[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[3:30] been withdrawn.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[4:54] And we don't any unpublished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.