CAPTIONING - Hillsborough County, Florida



CAPTIONING

JULY 22, 2013

ZONING HEARING MASTER

***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

WELL, GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY AND WELCOME TO THE JULY 22nd, 2013 MEETING OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ZONING HEARING MASTER.

MY NAME IS JAMES SCAROLA AND I'M GOING TO BE HEARING MOST OF THE CASES THIS EVENING, BUT SITTING ON MY RIGHT IS HEARING OFFICER STEVEN LUCE, WHO WILL BE HEARING FIRST CASE TONIGHT WHICH IS A REMAND FROM A PREVIOUS HEARING.

SO WHAT WE'LL DO TO GET THINGS UP AND RUNNING, I WILL FIRST TURN TO OUR STAFF AND ASK THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.

LISTEN CAREFULLY IN CASE YOUR PARTICULAR PETITION IS INVOLVED AND THEN I WILL GO YOU THROUGH A SET OF ITEMS.

WITH, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOU TO MR. BRIAN GRADY.

>> BRIAN GRADY: BEFORE I GO THROUGH THE CHANGES OF THE AGENDA, JOINING US IS MR. LEWIS WHITEHEAD WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND TO HIS LEFT MARCIE STENMARK WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE HAVE NO CHANGES TO TONIGHT'S PUBLISHED AGENDA.

SO I WILL GO THROUGH THE PUBLISHED WITHDRAWS AND CONTINUANCES.

THE FIRST ITEM A2, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION, 13-0344.

IT'S OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 19th, 2013 HEARING MASTER HEARING.

AND A3, 13-0491, THIS IS CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 23rd, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING, AND A4, MAJOR MOD 13-0499 THIS IS CONTINUED TO STAFF TO THE AUGUST 19, 2013 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING AND ITEM A5, REZONING APPLICATION, 13-0594, IT IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 19th, 2013 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU, BRIAN.

TONIGHT'S AGENDA CONTAINS TO TYPES OF PETITIONS.

YOU NOTICE ON SOME OF THEM, THE LETTERS RZ OR MM THOSE ARE REZONINGS OR MODIFICATIONS TO ZONINGS.

OTHER ONES YOU WILL SEE SU FOR SPECIAL USE.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT PROCESSES AND THE SPECIAL USE PROCESSES I WILL BE CONDUCTING THE HEARINGS TONIGHT AND RENDERING A DECISION IN 15 WORKING DAYS FOLLOWING THE HEARING.

IN THE CASE OF THE REZONING AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BE CONDUCTED BY A LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING OFFICER PRIOR TO THE DECISION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

IT OFFERS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD WHO MAKES A FINAL DECISION AT THEIR PUBLIC MEETING.

THIS HEARING IN GENERAL IS GOING TO BE INFORMAL.

QUESTIONING WILL BE CONFINED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE SCOPE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS SIMPLY IS WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, YOU WILL BE SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO ME, NOT TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, NOT TO STAFF MEMBERS, BUT TO ME.

AS THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER, I WILL CALL AND QUESTION WITNESSES AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE AND I WILL DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS ON PROCEDURE.

IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL OR UNDULY REPETITIOUS MATERIAL WILL BE EXCLUDED.

ANY PART OF YOUR EVIDENCE MAY BE RECEIVED IN WRITTEN FORM.

ALL OF YOUR TESTIMONY TONIGHT IS GOING TO BE UNDER OATH.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE MAY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENTING OR EXPLAINING OTHER EVIDENCE BUT IT ENTER WON'T BE SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY ME, UNLESS IT'S ADMISSIBLE OVER OBJECTIONS IN A CIVIL ACTION.

HAVING SAID THOSE FORMALITIES, FIRST, I WILL TURN TO STAFF WHO WILL INTRODUCE EACH PETITION.

AT THAT TIME, IF THE APPLICATION AND OTHER WITNESSES WOULD COME FORWARD, YOU WILL BE GIVEN UP TO 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THE PETITION, THE SUPPORTING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE.

I WILL THEN TURN TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND ASK FOR THEIR STAFF REPORT AND THEIR DEPARTMENTAL FINDINGS.

THEY WILL HAVE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO DO THAT.

I WILL THEN LOOK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A REPORT ON COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEY WILL ALSO HAVE A SIMILAR APPROXIMATE FIVE MINUTES FOR THAT.

AT THAT POINT, I WILL TURN TO ANY PROPONENTS, ANYONE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION MAY COME FORWARD.

THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE POLITIC AGAIN BY THE WAY.

 -- APPLICANT AGAIN BY THE WAY.

ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE, WE WILL ALLOT A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES FOR THAT.

I WILL ASK FOR OPPOSITION.

IF THERE'S OPPOSING VIEWS.

IT'S A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES.

AT THAT POINT, I WILL ASK STAFF FOR ANY CHANGES TO THEIR STAFF REPORT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED AND LASTLY, THE APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD AND THEY WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY.

AND THESE ARE THE TIMES PRESCRIBED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SO THOSE ARE YOUR RIGHTS.

DON'T FILL THE NEED TO FILL THE TIME.

GET YOUR MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION OUT, AS BEST YOU CAN.

WE HAVE QUITE A FEW CASES ON THE AGENDA AND WE WILL TRY TO CONDUCT THIS AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE.

IF I FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE, WE CAN GRANT ADDITIONAL TIME AS NEEDED.

A COUPLE OF TIPS FOR YOU, WHEN YOU COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE, PULL IT DOWN CLOSELY.

WE ARE ESTABLISHING A RECORD TONIGHT.

SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE, NAME AND ADDRESS FIRST.

NAME AND ADDRESS FIRST.

WHEN YOU LEAVE THE MICROPHONE, IF YOU HAD TO COME BACK FOR ANY PARTICULAR REASON, JUST SAY YOUR NAME.

THE WRITTEN RECORD NEEDS TO ESTABLISH WHO WAS SPEAKING.

SAY YOUR NAME ONE MORE TIME.

WHEN YOU ARE DON'T SPEAKING, STEP OVER TO MY LEFT, THE END OF THE LECTERN HERE, YOU WILL SEE A SIGN-IN SHEET AND THAT WILL LEAVE A RECORD OF YOUR TESTIMONY ALSO.

NOW, BECAUSE WE HAVE A REMAND HEARING THAT IS A REZONING AND AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES GOING ON.

YOU WILL NEED SOME INFORMATION FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS IN YOUR PROCESS.

SKILL MR. LOUIS WHITEHEAD TO TALK ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS TO SPEAK BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER.

>> LOUIS WHITEHEAD: THANK YOU MR. HEARING MASTER.

TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING IS THE FIRST OF TWO STEPS IN THE COUNTY'S REZONING PROCESS.

TONIGHT'S HEARING IS A TIME FOR APPLICANTS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE.

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF EACH CASE.

THE RECORD OF EACH CASE WILL CLOSE AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARINGS AND NO EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED HEREAFTER.

THE SECOND STEP OF THE REZONING PROCESS IS A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION ON EACH PETITION.

THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH PETITION HERE TONIGHT ON AUGUST 12th.

AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, EACH INDIVIDUAL WOULD DESIRES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MUST FILE AN ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON AUGUST 22nd.

TONIGHT'S PETITIONS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD AT THE BOARD'S SEPTEMBER 10th LAND USE MEETING.

THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER ONLY THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEAR AND THE ALLEGATION OF THE HEARING MASTER IN RENDERING ITS DECISION.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS MUST BE RESPONSIVE TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION.

ACCORDINGLY, ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE FILED UNTIL THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE COUNTY.

THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE PUBLIC MEETING.

HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BOARD CAN ELECT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT FROM A PARTY OF RECORD.

A PARTY OF RECORD IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FITS INTO AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR CATEGORIES.

FIRST, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PRESENT TONIGHT, AND PRESENTED ORAL TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; SECOND, AN INDIVIDUAL CERTIFIED BY THE POSTAL SERVICE AS HAVING BEEN MAILED NOTICE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; THIRD, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE MASTER FILE AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S HEARING; OR FOURTH, AN INDIVIDUAL THAT SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THROUGH ANOTHER DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING.

IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD ELECTED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, THE PARTIES OF RECORD WOULD FILED RESPONSIVE, TIMELY REQUESTS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT MY ORAL ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS, ONE, AMBIGUITIES IN THE RECORDS OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; NUMBER TWO, TO UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST TO ENTER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RECORD; NUMBER THREE, A MISTAKE IN THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION; OR NUMBER FOUR TO INTRODUCE A MATTER THAT WAS ENTERED INTO THE REGARD BUT NOT ADDRESSED IN THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION.

THE SCOPE OF OUR ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED VERBALLY OR IN WRITING TO THE HEARING MASTER TONIGHT.

THE RULE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS TO ENSURE THAT ONLY INDIVIDUALS WOULD HAVE MET THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK FOR THE BOARD AND THAT NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS NOT INTRODUCED OR ALLOWED AT THE PUBLIC MEETING.

FOR THESE REASONS, PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU DESIRE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AT THE PUBLIC MEETING IS PLACED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. WHITEHEAD.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE ANY TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE TONIGHT, PLEASE RAISE WITH ME NOW AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

[ APPLICATION OF THE OATH ]

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

WITH THAT IN MIND, BRIAN, WHAT IS THE FIRST PETITION?

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE FIRST ITEM IS ON PAGE 4 OF THE AGENDA.

I-1 REZONING APPLICATION, 13-0273.

MR. LUCE, YOU HAD HEARD THIS CASE AT A PREVIOUS ZONING HEARING MASTER.

IT WAS REMANDED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND TESTIMONY.

I WILL NOTE THAT I HAD PASSED OUT THE REVISED CONDITIONS TO THOSE THAT WERE CONTAINED WITHIN OUR REVISED STAFF REPORT.

THESE REVISIONS ARE BASED ON NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND I WILL ASK THE APPLICANT AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE IN CONCURRENCE WITH THESE REVISIONS.

I WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE STAFF -- BY THE APPLICANT.

>> STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD ALL TESTIMONY THAT WAS RECEIVED ON JUNE 3rd MOVES FORWARD AND IS PART OF THIS PUBLIC RECORD AS WELL, CORRECT?

>> LOUIS WHITEHEAD: CORRECT.

>> STEVE LUCE: AND THE REMAND REQUEST REQUESTED BY THE BOARD TO REQUEST FURTHER DISCUSSION, COULD YOU PROVIDE ANY MORE DETAIL AS TO WHAT THE DIRECTION WAS?

>> LOUIS WHITEHEAD: THERE WASN'T ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION.

THE BOARD FELT THAT GIVEN THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THE PLAN, TOWARDS JUST PRIOR TO THE HEARING THAT GIVEN THOSE CHANGES, THAT -- AND TESTIMONY OF THE RESIDENTS PROVIDED REGARDING CONFUSION REGARDING THE CHANGES IN WHAT THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST WAS, IS THAT THEY -- THEY FELT THAT IT SHOULD GO BACK TO THE HEARING OFFICER JUST TO BASICALLY MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED AND PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND TESTIMONY ON WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED.

>> STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> SO WE REVISED THE REPORT TO REFLECT CONCESSIONS THE APPLICANT MADE DURING THE MEETING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN CONSULTATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS.

>> STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, CLAYTON BRICKLEMEYER, BRICKLEMEYER LAW GROUP.

I ACTUALLY, SINCE THE RECORD IS ALREADY COMPLETE, I DON'T HAVE REALLY ANYTHING TO TELL YOU, BEYOND WHAT BRIAN WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT.

I DID WANT TO CLEAR UP, WE JUST MINUTES AGO MADE ONE SMALL WORD CHANGE.

IS THAT PART OF YOUR DEAL OR DO I NEED TO READ THAT IN?

>> BRIAN GRADY: I CAN ADDRESS IT DURING MY TESTIMONY.

>> WE MADE ONE SMALL WORD CHANGE THAT I THINK MS. THOMPSON WILL AGREE TO.

THAT SAID, WE WORKED REALLY HARD WITH THE RESIDENTS AND WE GOT VERY, VERY SPECIFIC IN OUR ZONING CONDITIONS AND I THINK WE'RE DONE BUT WE ARE HERE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU NEED US.

I HAVE THE ENGINEERING AND A DRAFT CONSULTANT.

>> STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

AT THIS POINT THIS TIME, WE WILL HEAR FROM -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK OVER ANYTHING FURTHER AS STAFF.

>> BRIAN GRADY: FOR THE RECORD, BRIAN GRADY AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

REGARDING THE REVISIONS TO THE CONDITION, BASICALLY IN 5-POINT 1.1, THE LAST SENTENCE WHEN IT'S TALKING ABOUT PLANTS, IT'S CHANGING THE WORD "SHALL" TO "MAY" IN THAT LAST SENTENCE.

THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE TO THE REVISIONS I JUST HANDED OUT.

AGAIN AS I NOTED, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL ADDS.

THE REVISED CONDITIONS THAT WE SUBMITTED AS OUR STAFF REPORT, DID HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND CHANGES FROM THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE BEFORE YOU AT THE PRIOR HEARING.

I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: WE HAD ONE ADDITION TO OUR STAFF REPORT WHERE WE ADDRESS THE POLICY, 16.16 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF DENSITIES TO LAND SPREADS AND WATER BODIES BECAUSE THERE IS A SMALL LAKE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAD MISSED IN OUR FIRST REPORT.

SO WE EXPRESSED THAT IT MEETS THE INTENSE OF OUR REPORT AND THE REPORT REMAINS THE SAME.

>> STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

>> HELLO, MY NAME IS BETTY JO, STRATEGIES PLUS, BRANDON FLORIDA, 33511, I WASN'T SURE IF I WOULD SPEAK AT THIS POINT OR IN THE OPPONENTS SECTION, ONLY BECAUSE I REPRESENT THE GROUP THAT WAS INITIALLY OPPONENTS TO CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN.

HEARING MASTER LUCE, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AND ALSO TO THANK THE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE REMAND TO SIT DOWN WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND COME TO A CONCURRENCE ON A NUMBER OF VERY SALIENT ISSUES.

AND THE REMAND WAS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WAS BROAD IN SCOPE.

I WANT TO THANK THE COUNTY COMMISSION STAFF, TAYLOR MORRISON AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO I REPRESENT WHO SPENT HOURS AND HOURS TRYING TO GET TO A RECONCILED POSITION.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE REACHED THAT NOW.

THIS IS NOTHING NEGATIVE.

THESE NOTEBOOKS WERE DONE BY THE RESIDENTS AND SHOWED THE ADJOURNING PROPERTY AND IT SHOWS WHY THEY WERE SO INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT ALL THE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED.

THERE'S ONE FOR YOU AND ONE FOR THE COUNTY.

I'M NOT REALLY GOING TO TALK ABOUT THESE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF ONE ITEM.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS ISSUE IS NOT DIRECTLY TAYLOR MORRISON'S BUT WE WANT IT ON THE RECORD.

IT IS OF GRAVE CONCERN TO US THAT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CONTINUES TO DEVELOP FAILED ROADS.

WE KNOW THE ISSUE OF PROP SHARE.

WE KNOW THE TRIBUNE FEATURED THIS YESTERDAY, AND, YOU KNOW, WE REALIZED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO CONTINUE ON FAILED ROAD.

HOWEVER, WE ALSO FEEL THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT VERY SERIOUSLY, THE CONDITION THAT THEY HAVE PUT AS A POSSIBILITY THAT ON THESE FAILED ROADS WHERE THERE'S HIGH VOLUME, IN THIS CASE, THERE'S A CAR IN RUSH HOUR BUT ONCE EVER THREE SECONDS OR LESS.

CHILDREN ARE SUPPOSED TO CROSS THIS STREET BECAUSE ALL THE SIDEWALKS ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.

AND THERE'S NO REAL PROGRAM TO MAKE THAT VERY POSSIBLE.

IT PUTS THE HEALTH AND THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN AT TERRIBLE RISK AND PERIL.

THE FACT IS THAT ALL DEVELOPERS ACROSS THE STREET FOR OVER 5600 CONTIGUOUS FEET HAVE PUT WALLS IN TO PROTECT KIDS WHEN THEY ARE PLAYING, WHEN THEY ARE RUNNING TO THE SCHOOL BUS OR ANY TIME THAT WAS LISTED AS A POSSIBLE CONDITION FROM THE DEVELOPER.

WE CONCUR VERY STRONGLY WITH THAT.

WE ARE VERY, VERY WILLING TO ACCEPT THE ISSUE ABOUT THE WETLANDS DELINEATION LINES AND MOVING THOSE BACK AND MOVING THE LOT SIZES A LITTLE BIT, THE BUFFERING AND THE SIDE FENCING, ET CETERA.

WE ARE ALL IN CONCURRENCE WITH.

WE ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF TAYLOR MORRISON.

THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY A BIG DEVELOPER BUT THEY ARE ALSO AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT TO THIS COMMUNITY AND OTHERS.

SO WE DO ACCEPT THIS GOING FORWARD.

WE DO ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AS STATED BUT WE WANT IT NOTED FOR THE RECORD THAT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IS THE ONE THAT'S BEING IRRESPONSIBLE BY NOT DEALING WITH -- IN OTHER WORDS IF THERE WAS A WALL, THERE WOULD BE ONE POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS BECAUSE ALL THE BUFFERING WE PUT OUT IS NOT GOING TO STOP KIDS FROM HOPPING OVER FENCES, YOU KNOW, CRAWLING THROUGH THE BUSHES OR RUNNING THROUGH THE BUSHES.

THAT'S OUR BIG CONCERN.

SO IT IS A CONDITION AS A POSSIBILITY.

I WANT TO THANK TAYLOR MORRISON FOR PUTTING THAT DOWN AND WE WERE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE PLANT MATERIAL AND THEY ANSWERED THAT.

I WASN'T GOING TO COME UP AS A PROPONENT, ONLY BECAUSE I WAS ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THE OPPONENTS BUT I WASN'T HERE TO ATTEND THE FIRST HEARING.

>> STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU.

>> STEVE LUCE: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>> STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, PROPOSED CONDITION 5.2, IF YOU COULD CLARIFY.

IF YOU REVIEW THAT CONDITION, I BELIEVE IT REQUIRES -- IT SAYS THERE FENCING SHALL BE PROVIDED, ALONG WITH --

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE DEVELOPER HAS THE ABILITY TO DO EITHER A MASONRY WALL.

THEIR PREFERENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO REQUIRE JUST THE MASONRY WALL AND NOT HAVE ANOTHER OPTION BESIDES A MASONRY WALL.

>> STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

MR. BRICK MYER, ANYTHING FURTHER.

ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

I WILL TURN THE HEARING BACK OVER TO MR. SCAROLA.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU, MR. LUCE AND BRIAN NEXT PETITION.

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT TWO PETITIONS ARE SPECIAL USE.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS FOR THE SPECIAL USES.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE WILL MOVE INTO THE SPECIAL USE PORTION OF THE HEARING.

OUR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, MR. WHITEHEAD WILL PROVIDE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBLE AFTER PEELING DECISIONS -- OF THE APPEALING OF DECISIONS.

>> LOUIS WHITEHEAD: THE DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON THE SPECIAL USES TONIGHT, WILL BE FILED WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON AUGUST 12th.

ANYONE WHO DESIRES A COPY TO RECEIVE THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION BY MAIL, MUST FINISH YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND SELF-ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE.

AN APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE THAT THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION IS FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS OR ENTITIES CAN INTERVENE IN AN APPEAL.

FIRST THE APPLICANT AND SECOND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY THAT, A, IS PRESENT OR REPRESENTED AT TONIGHT'S HEARINGS AND PRESENTS EITHER TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR B, SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THEMSELVES OR THROUGH ANOTHER PARTY OR DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING AN THIRD, IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER.

THE EVIDENCE THAT THE APPEALS BOARD CAN CONSIDER IS LIMITED TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT.

THIS MEANS THAT AT THE END OF EACH HEARING TONIGHT, ON EACH SPECIAL USE, THE CASE RECORD CLOSES AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE COMMITTED DECISION TO CASE RECORD, THE APPEALS BOARD SHALL CONSIDER THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND ORAL ARGUMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE PARTY APPEALING THE DECISION, AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY WHO IS STANDING TO APPEAL OR INTERVENE IN AN APPEAL.

EACH OF WHOM MAY BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNCIL.

IT IS A COUNTY ATTORNEY'S ROLE TO ENSURE THAT NO NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS ALLOWED BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS DECISION.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL ADVISE TO DISREGARD EVIDENCE THAT'S NOT IN THE RECORD.

THEREFORE, PLEASE BE SURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU MAY WISH THE APPEALS BOARD TO CONSIDER IS PLACE INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU AGAIN MR. WHITEHEAD AND BRIAN.

>> BRIAN GRADY: NEXT SUM IS I2, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION, 13-0544, THE APPLICANT THREE PALMS BREWING LLC.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A WAIVER FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO COP, COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE THEIR INFORMATION AFTER THE APPLICANT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

THE APPLICANT.

>> MY NAME IS WAYNE WEAVER.

AND I'M HERE TONIGHT TO REQUEST A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A FACILITY THAT'S AN EXISTING BREWERY.

I'M THE BREWER.

I HAVE BEEN THERE FOR OVER A YEAR NOW.

AND WE ARE REQUESTING SPECIAL USE.

THE REASON WE ARE HERE, THERE'S A RESIDENCE LESS THAN 250 FEET AWAY AND WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THAT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: AND THIS BREWER IS IN OPERATION.

>> YES, I HAVE A FEDERAL BREWER PERMIT AND THE STATE BREWER'S PERMIT.

I HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR OVER A YEAR.

WE ACTUALLY STARTED DOING DISTRIBUTION LAST AUGUST.

SO, YEAH, WE --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: EXCELLENT.

>> I WANTED TO PRESENT SOME PHOTOS OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IF YOU JUST GIVE IT A MINUTE, THEY WILL COME UP THERE.

>> THIS IS ACTUALLY THE VIEW FROM STANDING THE FRONT DOOR OUTSIDE OF OUR BREWERY.

IF YOU LOOK DIRECTLY UPWARD, IT'S THE RESIDENCE IS ACTUALLY -- WELL, ACTUALLY IF YOU ZOOM BACK IN, MORE TO THE TOP OF THE SCREEN, THE RESIDENTS, YEAH, IS ACTUALLY RIGHT THERE AND YOU CAN SEE WITH THE NEXT PHOTO, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE RESIDENTS ACTUALLY HAS A -- IT'S FULLY ENCLOSED.

IT'S GATED.

THERE'S A FENCE THE WHOLE WAY AROUND.

YOU KNOW, SO IF THERE WAS ANY QUESTIONS OF SOMEBODY TO GO OVER THERE OR WHATEVER.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE HARD TO GET INTO THE RESIDENTS' ZONE.

I MAKE CRAFT BEER AND TYPICALLY THE PEOPLE THAT DRINK CRAFT BEER ARE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE THAT ENJOY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD HAVE THE INTENSION TO VISIT THAT LOCATION FOR ANY REASON.

SO THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT IS THE ECONOMIC IMPACT THAT CRAFT BEER, I GUESS THE INDUSTRY ITSELF HAS TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S BASICALLY A $5 BILLION INDUSTRY.

WITH ME HAVING A TASTING ROOM, IT PROMOTES TOURISM.

I HAVE HAD PEOPLE FROM OUT OF THE STATE COME TO THE BREWERY TO CHECK IT OUT.

I HAVE GIVEN THEM A TASTE OF THE BEER.

I SEE IT AS GOOD FOR THE LOCAL ECONOMY.

ALSO I WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT TO PEOPLE WOULD WORK IN THE TASTING ROOM AND IF WE CAN EXPAND THE BREWERY, MORE WORKERS TO WORK AT THE BREWERY ITSELF AND ACTUALLY AN EXPANSION OF THE BREWERY AS WELL.

I MEAN, I SEE IT AS A POSITIVE THING ALL AROUND.

I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER BREWERIES IN THE AREA, OF COURSE, LIKE CIGAR CITY, THEY HAVE BEEN HUGE AND THEY KEEP IT GROWING AND THEY WERE A HUGE INSPIRATION TO ME.

THAT WAS ONE OF MY INSPIRATIONS TO START A BREWERY THAT.

AS PART OF WHY I'M DOING IT.

THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

ALL RIGHT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

GOOD EVENING.

>> LORI BOYLAN: LORI BOYLAN.

THE REQUESTED PERMIT FOR 2-COP ALCOHOLIC PERMIT TO ALLOW BEER AND WINE FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF THE PREMISES.

THE WET ZONE AREA WILL COMPROMISE OF A TOTAL OF 992 SQUARE FEET.

NO OUTSIDE WET ZONE AREAS ARE REQUESTED.

STAFF HAS -- WAIT.

ONE MORE THING.

THE DISTANCE WAIVER.

IT'S LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HOBBS STREET.

197.7 FEET OF THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUIRING A 53.3 FEET DISTANCE WAIVER.

WE CONCUR WITH THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENTS AND WE HAVE NO PRODUCTIONS.

I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: I DON'T.

THANK YOU, LORI.

IS ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

SUPPORT?

COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING, I JUST WANTED TO READ WHAT I WROTE.

I'M RENNIE HAYES.

I LIVE AT 6410, STATE DRIVE, 34221, AGAIN, I'M RENEE HAYES.

I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE TASTE OF THREE PALMS BREWING.

I BELIEVE IN SUPPORTING LOCAL.

FLORIDA IS BECOMING A LEADING CRAFT BEER PRODUCER OF THE CRAFT BEER INDUSTRY.

HAVING THREE PALMS WILL ALLOW THEM TO PRODUCE AND SELL MORE FINE BEER, WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY HELP THEM AS THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND HELP THE COMMUNITY AND BRINGING PEOPLE TO THE AREA.

IN ADDITION, BY THE SUCCESS OF THIS BREWERY, THIS WILL HELP IN BRINGING EMPLOYMENT TO THE AREA, WHICH, AGAIN, HELPS THE COMMUNITY.

THE TAMPA BAY AREA IS BUILDING A REPUTATION AS A BEER LOVERS VACATION DESTINATION.

EVENTS SUCH AS TAMPA BAY BEER WEEK ARE BECOMING MORE POPULAR EVERY YEAR.

THREE PALMS WILL HELP TO BRING REVENUE FROM THESE EVENTS AND ATTRACT PEOPLE TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I TRAVEL OUT OF STATE A LOT AND WHEN PEOPLE ASK ME WHERE I'M FROM AND I TELL THEM, FLORIDA, THEY ARE ENVIOUS, THAT I'M IN FLORIDA WHERE GREAT BEER IS MADE.

I MET RANDY AT TAMPA BAY BEER WEEK AND FIND HE'S A GENUINE PERSON WHO ABSOLUTELY LOVES MAKING BEER.

HE'S PROUD OF THE WORK HE DOES AND HE HAS DEVELOPED A FOLLOWING FROM PEOPLE WHO LOVE HIS BEER, INCLUDING ME AND MY HUSBAND CHRIS.

HE'S A FAMILY MAN AND IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING, DOING WHAT HE AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE LOVE, HAVING THIS AGENDA ITEM PASSED IN FAVOR OF THREE PALMS BREWING, WILL BRING MORE DOLLARS TO FLORIDA AND ONE OF THE BEST BREWERS I KNOW.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY.

ANYBODY ELSE IN SUPPORT.

>> MA'AM, CAN YOU SIGN IN.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: MA'AM, THANK YOU.

ANYBODY THIS EVENING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION?

SEEING NONE, ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE APPLICANT BEFORE I CLOSE IT?

ALL RIGHT.

THANKS AND WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE SPECIAL USE 13-544.

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ONE IS SPECIAL USE APPLICATION, 13-0600.

THE APPLICANT IS GOLDEN ASIAN RESTAURANT.

IT'S FOR A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER FOR 2 COP-RX.

LORI BOYLAN WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING, I'M KEVIN MINEER WITH THE GENESIS GROUP AND I'M ASSISTING THE GOLDEN ASIAN, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ASIAN FUSION RESTAURANT WITH THEIR 2 COP, THAT'S BEER AND WINE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, WITHIN THE MIRROR BAY OF APOLLO BEACH.

IT'S AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER.

THE TOWN CENTER IS APPROVED FOR A FULL RANGE OF USES, INDUSTRIAL, OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL, EVERYTHING AND THESE CONDITIONS PROVIDE THAT THESE USES MAY BE FULLY VERTICALLY, AS WELL AS HORIZONTALLY, INTEGRATED.

SO WE CAN HAVE POTENTIALLY HOUSES ABOVE US AND DAY CARE NEXT TO US.

EVERYTHING CAN BE MIXED IN WITH US.

2 COP-RX REQUIRES 500 FEET TO COMMUNITY USES LIKE LIBRARIES AND SCHOOLS AND SUCH AND 150 FEET TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.

WHILE NO SUCH USES CURRENTLY EXIST WITHIN THESE DISTANCES WITHIN THE EXISTING RESTAURANT THEY COULD.

WE COULD HAVE HOUSES ABOVE US.

WE COULD HAVE DAY CARE NEXT TO US.

SO WE ARE ASKING FOR THE FULL WAIVER OF THE FULL 150 FEET, NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT EXISTS NEXT TO US BUT WHAT COULD EXIST NEXT TO US.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS IN THE CENTER THAT SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

WE HAVE THE INCOGNITO LOUNGE AND WE ALSO HAVE THE SWEET BAY SUPERMARKET LIQUOR STORE AS WELL AS THE GROCERY STORE, BOTH OF WHICH SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVIDES THAT THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER MAY GRANT A WAIVER TO DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS OF COMMUNITY USES AND RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY IF THERE'S SPECIAL OR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE BEVERAGE USE IS APPLIED AND IT DOESN'T HAVE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS.

IT IS MY BELIEF AS A CERTIFIED PLANNER THAT THE SPECIAL AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN THIS PROJECT IS, AGAIN, THE TOWN CENTER IS FULLY ZONED FOR A FULL VARIETY OF USES.

WE CAN POTENTIALLY HAVE A RESIDENTIAL IN THE RESTAURANT.

IT'S ALL COMPLETELY INTEGRATED, HOWEVER, THE TENANTS OF ANY BUILDINGS WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER UNDERSTAND THAT THIS COULD BE A FULL MIX OF USES AND ALL UNDERSTAND AND THERE ARE NO IMPACTS THAT WOULDN'T BE PREVIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD ARE ADEQUATELY TAKEN CARE OF PRIOR TO MOVE IN OUR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN TWO, WHILE NO SUCH USE IS CURRENTLY EXISTED WITHIN THESE DISTANCES.

THAT SUCH USES COULD EXIST.

SO BECAUSE OF THAT, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE FULL WAIVER.

AND HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.

IT IS A VERY POPULAR RESTAURANT.

IT'S BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOMETIME AND THEY WOULD, AS AN ACCESSORY USE LIKE TO SELL BEER AND WINE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> LORI BOYLAN: LORI BOYLAN.

I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING THAT KEVIN SAID PRETTY MUCH.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO THE STAFF REPORT?

>> JAMES SCAROLA: I REALLY DON'T.

>> LORI BOYLAN: OKAY.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST?

OKAY.

MR. MY NEAR ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE IT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT.

WITH, THAT WE WILL CLOSE SPECIAL USE 13-600.

BRIAN.

THE.

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ONE IS I4, REZONING, 13-056, IT'S FROM HALF ACRE LOTS FROM HALF ACRE TO COMMERCIAL.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

MY NAME IS JOHN GRANDOFF.

I'M AT BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA AND I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF REPRESENTING DR. KRISHAN BATRA.

I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT, AS AN AUTHORIZED AGENT WHEN I WILL FILE WITH THE MADAM CLERK.

I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE DR. BATRA AND HIS WIFE AND SON AND DAUGHTER AND SEVERAL FRIENDS THAT ARE HERE WITH THEM THIS EVENING.

WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND?

THIS APPLICATION IS TO ESSENTIALLY APPROVE AN EXISTING USE AS DR. BATRA'S MEDICAL OFFICE IN AN EXISTING BUILDING WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OFF RACETRACK ROAD IN WESTERN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

THE STAFF HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT'S APPROVABLE AND I WILL SUMMARIZE ARE WITH YOU.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS MADE A FOUNDING OF INCONSISTENCY.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAVE MY COMMENTS FOR REBUTTAL AND MERELY DIRECT YOU TO SECTION 6.11.66, WHICH ARE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WHEN YOU ARE APPROVING RESIDENTIAL OFFICE USES AND IF YOU WOULD TURN THE CLOCK BACKWARDS AND YOU WERE GOING TO APPROVE THIS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, YOU WOULD IMPOSE THESE CONDITIONS.

THESE CONDITIONS CAN BE MET AFTER THE APPROVAL.

SO I BELIEVE THAT IS MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO COUNTER THE FINDING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I WOULD LIKE TO FILE A COUPLE OF ITEMS WITH YOU, PARTICULARLY 6.11.66, SEVERAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT, WHICH INCLUDES SUPPORT FROM THE KEYSTONE CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND DR. BATRA'S CURRICULUM VITAE WHICH HE WILL COME UP AND SPEAK TO YOU.

I WILL SAVE THE REMAINDER OF MY COMMENTS FOR REBUTTAL.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU MR. GRANDOFF.

>> GOOD EVENING, SIR.

>> THANK YOU, I'M KRISHAN BATRA, MY ADDRESS IS 16725 RACETRACK ROAD, ODESSA.

I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FOR 30 SOME YEARS AND HAVE BEEN ACTIVE IN THE CIVIC AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS IN THIS COUNTY FOR MOST OF THESE YEARS.

AND MANY OF THEM DID SOCIAL COUNSEL AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS SERVING THE METROPOLITAN MINISTRY AND THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS, ET CETERA.

I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THOSE THINGS, BUT JUST AS AN INTRODUCTION, RAISED MY FAMILY WITH THREE KIDS AND TWO ARE SILL IN COLLEGE.

WE ARE ACTIVE MEMBERS OF KEYSTONE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.

I ALSO WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU, I WAS CONSULTANT HERE 15 YEARS AGO WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INDIGENT POPULATION, WHERE I HELPED TO DEVELOP THE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES COMPONENT, WHICH WAS NONEXISTENT BEFORE WITH THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR.

DR. VICTOR AS SOME OF YOU IN THE ROLE MIGHT REMEMBER HIM.

UNFORTUNATELY GREAT SOUL.

HE PASSED AWAY THREE WEEKS AGO.

JUST TO GIVE YOU -- LET'S GET THE TRANSPARENCY.

THIS IS A VIEW OF THIS BUILDING WHERE MY SON, HE HAD PURCHASED FOR HIM AND HE LOVES THAT AREA.

IT'S SCENIC AND RURAL BEAUTY OF KEYSTONE.

HE WANTS TO MAKE IT IT AS RESIDENTIAL IN THE LONG RUN, BUT THAT WAS LIKE A -- WHEN WE PURCHASED THIS BUILDING ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, IT WAS VERY DARK AND FILTHY DILAPIDATED AND IT WAS A JUNGLE OUTSIDE.

THE ACCESS TO THE HOUSE, THE DRIVEWAY, FULL OF POTHOLES AND ARE DANGEROUS TO CARS AND HUMAN BEINGS, WE CLEARED IT UP, AND MADE IT A REAL NICE HOUSE, WHICH FIT WITH THE COMMUNITY, THE KEYSTONE ODESSA AREA AND IT SHOULD LOOK DIFFERENT NOW.

SO IT WAS AROUND THE SAME TIME THAT I HAD AN ACCIDENT.

I WAS DRIVING GREEN LIGHT AND THIS LADY WAS COMING IN HER TRUCK TAKING LEFT TURN AND WAS CITED BECAUSE IT WAS A CRASH OVER THERE AND I SUSTAINED AN AIRBAG THAT CAUSED DOUBLE VISION.

THE NEUROLOGIST TRIED TO FIX IT WITH PRISM AND HEAD WORK QUITE A BIT, BUT STILL IT LEFT A SIGNIFICANT DEFECT OF COORDINATION AND THE VISION.

I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THAT.

LIFE IS NOT THE SAME.

I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT.

I HAVE A HARD TIME DRIVING IN THE EVENINGS AND CLOUDY CONDITIONS.

I DON'T ENJOY WATCHING TV.

COMPUTER IS HARD FOR ME AND YOU KNOW, AS ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS ARE COMING, THAT IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY AND THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE MEDICINE.

SO MY SON SUGGESTED WHY DON'T YOU START SEEING PATIENTS IN THIS BUILDING, AND IT WAS ABOUT THAT TIME THAT WE CREATED A LITTLE RECEPTION AREA AND OFFICE IN PART OF THE HOUSE.

MY MAIN ACTIVITY IS AT THE TRINITY MEDICAL CENTER WHERE I GO MOST EVERY MORNING.

AND THEN IN THE AFTERNOON, I MIGHT SEE ABOUT FIVE OR SIX PATIENTS, FOUR OR FIVE DAYS A WEEK.

I WOULD SEE APPOINTMENTS ABOUT EVERY HALF AN HOUR.

SOME OF THEM MAY BE NEW PATIENTS AND COMPLEX EVALUATIONS MAYBE AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF.

I DO BREAK 3:30 P.M. FOR -- I TAKE A NAP DURING THAT TIME.

SO BY 6 P.M., I CLOSE AND WINTERTIME, MAYBE 5 P.M.

SO ESSENTIALLY THERE'S ONE OR TWO CALLS OUTSIDE USUALLY, AND TWICE A MONTH, WE DO GROUP THERAPY ALSO, WHICH INCLUDES FIVE OR SIX PATIENTS.

SO THAT COULD BE FIVE OR SIX CARS OUTSIDE.

THAT'S THE KIND OF ATMOSPHERE TO EXPECT THERE.

IT HAS BEEN GOING WELL.

THERE'S NO INJECTIONS, NO SURGERY.

NO BUSINESS.

NO TRUCKS OR TRAFFIC SITUATION ISSUES WITH THAT BUILDING AND THE TYPE OF SERVICE THAT -- SO ESSENTIALLY FOR ALL TECHNICAL PURPOSES, IT'S REALLY NOT DIFFERENT FROM A MANAGED FAMILY THERAPIST OR A COUNSELOR, A FINANCIAL CONSULTANT OR EVEN PIANO TEACHERS' HOME FROM NEIGHBORHOOD POINT OF VIEW.

WE HAVE TWO INDIGENT NEIGHBORS, ONE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF US WHICH IS ON THE EAST SIDE.

DOES IT SHOW SOME PICTURES OF THAT?

AND ON THE LEFT SIDE IS ALL TAMPA BAY WATER, WHICH IS OWNED BY ST. PETE AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET IS A COMMERCIAL FAITH OUTREACH CENTER.

SO BOTH MR. FREDERICK WHO IS A NEIGHBOR NEXT TO US HAS GIVEN NO OBJECTION LETTERS AND PASTOR, DR. GEORGE WALTERS HAS GIVEN SUPPORTIVE LETTER ALSO IN THIS.

AND HE SAID HE WOULD BE WILLING TO TALK.

HE'S HAVING SOME VACATION IN NORTH CAROLINA AT THIS TIME, BUT HE SAID CALL ME DURING THE HEARING IF NECESSARY TO TALK TO HIM.

SO WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM BOTH OF THEM.

MANY OF THE LOTS ARE VACANT AROUND US.

AND BUT -- ON THE BACK STREET, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF HOUSES OCCUPIED AND THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO BOTHER -- OR THEY DIDN'T EVEN --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: DR., THE BACK STREET, IS THAT CODY LANE?

>> CODY LANE.

AND THEY DID NOT EVEN ACTUALLY KNOW UNTIL -- THAT THIS WAS A DOCTOR'S OFFICE UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE WENT OUT.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH I WANTED TO SAY ABOUT THIS.

PERSONALLY, WE WERE NAIVE ABOUT HOW IT ALL STARTED.

WE LEARNED THE ZONING AND ALL THE ISSUES AND WE ARE VERY THANKFUL TO THE COUNTY STAFF, ESPECIALLY PLANNING, GROWTH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND AS MR. GRANDOFF MENTIONED, HE WILL ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUE THAT'S -- BUT MY SINCERE HOPE IS THAT I KNOW WE ARE DISCUSSING ABOUT THE -- IF THERE'S ANYBODY GETTING HURT BY MY BUSINESS BUT OUR HOPE IS THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY RADIATE SOME PEACE AND TRANQUILITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY FROM HERE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU, DOCTOR.

THE -- YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE AREA A WHILE.

THE PROPERTY ACROSS FROM YOU HAS A COMMERCIAL ZONING.

>> YES.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: TELL ME MORE ABOUT THAT.

YOU STARTED TO DESCRIBE IT.

CERTAINLY IT HAS SOME HISTORY.

THE BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE THEY ARE FAIRLY OLD.

>> IT'S WHAT BOUGHT BY FAITH OUTREACH CENTER AND THE PASTOR HAD SOME PLANS, AS WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT HE WANTS TO HAVE RETREAT FOR LIKE MULTIFAMILIES, I GUESS, JUST 20, 25 FAMILIES.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: NOT GUESSING BUT TELL ME WHAT THE HISTORY WAS.

WAS THERE OTHER USES THERE?

>> THERE'S NOTHING HAPPENING PROBABLY IN THE PAST --

[ INAUDIBLE ]

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

THERE'S STRUCTURES THERE.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A HOTEL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> IN THE DISTANCE, PAST, AS FAR AS I KNOW.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: REGARDLESS.

IS IT COMMERCIAL ZONING?

>> YES, IT'S COMMERCIAL ZONING.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE, DOCTOR?

JUST THE FACT THAT THEY WERE VERY NICE AND HELPFUL, THE COUNTY STAFF.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. SCAROLA.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING, ISABELLE ALBERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I WANTED TO HAND OUT A REVISED REPORT.

THERE WERE SOME TYPOS.

THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>> ISABELLE ALBERT: SINCE THE APPLICANT STATED, THIS REQUEST TO REZONE 1.19-ACRE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO AN OFFICE RESIDENTIAL.

THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A MEDICAL OFFICE WITHIN THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE SITE IS IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA.

THE REPORTS ARE THAT IT'S URBAN BUT IT'S IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA.

THE PURPOSE OF THE OFFICE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS TO PROVIDE FOR OFFICE DEVELOPMENT A SMALL SCALE WITHIN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 6.11.66, ADDRESSES COMPATIBILITY BY REQUIRING ADDITIONAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS WHICH THE SITE WILL BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH.

THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY A MIXTURE OF ZONING DISTRICT, IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH, IT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

TO EAST, IT'S OWNED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTIONAL.

THE CITY OF St. PETERSBURG OWNS THE LAND BESIDE IT.

IT'S DESIGNED TO BE THE LEAST INTENSIVE OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT AND INTEGRATED WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BY MAINTAINING THROUGH DESIGN REQUIREMENTS A SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INCLUDES REQUIREMENT, THE BUILDING TO BE CLEARLY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, LIMITING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT YARD AND LIMITING SIGNAGE.

IN ADDITION, NONRESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL KNOWN AS MIXED USE IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

THE AREA OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE SITE HAS THE MEANING TO COMPLY WITH 6.11.66, WE DO FIND IT'S APPROVAL.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU TO FOR THAT.

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: MARCY STENMARK.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL OF THE FUTURE LAND USE APPLICATION IN THE RURAL AREA.

IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE KEYSTONE ODESSA COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.

THE PROPOSED REZONING FROM OFFICE RESIDENTIAL FROM A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, WOULD ALLOW OFFICE USE.

THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IS MET IN THIS PARTICULAR INTERSECTION AND THIS SUBJECT PARCEL IS AT THE VERY EDGE OF THE AREA THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES.

WITH THAT SAID, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.7 STATES THAT MEETING LOCATION CRITERIA IS NOT THE ONLY REVIEW FACTOR COMPATIBILITY IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE AS WELL, AS WELL AS OTHER FACTORS.

AND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S A COMPATIBILITY CONCERN.

ALSO FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.5 STATES THAT MORE INTENSE USES SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION AND A TRANSITION OF PLANT USE SHOULD OCCUR AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.

THERE ARE NO AT THE GUNN HIGHWAY AND RACETRACK ROAD.

SO IDEALLY THAT WOULD DEVELOP FIRST AND THEN FROM THERE YOU HAVE LESS INTENSE USES BE BUILT OR APPROVED IN AN OUTED WHAT WAY.

THE NEAREST COMMERCIAL ZONING IS THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED TO THE NORTH, IT'S NORTH OF RACETRACK ROAD.

IT'S A COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IS THAT THE ONE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: YES, HMM H.

IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT IS TODAY, AND PROBABLY IS PART OF THE ZONING CONFORMANCE AND SO IN OUR OPINION, WE DON'T SEE IT AS A PRECEDENT SETTING ZONING IN THAT IT WAS -- IT WAS A VERY HISTORIC ZONING AND DOESN'T MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT YOU SEE TODAY.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IT DOES LIE AS WELL WITHIN THE NODAL REACH.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: IT DOES, YES, YES AND IT'S VACANT AS WELL.

SO IT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED.

THERE HASN'T BEEN A USE THERE FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.

ALSO WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL ZONING IN -- A NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING IN THIS LOCATION AND THE PRECEDENT SETTING NATURE IT COULD HAVE MOVING FORWARD.

SO SAY THIS IS APPROVED AT THE OUTER EDGE OF THE INTERSECTION, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AS FUTURE ZONINGS COME IN AT THIS INTERSECTION FROM OUR REVIEW PERSPECTIVE?

THOSE ARE OUR MAIN CONCERNS.

THE KEYSTONE ODESSA COMMUNITY PLAN IDENTIFIED GUNN HIGHWAY AS A RURAL ACTIVITY CENTER SUITABLE FOR SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL USES.

THIS IS WHERE THE COMMUNITY PLAN STATES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE EXPANSION OF NONRESIDENTIAL USES.

IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT CONSIDERATION OF IT IN OTHER INTERSECTIONS BUT THIS INTERSECTION IS NOT MENTIONED AS AN AREA WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE COMMERCIAL USES CONSIDERED.

OR NONRESIDENTIAL USES I SHOULD SAY, THEY HAVE OFFICE USES BEING PROPOSED.

BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: DID THEY PARTICIPATE IN THE RESIDENTIAL PLAN?

>> MARCIE STENMARK: IT IS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: I UNDERSTAND THEY COMMITTED A LETTER OF SUPPORT.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: YES, I DID SEE THAT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: AND DID THEY LOOK AT THE TAMPA WATER PROJECT TO THE NORTH AND THE COMPATIBILITY.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: IT'S QUASI WEST.

IT'S NOT DEVELOPABLE AND SO WE DID NOTICE THAT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: DOESN'T THAT FORM SOME SORT OF NATURAL BOUNDARY TO THE WESTERN EDGE.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROLIFERATION TOWARDS THE WEST BECAUSE THIS IS THE FARTHEST EXTENT OF WHERE NONRESIDENTIAL USES COULD BE CONSIDERED.

WE ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS BETWEEN THIS SITE AND THE ACTUAL INTERSECTION OF GUNN HIGHWAY AND RACETRACK ROAD AND THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT INTENSIVE NONRESIDENTIAL USES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE OR APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: I UNDERSTAND, BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IS NOT INTENSIVE.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: OFFICE RESIDENTIAL, IT'S THE LEAST INTENSIVE OF ALL THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: DO YOU WANT TO PUSH IT OUT TOWARDS THE EDGE OF NODE?

>> MARCIE STENMARK: WE WOULD SUGGEST IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE AT THE NODE SO WE HAVE THE INTERSECTION AND HAVE A VERY RURAL NON-INTENSIVE USES AT THIS INTERSECTION.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST?

YES, SIR?

WE HAVE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 15 TOTAL MINUTES.

HOPEFULLY YOU ALL HAVE SPOKE TONE DIVIDE UP YOUR TIME.

YES, SIR.

>> MY NAME IS DAVE LOWE.

I LIVE AT 273 MAPLE AVENUE, PALM HARBOR.

I LOOKED AT BUYING PROPERTY OUT ON RACETRACK ROAD AND I ACTUALLY VISITED THIS PROPERTY AND ACTUALLY BEEN INVITED INSIDE, SEEING WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

I SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION.

I THINK IT'S VERY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, AND I THINK ALLOWING THIS VERY -- NOT VERY RESTRICTIVE USE AT ALL, IS CONSISTENT AND BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMUNITY AND WOULDN'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MUCH.

SO, THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

YES, THE NEXT PERSON WHO NEEDS TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT.

GOOD EVENING, SIR.

>> MY NAME IS GARY CALDRA, I'M BASICALLY VERY PRIVATE PERSON.

I WOULD NOT LIKE TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: COULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?

>> YES.

IF I HAVE TO TAKE SERVICES, I WOULD NOT --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: KINDLY, WE GOT YOUR NAME.

>> DIHARI KALDRA.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: AND YOUR ADDRESS.

>> 85 HURON AVENUE AT THIS TIME.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

>> LIKE I SAID, I'M DEVELOP PRIVATE PERSON.

I WOULD LIKE -- I'M PRETTY SHY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW I'M COMING OVER HERE.

I WAS NERVOUS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IT'S FINE.

>> THANK YOU.

IF I HAVE TO TAKE SERVICES, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE AND THIS IS A VERY PERSONAL THING.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THAT LOCATION LIKE HE HAS OR MAYBE AT HIS HOME.

HE'S A FRIEND.

SO I REALLY SUPPORT THIS IDEA WHERE I'M ALMOST INVISIBLE AND STILL I TAKE THE SERVICES THAT I NEED OR DESERVE.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR.

YES?

ANYBODY ELSE IN SUPPORT?

SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

ANY OPPOSITION?

ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF?

OKAY.

AND MR. GRANDOFF.

>> YES.

I HAVE SOME LETTERS OF SUPPORT I WILL FILE WITH YOU, WHICH INCLUDE THE LETTER FROM THE KEYSTONE CIVIC ASSOCIATION WRITTEN BY MR. TOM ADDERHOLD AND FAITH OUTREACH CENTER WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET, WE MENTIONED EARLIER.

SO I WILL PROVIDE THOSE TO MADAM CLERK.

ALSO I HAVE PROVIDED YOU TO SECTION 6.11.66 AND IN SUMMARY ON REBUTTAL, I THINK THE ISSUE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS IT HAD TO BE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF 6.11.66.

A RESIDENTIAL OFFICE IS A CLASSIC TRANSITION FROM THE WELL FIELD THAT St. PETERSBURG OWNS MOVING EASTWARD TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION.

6.11.66, ANTICIPATES COMPATIBILITY AND I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE AS LOCATED AND AS INDICATED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT DR. BATRA'S SON PLACED ON THE OVERHEAD FOR YOU.

IN CLOSING I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

AND WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE REZONING 13-506.

THE NEXT ITEM, BRIAN.

>> THE NEXT APPLICATION IS 13-0537, THE APPLICANT EVELYNE DEATON, IT'S A REQUEST FROM SINGLE FAMILY ONE TO A MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE AND TO THE WITH RESTRICTIONS.

>> GOOD EVENING, I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.

THIS IS A REZONE REQUEST FOR 6 ACRES TO RSC-9 RESTRICTED.

WE ARE PROPOSING THREE CONDITIONS.

THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WILL BE 5500 SQUARE FEET.

THERE WILL BE A LOT DEPTH OF 120 FEET WHERE THE PROPERTY ABUTS THE ELAP PROPERTY AND THE REAR YARD IS AGAINST TWO FOLIOS THAT EXIST ON BALL RIVER ROAD.

THE STAFF REPORT YOU HAD THE RECORD HAS A TYPO IN AND WE WILL FILE A REVISED REPORT LISTING THE TWO FOLIOS THAT ARE AFFECTED.

THEY ARE 088391.0100 AND 008-8391.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THAT'S IN NUMBER FOUR OF THE SECTION 1.4 IN THE STAFF REPORT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IT'S FOURTH ITEM THE LOT AS ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING HOMES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: AND THERE'S THIRD FOLIOS.

>> THE THIRD ONE WE DROP OFF.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: AND THE FIRST TWO YOU REPLACED.

INSTEAD OF 88390, IT WILL BE 88391.

>> OKAY.

THERE WAS A TYPO.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>> IN REALITY, THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO 130327, WHICH WAS JUST APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON JUNE 11th.

IT WAS 15 ACRES IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.

I WILL PUT THE RECOMMENDATION TO ZHM IN THE RECORD FOR YOU.

WE WILL ACTUALLY ACCESS THE -- THE 6 ACRES THROUGH THAT 15-ACRE TRACT.

IT HAS THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS CARRIED FORWARD THAT WERE PLACED ON RZ-11-3207.

IT WILL BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER.

WHEN HE REVIEWED THE RECENTLY APPROVED ZONING IN THE AREA, THAT WERE IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

WE ALL HAVE A COMPARABLE LOT SIDE AND I WILL PLACE IN MM-10259, WHICH YOU HEARD LAST MAY, WHICH CHANGED THE LOT SIZES TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

WE ALSO RESEARCHED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, THAT THE ELAP, THE LOT SITUATION HAS COMPARABLE LOT SIZES.

THERE'S NO WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY.

WE WILL MEET THE COMPATIBILITY PLAN AND ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> CHARLEY ANDREWS: CHARLES ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

PRETTY MUCH WHAT MS. JANE SAID, THE PROPERTY IS GOING FROM RES-1 TO RSC9.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: THE SAID PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL FOR FUTURE LAND USE CLASS FICTION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE SYSTEMS WIDE PLANNED BOUNDARY.

THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL FOR FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND WOULD ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPATIBLE AND COMPARABLE TO SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT THE EDGE OF URBAN SERVICE AREA AND SEVERAL RESTRICTIONS TO PROPOSED TO MITIGATE THE LOT SIZE ADJACENT TO THE LARGER LOTS AND OBJECTIVE ONE OF THE FUTURE LAND USE CALLS FOR PROACTIVE IN THE OPEN SERVICE AREA AND IT IS SUBJECT TO THE OPEN SENSITIVE AREA.

IN ORDER TO MEET THESE FLEXIBILITIES, THERE ARE FLEXIBILITIES AND SELF-RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED AND TO DEVELOP THESE AT OR ABOVE THE MINIMUM DENSITY POLICY ASSISTS THE COUNTY IN REACHING THESE GOALS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

BASED ON THOSE SERVICE AREAS, THE PLANNING FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE THE HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST?

I SEE NONE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

MS. JAMES, ANYTHING ELSE TO FINISH UP?

>> THANK VERY MUCH.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: AND WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE THE REZONING.

SIR, SIR, IT'S MUCH EASIER WHEN I ASK FOR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION.

>> MY WIFE AND I, WE LIVE ON 16148 BOYETT ROAD.

AND WE SEE THE YELLOW SIGNS UP AND WE WERE JUST WONDERING HOW THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT OUR PROPERTY.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

>> WE ARE IN THE DARK.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REZONING, YOU ARE ABLE TO --

>> I DON'T EVEN KNOW I'M OPPOSED.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANKS FOR THAT.

AND WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE REZONING 13-0537.

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS I6, REZONING 13-0576, KMDG REAL ESTATE LLC THE ASK IS FROM ASC1 TO BP-0 RESTRICTED.

>> I'M MICHAEL HORNER, 14502 NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, FOR THE RECORD, REPRESENTING KMDG REAL ESTATE LLC.

MR. SCAROLA, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF FOR A GOOD PART OF THE LAST FOUR MONTHS ON THIS.

WE HAD A PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE AND ULTIMATELY STAFF, SPECIFICALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION EXPRESSED A FEW CONCERNS ABOUT MEDICAL OFFICE COMPONENT AS PART OF OUR BP-O RESTRICTIONS OUR BLANKET BP-0 FILING ALLOWING US TO AMEND TO THE BPO-R FOR RESTRICTIONS.

WE INITIALLY RESTRICTED THAT BUT AFTER A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL OVER A WEEK AGO, MY CLIENT HAS BEEN MOST FORTHCOMING IN THOSE RESTRICTIONS AND I WILL GET INTO THEM BRIEFLY.

THIS IS I 6.96-ACRE SITE.

NORTH OF LITHIA-PINECREST.

IT IS JUST OUTSIDE THE ACTIVITIES CENTER, WHICH IN RES-4 IS 900 FEET.

I WILL SUBMIT A DOCUMENT IN THE RECORD SHOWING WE ARE AT 999 FEET.

THAT'S A TERRIBLE GRAPHIC BUT THAT'S THE HIGHLIGHTED STAFF REPORT ON THE SHADED AREA.

EVERYTHING IN THE YELLOW, MR. SCAROLA IS COMMERCIAL OR PD OR BP-0.

I WILL BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CLOSEST PARCEL TO THE NORTHWEST SIDE AND THAT IS A RESTAURANT THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2006.

STAFF REPORT REFERENCES IT HAS 06-1171.

IT IS RESTRICTED IN TERMS OF ITS OPERATING HOURS.

THEY ALSO HAVE ACCESSORY RETAIL SO THEREFORE WE ARE FILING FOR THE EXCEPTION TO THE COMMERCIAL LOCATION CRITERIA FOR OFFICE USE, WHICH WOULD BE THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND OF COURSE ANY RESIDENTIAL THAT LIES NEXT TO US.

WE ALSO HAVE A LARGE CHURCH THAT OCCUPIES TWO LOTS ABOUT 250 FEET TO THE SOUTH.

ALBEIT, THEY DON'T HAVE THE INTENSITY OF THE COMMERCIAL USES.

SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK THEY DO HAVE THEIR DAY SCHOOLS AND THEY HAVE MUCH HIGHER TRANSITIONS.

THIS IS A BP-0 (R) WE ARE A RES-4 AND WE ARE IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

WE AGREED TO APPEAR WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THOSE INCLUDE EVERYTHING FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN.

ALSO WE AGREED TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AND HEALTHCARE PRACTITIONER OFFICES ONLY.

WE DID HAVE A PHONE CALL FROM SOMEONE WHO DID NOT WANT A SELF-SERVICE LAUNDROMAT.

WE WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATRIX AND DECIDED WHAT DO WE REALLY NEED FOR MARKETING PURPOSES AND CAME UP WITH THOSE THREE CATEGORIES.

EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED.

THE HOURS OF OPERATION HAVE BEEN NOTED ACCORDINGLY IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I WOULD NOTE FOR THE REPORT AND IN ALL FAIRNESS TO STAFF, I RAISED THIS ISSUE JUST TODAY, IN FACT HOURS AGO THAT THE CONFERENCE CALL THAT WE HAD WITH MR. GRIFFIN, AND MS. SHANEKA MILLS AS WELL AS MR. ANDREWS WAS PRIMARILY DEALING WITH THE MEDICAL OFFICE COMPONENT AS A REFERENCED EARLIER.

AND THEREFORE, THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SATURDAY HOURS NO HOURS ARE PERMITTED BUT FOR SATURDAY, IT'S RESTRICTED AS ONLY 9 TO NOON AND JUST RECENTLY, I APPROACHED BOTH STAFF AND SAID SINCE YOUR MAIN CONCERN WAS THE HEALTHCARE PRACTITIONER, PEDIATRICIAN, A PODIATRIST THAT MAY HAVE A HIGHER TURNOVER, A CLINIC, THAT WE WOULD AGREE TO THOSE RESTRICTED HOURS FOR THE HEALTHCARE PRACTITIONER BUT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE 9 SATURDAY HOURS -- THE SATURDAY HOURS FROM 9:00 TO 4:00.

WE ARE ADDING FOUR HOURS THERE AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, MR. ANDREWS SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T WE CONTINUE THE CASE.

I SAID IT'S TECHNICALLY A GOOD IDEA.

MS. STENMARK SAID THE MEDICAL OFFICE WAS HER PRIMARY COMPONENT.

I THROW THAT TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AFTER YOU HEAR TESTIMONY ON THOSE ISSUES BY BOTH PLANNING STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE ALSO AGREED BEYOND ALL OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS, MR. SCAROLA TO THE 31105 ON THE LANDSCAPING ON THE FRONT ENTRY RESTRICTIONS.

THESE ARE ALL CODIFIED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND TYPICALLY THEY APPLY TO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE BP-0 DISTRICTS ALONG THE LITHIA-PINECREST OVERLAY AREA.

THIS IS NOT WITHIN THAT.

BUT WE ARE AGREEING TO THOSE RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTARILY.

IT ALSO INCLUDES DUMPSTER SCREENING AND IT ALSO INCLUDES LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS AND CUT OFF FIXTURES AND THE BP-0 IS NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL IN ANY EVENT.

BEYOND THE ARCHITECTURAL, WE ARE LIMITING THE OPERATIONS FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL USES IN 3.11.05.

I THINK I WILL JUST CLOSE AND STATE THAT WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF CLOSELY.

WE DID REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAD NO OPPOSITION.

NO LETTERS, NO PHONE CALLS EXCEPT THE ONE WHO DID A SELF-SERVICE LAUNDROMAT.

WE DO HAVE A LARGE ACTIVITY CENTER AT THE INTERSECTION.

WE ARE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT NODE, THEREFORE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE EXCEPTION PROVISION FOR LOCATIONAL CRITERIA SINCE WE ARE NEXT TO THE RETAIL RESTAURANT TO THE RESIDENTIAL.

I'M ALSO GOING TO FILE ON THE RECORD, MR. SCAROLA, THE COPY OF THE CIP ROADWAY DESIGN PLANS THAT ARE NOW UNDERWAY.

I THINK CONSTRUCTION PLANNED FOR THE.

IN YEAR, ACCORDING TO REG AND THAT REFLECTS A CHANNELIZED LEFT TURN LANE AND A RAISED MEDIAN ALL THE WAY BACK FOR THE THOUSAND FEET, FROM THE INTERSECTION RUNNING SOUTHEAST AND THEN IT TERMINATES OR TRANSITIONS MIGHT BE THE BETTER WORD RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY CLIENT'S PARCEL.

WE WILL HAVE TO WORK THAT ISSUE THROUGH AT CITE REVIEW.

THERE'S A BULL NOSE AT THE END OF THAT CHANNELIZED LEFT TURN LANE AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF YELLOW STRIPING WHICH PRECLUDES LEGALLY A LEFT TURN OUT AND GOES TOO A TRANSITION LANE OR A SUICIDE LANE AS THEY CALL IT, A THIRD LANE IN THE MIDDLE.

SO OUR CLIENT HAS THE ABILITY FOR A CHANNELIZED LEFT LANE.

IT FURTHER SUPPORTS A NONRESIDENTIAL USE IN THAT AREA.

IT WILL BE GREAT ACTIVITY FOR THE U-TURN MOVEMENTS AND ANYONE ELSE COMING SOUTHBOUND WOULD HAVE TO DO A U-TURN AND GO BACK UP NORTH.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT ONE CONDITION CHANGE, ON THE HOURS OF OPERATION, WE FULLY SUPPORT THE STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE NO WETLANDS, NO TREE IMPACT ISSUES, ALL THE REVIEW AGENCIES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: I DON'T HAVE ANY.

THANK YOU MR. HORNER.

>> THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> CHARLEY ANDREWS: CHARLES ANDREWS WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: TELL ME ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUESTED CHANGE FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND THE LIMATIONS ON HOURS.

>> CHARLEY ANDREWS: WELL, AS MR. HORNER CLARIFIED, IT WAS A DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND OURSELVES.

THE MAIN CONCERN WAS THE MEDICAL OFFICE.

UNDER 3.11.05, COULD YOU HAVE IT FROM 6 A.M. TO 9 P.M.

IT DOESN'T SPECIFY SPECIFIC DAY MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

IT COULD BE THE ENTIRE WEEK.

BUT THERE WAS A CONCERN ON THE WEEKEND HAVING THAT EXTRA TRAFFIC GENERATED FOR THAT USE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: BUT THERE'S NOT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES?

>> CHARLEY ANDREWS: RIGHT, I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDED THERE WAS HIGHER TRIP COUNT TO THE MEDICAL OFFICE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>> BRIAN GRADY: BEFORE WE HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I PROCEDURALLY NEED TO POINT OUT THAT AS A RESTRICTED ZONING.

ANY RESTRICTED PLACED ON THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT LASS TO AGREE TO THEM.

SO I THINK WE ARE IN A SOMEWHAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT BASICALLY THE APPLICANT IS TELLING YOU HE'S NOT AGREEING TO THE RESTRICTION OF THE HOURS OF OPERATION FROM 9 A.M. TO NOON, OTHER THAN ANYTHING FOR HEALTH PRACTITIONERS.

IF THAT IS, INDEED HIS POSITION, WHICH WE CAN HAVE HIM CLARIFY UNDER REBUTTAL, I THINK YOU WILL HAVE TO EVALUATE YOUR RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THAT BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE CANNOT PLACE THESE RESTRICTIONS ON HIM UNLESS HE AGREES TO THEM.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: MARCY STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

THE SAID PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL FOR FUTURE LAND USE APPLICATION AND THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.

I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THE RESTRICTIONS.

WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THE -- OF HIS THOUGHTS ON THE RESTRICTION RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING.

WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO FULLY EVALUATE IT.

BUT HE'S CORRECT THAT HEALTHCARE PRACTITIONERS WAS OUR PRIMARY CONCERN AND CHARLES' EXPLANATION IS CORRECT.

WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT AT REGULAR INTERVALS LIKE EVERY 15 MINUTES OR SOMETHING FOR A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT.

THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS WOULD ALLOW USES COMPATIBLE TO SURROUNDING PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

WE BELIEVE THE RESTRICTIONS ARE OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING PATTERN.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS NOTED, FUTURE LAND USE, NONRESIDENTIAL USES MAY BE CONSIDERED BASED ON THIS INTERSECTION AND THE MEDIUM LOCATION CRITERIA.

IT DOESN'T MEET LOCATIONAL CRITERIA BUT IT DOES HAVE EXCEPTIONS FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES.

IF YOU ARE PRO POSINGS OFFICE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL.

IT HAS VERY RESTRICTED HOURS AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE WORKED SO CAREFULLY WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE WITH THIS HEAT ROOM NEXT DOOR WHICH CAN OPERATE DURING LIMITED HOURS AND THE RESIDENTIAL USE TO THE EAST.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT WORKING WITH US AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WORKING WITH US ON THAT.

IT'S IN THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN AND IT'S IN THE SUBURBAN CHARACTER DISTRICT OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THE PROPOSED REZONING WITH RESTRICTIONS WILL ENSURE THE PROPOSED OFFICE WILL BE COMPATIBLE ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF THE HAD HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLAN.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR.

THAT IS THERE ANYONE IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

ANYONE IN OPPOSITION?

MR. HORNER?

>> THANK YOU, MR. SCAROLA.

WE HAVE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY REBUTTAL.

I THINK THOSE COMMENTS STAN ON THEIR OWN FACE AS PROVIDED BY MR. ROBBINS AND MS. STENMARK.

WE APPRECIATE THEIR COMMENTS.

TO MR. GRADY'S CONCERN, I UNDERSTAND WE VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO THOSE RESTRICTIONS.

IT WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT WHEN WE REALIZED THAT A REAL ESTATE OFFICE MIGHT VERY WELL NEED TO HAVE REASONABLE HOURS ON A SATURDAY.

THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT FORWARD THAT AMENDMENT.

SO WE WILL LEAVE THAT TO YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, IN THE EVENT OF THE POST ANALYSIS, DETERMINING THAT MY RECOMMENDATION DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS DO YOU STILL AGREE WITH THE ORIGINAL CONDITION?

>> WE WOULD ACCEPT THOSE CONDITIONS MR. SCAROLA.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

WITH THAT RELATE CLOSE REZONING 13-576.

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS I8, REZONING APPLICATION, 13-096, IT'S PALMETTO CAPITAL GROUP, LLC.

IT IS A REZONING FROM RSC-6 (MH) TO CI AND CG AND THE REQUEST IS TO MOVE G.

THERE WILL BE A PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT -- I'M SORRY.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>> BRIAN GRADY: I WAS WONDERING.

MY NOTE TAKING --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: GO AHEAD, BRIAN.

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS I 7.

IT'S REZONING 13-0593, THE GUINTA GROUP.

COLLEEN MARSHALL WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING.

ANDREA ZELMAN, FOWLER WHITE 501 EAST KENNEDY.

I'M HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING THE GUINTA GROUP AND I WOULD LIKE TO REPRESENT DAVID HUGLESTONE WHO IS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.

THIS IS PROPERTY, A LITTLE LESS THAN 7 ACRES WEST OF THE CORNER OF SHELDON AND WATERS.

AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS REZONE IT FROM ITS CURRENT ZONING WHICH IS CG-R COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED TO RMC-12 IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 60 APARTMENTS.

RIGHT NOW THE PARCEL, TWO PARCELS ARE VACANT.

THEY HAVE BEEN UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP SINCE 1994.

IN 2007, WHEN THEY DID THE CGR REZONING, THEY WERE PLANNING TO DEVELOP MINI WAREHOUSES.

THE CONDITION OF THAT ZONING ALLOWED A NUMBER OF OTHER CN-TYPE USES AS WELL AND CGs IS INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT STORE, DISCOUNT STORE, REHABILITATION CENTERS.

SO WHILE I DON'T LIKE TO USE THE WORD DOWN ZONING, I THINK IT'S ACCURATE TO A RMC-12 WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE USES FROM WHAT'S ALLOWED NOW TO THOSE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE.

AND, IN FACT, IN THE STAFF REPORT YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF FOUND THAT THE REZONING WE'RE SEEKING WILL ACTUALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT WOULD HAVE POSSIBLY OCCURRED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING.

THE UTILITIES ARE IN PLACE.

THERE'S 2.25 ACRES OF WETLANDS ON THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY THAT WON'T BE DEVELOPED.

WE THINK THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.

THERE'S A NATURAL -- THERE'S A BUFFER ON THE WEST SIDE.

THERE'S A WALL AND EASEMENT THAT CREATES A BUFFER FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.

THE COUNTY STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DO THE SAME.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES?

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

COLLEEN MARSHALL, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO REZONE TWO PARCELS OF LAND APPROXIMATELY 7.06 ACRES IN SIZE FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED CG-R TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY CONVENTIONAL, CMC12.

AS THE APPLICANT STATED TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 60 APARTMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.

PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING LAND USES TO NOT CREATE ANY UNMITIGATED IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT LAND USES.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: I DON'T HAVE ANY.

PLANNING COMMISSION.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: MARCY STENMARK.

THIS IS IN THE TOWN 'N' COUNTRY PLANNED BOUNDARY IT WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING MIXED USE AREA.

IT MEETS THE INTENSE OF MINIMUM DENSITY POLICY AND A PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL ZONING AND RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE WEST.

BASED ON THOSE COMMISSIONS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH REZONING PLAN.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IS THERE ANY PROPONENTS TO THE REQUEST?

OR OPPOSITION?

WITH THAT, WE CLOSE REZONING 13-0593.

>> BRIAN GRADY: NEXT IS REZONING, 130596, AND THE APPLICANT IS PALMETTO CAPITAL GROUP.

AND IT IS REZONING FROM RSC-6 AND C1, AND --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: MS. ZELMAN.

WOULD YOU MIND SIGNING IN WITH THE CLERK.

I'M SORRY, BRIAN.

I HAVE ONE SECOND TO DO THAT.

>> BRIAN GRADY: AGAIN THE REZONING IS FOR COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH RESTRICTIONS AND MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT AND THE APPLICANT.

I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.

THIS APPLICATION IS A MIXTURE OF ZONINGS.

WE HAD A LOT OF FUN TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT WHEN WE WERE FILING.

IT IS ZONED CI, CG, AND MH AND THEN RSC-2 AND IT'S SPLIT RIGHT ALONG WHAT WOULD PRETTY MUCH BE THE MIDDLE LINE OF SYMMES ROAD TO THE NORTH IS RES6 AND TO THE SOUTH IS RES-C.

WE ARE ASKING FOR A CGR RESTRICTED ZONING.

THE PURPOSE OF THE R IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THE DEPTH OF THE MAKING THE WHOLE PARCEL CGR EVEN THOUGH THE REAR IS WETLANDS AND IT WON'T BE DEVELOPED.

WE AGREE THAT OUR LANDS, THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES WOULD NOT EXCEED PAST 310 FEET.

THAT'S MY BEST ESTIMATION OF THAT LAND LINE.

310 FEET FROM THE SYMMES ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.

SO IT INCLUDES MOST OF C.I.s, THE C.G. AND LINES UP WITH THE EXISTING CG. ZONINGS IN THE AREA: WITH THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THERE WAS NOT A RESTRICTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT.

AND YET I NOTED THE -- IS THERE -- WAS THE STAFF REPORT CHANGED AT SOME POINT?

>> MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IT'S LISTED UNDER SECTION 2.1 RECOMMENDED RESTRICTIONS.

AND IT STATES DEVELOPMENT IN ALL RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING STORM WATER PONDS SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN 310 FEET WEST OF THE U.S. HIGHWAY 41 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: GOTCHA.

IT'S BUILT INTO THE STAFF REPORT.

>> MICHELLE HEINRICH: OKAY.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT, MICHELE.

AND MS. JAMES, THE WORDING AS WRITTEN THEREIN IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT?

>> THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.

3910-FOOT LINE IS REALLY WHERE THE WETLANDS START.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: BUT IT GOES STRAIGHT THROUGH THE PROPERTY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT AND THAT'S FINE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU MS. JAMES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: MS. HEINRICH.

>> MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AS MS. JAMES STATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE TWO PROPERTIES TO CGR COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED TO ALLOW FOR RETAIL USES.

THE SITE CONSISTS OF TWO PROPERTIES WHICH SHE SHOWED YOU ON THE OVERHEAD, A NORTHERN PROPERTY AND A SOUTHERN PROPERTY THAT HAS A MIXTURE THE ZONING DISTRICTS.

THE NORTHERN PROPERTY IS ZONED RSC6 AND H AND CI AND THE SOUTHERN PARCEL IS ZONED RSC-2 AND CG.

SO THIS WILL UNIFORMLY CREATE CGI ZONING OVER THOSE PROPERTIES.

THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AND DID NOT OFFER ANY OBJECTIONS.

APC ALSO REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AND DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS.

THERE'S -- THEY HAVE THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT WHICH MS. JAMES IS AWARE OF IN SITE DEVELOPMENT.

THEY WILL REVIEW ANY IMPACTS AND GO THROUGH THEIR REVIEW AT THAT TIME.

THE SITE DOES CONTAIN A NUMBER OF MATURE TREES.

NATURAL RESOURCES HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THIS.

THEY TOOK A LOOK AT THE PHOTOS THAT I PROVIDED TO THEM FROM MY SITE VISIT.

THEY SAID MANY WILL LIKELY QUALIFY AS GRAND OAKS AND THEY WILL ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES WITH THE APPLICANT AT SITE DEVELOPMENT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THIS REQUEST AND FOUND IT CONSISTENT BASED UPON THE RESTRICTION THAT MS. JAMES TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS LIMITING THE PROPERTY TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CI AND CG ZONING LINES TO THE NORTH AND ALSO AS SHE STATED THE WETLANDS ON THE WESTERN END OF THE PARCEL WHICH WOULDN'T ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ANYWAY.

SO SHE IS IN AGREEMENT AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS AS WELL, THAT THE RESTRICTION WHICH IS NOTED ON THE LAST PAGE, IF IT'S NOT IN YOUR OPTICS, OR YOUR HANDOUT I CAN PROVIDE YOU A COPY OF MY REPORT THAT LIMITS IT WITHIN A 310 FEET WEST OF U.S. 41.

I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: JUST SO I MAKE SURE THAT I'M STRAIGHT, THE ONLY CONDITION YOU WROTE IS THAT IN 2.1 --

>> MICHELLE HEINRICH: YES, SIR.

EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE OUR STANDARD CG USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU, MICHELE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

ITS WITHIN IN THE RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, AS WELL AS THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

IT IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND IS WITHIN TWO COMMUNITY PLANNED BOUNDARIES INCLUDING GIBSONTON AND THE SOUTH SHORE AREA WIDE SYSTEM PLAN.

THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW USES COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THIS INTERSECTION IS THE APPLICANT NOTED METES LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR THE RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION THAT'S IMPORTANT BUT IT IS NOT APPLICABLE WITH AN OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20.

IN ADDITION, THERE'S SEVERAL PARCELS -- WELL, AS NOTED, THE PROPOSED RESTRICTION WILL HAVE THE NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS THAT GO NORTH AND SOUTH DIRECTION FROM THE SITE AND THE PROPOSED RESTRICTION, IT WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST?

ANY OPPOSITION TONIGHT FOR THIS?

NO.

MS. JAMES.

ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE REZONING 13-596.

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I 9, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION FOR 13-0420.

THE APPLICANT IS CLA BUILDERS LLC.

IT'S FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO MODIFY A PORTION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY WHERE CURRENTLY OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL IS PERMITTED.

TOM HIZNAY WILL PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION.

>> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JIM STUTSMAN MY MAILING ADDRESS IS P.O. BOX 320303, AND IN TAMPA.

ALSO HERE WITH ME TONIGHT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE DEVELOPER SPENCER BARTRAM IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM, WE CAN BRING HIM UP LATER.

AS BRIAN SAID, OUR REQUEST FOR THE MAJOR MOD IS TO REVISE THE NORTHERN SECTION OF AN OFFICE RETAIL POD IN THE REGENCY LAKES PD, 82-275 FROM THE OFFICE RETAIL TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

AND WE ALSO ARE INCORPORATING A SMALL PARKING LOT THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR RETAIL AND OFFICE PARKING FOR BUSINESSES SOUTH OF WHAT'S CALLED COMMERCIAL DRIVE.

THE SITE IS A 4.3-ACRE PARCEL AND IT IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF GORNTO LAKE ROAD SOUTH AND NORTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVE, AND THE REGENCY LAKES MIXED USE PROJECT.

I WOULD LIKE TO USE THE OVERHEAD TO GO OVER SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT.

THIS IS THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FROM YOUR BACKUP.

AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW AND IT IS ACTUALLY THE NORTHERN PART OF THE 9.7-ACRE OFFICE RETAIL POD THAT WAS IN THE CENTER OF THIS REGENCY LAKES PD.

THIS IS SOUTH GORNTO LAKE ROAD.

THIS IS CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD AND REGENCY LAKES DRIVE.

THE PROPERTY OWNER ACTUALLY OWNS THE APARTMENTS THAT ARE DEVELOPED IN THIS PART.

IT'S CALLED CHARLESTON WEST.

I BELIEVE THAT'S THE NAME, IT'S CHARLESTON SOMETHING.

AND THIS WILL BE AN EXTENSION OF THAT.

WE WILL CONVERT THE 4.3 ACRES FROM THE OFFICE RETAIL TO 79 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, AND THAT WILL GIVE A TOTAL FOR THE PD, THE ENTIRE PD TO 379 MULTIFAMILY UNITS.

THIS IS A FAIRLY INTENSE URBAN NODE.

THIS IS A WALMART IN THIS LOCATION, AND THE WEST -- THE WESTFIELD REGIONAL, THE BRANDON MALL IS A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF HERE.

IT IS FAIRLY INTENSE.

YOU HAVE THE CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY, IN CLOSE PROXIMITY AND I-75.

AT THIS -- THIS PIECE IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE LAST UNDEVELOPED PIECES IN THE PD.

THIS, I BELIEVE, IS A WETLANDS RESTORATION AREA OR A WETLAND.

YOU CAN SEE THE REST OF THE PROJECT IS PRETTY MUCH DEVELOPED.

SO THIS ZONING MAP FROM YOUR BACKUP, AGAIN, THE SITE IN GRAY.

IT JUST SHOWS THE PREPONDERANCE OF PDs IN THE AREA INDICATING THAT THE MAJOR PROJECTS AND THE INTENSITY FROM AN URBAN STANDPOINT.

THIS IS THE FUTURE LANES MAP, AND THE SITE IS DESIGNATED URBAN MIXED USE 20.

IT IS ONE OF THE MORE INTENSE CATEGORIES IN THE COMP PLAN AND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERATION OF OUR PROJECT.

IT IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WHERE IT'S ENCOURAGED AND IT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE AND COMPARABLE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA.

THIS IS THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN, AND THIS IS THE ENTIRE 9.7-ACRE OFFICE RETAIL POD.

PART OF OUR APPLICATION WAS TO CLOSE ONE OF THE ACCESS POINTS IN THIS POD.

THESE ARE ACCESS POINTS FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVE WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE TODAY.

AND MR. BARTRAM ONLY PLANS TO USE TWO OF THE ACCESS POINTS IN THE NORTHERN SECTION.

AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WE COMMITTED SHOWING THE 4.3-ACRE PARCEL.

THE SMALL PARKING LOT THAT WE HAVE ALSO INCLUDED IS IN THIS LOCATION.

IT'S A .31-ACRE PARKING LOT.

IT IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND WHAT -- IT'S BASICALLY AN OVERFLOW LOT FOR ONE OF THE RESTAURANTS THAT DOES FRONT ON CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD.

BECAUSE IT IS UNDER MR. BARTRAM'S OWNERSHIP, WE WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE MODIFICATION AND KEEP THAT IN OUR PROJECT.

AS I SAID, THIS PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY BE AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX IN THIS LOCATION, AND THE REQUEST DOES INCLUDE A VARIANCE TO THE BUFFER BETWEEN THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND THIS PARKING LOT.

THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE A 20-FOOT B TYPE BUFFER AND BECAUSE THIS IS UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP, AND THE FACT THAT IT'S AN OVERFLOW LOT AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT I HAVE OUTLINED IN THE PACKET FOR MEETING THE FOUR CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES THAT I SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY, WE FEEL THAT A 5'8" TYPE BUFFER WILL BE ADEQUATE.

THE BUILDINGS THAT WE WILL PROPOSE WILL ACTUALLY EITHER BACK UP OR SIDE THE -- THE SIDES WILL BE EXPOSED TO THIS PARKING LOT.

WE FEEL THAT A 5-FOOT BUFFER WILL BE ADEQUATE AND --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IS AROUND ALL PARTS OF THE PERIMETER OF THAT PARKING LOT?

>> YES.

THERE'S A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THAT AND THERE'S A LEASE THAT IS BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO THAT IS CLEARLY DEFINED AS .31 ACRES.

WE FEEL THE REQUEST IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: I DON'T HAVE ANY.

THANK YOU MR. STUTSMAN, AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MR. HIZNAY.

>> TOM HIZNAY: GOOD EVENING, TOM HIZNAY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

AS MR. STUTSMAN EXPLAINED, THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 79 APARTMENTS IN LIEU OF APPROVED OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL SPACE.

THE ENTIRE 9.78-ACRE TRACT THAT THIS IS A PART OF IS ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE OR 51,100 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES OR SOME COMBINATION THEREOF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A TRIP EQUIVALENCY TABLE THAT WAS INSTITUTED BACK IN 1995 BY A MAJOR MODIFICATION.

BY DEVELOPING THE 4.29 ACRES WITH THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND THE SMALL PARKING LOT THAT HE'S DISCUSSED, THIS WILL REDUCE THE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE REMAINING 5.4 ACRES OF THE TRACT TO 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE OR 28,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE OR SOME COMBINATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN AMENDED TRIP EQUIVALENCY TABLE THAT'S ADOPTED, PROPOSED ALONG WITH THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION.

NOW, LET ME NOTE THAT THE REMAINING 5.4 ACRES IS ALREADY DEVELOPED WITH TWO RESTAURANTS AND A BANK.

SO IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THESE ENTITLEMENTS WILL EVER COME INTO PLAY BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IN REDUCING THE ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE ENTIRE TRACT, THAT WE LEFT IN PLACE THE FULL AMOUNT OF OFFICE SPACE AND PROPORTIONATE RETAIL SPACE THAT THE 5.4 ACRES WOULD BE ENTITLED TO AND THIS AMENDED TABLE ACTUALLY MORE THAN DOES THAT.

IT ACTUALLY INCREASES THE F.A.R. BY .27 TO .28.

THE FULL ENTITLEMENTS ARE UNSCATHED TO THIS CONVERSION OF MULTIFAMILY AND WE WERE VERY CAREFUL AND MR. STUTSMAN WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS INDEED THE CASE AND IT IS.

TO AVOID REPETITION AND ALSO NEEDLESS DISCUSSION, I WILL JUST REFERENCE YOU TO MY STAFF REPORT FOR DETAILS ON VARIOUS AGENCY REVIEWS AND FOCUS MY REMAINING REMARKS ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY AND GENERAL COMPATIBILITY.

THE APARTMENT SIZE DESIGNATED UMU20 AND IS LOCATED IN THE INTERSTATE 75 CORRIDOR.

NOW, BECAUSE OF ITS UMU20 DESIGNATION AND THE FACT THAT IT'S IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES REQUIRE THAT THIS PROJECT HAVE A MINIMUM DENSITY OF 15 UNITS PER ACRE, AND, IN FACT, THE DENSITY IS AROUND 18 UNITS AN ACRE.

SO IT MEETS THE MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALSO ENCOURAGES THE RESTRICTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN THE I-75 CORRIDOR TO PRESERVE THIS LAND AREA FOR QUALITY EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES SUCH AS OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL.

HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, OUR -- THE COUNTY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE SUBJECT MODIFICATION AND IT DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE CHANGE FROM OFFICE AND RETAIL TO MULTIFAMILY ON THIS SITE IN VIEW OF ITS RELATIVELY SMALL SIZE AND LIMITED OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.

NOW, WITH REGARDS TO COMPATIBILITY, AS MR. STUTSMAN POINTED OUT THIS PROJECT IS PART OF A MUCH LARGER PD.

AND ON THE EAST AND TO THE NORTH THERE ARE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS.

TO THE SOUTH AND THE WEST, THERE'S EXISTING RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, ALONG THE CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD CORRIDOR.

THE SITE IS ALSO LOCATED A SHORT DISTANCE OUT SO THE CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY AND TAMPA TOWN CENTER REGIONAL MALL.

FROM A GENERAL COMPATIBILITY PERSPECTIVE, IT REFLECTS WHAT IS ALREADY AROUND THE SITE.

STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO PART OF THE SITE BEING UTILIZED FOR OFF SITE PARKING FOR NEARBY OFFICE COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SOW SIDE OF COMMERCIAL DRIVE, PROVIDED THE LOT MEETS THE DESIGN AND THE PROXIMITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF SITE PARKING -- OFF SITE PARKING FOUND IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT APPEARS THAT THIS SITE DOES INDEED MEET THOSE.

AS PROVIDED BY THE LDC, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIATION OF THE ROUTINE BUFFERING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMMERCIAL LOT IN LIEU OF A 20-FOOT WIDE BUFFER SCREENING IS REQUIRED AND THEY WOULD BE REQUESTED THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A 5-FOOT WOOD BUFFER.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE NARRATIVE COMMITTED FOR JUSTIFICATION OF THE VARIATION AND FINDS IT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES THAT AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION, YOU MUST ALSO INCLUDE A FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE VARIATION MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REVISED CONDITIONS.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE ARE USING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE ROADWAY NAMES IN THE CONDITIONS SINCE IN THE PAST NOW WE RETAINED THE OLD NAME OF THE ROAD BUT ARE SUBSTITUTING THE NEW NAME FOR MANY OF THE SURROUNDING ROADS.

THAT'S JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: DID YOU TAKE THAT UP WITH STREETS AND ADDRESSES?

>> TOM HIZNAY: , WELL, IN FACT, CHANGED.

THEY REFERENCE THE OLD NAME, KERRY CATTLE ROAD AND THAT -- THAT ROAD NAME NO LONGER EXISTS.

SO BY UPDATING THESE, BUT WE DO RETAIN THE REFERENCE TO THE OLD NAME JUST FOR CONTINUITY WITH PAST CONDITIONS IN CASE ANYONE IS THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU MR. HIZNAY.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE URBAN MIXED USE, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.

MR. HIZNAY COVERED THE POLICY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICY 36, AND POLICY 36.5 AND THROUGHWAY.

I DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT.

IT IS IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

ALSO, HE ADDRESSED THE POLICY AND SO I WON'T REPEAT THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU.

BUT WE FOUND THAT THE INCREASE OF MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESTABLISHED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

ALSO WE FOUND THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE URBAN CARE CHARACTER DISTRICT OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN AND PROPOSED USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THAT USAGE.

AND THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH PLAN.

THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

NO?

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

MR. STUTSMAN?

>> I HAVE TO FURTHER COMMENTS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

WITH THAT WE WILL CLOSE MAJOR MOD 13-420.

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS I 10, 13-0498, THE APPLICANT IS GSD DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED.

THE REQUEST IS A REZONE FROM AS-1 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

AFTER THE APPLICATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING, I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 8.6 ACRES ON MUSHINSKI ROAD FOR 30 LOTS.

THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS CONSIST OF A VARIETY OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS.

YOU HAVE DUPLEXES TO THE AND SINGLE FAMILY ON THE EAST.

SINGLE FAMILY ON THE WEST AND TOWNHOMES ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY.

OUR SITE PLAN WAS VERY DESCRIPTIVE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT ON OUR EASTERN BOUNDARY, WE HAVE WETLANDS.

ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY, THE LOTS ARE 138 FEET DEEP.

THEY HAVE AN EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT RANGES FROM 6 FEET TO 20 FEET ALONG THE COMMON PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: MS. JAMES WITHIN IT OR TO ONE SIDE OF IT?

>> PARDON?

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THE EASEMENT?

>> IT'S WITHIN THE LOTS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IS IT A SPLIT?

THE OTHER PROPERTY AND THIS PROPERTY OR IS IT JUST ON ONE SIDE?

>> IT'S ON ONE SIDE.

WITHIN OUR PROJECT, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING ARE 40-FOOT LOTS WITH A ZERO LOT LINE AND 15 FEET BETWEEN THE STRUCTURES.

THE PROPERTY -- EACH HOME WILL HAVE A DETACHED REAR GARAGE, WHICH WILL MEET A 3-FOOT SEPARATION OFF THE REAR YARD LINE.

THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE ALONG THE SIDE SETBACK WITHIN THE 15 FEET.

WE ARE NOT PROPOSING A FULL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A CONDITION THAT WE WILL DO THE DRIVE LIKE THEY HAVE IN OLD HIDE PARK.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, NO TWO GARAGES WILL BE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER.

THEY WILL BE SEPARATED AS WE GO DOWN THE STREET WITH THE 15 FEET SEPARATION AND WE DO HAVE THE OPTION ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY WHERE THE PROPERTY ABUTTED THE WETLANDS TO PUT AN APARTMENT ABOVE THE GARAGE.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE 21 OF THE COUNTY TO RECOGNIZE INNOVATIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS.

WITH THAT APARTMENT ABOVE THE GARAGE, THAT WILL MEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SETBACKS NOT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING SETBACK.

THERE'S ALSO A CLARIFICATION IN THE CONDITIONS THAT IF WE CHOOSE TO PUT A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE 40 US AND THE GARAGE THAT THAT WON'T TRIGGER A PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.

WE DID HAVE TO FILE FOR A WAIVER OF SECTION 6.11.19 FOR THE 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES A DIFFERENT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND LAYOUT BASED ON THE FACT THAT A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT TYPICALLY THEY WANTED MORE PARKING IN THE AREA.

WITH OUR DESIGN, INCLUDING A GARAGE, AND THE DRIVEWAY AND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE THAT WAS NOT NEEDED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT TRAFFIC IN THE AREA, THE COUNTY STAFF FOUND THAT MUSHINSKI ROAD WAS OPERATING ON A LEVEL OF SERVICE ACCEPTABLE.

ON HENDERSON, FROM LINEBAUGH, THE SERVICE IS STILL D.

THERE ARE PROBLEMS AT THE INSECTIONS BUT WE WILL DEAL WITH THOSE AS PART OF THE CONCURRENCY REVIEW.

THE SCHOOLS ARE ADEQUATE IN THE AREA.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES FIND IN SUPPORT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THE ISSUE OF THE ACCESSORIES ON THE NEED FOR A SETBACK BEING WAIVED AND WAIVED IS THE TERMINOLOGY THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT.

WAS THERE A CRITERIA ADDRESSED WITH RESPECT TO THAT WAIVER?

>> THERE WAS NOT.

IT'S REALLY A QUESTION OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WOULD MEET ONE DIFFERENT -- ONE SET OF SETBACKS BUT BECAUSE WE ARE PUTTING IT ON TOP OF THE GARAGE, IT WAS CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WE WENT WITH THE SETBACK FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RATHER THAN THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: WELL --

>> BRIAN GRADY: PROCEDURALLY, THE STANDARD IN 6.11 GENERALLY WE'VE TREATED THEM AS NON-DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND SO I KNOW YOU ARE LOOKING AT VARIATION CRITERIA SO --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: WELL, MORE THAN VARIATION.

IT'S ACTUALLY A STANDARD ISSUE CRITERIA THAT WOULD NEED A VARIANCE.

BECAUSE THIS --

>> BRIAN GRADY: WELL, SINCE THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, IT'S ITS OWN ZONING DISTRICTS AND SO 6.11 WOULD APPLY TO STANDARD DISTRICT AND SO THEREFORE SINCE IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, THEY CAN ESTABLISH THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND SO FOR THIS PROJECT, GIVEN THE CONFIGURATION OF IT, AND THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT, STAFF WAS -- DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO BE SUBJECT TO THAT PARTICULAR --

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THAT'S INTERESTING.

IN THAT CASE, THERE'S NO SUCH THING -- THERE'S NO NEED FOR A WAIVER.

>> I BELIEVE YOU ARE CORRECT.

>> BRIAN GRADY: I WOULDN'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK TYPICALLY WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD LOOK AT THOSE STANDARDS AND IF WE FELT THEY WERE APPLICABLE TO BE APPLIED TO A DISTRICT, WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO BE ADHERE TO THEM.

AND IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WE WOULD HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICATION AS TO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY THEY DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE APPLIED, IN THIS INSTANCE, WE DIDN'T SEE A NEED TO APPLY THAT REQUIREMENT ON THIS PROPERTY.

SO YOU ARE CORRECT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

>> BRIAN GRADY: IN YOUR EVALUATION.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU, MS. JAMES.

WE ARE ALREADY AT THE END OF YOUR TESTIMONY, YES?

>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 8.6-ACRE PARCEL FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY TO MANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET.

IT'S SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 6.11.119.

TO COMPLY WITH THE INTEND OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN STANDARDS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZERO LET LINE PRODUCT WITH A DETACHED GARAGE BEHIND THE MAIN DEVELOPING.

THE GARAGE WILL BE ACCESS A RIBBON DRIVEWAY PROVIDING AMPLE SPACE FOR THE VISITORS' PARKING.

THE GARAGE WILL BE SET BACK 3 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND FROM THE NEAR PROPERTY LINE WITH THE OPTION TO HAVE A COVERED WALKWAY AND TO HAVE ACCESSORY DWELLING ON THE SECOND FLOOR.

ACCESSORY DWELLING OPTION WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE EASTERN LOTS ABUTTING THE CONSERVATION AREA.

THE ACCESSORY DWELLING REQUIRED BY THE LDC TO MEET THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING STRUCTURES.

LIKE YOU SAY, WE HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE 3-FOOT SETBACK.

THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS REGARDING THE ACCESSORY DWELLING ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE APARTMENT.

THIS IS PERMITTED ONLY ON THE EAST SIZE ADJACENT TO THE LARGE CONSERVATION AREA AND THERE'S NO COMPATIBILITY ISSUES.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO SECTION 11.119C, REQUIRING THE WATERWAY AND THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING AND ADJUST SAFETY ISSUES REGARDING VEHICLE CIRCULATION WITHIN THIS TYPE OF PROJECT -- PRODUCT.

BY PROVIDING THE GARAGE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, IT CREATES A LONG RIBBON DRIVEWAY AND ALLOWING ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES.

FURTHERMORE, IT ELIMINATES THE CONCERN OF HAVING THE GARAGE DOMINATING THE FACADE OF THE FRONT, THE FACADE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

THE SURROUNDING HAS MIXED USE FROM 5,000 TO 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND THE TWO FAMILY VILLAS ACROSS THE STREET.

THE ABOVE PROPOSED DESIGN OF THE OVERALL PROJECT IN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, THE AREA, STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE INTENT OF THE 6.11.119 AND HAS NO OBJECTIONS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>> I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL FOR FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE BOUNDARY THE GREATER CARROLLWOOD NORTHDALE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING AREA AND THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

IT WOULD ALLOW DETACHED GARAGES LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE LOTS TO NOTIFY THE APPLICATION.

APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET TO THE EAST AND THE NORTH OF MUSHINSKI ROAD IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ATTACHED VILLAS.

SO THERE ARE ALREADY SMALLER LOTS IN THIS VICINITY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY ENCOURAGES DIVERSITY OF LOT SIZES.

THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBILITY INDICATES IT DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS AND REFERS TO SENSITIVITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND SO WE FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND THE LAYOUT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AS NOTED IN OUR REPORT.

WE ALSO NOTED THE UNIQUE DESIGN WITH THE DETACHED GARAGES BEHIND THE HOMES AND ALSO THE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROJECT AND THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY SEVERAL POLICIES WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLS BOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

IS THERE ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST?

OKAY.

SEEING NONE FOR THAT, MS. JAMES?

ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT WE CLOSE PD13-498.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>> BRIAN GRADY: THE FINAL ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I 11, AND IT'S MAJOR MOD 13-502, THE APPLICANT IS MISSION III DEVELOPMENT GROUP.

IT'S FOR A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME.

MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING, SIR.

MY NAME IS GARY VALINACK, IN TAMPA.

I'M REPRESENTING MISSION III DEVELOPMENT GROUP.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING PD DEVELOPMENT FOR A PARCEL OF PROPERTY THAT'S 12.8 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF WEBB ROAD AND IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF COUNTY COUNTRY HOSPITAL.

CURRENT PD ZONING ALLOWS FOR UP TO 63,000 SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL-RELATED DEVELOPMENT, UP TO TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT.

THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION WOULD ALLOW FOR TWO OPTIONS, ONE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING 63,000 SQUARE FEET, OR A SECOND OPTION WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDICAL-RELATED DEVELOPMENT OF 47,000 SQUARE FEET AND ALLOWING 240 BED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME, ALF FACILITY.

THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION WOULD REQUIRE A WAIVER OF THE 500-FOOT SETBACK FROM -- FOR CRH TO A SINGLE FAMILY ZONED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

THE EXISTING PD DOES PROVIDE FOR 50-FOOT BUFFER WHICH EXCEEDS THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.

TOWN 'N' COUNTRY HOSPITAL IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS MODIFICATION AND WE REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.

I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

MS. HEINRICH.

>> MICHELLE HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING, MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AS STATED, THIS IS A REQUEST TO MODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWS 63,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES ADJACENT OR IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE ADJACENT HOSPITAL.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADDING AIL SECOND DEVELOPMENT OPTION WHICH REDUCES THE OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 47,000 OF OFFICE USES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOSPITAL, AND AS A TYPE C COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME WHICH WOULD CONSIST OF A MAXIMUM OF 240 BEDS.

THE SITE IS ALMOST 13 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WEBB ROAD.

ONE-QUARTER MILE NORTH OF HILLSBOROUGH AVENUE.

CURRENTLY SOME OF THE SITE IS DEVELOPED, ABOUT 36,900 SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE USES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED ON THE SITE.

AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE REQUEST DOES INCLUDE A WAIVER TO THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.

THE CODE REQUIRES A DISTANCE OF 500 FEET FROM A TYPE C COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.

THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME WILL BE 110 FEET FROM PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WHICH IS ZONED RSC-6.

THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT TO OTHER COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOMES IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THIS BECAUSE THOSE ARE ONLY FOUR OF THOSE LOCATED IN MULTIFAMILY ZONINGS.

THE APPLICANT AS STATED HAS REQUESTED THAT WAIVER, AND IT IS FOUND IN YOUR APPLICATION.

HE'S REQUESTED THAT AND HAS NOTED THERE IS AN EXISTING 50-FOOT WIDE BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTH THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND THEY HAVE ARE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 420 FEET IN WIDTH.

THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS THE ONLY REMAINING DEVELOPABLE AREA WITHIN THIS EXISTING PD.

DUE TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND THE STORM WATER BOND, WHICH EXIST ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD -- OR THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH KEEPING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS THAT NO WINDOWS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON A SECOND FLOOR THAT FACES THE SOUTH UNLESS FROSTED GLASS IS USED AND THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE PREVIOUS PD BECAUSE THE PD DOES ALLOW FOR TWO-STORY BUILDINGS, HOWEVER, THE EXISTING OFFICE USE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED HAVE ONE STORY BUT THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF GOING TO TWO STORY AS THIS MOST LIKELY WOULD BE.

AND HE'S IN AGREEMENT WITH KEEPING THAT CONDITION REGARDING THE WINDOWS.

THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME TYPE ARE RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER AND IN THIS PLAIN DEVELOPMENT, THIS OFFICE PARK ALREADY HAS AN OVERALL THEME WITH LIKE METAL PITCHED ROOFS AND BAHAMA SHUTTERS AND A NEUTRAL COLOR PALETTE THROUGHOUT ALL THE BUILDINGS AND THEY ARE GOING TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THOSE DESIGN ELEMENTS TO GIVE IT THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND THE PITCHED ROOF AND THE COLORS THAT MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO THAT WAIVER AND THAT'S NOTED IN OUR REPORT.

TRANSPORTATION STAFF REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AND OFFERS NO OBJECTIONS.

THERE IS A COUNTY OWNED PARK SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE AND THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT RESPONDED THAT THEY ALSO HAVE NO OBJECTIONS.

APC HAS REVIEWED IT AND OFFERS NO OBJECTIONS.

THEY DO NOTE THAT THERE ARE WETLANDS ON SITE AND THEY WOULD REVIEW THAT AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT.

NATURAL RESOURCES HAS ALSO REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE ARE TWO OAK TREES LOCATED ON THE SITE RIGHT WHERE THIS BIDDING PAD WOULD BE LOCATED.

THEY HAVE STATED THEY ARE NOT GRAND OAKS AND ANY MITIGATION TO REMOVE THOSE WOULD BE HANDLED DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT.

THEY DID PROVIDE A CONDITION WHICH THE APPLICANT AGREES WITH AND THAT IS CONDITION NUMBER SEVEN TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND STAFF DOES FIND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, WHICH EXISTS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY, CULTURAL INSTITUTION AND COMMERCIAL USES IN THE AREA.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: JUST ONE QUESTION, MICHELLE.

IN CONDITION NUMBER ONE RECOMMENDED, AT THE VERY END OF THE SENTENCE, IF YOU WANT TO TURN TO THAT FOR A SECOND.

>> MICHELLE HEINRICH: YES.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: ANY REASON YOU DIDN'T USE TYPE C AT THE END OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME?

>> MICHELLE HEINRICH: NO, I WAS NOTING THAT TYPE C ARE THE OVER 18 PLACE RESIDENTS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, IT'S ASSUMED TO BE TYPE C.

>> MICHELLE HEINRICH: RIGHT.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION?

>> MARCIE STENMARK: MARCY STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PREDOMINANTLY WITHIN THE 20 FUTURE LAND USE, THE UPPER NORTHEAST CORNER IS WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE TOWN 'N' COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLANNED BOUNDARY.

IT WILL ALLOW USES COMPATIBLE WITH THE USES CURRENTLY APPROVED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ALONG WITH THE SURROUNDING USES.

THE OPTION TO BUILD THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME TYPE C IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND HOSPITAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES AND THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION IS BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY THE PLAN.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

MA'AM, COME FORWARD.

I NOTE YOU DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION, BUT YOU HAD A QUESTION.

LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

>> I'M FELICIA WARD, I LIVE AT 8432 CRYSTAL HARBOR DRIVE.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: WHERE IS THAT IN RELATION TO THE SITE.

>> RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: TO THE --

>> TO THE -- ON THE WEST SIDE, YES.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

THE WEST SIDE.

>> AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE THIS RIGHT, THESE ARE GOING TO BE RETIREMENT APARTMENT HOMES?

OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE INDIVIDUAL OR IS IT GOING TO BE ONE?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

SO AS I SAID, WE ARE NOT -- I'M REALLY NOT GOING TO BE TAKING QUESTIONS BUT WHAT I PREFER YOU DO AND I WILL LEAVE THIS OPEN FOR A MINUTE SO YOU CAN VERIFY, WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS TALK TO THE APPLICANT FOR A SECOND.

I SEE SOME OTHER HANDS IN THE AUDIENCE.

LET ME SEE WHAT'S GOING AND THEN WE CAN FIND OUT IF YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION OR NOT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: IS THERE ANYBODY IN SUPPORT?

OKAY.

I SEE NONE.

IS THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

I'M GOING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT JUST A MINUTE TO DISCUSS THIS.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

ONCE MORE, I WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

LAST CHANCE.

OKAY.

SEEING NONE, ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF?

ANYTHING FROM THE APPLICANT?

>> I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD.

>> JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

WITH THAT WE CLOSE MAJOR MOD 13-502.

I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR HEARING FOR THE EVENING.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download