29:49] big lots.

[2:29:54] they are not taking everything

[2:29:54] away.

[2:29:58] We're just seeing it day by day

[2:30:02] getting torn down.

[2:30:04] And literally, the

[2:30:08] infrastructure can't handle it.

[2:30:12] So I oppose going forward with

[2:30:14] 30 more homes, you know, in that

[2:30:14] area.

[2:30:15] You're putting another -- just

[2:30:17] say three, four people in a

[2:30:18] home.

[2:30:20] That's another 90 to 120 people

[2:30:22] using this little tiny dinky

[2:30:26] road that's going to be

[2:30:27] resurfaced.

[2:30:29] Thank you for your time and your

[2:30:29] consideration.

[2:30:30] >> hearing master: all right,

[2:30:32] thank you, ma'am.

[2:30:34] All right.

[2:30:35] Let me back track.

[2:30:37] Is there anyone in the audience

[2:30:38] that wishes to speak in support

[2:30:40] of the application?

[2:30:45] It's okay.

[2:30:47] See no one responding.

[2:30:48] Anyone else in the audience that

[2:30:49] wishes to speak in opposition to

[2:30:51] the application?

[2:30:51] >> yes.

[2:30:52] >> hearing master: please come

[2:30:52] forward.

[2:30:54] >> we also have two individuals

[2:30:56] online.

[2:31:03] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:31:04] Good evening.

[2:31:06] >> good evening, MR. Zoning

[2:31:06] master.

[2:31:10] My name is robert alvi ask.

[2:31:14] I reside at 11907 thonotosassa

[2:31:14] road.

[2:31:17] I am also speaking for my

[2:31:20] daughter elizabeth who resides

[2:31:22] at 11907 thonotosassa road.

[2:31:25] She cannot attend tonight.

[2:31:26] She's working second shift and

[2:31:29] can't be here.

[2:31:32] I'm not sure why we're even

[2:31:32] here.

[2:31:34] a couple of years ago, this

[2:31:37] property went up for a major

[2:31:38] modification.

[2:31:39] And it went before the county

[2:31:40] commission acting as the zoning

[2:31:43] board and was denied.

[2:31:45] They tried for 24 homes, one to

[2:31:47] an acre.

[2:31:49] It does not fit the area.

[2:31:52] It should not exist.

[2:31:54] A couple of years later, we come

[2:31:56] along and now they are trying

[2:31:57] for 48 through the back door at

[2:32:00] the planning commission.

[2:32:03] Well, that didn't work either.

[2:32:33] The math just doesn't work.

[2:32:34] If 24 isn't viable, 30 certainly

[2:32:39] isn't.

[2:32:40] So, and, of course, everybody

[2:32:43] harps on the roads.

[2:32:46] Don't know if you know it or

[2:32:48] not, but thonotosassa/plant city

[2:32:52] road is I believe the oldest

[2:32:54] paved road in unincorporated

[2:32:55] hillsborough county.

[2:32:57] It does not need to be modified

[2:33:00] to handle the increased traffic.

[2:33:00] Paved, yeah.

[2:33:10] Modified, no.

[2:33:11] That cannot be allowed.

[2:33:14] It's historical.

[2:33:17] Everybody else has said the same

[2:33:17] thing.

[2:33:18] The planning commission was

[2:33:25] correct.

[2:33:27] It doesn't fit, it shouldn't be

[2:33:32] there, and I urge you to report

[2:33:34] that to the commission

[2:33:35] >> hearing master: thank you,

[2:33:35] sir.

[2:33:40] >> thank you, sir.

[2:33:40] >> hearing master: is there

[2:33:41] anyone else in the audience that

[2:33:51] wishes to speak in opposition?

[2:33:52] I thought I heard someone else

[2:33:53] say they wanted to speak, maybe

[2:33:56] I'm mistaken.

[2:33:58] No one else wants to speak in

[2:34:01] opposition, at this point in

[2:34:01] time --

[2:34:03] >> we have people online.

[2:34:06] >> there were two people online.

[2:34:07] >> hearing master: all right,

[2:34:08] next speaker, please.

[2:34:10] >> suzie lee.

[2:34:10] >> can you hear me?

[2:34:11] >> yes.

[2:34:17] >> hi, I'm sue zealy, I live on

[2:34:17] red hawk lane.

[2:34:23] I'm speaking in opposition of

[2:34:24] mm260800.

[2:34:26] First, this area simply cannot

[2:34:29] and should not sustain this type

[2:34:31] of development on the table.

[2:34:33] And addition ali, it's not

[2:34:35] consistent with the area, it's

[2:34:36] incompatible with the

[2:34:38] comprehensive plan, and found to

[2:34:41] be inconsistent by staff.

[2:34:43] The road is substandard, which I

[2:34:46] know everybody's gone over.

[2:34:48] Did you know that thonotosassa

[2:34:50] road is designated as a rural

[2:34:51] scenic corridor?

[2:34:54] How can it be rural or scenic if

[2:34:57] it's full of traffic.

[2:35:01] It's just -- it's just insane.

[2:35:03] For every house, concrete pad

[2:35:05] and additional pavement brought

[2:35:07] in the area, the consequences to

[2:35:09] the outlying area, and the

[2:35:13] residents who have been here

[2:35:15] forever are awful, they flood,

[2:35:16] there's flooding where flooding

[2:35:18] has never occurred.

[2:35:21] When they built the stone lake

[2:35:22] ranch division that was

[2:35:24] referenced earlier, I have

[2:35:26] friends with horse farms who

[2:35:27] flooded who had never flooded

[2:35:30] before, as a result of that

[2:35:30] development.

[2:35:32] So the consequences to the

[2:35:33] residents that have been here,

[2:35:35] it's just not fair.

[2:35:37] They pay with the flooding, they

[2:35:38] pay with the traffic, the

[2:35:41] congested roads, and their

[2:35:42] lifestyle.

[2:35:43] our rural lifestyle out here,

[2:35:44] it's totally disrupted.

[2:35:47] And I'm not even going to

[2:35:49] mention the wildlife that also

[2:35:49] suffers.

[2:35:53] We're called to be caretakers,

[2:35:57] not destroyers of the land.

[2:35:59] I'm not against growth, but this

[2:36:01] growth is unparalleled in our

[2:36:02] county, and it needs to be

[2:36:06] stopped.

[2:36:08] Especially during the drought.

[2:36:10] Our roads and our environment

[2:36:11] can't sustain it.

[2:36:13] We will have no future for our

[2:36:15] children and grant children if

[2:36:17] we just continue at this pace.

[2:36:19] So please, I ask you, do not let

[2:36:20] this move forward.

[2:36:22] Thank you.

[2:36:23] >> mayor ross: okay, thank you,

[2:36:26] ma'am.

[2:36:27] I believe there's another person

[2:36:30] on line that wishes to speak?

[2:36:39] >> yes.

[2:36:42] My name is teagan zealy.

[2:36:54] I'm here in opposition to

[2:36:54] mm26-0800.

[2:36:57] I apologize for repeating

[2:36:59] everything that everybody else

[2:37:02] is on saying, but it needs to be

[2:37:03] heard.

[2:37:06] Thonotosassa is designated as a

[2:37:08] rural scenic corridor, not a

[2:37:12] road full of clustered planneds

[2:37:13] development.

[2:37:15] It isn't designed to handle the

[2:37:17] traffic it deals with.

[2:37:18] Furthermore, even on the row

[2:37:22] zoning application summary, it

[2:37:24] states that thonotosassa road is

[2:37:26] substandard, and the future

[2:37:30] improvements of the road are

[2:37:31] substandard.

[2:37:33] The property in question is

[2:37:35] surrounded on all four sides

[2:37:39] with ar designation, and res-1

[2:37:40] designation, that's not

[2:37:41] compatible with res 2.

[2:37:44] How do you get res-2 out of

[2:37:46] completely being surrounded with

[2:37:48] ar and res-1.

[2:37:49] The rezoning application

[2:37:50] actually states in one spot,

[2:37:53] that to the northeast of the

[2:37:56] property or the northwest, to

[2:37:57] the northwest of the property,

[2:37:59] there are houses on less than 1

[2:38:01] acre lots, I would encourage you

[2:38:03] to look at the map.

[2:38:05] There's a lake to the northwest

[2:38:05] of the property.

[2:38:09] So I'm not sure how they came up

[2:38:11] with that one.

[2:38:13] Pretty much everything else I

[2:38:14] wanted to say, the staff has

[2:38:16] already said.

[2:38:17] I completely concur with what

[2:38:19] the staff has said about it not

[2:38:21] being compatible, it just does

[2:38:22] not make sense.

[2:38:24] I can repeat that if you wish.

[2:38:25] I won't waste your time unless

[2:38:28] you'd like me to.

[2:38:30] So just going into it, the

[2:38:32] proposed request does not

[2:38:34] further the vision of the

[2:38:35] thonotosassa community plan,

[2:38:38] which requires one acre lot

[2:38:39] minimum for residential

[2:38:41] development, and it does not

[2:38:44] promote compatibility within an

[2:38:45] established rural community.

[2:38:50] I respectfully request you to

[2:38:54] deny this application thank you.

[2:38:56] >> hearing master: thank you,

[2:38:56] ma'am.

[2:38:57] Is there anyone else in the

[2:39:00] audience or online that wishes

[2:39:04] to speak in opposition.

[2:39:07] At this point in time,

[2:39:08] development services staff,

[2:39:09] anything further?

[2:39:12] >> michelle heinrich, it was

[2:39:14] noted by MISS Albert and we

[2:39:17] neglected to put in our report

[2:39:20] that if the project is

[2:39:22] successful in changing to the

[2:39:25] res 2 future land use category,

[2:39:27] the senior corridor will change

[2:39:30] from a rural to scenic suburban

[2:39:31] corridor, it will go down from

[2:39:34] 30 feet to 15 feet.

[2:39:35] >> hearing master: all right, at

[2:39:37] this point in time, the

[2:39:40] applicant has an opportunity for

[2:39:45] rebuttal.

[2:39:50] >> william malloy, tampa,

[2:39:52] florida.

[2:39:54] There are two distinct points I

[2:39:56] want to touch on, the first is

[2:39:57] thonotosassa road, we are on the

[2:39:59] hook, and it's in the staff

[2:40:01] report for making sure that

[2:40:05] thonotosassa road is

[2:40:07] appropriately wide and

[2:40:09] resurfaced, one mile to the west

[2:40:11] to taylor road, that's a pocket

[2:40:13] of r-6 right there, we're going

[2:40:17] from r-2, building a mile of

[2:40:19] road, to r-6, that's compelling.

[2:40:21] The planning commission has put

[2:40:24] a lot of merit in the idea that

[2:40:27] we're putting lakes -- excuse

[2:40:29] me, houses on the lake, and we

[2:40:32] need to make some kind of

[2:40:34] adjustment with the lake.

[2:40:36] We have no development planned

[2:40:37] north of thonotosassa road.

[2:40:40] All of our development is south.

[2:40:45] If you see the site plan, it's

[2:40:47] houses, two giant ponds.

[2:40:49] Skip the right-of-way, and yes

[2:40:51] our parcel front is the lake.

[2:40:52] We're not developing on the

[2:40:54] lake, it's far from it.

[2:40:55] There's a point I'd like to make

[2:40:55] too.

[2:40:58] That I think has to be

[2:40:58] addressed.

[2:41:01] This case should be heard and

[2:41:03] judged as though r2 were in

[2:41:04] place today.

[2:41:06] And I'm of the firm opinion that

[2:41:08] that staff report from the

[2:41:09] planning commission does not

[2:41:09] consider that.

[2:41:11] Thank you.

[2:41:11] >> hearing master: thank you,

[2:41:13] sir.

[2:41:15] okay, with that, that concludes

[2:41:17] this application, and MR.

[2:41:18] Malloy, please sign in.

[2:41:21] And michelle, do we wan the to

[2:41:22] take a break now or --

[2:41:26] >> sure, sounds good.

[2:41:28] >> hearing master: let's just

[2:41:31] take a 10 minute break, we'll

[2:41:32] reconvene at 8:50.

[2:43:18] >> thank you.

[2:43:19] >> hearing master: ladies and

[2:43:21] gentlemen, if we could be

[2:43:23] seated, reconvening tonight's

[2:43:30] AUGUST 24th, 2026zhm hearing.

[2:43:31] Folks, if we could have a seat,

[2:43:33] if we could get going, we have

[2:43:34] three more items on tonight's

[2:43:40] agenda.

[2:43:46] >> our next application is

[2:43:46] rz-pd26-0803.

[2:43:53] The applicant is requesting to

[2:43:59] rezone pd85-0286 and spi-uc-2 to

[2:44:05] planned development.

[2:44:10] This is combined with another

[2:44:11] amendment that will be heard in

[2:44:13] OCTOBER.

[2:44:16] >> kami corbett, tampa, florida.

[2:44:18] This site is located in the

[2:44:22] university mall area, directly

[2:44:23] north of the university area

[2:44:25] mall, and this is the plan

[2:44:26] amendment that michelle is

[2:44:29] referring to, currently r20,

[2:44:32] we're having a plan amendment

[2:44:34] only to the west side of the pd

[2:44:36] parcel, and I'll explain that in

[2:44:39] a minute, to r35, and the

[2:44:41] planning commission has found

[2:44:42] that request consistent.

[2:44:45] Both staff and the planning

[2:44:46] commission.

[2:44:48] The existing use was really

[2:44:50] for -- what you have is on the

[2:44:54] eastside of 22nd street, there's

[2:44:58] an existing A.L.F., on the west

[2:45:00] side is an existing retirement

[2:45:03] home, and then there's a

[2:45:05] parcel -- we'll number the

[2:45:06] parcels in a little bit.

[2:45:08] There was another parcel to the

[2:45:10] east, this is like a major

[2:45:11] modification, because it's a new

[2:45:12] pd because we're adding

[2:45:19] property.

[2:45:22] The original pd that had

[2:45:23] different parcels.

[2:45:27] The alf parcel 4 is a drainage

[2:45:28] and storm water area, that is

[2:45:29] owned and controlled by the

[2:45:31] property owner that owns the

[2:45:33] eastside of 22nd street.

[2:45:35] >> okay.

[2:45:43] >> my client purchased both

[2:45:45] parcel 2 and the other parcel.

[2:45:47] The purpose of this request was

[2:45:49] to allow for traditional

[2:45:51] multifamily to be located on

[2:45:55] parcel 2 and in the spi-uc

[2:45:57] rather than limit them to

[2:45:57] retirement.

[2:45:59] The reason why we had to bring

[2:46:02] in the whole pd, there was a

[2:46:07] blended density at one point.

[2:46:11] The A.L.F. Is computed

[2:46:12] differently.

[2:46:14] We had to get the additional

[2:46:17] density allowed, and to leave

[2:46:18] them whole.

[2:46:20] I think they only built 110

[2:46:22] beds, but they have entitlement

[2:46:24] for more, and we can't take that

[2:46:25] away from them.

[2:46:28] This is the new parcel

[2:46:28] configuration.

[2:46:30] In the old pd zoning, they had

[2:46:33] different labels, parcels, we

[2:46:34] now in the staff report refer to

[2:46:37] the eastside as parcel b and

[2:46:37] parcel a.

[2:46:41] And what we're asking for is two

[2:46:42] development options.

[2:46:45] The first is to allow parcel a

[2:46:47] to be used as multifamily in the

[2:46:49] existing buildings, no

[2:46:51] redevelopment of the site, just

[2:46:53] able to convert what's already

[2:46:55] there, regular multifamily, no

[2:46:56] age restriction.

[2:46:58] The second was to allow for a

[2:47:00] redevelopment of parcel a and

[2:47:02] set paramounters for that in the

[2:47:04] future, the immediate plan is to

[2:47:09] utilize what's existing there at

[2:47:10] parcel a.

[2:47:12] And then this further -- this is

[2:47:17] just additional explanation to

[2:47:19] what I just said, regarding up

[2:47:22] to 480 multifamily units on

[2:47:23] parcel a.

[2:47:25] That that's part of the comp

[2:47:26] plan request.

[2:47:29] We're asking for some pd

[2:47:30] variations, related to the

[2:47:32] buffering and screening, you can

[2:47:35] see there's adequate buffering

[2:47:36] there,ing and the idea is, we're

[2:47:39] going to utilize these existing

[2:47:39] buildings.

[2:47:42] Staff has found the request

[2:47:43] consistent and compatible with

[2:47:44] the comprehensive plan.

[2:47:46] There are no, os from any

[2:47:47] reviewing agencies, and I'm here

[2:47:50] to answer questions should you

[2:47:50] have any.

[2:47:51] >> hearing master: no, no

[2:47:52] questions.

[2:47:53] Thank you.

[2:48:00] Development services staff.

[2:48:03] >> good evening, tim lampkin

[2:48:03] development services.

[2:48:05] The applicant's proposing to

[2:48:08] rezone approximately 22 acres,

[2:48:12] it's located just over 200 feet

[2:48:14] north of the intersection of

[2:48:18] north 22nd street and university

[2:48:19] square mall club drive, which is

[2:48:22] the ring road surrounding

[2:48:25] university mall north of fowler.

[2:48:33] The overall project includes

[2:48:40] what's currently zoned pd and

[2:48:40] spi-uc-2.

[2:48:41] Development standards are

[2:48:44] applicable to parcel a.

[2:48:49] Which is on the eastside of the

[2:48:49] parcel.

[2:48:59] Parcel a consists of

[2:49:01] approximately 13.8 acres, and

[2:49:03] they're allowed to have a

[2:49:06] maximum of 483 dwelling units.

[2:49:08] the staff report does say --

[2:49:10] there will be a revised staff

[2:49:11] report submitted later.

[2:49:14] The staff report says 484 and it

[2:49:25] should be 483 units.

[2:49:28] The remaining acreage of parcel

[2:49:30] b is within the existing pd, and

[2:49:33] developed within an assisted

[2:49:34] living facility.

[2:49:36] As the applicant states, parcel

[2:49:44] b is approved for 260 adult

[2:49:48] congregate living a.Cl.F. Beds.

[2:49:52] There are no changes whatsoever

[2:49:54] to parcel b.

[2:49:56] The applicant's requesting

[2:49:58] relief from the 2 for 1

[2:50:01] compatibility set back, ldc

[2:50:05] section 6.01 which requires

[2:50:07] structures with a permitted

[2:50:09] height over 20 feet, to provide

[2:50:11] additional 2 feet of set back,

[2:50:12] for every one foot over th

[2:50:13] building height.

[2:50:17] The staff notes under option

[2:50:19] one, a maximum allowable height

[2:50:22] of 98 feet with a 1 to 1 set

[2:50:22] back.

[2:50:25] Based on additional set back

[2:50:27] requirements, a setback of 98

[2:50:29] would BEth be required,

[2:50:31] recognizes existing building

[2:50:32] heights and set backs, the

[2:50:37] applicant proposes to allow

[2:50:38] demolition of the development in

[2:50:43] parcel b, and to develop it as a

[2:50:43] multifamily.

[2:50:48] Option a would be keep it as is

[2:50:50] with the assisted living

[2:50:55] facility, or have multifamily

[2:50:56] unage restricted with the

[2:50:58] existing configuration.

[2:51:01] The applicant has submitted

[2:51:03] justification for the proposed

[2:51:04] relief, which staff has reviewed

[2:51:06] and has no objections.

[2:51:07] The staff also reviewed and

[2:51:09] you'll make a determination,

[2:51:12] they submitted a variance to

[2:51:16] allow no buffer in lieu of the

[2:51:18] required 20 foot type b parcel

[2:51:22] a's, eastern boundary.

[2:51:23] So more specifically, the

[2:51:25] applicant's intent for

[2:51:27] requesting the variation is not

[2:51:28] the buffer on the eastern

[2:51:30] boundary of the property,

[2:51:32] because it's mitigated through

[2:51:33] existing site conditions,

[2:51:36] including a large wetland area.

[2:51:39] Mature trees, are currently

[2:51:40] preserved, and will continue to

[2:51:44] be preserved by the new pd.

[2:51:45] Staff has reviewed the

[2:51:47] justification, and finds they

[2:51:50] meet the criteria based upon the

[2:51:52] above consideration, staff finds

[2:51:58] the request approvable, subject

[2:51:59] to conditions

[2:52:00] >> hearing master: okay, thank

[2:52:02] you.

[2:52:04] >> lillian linehan plnning

[2:52:04] commission staff.

[2:52:06] The subject site is located

[2:52:16] within the r-20 area, the urban

[2:52:19] development boundaries.

[2:52:23] To change the land use to r-35

[2:52:27] on folio 3629 will-0000.

[2:52:28] The analysis provided is based

[2:52:31] on this future land use

[2:52:32] amendment.

[2:52:35] Objective 3.1 requires that new

[2:52:37] development be redesigned with

[2:52:40] due consideration, and be

[2:52:41] compatible with the established

[2:52:43] character of the development.

[2:52:45] The subject site is developed

[2:52:47] with the villas and is situated

[2:52:50] in an area that is characterized

[2:52:54] of a diverse mix of commercial,

[2:52:56] institutional and senior living

[2:52:56] uses.

[2:52:59] The surrounding land use

[2:53:00] pattern, and the existing urban

[2:53:01] character of the area.

[2:53:03] The proposed amendment is

[2:53:04] compatible with the existing and

[2:53:06] with the existing planned

[2:53:08] development in the vicinity, as

[2:53:10] it would allow for additional

[2:53:12] residential density.

[2:53:15] while maintaining compatibility

[2:53:17] and community character, with

[2:53:20] 13.8 acres and r-35.

[2:53:20] -

[2:53:22] that portion of the subject site

[2:53:26] can consider up to 483 dwelling

[2:53:26] units.

[2:53:28] The proposed request is not

[2:53:29] modified,ed existing development

[2:53:30] program remains within the range

[2:53:33] of uses and development

[2:53:35] intensities, contemplated by the

[2:53:36] future land use designations.

[2:53:38] The proposed planned development

[2:53:41] is also consistent with goal two

[2:53:42] of the university area community

[2:53:43] plan, as it facilitates

[2:53:48] residential uses and an area

[2:53:50] targeted for redevelopment and

[2:53:50] reinvestment.

[2:53:54] The planned development supports

[2:53:56] the expanding of housing

[2:53:58] opportunities and encouraging

[2:53:59] redevelopment of underutilized

[2:54:00] properties.

[2:54:02] The proposed planned

[2:54:04] development, provides on site

[2:54:06] wetlands, making the request

[2:54:07] condition sift end with the

[2:54:10] objectives and policies that

[2:54:11] govern growth in environmentally

[2:54:13] sensitive areas.

[2:54:14] Based on the above

[2:54:15] considerations, and the

[2:54:17] following goals, objectives and

[2:54:20] policies, planning commission

[2:54:25] staff finds this plan consistent

[2:54:26] with the hillsborough county

[2:54:27] comprehensive plan.

[2:54:30] >> tim lampkin again.

[2:54:32] I just realized, hi a couple

[2:54:34] other minor items that will be

[2:54:36] part of a revised staff report,

[2:54:37] and I wanted to put those into

[2:54:38] the record.

[2:54:42] On the cover page, says 6.8 acre

[2:54:44] modified parcel, it should be

[2:54:46] parcel a located.

[2:54:49] And on the 3rd bullet point, add

[2:54:52] a requirement on parcel a just

[2:54:54] to specify for more clarity,

[2:54:55] it's only parcel a.

[2:54:58] And then on the next bullet

[2:55:00] point, cross out the modified

[2:55:03] parcel and just specify parcel

[2:55:06] a, and then on the last

[2:55:08] paragraph, regarding the current

[2:55:10] comprehensive plan amendment,

[2:55:11] crossout modified and put parcel

[2:55:12] a.

[2:55:14] And then on the first bullet

[2:55:16] point, cross out the property

[2:55:18] after six acres and the folio

[2:55:24] number which is 36928-0000.

[2:55:26] And then correct the acreage in

[2:55:29] all instances.

[2:55:31] The density for the requirement,

[2:55:34] it was rounded up to 14, the

[2:55:37] actual is 13.8.

[2:55:46] And then to add 260 adds for

[2:55:46] clarity.

[2:55:50] And on the east set back, on

[2:55:55] page 2 at parcel a250 feet,

[2:55:58] parcel b at 250 feet.

[2:55:59] Parcel d at 35 feet.

[2:56:02] And that concludes, thank you.

[2:56:03] >> hearing master: when do you

[2:56:05] think those changes will be in

[2:56:05] optics?

[2:56:06] >> tomorrow morning.

[2:56:10] >> hearing master: thank you.

[2:56:11] At this point in time, is there

[2:56:13] anyone in the audience that

[2:56:17] wishes to speak in support of

[2:56:18] the application?

[2:56:20] Seeing no one responding, anyone

[2:56:22] in the audience wishing to speak

[2:56:25] in opposition to the

[2:56:26] application?

[2:56:29] Seeing no one responding.

[2:56:29] Staff anything further?

[2:56:32] >> yes, of course, MISS Corbett

[2:56:34] can address this when she comes

[2:56:36] up for her rebuttal, we received

[2:56:38] an email from her today

[2:56:40] regarding some revised

[2:56:41] conditions, and I didn't know if

[2:56:46] she was still proposing those or

[2:56:46] not.

[2:56:48] >> hearing master: we'll let her

[2:56:51] address that on rebuttal.

[2:56:55] Applicant, an opportunity for

[2:56:55] rebuttal?

[2:56:58] >> kami corbett, in reviewing

[2:57:00] them, I think I've decided not

[2:57:01] to pursue them this evening.

[2:57:03] Some of them are nice to have,

[2:57:05] and they're not anything that

[2:57:06] needs to be introduced this

[2:57:07] evening

[2:57:13] >> hearing master: okay.

[2:57:15] I listened to the changes, they

[2:57:17] sounded like typos.

[2:57:18] >> correct, they were

[2:57:19] clarifying.

[2:57:20] Most of the changes we

[2:57:22] submitted, we're clarifying,

[2:57:23] making them better or more

[2:57:24] clear, and that's why I didn't

[2:57:26] go into all of that this

[2:57:26] evening.

[2:57:28] I didn't think it was important.

[2:57:30] >> hearing master: got it.

[2:57:30] Okay.

[2:57:31] Anything else?

[2:57:33] >> no, thank you.

[2:57:33] >> hearing master: with that,

[2:57:40] that concludes this application.

[2:57:45] >> our next application is

[2:57:45] mm26-0822.

[2:57:47] The applicant is requesting a

[2:57:52] modification from pd92-0135.

[2:57:54] Tim lampkin will provide staff's

[2:57:56] findings after the applicant's

[2:57:58] presentation.

[2:58:02] Applicant please opinion.

[2:58:03] >> good evening.

[2:58:07] Todd pressman, 200 second

[2:58:10] avenue, st. Petersburg, florida.

[2:58:14] This is 260822.

[2:58:16] The sd supports, no agency

[2:58:17] objections, and as of this

[2:58:22] morning, there were no emails or

[2:58:25] letters in the record.

[2:58:27] We're in the brandon area, 1.78

[2:58:28] acres.

[2:58:31] Located just immediately south

[2:58:32] of state route 60.

[2:58:35] There are two parcels on

[2:58:35] morningside drive.

[2:58:37] right behind that commercial

[2:58:39] structure as you see there.

[2:58:41] Issue is a major modification

[2:58:46] for multifamily duplex, to multi

[2:58:46] multifamily.

[2:58:49] Proposed 16 units and two

[2:58:49] structures.

[2:58:52] The current pd is 18 duplexes,

[2:58:54] two common buildings, and one

[2:58:56] single family.

[2:59:00] And we're proposing 16 townhome

[2:59:01] units.

[2:59:03] So again two parcels the with

[2:59:04] the commercial building to the

[2:59:04] north.

[2:59:06] Looking at the budding uses is

[2:59:08] the commercial building, you

[2:59:10] have commercial to the west.

[2:59:12] You have a small residential,

[2:59:14] that's also zoned cg.

[2:59:17] To the rear is commercial, and

[2:59:19] to the east are two single

[2:59:22] family residentials.

[2:59:24] Planning commission notes the

[2:59:25] surrounding development,

[2:59:27] consists of a mixture of

[2:59:29] commercial and residential uses.

[2:59:31] Development services notes the

[2:59:33] same thing, a mixture of

[2:59:37] commercial, shopping retail,

[2:59:39] restaurants and automotive

[2:59:41] oriented businesses on brandon

[2:59:42] boulevard.

[2:59:43] With residential subdivision

[2:59:46] generally located # behind the

[2:59:47] commercial frontage.

[2:59:49] Which is what this area is.

[2:59:51] Both those findings are

[2:59:52] important, because it

[2:59:54] characterize the vicinity very

[2:59:58] well, in terms of the

[2:59:59] compatibility or the existence

[3:00:02] of the commercial and the

[3:00:03] residential next to each other

[3:00:04] throughout that corridor.

[3:00:08] So when you look at the zoning,

[3:00:11] you'll see cg, and the rsc-6,

[3:00:13] which is similar to the

[3:00:13] corridor.

[3:00:17] And future land use is oc20,

[3:00:19] which is a more intensive

[3:00:20] category.

[3:00:21] That is reflected along the

[3:00:24] corridor as the zoning is.

[3:00:27] So the east abutting, in terms

[3:00:29] of the abutting uses, I'm

[3:00:31] showing you the townhome

[3:00:33] structure, that is the eastern

[3:00:35] townhome structure, there's 2.

[3:00:36] Looking specifically at the

[3:00:38] buffer, we show on the plan, a

[3:00:41] 20 foot building set back and a

[3:00:43] 10 foot type a with ornamental

[3:00:43] trees.

[3:00:46] As we went through a lot of

[3:00:47] discussions, both with natural

[3:00:49] resources and the staff, on the

[3:00:50] certified plan, we're going to

[3:00:53] show that as a 15 foot buffer.

[3:00:56] So we were able to expand that

[3:01:01] additional 5 feet, primarily cr

[3:01:03] roads and transportation found

[3:01:05] us a few extra feet, so that

[3:01:06] will be five feet extra on this

[3:01:08] site, I want to highlight that

[3:01:10] to you, so there's no confusion

[3:01:12] when you look at the pd plan.

[3:01:13] Importantly, on that eastside,

[3:01:14] as I have it.

[3:01:18] I have it as 125 feet from

[3:01:19] building to building.

[3:01:21] The two residentials are located

[3:01:24] pretty far from this site.

[3:01:27] They're located fronting on the

[3:01:30] access street, which is

[3:01:31] morningside

[3:01:31] morningside.

[3:01:38] So there is a lot of physical

[3:01:40] separation between the two on

[3:01:41] the eastside.

[3:01:43] And just to give you an idea,

[3:01:44] you can see the station behind

[3:01:46] the site, these are the

[3:01:48] residential -- the two

[3:01:50] residentials, you see the front

[3:01:51] on morningside.

[3:01:53] On the west, I'm showing you the

[3:01:54] single townhome structure as

[3:01:57] well on the west.

[3:02:00] The plan shows the 10-foot

[3:02:02] building set back, we'll be able

[3:02:04] to expand that another five

[3:02:08] feet, on this certified plan

[3:02:11] will show a 5 foot -- a 10 foot

[3:02:14] wide buffer, versus the 5 foot,

[3:02:16] we're going to eke out another 5

[3:02:16] feet.

[3:02:18] It's important to know that

[3:02:20] residential structure is only

[3:02:22] half of the distance, the other

[3:02:24] distance is commercial activity,

[3:02:27] and commercial zoning where

[3:02:30] notes come.

[3:02:32] And there's substantial

[3:02:33] forestation and screening, that

[3:02:34] would be above and beyond what

[3:02:36] code calls for.

[3:02:40] I have it as 35 feet, but again,

[3:02:41] with some good screening between

[3:02:43] the two.

[3:02:44] Development services notes with

[3:02:46] the additional proposed

[3:02:48] buffering and screening, they

[3:02:50] find the uses compatible and

[3:02:52] supportable, with the additional

[3:02:54] proposed landscaping and

[3:02:55] buffering.

[3:02:55] Planning commission notes that

[3:02:58] the attached homes would provide

[3:03:00] a residential use that is

[3:03:05] compatible with the existing

[3:03:07] residential.

[3:03:08] Compatible with existing

[3:03:09] development patterns around the

[3:03:12] area.

[3:03:13] It is substantially below the

[3:03:15] maximum that could be allowed.

[3:03:18] It is consistent with valrico

[3:03:21] community goal plan 1.

[3:03:23] Strategy 2, also important to

[3:03:24] notice, this would be a

[3:03:26] reduction of trips, not a lot,

[3:03:29] it would be 23 in the 24 hour

[3:03:31] volume, and just a little bit in

[3:03:32] the A.M. And peak hour.

[3:03:33] With that, we're happy to answer

[3:03:38] the questions you MAY have.

[3:03:39] >> hearing master: you went

[3:03:42] through how you added five feet

[3:03:44] additional buffering side.

[3:03:45] the staff met with you and

[3:03:49] discussed that, and are they

[3:03:51] supporting the variance to the

[3:03:52] landscaping buffering?

[3:03:54] >> yeah, supporting it along

[3:03:55] with the change I indicated to

[3:03:56] you, yes.

[3:03:58] Both on the east and west.

[3:03:59] >> hearing master: got it, thank

[3:04:01] you.

[3:04:03] At this point -- are you done?

[3:04:05] >> yes, thank you.

[3:04:06] >> hearing master: development

[3:04:07] services staff?

[3:04:10] >> good evening.

[3:04:12] And to clarify, the applicant is

[3:04:14] not requesting any variance of

[3:04:17] the buffer, but I'll go through

[3:04:18] it, and make certain that

[3:04:25] portion is really clear and why

[3:04:27] he is -- staff had compatibility

[3:04:29] concerns du to the proximity of

[3:04:31] the structure, to the existing

[3:04:34] single family home to the east

[3:04:35] and to the southwest.

[3:04:37] And due to that, I reached out

[3:04:38] to the applicant and as the

[3:04:43] applicant stated, transportation

[3:04:44] planner was able to determine

[3:04:47] that there was a road didn't --

[3:04:49] the road didn't need to be as

[3:04:51] wide as the applicant initially

[3:04:53] thought, so there was an

[3:04:55] additional ten feet, and the

[3:04:56] applicant provided to increase

[3:05:02] the buffer on the west -- I'm

[3:05:07] sorry, on the west side from 5

[3:05:09] feet to 10.

[3:05:13] Yeah, from five feet to 10 feet

[3:05:15] type a with ornamental trees.

[3:05:19] Where before they were proposing

[3:05:25] a 10-foot -- I'm sorry, a 5-foot

[3:05:26] with.

[3:05:28] Let me look at the site plan.

[3:05:38] Bear with me one second.

[3:05:40] Essentially they increased the

[3:05:42] buffer 5 feet on each side.

[3:05:47] And it increases the set back 5

[3:05:50] feet on each side.

[3:05:52] Doing that staff was able to

[3:05:53] find it supportable.

[3:05:56] The applicant's request is to

[3:05:59] develop 16 townhomes, and two

[3:06:01] different structures, replacing

[3:06:08] the existing entitlements.

[3:06:10] And -- and as the applicant

[3:06:13] stated, there is a substantial

[3:06:15] distance from the single family

[3:06:17] home, however, if someone sells,

[3:06:20] they could be a lot closer than

[3:06:22] they are right now.

[3:06:24] The applicant's requesting

[3:06:26] relief, though, he's not

[3:06:28] requesting any variations, he's

[3:06:29] skieding the land development

[3:06:30] code requirements.

[3:06:33] He's requesting relief from the

[3:06:35] additional 2 for 1, which is one

[3:06:36] additional foot for every foot

[3:06:38] over 20 feet.

[3:06:39] So he's going 35.

[3:06:41] That's 30 feet.

[3:06:43] And he's not meeting that.

[3:06:47] And he's provided justification

[3:06:49] within his narrative for the

[3:06:51] relief of the additional 30 foot

[3:06:53] set back, for the proposed

[3:06:55] townhome height, and adjacent

[3:06:57] single family homes.

[3:06:58] The applicant is required --

[3:07:00] normally, he would be required

[3:07:02] to provide a 5 foot wide buffer

[3:07:04] with type a screening.

[3:07:06] In lieu of not meeting the

[3:07:07] additional compatibility

[3:07:09] standard for the height, over

[3:07:13] 20, he's enhancing the buffer.

[3:07:14] Staff does note that the current

[3:07:16] approval limits development on

[3:07:20] the subject property to 18

[3:07:22] one-story duplex structures with

[3:07:24] a maximum density of 11 units

[3:07:33] per acre, as established by

[3:07:33] pd92-0135.

[3:07:36] And the applicant also has

[3:07:37] provided further justification

[3:07:40] with their narrative request for

[3:07:41] relief.

[3:07:44] Further proposed, 30 foot

[3:07:45] townhome height.

[3:07:47] staff acknowledges the existing

[3:07:49] single family residence on the

[3:07:51] adjacent property situated

[3:07:52] toward the front portion of the

[3:07:54] parcel, and currently separated

[3:07:55] by a proposed development,

[3:07:57] however, the zoning of the

[3:07:59] parcel would allow redevelopment

[3:08:02] and a setback of 25 feet.

[3:08:03] Therefore, staff evaluated it

[3:08:07] the way we did, based upon what

[3:08:08] could be built there.

[3:08:10] With the additional proposed

[3:08:11] buffering and screening.

[3:08:14] Staff finds the proposed

[3:08:19] mitigated, and the uses

[3:08:20] compatible with the support, the

[3:08:22] additional proposed landscaping

[3:08:24] and buffering, and based upon

[3:08:26] all that, staff finds the

[3:08:29] request approvable.

[3:08:30] >> hearing master: okay.

[3:08:32] Thank you.

[3:08:33] Planning commission staff?

[3:08:36] >> lily linehan, planning

[3:08:36] commission staff.

[3:08:39] The site is designated as office

[3:08:40] commercial 20 on the future land

[3:08:41] use map.

[3:08:43] The site is within the urban

[3:08:46] service area within the limits

[3:08:48] of the valrico community plan.

[3:08:50] There's a transition between

[3:08:51] established commercial and

[3:08:52] residential development.

[3:08:54] There are commercial uses

[3:08:55] located to the north and wet of

[3:08:56] the site.

[3:08:58] And residential is located to

[3:09:00] the south and east.

[3:09:01] This is compatible with the

[3:09:06] existing residential uses and

[3:09:08] provides an appropriate use --

[3:09:10] under flu objective 2.2 and

[3:09:13] policy 2.2.1, the category

[3:09:17] allows for the consideration of

[3:09:20] compatible development with a

[3:09:24] maximum capacity of 708 acres,

[3:09:29] up to 35 dwelling units MAY be

[3:09:31] considered, approximately 9

[3:09:35] dwelling units per acre, which

[3:09:39] is below the max allowed.

[3:09:44] This meets the objective of flu

[3:09:48] 1.1, objective 4.4, and 4.4.1,

[3:09:49] by providing appropriate

[3:09:50] transition between the

[3:09:51] commercial and residential uses

[3:09:52] that are existing.

[3:09:55] The proposed density is below

[3:09:59] the maximum presented.

[3:10:01] The applicant is also proposing

[3:10:04] to preserve the existing natural

[3:10:07] forestation along the site.

[3:10:10] And providing forest taking for

[3:10:12] the adjacent residential

[3:10:13] properties.

[3:10:15] Morningside drive is a

[3:10:18] substandard roadway, and has

[3:10:20] committed to road improvements.

[3:10:21] And these commitments are

[3:10:24] consistent with the

[3:10:25] infrastructure and mobility

[3:10:28] goals of the valrico community

[3:10:28] plan.

[3:10:29] The planning commission staff

[3:10:32] finds the major modification

[3:10:34] consistent with the

[3:10:35] unincorporated hillsborough

[3:10:35] county comprehensive plan.

[3:10:37] Subject to conditions proposed

[3:10:40] by the development services

[3:10:40] department.

[3:10:44] >> hearing master: thank you.

[3:10:44] Is there anyone in the audience

[3:10:45] that wishes to speak in support

[3:10:46] of the application?

[3:10:49] Seeing no one responding?

[3:10:51] Anyone in the audience wish to

[3:10:53] speak in opposition to the

[3:10:53] application.

[3:10:56] Seeing no one responding.

[3:10:56] Staff, anything further?

[3:10:59] >> no, sir.

[3:11:00] >> hearing master: applicant, an

[3:11:02] opportunity for rebuttal?

[3:11:04] >> just to put on the record, we

[3:11:06] noticed 24 people, I believe we

[3:11:08] noticed twice, we've had no

[3:11:10] feedback or response, thank you.

[3:11:11] >> hearing master: thank you,

[3:11:12] with that, this concludes this

[3:11:17] application.

[3:11:20] We are ready for the next case.

[3:11:23] >> pd26-0974.

[3:11:25] The applicant is requesting to

[3:11:30] rezone property from as-1 to

[3:11:33] planned development.

[3:11:40] Chris granlinier will present

[3:11:41] after the applicant's

[3:11:44] presentation.

[3:11:45] >> hearing master: applicant

[3:11:46] please.

[3:11:49] >> good evening, brian deon,

[3:11:51] johnson pope, 400 north ashley

[3:11:55] drive, tampa florida.

[3:11:57] I'm here on behalf of the

[3:11:58] applicant.

[3:12:03] Leaders company, llc, regarding

[3:12:04] pd26-0974, the proposed

[3:12:06] development consists of a single

[3:12:08] story convenience store of

[3:12:11] approximately 4,852 square feet,

[3:12:12] with a maximum of 12 fueling

[3:12:15] stations.

[3:12:17] The request is to change the use

[3:12:21] category from as-1 to pd.

[3:12:23] The future land use category

[3:12:28] will remain unchanged.

[3:12:30] Staff has identified some issues

[3:12:33] today that I wish to aggress.

[3:12:36] -- address, that really fall

[3:12:38] into two separate categories.

[3:12:40] Is this a neighborhood serving

[3:12:41] commercial development

[3:12:42] appropriate at this location?

[3:12:44] And the record demonstrates that

[3:12:45] it is.

[3:12:47] The second question involves

[3:12:49] several technical matters

[3:12:51] concerning wetlands, really two

[3:12:53] separate issues, wetlands and

[3:12:54] transportation issues that

[3:12:57] remain to be finalized, and

[3:13:00] we're asking to condition our

[3:13:01] development on addressing those

[3:13:03] two matters, which I will get

[3:13:06] into more detail with.

[3:13:07] While we understand there's

[3:13:10] legitimate issues that are being

[3:13:11] addressed through -- that need

[3:13:13] to be addressed through

[3:13:15] subsequent approvals, this is a

[3:13:18] pd rezoning application.

[3:13:20] Our request today is rather

[3:13:21] straightforward.

[3:13:22] We approve the land use, subject

[3:13:25] to the conditions that we are

[3:13:28] going to request, and ask the

[3:13:33] county to consider with this pd

[3:13:33] application.

[3:13:36] The site would be used for a

[3:13:37] convenience store for gas

[3:13:38] stations.

[3:13:40] There would be a maximum of 12

[3:13:43] pumps and a canopy serving those

[3:13:43] pumps.

[3:13:47] We meet isr and far

[3:13:47] requirements.

[3:13:48] Building coverage requirements,

[3:13:51] and parking space

[3:13:51] requirementsing.

[3:13:53] The building would be one story.

[3:13:57] We have implemented front rear

[3:13:59] and side set backs that match

[3:14:02] the set backs that are

[3:14:03] consistent with the surrounding

[3:14:06] area.

[3:14:09] This is the general location of

[3:14:11] the property.

[3:14:14] Surrounding this area, first and

[3:14:16] foremost, we have veterans

[3:14:18] highway, which is.3 miles from

[3:14:18] the site.

[3:14:25] And there's also additional

[3:14:27] storefronts, there's walmart 1.3

[3:14:28] miles away.

[3:14:30] There are restaurants that are

[3:14:33] about 2 miles away as well, such

[3:14:36] as olive garden.

[3:14:37] This is the plan, which I am

[3:14:40] going to provide a little more

[3:14:41] zoomed in version of it.

[3:14:43] In the red shows the general

[3:14:44] location of the building.

[3:14:44] -

[3:14:47] as mentioned, it is within the

[3:14:50] wetlands setback, which we are

[3:14:53] asking to condition the pd

[3:14:56] approval on a variance for the

[3:14:57] wetlands set back itself.

[3:14:59] and then you can see the buffers

[3:15:01] that we have set up around the

[3:15:01] property.

[3:15:03] The wetland just to show you

[3:15:07] visually is in the northwest

[3:15:09] corner of the property.

[3:15:13] And we would also be developing

[3:15:16] sidewalks and pedestrians access

[3:15:18] points for -- that are 10 feet

[3:15:19] wide, that would provide a

[3:15:22] sidewalk itself, but also allow

[3:15:34] for bikes to traverse in the

[3:15:43] immediate area.

[3:15:45] The property -- I do have my

[3:15:46] engineer here, who can address

[3:15:47] the drives in and out, as well

[3:15:49] as the sidewalks.

[3:15:52] >> good evening, jeremy anderson

[3:15:55] here, with common oak

[3:15:56] engineering, orlando.

[3:15:57] Thank you for the opportunity to

[3:15:58] be here before you tonight.

[3:16:00] I'm going to talk a little bit

[3:16:03] about the proposed driveway

[3:16:05] access points that are proposed.

[3:16:06] >> hearing master: okay.

[3:16:08] >> we have a right in, right out

[3:16:11] driveway, proposed to bellamy

[3:16:13] road, which is the drive on the

[3:16:15] east end side of the project

[3:16:15] there.

[3:16:20] It is proposed to be restricted

[3:16:22] with a raised median.

[3:16:26] The driveway access includes

[3:16:27] right-of-way expansion.

[3:16:29] This driveway is going to be

[3:16:31] designed in conformance with the

[3:16:36] traffic study that has been

[3:16:36] prepared.

[3:16:38] And again is going to include a

[3:16:39] raised median as well.

[3:16:41] It will include a right-of-way

[3:16:42] expansion on both sides of the

[3:16:43] road.

[3:16:47] We will be working with the

[3:16:49] county on that expansion, on the

[3:16:51] east hand side.

[3:16:56] For the driveway connection

[3:16:59] onner lick, it's another right

[3:17:00] in, right out driveway.

[3:17:03] it includes a left turn lane

[3:17:05] extension for the eastbound

[3:17:05] driver.

[3:17:09] And a new right turn lane into

[3:17:12] the property for that westbound

[3:17:12] driver.

[3:17:16] Once again, that right turn lane

[3:17:18] is going to require an expansion

[3:17:19] of the right-of-way.

[3:17:21] Not only for the right turn

[3:17:25] lane, but also the multiuse

[3:17:28] trail that's depicted there and

[3:17:30] a crossed hatch manner.

[3:17:32] Utilities -- utility services

[3:17:35] are available, there's a force

[3:17:36] main available for connection on

[3:17:37] the right-of-way.

[3:17:39] There's a 20 inch water main

[3:17:42] located as well.

[3:17:44] So again, public utility

[3:17:46] services are available to the

[3:17:47] property.

[3:17:48] On site storm water management,

[3:17:51] once the trips are captured on

[3:17:55] site, all the maneuvers will be

[3:17:58] confined in the property itself.

[3:18:00] So I want to run through that.

[3:18:01] And I thank you again for the

[3:18:02] opportunity to do so.

[3:18:05] >> hearing master: thank you.

[3:18:08] >> as skbrar my mentioned, the

[3:18:09] property is located within the

[3:18:10] urban service area.

[3:18:13] The comprehensive plan

[3:18:14] contemplates growth within the

[3:18:15] community.

[3:18:18] And this is a prime spot for

[3:18:19] that type of growth.

[3:18:21] The county's commercial

[3:18:25] locational criteria is met by

[3:18:27] this location and the proposed

[3:18:27] use.

[3:18:30] The criteria exists for a

[3:18:30] reason.

[3:18:33] They identify neighborhoods

[3:18:35] where they appropriately serve

[3:18:36] residential developments,

[3:18:39] without allowing residential

[3:18:42] development to migrate within

[3:18:47] residential areas, this is on

[3:18:52] ehrlich road, which is a large

[3:18:52] corridor.

[3:18:54] The principle land use concern

[3:18:56] that was raised by development

[3:18:58] services is compatibility.

[3:19:00] Compatibility does not mean that

[3:19:03] every adjoining property must be

[3:19:05] categorized within the same use.

[3:19:07] The question is whether the

[3:19:10] proposed development can co

[3:19:11] exist without creating

[3:19:13] reasonable impacts.

[3:19:14] First, this is a planned

[3:19:15] development, a planned

[3:19:19] development, we are allowed to

[3:19:22] work with county staff and the

[3:19:24] local area to develop what that

[3:19:25] plan means.

[3:19:28] We're not asking for a broad

[3:19:30] commercial rezoning of this

[3:19:31] district.

[3:19:33] And the county has the ability

[3:19:35] through this process, to control

[3:19:36] the use.

[3:19:39] The buffering, the lighting, and

[3:19:40] other characteristics of the

[3:19:45] development itself.

[3:19:48] Through time we have submitted

[3:19:50] several proposals to county

[3:19:53] staff regarding the development.

[3:19:55] Through time, we've also reduced

[3:19:57] the size of the building, we

[3:19:59] revised the circulation pattern,

[3:20:01] adjusted the fuel canopy to

[3:20:02] better match the surrounding

[3:20:05] area as the code dictates, we

[3:20:07] modified the storm water

[3:20:09] configuration, we eliminated the

[3:20:10] pavement behind the building,

[3:20:12] which would better serve the

[3:20:13] wetlands adjacent to the

[3:20:15] property, and developed

[3:20:16] additional wetland measures,

[3:20:19] such as moving the building

[3:20:20] completely out of the wetland

[3:20:22] itself P.M. These are meaningful

[3:20:22] changes.

[3:20:24] The physical context provided --

[3:20:26] the physical context of the

[3:20:28] property provides additional

[3:20:29] separation to the east is the

[3:20:31] county owned property containing

[3:20:35] a retention pond which we would

[3:20:39] use to extend ehrlich, and we've

[3:20:40] been in discussions with public

[3:20:43] works, we reached out to public

[3:20:47] works to address that extension

[3:20:53] into bellamy road.

[3:20:55] We have proposed -- our

[3:20:56] development includes potential

[3:20:58] set backs and landscape buffers

[3:21:00] around the property.

[3:21:01] Planning commission's own

[3:21:09] analysis recognizes the

[3:21:10] compatibility of the use.

[3:21:12] As planning commission stated,

[3:21:13] compatibility does not mean the

[3:21:17] same as, so again, compatibility

[3:21:19] asks, is this viable with the

[3:21:20] surrounding community.

[3:21:22] Not is it exactly the same as

[3:21:27] the surrounding community.

[3:21:29] These recognizable commercial

[3:21:33] uses along ehrlich that extend

[3:21:34] miles each way, that are listed

[3:21:36] as commercial, gas stations

[3:21:45] about two miles east of the

[3:21:46] properties, for example.

[3:21:48] >> hearing master: please,

[3:21:49] folks, planning commission's

[3:21:51] report, come on, please.

[3:21:53] >> given the current development

[3:21:56] pattern that consists mainly of

[3:22:00] residential uses with distance

[3:22:03] from heavy commercial uses, the

[3:22:05] proposal is compatible with the

[3:22:06] surrounding area and

[3:22:07] neighborhood character, and work

[3:22:09] to serve the existing

[3:22:09] neighborhood.

[3:22:12] The request is consistent with

[3:22:14] all of future land use

[3:22:15] objectives and possibilities

[3:22:17] that relates to the

[3:22:18] compatibility of the

[3:22:19] neighborhood protection.

[3:22:20] The planning commission's only

[3:22:24] change to make it incompatible

[3:22:25] was the fact that the building

[3:22:28] would be within the wetland set

[3:22:28] back.

[3:22:30] All other locational criteria

[3:22:31] was considered consistent by the

[3:22:44] county.

[3:22:46] Bellamy road, there are several

[3:22:47] improvements we're willing to

[3:22:49] do, which includes the

[3:22:51] right-of-way dedication to the

[3:22:52] county.

[3:22:53] Restricted right in and right

[3:22:56] out access as jeremy has

[3:22:56] mentioned.

[3:22:59] The sidewalk and multipurpose

[3:23:00] path construction,

[3:23:02] administrative variances for

[3:23:06] spacing standards, which we have

[3:23:08] requested, which would be 130

[3:23:14] foot spacing variance, along

[3:23:14] bellamy road.

[3:23:18] We are willing to implement a

[3:23:23] concrete separator, and 15 feet

[3:23:26] around the property.

[3:23:29] Along ehrlich we would have a

[3:23:33] right in, right out access.

[3:23:35] This is our trip generation

[3:23:35] report.

[3:23:37] We have our traffic engineer

[3:23:39] here, if there's any questions

[3:23:47] about the trip generation.

[3:23:49] The property is surrounded by

[3:23:50] residential properties, which

[3:23:51] are mostly to the south,

[3:23:53] including some single family

[3:23:55] homes directly to the north, the

[3:23:56] county retention pond to the

[3:23:59] east, an the church that is

[3:24:03] located to the west of the

[3:24:05] developable area.

[3:24:08] Consistency with the greater

[3:24:09] carollwood/north dale area.

[3:24:09] -

[3:24:11] it promotes pedestrians friendly

[3:24:12] growth.

[3:24:22] And identifies community needs.

[3:24:24] Our client also has similar

[3:24:25] values.

[3:24:26] Community support that they're

[3:24:28] willing to implement would be

[3:24:33] partnering with local law

[3:24:33] enforcement.

[3:24:37] we would have the locally owned

[3:24:39] franchisee, who is a community

[3:24:40] member that would be on site.

[3:24:43] We have implemented or we can

[3:24:45] implement steps that would

[3:24:48] discourage loitering, we have

[3:24:50] advanced security measures, and

[3:24:52] we have community outreach

[3:24:53] programs we're willing to

[3:24:53] implement.

[3:24:56] There's also concerns about

[3:24:57] possible lighting and noise

[3:24:58] pollutions from the property,

[3:25:01] but the client -- the client is

[3:25:05] able to implement hoods

[3:25:06] overlighting, that would make it

[3:25:08] localized to the property

[3:25:08] itself.

[3:25:12] And they introduce soft music in

[3:25:15] the outside area, which again

[3:25:18] would reuce loitering, and also

[3:25:22] would be supportive of community

[3:25:24] growth.

[3:25:25] Comprehensive plan compliance.

[3:25:29] I just wanted to briefly touch

[3:25:31] on the comprehensive plan and

[3:25:34] what objectives -- such as urban

[3:25:35] service areas and urban

[3:25:39] expansion areas, which are

[3:25:40] addressed already within the

[3:25:41] community.

[3:25:43] The property is in the usa, the

[3:25:45] future land use map, identifies

[3:25:48] land use categories that

[3:25:49] summarize and establish

[3:25:52] permitted land uses and maximum

[3:25:54] densities and intensities, which

[3:25:59] we do not come close to

[3:26:00] reaching.

[3:26:01] There's two conditions that

[3:26:03] we're requesting with this

[3:26:04] application.

[3:26:06] One is surrounding the wetland

[3:26:08] area, which we would request a

[3:26:09] variance to the site development

[3:26:13] of the property, and we're also

[3:26:16] requesting the bellamy road

[3:26:17] extension, which again we have

[3:26:20] already discussed with -- or

[3:26:21] started, implemented the

[3:26:25] discussions with public works.

[3:26:27] We have a growth pattern

[3:26:29] analysis that was done by rvi

[3:26:32] that shows consistent growth in

[3:26:35] the immediate area and multiple

[3:26:36] studies have been done by not

[3:26:39] only rvi, but the plan

[3:26:43] hillsborough county, which shows

[3:26:44] since 2020

[3:26:45] 08 there has been

[3:26:52] substantial growth in this area.

[3:26:54] The review was consistent with

[3:26:56] our request, and did not have

[3:26:58] any other requirements for

[3:27:04] proposed rezoning for the

[3:27:04] property

[3:27:05] >> hearing master: how much more

[3:27:06] time will you need?

[3:27:14] >> I need like 2 more minutes.

[3:27:15] >> hearing master: and those

[3:27:19] people who want to support can

[3:27:22] speak for an additional amount

[3:27:22] of time.

[3:27:24] 2 more minutes.

[3:27:26] >> there are gas stations in

[3:27:28] close proximity of churches.

[3:27:30] This is several examples of that

[3:27:32] which are all located within

[3:27:34] hillsborough county.

[3:27:34] And the close to the immediate

[3:27:40] area.

[3:27:41] Again, we're asking for

[3:27:42] conditions that would be placed

[3:27:44] on the property, which would

[3:27:46] include the variance for the

[3:27:49] wetland setback, and then also

[3:27:52] for the -- all administrative

[3:27:55] requirements for the access, the

[3:27:56] right in access points for the

[3:28:00] property.

[3:28:02] We would also, of course, obtain

[3:28:05] the required public works and

[3:28:29] transportation approvals.

[3:28:31] I have nothing further to add.

[3:28:31] Thank you.

[3:28:32] >> hearing master: okay, thank

[3:28:33] you, sir.

[3:28:34] At this point in time,

[3:28:43] development services staff?

[3:28:49] >> good evening, guess

[3:28:49] granlinier with development

[3:28:53] services.

[3:28:59] The proposal includes a one

[3:29:00] story commercial building, and

[3:29:03] up to 12 fueling stations, with

[3:29:10] access from both bellamy and

[3:29:11] erhlich road.

[3:29:14] A vacant parcel used as a county

[3:29:17] storm water pond to the east and

[3:29:19] church with associated school

[3:29:21] and child care facilities to the

[3:29:21] west.

[3:29:24] These uses reflect a

[3:29:26] predominantly institutional

[3:29:29] pattern along the corridor.

[3:29:31] Approximately 38% of the site

[3:29:33] consists of wetlands in the

[3:29:35] northwest portion of the

[3:29:35] property.

[3:29:38] The limits -- this limits the

[3:29:39] available area for development,

[3:29:42] and affects building placement,

[3:29:43] circulation and storm water

[3:29:44] management.

[3:29:46] While the applicant has made

[3:29:49] adjustments to the site design,

[3:29:53] the current layout requires

[3:29:54] encroachment into the wetland

[3:29:57] buffer, which would require a

[3:29:59] separate variance that has not

[3:30:00] been obtained.

[3:30:02] The site contains wetlands and

[3:30:04] other surface water and

[3:30:05] conservation set backs.

[3:30:10] These areas prohibit filling,

[3:30:11] excavation, and impervious

[3:30:12] services.

[3:30:14] The current layout encrouches

[3:30:17] into those required set backs.

[3:30:18] A key consideration review, is

[3:30:21] the intensity of the proposed

[3:30:21] use.

[3:30:24] The convenience store with fuel

[3:30:29] sales, typically delivers higher

[3:30:30] levels of travel.

[3:30:32] This represents a substantial

[3:30:34] increase compared to the

[3:30:38] existing conditions

[3:30:38] s

[3:30:39] s and

[3:30:40] surrounding uses.

[3:30:43] This makes it challenging to

[3:30:44] fully mitigate transitions

[3:30:47] between the proposed development

[3:30:49] and adjacent homes and church.

[3:30:50] Particularly, where natural

[3:30:52] buffers are crrently provided

[3:30:54] by wetlands areas.

[3:30:55] Also, transportation staff

[3:30:56] identified several outstanding

[3:30:58] issues, including the need for

[3:31:00] additional detail on proposed

[3:31:03] access, roadway improvements and

[3:31:04] right-of-way dedication.

[3:31:06] Some submitted materials were

[3:31:08] either incomplete or

[3:31:09] inconsistent.

[3:31:11] Also, public works indicated

[3:31:14] that they could not adequately

[3:31:16] evaluate potential use of county

[3:31:17] property, with the information

[3:31:17] provided.

[3:31:20] As a result, transportation

[3:31:23] staff recommended a denial.

[3:31:25] I would recommend speaking to

[3:31:27] transportation after this,

[3:31:29] regarding their concerns.

[3:31:31] Considering the intensity of the

[3:31:33] proposed commercial activity,

[3:31:34] the environmental constraints on

[3:31:37] the site, and the unrevolved

[3:31:42] transportation related issues,

[3:31:47] staff finds the request

[3:31:47] unsupportable.

[3:31:48] I am available for any questions

[3:31:49] you MAY have.

[3:31:50] And I also have my revised staff

[3:31:51] report.

[3:31:51] I'm sorry.

[3:32:00] >> hearing master: okay.

[3:32:01] Folks, please.

[3:32:03] I'd like to ask transportation

[3:32:07] staff to provide any comments

[3:32:09] regarding the application.

[3:32:10] >> yes.

[3:32:12] Sarah rose is online and will

[3:32:14] speak to the objections on

[3:32:14] record.

[3:32:17] >> hearing master: okay.

[3:32:22] >> good afternoon, sarah rose

[3:32:27] from transportation review.

[3:32:30] As notated in transportation's

[3:32:31] rationale for objection as

[3:32:34] outlined in our report, the

[3:32:36] applicant did submit several

[3:32:38] variance requests for their

[3:32:41] access on to bellamy.

[3:32:44] Namely an administration spacing

[3:32:47] variant which was found to

[3:32:48] contain sufficient information

[3:32:51] for review, by the manager of

[3:32:53] transportation review.

[3:32:56] In addition to that, an

[3:32:56] administrative design exception

[3:33:00] was submitted for the

[3:33:02] substandard roadway conditions

[3:33:03] of bellamy.

[3:33:06] That too was found insufficient

[3:33:11] for review by the manager of

[3:33:13] transportation review.

[3:33:16] For both of those variances, one

[3:33:18] of the outstanding insufficients

[3:33:21] for both of those requests was

[3:33:22] the lack of information

[3:33:24] regarding the right-of-way

[3:33:26] expansion for bellamy.

[3:33:27] Neither of the variance request

[3:33:30] or the site plan does the

[3:33:32] applicant outline exactly how

[3:33:36] far or how much width will be

[3:33:38] required for that expansion.

[3:33:40] As stated by the applicant in

[3:33:42] their presentation, the

[3:33:44] applicant did inquire whether

[3:33:45] staff could condition the

[3:33:49] project to be able to continue

[3:33:51] without the bellamy access if

[3:33:54] the expansion for bellamy was

[3:33:56] not in the additional

[3:33:58] right-of-way, to be taken from

[3:34:00] county land, county property,

[3:34:04] which resides east of the

[3:34:05] subject area.

[3:34:07] Could not be supported by

[3:34:08] subject works.

[3:34:11] At the time of zoning review.

[3:34:14] Public works, no coordination

[3:34:16] for public works between the

[3:34:18] applicant and public works had

[3:34:20] been completed.

[3:34:22] and at the time of site

[3:34:24] construction, if public works

[3:34:27] were not able to support county

[3:34:30] land to be taken for that

[3:34:33] right-of-way expansion on

[3:34:35] bellamy, if the project could be

[3:34:37] conditioned in such a way to

[3:34:39] proceed without that bellamy

[3:34:40] access.

[3:34:42] Staff notified the applicant

[3:34:45] that this would require a

[3:34:46] stantive change to the

[3:34:46] application.

[3:34:48] Meaning that a revision to the

[3:34:50] site access analysis, and the

[3:34:51] site plan would be required.

[3:34:54] And that as the revised plan

[3:34:56] deadline had already passed,

[3:34:58] such condition could not be

[3:34:59] considered at that late stage in

[3:35:01] the review, and there would be

[3:35:02] insufficient time for the staff

[3:35:04] and the public to fairly and

[3:35:07] adequately review and provide

[3:35:08] comments on justification that

[3:35:11] the proposed use and density

[3:35:13] could be adequately supported by

[3:35:17] a single right in, right out

[3:35:20] connection on ehrlich road.

[3:35:26] >> hearing master: anything

[3:35:26] else?

[3:35:28] >> not at this time.

[3:35:28] >> hearing master: okay.

[3:35:29] Thank you.

[3:35:31] At this point in time, planning

[3:35:32] commission staff?

[3:35:35] >> lily linehan, planning

[3:35:35] commission staff.

[3:35:37] The subject property is located

[3:35:39] within the residential 4 future

[3:35:41] land use category, within the

[3:35:44] limits of the greater

[3:35:45] carollwood/north dale community

[3:35:46] plan.

[3:35:49] Given the current pattern of

[3:35:51] mainly residential uses, but the

[3:35:54] close proximity to a major

[3:35:56] highway, the proposal is

[3:35:57] compatible and would work to

[3:35:59] serve the existing neighborhood

[3:36:01] and meets the intent of

[3:36:06] objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1.

[3:36:09] The commercial locational

[3:36:10] criteria which is established in

[3:36:15] flu 4.7 and policy 4.7.2, the

[3:36:18] subject site is located within

[3:36:22] the 1,000 foot distance of the

[3:36:25] required intersection.

[3:36:29] The applicable area complies

[3:36:32] with the site plan.

[3:36:34] The proposed building encroaches

[3:36:38] into the required 30 foot

[3:36:39] wetland set back.

[3:36:42] The current proposal does not

[3:36:43] establish compliance or

[3:36:45] adequately demonstrate that the

[3:36:46] potential impacts to the

[3:36:47] environmentally sensitive

[3:36:50] resources have been resolved.

[3:36:52] The proposed planned development

[3:36:56] has not demonstrated consistency

[3:36:59] with flu 6.1 and 6.2.

[3:37:04] Flu policy 6.1.1, objective 3

[3:37:07] pbt 5 and 3.5.1.

[3:37:10] As development services has

[3:37:10] communicated, hillsborough

[3:37:12] county land development code

[3:37:14] section 4.01.07b.

[3:37:18] The proposal has not adequately

[3:37:20] demonstrated consistency with

[3:37:22] the greater carollwood north

[3:37:24] dale community plan,

[3:37:27] particularly those that address

[3:37:28] compatibility with the

[3:37:30] established character of the

[3:37:31] surrounding community.

[3:37:32] Based upon the above

[3:37:34] considerations and the following

[3:37:38] goals, objectives planning

[3:37:41] commission staff finds this

[3:37:44] application inconsistent.

[3:37:45] >> hearing master: thank you.

[3:37:47] Is there anyone in the audience

[3:37:49] that wishes to speak in support

[3:37:50] of the application?

[3:37:52] I see no one responding.

[3:37:53] Anyone in the audience wish to

[3:37:57] speak in opposition to the

[3:37:58] application.

[3:38:00] I see quite a few hands raised?

[3:38:02] i don't know if you have a

[3:38:04] spokesperson for the group or

[3:38:05] not.

[3:38:09] But otherwise -- I'm sorry, the

[3:38:10] gentleman in the front row.

[3:38:12] I don't know if you're the

[3:38:13] spokesperson or not?

[3:38:16] >> I'm the attorney for a

[3:38:17] portion -- for the church, which

[3:38:18] is a major portion of the people

[3:38:21] that are here today.

[3:38:23] My name is jonathan bailey, with

[3:38:26] the national center for life and

[3:38:29] liberty, we represent hillsdale

[3:38:30] baptist church and christian

[3:38:32] school, one of the neighbors

[3:38:32] here.

[3:38:36] They want to put an almost 5,000

[3:38:37] square foot convenience store

[3:38:42] building, fueling canopy with 12

[3:38:46] fueling stations, and gasoline

[3:38:48] and diesel tanks, right in the

[3:38:49] middle of a residential

[3:38:51] community and right next to a

[3:38:52] church and school.

[3:38:54] Everything they said around it,

[3:38:55] about it being community

[3:38:57] friendly.

[3:38:58] The impact to these homes, the

[3:38:59] people living there, and the

[3:39:01] impact to the school is not just

[3:39:02] the traffic.

[3:39:04] It's a severe danger to the

[3:39:05] community that's going to be

[3:39:06] there.

[3:39:07] The type of people that are

[3:39:12] going to hang out at this

[3:39:13] 7-eleven at night.

[3:39:15] The people that are going to be

[3:39:15] coming into this community that

[3:39:17] are not part of this community.

[3:39:20] This is not a community centric

[3:39:22] development plan at all.

[3:39:24] The development service

[3:39:27] recommendations, not

[3:39:27] supportable, transportation

[3:39:30] staff objects and recommends

[3:39:30] denial.

[3:39:31] Everyone that's looked at this

[3:39:33] says this is a bad idea.

[3:39:35] and it is a bad idea.

[3:39:39] The 7-eleven came and talked to

[3:39:41] the church and said, what if we

[3:39:43] just serve alcohol after 5:00?

[3:39:46] That doesn't solve the problem.

[3:39:49] We're going to wake up and have

[3:39:51] someone passed out at the school

[3:39:52] entrance.

[3:39:53] Serving after 5:00 doesn't solve

[3:39:54] the problem.

[3:39:57] To think this is not a wedge

[3:39:58] principle, where they're going

[3:40:01] to try to get this in the door,

[3:40:03] and all of a sudden, we're going

[3:40:05] to serve beer at 11:00 A.M.,

[3:40:06] that's going to happen.

[3:40:08] It's going to create a safety

[3:40:11] problem at this christian school

[3:40:12] that's going to be newsworthy.

[3:40:17] It cannot be allowed to happen.

[3:40:19] This increases the trips from 28

[3:40:20] trips to 2800.

[3:40:22] That's fundamentally changing

[3:40:23] this entire area.

[3:40:24] This area coming off this road

[3:40:26] of veterans is not a highly used

[3:40:28] area, the walmart is not

[3:40:30] anywhere close, it's way further

[3:40:31] than where he was saying.

[3:40:33] These restaurants are nowhere

[3:40:34] near where the school is at.

[3:40:36] This is not the picture he

[3:40:37] presented of this little area.

[3:40:40] This is a cozy little

[3:40:43] residential area, with a church

[3:40:44] and --

[3:40:44] >> hearing master: please stop

[3:40:46] clapping, and making noises.

[3:40:48] >> this is a church and school

[3:40:50] area that doesn't have this type

[3:40:51] of traffic now.

[3:40:53] The environmental concerns are

[3:40:55] not to be anywhere overlooked.

[3:40:57] You have 38% of the site consist

[3:41:00] of wetlands, and approximately

[3:41:03] 8700 square foot of wetland

[3:41:03] impact.

[3:41:05] And 13,000 square feet of

[3:41:07] wetland buffer impact.

[3:41:11] You're going to put 20,000

[3:41:13] gallon, 12,000 gallon diesel

[3:41:15] tanks right next to a wetland

[3:41:16] issue, and you're asking for

[3:41:21] buffers that do not meet the ldc

[3:41:21] criteria.

[3:41:23] They need variances they have

[3:41:24] not applied for.

[3:41:26] This impact is going to be

[3:41:27] severe, it's going to place the

[3:41:29] children at the school at risk.

[3:41:31] It's going to increase traffic,

[3:41:33] safety risks, for the area.

[3:41:35] Trying to get in and out of the

[3:41:37] school, in the mornings with the

[3:41:38] traffic is going to be

[3:41:39] impossible

[3:41:40] impossible.

[3:41:40] This is not something that's

[3:41:42] doable from a site traffic

[3:41:44] perspective, and the way they

[3:41:46] propose their traffic plan is

[3:41:47] laughable at best.

[3:41:48] The neighborhood that is behind

[3:41:51] it, are very upset, not because

[3:41:57] they don't want a 7-eleven, but

[3:41:58] because it's going to destroy

[3:41:59] their way of life.

[3:42:01] This is not consistent to the

[3:42:03] area and to the way this

[3:42:04] community has been built and

[3:42:07] where it is today.

[3:42:11] We'd ask that hillsborough

[3:42:14] baptist church and school

[3:42:18] request the hearing master deny

[3:42:19] this application.

[3:42:21] It's incompatible with

[3:42:23] surrounding uses.

[3:42:25] Unsupportable by the

[3:42:27] infrastructure.

[3:42:30] And poses safety risks to the

[3:42:32] adjacent church and school.

[3:42:35] >> hi, sir, can you say your

[3:42:37] name for the record?

[3:42:40] >> jonathan bailey, 1790

[3:42:41] recognize svelte boulevard.

[3:42:47] >> if you can sign in, please,

[3:42:48] sir.

[3:42:49] >> hearing master: next speaker,

[3:42:49] please.

[3:42:56] >> I live at 3565 steeplechase

[3:42:56] boulevard.

[3:42:58] I want to give some quick

[3:42:59] background here, that I don't

[3:43:01] think I heard tonight.

[3:43:05] 17 years ago, the same parcel

[3:43:10] was proposed -- two parcels I

[3:43:12] guess, was proposed for a

[3:43:13] racetrack gas station.

[3:43:15] The conclusion at that time, was

[3:43:19] based on testimony, evidence,

[3:43:21] various planning departments,

[3:43:23] and a review of the

[3:43:25] comprehensive plan is concluded

[3:43:27] that the rezoning is not

[3:43:28] compatible with the surrounding

[3:43:31] land uses and zoning, and not

[3:43:32] consistent with a comprehensive

[3:43:33] plan.

[3:43:35] Recommendation denial.

[3:43:37] Signed by steven lutz.

[3:43:43] You're still looking good.

[3:43:45] And we're very appreciative that

[3:43:46] the significant analysis that

[3:43:49] the county staff has done on

[3:43:52] this, because this is a project

[3:43:57] that I guess -- to put it -- as

[3:43:59] succinct as possible.

[3:44:00] Bellamy road is the only way in

[3:44:01] and out.

[3:44:04] The major artery for some 2500

[3:44:04] homes.

[3:44:05] If you put this gas station

[3:44:07] there with all the extra traffic

[3:44:09] they're talking about.

[3:44:13] They would significantly lead to

[3:44:15] congestion, lead to safety

[3:44:16] issues.

[3:44:18] Not only for the cars, but a lot

[3:44:21] of people walk and ride their

[3:44:22] bicycles past that intersection,

[3:44:23] because there's a very -- I

[3:44:25] can't think of the name of it,

[3:44:26] there's a trail north/south

[3:44:28] that's to the west of there.

[3:44:30] That a lot of people use -- a

[3:44:32] lot of people ride their bikes

[3:44:36] on, and so it's just -- I can't

[3:44:37] even imagine people coming off

[3:44:41] the veterans, doing u-turns at

[3:44:41] that intersection.

[3:44:43] and another thing that's not

[3:44:45] mentioned here, I guess I would

[3:44:46] say there's a flaw in how the

[3:44:49] county evaluates traffic.

[3:44:53] There are a lot of speeding cars

[3:44:57] on ehrlich, I don't know if

[3:44:58] they're trying to beat that

[3:45:00] light or get to veterans, for

[3:45:01] whatever reason.

[3:45:03] It's not a matter of traffic

[3:45:05] counts, which will go way up if

[3:45:07] the station is put in there.

[3:45:09] There has to be some way, with

[3:45:10] current technology, the measure

[3:45:12] of the cars that go by that

[3:45:14] intersection on a daily basis.

[3:45:16] How many are exceeding the speed

[3:45:18] limit by 10 miles or more.

[3:45:20] I can only say that --

[3:45:22] especially if the plan is

[3:45:25] redrawn and bellamy is

[3:45:29] eliminated, that would create a

[3:45:32] hazard of unforgivable epic

[3:45:33] proportions, because people

[3:45:35] would pull out, speeding, you're

[3:45:36] asking for a lot of MAY hem.

[3:45:39] And I think it would be not

[3:45:39] good.

[3:45:43] I wish the county would evaluate

[3:45:45] its traffic count process to

[3:45:47] also include some measure using

[3:45:49] lasers or whatever is available

[3:45:50] with the current tech, to note

[3:45:52] the speeders on a given road in

[3:46:01] this case, it's ehrlich.

[3:46:03] There's not just the wetlands

[3:46:05] behind the proposed station, and

[3:46:08] there's a retention pond across

[3:46:09] bellamy.

[3:46:10] There's also another pond not

[3:46:13] indicated on the maps, that

[3:46:15] shows another small pond behind

[3:46:16] a home that's directly off the

[3:46:17] intersection there.

[3:46:18] It's another pond that's

[3:46:22] potentially impacted by the

[3:46:23] spillage from gas and oil,

[3:46:25] whatever you can buy to put in

[3:46:30] your car, that's toxic.

[3:46:34] So we -- again, to summarize,

[3:46:37] this is the only main road in --

[3:46:40] this is how we -- see the real

[3:46:40] world.

[3:46:42] And if you put all that extra

[3:46:43] traffic there, it creates a

[3:46:46] safety hazard, a traffic hazard,

[3:46:48] a congestion hazard.

[3:46:51] It could endanger children,

[3:46:52] bikers, pedestrians, who use

[3:46:53] that intersection all the time.

[3:46:55] I've lived there for 25 years, I

[3:46:57] can't give you a precise count,

[3:46:59] but every time I drive there,

[3:47:00] there's someone trying to cross

[3:47:01] that street.

[3:47:03] I thank you for listening.

[3:47:04] >> hearing master: thank you,

[3:47:05] sir.

[3:47:06] The next speaker, please.

[3:47:07] >> if you could please sign in,

[3:47:11] sir.

[3:47:13] >> we do also have two people

[3:47:15] online that wsh to speak.

[3:47:16] >> hearing master: okay.

[3:47:21] >> richard alexander, 6516

[3:47:22] spring oak cort.

[3:47:28] I want to be quick, there's a

[3:47:30] lot of passion on this issue.

[3:47:31] This is a very simple battle.

[3:47:36] This is a battle of

[3:47:37] unquenchable, insatiable greed

[3:47:40] versus families.

[3:47:41] That's what this is about.

[3:47:42] This is about a corporation that

[3:47:44] couldn't care less about

[3:47:46] husbands, wives, fathers,

[3:47:47] mothers, elementary, middle and

[3:47:49] high schoolkids.

[3:47:50] Because within a stone's throw

[3:47:56] of bellamy and ehrlich is not

[3:48:01] only a church, but there's an

[3:48:04] elementary -- pre-k, elementary,

[3:48:07] middle and high school.

[3:48:13] There's one south and north

[3:48:14] bellamy.

[3:48:16] It's a very busy intersection.

[3:48:17] There's residences to the east

[3:48:18] of that location.

[3:48:20] What's west of the location?

[3:48:22] Is the church, the preschool,

[3:48:23] the middle school and elementary

[3:48:24] school.

[3:48:26] This is going to be a disaster.

[3:48:28] This is a stick of dynamite with

[3:48:30] a very short fuse.

[3:48:32] Because you have buses, you have

[3:48:34] people, you have couples young

[3:48:36] and old walking hand in hand on

[3:48:37] that sidewalk.

[3:48:42] Which is going to go away,

[3:48:44] 7-eleven is open 24 hours, seven

[3:48:47] days a week.

[3:48:50] Selling alcohol, beer, wine,

[3:48:52] vaping products, cigarettes.

[3:48:54] That's not going to be limited

[3:48:56] to inside that store.

[3:48:56] Guarantee it.

[3:48:58] This is not an isolated event.

[3:48:59] Thank you for your time.

[3:49:01] >> hearing master: thank you.

[3:49:04] Next speaker, please.

[3:49:05] Good evening.

[3:49:09] >> hi, I am penelope jacobs.

[3:49:13] I live at 630 # 3 nesting court.

[3:49:16] I want to add on to a few points

[3:49:17] I heard.

[3:49:21] With the hillsdale baptist

[3:49:22] church, there's a field where

[3:49:24] kids play all assorts of games,

[3:49:26] the only thing protecting from

[3:49:28] this lot to that church is a

[3:49:32] bunch o trees, I imagine those

[3:49:33] would be torn down.

[3:49:35] So it would leave the children

[3:49:36] there exposed to alcohol

[3:49:39] products and smoking, gambling,

[3:49:41] all that kind of stuff.

[3:49:45] And on top of that, the

[3:49:46] intersection is already over

[3:49:46] crowded.

[3:49:49] I live back there, I g to a

[3:49:52] school down ehrlich road.

[3:49:56] I wake up at 6:45 to get to a

[3:50:02] school a live 5 minutes away

[3:50:06] from.

[3:50:07] Squeezing gas tanker trucks into

[3:50:09] a tight opening could cause a

[3:50:10] lot of traffic.

[3:50:11] Yeah, that's all.

[3:50:12] >> hearing master: okay.

[3:50:13] very good, thank you.

[3:50:16] Please sign in.

[3:50:18] Next person, there's somebody on

[3:50:23] the left that's trying to come

[3:50:23] forward.

[3:50:24] Good evening.

[3:50:32] >> hello, ginger wilson.

[3:50:33] 105cragy cliff street.

[3:50:36] I live off of bellamy road for

[3:50:37] about 27 years.

[3:50:38] I moved on the outskirts of town

[3:50:42] when I moved here, relocated

[3:50:43] with my company.

[3:50:45] I did not move downtown into the

[3:50:47] city because I wanted to live on

[3:50:50] the outskirts of town, because I

[3:50:54] enjoy the wildlife in florida.

[3:50:55] It's amazing.

[3:50:58] And we have a nice quiet

[3:50:59] community where there's tons of

[3:51:01] animals, egrets, rose bills are

[3:51:03] all in that big retention pond

[3:51:08] next to us.

[3:51:10] They're all around.

[3:51:13] Sand hill cranes.

[3:51:15] They deserve to have their space

[3:51:15] to live.

[3:51:17] The development has continued to

[3:51:18] move things.

[3:51:19] The traffic as other people, I'm

[3:51:22] going to shorten up what I had

[3:51:22] written.

[3:51:24] The traffic situation is dire.

[3:51:26] And whoever did that traffic

[3:51:29] study, did not do it well

[3:51:32] because if you live there, you

[3:51:35] know, I've sign a person killed

[3:51:37] on a bike at that intersection,

[3:51:38] hit by a car.

[3:51:40] Every day, you pull out, there's

[3:51:43] more garbage in the street,

[3:51:44] where there's been another

[3:51:45] collision.

[3:51:48] Cars back up, all the way past

[3:51:49] MR. John's house.

[3:51:51] Every morning, trying to make a

[3:51:53] right turn out, or to make a

[3:51:58] left turn out to go east on

[3:51:59] ehrlich.

[3:52:00] There's gas stations all around

[3:52:02] us, in 27 years I've never run

[3:52:03] out of gas.

[3:52:05] Even in milton, because there's

[3:52:06] plenty of gas stations around

[3:52:07] me.

[3:52:10] Every direction I can go when I

[3:52:13] leave my home, has a gas

[3:52:14] station.

[3:52:17] There's not a gas station needed

[3:52:17] there.

[3:52:21] Not to mention, gas tanks

[3:52:22] underground, do have

[3:52:23] contamination.

[3:52:26] And there's animals and wildlife

[3:52:28] living out their lives.

[3:52:30] It's wrong, we don't need it in

[3:52:37] our neighborhood, we don't want

[3:52:37] it.

[3:52:38] The biggest thing, where the

[3:52:40] church is, there's a cross-over.

[3:52:42] People are trying to come out of

[3:52:43] that church, turning left or

[3:52:52] right.

[3:52:56] On tom fuller, they built an

[3:52:58] apartment complex, people are

[3:52:59] turning out of tom fuller, turn

[3:53:01] down there, and cut through,

[3:53:03] make a u-turn at the church or

[3:53:06] come down to bellamy and ehrlich

[3:53:10] and make a u-turn there.

[3:53:14] The traffic is already horrible.

[3:53:18] I've seen people bumper to

[3:53:19] bumper, four thick.

[3:53:22] You put a 7-eleven there, and

[3:53:23] try to make that another

[3:53:26] cross-over, you have created

[3:53:27] another huge traffic jam.

[3:53:30] And blocking us from leaving our

[3:53:31] neighborhood every morning.

[3:53:33] It's wrong, we don't want it.

[3:53:35] I'm sorry that the people that

[3:53:36] live in the corner have been

[3:53:38] unable to sell their house,

[3:53:40] because it's been for sale for

[3:53:42] pretty much the 27 years I've

[3:53:43] lived there.

[3:53:45] They haven't been able to sell

[3:53:45] it, I'm sorry.

[3:53:48] Sell it, figure it out.

[3:53:49] There's a house across the

[3:53:51] street from them that was vacant

[3:53:52] many, many years.

[3:53:54] Someone's finally there, and a

[3:53:55] gas station is not consistent

[3:53:56] with that neighborhood right

[3:53:56] there.

[3:53:58] It just isn't.

[3:53:59] >> hearing master: all right.

[3:54:00] Thank you, ma'am.

[3:54:06] >> thank you.

[3:54:07] >> hearing master: good evening.

[3:54:13] Claudia cappiello, I live at

[3:54:23] 14949 barbie avenue.

[3:54:25] >> hearing master: for the

[3:54:28] record, I gave the applicant 2

[3:54:33] extra minutes, I'll give the

[3:54:35] speakers 2 extra minutes.

[3:54:38] >> I am in opposition of this

[3:54:38] development.

[3:54:41] They have 870 signatures to this

[3:54:42] petition.

[3:54:44] Back in MARCH, when they were

[3:54:46] trying to do a standard

[3:54:48] rezoning, I had over 700 people

[3:54:49] sign that petition.

[3:54:51] The changes that these people

[3:54:54] have put forth with this new

[3:54:55] application doesn't address the

[3:54:57] concerns of the community.

[3:54:59] And they're definitely not in

[3:54:59] support of having this

[3:55:01] development.

[3:55:02] >> hearing master: thank you,

[3:55:02] ma'am.

[3:55:04] There's a couple people online

[3:55:05] that wanted to speak, let's hear

[3:55:07] from them.

[3:55:09] Go ahead.

[3:55:12] >> jennifer?

[3:55:15] >> hi, good evening.

[3:55:17] My name is jennifer anderson, I

[3:55:23] have resided at 1472 red cliff

[3:55:24] drive for 16 years.

[3:55:26] Off of bellamy road, we have

[3:55:28] thousands of homes in addition

[3:55:31] to those 9hoa communities.

[3:55:33] Living in our residential area,

[3:55:36] we have access to large lots,

[3:55:39] property to house farm animals.

[3:55:41] Our rural neighborhood is quiet,

[3:55:42] safe and relatively low traffic

[3:55:46] when it comes to just

[3:55:48] automobiles and our residents

[3:55:50] that travel to and from work.

[3:55:53] We don't have any commercial

[3:55:54] traffic that comes on bellamy,

[3:55:57] as we don't have those outlets

[3:55:58] to turn around in.

[3:56:01] At rush hour, traffic increases

[3:56:07] on ehrlich road, it can be

[3:56:09] backed up from farmington

[3:56:10] boulevard, to lynn turner road,

[3:56:12] taking an additional 15 minutes

[3:56:14] to travel just one mile.

[3:56:17] You will find students riding

[3:56:20] their bikes to and from school.

[3:56:22] Residents walking between a mile

[3:56:25] to one and a half miles to one

[3:56:26] of our two public stores and

[3:56:28] shopping plazas.

[3:56:31] The cyclists and even the

[3:56:33] occasional shetland pony and

[3:56:33] buggy.

[3:56:36] The proposed location is

[3:56:37] dangerous to the potential

[3:56:39] customers conducting illegal

[3:56:41] traffic maneuvers, such as u

[3:56:44] hifr turning at the traffic

[3:56:44] light.

[3:56:47] Traffic entering and exiting the

[3:56:49] veteran's expressway --

[3:56:50] >> hearing master: ma'am, I need

[3:56:50] you to wrap up your comments,

[3:56:56] please.

[3:56:58] >> the proposed site should nt

[3:57:00] be approved, there are many

[3:57:02] environmental concerns, across

[3:57:08] the street of 14702 bellamy

[3:57:11] road, there's a sign that states

[3:57:14] wildlife entering highway.

[3:57:17] This would be better used as a

[3:57:18] residential home.

[3:57:21] The 38% area that is wetland,

[3:57:22] it's already been mentioned.

[3:57:24] We have many of the animals that

[3:57:26] have already been discussed that

[3:57:30] are at risk of dying or being

[3:57:37] displaced.

[3:57:37] Hillsdale --

[3:57:38] >> hearing master: ma'am, can

[3:57:40] you wrap up your comments,

[3:57:40] please?

[3:57:42] >> it's wrapped.

[3:57:42] >> hearing master: I think

[3:57:45] there's one more gentleman on

[3:57:49] line, and that will cone

[3:57:49] included

[3:57:50] --

[3:57:50] conclude the opposition

[3:57:51] testimony.

[3:57:52] >> hello.

[3:57:52] >> hearing master: go ahead,

[3:57:54] sir.

[3:57:54] >> hello?

[3:57:55] >> can you hear me?

[3:57:56] >> yes.

[3:58:01] >> okay.

[3:58:05] My name is john parachini.

[3:58:07] I live on bellamy road for over

[3:58:14] 40 years, I came to make

[3:58:15] comments tonight.

[3:58:19] I can cut them short, after

[3:58:23] listening to MR. Bailey from the

[3:58:25] hillsborough baptist church, he

[3:58:28] detailed quite a number of

[3:58:33] objections, very viable

[3:58:35] objections to this reapplication

[3:58:35] or rezoning.

[3:58:38] I would like to make a couple

[3:58:40] points specific to my own

[3:58:45] property, relative to specific

[3:58:48] changes to bellamy road.

[3:58:49] They are wetlands, water and

[3:58:50] flooding.

[3:58:53] The water in the wetlands

[3:58:56] resides on 14702 bellamy.

[3:58:58] It doesn't sit on my property at

[3:58:58] all.

[3:59:00] The only occasion where it does

[3:59:03] in fact come on to my property

[3:59:05] now is during the confluence of

[3:59:08] storms, tropical storms,

[3:59:09] hurricanes.

[3:59:11] Thunderstorms, and my back

[3:59:14] property now will flood.

[3:59:15] Historically, excess water from

[3:59:19] the wetlands moves to the west.

[3:59:22] That all changed when the church

[3:59:24] came in and the western edge of

[3:59:27] the wetlands was fortified.

[3:59:29] now, any excess water from the

[3:59:31] wetlands escaping there comes

[3:59:33] north on to my property

[3:59:33] directly.

[3:59:37] As a consequence, you cannot

[3:59:40] allow for any setbacks, any

[3:59:43] variances, any reduction in the

[3:59:45] capacity of the wetlands to hold

[3:59:45] water.

[3:59:48] You can't do it, you will flood

[3:59:49] my property without question,

[3:59:50] with greater frequency.

[3:59:54] This is a lived experience.

[3:59:55] This is not conjecture.

[3:59:57] Am I out of time?

[3:59:57] >> hearing master: yes, thank

[3:59:58] you, sir.

[4:00:00] Appreciate it.

[4:00:01] >> thank you very much.

[4:00:02] >> hearing master: thank you,

[4:00:02] sir.

[4:00:05] There are a couple people that

[4:00:06] stood up.

[4:00:08] Time has expired, if you'd like

[4:00:09] to put your name and address on

[4:00:11] the record, so you can speak at

[4:00:13] a later hearing, if that's your

[4:00:14] desire, can you come forward and

[4:00:17] do that.

[4:00:18] Otherwise, I'll close opposition

[4:00:22] testimony at this point in time.

[4:00:23] Is there anyone that wants to

[4:00:24] put their name and address on

[4:00:24] the record.

[4:00:26] Okay.

[4:00:30] With that, that concludes the

[4:00:31] opposition and development

[4:00:34] services, any further comments.

[4:00:35] >> no, sir.

[4:00:36] >> hearing master: okay.

[4:00:38] The applicant has the

[4:00:41] opportunity for rebuttal.

[4:00:42] You have five minutes for

[4:00:45] rebuttal.

[4:00:49] I'll give you two extra minutes,

[4:00:50] given the time to the

[4:00:51] opposition.

[4:00:52] >> thank you, I'll keep it

[4:00:54] within my five.

[4:00:55] We understand there are several

[4:00:57] technical approvals that still

[4:00:59] need to occur on this property.

[4:01:01] The -- this includes the design

[4:01:02] exceptions that we mentioned

[4:01:04] regarding the wetland and also

[4:01:06] the bellamy road extensions.

[4:01:08] This is not the time or place

[4:01:12] for those to be the forefront of

[4:01:12] discussion.

[4:01:14] We have opportunities to develop

[4:01:16] the site, the site development

[4:01:20] process itself.

[4:01:24] The rezoning to the planned

[4:01:25] development, has these

[4:01:28] discussions as part of what

[4:01:30] we're trying t prove.

[4:01:32] We have talked to staff.

[4:01:36] Staff has reviewed the rezoning

[4:01:37] application and site plan we

[4:01:40] submitted for the rezoning,

[4:01:54] which we have here which does

[4:01:55] not consider all development

[4:01:57] standards for a final site plan

[4:01:58] approval.

[4:02:00] And we understand that.

[4:02:02] There has been comments

[4:02:04] regarding the sidewalk going

[4:02:05] away.

[4:02:06] We are extending the sidewalk,

[4:02:08] we are making it a 10-foot

[4:02:09] sidewalk on the property.

[4:02:11] Which would be supportive of

[4:02:16] pedestrians pathways and bike

[4:02:16] movement and pedestrians

[4:02:17] movement across the property,

[4:02:18] through the property and along

[4:02:21] the property.

[4:02:23] There was inconsistent

[4:02:25] statements regarding bellamy

[4:02:28] being a main road or an arterial

[4:02:30] road or a small road that can't

[4:02:34] support any sort of movement.

[4:02:37] But our traffic study has shown

[4:02:39] that one, there's a pass by rate

[4:02:43] of 75%, and also through our

[4:02:46] study, there are adequate trips

[4:02:49] that would be supported by

[4:03:10] bellamy and ehrlich.

[4:03:12] Again, there's an important

[4:03:13] distinction between approving a

[4:03:14] land use and the development of

[4:03:15] the property.

[4:03:17] Approval of the pd, does not

[4:03:20] give the applicant a building

[4:03:20] permit.

[4:03:23] It does not approve the bellamy

[4:03:24] road design exception.

[4:03:25] We understand those things need

[4:03:27] to be discussed with the county.

[4:03:29] And we're willing to implement

[4:03:32] any sort of conditions the

[4:03:32] county is willing to put on this

[4:03:43] property.

[4:03:46] >> good evening, michael razor

[4:03:48] for the record, bruce b. Downs

[4:03:52] boulevard, tampa, florida.

[4:03:55] I'm the traffic consultant for

[4:03:55] the project.

[4:03:58] As -- I'll just continue -- this

[4:04:00] is the very rudest hearing I've

[4:04:01] ever attended.

[4:04:03] And I've been doing this for 30

[4:04:05] plus years.

[4:04:10] The great majority of traffic

[4:04:11] generated by this site is

[4:04:14] already back on the road, it

[4:04:15] turns into the site and out of

[4:04:17] the site.

[4:04:19] It's not a dissension, it's a

[4:04:20] convenience store.

[4:04:23] We have two right in, right out

[4:04:24] driveways proposed.

[4:04:27] The major discussion regarding

[4:04:29] right-of-way on the eastside of

[4:04:33] bellamy is proposing to put in a

[4:04:34] four-foot concrete separator to

[4:04:37] prevent left turns at that

[4:04:38] bellamy driveway.

[4:04:39] That will improve not only the

[4:04:42] safety of bellamy in this

[4:04:43] particular area, by separating

[4:04:45] opposing lanes of traffic.

[4:04:48] But part of that separator will

[4:04:50] extend the southbound left turn

[4:04:52] lane, which is currently

[4:04:52] deficient.

[4:04:54] That's why we hear about issues

[4:04:55] with this particular

[4:04:56] intersection.

[4:04:57] The turn lanes are not long

[4:04:58] enough, in the existing state.

[4:05:03] If this gets approved, there

[4:05:04] will be material improvements

[4:05:07] that will not only cure existing

[4:05:08] deficiencies, but will also

[4:05:10] accommodate the particular site.

[4:05:12] At the intersection now during

[4:05:14] peak hours as identified in the

[4:05:15] morning, to be at level service

[4:05:16] c and b.

[4:05:19] In the afternoon, that's with or

[4:05:21] without this station being

[4:05:21] developed.

[4:05:26] The only level service in the

[4:05:28] report is level c, compared to a

[4:05:28] d standard.

[4:05:30] And I will conclude by saying

[4:05:34] that u-turns are not illegal

[4:05:36] movements, they are permissible

[4:05:38] as long as there's not a sign

[4:05:38] restricting those.

[4:05:41] I would be happy to answer any

[4:05:42] specific traffic questions you

[4:05:47] MAY have.

[4:05:48] >> hearing master: does that

[4:05:50] conclude your presentation on

[4:05:50] your rebuttal?

[4:05:51] >> it does, thank you for your

[4:05:53] time.

[4:05:54] >> hearing master: with that,

[4:05:55] this concludes this application.

[4:05:57] And that concludes tonight's

[4:05:59] zoning hearing master hearing.

Zoning Hearing Master on 2026-08-24 6:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript