Hillsborough County, Florida
CAPTIONING
FEBRUARY 18, 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.
HEARING MASTER: GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THIS EVENING'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. MY NAME IS STEVE LUCE AND I'LL BE CONDUCTING THIS EVENING'S HEARINGS. IF YOU'D ALL PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(PLEDGE HELD AT THIS POINT.)
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU ALL. YOU MAY BE SEATED.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME I'D LIKE TO ASK THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF TO INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SEATED AT THE DAIS, AND THEN TELL US IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THIS EVENING'S AGENDA.
MR. LEWIS: THANK YOU, MR. LUCE. MATT LEWIS WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. TO MY LEFT IS SHER HER WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. TO HER LEFT MARCIE STENMARK WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO HER LEFT YENEKA MILLS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. LEWIS: THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE AGENDA, BUT I WILL READ THE WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES. THIS IS ON PAGE 1 OF 6 OF THE AGENDA. STARTING WITH NUMBER A3, REZONE PD 13—0125. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 18TH, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
NUMBER A4, SPECIAL USE AB 13—0186. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 18, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
ITEM NUMBER A5, REZONE PETITION PD 13—0124. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 22ND, 2013 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
AND ITEM NUMBER A6, MAJOR MODIFICATION 13—0126. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 22, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO THE RECORD, AS WELL AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THEN WE'LL GET STARTED WITH THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRST, STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THE ITEM. THEN THE APPLICANT AND ANY WITNESSES OF THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. NEXT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND IF APPLICABLE THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL PRESENT THEIR REPORTS AND FINDINGS, AND THEY HAVE FIVE MINUTES APIECE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THEN THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE PROPONENTS, WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF AN APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BUT ARE NOT CONNECTED DIRECTLY WITH THE PETITION, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT. FOLLOWING THAT, THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE OPPONENTS, WHO ARE AGAINST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION AM PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT IT IS A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES FOR ALL THE PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION, SO IF THERE IS A LARGE GROUP, YOU MAY WANT TO ORGANIZE YOUR STATEMENTS SO THAT ALL THE TIME DOES NOT GET USED UP BEFORE EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
THEN IF EITHER STAFF HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR REVISIONS TO THEIR REPORTS TO BE MADE FOLLOWING THE TESTIMONY, THEY WILL BE MADE AT THAT TIME. BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE LAST PERSON GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IS THE APPLICANT, WHO WILL HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES OF TIME TO REBUT ANY STATEMENTS MADE IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST AND TO SUM RIGHTS THEIR APPLICATION.
THERE'S A CHIME AT THE PODIUM THAT WILL SOUND ONCE WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS REMAINING FOR ANY GIVEN SPEAKER, AND WILL SOUND THREE TIMES WITH THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. IF IT APPEARS THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION, ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED BY THE HEARING MASTER. WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD. AFTER YOU PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY, PLEASE SIGN IN WITH THE CLERK. THERE'S A PAD DOWN AT THE END OF THE PODIUM, GIVING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
THESE ARE QUASI—JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH MEANS THAT THE DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BASED ON FACT—BASED EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND THAT IS PRESENTED IN THE HEARING TONIGHT. SOT MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL, THESE HEARINGS WILL BE INFORMAL. ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE REQUEST BEING MADE BY THE APPLICANT, AND BECAUSE THERE ARE TIME LIMITS, I ASK THAT YOU TRY NOT TO REPEAT TESTIMONY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.
IT'S REQUIRED THAT ALL TESTIMONY GIVEN TONIGHT REGARDING ANY OF THE APPLICATIONS BE GIVEN UNDER OATH, SO AT THIS TIME, TO EXPEDITE MATTERS, I'LL GIVE THE OATH TO ALL PARTIES WHO THINK THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING. SO IF YOU THINK YOU'LL BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
(OATH ADMINISTERED AT THIS TIME.)
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU ALL. YOU MAY BE SEATED. THE FIRST GROUP OF APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD TONIGHT WILL BE I THINK IN THIS CASE IT'S A MAJOR MODIFICATION AND REZONINGS. THESE ARE HANDLED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE SPECIAL USES, AND I'LL READ TO YOU THE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE MAJOR MODS AND REZONINGS.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT THERE BE A HEARING BEFORE A ZONING HEARING MASTER ON ALL REZONING AND MAJOR MODIFICATION REQUESTS PRIOR TO A FINAL DECISION BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
THE ZONING HEARING MASTER DOES NOT MAKE THE FINAL DECISION, BUT INSTEAD RENDERS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THEIR FINAL DECISION ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUEST IS MADE AT THEIR OWN PUBLIC MEETING. MY RECOMMENDATION ON EACH APPLICATION WILL BE RENDERED WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS, AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATION IS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT THAT GOVERN PARTICIPATION AT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S MEETING.
MS. MURPHY: THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER. GOOD EVENING. SHERI MURPHY, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.
TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONINGS IS THE FIRST OF A TWO—STEP REZONING PROCESS. THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF YOUR CASE. THIS MEANS THAT AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING THE RECORD WILL CLOSE AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE INTRODUCED HEREAFTER.
THE SECOND STEP OF THE REZONING PROCESS IS A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AT WHICH POINT THE BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION ON EACH PETITION. TONIGHT'S PETITIONS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD AT THE BOARD'S APRIL 9TH LAND USE HEARING.
THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH PETITION HEARD TONIGHT. AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO WISHES TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD MUST FILE AND EXECUTE A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT NO LATER THAN THE DATE OF MARCH 21ST. REQUESTS SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD HERE AT THE COUNTY CENTER. THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE BOARD CAN ELECT TO HEAR FROM A PARTY OF RECORD.
A PARTY OF RECORD IS A PERSON WHO FITS INTO AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOUR FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: FIRST, A PERSON WHO IS HERE TONIGHT AND PRESENTS EITHER TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; SECOND, A PERSON CERTIFIED BY U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AS HAVING BEEN MAILED NOTICE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; THIRD, A PERSON WHO SUBMITTED EVIDENCE TO THE MASTER FILE AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S HEARING. OR FOURTH, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED EVIDENCE THROUGH PROXY DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING.
IF THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, THE CONTENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE TESTIMONY RECEIVED TONIGHT. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, MS. MURPHY. MR. LEWIS, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE FIRST ITEM.
MR. LEWIS: THE FIRST ITEM IS ON PAGE 4 OF THE AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER I1, MAJOR MODIFICATION 12—0263. THIS IS A REMAND FROM THE DECEMBER 11TH, 2012, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S LAND USE MEETING. IT'S ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KINGS AVENUE AND WEST LUMSDEN. AND IT'S A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A PD.
FIRST YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISCUSSING THE REMAND; THEN THE APPLICANT; AND THEN ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PRESENT FOR STAFF.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. VERY GOOD. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAFF.
MR. GORMLY: ADAM GORMLY WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I WANTED TO ADDRESS WITH AND YOU FOR THE PARTICIPANT HERES TODAY THE PURPOSE AND THE SCOPE OF THE REMAND OF THIS APPLICATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THIS APPLICATION IS PREVIOUSLY HEARD BY YOURSELF, CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE REMANDED BACK TO THIS HEARING FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEPARATING OUT THE ISSUES THAT ARE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF THE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY VERSUS THE WETLAND IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPING THOSE ENTITLEMENTS.
THE APPLICATION IS CONDITIONED TO CALL THOSE ENTITLEMENTS THAT WOULD BE IN AREAS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS WETLANDS TO BE CONCEPTUAL AND NOT PERMITTED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY ARE APPROVED FOR IMPACT BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION. AT THIS TIME THE IMPACTS TO THE WETLANDS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, AND THEY HAD BEEN DENIED AND AN APPEAL IS PENDING THAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE DECIDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION BOARD, WHICH IS ALSO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THAT CREATES A POTENTIAL FOR A DUE PROCESS CONCERN WHERE YOU'LL HAVE THE SAME BODY DECIDING TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES EACH OF WHICH IS BASED ON THE RECORD.
SO ACCORDINGLY, THE DIRECTION WAS TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO ISSUES OUT AT THIS HEARING TODAY AND EFFECTIVELY REVIEW THIS REZONING APPLICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT COULD BE APPROVED IN THE EVENT THAT THE WETLAND IMPACTS WOULD BE APPROVED.
I THINK THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING TODAY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE ISSUES THAT DON'T IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION WETLANDS PERMITTING PROCESS IN ORDER TO KEEP THOSE TWO RECORDS CLEAN, AND WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONDUCT THE HEARING REQUESTING TESTIMONY THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT REMAND SO EFFECTIVELY LIMITING IT TO THOSE ISSUES THAT ARE ZONING RELATED THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED IF THE WETLAND IMPACTS WERE ULTIMATELY APPROVED.
THE WAY THE APPLICATION IS CONDITIONED, IF THOSE WETLAND IMPACTS ARE NOT APPROVED, ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE WETLAND AREA WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO THIS ZONING IF IT WERE APPROVED.
HEARING MASTER: IF YOU COULD ELABORATE ON SORT OF THE SCOPE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING. THE ISSUE, AS YOU DESCRIBED, IS TO SEPARATE THE TWO ISSUES AND LET THE EPC DEAL WITH THE PERMITTING SIDE OF THE WETLANDS. AND THE DIRECTION IS TO SORT OF SEPARATE THOSE TWO.
MR. GORMLY: CORRECT. SEPARATE THOSE TWO ——
HEARING MASTER: IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC THAT'S HERE TONIGHT, AND THEY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE WETLANDS, COULD THEY TALK ABOUT THE WETLANDS, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD NOT TALK ABOUT THE WETLANDS.
MR. GORMLY: FIRST OF ALL, I WILL SAY THAT WHATEVER TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN IN THE RECORD IS STILL IN THE RECORD.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. GORMLY: NOTHING ABOUT THE REMAND HAS CHANGED THAT. I THINK THE TESTIMONY THAT'S OFFERED HERE TONIGHT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO AND FOCUSED ON THE PERMITTING OF THE ENTITLEMENTS ISSUES, AGAIN RECOGNIZING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SCENARIO THAT WOULD ONLY ALLOW THOSE ENTITLEMENTS TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE EVENT THAT THE WETLAND IMPACTS WERE APPROVED. SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN ONLY OCCUR ON NON—WETLAND PROPERTY, IF THE ZONING APPLICATION WERE TO BE APPROVED.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. GORMLY: AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS LIMITATION IS TO NOT CREATE ANY DUE PROCESS CONCERNS FOR THE APPLICANT GOING THROUGH THE SEPARATE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND NOT TAINTING THAT PROCESS FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT OR THE EPC BOARD FOR THAT MATTER BY PUTTING THOSE TWO ISSUES IN SEPARATE CAMPS.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. WELL, WE'LL PROCEED WITH A MAJOR MODIFICATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT I THINK —— ARE YOU GOING TO SAY AROUND FOR THIS ITEM.
MR. GORMLY: YEAH, I THINK I WILL.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. WELCOME. AND YOU CAN HELP US WHERE WE NEED HELP REGARDING THE APPLICANT, THOSE IN SUPPORT, THOSE IN OPPOSITION, AND THE CONCLUSION BY THE APPLICANT.
MR. GORMLY: GREAT.
HEARING MASTER: VERY GOOD. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICANT.
MR. LEWIS: I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE CORRECTION. WE WILL NOT BE GIVING STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS. THE RECORD ALREADY HAS OUR PRESENTATION, SO WE HAVE NOTHING MORE TO ADD.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
SPEAKER: VIN MARCHETTI, FOR THE RECORD, 625 EAST TWIGG STREET, TAMPA, REPRESENTING RACETRAC PETROLEUM ON THIS SUBJECT SITE, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO OWN THE SUBJECT 2.5 ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KINGS AND LUMSDEN IN BRANDON.
MR. HEARING OFFICER, I WANTED TO REITERATE I THINK WHAT ADAM SPOKE TO EARLIER. CANDIDLY, MY CLIENT HAS SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS WHICH AS IT TURNED OUT, AND THE BOCC RECOGNIZED DECEMBER THE 11TH, WAS ESSENTIALLY FLAWED IN THE SENSE OF A DUE PROCESS PERSPECTIVE.
SO WE STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY, TONIGHT WANTING ONLY TO DEAL WITH THE ZONING ISSUE, WHICH IS THE ZONING APPLICATION IS ALL ABOUT, THE WETLAND APPLICATION IMPACT TO —— IMPACT APPLICATION IS OF COURSE BEING DEALT WITH BY EPC. WE HAVE FILED OUR APPEAL TO THE EPC DECISION ON THAT IMPACT, AND THAT'S GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS NOW. THE HEARING OFFICER HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE MATTER. WE'LL PROBABLY BE IN HEARING ON THAT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS, IS MY GUESS. SO WE HAVE DISCOVERY ON THAT. THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR FOR THE RECORD THIS EVENING, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT INTENDING ON DISCUSSING THE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE WETLAND AT ALL IN OUR PRESENTATION.
I THINK THAT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE BOCC SAID IN DECEMBER IN SEPARATING THE ISSUES. IN FACT, THE BOARD, AS ADAM EXPLAINED, THEY EXPRESSED CONCERN I BELIEVE AS WELL DEALING WITH THE WETLAND ISSUE UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION, IF YOU WILL, AS THE BOCC SITTING THERE LOOKING AT A ZONING APPLICATION.
SO I WANTED TO SAY THAT UP FRONT TO YOU. ADAM DID MENTION THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS INCORPORATED FROM THE PRIOR HEARINGS INTO THIS HEARING THIS EVENING. THAT'S ALSO SOMEWHAT PROBLEMATIC FOR ME AND OUR SIDE BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE WETLAND DISCUSSION WHICH TOOK PLACE AT YOUR PRIOR HEARING IN OCTOBER SHOULD HAVE EVER TAKEN PLACE.
AND I TRIED AT THAT HEARING BACK IN OCTOBER TO TWITO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THAT DISCUSSION. IT DIDN'T GO SO WELL. EVERYONE HERE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE WETLAND. WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ZONING ITSELF, THE COMPATIBLE OF THE ZONING REQUEST, THE CONSISTENCY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN TERMS OF THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CONSISTENT, COMPATIBLE ON THE CORNER OF KINGS AND LUMSDEN FOR 2.5 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL, 8,000 SQUARE FEET TOTAL.
I DID WANT TO MENTION AT THE OUTSET WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO SPEAKERS THIS EVENING. I ALSO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES HERE FROM RACETRAC AS WELL AS OTHER CONSULTANTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT INTENDING ON SPEAKING THIS EVENING.
AS FAR AS THE RECORD GOES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ONE PART OF THE RECORD THAT IS IMPORTANT TO OUR SIDE IS WE DO HAVE SOME LETTERS IN SUPPORT. WE HAD A LETTER FROM MR. CURRY, CLIFF CURRY, WHO'S OPERATED A LAW OFFICE CATTY—CORNER, IF YOU WILL, TO THE SUBJECT PARCEL. A LETTER FROM CLIFF. WE'VE GOT LETTERS FROM THE HOA AND DIFFERENT OFFICE BUILDINGS BEHIND THE SUBJECT PARCEL. IF YOU RECALL WHERE THAT IS, AND MIKE HAS SOME GRAPHICS AS WELL.
WE ALSO HAVE A PETITION THAT WAS PLACED AT A STORE THAT RACETRAC OPERATES AT FALKENBURG AND LUMSDEN, CAUSEWAY. THERE'S A PETITION THAT WAS IN THE STORE FOR JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AND IT'S GOT SOME PEOPLE ON HERE THAT HAVE SIGNED IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT CAUSEWAY —— OR LUMSDEN AND KINGS.
WITH THAT, LET ME HAVE MIKE HORNER KIND OF ADDRESS THE LAND USE ISSUES, AND THEN MR. CARLTON, WHO IS ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AS WELL.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. MR. MARCHETTI, KEEP IN MIND, TOO, WE ALREADY HAVE YOUR TEAM'S TESTIMONY AT THE FIRST HEARING.
MR. MARCHETTI: YES.
HEARING MASTER: JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.
MR. MARCHETTI: I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THE FACTORS THAT MIKE'S GOING TO TALK ABOUT, BECAUSE TO ME THAT'S WHAT'S RELEVANT THIS EVENING, SO TO KIND OF CLARIFY THINGS.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. MARCHETTI: MR. LUCE, GOOD EVENING.
HEARING MASTER: GOOD EVENING.
MR. HORNER: FOR THE RECORD, MICHAEL HORNER, 14502 NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, SUITE 200, TAMPA. I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.
MR. LUCE, WE DID STAND BEFORE YOU OCTOBER 15TH. YOU FILED AN OPINION RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 5TH, AND WE HAD A SPLIT RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME, AS YOU WILL RECALL, AND THAT HASN'T CHANGED TONIGHT.
YOU HEARD MR. LEWIS INDICATE THAT HE WILL DEFER TO THE RECORD FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION I BELIEVE HAS MODIFIED IT SOMEWHAT, ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT SURE OF THAT SPECIFICALLY. LET ME JUST ADDRESS BRIEFLY, I DID NOT REVISE MY ANALYSIS. MY ANALYSIS THAT I FILED ON OCTOBER 15TH IS THE SAME. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARY TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE IT'S STILL RELEVANT TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA PROVISIONS.
THIS WAS FILED IN THE RECORD AND ADDRESSED, ALL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FACTORS, AS WELL AS THE TABLE CHART A FOR THE PROVISIONS FOR THE INTERSECTION OF THE TWO MAJOR LOCAL —— EXCUSE ME —— TWO COLLECTOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYSOMP YOUR PAGE 9, MR. LUCE, YOU MADE IT VERY CLEAR IN YOUR FINDINGS THAT YOU FOUND IT CONSISTENT FOR THE MAX MUMP 8,000 SQUARE FEET, COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AND THE ZONING PATTERN IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT SITE. YOU FURTHER FOUND THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WITHIN THE RES 6 OF 9 HUNDRED FEET FROM THE DESIGNATED INTERSECTION WHICH IS SIGNALIZED AS YOU KNOW. IN ADDRESSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S COMMENTS, I JUST WANT TO GEAR MYSELF A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICALLY TO 16.1, 2 CAN 3, AND THEN I'LL FALL BACK TO THE 22 POLICY PROVISIONS.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A MORE CLASSIC REPRESENTATION OF THOSE GRADUAL TRANSITIONS IN INTENSITY THAT POLICY 16.1, 2 CAN THREE ADDRESS AND INCORPORATE WITHOUT NAMING THEM SPECIFICALLY, YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THEM, THEY'RE ALREADY WRITTEN IN THE RECORD. AND THAT'S THE TRANSITION, THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION TO THIS PROPOSED RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE TO A COUNTY STORM WATER FACILITY, TO AN EXISTING, WHAT THEY CALL PARCEL A FOR THE LUMSDEN PROFESSIONAL PARK, WHICH IS 65,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THAT TRANSITIONS TO A RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USE DIRECTLY TO THE EAST WHICH IS THE CHURCH AND THEN THAT TRANSITIONS DIRECTLY TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED. THAT'S CLASSIC PLANNING AND TRANSITION OF A LAND USES THAT FULLY ENCOMPASSES THE INTENT OF THOSE POLICY 16.1, 2 AND 3. THE POLICY 22 PROVISIONS, AS WE READ 22.2, MR. LUCE, IT TALKS ABOUT THE TABLE CHART A ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM INTENSITIES. THAT'S BASED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE FLEW ELEMENT, TALKING ABOUT YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED THAT ENTITLEMENT FOR THE MAXIMUM.
AS YOU KNOW, THAT QUADRANT UNDER THE TABLE, CHART A, IS 175,000 SQUARE FEET PER QUADRANT, WITH THE TWO OFFICE PARKS A AND B. WE HAVE 110,000 SQUARE FEET. OUR PARCEL IS PROPOSED AT 8,000 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S 118 SQUARE FEET. WE ARE WELL UNDER THE ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM PRESUMPTIVE THRESHOLD FOR THAT QUADRANT ALLOCATION OF 175,000 SQUARE FEET, TO THE TUNE OF SOME 57,000 SQUARE FEET OF ENTITLEMENTS. CLEARLY WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 22.2.
IT ALSO DISCUSSES THAT YOU CAN'T ASK FOR THAT MAXIMUM, BUT STILL SUBJECT TO FAR AND SHORT RANGE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS. OUR PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL IS .07. THE CHART A ALLOWS FOR A .25 FAR BY A FACTOROR OF FOUR OR 25 PERCENT IN THE INVERT. WE WE'RE WELL BELOW THAT THRESHOLD. IN TERMS OF THE ROADWAY LIMITATION, CAPACITY, CLEARLY WE MEET OUR EXCEED THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF THE GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS, THE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND THAT'S OF RECORD AS WELL.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I PICKED UP IN THE PUBLIC RECORD LAST TIME WAS THE REFERENCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE NOTION OF THIS PROJECT IN THE PRIOR 2002 PD FOR THE TWO OFFICE PARKS, THAT THE ENTITLEMENTS WERE ESSENTIALLY UTILIZED, USED UP, IF YOU WILL.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT ABSENT THAT PROVISION AND APPLICATION OF THOSE WAIVERS BACK IN 2002, THAT ANYONE FILING FOR THAT REQUIREMENT TODAY FOR THAT SOUTH OFFICE PARK, OR FOR THE EASTERN OFFICE PARK, WOULD STILL ON ITS OWN MERIT BE DEEMED QUALIFIED UNDER THE EXCEPTION CRITERIA TO BE APPROVED FOR THOSE RESPECTIVE OFFICE USES. THEY MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON FRONTAGE, ON IRREGULAR CONFIGURATION, ON ON PROXIMITY AND DIRECT ACCESS TO A MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY AND ALSO FOR NO DIRECT IMPACT TO ANY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A USED UP OR FULLY ENTITLED OF THAT WAIVER THAT THEREFORE WE'RE NOT ENTITLED TO A CONSIDERATION FOR THE RETAIL AT THE CORNER OF THIS INTERSECTION. WHILE THE POLICIES TALK ABOUT THOSE PROVISIONS SUCH AS LAND USE COMPATIBLE, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER, ADEQUACY OF ROADWAYS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, AS PART OF AND EQUAL TO OR GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA CONSISTENCY FINDING, WE EXCEED ALL OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE LAND USE, THE ADEQUACY PROVISIONS FOR PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. CERTAIN FOR ZONING COMPATIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FINAL EPC BOARD DETERMINATION THAT MR. MARCHETTI JUST REFERENCED.
SO I GUESS THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS, WHAT IF THIS GETS APPROVED AND WHAT IF WE FAIL IN THE EPC APPEAL? AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT NO PRECEDENT IS SET. NO SPADE OF DIRT GETS TURNED WITHOUT FULLY VETH OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, THAT OUR CLIENT HAS ACCEPTED THAT BURDEN, AND IT'S AN EXPENSIVE BURDEN. AND IN JUNE OR LATE MAY, WHENEVER THOSE HEARINGS TAKE PLACE, AND IF WE ARE UNSUCCESSFUL, I'M JUST ASSUMING THAT FOR THE RECORD. JUST AS A HYPOTHETICAL. THAT PROVISION FOR THE EPC CONDITION THAT NOTHING CAN BE DEVELOPED ON THIS SITE UNTIL THAT APPEAL TAKES PLACE —— AND IT'S FAVORABLE IN OUR INTEREST —— CAN THIS FACILITY BE DEVELOPED.
SO I THINK THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED FROM THE COMPATIBILITY, 16.1, 2 AND 3 AND THE 22.2 AND 22.7 POLICY PROVISIONS AS YOU NOTED I THINK ACCURATELY IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, THIS PLAN COMES BEFORE YOU FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, MR. HORNER. GOOD EVENING.
MR. CARLTON: GOOD EVENING. DENNIS CARLTON, 601 SOUTH FALKENBURG, TAMPA 33619.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF A HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY. IN 2002, BOB MCCLAIN, WHO IS A FRIEND OF PHINE ALSO A PARTNER, WAS APPROACHED BY DAVE SCOTT AND JIM MCCULLOUGH WHO ARE OFFICE CONDO DEVELOPERS ABOUT POSSIBLE EQUITY PARTNER IN BUYING THE TOTAL PARCEL. THE OWNER WOULD ONLY SELL IT IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR CASH.
BOB IS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF THE BANK —— VALRICO STATE BANK, CAME TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND TALKED TO US —— I'M ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS —— INDIVIDUALLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO HELP WITH THIS PROJECT. WE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD DO THAT. WE CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY SIMULTANEOUSLY CLOSING WITH MCCULLOUGH AND SCOTT ON THAT PART ON LUMSDEN. THEY BUILT A BEAUTIFUL OFFICE CONDO, VERY SUCCESSFUL.
CAME BACK, AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD, BOUGHT THE SECOND PARCEL AND DEVELOPED ANOTHER OFFICE CONDO.
WE KEPT THE CROWN JEWEL OF THAT PROPERTY AS FAR AS WE WERE CONCERNED. THAT PROPERTY BACK IN 2002/2003 MET THE LOCATION CRITERIA FOR A COMMERCIAL USE AS FAR AS WE WERE CONCERNED. OBVIOUSLY AS BANK DIRECTORS WE FELT LIKE IT MIGHT MAKE A GREAT BRANCH BANK SITE, REALIZING THAT IF THAT DIDN'T TAKE PLACE, WE WOULD ALSO AT SOME POINT IN TIME HAVE THE OPTION TO SELL IT TO SOMEBODY FOR EITHER A DRUG STORE A GAS STATION CONVENIENCE STORE. AND THE REALITY IS THAT HAS COME TO FRUITION. WE WERE APPROACHED BY RACETRAC, AND OBVIOUSLY THEY FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE SITE AT WHAT I WOULD CALL MAIN AND MAIN IN BRANDON. AND THERE'S NOT VERY MANY MAIN AND MAIN'S LEFT IN BRANDON. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND AGREE WITH US THAT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA, THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL USE, AND WOULD FIND THIS COMPATIBLE AND APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. MARCHETTI: THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY, VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR.
I THINK PLANNING —— DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SAID THEY'RE GOING TO STAND PAT ON THEIR STAFF REPORT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
MS. STENMARK: GOOD EVENING, MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES MEET LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. AT THIS TYPE OF INTERSECTION, COMMERCIAL USES CAN BE CONSIDERED WITH A 900 FEET OF THIS INTERSECTION WITH A MAXIMUM OF 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES AT EACH QUADRANT. AND THE APPLICANT MEETS THIS CRITERIA.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THERE ARE OTHER GAS STATIONS ACROSS THE STREET IN THE COMMERCIAL USES SO OUR CONCERNS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE NOT BASED ON COMPATIBILITY—TYPE CONCERNS OR LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.
THOUGH COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA ALLOWS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN PARCEL C, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.2 STATES THAT MAXIMUMS STATED IN THE TABLE AND DIAGRAM MAY NOT ALWAYS BE ACHIEVED AND THEY'RE SUBJECT TO FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITATIONS AND THEY'RE ALSO SUBJECT TO SHORT RANGE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL AS OTHER FACTORS, SUCH AS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES OF THE SITE.
IN ADDITION, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.7 STATES CONSIDERATION ARES INVOLVING LAND USE COMPATIBILITY, ADEQUACY AND AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ADOPTED SERVICE LEVELS OF AFFECTED ROADWAYS AND OTHER POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS WOULD CARRY MORE WEIGHT THAN THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IN THE APPROVAL OF POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE IN AN ACTIVITY CENTER. AS A RESULT, THE PRESENCE OF WETLANDS APPROXIMATELY 66 PERCENT OF THE SITE WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PARCEL CARRIES MORE WEIGHT THAN THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.
IN THE PRIOR REZONE, AN EXCEPTION OF THE GRANTEDED TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. A DISTANCE WAIVER FROM THE INTERSECTION. AND THAT WAS DUE TO THE PROTECTION —— THE PLANNED PROTECTION OF THE WETLAND, WHICH WAS LATER PLATTED AS A WETLAND. THE CREATION OF A THIRD DEVELOPMENT POD, PARCEL C, WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH SEVERAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT ARE NOTED, INCLUDING POLICIES IN THE CONSERVATION AND AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT, THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT.
BASED ON THE AVAILABLE DATA, THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW VEHICULAR USE AREAS AND A GAS STATION WITHIN AN EXISTING WETLAND AND WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. THE APPROVED SITE PLAN IDENTIFIED PARCEL C AS A WETLAND, AND THIS AREA WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PLATTED AS A WETLAND. THE PRESERVATION OF THE WETLAND WAS THE BASIS FOR THE APPROVE OF THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA DISTANCE WAIVERS AND FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. CARLTON: MR. LUCE, IF I CAN JUST INTERJECT FOR ONE SECOND. I WANT TO OBJECT TO THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THEIR STAFF REPORT VERBALLY TONIGHT FROM A DUE PROCESS PERSPECTIVE.
THEY'RE NOT, IN MY OPINION, NOT VALID, AND AGAIN A SEPARATE PROCESS. THEY KEEP REFERRING TO THE WETLAND ISSUES, WHICH THE BOCC CLEARLY SAID DON'T DEAL WITH IN THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD EVENING.
MS. MAGRUDER: HI. I'M KIND OF SHORT HERE.
MY NAME IS PAM MAGRUDER AND I AM ONE OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO OWNS A BUILDING IN THE COMPLEX, LUMSDEN EXECUTIVE PARK. AND THE REZONING WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT OUR BUILDINGS CONSIDERABLY. MY ADDRESS IS 655 WEST LUMSDEN ROAD, WHICH IS THE ONE BUILDING, AND WE MET —— MANY OF OUR BUILDING OWNERS MET TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT, AND WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THE PROS AND CONS AND IT WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT WE OF THE, FOR MANY REASONS, THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO DEVELOP THAT CORNER.
AND I'LL JUST SHARE WITH YOU A FEW OF OUR CONCERNS. ONE OF THE MAIN ONES WAS SECURITY. WE HAVE EXPERIENCED QUITE A BIT OF THEFT WITHIN OUR DEVELOPMENT, AND VANDALISM. SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING THAT CORNER WHERE IT WOULD GIVE US MORE VISIBILITY, THAT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT TO US FOR A SECURITY FACTOR. THERE ISN'T A 24—HOUR EMERGENCY VET WHO, YOU KNOW, HAS CUSTOMERS COMING AND GOING DURING THE NIGHT. I KNOW MOST OF OUR BUILDING AREAS HAVE BEEN VANDALIZED AT NIGHT WHEN THERE'S BEEN NO ONE AROUND. SO FOR THAT REASON, THAT WAS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT REASONS TO DEVELOP IT.
ALSO, THE RACETRAC HAD AGREED TO HAVE LIGHTING THROUGHOUT, SO THAT WILL GIVE A LOT MORE VISUAL LIGHTING TO THE COMPLEX TO ELIMINATE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING IN AND ALSO WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THERE HAS BEEN A PERSON LIVING IN THAT CORNER AS A HOMELESS PERSON PERIODICALLY. SO THAT IS ANOTHER SECURITY RISK FOR ANY OF THE OWNERS AND TENANTS IN THE COMPLEX. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
MS. LUTHER: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SUE LUTHER. I'M THE OWNER OF ALL AMERICAN TITLE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE COMPLEX. ALSO THE VICE—PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, OR —— NOT HOMEOWNERS —— CONDO OWNERS ASSOCIATION IN THE PARK. AS PAT SAID, WE DID MEET WITH THE PARK AND WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH A LOT OF THE MEMBERS IN THE PARK. MY BUILDING FOR ONE BACKS UP TO THE AREA WHERE RACETRAC WOULD BE. SO WE HAD DISCUSSIONS AND CONCERNS WITH RACETRAC OVER THOSE ISSUES.
THEY HAD AGREED TO BUILD SOME SORT OF A DIVIDING WALL FOR US WHILE WE COULD STILL MAINTAIN A LOT OF THE TREES IN THE AREA SO THAT WE COULD HAVE THE TREES BUT STILL ALSO HAVE THE SECURITY THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE WITH THEIR LIGHTING. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SECURITY CAMERAS 24/7 AIMED IN THOSE DIRECTIONS FOR US, AND THOSE ARE REALLY BIG ISSUES FOR US BECAUSE OF ALL THE VANDALISM AND THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE HAD GOING ON IN THE PARK.
WE HAVE HAD, AS PAT SAID, A HOMELESS PERSON THAT'S SCARED A COUPLE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE PAST. WE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS, WE ASKED ABOUT THE WATER ISSUES OR WHERE THE DRAINAGE WOULD GO, AND THEY'VE GOT GREAT ANSWERS FOR ALL THOSE AND ARE WILLING TO BE SURE THAT ALL OF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO US.
WE HAVE A BIG VISIBILITY ISSUE IN OUR PARK WITH THAT BIG CORNER. NOBODY KNOWS WE'RE THERE. NO MATTER WHAT —— IF YOU GOOGLE IT, YOU WILL GO THROUGH THE LIGHT AT KINGS AND THEY'LL TELL YOU TO DO A U—TURN AND GO BACK AND THEY'LL MISS US. PEOPLE HAVE A REALLY TOUGH TIME FINDING US, AND WE HAVE 18 BIG BUILDINGS IN THERE AND WE'RE HARD TO BE FOUND. SO HAVING THE RACETRAC THERE, WE FEEL IS A GREAT LANDMARK. IT WILL BE A PERFECT SPOT WHERE WE CAN SAY, WELL, WE'RE BEHIND THE RACETRAC, WE'RE RIGHT THERE.
SO WE ALSO THINK THAT THAT'S A GREAT THING FOR US TO HELP WITH THE VISIBILITY AND THE AREA THAT WE'RE GOING TO —— YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE MORE VISIBLE FOR US. BUT WE'LL STILL GET TO MAINTAIN SOME TREES AND STILL HAVE THE NICE LOOK OF OUR COMPLEX. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT.
HEARING MASTER: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MA'AM. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? ING.
MS. HATLEY: GOOD EVENING. I'M PAMELA JO HATLEY, 14519 NORTH 18TH STREET IN TAMPA. I'M AN ATTORNEY. I REPRESENT THE OAK PARK TOWNHOME HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND ALSO TAMMY CABRERA AND MARK HARRIS.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE MANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED AT THIS POINT, AND WHILE THEY STAND, I HAVE A PRESENTATION TO GIVE TO YOU.
IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE PROPERTY OWNER THIS EVENING THAT THROUGH A SERIES OF SUBDIVISIONS AND CONVEYANCES THE PROPERTY OWNER HELD BACK THE CROWN JEWEL OF THIS PARENT TRACT. HOWEVER HERE, DIDN'T MENTION THAT IN THE EARLIER ZONING PROCESS IN 2002 IT WAS ARGUED THAT THAT CROWN JEWEL AREA WAS NOT DEVELOPABLE BECAUSE OF THE LARGE WETLAND THAT BISECTED THE PROPERTY, AND BECAUSE OF —— IT'S UNDEVELOPABILITY, THE HEARING OFFICER AGREED AND THE COUNTY GRANTED A WAIVER OF LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THEY ARGUED THEY COULDN'T DEVELOP THAT CORNER BECAUSE OF THE WETLAND SO THEY NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE PARENT TRACT, AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO SO IN THAT ZONING PROCESS.
NOW, WHILE IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TONIGHT TO KEEP THE PROCESSES SEPARATE, EPC'S PROCESS OF DETERMINING IMPACT TO WETLAND IS SEPARATE FROM THIS LAND USE ZONING PROCESS. THE ISSUES THAT THE HEARING OFFICER MUST CONSIDER ARE SET OUT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AS MY LETTER THERE POINTS OUT, IF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 100303 E, SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER MUST CONSIDER ARE THE ZONING HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL, THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SENT PARCEL AND SURROUNDING LANDS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE USE, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPLICABLE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES CONTAINED THEREIN.
MY LETTER SETS OUT THE ZONING HISTORY AND THE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY IN A LOT OF DETAIL, AND I SPOKE ABOUT IT AT THE FIRST HEARING. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE APPLICANT IN THAT EARLIER ZONING PROCESS AGAIN ARGUED THAT A WAIVER WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS PARENT TRACT, THOSE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS BEING THE WETLAND THAT BISECTED THE PROPERTY.
NOW, I WANT TO TALK JUST A MOMENT ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ASK THE GOALS AND POLICIES WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS OPINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IN DOING SO, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SITED A NUMBER OF POLICIES WITH WHICH THIS REQUEST IS INCONSISTENT. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T BASE ITS OPINION ON ONE SINGLE POLICY. IT CONSIDERED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A WHOLE. IT GATHERED —— IT CONSIDERED POLICIES IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT, THE CONSERVATION AND AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT, AND ALL OF THOSE POLICIES TOGETHER POINTED TO A FINDING THAT THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE APPLICANT ON THE OTHER HAND FOCUSES ON POLICY 22.2 IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND SAYS BECAUSE OF THIS, BECAUSE OF THIS ISOLATED POLICY HERE, WE SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR THIS USE. BUT HE NEGLECTS THE REST OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HE NEGLECTS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PARENT TRACT OWNER MADE IN THE EARLIER REZONING THAT THIS PART OF THIS PARENT TRACT IS NOT DEVELOPABLE BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS.
HE ALSO NEGLECTS THAT THE WAIVER WAS GRANTED WHICH ALLOWED THE BUILDING, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL ON THE SOUTHERN END INSTEAD OF AT THE INTERSECTION, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE PARENT TRACT PARCEL AND —— THE PARENT TRACT PARCEL OWNER AND THE OWNER OF THIS ISOLATED PARCEL HAVE RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THEIR BARGAIN IN THIS TRANSACTION.
NOW, IF THIS REQUEST IS GRANTED IT WILL BE A BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC TRUST. AND MY LETTER POINTS OUT THAT FLORIDA COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONINGS REPRESENT AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LAND OWNER AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND SO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, LOOK AT THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN THAT REZONING THAT REPRESENT THAT THIS WETLAND WOULD BE PRESERVED.
AND FINALLY, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT SECTION 10.03.03G SAYS THAT NO APPLICATION FOR REZONING SHALL BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER UNLESS IT IS FOUND THE APPLICATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
NOW, ONCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE MAJOR MODIFICATION REQUESTED TONIGHT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT WAS THE BURDEN SHIFTED TO THE APPLICANT TO SHOW OTHERWISE. THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO DO SO. SO THEREFORE THE REQUEST SHOULD BE DENIED. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHICH WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
MS. BACCA: VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON.
I WOULD LIKE TO STAND BY ALL MY PREVIOUS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS. HOWEVER I WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE POINT. BECAUSE THEIR TRAFFIC EXPERT IN THE REBUTTAL SAID —— AND THIS IS FROM THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH I'M GOING TO BE TURNING IN. AND LASTLY, I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE TRAFFIC COUNTS AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS BATESOD AND WERE TAKEN IN FEBRUARY OF 2012. THANK YOU.
WHAT I SAID WAS THEY USED DATA FOR THE INTERSECTION FROM APRIL 2011, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY RETIMED AND THE SIGNALS ON THE CAUSEWAY LUMSDEN CORRIDOR JANUARY 2012 INCLUDING THE INTERSECTION FOR LUMSDEN AND '.
NOW, AS I, A NON—TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WAS ABLE TO FIND THIS REPORT, IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME THAT THEY COULD HAVE FOUND THE SAME REPORT, JANUARY 2012 FOR A STUDY THAT WAS DONE AND DATED SEPTEMBER 2012.
AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ENTER IN SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS RELATED TO SOMETHING I'VE ALREADY PUT IN. WHICH WAS I PUT IN THE OPINION ON GLH ENTERPRISES LIMITED CASE NUMBER 10—003272. BECAUSE THAT —— AND I EMPSIGHTSED THE PART THAT THAT DOES SAY THAT TRAFFIC CAN BE A FACTOR, AND IT WAS HELD, UPHELD IN THE ZONING. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEF BY MR. WHITEHEAD FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ATTORNEY THAT I BELIEVE CONTRIBUTED TO THAT OPINION, AND SO FOR YOUR BENEFIT, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT BRIEF. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MA'AM. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SIR.
MR. CABRERA: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S TONY CABRERA, 904 HILLTOP DRIVE IN BRANDON.
WE OPPOSE, MY WIFE AND I, BOTH OPPOSE THIS ZONING AND THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER MY WIFE WAS HERE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE TAMMY WENT OUT AND HAD OVER 80 PETITIONS FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I CAN TELL YOU IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE THAN THAT. WE DIDN'T FIND A FEW PEOPLE HOME. BUT WE PRETTY MUCH WOULD HAVE HAD A HUNDRED PERCENT CLOSURE RATE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M PROBABLY JUST TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, THE CLOSEST HOUSE ON THE NORTH SIDE TO THE SITE. I'M ABOUT 387 FEET FROM THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY, AND YES I DID PACE IT OFF MYSELF —— TO THE PROPOSED SITE THAT'S ON THIS CORNER. SO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN TALK ABOUT THE WETLANDS OR NOT. PROBABLY NOT. ANYTHING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT —— SAFETY, TRAFFIC, NOISE, POLLUTION. CONSIDER ME AN EXPERT, BECAUSE I LIVE THERE. OKAY. I'M NOT REPRESENTING ANYBODY BUT MYSELF. I'M NOT TRYING TO GAIN ANYTHING. I'M TRYING TO KEEP WHAT I HAVE.
YOU KNOW, FAILED INTERSECTION —— I TRAVEL THERE EVERY DAY. LUMSDEN AND KINGS IS A FAILED INTERSECTION. YOU ARE BACKED UP —— I HAVE TO GO A MUCH DIFFERENT WAY THAN I SHOULD JUST TO GET HOME. IT'S GETTING WORSE AND WORSE EACH AND EVERY YEAR. I'VE BEEN THERE SEVERAL YEARS. I'M ON HILLTOP DRIVE. EVERYBODY'S USING IT NOW AS A CUT—THROUGH. IN THE WALMART CASE, I WISH I COULD REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE ROAD, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN OVER A ROAD THAT BECAME THE MAIN DRAG. WELL, MY ROAD ALREADY IS THAT WAY, AND IT'S GOING TO BECOME MORE AND MORE THAT WAY.
I'M CONCERNED FOR SAFETY OF CHILDREN THAT GO UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD ON THEIR BIKES. JUST A LITTLE STORY. A COUPLE YEARS AGO I HEARD SOME SCREAMING AROUND THE CORNER ON SUNSHINE, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO HILLTOP. SOMEBODY GOT HIT BY A CAR, HAD A BROKEN LEG, WAS LAYING ON THE GROUND WITH A COMPOUND FRACTURE, YOU KNOW. THE GUY THAT HIT HIM SAID, MAN, I DIDN'T SEE YOU. SOMEBODY CAME THROUGH, CUTTING THROUGH, TRYING TO GET SOMEWHERE IN A HURRY.
THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRY TO GAME THE SYSTEM, GET THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION, GET TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.
CAN WE TALK ABOUT WETLANDS OR DO I HAVE TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT? BECAUSE VIFIRST I HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT PROPERTY ——
HEARING MASTER: LET ME JUST ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. JUST TO REITERATE HIS EARLIER COMMENTS BUT IN A LITTLE MORE BRIEFER MATTER.
MR. GORMLY: THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING IS TO TAKE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY, ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION, SEPARATING OUT THE WETLAND ISSUE IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF THE EPC PROCESS.
MR. CABRERA: OKAY. WELL, CAN I TALK ABOUT WILDLIFE ASSOCIATED WITH WETLANDS?
HEARING MASTER: I THINK HOO THAT'S OKAY.
MR. CABRERA: OKAY. I HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, AGAIN BECAUSE I 35 THERE, I ACTUALLY WALKED —— I HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PROPERTY AND WHAT LIVES ON THAT PROPERTY, OKAY. THERE'S A LOT OF WILDLIFE IN THAT PROPERTY. IT IS A SWAMP LAND, OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THE GENTLEMAN OR ANYBODY BEHIND ME HAVE DONE THAT. I HAVE. THERE'S SAND HILL CRANES THAT COME IN AND OUT OF THERE. THEY WALK THROUGH MY YARD, DOWN HILLTOP CAN GO ACROSS THERE. IT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY PLACE THEY CAN GO, BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS DEVELOPED IN THAT AREA.
SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T EVEN KNOW —— IT WOULD TAKE SO MUCH DIRT TO FILL THAT AREA, TO EVEN BUILD SOMETHING BECAUSE OF THE WAY —— THE NATURE OF THAT LAND, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S WORTH DOING THAT AT THIS POINT. THERE WOULD BE A DIRT SHORTAGE IN FLORIDA, IN MY OPINION, FOR THEM TO DO THAT. BECAUSE IT IS A SWAMP IN THERE.
NOISE AND POLLUTION: I KNOW THE TRAFFIC THAT COMES THROUGH THESE AREAS, THEY'RE NOISY. IT SMELLS. THAT'S SEVERAL —— I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN TO RACETRAC, AND I'VE BEEN THERE, I'VE HEARD THE NOISE LATE AT NIGHT. I KNOW THAT I CAN HEAR IT IN JUST OVER A FOOTBALL FIELD'S TYPE OF DISTANCE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S A CONCERN TO ME.
I DON'T OPPOSE DEVELOPMENT IF IT'S IN THE RIGHT PLACE. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT MR. MARCHETTI ALSO REPRESENTS BASS PRO SHOPS, AND HE ALSO IS PROPOSING A SITE I THINK ON FALKENBURG, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IN THAT AREA, PROBABLY NOT A BAD SITE. THERE'S ROOM THERE. IT'S NOT ON SOMEBODY'S DOORSTEP, OKAY. IT'S NOT IN SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD. IT IS NOT.
JUST A COUPLE THINGS, TOO. BEFORE I CLOSE. THE POINT WAS MADE BY MR. HORNER IN THE LAST SESSION THAT THE CABRERAS MOVED IN ON HILLTOP AT A TIME WHEN THEY KNEW THERE WAS DEVELOPMENT THERE BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET THERE WAS A VET CLINIC. WELL, THAT'S AN INCORRECT STATEMENT. WHEN WE MOVED IN, THERE WAS NO —— IT WAS WOODED. MAYBE THERE WAS A PLAN TO BUILD IN THAT AREA, BUT IT WAS NOT DEVELOPED. IT WAS AN AREA AT THE END OF THE STREET THAT WAS STILL WOODED. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION.
ALSO, MR. CARLTON —— I REMEMBER HIS VERY PASSIONATE SPEECH, AND I WAS ALMOST MOVED TO TEARS THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE ABOUT DEVELOPMENT. WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING? WE NEED TO GET WITH IT. WELL, YOU KNOW, HE'S PART OF THE OWNERSHIP GROUP, OKAY. IT'S A SELF—SERVING INTEREST ON HIS PART TO COME IN HERE AND TO ACT LIKE DEVELOPMENT, QUOTE, UNQUOTE. I DIDN'T SEE HIM HERE AT THE WALMART CASE. I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM ON OTHER CASES.
HE HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY, OKAY. SO THAT'S WHERE HE'S COMING FROM. BE A BETTER BUSINESSMAN, MAKE BETTER BUSINESS DECISIONS IS WHAT I WOULD SAY SOTHAT. EVERYBODY ELSE WE'VE HEARD FROM, SELF—SERVING INTERESTS. PEOPLE THAT HAVE INTERESTS IN THOSE PROPERTIES. THEY'RE GOOD REASONS BUT THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.
WE LIVE THERE. EVERYBODY BEHIND ME, A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE LIVE THERE. WE CARE ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT.
IT'S ALSO MEMORIALIZED FOR AN OFFICER NAMED RONALD HARRISON. RONALD HARRISON WAS A 55—YEAR—OLD OFFICER, 29—YEAR OFFICER FOR TPD. I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS WITH TPD FOR THE ENTIRE TIME. HAD A WIFE AND FOUR CHILDREN. HE WAS GUNNED DOWN AT THAT INTERSECTION IN AUGUST OF 2007. THERE'S A MEMORIAL SIGNS ALL THROUGHOUT. AND IT'S KIND OF NICE TO SEE THOSE.
THE LAST THING I WANT TO SEE WHEN I COME DOWN IS, YOU KNOW, A RACETRAC SIGN AND JUST COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT AROUND THAT INTERSECTION. THAT'S KIND OF A SIDE ISSUE, BUT I THINK IT'S NICE THAT WE HONOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AT LEAST GIVE BACK TO THEM.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TONIGHT. HOPEFULLY MY POINTS HAVE BEEN MADE, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT GENTLEMAN, PLEASE. YOU.
MR. HOWELL: MY NAME IS DR. JAMES HOWELL, 310 CAMBRIDGE PLACE, BRANDON. THAT'S HOME 30 YEARS. OFFICE 1739 SOUTH KINGS.
WE WALK A LOT, MY WIFE AND I HAVE WALKED THAT LOCATION, THAT AREA, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 30 YEARS. I WALK BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN HOME AND OFFICE EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS. BUILT A BUILDING SEVEN YEARS AGO, IN THE PAST SEVEN JEERS I SUSPECT I'VE WALKED THAT DIMENSION, THAT DIRECTION FOR 2000, 3 THOUSAND TIMES. I'VE WALKED PAST THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GENERAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC THAT HAS OCCURRED ACROSS THESE NUMBER OF YEARS, AND WE CAN NO LONGER FEEL REALLY SAFE WALKING IN THE EVENING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THE CUT—THROUGHS. HE JUST MENTIONED THOSE. TRAFFIC HAS DRAMATICALLY INCREASED. IF RACETRAC IS THERE, IT WILL DO NOTHING BUT INCREASE IT FURTHER. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, MR. LUCE.
I SUSPECT THAT IF ANYBODY PARKED IN THE 7/ELEVEN PARKING LOT, WHICH IS PERHAPS A HUNDRED YARDS TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND WATCHED HOW MANY PEOPLE MAKE IT A DESTINATION, THEY WOULD SEE THAT IT IS IN FACT A DESTINATION. RACETRAC SAYS NO, NO, WE'RE NOT A DESTINATION, IT'S JUST PEOPLE PASSING BY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FOR A MOMENT.
I WILL ALSO TAKE A LITTLE TIME TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE ONE TIME I'VE SEEN A FLORIDA BOBCAT, AND I WON'T TAKE TOO MUCH TIME TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TIMES I'VE SEEN FOXES ON THAT PROPERTY. AGAIN, SEVERAL THOUSAND TIMES I'VE WALKED RIGHT PAST THAT. AS RECENTLY BY THE WAY AS YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AT FIVE O'CLOCK AND BACK HOME ABOUT 8:30. TRAFFIC IS A BIG THING. ONE GENTLEMAN SAID A WHILE AGO MAIN AND MAIN. I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD WANT TO INCREASE THE CONGESTION AT MAIN AND MAIN, IF THAT IN FACT IS WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL IT.
ANOTHER LADY MENTIONED THAT SHE LIKES THE IDEA OF USING RACETRAC AS A LANDMARK. I SUSPECT SHE BOUGHT HER BUILDING LONG BEFORE RACETRAC WAS EVENING DREAMED UP. SO WHAT DID YOU DO BACK THEN? THE SAME THING I DO IN MY OFFICE BUILDING FURTHER DOWN THE STREET, AND THERE ARE ABOUT 800 PACES.
MY HOME 800 PACES TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MY OFFICE IS 800 PACES THE OTHER WAY. AND WHEN I HAVE CLIENTS COMING TO MY FINANCIAL PLANNING OFFICE I SIMPLY TELL THEM LOOK FOR THE FLAG POLE. SOMETIMES THEY HAVE TO MAKE A U—TURN. BUT I'M MUCH MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE GENERAL TRAFFIC, WATCHING PEOPLE ON THE INSIDE LANE OF KINGS JOCKEYING TO GET TO THE OUTSIDE LANE SO THEY CAN WHIP INTO 7/ELEVEN. I CAN'T DREAM IT WOULD BE ANYTHING DIFFERENT, SOMEBODY TRYING TO WHIP INTO RACETRAC ON TOP OF THAT.
THE TRAFFIC IS A BIG DEAL. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMEBODY HAVING A FENDER BENDER OR WORSE, AN ACCIDENT THAT RENDERS THEM WITH A BAD BACK OR PERHAPS LOSS OF LIFE. THAT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN A U—TURN DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, SIR. LET ME ASK THE OPPOSITION, HOW MANY MILES PER HOUR SPEAKERS ARE THERE? FOUR? HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO YOU THINK YOU'LL NEED?
UNIDENTFIED SPEAKER: I JUST NEED CLARITY ON SOMETHING.
HEARING MASTER: AMONGST THE FOUR OF YOU, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD NEED?
UNIDENTFIED SPEAKER: THREE MINUTES FOR ME. THREE MINUTES. ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
HEARING MASTER: FIVE MINUTES TOTAL? YES, SIR.
MR. MARCHETTI: MR. LUCE, VIN MARCHETTI, FOR THE RECORD.
WE'RE HERE ON PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ISSUES ALREADY. THOSE IN OPPOSITION KNEW CLEARLY WHAT THIS HEARING TONIGHT WAS ABOUT. IT'S ON THE ZONING LAND USE ISSUES. IT'S NOT ABOUT BOB CATS, NOT ABOUT SOMEONE WHO CHOSE TO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET AND BOUGHT BEHIND A MOBILE GAS STATION AND A VET CLINIC. IT'S NOT ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. IT'S ABOUT JUST THE LAND USE ZONING ISSUES.
HAD THEY ADDRESSED THEIR TIME PROPERLY, THEY WOULD HAVE 15 MINUTES TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THE RECORD. NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ISSUES AGAIN BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER 15 TO 20 MINUTES IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME, AND WE'RE SITTING HERE WITH FIVE MINUTES OF REBUTTAL.
SO, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IF YOU CHOOSE TO GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL TIME, I WOULD RESTRICT IT AND GIVE US ADDITIONAL TIME AT THE END.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO GIVING THE OPPOSITION FIVE MORE MINUTES OF TIME. AND LET'S, IF THE CLERK, WE CAN TIME THAT. AND WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES FORWARD FOR REBUTTAL, IF THEY NEED ADDITIONAL TIME, THAT'S ALSO ACCEPTABLE. THINK.
MR. KNIGHTLY: JOHN KNIGHTLY, 1011 WINCHESTER LANE, VALRICO. I TESTIFIED BEFORE. I CAN SKIP THE WETLANDS PART.
I AM A COMPETITOR ACROSS THE STREET AT THE MOBIL. WE TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, AND EACH TIME I COME TO ONE OF THESE MEETINGS WE GET A DIFFERENT STORY ABOUT THE PROPERTY. BUT WE WERE TOLD IT COULDN'T BE DEVELOPED.
SO FORTUNATELY FOR US, IN 2008 WE WERE ABLE TO BUY THE MOBIL ACROSS THE STREET, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULDN'T NEVER BE DEVELOPED ACROSS THE STREET. BUT I GUESS IF YOU COME ENOUGH TIMES AND GO AT IT AND KEEP HAMMERING AWAY AT IT, EVERYBODY WILL GIVE UP AND MAYBE THAT I'LL GET THEIR WAY. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, SIR.
MS. FLOTT: FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE AN EXCERPT FROM THE TEXT FROM THE HEARING.
HEARING MASTER: STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MS. FLOTT: TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.
THAT I'M GOING TO PROVIDE NOW THIS BLUE FOLDER. IT CLEARLY OUTLINES THAT IT'S A PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED, NOT THE ISSUES SO MUCH.
YOU CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THIS ZONING WITHOUT MENTIONING THE WORD WETLAND. MARK THAT ONE DOWN. IT'S ANOTHER WORD FOR YOU TO TIME. YOU GOT THIS LITTLE MARKS GOING THERE.
SO THE NEXT ISSUE IS THE NOTICE THAT WENT OUT WAS A NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE. IT DID NOT SAY REMAND AND IT DID NOT RESTRICT —— DIDN'T INDICATE THAT TESTIMONY WOULD BE SEVERELY RESTRICTED. MR. GORMLY SHOULD BE WELL AWARE OF WHAT TRANSPIRED AT THE BOCC HEARING, SO —— THE LAST HEARING
MR. MARCHETTI IS THE ONE THAT INTRODUCED THE CROWN JEWEL TO THE TESTIMONY. HE INTRODUCED THE CROWN JEWEL IMPACT DOCUMENTATION, AT WHICH TIME YOU, SIR, STATED THAT IT WASN'T IN YOUR PURVIEW TO EVEN, YOU KNOW, WHY DID YOU SUBMIT THIS STUFF? SO TO REMIND YOU, YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER THE CROWN JEWEL IN ALL OF THIS TO BEGIN WITH, SO IT WORKED FOR MR. MARCHETTI THE FIRST TIME. HE DID A LOUSY JOB. HE CREATED THE CONFUSION. AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT WE CAN'T EVEN WHISPER THE WORD CROWN JEWEL, AKA WET LAND.
SO I THINK IT'S DISINGENUOUS, IT'S DISENGENIUS THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT HE TOOK THE LAST TIME. WE'RE BRINGING THESE PEOPLE DOWN HERE. THEY DESERVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD. YOU DETERMINE —— YOU, SIR, DETERMINE WHAT YOU CAN CONSIDER AND CANNOT CONSIDER.
I HAVE A FOLTEDER HERE, JUST A FEW THINGS. I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. ALL OF IT WAS SUBMITTED THE LAST TIME. AND MUCH MORE. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU MUST CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE THAT IS APPLICABLE IN YOUR MAKING A DECISION. YOU MADE THE STATEMENT THAT YOU COULDN'T CONSIDER IT LAST TIME, AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ASPECTS OF IT THIS TIME. WHICH IS THE PROCESS, NOT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
BECAUSE AS MS. HATLY STATED, YOU CAN BY LAW CONSIDER THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE BOCC CANNOT DETERMINE WHICH PARTS OF THE CODES THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW AND WHICH PARTS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW. I'M NOT A HAPPY CAMPER RIGHT NOW, BUT I WILL PUT THIS IN, AND I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE ALL THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT, PLEASE.
MR. HARRIS: HIGH NAME IS MARK HARRIS. I RESIDE AT 501 BRENTWOOD PLACE IN BRANDON. I'M ABOUT MAYBE A THIRD OF A MILE AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION IN QUESTION. I TESTIFIED LAST TIME. IF YOU REMEMBER, I'M THE ONE THAT TOOK THE TRAFFIC PHOTOS THAT SHOW THE BACKUP AT THAT INTERSECTION. AND PLEASE REFER TO THOSE WHEN YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DECISION.
I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. THE SUPPORT WE HAD FROM THE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS RACETRAC ANYTHING IN THERE HAVE BASICALLY SAID THEY'RE FOR THE RACETRAC BECAUSE THEY WANT ADDITIONAL LIGHTING, MORE SECURITY AND BETTER VISIBILITY FOR THE CONSUMERS TO FIND THEIR LOCATION.
FOR THAT, WE'RE GOING TO PAVE OVER AN ENTIRE CORNER SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT BEFORE THEY MOVED IN TO THAT LOCATION. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING FOR —— WAIT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO COME ALONG AND DEVELOP AND THEN, OH, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THE TAB ALSO. OH, LUCKY US.
SO YOU NEED TO CONSIDER THAT THAT MENTALITY HAS —— THAT MENTALITY HAS RESULTED IN A LARGE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE.
ALSO, IF THEY'RE SO INTENT ON A MAIN AND MAIN INTERSECTION ——
HEARING MASTER: SIR, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS TO SUM UP.
MR. HARRIS: OKAY. IF THEY WANT A MAIN AND MAIN INTERSECTION, THERE'S A FINE LOCATION AT OAK FIELD AND KINGS, THAT'S A FORMER SITE OF A LIFESTYLES FITNESS GYM THAT I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH RACETRAC MOVING IN THERE. IT'S ALREADY PAVED. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: AND THE LAST SPEAKER. FIVE MINUTES ARE UP. I'LL GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES.
MS. DOWELING: THANK YOU SO MUCH. BARBARA DOWELING.
AT THE OCTOBER 2012 HEARING THE APPLICANT'S REP SAID YOU CANNOT HAVE WELL AND SEPTIC TANK IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS. THE APPLICANT'S REP BROUGHT UP THAT FIRST. IT WAS MY RESPONSE THAT I CANNOT BELIEVE IT'S OKAY TO BE SENSITIVE ABOUT WETLAND SEPTIC BUT IT'S OKAY TO PUT GAS STORAGE TANKS. IT DOESN'T PASS THE REASONABLE PERSON TEST.
IT WAS ALSO MR. MARCHETTI WHO BROUGHT UP THE ULI REPORT AND SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE RECORD, WHICH HE TALKED ABOUT THE ISOLATED WETLAND. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I DID SUBMIT BACK IN OCTOBER FROM PUBLIC WORKS, WHICH IS THE INFORMATION FOR RESIDENTS IN HIGH RISK FLOOD ZONES, WHERE THE FUNCTIONS OF FLOOD PLAINS AND THE W WORD, CHUWILL NOT LET ME USE, IS STILL NECESSARY TO RECEIVE STORE AND STORAGE WATER RUN OFF, ET CETERA. THAT WAS IN THE RECORD FROM THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, MA'AM. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THE OPPOSITION TESTIMONY.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
MR. MARCHETTI: VIN MARCHETTI. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE SPEAKERS ON REBUTTAL: TRAFFIC, AND THEN RACETRAC'S OPERATIONS QUICKLY, AND THEN I'LL CLOSE TUP.
MR. RAYSOR: GOOD EVENING. MIKE RAYSOR FOR THE RECORD. I'M A FLORIDA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. I HAVE BEEN SWORN. 19046 BRUCE B. DOWNS BOULEVARD.
AND I'M GOING TO REITERATE SOME OF THE BOINTS I BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST HEARING. THE ACCESS FOR THE SITE IS PROPOSED VIA TWO RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT CONNECTIONS, ONE TO KINGS AND ONE TO LUMSDEN, WHEREAS THE TURNING RESTRICTIONS INVOLVED WITH RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT CONNECTIONS RESULT IN MINIMAL TRAFFIC CONFLICTS AND SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS. RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT CONNECTIONS.
AS IDENTIFIED IN THE TRAFFIC REPORT THAT WE PREPARED, AND AS ALSO REFERENCED IN THE COUNTY'S OWN STAFF REPORT, DUE TO THE CONVENIENCE NATURE OF THIS SITE, A SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY ON THE ROAD. WE'RE PULLING IT OFF THE ROAD AND THEN PUTTING IT BACK ONTO THE ROAD. THUS ANY IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING ROADS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE MINIMAL.
TRAFFIC STUDY DID IDENTIFY A NEW RIGHT TURN LANE WOULD BE NEEDED ON LUMSDEN, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS MAY ALSO BE NEEDED AS WE GET TO THE SITE PLAN STAGE TO ADDRESS CONCURRENCY. AGAIN, THE DATE OF THE TRAFFIC COUNT SEEMED TO HAVE COME UP AT THIS HEARING. THEY WERE DONE FOR THE RECORD IN FEBRUARY OF 2012, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AGO, WHICH IS VERY TYPICAL OF THESE TYPE OF STUDIES.
AND THAT OTHER TRAFFIC STUDY THAT I REFERENCED FOR CONCURRENCY AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE WILL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS CONCURRENCY AND SITE ACCESS AND WILL RELY UPON NEW TRAFFIC COUNTS UNDERTAKEN AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME TO ADDRESS ANY OPERATIONAL ISSUES WHICH ARE SOMEWHAT REMOVED FROM THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. THANK YOU.
MS. SITZ: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MEGAN SITZ WITH RACETRAC. I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY DISCUSS WITH YOU, THE RACETRAC OPERATIONS AND WHAT WE'VE DONE UP TO THIS POINT. WE HAVE —— THIS IS AN IMAGE OF OUR STORE.
WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME JUST TRYING TO MAKE OUR ENTIRE SITE AS VISIBLY APPEALING AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING ENHANCEMENTS, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, INTERIOR STORES IS QUITE BEAUTIFUL. WE TAKE THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ALL THE WAY AROUND OUR BUILDING.
WE ALSO MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING THE OFFICE PARK AND THE HOMEOWNERS NEARBY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THEIR LOCAL —— THEIR CONCERNS, WHAT'S GOING ON TODAY AND HOW WE CAN MAKE THE SITE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA AND ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS IN THE MEANTIME.
WE UTILIZE LED LIGHTS THROUGHOUT OUR SITE. IT ALLOWS THE LIGHT TO STAY WITH IT'S SUPPOSED TO AND ILLUMINATE WHERE — IT NEEDS TO AND KEEP DARK WHERE IT'S —— YOU KNOW, WHERE IT SHOULD BE DETECTOR DARK. ESPECIALLY ALONG PROPERTY LINES AND SUCH. WE HAVE FIVE TO SEVEN EMPLOYEES ON—SITE AT ALL TIMES.
WE HAVE 17, AT A MINIMUM, SECURITY CAMERAS ALL THE WAY AROUND OUR SITE. WE ALSO WALK OUR SITE HOURLY, WE CLEAN OUR SITE AT LEAST THREE TIMES A DAY, AND MORE IF NEEDED. WE FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE AREA AND WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE REALLY TAKEN SOME STEPS TO ADDRESS THE LOCAL CONCERNS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO HELP.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU.
MR. MARCHETTI: VIN MARCHETTI CLOSING IT OUT HERE TONIGHT. LET ME FIRST REFER TO MS. FLOTT'S COMMENTS AT THE END OF —— BEGINNING OF HER PRESENTATION.
I'VE GOT TO SAY THAT I'VE —— I HAVEN'T EVER BEEN TOLD BY SOMEONE THAT I WAS DISHONEST AND I DIDN'T —— I BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE FIRST. ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH I HAVE HERE, OF THE OCTOBER 15TH ZHM HEARING, THE FIRST PAGE OF THE TRANSCRIPT, I BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE SAYING THE ISSUE BEING THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHOSE TO INCLUDE THE CONSERVATION AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT IN THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE EPC STAFF CHOSE TO ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS FILE AGENCY OBJECTION COMMENTS, WHICH THEN CAUSED I GUESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF TO INTERJECT THE CONSERVATION RECHARGE ELEMENT INTO THE ENTIRE REZONING APPLICATION. DEFINITELY.
THE FIRST QUESTION I ASKED OF YOU —— AND I MADE THE COMMENT, IT'S A QUASI—JUDICIAL HEARING IS WHAT I SAID. I WANT TO START BY LETTING YOU KNOW THAT RACETRAC HIRED NUMEROUS CONSULTANTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT RANGING FROM TRAFFIC TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAND PLANNING TO SITE PLANNING TO ENGINEERING, ET CETERA, WE'LL HAVE SEVERAL CONSULTANTS SPEAK THIS EVENING.
THEN I ASKED SPECIFICALLY, I SAID, ACTUALLY —— I'M SORRY. I WOULD NOT —— I WOULD NOT SPEAK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE —— I WOULD ONLY SPEAK TO ZONING ISSUES EXCEPT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INTRODUCED ISSUES DEALING WITH THE WETLANDS IN THE ZONING ENTITLEMENT STAGE WHICH HAS NOW CAUSED US TO HAVE TO RESPOND OBVIOUSLY AT THIS POINT OF RECORD SO THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH THEIR, IN MY OPINION, MISPLACED REPORT.
SO WE WERE FORCED TO DEAL WITH THE WETLAND ISSUE INITIALLY, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE THE BOCC TELLING ANYONE AT THAT POINT, NOR DO I HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CANDIDLY SITTING THERE TELLING YOU AT THAT POINT, THAT CONSIDERING THOSE ISSUES WOULD BE IRRELEVANT AND MISPLACED IN THIS ZONING PROCESS. SO I INTRODUCED IT THE FIRST PAGE OF THE TRANSCRIPT. YOU CAN READ IT. YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER IT.
AND I SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES OF THE EPC. IT'S VERY CLEARLY SET FORTH IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. EPC HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE WETLAND ISSUES, PERIOD. PLANNING EXCISION DOES NOT.
WHEN I FILED THE IMPACT WETLAND APPLICATION, IT WASN'T WITH PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WAS WITH EPC. WE FILED THE APPEAL WITH EPC. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I RAISED IT UP FRONT BECAUSE THE STAFF HAD ALREADY INCLUDED ALL OF THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT THE WETLAND ISSUES IN THEIR STAFF REPORTS, AND WE HAD TO BASICALLY BACKTRACK AND COVER THOSE POINTS DURING A ZHM HEARING PROCESS, WHICH CANDIDLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS IT IS TONIGHT ONLY ABOUT THE ZONING, LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, TRANSPORTATION AS IT RELATES TO THOSE ISSUES, ET CETERA.
SOIMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. IDO HAVE A STANDING OBJECTION, BY THE WAY, ON DUE PROCESS CONCERNS THROUGHOUT THE OBJECTION —A — OR THE OPPOSITION TESTIMONY, I DIDN'T REALLY HEAR MUCH ABOUT THE ACTUAL 8,000 SQUARE FEET WE'RE SEEKING ON THE CORNER OF KINGS AND LUMSDEN.
I HEARD FROM MR. CABRERA, AND I'VE GOT THAT AERIAL UP THERE. CAN YOU POINT OUT, MIKE, POINT OUT HIS HOME, PLEASE. MR. CABRERA BROUGHT UP A LOT OF FINE POINTS. NOT RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION TONIGHT BEFORE YOU, OF COURSE. BUT HE BROUGHT UP THE FACT HE THINKS HAVING A RACETRAC ON THE CORNER OF KINGS AND LUMSDEN ——
HEARING MASTER: WHAT IS MR. HORNER POINTING TO.
MR. MARCHETTI: HE'S POINTING TO THE CABRERA'S HOME OFF OF —— WHAT'S THAT STREET? HILLTOP. HE DOESN'T SAY, HOWEVER, THAT HE ACTUALLY ACQUIRED THE HOME A FEW YEARS AGO, FOUR, FIVE YEARS AGO, ON THE CORNER IS A MOBIL GAS STATION. I THINK IT'S INDEPENDENTLY OWNED NOW. A GAS STATION ON THE CORNER. ACROSS THE STREET TO THE WEST IS A LARGE SHOPPING CENTER.
HE CHOSE TO LIVE IN AN AREA THAT IS HIGH VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ON ALL THE ROADWAY SEGMENTS. 40 TO 45,000 CARS A DAY RUNNING ALONGSIDE LUMSDEN AT THAT LOCATION. PROBABLY A SIMILAR NUMBER NORTH AND SOUTH ON KINGS IS MY GUESS. AND MIKE CAN REFER TO SPECIFIC REPORTS. BUT HE CHOSE TO LIVE THERE.
MR. CARLTON, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, TALKED ABOUT —— MR. CARLTON NOT BEING A REALLY GOOD —— I THINK HE SAID AN INVESTOR OR NOT KNOWING REAL ESTATE, HE'S HERE, HE CAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. I WILL TELL YOU THAT I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH THE PERSON ON THAT.
MR. CARLTON IS A VERY REPUTABLE BUSINESSMAN. HE SITS ON THE BANK BOARD OF VALRICO FOR A REASON BECAUSE OF HIS BUSINESS ACUMEN, IF YOU WILL. HE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE 2002 REZONING APPLICATION BECAUSE HIS PROPERTY ON THE CORNER HE HAD PRESERVED FOR THE ABILITY TO HAVE COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT PERSON'S COMING SAYING THAT MR. CARLTON IS NOT —— IN THIS GROUP, BY THE WAY. I THINK THERE WERE EIGHT OR NINE DIFFERENT OWNERS WITHIN THIS PARTNERSHIP GROUP OF THAT CORNER PARCEL.
I TALKED ABOUT CONSERVATION AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT. AGAIN, WHEN WE HAD THE REMAND OCCUR BY THE BOCC, I WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE MET WITH STEVE GRIFFIN AND MELISSA. I TOLD THEM, AND ADAM WAS IN THE MEETING. I THINK IF THEY STAND WITH THEIR OBJECTION FINDING INCONSISTENCY, IT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST THE BOCC COMMENTS AT THE BOCC MEETING IN DECEMBER. THEY CHOSE TO STICK WITH THEIR INCONSISTENCY FINDING. YOU DID REACH OUT I THINK TO EPC STAFF. EPC CHOSE NOT TO MODIFY ITS AGENCY COMMENTS, AND I SIMPLY ASKED —— WE'VE GOT TWO CONDITIONS IN THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT DEAL WITH EPC VERY CLEARLY. IF WE DON'T DON'T HAVE AN APPROVAL ON THE WETLAND APPLICATION, YOU CAN'T BUILD. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. THEY CHOSE TO LEAVE THE AGENCY COMMENT OF RECORD, WHICH THEN PROMPTED I BELIEVE THE PLANNING COMMIS TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR COMMENTS THEN.
WE'LL ALTER OUR STAFF REPORT A BIT. WE'RE STILL GOING TO FIND IT INCONSISTENT. WE'RE PLAYING THIS GAME BACK AND FORTH. AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I SAID THE FIRST PROBABLY FIVE MINUTES OF OUR ORIGINAL PRESENTATION IN OCTOBER I WANT TO SEPARATE THE TWO ISSUES, WHICH THEY SHOULD BE SEPARATED, AND AND IT JUST HASN'T GONE THAT WAY, UNFORTUNATELY. SO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
MR. LEWIS: THANK YOU, MR. LUCE. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER I2 ——
HEARING MASTER: MR. LEWIS, WHY DON'T YOU JUST GIVE THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE A MINUTE OR TWO TO STAND UP AND LEAVE THE BOARD ROOM AND THEN WE'LL QUIET TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
HEARING MASTER: MR. LEWIS, I THINK WE'RE READY TO PROCEED TO THE NEXT ITEM.
THE CLERK: HOLD ON ONE MINUTE.
HEARING MASTER: IF YOU COULD PROCEED.
MR. LEWIS: BEFORE I INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER 2, I'D JUST LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, ITEM NUMBER I7, THAT'S APPLICATION NUMBER REZONE PD 13—0123. WE'VE JUST IDENTIFIED THAT AS OUT OF ORDER AND WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 22ND, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. THE APPLICANT, WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM.
HEARING MASTER: IS THE APPLICANT HERE REGARDING REZONING PD 13—0123?
MR. HORNER: MR. LUCE, GOOD EVENING, MICHAEL HORNER, FOR ON THE RECORD, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
WE JUST FOUND OUT WE HAVE AN OUT OF ORDER ISSUE BASED ON SOME INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US AT THE INTAKE. IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT IN ORDER TO MEET DUE PROCESS HERE, WE'LL ASK FOR THAT CONTINUANCE TO APRIL, MATT?
MR. LEWIS: APRIL 22ND.
MR. HORNER: APRIL 22ND.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. LET ME JUST ANNOUNCE FOR THE AUDIENCE, IF ANYBODY IS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE REGARDING REZONING PD 13—0123 ON TOBACCO ROAD —— OLD TOBACCO ROAD SOUTH OF VAN DYKE ROAD, THAT ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 22ND, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING, SIX O'CLOCK P.M. IN THESE CHAMBERS.
I SEE NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE RESPONDING TO THAT CONTINUANCE. ARE YOU, MA'AM? OKAY. AND YOU'RE OKAY WITH UNDERSTANDING WE'RE GOING TO APRIL 22ND. VERY GOOD.
WITH THAT, GIVEN THE COMMENTS WITH'VE BY THE APPLICANT, HE'S AWARE OF THE CONTINUANCE, THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 22ND, 2013, SIX O'CLOCK P.M. IN THESE CHAMBERS.
MR. HORNER: THANK YOU, MR. HEARING MASTER.
MR. LEWIS: OKAY. AGAIN, ON PAGE 4 OF THE AGENDA, WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER I2. THIS IS APPLICATION NUMBER REZONE 13—0091. IT'S IN BRANDON. THE APPLICANT IS CAYGUARD PROPERTIES, LLC. ITS A REZONE FROM RSC—6 TO CN WITH RESTRICTIONS ON .31 ACRES. I WILL GIVE PRESENTATION FOR STAFF FOLLOWING THE APPLICANT.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
MR. CAYON: GOOD EVENING. MY MA'AM JOSE CAYEM. ADDRESS 3319 WEST PAUL AVENUE, TAMPA BAY, 33611. THANK YOU. I'M THE OWNER OF CAYGUARD PROPERTIES.
AND THE INTENTION ON THIS PROPERTY IS TO BE REDEVELOPED TO OPEN A SMALL CAFE. IT'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE HILLSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAMPUS IN BRANDON.
THE REASON I WANT TO DO THAT IS HAD WHEN I SEE THE PROPERTY YOU SEE TWO RUN—DOWN DWELLINGS THAT I THINK ARE AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHILE I THINK THE CAFE WILL BE OF GOOD SERVICE FOR THE AND THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUSINESS IN THE AREA, INCLUDING THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY JAIL, SHERIFF, AND OTHER OFFICERS. AND DEFINITELY I THINK IT WILL BE A GOOD IMPROVEMENT FOR SECURITY, AND ALSO PROPERTY VALUES FOR THE NEIGHBORS. THAT'S BASICALLY THE IDEA OF THIS REZONING.
THE CONCEPT WILL BE TO REMOVE THE TWO RUNDOWN DWELLINGS AND BUILD SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THE HOUSES IN THE AREA, SO WE'LL BLEND IN, PRESERVE DEFINITELY THE TREES, THE BEAUTIFUL TREES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY, AND LIKE I SAID, I DEFINITELY BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL BE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. HAVE YOU SEEN THE STAFF'S REPORT ABOUT APPROXIMATE ——
MR. CAYON: YES.
HEARING MASTER: WHAT THEY ARE RECOMMENDING?
MR. CAYON: CORRECT. AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT. THE RICKS ARE FINE. I'M NOT INTENDING TO DO ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES THAT.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. AND STAFF EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT SHOULD YOU GET AN APPROVAL, THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
MR. CAYON: YES. AND I'M WILLING TO DO THAT, YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HEARING MASTER: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. STAFF.
MR. LEWIS: THANK YOU, MR. LUCE. MATT LEWIS WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. I WON'T GET INTO TOO MUCH ABOUT THE REPORT. IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELFISM WILL SPEAK TO THE RESTRICTIONS AND THE LOGIC BEHIND THEM, THOUGH.
AS YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY IS BEING PROPOSED FOR A CN WITH RESTRICTIONS, AND WHAT WE LOOKED AT WITH THOSE RESTRICTIONS IS THE TRANSITIONING NATURE OF THE AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY IS UMU—20. WHAT YOU SEE IS AN AREA THAT'S GRADUALLY BECOMING MORE CONSISTENT WITH THAT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. HOWEVER, THERE'S A GOOD BIT OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STILL IN THE AREA, SO IN THE SPIRIT OF GRADUALLY IMPLEMENTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO LIM THE MORE INTENSE WITH REGARD TO IMPACTS ON RESIDENTIAL USES, USES OF THE CN DISTRICT. THOSE BEING THE ONES THAT HAVE A HIGH LIGHT POLLUTION RATE, A HIGH COMING AND GOING WITH REGARD TO VEHICLES, OR THAT HAVE A PORTABLE OF CREATING MORE NOISE. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THOSE VARIOUS RESTRICTIONS.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. LEWIS: I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
HEARING MASTER: NO QUESTIONS. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
MS. STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE URBAN MIXED USE 20 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.
THE PROPOSED REZONING TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED WOULD ALLOW USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. URBAN MIXED USE 20 IS THE MOST INTENSE CLASSIFICATION DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED REZONING WILL ALLOW NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE TO THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY COLLEGE. SEVERAL PLANNED POLICIES SUPPORT COMPATIBLE SITE DESIGN, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED.
WE WOULD FIND THIS APPLICATION CONSISTENT BASED ON THE APPLICATION AS IT'S STRUCTURED TODAY BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION BELIEVES IT WOULD BE EVEN MORE COMPATIBLE IF THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION ABOUT RESIDENTIAL STYLE ARCHITECTURE, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES RIGHT ACROSS —— THERE'S A LITTLE RIGHT—OF—WAY AND RIGHT NEXT DOOR THERE ARE TWO HOUSES.
WE AGREE WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THE AREA IS IN TRANSITION. IT IS THE RIGHT LOCATION, BUT WE THINK THAT WOULD MAKE IT EVEN BETTER. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS WITHIN THE LIGHT EXTREMELY CHARACTER DISTRICT OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN AND THIS PROPOSED REWE THINK WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE OTHER USES WITHIN THIS CHARACTER DISTRICT. BASED ON THOUGH CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. LUCE, JOSE FERNANDEZ, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM I3, APPLICATION NUMBER 12—0806. THE APPLICANT IS HILLSBRO FARMS. THEY'RE LOOKING TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY FROM AS—1 TO CG—R.
MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL BE RENDERING THE STAFF REPORT AFTER THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. MINEER: GOOD EVENING, SIR. I'M KEVIN MINEER WITH THE GENESIS GROUP, AND I'M ASSISTING THE ZAMBITO FAMILY IN REZONING THEIR PARCEL, ONE OF THE LAST VACANT PARCELS IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.
WE'RE SEEKING TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE 6.8 ACRE PARCEL ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IN THE CARROLLWOOD NORTHDALE AREA TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL, BUT WITH A RESTRICTED DESIGNATION TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY AND CONSISTENCY AND SUCH.
THE SPECIFIC SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY. A SIX—LANE DIVIDED MAJOR ARTERIAL WHICH AT THIS PARTICULAR AREA HAS A 50 MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT POSTED RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SITE.
THE SITE IS VACANT EXCEPT FOR A BARN AND IT IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, WHICH IN MY OPINION MAKES IT AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT. IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH IS A LARGE AUTO DEALERSHIP, GORDON CHEVROLET. THERE ARE MULTIPLE RESTAURANTS, TWO FURNITURE STORES, AND A 2300 STUDENT HIGH SCHOOL WITH BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL STADIUMS DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF US. TO THE NORTH IS A SEVEN—ACRE OFFICE PARK, AND THAT HIGH SCHOOL IS GAITHER, GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL.
TO THE NORTH IS A SEVEN ACRE OFFICE PARK. TO THE WEST IS SABLE PALM AT CARROLLWOOD, A 432 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX CONSISTING OF 16 TWO AND THREE—STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS. THE PROPERTY IS IN THE RES—12 CATEGORY, A PLANNING DISTRICT THAT CAN CONSIDER A FULL RANGE OF COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, INSTITUTIONAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL USES IN THE RES—12 CATEGORY THROUGH EITHER INFILL OR IMPLEMENTING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, WHICH ALLOWS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT INTERSECTIONS AND/OR AS PART OF A LARGER PROJECT.
UNFORTUNATELY, WHILE INITIALLY WE WERE THOUGHT OF AS A PRETTY GOOD INFILL CANDIDATE, WHAT WAS LATER DEEMED TO BE OUR BLOCK BECAME SMALLER AND INCLUDED GAITHER HIGH AS THE DOMINANT USE, WHICH EVEN THOUGH IT IS QUITE LARGE WITH ITS FOOTBALL STADIUM AND THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS, IT'S DEEMED A RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USE SO IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT WE DO NOT QUALIFY FOR INFILL, SO A WAIVER REQUESTED THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA POLICIES WAS REQUIRED. WHICH I DID APPLY FOR AND SUBMIT ALSO. IT'S IN THE RECORD.
REGARDLESS, HOW WE DO IT, I BELIEVE WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE INTENT OF THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA POLICIES. IN A NUTSHELL, THESE POLICIES AIM TO SCALE NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, THE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND THEN ALSO OF COURSE THE MARKETPLACE.
AND THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS AT THIS TIME. THERE'S BEEN SOME INTEREST WITH SOME POTENTIAL END USERS, COMMERCIAL END USERS TO USE THE PROPERTY.
POLICY 22.8 REQUIRES A WAIVER TO BE BASED ON COMPATIBILITY OF THE USE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WOULD REQUIRE A RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED BY EITHER THE STAFF OR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHICH WOULD SUPPORT GRANTING A WAIVER.
WELL, IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT OUR SITE IS UNIQUE. THE REQUEST IS FOR RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL ZONING ON ONE OF THE FEW REMAINING VACANT PARCELS LOCATED DIRECTLY ON DAYLIGHT MABRY HIGHWAY, SIX—LANE MAJOR ARTERIAL, AND ONE OF THE COUNTY'S RECOGNIZED MAJOR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS.
THIS PARTICULAR SEGMENT OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IN FRONT OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS USED BY AN ESTIMATED 62,000 CARS A DAY, AND THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS 50 MILES AN HOUR. BASSED ON PROPERTY APPRAISER DATA ALONG THIS CORRIDOR, WITHIN A MILE OF THIS SITE, THERE ARE 33 SEPARATE COMMERCIAL PARCELS WITH OVER 900,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 20 OTHER PARCELS WITH ALMOST 165,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS ALL IN EXISTENCE TODAY SURROUNDING OUR PARCEL.
HEARING MASTER: IF YOU SAY HOW FAR YOU'RE LOOKING NORTH AND SOUTH.
MR. MINEER: A MILE.
HEARING MASTER: A MILE EACH WAY?
MR. MINEER: A MILE TO THE SOUTH. TO THE NORTH IT'S OFFICE AND THEN IT PETERS OFF. BUT IT'S BASICALLY WHERE THE NORTHERN —— WHERE THE NORTHERN PIECE IS. IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OUR SITE, OUR COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORS, ARE AN 8.5 ACRE FULL—SCALE AUTO DEALERSHIP WITH AUTO REPAIR THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF US; A RESTAURANT AND SEVERAL OTHER RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
BESIDES THE ONE MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE, WE HAVE CALCULATED THAT THERE ARE OVER 1700 APARTMENT UNITS WITHIN A CLOSE PROXIMITY OF OUR SITE. WE'RE COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.
BECAUSE OF THAT, I BELIEVE WE ARE UNIQUE. WE ARE THE SOLE VACANT PARCEL IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY SURPEDED BY A MAJORITY OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE ONLY —— WE DO NOT MEET INFILL ONLY BECAUSE HOW ONE DEFINES THE BLOCK.
IF WE WERE TO REDUCE IT TO JUST THE TWO CLOSEST PERPENDICULAR SEATS, IT'S US AND THE AUTO DEALERSHIP AND WE WOULD MEET INFILL. IF YOU WANT TO MOVE IT BEYOND THE TWO STREETS THAT WERE PICKED, THEN WE SCOOP IN A WHOLE BUNCH OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU HAVE TO —— THEY'RE NOT BLOCKS LIKE MANHATTAN. BUT ANYWAY, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU CALCULATE THE BLOCK, WE EITHER MEET IT OR DON'T MEET IT.
THAT BEING SAID, WE'RE WORKING —— WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH BOTH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO DEVELOP A SET OF RESTRICTIONS THAT ALLOW US FLEXIBILITY BUT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE DEEMED CONSISTENT.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE A SPLIT DECISION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A STRAIGHT CG ZONING DISTRICT. THEY DON'T EVEN SEE THE NEED TO HAVE THE RESTRICTIONS. BUT WITH THAT, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE GOING TO BE IMPOSED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF THEN RECOMMENDED DENIAL BECAUSE THEY WANT SOME RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HOPING YOU WILL HELP US OUT.
WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE RESTRICTION, AND IN FACT WE HAVE A LIST OF RESTRICTIONS TO THE PROJECT THAT WE WERE WORKING WITH BOTH STAFFS WITH THAT WE ARE WILLING TO ABIDE BY. AND THEY'RE ON THE ELMO.
AND BRUCE, HAVE YOU HANDED —— AND BRUCE IS GOING TO HAND THEM OUT TO YOU IN A SECOND. IT PROHIBITS SOME OF THE GREATER IMPACT USES, INCLUDING FAST FOOD AND CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS AND LIMITS AUTO SALE DISPLAY, BUT NOT AUTO REPAIR, WHICH IS PROHIBITED, BUT LIMITS AUTO DISPLAY TO ONLY THE SOUTHERN HALF, ESTIMATED AT ABOUT 345 LINEAR FEET OR 3.38 ACRES ADJACENT TO GORDON CHEVROLET.
IF YOU COULD PUT THE LIST ON THE ELMO. THE REQUEST USE LIST IS ON THE ELMO. AND I HAVE ALSO HAVE A COPY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT INTO THE RECORD, TOO, TO AID INTO YOUR REVIEW, AND THAT'S BEING HANDED OUT.
FIRST OF ALL, IT'S COPIES OF THE AERIAL AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING MULTIPLE LARGE COMMERCIAL PARCELS DIRECTLY TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH OF US. WE ALSO HAVE 20 LETTERS OF THE SUPPORT.
THESE PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS THE ZAMBITO FAMLY, HAVE LIVED IN THIS AREA FOR GENERATIONS AND ARE WELL RESPECTED FOR THEIR SOUND BUSINESS AND DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES. THIS ISN'T SOME FLY —— SOME QUICKIE THING. THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED LONG RANGE FAMILY. AND THIS IS THEIR LAST PARCEL ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.
I'VE ALSO INCLUDED A COPY OF THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WAIVER FORM LISTING EACH OF THE APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES AND EXPLAINING HOW, IN MY OPINION, WE ARE A UNIQUE USE AND WE DO QUALIFY.
AS PART OF THAT, I'VE INCLUDED THE APPENDIX LISTING THE 50 PLUS COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE PARCELS TOTALING OVER 1 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF NONRERB DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A MAIL OF OUR SITE, ALL ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.
FOURTH, I ALSO HAVE COPIES OF EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ME ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF SLOWING THAT WHILE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL, IT WAS MY BELIEF THAT WE REALLY WEREN'T THAT FAR OFF ON DIFFERENCES, AND REGARDING WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO OBTAIN A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
IN CONCLUSION, I REALLY APPRECIATE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF STRAIGHT CG. I ALSO PERSONALLY FEEL THAT GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS SECTION OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, IT IS PATENTLY UNFAIR TO FOCUS ON THIS, THE SOLE VACANT PARCEL, AND REQUIRE A BUNCH OF STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT NO OTHER PARCEL ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IS REQUIRED TO HAVE. WE'RE THE ONLY VACANT PIECE, IN ESSENCE.
HOWEVER, I ALSO RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT, AND AS SUCH, FROM DAY ONE WE PROPOSED CG WITH THE R, WITH THE RESTRICTION, TO PROVIDE FOR, AS WE MUDDLED OUR WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, TO PROVIDE FOR A SET OF CONDITIONS TO GIVE PEOPLE COMFORT.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THERE, AND WITH THAT, I THANK YOU, AND I COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS.
HEARING MASTER: IF YOU COULD, JUST WALK ME THROUGH THE TWO AERIAL GRAPHICS THAT YOU HAVE.
WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OUTLINES IN WHITE?
MR. MINEER: OH. THOSE ARE PARCELS THAT ARE DIRECTLY ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY. AND WHAT WE DID IS IN WHAT I SUBMITTED TO YOU, THAT IS THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WAIVER FORM, I HAVE IN THE BACK A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE PARCEL THAT'S ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, ALONG WITH THE SQUARE —— THE TYPE OF USE IT IS AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IT IS. THAT'S ALL IT IS. AND THIS IS OUR PIECE RIGHT HERE.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. BUT EVERY PARCEL THAT YOU OUTLINE IN WHITE IS NOT COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE.
MR. MINEER: THAT IS CORRECT.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THE SUBMITTAL THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO STAFF WITH YOU FILED THE APPLICATION DOES DISTINGUISH EACH PARCEL AS TO WHAT'S COMMERCIAL, WHAT'S OFFICE.
MR. MINEER: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE WERE INTERESTED IN IS —— WE'RE UP IN A PART OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE THE EAST/WEST ROADS, THE PERPENDICULAR ROADS WHICH DEFINE A BLOCK IS NEBULOUS. AND OUR FEELING IS, WITH THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL —— I MEAN, SIGNIFICANT BIG BOXES AND OTHER THINGS ARE DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF US. WE THOUGHT IT WAS NOT THE FAIREST OF ASSESSMENT TO SCOOP IN GAITHER AND CALL THAT A RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USE. IT'S A 2300 STUDENT ——
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. IF YOU RECALL, PERHAPS YOU CAN START AT YOUR PROPERTY AND GO SOUTH. IF YOU CAN REMEMBER WHAT USES ——
MR. MINEER: SURE, ABSOLUTELY. WE HAVE AN OFFICE PARK TO THE NORTH. THIS IS OUR PIECE. THIS IS THE GORDON CHEVROLET. THIS IS A HAVERTY'S. THAT IS A PIER 1. THIS IS A BOB EVANS. THIS IS GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL. I'M STARTING TO GET —— ACROSS THE STREET WE HAVE A SHELL STATION AND MINI WAREHOUSE. WE HAVE TACO BELL, A BANK, LARGE SHOPPING CENTER, LARGE SHOPPING CENTER, LARGE —— LARGE SHOPPING CENTER DOWN ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTH.
AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET WE HAVE MINI WAREHOUSE, WE HAVE SHELL. THIS IS AN OFFICE? SEMINOLE ELECTRIC OFFICE. THAT'S A TIRE STORE, BOSTON MARKET, HOME DEPOT, STEAK AND SHAKE AND OTHER COMMERCIAL. THEY'RE ALL LISTED IN THE BACK UP, THE APPENDIX WITHIN THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. MINEER: SO WE FELT THAT COMMERCIAL GENERAL, WITH RESTRICTIONS, SO THAT WE COULD MUDDLE OUR WAY THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, WASN'T A BAD REQUEST.
THE SECOND HANDOUT —— IT JUST BASICALLY SHOWS THAT IT'S RED DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF US AND NOT TO BE —— IT'S PROBABLY RED TO MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE.
HEARING MASTER: BUT THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GRAPHIC?
MR. MINEER: THAT'S CORRECT, THESE ARE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS.
HEARING MASTER: AND THE COLORS?
MR. MINEER: RED IS COMMERCIAL OFFICE. BABY BLUE IS PUBLIC. AND THEN YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE CHEVY DEALERSHIP, THE HAVERTY'S, THE BOB EVANS, AND —— THE BOB EVANS AND THE PIER ONE ARE ALL WITHIN THE SAME R—12 DESIGNATION AS WE ARE. AND THEN TO THE NORTH OF US, THE OFFICE PARK IS R—9.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE ITSELF, THE EAST/WEST ROAD THAT RUNS ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE SUBJECT SITE, IS THAT A PRIVATE ROAD FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT'S TO THE WEST OR IS THAT A PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY?
MR. MINEER: IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD BUT IT'S USED BY BOTH THE OFFICE COMPLEX TO THE NORTH AND THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE WEST. THE ROAD IS OWNED BY OUR CLIENT, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE REZONING, BUT IT'S OWNED BY OUR CLIENT. IT'S ALSO BASICALLY —— THERE ARE STUB—OUTS TO SERVE OUR SITE, TOO.
HEARING MASTER: SO YOU HAVE LEGAL ACCESS.
MR. MINEER: MOST CERTAINLY DO, YES, SIR.
HEARING MASTER: I KNOW IT'S EUCLIDEAN ZONING. AND IF YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU DONE ANY PRELIMINARY YIELD ANALYSIS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT MIGHT BE LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT SITE, GIVEN THE NEED FOR PARKING, STORM WATER, ON—SITE CIRCULATION, LOAD ASKING UNLOADING, LANDSCAPING, BUFFERING?
MR. MINEER: YES. AND WE'RE HAPPY WITH THE CG STANDARDS WITH OUR PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS. WE HAVE A VARIETY OF END USERS THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN. THEY'RE ALL RELATIVELY LOW—KEY. WE READ CRYSTAL CLEAR FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT FAST FOOD.
WE HAD A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT GAS STATIONS WITH PUMPS. SO WE SPECIFICALLY TOOK THOSE OUT. WE TOOK OUT A LOT OF THE OTHER HEAVIER USES.
BUT THE REASON THAT WE WANTED TO STICK WITH CG—R IS WHAT WE BELIEVE ONE OF THE POTENTIAL USES COULD BE WOULD BE MINI WAREHOUSES, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE CG. YOU CAN'T HAVE CN. YOU'VE GET TO HAVE CG FOR MINI WAREHOUSE. AND THEN LIKEWISE THERE'S BEEN SOME INTEREST WITH THE CHEVY DEALERSHIP TO THE SOUTH. AND WE THOUGHT IT WOULDN'T BE BAD WITHIN THE SOUTHERN TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DISPLAY OF CARS, NOT CAR REPAIR. AND WE SPECIFICALLY TOOK CAR REPAIR OUT AS PART OF OUR RESTRICTIONS.
HEARING MASTER: AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CG?
MR. MINEER: ABSOLUTELY.
HEARING MASTER: WE'LL GET TO THEM IN A MOMENT. BUT THE STAFF REPORT WHICH THEY FILED THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
MR. MINEER: BUT THE WAY IT READS IS THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF CG—R. THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF STRAIGHT CG.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. MINEER: WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT —— BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, ISSUES —— NOT TO VENT, BUT ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAD WAS THERE WAS THIS BIG PUSH TO MAKE AT A MORE URBAN, BRING IT UP TO THE IS STREET. WHICH YOU CAN'T DO IN CG. CG HAS A 35 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ANYWAY.
BUT IT'S 50 MILES AN HOUR HERE. IT'S NOT URBAN. NOBODY ELSE HAS BUILDINGS SET UP TO THE STREET LIKE THAT. WE WANTED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SET THE BUILDINGS BACK LIKE A CONVENTIONAL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. IT'S NOT URBAN, IT'S NOT 30 MILES AN HOUR OR 20 MILES AN HOUR. IT'S ONE OF PROBABLY HILLSBOROUGH'S TWO COMMERCIAL ARTERIALS.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. THE LIST OF RESTRICTED USES —— I GUESS YOU TURNED IT AROUND AND SAY THE LIST THAT YOU SUBMITTED TONIGHT, AT TONIGHT'S HEARING, SHOWS THE USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE SITE.
MR. MINEER: EXACTLY, YES, SIR. AND MOST OF THEM ARE SPECIALTY RETAIL AND LOWER KEY USES.
HEARING MASTER: AND YOU SHARED THIS LIST WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF?
MR. MINEER: YES, ABSOLUTELY, WEEKS AGO. ONE OF THE THINGS I INCLUDED IN THERE IS MY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO THE DIFFERENT STAFFS. AND YOU'LL SEE WHERE I PROPOSE THIS WEEKS AGO. BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS QUIETING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO FILING AND WE COULDN'T FINISH IT.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND.
MR. MINEER: THANK YOU, SIR.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
MS. HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING. MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AS MR. MINEER STATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONING OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED ON PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AS—1 AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH DALE MABRY NORTH OF NORTH GREEN AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS 7.6 ACRES IN SIZE AND IT IS LOCATED IN THE GREATER CARROLLWOOD—NORTH DALE'S PLAIN AREA. AS YOU SAW IN THE AERIAL, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND PARCELS TO THE NORTH, WEST, SOUTH AND EAST HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO REZONE FOR CG USES WITH RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES. AT THE TIME OF THE FORMAL APPLICATION, THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT I HAVE IN MY STAFF REPORT, WHICH WERE ON THE NORTH HALF OF THE SITE, SALES, RENTAL AND SERVICE OF NEW AND USED DOMESTIC VEHICLES AND SALES RENTAL AND SERVICE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND MOTORIZED VEHICLE REPAIR WOULD NOT OCCUR ON THE NORTHERN HALF.
THE LISTING THAT WE RECEIVED TONIGHT WAS DISCUSSED IN AN EMAIL. HOWEVER, WE WEREN'T UNDER THE OPINION THAT THIS WAS THEIR FORMAL REQUEST CHANGE. SO WE DID JUST RECEIVE THIS TONIGHT. WE HAVEN'T REVIEWED IT FOR THIS. HOWEVER, I STILL BELIEVE THAT EVEN WITH THIS, OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR CG WOULD REMAIN. BUT I WOULD JUST NOTE IF YOU DO CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS, IF THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL BE APPROVING, THAT YOU WOULD REFERENCE THE HANDOUT THAT WAS SUBMITTED AT TONIGHT'S HEARING.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS OF A PARCEL OF ADEQUATE SIZE TO MEET SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CG, AS MR. MINEER NOTED. STAFF DID NOT SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ANYTHING. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, WITH THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE COUNTY WATER AND WASTE WATER. AS YOU SAW, IT'S LOCATED ON DALE MABRY, WHICH IS A SIX—LANE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROADWAY.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS REQUEST, OR TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT AND CONCLUDED THAT THIS SECTION OF DALE MABRY FROM URLICK TO VAN DYKE ROADS IS OPERATING AT AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE. HOWEVER, OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE AND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD MAKE THE ROADWAYS OPERATE IN A SAFE AND EFFICIENT MANNER. ALSO THE SITE IS LOCATED IN AN AREA CURRENTLY SERVED BY THE BUS SERVICE, AND ALSO DALE MABRY IS AN APPROVED TRUCK ROUTE.
IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY, AS YOU SAW, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS USED FOR A CAR DEALERSHIP, THAT'S GORDON CHEVROLET. THEY DO HAVE THE APPROVAL FOR MINOR AND MAJOR AUTO REPAIR, AND THIS IS CONSIDERED A CG USE. THOSE USES WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IN A CN CATEGORY. TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE IS AN EXISTING OFFICE PARK, A MULTI—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS LOCATED TO THE WEST FEATURING MULTI—STORY BUILDINGS. EAST OF THE SITE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF DALE MABRY IS BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI—FAMLY. I BELIEVE IT'S THE NORTH LAKES NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH THE MULTI—FAMILY OBVIOUSLY HAVING MULTI—STORY BUILDINGS. AND THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY A CONCRETE WALL AT THIS TIME.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES ON THE SITE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. AS YOU SAW IN THE AERIAL SHOWN TO YOU BY MR. MINEER, THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT AREA FEATURES USES SUCH OOZE A HIGH SCHOOL, LARGE—SCALE SHOPPING CENTERS, RESTAURANTS, FAST FOOD AND HOME IMPROVEMENT STORES. AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL, AND AS SUCH, COMMERCIAL USES ARE APPROPRIATE AT THAT LOCATION.
THE PARCEL DOES FIT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE AREA. AS YOU SAW, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS ALREADY IN USE FOR COMMERCIAL, AND AWE ALSO HAVE THE OFFICE TO THE NORTH WHICH PROVIDES A TRANSITION FROM THE NORTHDALE COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE LESS INTENSE USES FOUND NORTH OF THAT SITE, WHICH INCLUDE MORE MULTIFAMILY AND ALSO A PARK, LAKE PARK, WHICH EXISTS OFF DALE MAYBERY.
THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS SITE IS RES—12 WHICH CAN POTENTIALLY ALLOW NONRESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO MEETING THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THE PLANNING STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS FOUND THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THAT LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, AND THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A WAIVER.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CG—R ZONING. WE FEEL THAT ALL OF THE CG USES WILL NOT BE TOO INTENSE FOR THE AREA. SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT STAFF LOOKS AT WHEN DETERMINING COMPATIBILITY WOULD BE SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT COULD OCCUR ON THAT PROPERTY NEXT TO THE OTHER USES. AND IN THIS CASE WE HAVE A CAR DEALERSHIP TO THE SOUTH AND MULTI—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT UNCHARACTERISTEC FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA AND THAT CURRENTLY IN PLACE THERE IS ADEQUATE PROVISIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY, SUCH AS BUFFERING AND SCREENING. IF THERE WAS TO BE A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, THERE'S PROVISIONS FOR HOW CLOSE THE SPEAKER BOX COULD BE LOCATED. LIGHTING STANDARDS, HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF SETBACK. SO WE FEEL WITH THOSE USES IN PLACE, OR THOSE PROVISIONS IN PLACE, ANY OF THE CG USES WOULD BE FINE TO OPERATE THERE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I HAD, UNLESS YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS.
HEARING MASTER: WELL, I GUESS IT'S A SOMEWHAT UNIQUE POSITION THAT YOUR INDEMNITY IS TAKING. YOU FEEL THAT A MORE ROBUST APPLICATION WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE THAN THE RESTRICTIONS BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
MS. HEINRICH: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ROBUST.
HEARING MASTER: A FULL RANGE OF CG USES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
MS. HEINRICH: YES, WE DO.
HEARING MASTER: FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL IS THE TESTIMONY OF THE APPLICANT. I MEAN, I GUESS TECHNICALLY THAT'S NOT CORRECT, BUT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, YOU DO SUPPORT CG, IF THEY HAD ——
MS. HEINRICH: CORRECT.
HEARING MASTER: —— REQUESTED CG.
MS. HEINRICH: RIGHT. WE DON'T FEEL ANY RESTRICTIONS IN THE USES ARE NECESSARY.
HEARING MASTER: AND YOU REFERENCE A SET OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT MAY BE IN SORT OF FORMULATION STAGE AT THIS POINT. CAN YOU ELABORATE?
MS. HEINRICH: WOULD THAT BE THE OVERLAY?
HEARING MASTER: I THINK IT'S AN OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT MAY HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS ATTACHED TO THEM.
MS. HEINRICH: WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING —— AND MARCIE I'M SURE WILL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I BELIEVE THE NORTHDALE CARROLLWOOD COMMUNITY'S PLAN WAS ADOPTED ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. THERE WAS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT PLAN WAS A NORTHDALE OVERLAY. I THINK PROBABLY FOR THIS AREA OF DALE MABRY.
THERE IS CURRENTLY AN OVERLAY FURTHER NORTH CLOSER TO THE VAN DYKE INTERSECTION. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT IS ON OUR PROGRAM. JOSE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ELABORATE, BECAUSE I KNOW HE WORKS A LOT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THOSE PROJECTS. BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED, SO I WOULD ASSUME AT SOME POINT STAFFS WOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER FOR THAT.
HEARING MASTER: MR. FERNANDEZ ——
MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. LUCE, JOSE FERNANDEZ, DEVELOPMENT SERVICE.
A COUPLE POINTS TO CLARIFY. FIRST OF ALL, IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE USES THAT WE'RE SEEING. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WAS FILED BACK IN AUGUST 23 BASICALLY REQUESTS CG USES BUT IT LIMITS HALF OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE NORTH PART TO PROHIBIT THREE USES. THEY ARE LISTED IN THE APPLICATION.
I'M GOING TO REPEAT IT FOR THE RECORD. SALES AND RENTAL AND SERVICE OF NEW AND USED DOMESTIC VEHICLES; SALES AND RENTAL AND SERVICE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES; AND THREE, MOTORIZED VEHICLES. MOTORIZED VEHICLE REPAIR. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CG USES AND RESTRICTING THREE USES TO THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ON FILE.
WE HAVE EMAILS EXCHANGING, AS YOU CAN SEE, AND THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, BUT OUR REPORT DIDN'T REFLECT THE USES THAT WERE SUBMITTED TONIGHT BECAUSE WHILE IT WAS MADE AS PART OF THE RECORD IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. SO IT WAS DONE ON WHAT WAS FILED ORIGINALLY. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID THE SAME THING.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE USES THAT THEY ARE PROMOTING TODAY AND THEY'RE SUBMITTING AS PART OF THE RECORD, THEY COULD BE CONSISTENT, AND OUR OPINION WOULDN'T CHANGE.
THE SECOND POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IS THAT WE ARE NOW SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION —— WE ARE SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA, THE TRANSITIONS ARE ALREADY THERE, AND THE DYNAMIC THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON NORTH DALE MABRY.
STAFF BELIEVES AT THIS POINT THAT RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT NECESSARY, EVE WEN THE USES THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. AND THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE STANDARD DISTRICT RESTRICTIVE IF THEY'RE NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE THEY IMPOSE A BURDEN ON STAFF TO RENDER INFORMATION TO CITIZENS, AND ALSO THEY BRING PROBLEMS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION IS NOT STANDARD INFORMATION. WE NEED TO LOOK INTO THE RECORDS.
SO WE WILL BE SEEING THAT IN THE FUTURE, TRYING TO LIMIT THAT IF THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY. AND THAT'S THE OUR POSITION KNEEN IS TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION. WE DON'T FEEL THAT THE RESTRICTIONS ARE NECESSARY AT THIS POINT.
HEARING MASTER: I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. AND THEN THE QUESTION ABOUT DESIGN STANDARDS, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ——
MR. FERNANDEZ: YES ——
HEARING MASTER: THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED FOR THIS AREA OF THE COUNTY?
MR. FERNANDEZ: AS YOU'RE GOING TO LISTEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS CALLING FOR AN OVERLAY AROUND NORTH DALE MABRY. THAT WAS PROPOSED. THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, BUT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAT NOT WORKED ON AN OVERLAY AT THIS POINT.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. FERNANDEZ: SO WE DON'T HAVE REGULATIONS RIGHT NOW THAT ADDRESS THE CONCERNS AT PRESENT IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN REGARDING ENHANCE THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THAT KIND OF THING.
HEARING MASTER: VERY GOOD. MS. HEINRICH, DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS?
MS. HEINRICH: YES.
HEARING MASTER: AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
MS. STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 12 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE GREATER CARROLLWOOD—NORTHDALE COMMUNITY PLAN.
THE PROPOSED REZONING TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED WOULD ALLOW USES THAT ARE TOO INTENSE AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE RESIDENTIAL 12 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IS GENERALLY INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES OR NONRESIDENTIAL USES SITES THAT MEET COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AND IS OVER 5,000 FEET FROM THE NEAREST QUALIFYING INTERSECTION OF NORTHDALE BOULEVARD AND NORTH DALE MABRY, AND THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION IS 1,000 FEET AS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SINCE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN OUR REVIEW, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IS ONE OF THE ROADS THAT THE BOARD USED AS AN EXAMPLE WITH THEY ADDED LOCATIONAL CRITERIA TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY WERE OBSERVING UNCONTROLLED PATTERNS OF STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHED THESE POLICIES TO AVOID SUCH IN THE FUTURE. WHERE APPROVED MORE INTENSE USES ARE TO OCCUR AT DEFINED INTERSECTIONS AND TRANSITION DOWN IN INTENSITY.
BY DESIGN, NOT ALL INTERSECTIONS THAT EXIST IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ARE —— MEET LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. ONLY DEFINED ONES. AND THAT'S ON PURPOSE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES ALONG LONG STRETCHES OF THE ROADS.
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT INDICATED THE SITE IS AN INFILL PROJECT THAT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE FUTURE LANT USE ELEMENT POLICY 25.3. WHILE WE AGREE THAT THE SITE IS VACANT AND SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT, AND MEETS THE PLANNING GREEN BOOK STANDARDS OF WHAT YOU WOULD CALL INFILL, IT DOESN'T MEET THE INFILL PROVISION AS DEFINED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE REASON FOR THAT NAMELY IS THAT THE CLOSEST ROADS TO THE SITE ARE PRIVATE ROADS. THEY'RE NOT PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAYS. AND THE POLICY SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT WHEN YOU MEASURE FOR THE INFILL POLICY, YOU GO FROM PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY TO PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY.
LESS THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE PARCELS BETWEEN THE NEAREST PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ARE ZONED OR USED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT, GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL AND THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY ACTUALLY TAKE UP A LARGE PORTION OF THE BLOCK, OR WHAT IS DEFINED BY THE BLOCK IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE APPLICANT CAN REQUEST A WAIVER FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.8 ALLOWS THE BOARD TO WAIVE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA BASED ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE USE WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A JUSTIFICATION. AND THERE ARE COMMERCIAL USES IN THE VICINITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES TO SUPPORT THE WAIVER AND THE INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED USES IS INCOMPATIBLE.
MY REMARKS RIGHT NOW ARE FOCUSED UPON THE OFFICIAL REQUEST —— THAT MR. FERNANDEZ DESCRIBED. WHEN I'M DONE WITH MY REMARKS I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT AND GIVE SOME REMARKS THERE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO SEVERAL COMMERCIAL USES TO THE SOUTH, INCLUDING A CAR DEALERSHIP. WE'D LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 1988, BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.
THE OFFICE USE TO THE NORTH HAS VERY STRICT CONDITIONS ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THEIR STRUCTURES. THERE'S A MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. THAT'S WHY THEY LOOK VERY UNIQUE AND THEY ARE SO COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDINGS.
AS STATED IN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIVE 22, COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WAS ADDED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO AVOID STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT ALONG THIS PORTION OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY THE AUTO DEALERSHIP TO THE SOUTH ESTABLISHES A NORTHERN EDGE OF THE EXISTING STRIP COMMERCIAL PATTERN. ON THE EAST SIDE OF DALE MABRY STRIP COMMERCIAL USES END SOUTH OF LAKE VIEW DRIVE. FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NORTH ARE OFFICE RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT AND PARK USES, AND THE NEXT GROUPING OF COMMERCIAL USES IN A NORTHERNLY DIRECTION IS AT VAN DYKE ROAD AND NORTH DALE MABRY, WHICH IS THE NEXT INTERSECTION THAT MEETS LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.5 CALL FAIRS TRANSITION DOWN IN INTENSITY FROM ENTREXES. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED USE LIST WOULD RESULT IN THE FURTHER EXTENSION OF COMMERCIAL USES RATHER THAN PROVIDE THAT TRANSITION.
BASED ON FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.6, THIS PROPERTY MEETS AN EXCEPTION FOR OFFICE USES, AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WOULD SUPPORT OR FIND AN OFFICE USE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AT A MINIMUM, IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT THE NORTHERN HALF OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO OFFICE USES ONLY TO PROVIDE THE NOTED TRANSITION. AS NOTED IN THE POLITICS AND THE STAFF REPORT, BOTH THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE GREATER CARROLLWOOD—NORTHDALE COMMUNITIES PLAN DISCOURAGE STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S NOT JUST THE COMMUNITY PLAN. IT'S THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSED REZONING DOES NOT ADDRESS SITE DESIGN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ITS AVOIDANCE OF STRIP COMMERCIAL POLICIES. AS A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT THE TYPICAL ELEMENTS OF STRIP COMMERCIAL DESIGN, LIKE YOUR ACCESS POINTS, PARKING LOCATION DESIGN, AND BUILDING LAYOUT ARE NOT ADDRESSED THEY COULD BE A TYPICAL COMMERCIAL STRIP AND DESIGN.
THE GREATER CARROLLWOOD—NORTHDALE COMMUNITY PLAN RECOMMENDS FOCUSING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR INTERSECTIONS COMPLYING WITH LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, AND AS NOTED BEFORE, THE SITE DOES NOT MEET LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.
THE COMMUNITY PLAN ALSO ENCOURAGES AN ENHANCED DESIGN OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED. AN OVERLAY IS PLANNED BUT HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED AT THIS TIME. SO AS A RESULT, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ALL ALONG TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE DESIGN, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SURE AT WHAT TIME THE OVERLAY MIGHT BECOME ADOPTED. IT COULD TAKE QUITE A BIT. THE COMMUNITY PLAN LIST OF IMPLEMENTATION IS QUITE EXTENSIVE.THEY'RE LOT OF IDEAS.
DURING REVIEW, WE MET WITH THE APPLICANT MANY TIMES AND WE WORKED TOGETHER VERY CLOSELY. THE POTENTIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS THAT WOULD LESSEN THE APPEARANCE OF STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT INCLUDED A POTENTIAL MAXIMUM SETBACK FROM DALE MABRY, PUTTING THE PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDING FACADE, PERHAPS PROHIBITING ACCESS FROM DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IN FAVOR OF AN ACCESS POINT TO THE NORTHERN RIGHT—OF—WAY, MAYBE A BERM ALONG DALE MABRY AND ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE.
I'D LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE'RE NOT PICKING ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER. WE HAVE WORKED OUT THESE TYPES OF DETAILS WITH OTHER APPLICANTS ON OTHER MAJOR CORRIDORS, INCLUDING U.S. HIGHWAY 301. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, AND SO WE FEEL BECAUSE THERE'S A NEED FORA A WAIVER, IT WARRANTS US TO SPEND A LITTLE TIME ON THE DESIGN AND SEE WHATEE CAN ACHIEVE.
AND SO WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED USE LIST VIA EMAIL TODAY, AND WE'VE SEEN IT IN THE PAST AS WELL. OUR STAFF REPORT WAS BASED ON THE PREVIOUS LIST.
BUT WE DID WANT TO SAY THAT THE PROPOSED USE LIST DOES PROVIDE MORE GUIDANCE REGARDING ALLOWABLE USES ON THE PROPERTY, AND IT HELPS ADDRESS MANY OF OUR COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS. GAS PUMPS AND DRIVE—THROUGH RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MORE INTENSE USES, WOULD NOW BE PROHIBITED, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT AND FEEL THAT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND WILL HELP A LOT.
TWO OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE HAVE IN OUR STAFF REPORT, THOUGH, WE FEEL ARE STILL NOT ADDRESSED. ONE IS LIMITING ALLOWABLE USES ON THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY TO OFFICE USES, WHICH WE WOULD RECOMMEND, AS WELL AS A DESIGN RESTRICTIONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT A MOMENT AGO TO AVOID A STRIP COMMERCIAL PATTERN.
IF WE HAD MORE TIME, WE WOULD VERY MUCH WISH TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF WE COULD FIND SOME DESIGN RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY COULD LIVE WITH, THAT WOULD IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS. BUT WE RAN OUT OF TIME UNFORTUNATELY, AND WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE. AND WE UNDERSTAND WE CANNOT FORCE RESTRICTIONS ON APPLICANTS AND THAT IT IS WHERE IT IS AT.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS BETTER, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. BASED ON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
HEARING MASTER: VERY GOOD. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE'S IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
MR. ZAMBITO: GOOD EVENING. FRANK ZAMBITO, 17901 SINGING WOOD PLACE.
I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, ALONG WITH MY BROTHERS AND NUMEROUS COUSINS ALSO THAT OWN THIS PROPERTY. I WASN'T PLANNING ON SPEAKING THIS EVENING, BUT I FELT THAT BECAUSE MY FATHER, MY GRANDFATHER AND UNCLES HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY WELL BEFORE ANY PLANS WERE PUT IN PLACE. THE EAST SIDE OF DALE MABRY WAS WHAT THEY STARTED WITH. THEY HAD A DAIRY FARM OPERATION.
IN THE EARLY 1970S, THEY DECIDED TO SELL THAT PROPERTY TO JUMP START NORTH TAMPA. IF IT WASN'T FOR THEM JUMP STARTING NORTH TAMPA AND HAVING THAT LARGE COMMUNITY GO INTO PLACE, THE EAST SIDE OF DALE MABRY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR PROPERTY WE'RE TRYING TO REZONE RIGHT NOW, THAT PROPERTY WAS REALLY A BIG START.
YEARS LATER HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CAME TO MY FAMILY, MY DAD AND MY UNCLES AND DISCUSSED BRINGING A HIGH SCHOOL TO NORTH TAMPA. MY DAD WAS AN EDUCATOR PRIOR TO BEING A CATTLE FARMER. HE DECIDE ASKED THEY SAT DOWN, THEY PUT GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL THERE. WE MOVED FURTHER NORTH.
THE CAR DEALERSHIP WAS PROPERTY THAT WAS SOLD AFTER WE SOLD IT TO THE DEVELOPER THAT HAD THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. BOB EVANS, HAVERT'S'S AND PIER 1 IMPORTS, ANOTHER BIG PLUS FOR THAT AREA. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, NORTH OF OUR CURRENT PROPERTY, THERE'S NOT MUCH THERE. THERE'S RESIDENTIAL AND THERE'S LAKE PARK, A 500 ACRE PARK WHICH WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED.
IF YOU LOOK TO THE EAST AGAIN, THERE'S A BRICK WALL ACROSS FROM DALE MABRY FROM THE CORNER OF NORTH LAKES ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THEIR SUBDIVISION. IT'S RESIDENTIAL. YOU WILL NEVER SEE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF DALE MABRY.
TO THE SOUTH YOU DO HAVE GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL ASK THE DEALERSHIP. IT'S A SEVEN ACRE PARCEL. NOT EVEN SEVEN ACRE PARCEL OF LAND. IT'S OUR LAST PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE OWN. WE'RE LOOKING TO GO IN THERE CAN DO THE RIGHT THING AND PUT THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT.
DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IS NOT 301. I TRAVEL 301 NUMEROUS TIMES. 301 HAS A LONG WAY TO GEFORFEITURE IT BECOMES A MAIL MABRY HIGHWAY. WHEN'S THE LAST TIME YOU WENT FROM MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE AND GOT ON THE ROAD AND TRAVELED NORTH. HOW MANY GREEN PASTURES HAVE YOU SEEN BETWEEN THE AIR FORCE BASE AND VAN DYKE ROAD? NOT VERY MUCH.
WE'RE ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING PIECES OF PROPERTY. WE'RE ASKING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO AND ASK FOR THE WRONGS THINGS. MY PARENTS, MY UNCLES, THEY'VE ALWAYS GONE IN AND TRIED TO GET THE RIGHT THING FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO SEE. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT. HOPEFULLY WE REQUEST MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND WE LOOK TO IT. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, SIR. SIR, IF I CAN GET YOU TO SIGN IT. THE NEXT PERSON.
MR. CIANCIOLA: MY NAME IS DOMINIC CIANCIOLA. I DO A LOT OF FOOD SERVICE PROFESSIONAL TRAINING SERVICES, AND I DO A LOT OF RESPONSIBLE VENDOR TRAINING, AS WELL AS RESTAURANT CONSULTING BUSINESS.
I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT THE ZAMBITO FAMILY HAS BEEN AN ICON IN NORTH TAMPA, DEVELOPING BUSINESSES FOR SMALL ENTREPRENEURS. THERE ARE MANY SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION FAMPLIES THAT HAVE NOW HAVE AN INCOME AND LIVE OFF OF THAT INCOME DUE TO THE FACT OF THE SALE OF PROPERTY AND THE COMMERCIAL CHANGES HERE THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE UP IN THAT AREA. AND I CONGRATULATE THIS COMMISSION AND EVERYONE PRIOR TO YOU FOR DOING SO. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
MR. MINEER: THANK YOU, SIR. AGAIN, KEVIN MINEER WITH THE GENESIS GROUP. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO GET PUT INTO THE RECORD. I KNOW IT SOUND A LITTLE CONFUSING ABOUT WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR AND THEN NOW WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL THAT'S OUT THERE.
THE BOTTOM LINE, WE APPLIED FOR CG RESTRICTED ON DAY ONE, AND ON DAY ONE WE TOOK OUT A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT WE FELT WERE ESPECIALLY HONOROUS, PERHAPS. IT'S A WORKING THROUGH PROCESS. YOU MUDDLE IT THROUGH WITH THE DIFFERENT STAFFS. AND THIS LIST THEY GOT SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, AND IT WAS ONE OF MANY THAT WE THREW OUT THERE OVER TIME.
WE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS, AND I THINK THE FRUSTRATION THAT WE HAD WAS IT WAS NEVER QUITE CLEAR —— WE KNEW WHAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE BUT WE NEVER COULD GET A HANDLE ON WHAT THEY DID LIKE. AND ISSUES LIKE, WELL YOU NEED TO HAVE A BETTER DESIGN, YOU NEED TO HAVE BETTER DESIGN. WHAT IS THIS DESIGN?
WHAT IS STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS. APPARENTLY WHAT IT HONED DOWN TO WAS BRING THE BUILDINGS UP TO THE STREET.
AND IT'S MY GUT FEELING AND IT'S THE FEELING OF MY PARTNER AND THE DEVELOPERS THAT I WORK WITH THAT YOU PUT COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES UP ON THE STREET NEXT TO A SIX—LANE 50 MILE—AN—HOUR HIGHWAY, THAT'S —— THAT'S A RECIPE FOR FAILURE. WE WANTED TO BE A PROJECT LIKE ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL PROJECT UP OR DOWN THE STREET.
ALSO WOULD LIKE TO PUT INTO THE RECORD A COUPLE YEARS AGO MY CLIENT, UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, I WASN'T PART OF THIS. ACTUALLY CAME UP AND REQUESTED HATHEY SPECIFICALLY BE TAKEN OUT OF THE CARROLLWOOD PLAN. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THEY WOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER PIECES UP AND DOWN DALE MAYBERY. NOT PIECES ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE NORTHDALE COMMUNITY, BUT ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY. BECAUSE THEY ARE UNIQUE. THEY'RE THE SOLE VACANT PIECE.
HEARING MASTER: ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT IN THAT ——
MR. MINEER: THEY ARE. WHAT HAPPENED WAS AT THE TIME DCA WAS PRETTY AGGRESSIVE ON PIECES STAYING IN, BEING TAKEN OUT. MY CLIENT WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE CARROLLWOOD PLAN WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THEM, SO THEY BACKED OFF. THEY LET IT SLIDE. AND NOW TWO YEARS LATER IT IS. IT POTENTIALLY ADVERSELY AFFECTING THEM.
ALSO I JUST WANT TO PUT INTO THE RECORD THIS WHOLE ISSUE ABOUT MEETING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, NOT MEETING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THE CAR DEALERSHIP TO THE SOUTH DOESN'T SEEM TO MEET LOCAL CRITERIA OR INFILL. THE HAVERTY'S DOESN'T MEET INFILL. THE BOB EVANS DOESN'T MEET INFILL, YET THEY'RE THERE, AND THEY ARE OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION ON THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT TODAY AND WHO ARE OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS TODAY.
THIS LIST OF USES THAT WE HAVE IN HERE ARE ALL RELATIVELY BENIGN. MOST OF THEM ARE CG, BUT IN FACT THE BIG ISSUE WAS FAST FOOD. WE TOOK THAT OUT. THE BIG ISSUE WAS GAS PUMPS. WE TOOK THAT OUT. BUT WE KEPT THE CG BECAUSE OF MINI WAREHOUSE. A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK MINI WAREHOUSE IS AN INTENSE USE. I DON'T. I THINK IT'S RATHER BENIGN. IT DOESN'T GENERATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC, IT'S NOT A BIG PROBLEM.
SOME PEOPLE CONSIDER IT STRIP COMMERCIAL. I DON'T. SOME PEOPLE CONSIDER IT AN UGLY USE. I DON'T. THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WE FOCUSED ON USES, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH. WHEN IT COMES TO DESIGN, WE GOT JUST A BUNCH OF VAGUE MATITUDES ON WHAT IS GOOD DESIGN AND WE DID NOT FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH A PD ON A DESIGN WHERE WE DON'T SPECIFICALLY HAVE ANEND USER LOCKED IN.
NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH OF US HAVE HAD TO DO IT, AND WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE. AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOUND —— DID NOT FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE. THEY'RE RECOMMENDING A STRAIGHT CG, SO WE'RE KIND OF LIKE THE MIDDLE MAN. AND I BELIEVE THAT PIE PARTNER HAS A FEW THINGS TO SAY.
MR. KASCHYK: GOOD EVENING, MR. HEARING MASTER. BRUCE KASCHYK, GENESIS GROUP, 3910 US HIGHWAY 301.
I GET TO TRAVEL DALE MABRY HIGHWAY ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS AND WE TALK ABOUT THE DESIGN STANDARDS. I DON'T HAVE AN AERIAL TO REPRESENT IT BUT IT JUST CAME TO MIND WHILE WE WERE SITTING THIS TALKING ABOUT THIS.
THE INTERSECTION OF FLETCHER AND DALE MABRY, WHICH IS SOUTH OF US, MORE IN THE TRADITIONAL CARROLLWOOD VILLAGE AREA, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT GOING ON, A LOT OF REINVESTMENT THAT'S BEEN OCCURRING AND KNOCKING DOWN OF OLD BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BUILDINGS. THE DENNY'S WAS REPLACED BY A CHASE. A BOSTON MARKET WAS REPLACED BY A TIRE STORE. THERE WAS A PERKINS, NOW REPLACED BY A PDQ.
ALL OF THIS INVESTMENT, WHICH IS GREAT FOR THE COMMUNITY, THERE'S EVEN THE PUBLIX IS GETTING REDEVELOPMENT IN THE CARROLLWOOD VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER. ALL OF THEM ARE DEVELOPING IN WHAT I WOULD CALL THE CONVENTIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARD. THERE'S NONE OF THEM ARE BEING ENFORCED WITH THE DESIGN OVERLAY. AGAIN, IT JUST GOES BACK TO WANTING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS ALSO OCCURRING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. AND MR. MINEER, THAT CONCLUDES YOUR REBUTTAL?
MR. KASCHYK: YES, SIR.
HEARING MASTER: WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE INCOME ITEM.
MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. LUCE, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPLICATION 12—0860. THE APPLICANT IS ANTONIO COTTO. THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT 2—COP—RX.
MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL RENDER THE STAFF REPORT AFTER THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.
HEARING MASTER: GIVEN THAT THIS IS A FIRST SPECIAL USE ITEM THAT IS GOING TO BE HEARD TONIGHT, I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO THE RECORD REGARDING HOW SPECIAL USES ARE HANDLED, AND THEN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ALSO HAS A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO THE RECORD REGARDING SPECIAL USES.
FOR THE SPECIAL USES, TONIGHT'S HEARING IS THE ONLY HEARING ON THE PETITION, AND AS THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER, I WILL RENDER A DECISION ON THESE APPLICATIONS. MY DECISIONS WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OF THIS HEARING. NOW, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT PROCESS.
MS. MURPHY: THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. HEARING OFFICER. AGAIN, SHERI MURPHY, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.
TONIGHT'S HEARINGS REGARDING SPECIAL USES IS THE TIME AGAIN TO PRENTTESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT YOU PRESENT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF YOUR PETITION. THIS MEANS AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING THE RECORD WILL CLOSE AND NO NEW ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED.
DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON SPECIAL USES MAY BE APPEALED TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S WRITTEN DECISION. IN MAKING A FINAL DECISION, THE APPEALS BOARD SHALL ONLY CONSIDER TONIGHT'S RECORD, THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION, AND ORAL ARGUMENT BY THE PARTIES PRESENTING, EACH PERSON MUST BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DECISION TO APPEAL THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: THANK YOU. AND THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
MR. COTTO: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANTONIO COTTO. THE LOCATION IS 5522 HANLEY ROAD, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 37646
THIS IS A SMALL RESTAURANT, SPANISH RESTAURANT; A FAMILY RESTAURANT. EVERYBODY GO ENJOY AND EVERYTHING.
ALSO THE CUSTOMER WHEN THEY GO TO EAST THEY ASK ME, WHY YOU HAVE NO WINE, YOU HAVE NO BEER, WE CAN EAT PRETTY NICISM SAY A YEAR AGO I START MY RESTAURANT. WE DO PRETTY GOOD, THANK YOU GOD. NOW I DECIDE TO SATISFY THE FAMILY TO GO TO THE RESTAURANT. I HOPE YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FOR MAKING THIS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HEARING MASTER: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN BUSINESS AT THIS LOCATION?
MR. COTTO: A YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS.
HEARING MASTER: A YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS. OKAY. ARE THIS ANY OTHER AW USES IN THIS SHOPPINGS CENTER THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF.
MR. COTTO: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T KNOW SONOCO CLOSEST WE HAVE.
HEARING MASTER: WHEN YOU COME TO WORK IN THE MORNING, YOU DON'T NOTICE?
MR. COTTO: I JUST GO TO WORK HARD FOR THE PEOPLE, AND THAT'S IT.
HEARING MASTER: YOU'RE ON A MISSION. VERY GOOD.
MR. COTTO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
MS. HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING. MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AS STATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DISTANCE WAIVER TO THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED TO COMMUNITY USES. THE PROPOSED AB CLASSIFICATION IS A 2—COP—RX THAT ALLOWS FOR BEER AND WINE FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH A RESTAURANT.
THE WET ZONE AREA WILL COMPRISE A TOTAL OF 1665.32 SQUARE FEET AND THERE'S NO PROPOSED OUTSIDE WET ZONE AREA, LIKE A PATIO OR DECK OR LOUNGE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5222 HANLEY ROAD. IT'S IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PAULA DRIVE AND HANLEY ROAD. AND AS MR. COTTO STATED, IT WILL BE A RESTAURANT, OR IS AN OPERATING RESTAURANT. AND THE 2—COP IS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE, UNLIKE THE 4—COP—RX'S. THE 2—COP RXS DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THE 4,000 MINIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA OR THE 100 SEATS. THEY JUST HAVE TO STILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF AT LEAST 51 PERCENT OF THEIR REVENUE BEING FROM NON—ALCOHOL AND FOOD SALES.
THERE ARE THREE COMMUNITY USES WHICH EXIST WITHIN THE 500 FOOT DISTANCE FROM THE SITE. THE FIRST ONE IS A CHURCH WITH SCHOOL FACILITIES. THAT IS THE ST. MATTHEW LUTHERAN CHURCH. AND THAT'S LOCATED 197 FEET EAST OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A WAIVER OF 303 FEET.
THE SECOND ONE IS A CHILD CARE CENTER, WHICH IS LA PETITE ACADEMY, LOCATED 198 FEET NORTHWEST. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DISTANCE WAIVER OF 302 FEET.
AND LASTLY A SCHOOL, TOWN N COUNTRY ELEMENTARY, IS LOCATED 427 FEET NORTHEAST, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A WAIVER OF 73 FEET.
THERE ARE NO OTHER WAIVERS REQUESTED. FOR THE RESTAURANT, THERE'S NO CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENT. SO THERE ARE OTHER AB'S IN THE AREA. JUST BASED FROM MY EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA, MOST OF THEM APPEAR TO BE TIED TO LIKE PACKAGE STORES OR SPECIALIZED FOOD MARKETS THAT PROBABLY JUST HAD THE 2 APS OR 1 APS. BUT NONE OF THOSE COUNT IN THE CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENT.
HEARING MASTER: I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.
MS. HEINRICH: MY REMEMBRANCE OF IT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER RESTAURANTS. IT'S NOT A VERY LARGE SHOPPING CENTER.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MS. HEINRICH: THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE WAIVERS IN HIS WRITTEN APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY USES. ALCOHOL SALES WILL BE INCIDENTALLY TO THE PRIMARY RESTAURANT USE. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND/ORIENTED TERRITORIEDS NORTH AWAY FROM THE CHURCH SCHOOL FACILITY THAT'S LOCATED TO THE EAST.
HANLEY ROAD SEPARATES THE SUBJECT SITE FROM THE CHURCH SCHOOL FACILITY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION WILL OCCUR MAINLY IN THE EVENING WITH DINNER SERVICE, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME PEAK OPERATING HOURS AS THE CHILD CARE CENTER, THE CHURCH OR THE SCHOOL FACILITIES.
STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATIONS, AND WE ADD TO THE REPORT THAT THE ACTUAL WALKING DISTANCE TO THE DAY CARE IS LONGER THAN THE STRAIGHT—LINE DISTANCE BECAUSE THAT BUILDING DOES SIT BACK OFF THE ROAD QUITE A BIT. THAT HOLDS TRUE ALSO FOR THE ST. MATTHEW LUTHERAN CHURCH AND FOR THE TOWN AND COUNTRY LEMARY, WHILE JUST A SMALL CORNER IS WITHIN THAT 500 FOOT RADIUS, THE ACTUAL SCHOOL BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED MUCH FURTHER AWAY FROM THAT LITTLE CORNER.
NO AGENCY OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED BY STAFF. AND THEREFORE WE FIND THIS TO BE APPROVABLE, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY REASONS YOU HAVE.
HEARING MASTER: VERY GOOD. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
MR. COTTO: NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HEARING MASTER: NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AND STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE INCOME ITEM.
MR. FERNANDEZ: THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM I5, THE APPLICATION NUMBER AB 13—0066. AND THE APPLICANT IS NORTH DALE MABRY INVESTMENTS. THEY ARE REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE FOR A 4—COP.
MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL RENDER THE STAFF REPORT AFTER THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.
HEARING MASTER: GOOD EVENING.
MR. GREGORY: GOOD EVENING. I AM WILLIAM GREGORY, 715 SWAN AVENUE, TAMPA BAY 33606, FOR THE APPLICANT.
PART OF THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED —— WET ZONED AND HAS GOT AN EXISTING 4—COP LICENSE OPERATING AT THE PRESENT TIME. BUT WE'RE {FOR AN INCREASE TO 6927 SQUARE FEET WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE ENTIRE BUILDING AT QUICK 03 NORTH DALE MABRY AND A PROPOSED OUTDOOR DECK OF APPROXIMATELY I THINK 2200 AND SOME OFF SQUARE FEET.
WHY HAVE —— WE RECEIVED THE STAFF'S COMMENTS LAST THURSDAY, AND BASICALLY IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR OBJECTIONS WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT A ROOF ON TOP OF THE OUTDOOR DECK, AND ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE THE MAJOR COMPLAINT IS BECAUSE WITHIN THE WAIVER AREA THERE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OR CONDOMINIUM, I BELIEVE, WE ALSO INTEND TO PUT A WALL AND ATTACH IT TO THE ROOF ON THE EAST SIDE SO MUSIC, NOISE, ET CETERA, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GETO THE EAST.
HEARING MASTER: WHEN YOU SAY A WALL, WHAT KIND OF WALL?
MR. GREGORY: IT WILL BE A POURED CONCRETE WALL THE NORTH AND THE WEST WILL REMAIN OPEN, WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN. TO THE NORTH IS A CHINESE RESTAURANT WHICH CLOSES —— AS A RESTAURANT, NOW CLOSES ABOUT 10 P.M. THE REST OF THE AREA I BELIEVE IS MOSTLY COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH. TO THE WEST IS DALE MABRY HIGHWAY. AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY PART WE HAVE.
NOW, I HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PLANS THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE A COPY OF THEM. WE CAN GIVE YOU A COPY.
MR. GREGORY: WE ALSO HAVE WHAT I CALLED A TESTIMONIAL, WHICH IS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM 40 OF THE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS, INCLUDING 14 THAT I'VE IDENTIFIED ON THIS THAT LIVE IN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE MAJOR I BELIEVE OBJECTION BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE WAIVER AREA. IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT.
HEARING MASTER: IF YOU DON'T MIND, GIVE IT TO THE CLERK. SHE'S VERY GOOD ABOUT MAKING COPIES AND GETTING THOSE TO ME. THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. GREGORY: I THINK THAT'S IT FOR THE PRESENT TIME.
HEARING MASTER: YOU OR THE OTHER GENTLEMAN, WALK ME THROUGH THE SET OF PLANS YOU JUST GAVE. MY THINK WHAT IT'S SHOWING IS THE OUTSIDE DECK ELEVATION ON THE FIRST SHEET, OR NOT?
MR. PALORI: ACTUALLY, THAT'S A RENDERING OF WHAT THE OUTSIDE WILL LOOK LIKE. MY NAME IS PETE PALORI, 4145 HENDERSON BOULEVARD.
A1.1, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.
HEARING MASTER: YES.
MR. PALORI: IT SHOWS THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE DECK. AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE —— YOU THINK MAYBE I COULD TRY TO SQUEEZE THIS ON THERE?
HEARING MASTER: YOU COULD TRY.
MR. PALORI: CAN YOU SEE THIS? YOU CAN SEE WHAT I SEE, RIGHT?
HEARING MASTER: JUST SLIDE IT DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT.
MR. PALORI: THIS ——
HEARING MASTER: I'M SORRY, SIR. IF YOU COULD, JUST SLIDE THE IMAGE DOWN. MICHELLE, IF YOU COULD HELP. THAT'S BETTER.
MR. PALORI: RIGHT THERE IN.
HEARING MASTER: YES.
MR. PALORI: OKAY. THIS IS THE OUTSIDE DECK RIGHT HERE WHERE YOU SEE THE LINES GOING UP AND DOWN LIKE THIS. THESE WOULD BE THE TABLES. THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, THIS IS THE BACK OF MY CURRENT BUILDING RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS CONCRETE. AND HERE'S WHERE THE DECK WOULD BE ON THE SIDE. THESE LINES RIGHT HERE, THAT LINE, THAT IS A POURED CONCRETE WALL, AND THEN IT COMES UP THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AS WELL, NOT JUST IN THE BACK.
HEARING MASTER: MICHELLE, SLIDE THE GRAPHIC OVER.
MR. PALORI: OKAY. RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF THE RULER, DO YOU SEE THAT? THAT'S ALSO A POURED CONCRETE WALL.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. PALORI: AND THEN ABOVE THIS ——
MR. PALORI: THAT WALL IS ON THE EAST PART OF THE PROPOSED OUTDOOR DECK.
MR. PALORI: THIS PART RIGHT HERE IS A ROOF OVER MUCH OF THE DECK, ABOUT HALF OF IT. BUT IF YOU LOOK RIGHT HERE, THIS SPACE RIGHT HERE, THE ROOF STARTS HERE AND HERE, SO THE DECK WOULD BE EXPOSED HERE. WHAT I'M DOING IS I'M PUTTING A ROOF THAT'S ATTACHED TO THIS ROOF OVER THE DECK AND GOING DOWN TO THE CONCRETE WALL AND THEN I'M GOING TO INSULATE THIS ROOF WITH R—30 INSULATION.
HEARING MASTER: SO THAT THERE'S A SEAMLESS TRANSITION FROM THE ROOF TO THE WALL.
MR. PALORI: YES, SIR.
HEARING MASTER: NO GAP.
MR. PALORI: NO, SIR. AND I ALSO HAVE A PICTURE OF IT THAT I CAN SHOW YOU THAT MY ARCHITECT DID.
MR. PALORI: IT'S C1.2, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT. THE BOTTOM RENDERING IS THE OUTSIDE DECK.
HEARING MASTER: I'VE GOT IT.
MR. PALORI: CAN YOU SEE IT?
HEARING MASTER: YES.
MR. PALORI: SO, NOW WE CAN SEE. THIS WALL RIGHT HERE IS THE WALL THAT I SAID WOULD BE GOING UP THE SIDE OF THE DECK, OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS THE ROOF THAT WOULD BE ABOVE IT. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE BIG ROOF OVER THE DECK RIGHT HERE, AND THEN THIS IS THE SIDE OF THE CONCRETE WALL WITH THE OTHER ROOF.
AND THEN THESE WILL BE ATTACHED ON THE INSIDE AND IT WILL BE ALL INSULATED, SO THEREFORE IF I DO HAVE LIVE MUSIC —— MIND YOU, THIS IS GOING TO BE —— I DON'T KNOW IF YOU —— HAVE YOU SEEN PJ'S, THE LIQUOR STORE NORTH DALE MABRY ON THE RIGHT?
HEARING MASTER: EXISTING PJ'S.
MR. PALORI: IT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER. MY FATHER AND GRANDFATHER HAVE HAD IT. IT'S BASICALLY THE UGLIEST THING ON DALE MABRY NOW. AND VILLAGE INN HAS REDEVELOPED TWICE. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS. WHAT WE HAVE THERE NOW IS WE HAVE A PACKAGED STORE WITH A BAR IN THE REAR. BACK IN THE '70S AND '80S WHEN MY FATHER AND GRANDFATHER DID THIS, THIS WAS LIKE THE IN THING.
WELL, NOW IT'S MORE OF A YOUNGER CROWD. I'VE GOT CHEAP DRINKS, SO I GET ALL THE LEFT—OVERS FROM PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T GO OTHER PLACES. AND I'M NOT HAPPY WITH IT.
I'M 32 YEARS OLD NOW. I HAVE A BABY ON THE WAY. I HAVE COME INTO THIS BUSINESS AND I'VE BEEN IN THE BAR BUSINESS AND I DON'T WANT MY CHILDREN TO COME INTO IT. SO WHAT I'M DOING IS, YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE FOOD IN HERE. I'M 4—COP. I CAN SELL BOOZE, WHICH EVERYBODY —— I'M SURE YOU SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT RESTAURANTS THAT WANT TO ADD BOOZE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS.
I WANT TO CHANGE IT TO MAKE IT MORE OF A —— I'M A TAMPA BAY 5TH GENERATION, FLORIDA. WHAT I'M DOING HERE IS A FLORIDA BUILDING WITH THE ALUMINUM ROOF. I'M HAVING GRAY'S TAXIDERMY BUILD ME A 15—FOOT FIBERGLASS BLUE MARLIN.
IT'S GOING TO BE ALL FLORIDA PRODUCTS. LET'S SAY IF I CAN GET FLORIDA MAHI MAHI FRESH, AND FRESH CANTALOUPE. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE DISHES. I'M FROM FLORIDA, I LOVE FLORIDA, I'M TIRED OF PERSONALLY SEEING EVERYTHING FROM EVERYWHERE ELSE AND I WANT TO SUPPORT FLORIDA. YOU CAN'T GET THAT HERE. YOU GO TO A PLACE IN FLORIDA AND THEY GO, THE FISH OF THE DAY IS ALASKAN SALMON? REALLY? WHERE YOU GOT THAT HERE?
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS JUST BRING OLD REAL FLORIDA HERE AND KIND OF —— RIGHT NOW OUR AGE GROUP I WOULD SAY IS 21 TO 35, AND MY BUSINESS —— I'M BUSY FROM MIDNIGHT TO 3, YOU KNOW. PEOPLE GO OUT TO GREEN IGUANA OR THEY GO TO OTHER PLACES AND THEN THEY COME TO MY PLACE AT THE END OF THE NIGHT AND CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR ME, AFTER THEY GOT, YOU KNOW —— SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I WANT TO BE 30 AND UP.
I'M NOT GOING TO BE PLAYING ANY HEAVY METAL. I'M NOT GOING TO BE PLAYING ANY HIP—HOP OR OTHER THINGS. I WANT TO PLAY STEEL DRUMS, JIMMY BUFFET UKNOW, SOMETHING MORE OF A MORE TROPICAL LAID BACK. I WANT —— I'LL BE HOPE UNTIL 3, BUT I WANT THE CROWD THAT COMES IN FOR HAPPY HOUR, DINNER, AND THEN YOU KNOW, MIDNIGHT, AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIKE TO COME OUT AND JUST ENJOY THEMSELVES.
AND I'M GOING TO SURROUND THE PROPERTY IN PALM TREES AND I'M GOING TO HAVE THAT SOFT WHITE SAND THAT WE ALL LOVE AT CLEARWATER BEACH WITH YOU WALK ON IT. I WANT TO ADD THAT AROUND THE BUCK. BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE UP IN NORTH TAMPA FROM THE PEOPLE THAT WE'VE HEARD OF, IF THEY WANT A SEAFOOD DINNER OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU HAVE TO GETO SALT ROCK, YOU HAVE TO GO TO SOMEWHERE ON THE BEACH. THAT'S THREE HOURS AWAY.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I'M TRYING TO BRING WHAT YOU CAN GET OUT THERE OVER HERE. BECAUSE I HAD TO FIND A NICHE. AND MY NICHE —— THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THERE LIKE THAT.
HEARING MASTER: LET ME ASK YOU. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING BUILDING OR TRY TO PUT STUDS ——
MR. PALORI: I'M BASICALLY GOING TO USE THE WALL. MY PACKAGE STORE WILL STAY OPEN FOR BUSINESS THE WHOLE TIME BECAUSE THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT'S GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THIS.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. PALORI: BUT I'M GOING TO ADD SOME WALLS. BUT LIKE RIGHT NOW, IT'S LIKE EIGHT FOOT CEILINGS IN THERE. IF YOU SEE ON HERE, THERE'S GOING TO BE THESE BIG TRUSSES AND EVERYTHING AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE ALL THE TRUSSES OPEN IN THERE. I'M GOING TO PUT SOME DORMERS ON THE ROOF AND HAVE IT ALL LIT UP IN THERE. IT'S GOING TO BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEME FROM WHAT IT IS NOW.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. I GOT A VERY GOOD IDEA WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
MR. PALORI: OKAY.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. PALORI: YES. JUST ONE OTHER POINT. PART OF THE FILE ALREADY INCLUDES A SURVOY THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING WET ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND THERE IS A COVERED WOOD PATIO ALREADY WITHIN THE WET ZONING THAT HAS SPEAKERS ON IT, THAT PLAYS MUSIC NOW FROM THE BAR.
AND MR. PALORI HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION THERES ANYBODY, THE APARTMENTS TO THE EAST, AND HE HAS EXISTING MUSIC THAT'S ALREADY GOING OUT.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. PALORI: I HAVE THAT PIECE OF PAPER I CAN SHOW YOU ON HERE.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. IF YOU PUT IT ON THE ELMO, I THINK HTV WILL PICK UP ON THE ELMO.
MR. PALORI: THE SHADED—IN AREA IS THE ORIGINAL 4—COP ZONING DONE BACK IN 1964. AND THERE IS A WOOD PATIO RIGHT THERE ON THE SIDE OF MY BUILDING. NOW, THE WHOLE —— THIS IS MY STRUCTURE RIGHT HERE. THE PATIO I'D BE BUILDING IS ON THIS SIDE OVER HERE.
AND ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE COVERED PATIO THAT'S ON THIS SIDE OVER HERE, THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE COVERED IN, CONCRETE WALLED, SOLID BUILDING. AND THE RESIDENTIAL IS CLOSER TO THIS COVERED WOOD PATIO, AND THERE'S NO WALL ON THE BACK OF HERE ON THE COVERED PATIO BLOCKING ANY NOISE GOING BACK THERE.
SO I'M MOVING THE PATIO TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING FURTHER AWAY, WHICH WE HAVE —— HAD OUR SURVEYOR COME UP WITH IT. IT'S ABOUT 210—AND—A—HALF FEET AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS. AND WE WILL ALSO BE PUTTING A CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ON THE BACK OF IT. SO IN MY MIND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE CUSTOMERS THAT I'VE DESCRIBED THAT I HAVE NOW, IF NOBODY COMPLAINED ABOUT THEM ON THIS PATIO OVER HERE, WITH NO WALL, IMAGINE MY CUSTOMERS THAT I WANT TO HAVE IN THERE WITH A BLOCK WALL.
AND AROUND MY AREA OVER HERE IS ALL WETLANDS, SO DIFFERENT FROM BEFORE, I'M ACTUALLY HAPPY ABOUT THE WETLANDS. BECAUSE IT'S A HUGE SWAMP BACK HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN UP THERE. MY FATHER ACTUALLY USED TO TAKE ME BACK THERE WHEN I WAS EIGHT AND WE'D PUT CRAWFISH TRAPS. BUT THE SOUND WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SWAMP AND BACK AROUND AND COME AROUND BACK TO THE APARTMENTS.
AND PLUS WITH THIS, I WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO —— I WANT TO BUILD THE WALL. I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE PROBLEMS. I DON'T WANT TO NEED TO BE ON BAY NEWS NINE, BUSINESS MAN PISSES OFF COMMUNITY. I'M GOING TO PUT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IN THIS. IF I PISS OFF THE COMMUNITY OR UPSET THE COMMUNITY, PARDON MY LANGUAGE, IT'S ONLY GOING TO HURT ME. AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE HAPPY.
I WANT THE PEOPLE COMING HOME FROM WORK TO THESE CONDOS TO COME IN AND HAVE A FISH SANDWICH AND HAVE A DRINK. SO IT'S IN MY BEST INTEREST TO MAKE THE COMMUNITY HAPPY AND BUILD A NICE —— I MEAN, LIKE I TOLD YOU, IF YOU'VE BEEN THERE, PJ'S IS THE UGLIEST THING UP THERE. VILLAGE INN AND KFC ARE NICER. AND I WANT TO BE A NICE PART OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.
HEARING MASTER: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. GREGORY THAT, CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
MR. GREGORY YES, SIR, THAT CONCLUDES OUR TESTIMONY.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
MS. HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING. MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AS YOU HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER FOR A EXPANDED 4—COP, AND THAT ALLOWS FOR BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR FOR SALE AND CONSUCHTION BOTH ON AND OFF THE PREMISES. THE WET ZONE AREA, WITH THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED, WOULD BE 6927 SQUARE FEET. AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE AN AREA OF 2,747 SQUARE FEET OF OUTSIDE PATIO AREAS.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED CG AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY AND WEST HUMPHREY STREET. THE SITE IS AN EXISTING PACKAGED STORE AND SPORTS RESTAURANT OR SPORTS BAR AND DOES CURRENTLY HAVE AN OUTSIDE PATIO, AND THAT PATIO SIZE IS 470 SQUARE FEET, AND IT'S LOC ALONG THE SOUTH. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT REFERENCED THAT. AND I ALSO HAVE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SITE TO GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA OF THE EXISTING PATIO.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MS. HEINRICH: THIS IS THE EXISTING PATIO ALONG THE SOUTH. IT RUNS LOOM THE ENTIRE LENGTH. AND SOME OF IT IS OPEN ON THE BACK THAT FACES TOWARDS THE EAST.
AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE PROPERTY WAS WET ZONED IN 1964. IT WAS KNOWN AS JOANNE'S TAP ROOM, AND I ALSO SAW IN THE RECORDS IT LISTED AS CARROLLWOOD LOUNGE. AND IT WAS APPROVED FOR A 4—COP. IT WAS APPROVED FOR NOT THE EXACT SAME CONFIGURATION THAT THE BUILDING IS TODAY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS. HOWEVER, IN THIS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO RECOGNIZE THAT EXISTING PORTION.
THE AREA OUTLINED IN YELLOW IS WHAT WAS WET ZONED IN 1964. THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE BUILDING AND OUTSIDE AREA DOES LIE WITHIN THAT. HOWEVER, RIGHT UP IN HERE IS A PACKAGE STORE. I CANNOT FIND ANY APPROVAL FOR THAT. I DO KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. BUT THE APPLICANTS ARE INCLUDED THAT IN THEIR APPLICATION. WHICH YOU'LL SEE HERE. THIS IS THE PACKAGE STORE THAT THEY WANT TO EXPAND, AND THIS IS THE OUTSIDE PATIO WHICH IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AREZ DID. THEREFORE, A WAIVER OF 159. SEVEN FT. IS REQUIRED. THE COUNTY REQUIREMENT IS 250 FEET.
THE PROPERTY IS CONSTRUCTED AND USED FOR MULTI—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. IT HAS MULTIPLE STORIES AND OUTSIDE BALCONIES. NO COMMUNITY USES EXIST WITHIN 500 FEET AND NO WAIVER TO THE CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENT IS REQUIRED.
I DID JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU A QUICK AERIAL. THIS IS THE WET ZONE SURVEY. THIS IS THE PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE DISTANCE TO THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL. THE COMPLEX DOES KIND OF WRAP AROUND HERE SO THERE IS AN AREA OF WETLANDS THAT'S ZONED CG THAT IS HERE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE RESIDENCES HERE AS WELL, WHICH IS THE CLOSEST. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE AERIAL THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP. THIS IS THAT BOTTOM PORTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS WHERE THE CLOSEST ARE, WHICH IS THE LITTLE OVER 90 FEET.
THE APPLICANT DID STATE IN THE APPLICATION SOME WAIVERS FOR THEIR REQUEST. THEY STATED THAT THE EXPANSION WILL NOT INTENSIFY THE EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY; THAT THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST BY TREES, A WETLAND AND A NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING, AND THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH —— I'M SORRY —— TO THE WEST BY NORTHDALE MAYBERY. HOWEVER THAT RESIDENTIAL FALLS OUTSIDE THE 250—FOOT RADIUS SO THERE'S NO WAIVER NEEDED OVER THERE.
STAFF IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THOSE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE OUTSIDE PATIO. WHILE THE EXPANSION WILL NOT INTENSIFY THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PERMIT, THE CURRENT USE OCCURS MAINLY INSIDE THE BUILDING AND A SMALL PATIO AREA ALONG THE SOUTHERN FACADE.
THE PLACEMENT OF A 2,277 SQUARE FEET OUTSIDE PATIO WILL CREATE AN INCREASE IN ACTIVITY, NOISE, AND THEREFORE IMPACTING THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL. THE SITE DOES CURRENTLY OPERATE AS A SPORTS BAR WHICH UNLIKE A RESTAURANT WILL OPERATE PAST 12 MIDNIGHT.
THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS DONE IN 1964, AND AT THAT TIME THERE WERE NO REQUIREMENTS TO BE AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL. HOWEVER, NOW WE DO HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THE MAJORITY OF THE SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO USES CONSISTS OF A PARKING LOT WHICH SERVES THE EXISTING USE AND WOULD BE ACTIVE DURING THE SITE'S HOURS OF OPERATIONS. SO THE PATIO WOULD BE IN USE AS LONG AS —— OR THE PARKING LOT WOULD BE USED, WHICH IS MUCH CLOSER THAN THE WET ZONED AREA IF THE PATIO WERE CONSTRUCTED.
AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET IS NOT USED FOR PARKING AND CONTAINS TREES, GRASS AND SOME PLANTINGS. A SIX—FOOT HIGH WOODEN FENCE IS LOCATED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. STAFF DOES NOT VIEW THESE AS ENOUGH TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. THOUGH THE LARGE WETLAND AREA EXISTS TO THE NORTHEAST TO THE SITE, NOT TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PATIO AND RESIDENTIAL.
AND STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PATIO BUT DOES FIND THE PACKAGE STORE WET ZONING TO BE APPROVABLE, WHICH IS THE INSIDE NORTHERN HALF CURRENTLY EXISTING SITE. AND I WOULD ALSO JUST SHOW TO YOU —— AND THESE ARE ALL IN OPTIX, THE PICTURES HERE.
THIS IS THE VIEW TO THE RESIDENTIAL FROM BEHIND THE BUILDING. THIS IS THE FENCE ASK THE RESIDENTIAL USES THROUGH THE TREES. IF YOU STEPPED A LITTLE CLOSER WITHIN THE PARKING LOT, THIS IS THE TYPICAL TREE LINE BETWEEN THERE.
AND I WOULD ALSO JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD STAFF DOES APPRECIATE THE I GUESS IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE AS FAR AS THE WALL AND THE COVER AND THE SOUNDPROOFING. HOWEVER, WE THINK AT THAT DISTANCE TO RESIDENTIAL, WE STILL WOULD NOT FIND THAT APPROVABLE. AND SO FOR THE PATIO, WE DO NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL. FOR THE EXISTING PACKAGE STORE EXPANSION THAT'S INSIDE, STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT. AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
HEARING MASTER: I GUESS YOU JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT THE DRAWINGS. HAVE YOU SEEN THE DRAWINGS BEFORE TONIGHT?
MS. HEINRICH: NO, SIR.
HEARING MASTER: ABOUT HAVING A WALL ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY OR ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING?
MS. HEINRICH: NO, SIR. I DON'T KNOW IF MY SUPERVISOR ——
HEARING MASTER: AND THEN A ROOF THAT WOULD GO OVER THE TOP?
MS. HEINRICH: RIGHT. HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL BE OPEN ON THE SIDE, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD STOP ANY ISSUES THAT COULD OCCUR LATE IN THE EVENING. UNLIKE A LOT OF RESTAURANTS THAT MIGHT STOP AT NINE OR SO, WITH HAVING A 4—COP, IT WOULD OPERATE AS A BAR, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY RAND WE FEEL THE IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE OCCURRING ON THE OUTSIDE WOULD NOT BE MITIGATED THROUGH THE ROOF AND ONE WALL.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. THE TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT TALKED ABOUT THE EXISTING LIQUOR STORE WOULD CONTINUE TO STAY IN BUSINESS FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. WHAT IS A LIQUOR STORE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ZONING SPECIAL USE PERMIT? IS IT A 3—PS?
MS. HEINRICH: YEAH. YOU CAN DO 4—COP OR 3—PS. SOME DO 4—COPS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TASTINGS, YOU KNOW, LIKE A WINE TASTING OR SPECIAL EVENT.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. 4—COP WOULD COVER THE LIQUOR STORE AS WELL AS THE RESTAURANT BAR.
MS. HEINRICH: YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT EXPANSION TOOK PLACE. I DID REVIEW AERIALS. IT WAS PRETTY HARD TO TELL, GIVEN THE QUALITY AT THE TIME. WHEN EXACTLY IT OCCURRED. BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
HEARING MASTER: FOR THE RECORD, THE OUTSIDE PATIO AREA IS 2,277 SQUARE FEET?
MS. HEINRICH: YES.
HEARING MASTER: BECAUSE I SAW ELSEWHERE IN THE STAFF REPORT DIFFERENT NUMBERS.
MS. HEINRICH: THE NUMBERS UP TOP, THE 2747 THAT CONTACTS FOR THE EXISTING PATIO ON THE SOUTH END.
HEARING MASTER: COMBINING THE TWO. BUT THE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT WAS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ENCLOSE THE SOUTHERN PATIO.
MS. HEINRICH: OKAY. THEN THAT WOULD JUST BE FOR THE OUTSIDE PATIO ON THE NORTH.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MS. HEINRICH: WHICH IS THE 4,277.
HEARING MASTER: 2,277.
MS. HEINRICH: UH—HUH.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND.
MS. HEINRICH: THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
MR. CIANCIOLA: ONCE AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, DOMINIC COAMCOP;A, LAST CALL TRAINING, 918 EAST MCBERRY.
I'M IN FAVOR FOR IT. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE A LITTLE OPPOSITION ON THE PATIO ON THE REAR SIDE CLOSSEST TO THE RESIDENTS. I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY WHERE ELLIS FOLK RESTAURANT IS AND THERE'S NO MUSIC PLAYED OUTSIDE AND IT'S A VERY RELAXING ENVIRONMENT. IT HAS A VERY LARGE UPSCALE BURGER PRICE AND NICE SEAFOOD QUALITY. THEREFORE, WITHOUT SOUND OUTSIDE MAYBE THE NEIGHBORS WON'T BE DISTURBED ON THIS PATIO.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I'D RECOMMEND THERE'S A RESPONSIBLE VENDOR TRAINING PROGRAM IN PLACE WHERE HE ACTUALLY UPHOLDS TO THE 1986 RESPONSIBLE VENDOR ACT TRAINING IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANY OVERSERVICE OR ANY LOUD INVOLVEMENT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S TRYING TO BRING THE AGE LEVEL UP WHERE THERE IS A LOT MORE RESPONSIBLE VENDORS DINING IN HIS RESTAURANT, AND IT ALSO SOUND LIKE HE MAY PRICE OUT HIS RESTAURANT TO A LARGER SCALE WHERE HE MAY PRICE OUT THE YOUNGER GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS.
BUT BY REMOVING OUTSIDE MUSIC, OKAY, THAT MAY HELP AND ASSIST YOUR DECISION, JUST AS IT IS AT ELLA'S AND MANY RESTAURANTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AND THROUGHOUT THE CITY, THAT LIVE POTENTIALLY RIGHT IN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS IT ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
MR. FERNANDEZ: JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TODAY, STAFF DIDN'T RECEIVE. IT THEY WERE PRESENTED AT THIS HEARING. AND THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. AND THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
MR. GREGORY: AGAIN, WILLIAM GREGORY FOR THE APPLICANT.
AS STAFF MENTIONED, LEGALLY, TECHNICALLY IT IS 90 FEET FROM THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT REALISTICALLY FOR PURPOSES OF SOUND, ET CETERA, IT'S 2 PEN .5 FEET TO THE NEAREST BUILDING. THAT'S WHAT MR. PALORI IS PUTTING ON THE ELMO. SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL WITHIN THE WAIVER REQUIRED, IT'S NOT NEARLY AS FAR AS 159.7 FEET. SO FOR SOUND TO GET TO THE FIRST BUILDING, IT'S 210.5 FEET.
SECOND, REFERRING TO THE ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY MAP OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, WHICH INCLUDES THIS PARTICULAR AREA, YOU'LL NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DECK IS SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE EAST OF IT IS A VERY LARGE AREA OF TREES AND SWAMP. WHAT STAFF IS GIVING YOU IS TELLING YOU, OH, IT'S REALLY —— YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BUILDING, THE EXISTING BUILDING, TO GET THE MUSIC FROM THE NORTH NEW PROPOSED DECK TO THE PARTICULAR —— THE CLOSEST PARTICULAR BUILDING OF THE APARTMENT.
AND THIRD, AND I THINK OF MOST IMPORTANCE, IS I HAVE RESIDENTS OF THE APARTMENT CONDOMINIUM SAYING THAT THEY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION. AND I WOULD ASK MS. HEINRICH —— SHE'S NOT HERE —— IS HAVE THEY RECEIVED ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANY —— HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANY OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE APARTMENT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX?
MS. HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH, PLANNING GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PHONE CALLS OR EMAILS.
MR. GREGORY: OKAY. SO THEY HAVE NO OBJECTIONS FROM ANY OF THE RESIDENCE, AND I HAVE TESTIMONIALS FROM AT LEAST 14 THAT I PICKED UP FROM THE ADDRESSES. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AND STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
MR. FERNANDEZ: THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM I6, THE APPLICATION IS AB 13—0113. AND THE APPLICANT IS JIUSEPPE MASCALI. HE'S LOOKING FOR A SPECIAL USE —— JIUSEPPE MASCALI; IS THAT CORRECT? AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE AB 4—COP. MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL RENDER THE REPORT AFTER THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.
MR. MASCALI: MY NAME IS JIUSEPPE MASCALI. I'M THE OWNER. THAT'S THE SECOND TIME I APPLY FOR THE SAME THING. I ALREADY BE GRANTED IN 2008. I JUST WAS ASKING FOR ADDITION. I'M BACK AGAIN. I DO ALL THIS, WASTED FOUR MONTHS OF MY TIME. I RENTED THE PLACE AND NOW I GOT TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON, BECAUSE IT JUST WAS ADDITION. I DON'T NEED TO REAPPLY THE OLD THING. I JUST BE APPROVED GRANTED IN 2008.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. CIANCIOLA: DOMINIC CIANCIOLA, REPRESENTATIVE OF JIUSEPPE.
I CAN TAKE YOU A WALK BACK IN TIME, TRY TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA ABOUT HIS OPERATION. HE'S BEEN IN OPERATION SINCE 1989. SINCE 1989, HIS COMMUNITY, THE LUTZ COMMUNITY, HAS DEVELOPED BY 50 PERCENT. AND SINCE THE YEAR 2000, THERE'S BEEN A 20 PERCENT INCREASE OF RESIDENTS IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THEREFORE, HIS RESTAURANT IS A VERY UPSCALE RESTAURANT. THERE'S A HARP PLAYING IN IT IN THE DINING ROOM AND IT'S A MUCH HIGHER QUALITY LEVEL OF RESTAURANT AS OPPOSED TO THE BEEF OBRADY'S AND HIS NEIGHBORING ATTRIBUTES THAT HE NEEDS THE WAIVER FOR.
WE'RE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE FEW WAIVERS. THE FIRST WEAR THAT WE'RE HERE TO ADDRESS IS THE 500 FOOT STANDINGAV I CHURCH. THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO CHURCHES. ONE OF THEM IS VACANT.
I DID REQUEST FROM STAFF THAT THEY CALL THEIR APPRAISER'S OFFICE, BECAUSE UNDER FURTHER DUE RESEARCH I FOUND OUT THROUGH THE AOPERATESER'S OFFICE THEY WERE UNABLE TO GIVE ME DOCUMENTATION THAT THAT CHURCH WAS VACANT. BUT UNDER THE APPRAISAL, THERE'S NOT A CHURCH WITHIN THAT ESTABLISHMENT ON THE FLAGSHIP DRIVE ADDRESS.
THE SECOND CHURCH THAT IS PART OF OUR ADDRESS TODAY IS THE WELL OF LIFE —— THE SUNRISE WORSHIP CENTER, WHICH IS ACROSS THE MEDIUM OF ROUTE 41. YOU'LL FIND THAT ROUTE 41 HAS A MEDIAN IN THE MIDDLE OF IT AND IN FRONT OF MR. JIUSEPPE'S RESTAURANT THERE IS ABOUT A 12, 14 FOOT MEDIAN THERE AS PEOPLE ARE ENTERING AND EXITING HIS RESTAURANT. THERE WILL BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THAT CHURCH.
WE RECEIVED THE MAIL BACK FROM THAT CHURCH PRIOR TO CHRISTMAS WHEN STAFF WAS ON HOLIDAY BREAK, I WAS ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT THE STAFF, WHICH BUMPED OFF HIS HEARING DATE AND AN EXTRA CHARGE TO MOVE IT OFF DUE TO THE FACT OF THE FACT AND FINDINGS.
THE CHURCH, SUNRISE WORSHIP CHURCH IS OWNED BY LUTZ CHURCH WHICH IS UP ON —— WHICH IS ON MY MAILING LIST. LET ME PUT THIS UP HERE FOR YOU. HERE'S MY CERTIFIED MAILING LIST THAT'S COMING UP IN FRONT OF YOU.
ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST COLUMN, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE FIRST CHURCH OF GOD, INCORPORATED, IS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER OF WELL OF LIFE CHURCH. WELL OF LIFE CHURCH DOES NOT RECEIVE MAIL AT THAT PRIOR LOCATION. HOWEVER, AT THE P.O. BOX THEY DID RECEIVE MY MAIL ON MY FIRST APPLICATION PROCESS.
I WAS INSTRUCTED BY COUNSEL THAT I —— OR PLANNING THAT I HAD TO RE—MAIL EVERYBODY AGAIN, LOSING AN EXTRA MONTH OF TIME, AND A FINANCIAL EXPENSE OF $107.50 AS OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE COUNSEL WAS ON HOLIDAY DURING THE CHRISTMAS BREAK BEFORE I WAS ABLE TO HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION, AND THE LACK OF THEIR CALLING BACK.
SO WE GOT A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION. WE MISSED VOLENTINE'S DAY AND WE'RE STANDING IN FRONT OF YOU, AND AS WE GO FORWARD YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE GREEN SQUARES ON THAT MAILING LIST. THOSE GREEN SQUARES ARE ACTUALLY THE UNNEEDED, UNCALLED FOR RECEIPTS OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT ACTUALLY APPROVE THIS PLAN AND THIS ENLARGEMENT OF THE PLAN.
THE MAP IN FRONT OF ME WILL IDENTIFY THAT THESE NEIGHBORS —— AND I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT YOU EVIDENCE TO THESE. AND I'VE GOT COPIES FOR YOU. THAT THESE NEIGHBORS HAVE SIGNED OFF, AND IT'S THE NEIGHBOR TO ITS NORTH, THE NEIGHBOR TO ITS EAST, THE NEIGHBOR WHO DOORS BEHIND HIM, AND TWO LARGE—SCALE NEIGHBORS, TWO LARGE—SCALE NEIGHBORS THAT OWN A PRETTY LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE NUMBERS ON THE GREEN AND YELLOW PLOTS STRAIGHT BEHIND HIM.
BEHIND HIM THERE'S A VACANT PROPERTY THAT'S UNDERDEVELOPED.
YOU'LL NOTICE RIGHT THERE WHERE THE 510 IS ACTUALLY WHERE THE LIFE LIFE CHURCH USED TO STAND. AND I'LL POINT IT OUT TO YOU.
RIGHT HERE IS THIS PROPERTY. DOWN HERE IS THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF HIM, THERE'S A WELL OF LIFE CHURCH THERE. NOW VACANT. AND REQUESTED THAT COUNSEL ACTUALLY CHECKED WITH THE APPRAISER'S OFFICE TO VERIFY THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE THAT INFORMATION CAN'T BE GIVEN OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
AND YOUR APPLICATION PROCESS, WHEN I SUBMITTED MY DOCUMENTS, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE SUNRISE WORSHIP CHURCH, THE MAIL WAS SENT BACK AND IT'S THE SAME EXACT PROPERTY BY FOLIO NUMBER AS LUTZ CHURCH OF GOD. SO HE'S UP AGAINST A WALL AND HE'S MISSED A FEW HOLIDAYS ALREADY DUE TO THE PROGRESS.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON THE WAIVER OF THE CHURCH, THE SUNRISE CHURCH, I GOT MY NEXT PHOTO UP HERE FOR YOU. MY NEXT PHOTO IS PRESENTED AT THE ELMO THERE. AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT ROUTE 41 DOES HAVE A MEDIAN IN. THE RED DOT THERE IS ACTUALLY MR. JIUSEPPE'S VILLAGE AJEEL. AND THE TWO BOTTOM ONES IS THE STARTING POINT AND THE VIEW POINT FROM THE CHURCH TO THE RESTAURANT AND FROM THE RESTAURANT TO THE CHURCH. SO THAT'S NO DIRECT ACCESS TO HIS PROPERTY AT ALL.
KEEPING FAMILIES SAFE. AND WHAT HE'S ATTEMPTING TO DO IS HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS, GROWING HIS OPERATION ALLOWS HIM TO HAVE PRIVATE ROOMS WHERE THE KIDS CAN BE PLAYING AND DINNERS LIKE THAT.
AND I'LL TRADE OFF TO GIVE YOU A HISTORY AND TIME OF PRIOR PERMITS. IN 2008, THE STATE ACTUALLY APPROVED FROM POINT A ALL THE WAY TO POINT B AND THEN THE FULL EXPENDED PATIO AS BEING WET ZONED. THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH THIS IS THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE —— YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE AN ALCOHOLIC ESTABLISHMENT AND RE—ENTER A DIFFERENT ALCOHOLIC ESTABLISHMENT. WE APPLIED FOR A 4—COP AND WE WERE DENIED THAT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE WET ZONING DID NOT HAVE THE PROPER WET ZONE APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY. OKAY.
WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE IS ACTUALLY INCREASE OUR WET ZONING TO COVER THE ADDITION —— HANG ON. I GOT MY ADDITION UP THERE. BUT TO COVER A FEW ADDITIONS HERE. FIRST OFF IS A CONCRETE PATIO. BECAUSE HE HAS A WINE TASTING ROOM BACK HERE THAT HAS ABOUT 20 SEATS. PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE AND BREATHE AND SMOKE OR DO WHAT THEY WANT, THEY HAVE TO WALK ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE RESTAURANT, DISTURBING THE RESTAURANT, WITH THEY COULD BE OUT ON THIS COVERED PATIO ENJOYING THE WINE ACTIVITYING AND UPSELLING HIS WINE THAT HE SELLS FOR OFF PREMISE CONSUMPTION.
AND WE INCLUDED THE CONCRETE WALKWAY ON THIS SIDE, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY THEY CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A COVERED PATIO. SO WHERE HE'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEVENING ON THAT PATIO THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. HE'S DONE SOME EXTENSION AND SOME REALLY COST EXPENSE ITCH ADDITIONAL STUFF TO IT.
AND YOU'LL NOTICE HERE ON THIS ONE, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. AN ALLSTATE OUTFIT WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. HE PUT ANOTHER DINING ROOM ON TO HIS RESTAURANT. THE HARP PLAYER PLAYS ABOUT HERE. IF THERE'S CHILDREN THIS THIS ROOM, THOSE THAT WANT TO ENJOY THE HARP PLAYER CAN'T REALLY HEAR THE HARP PLAYER. BUT THE CHILDREN IN THIS ROOM CAN ACTUALLY DINE WITH THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILY AS HE WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR CATERING FUNCTIONS.
THE SECOND ROOM THAT HE'D LIKE TO ADD ON WOULD BE A BACK AREA ROOM ONCE AGAIN AS ANOTHER TASTING ROOM, THEREFORE SERVICEABILITY. SO HE REALLY, A, NEEDS THE INCREASE TO A 4—COP ON AND OFF PREMISE FOR TWO REASONS: ONE, HE WANTS TO SELL UPSCALE ITALIAN WINES THROUGHOUT THE HOLIDAY SEASONS.
HE WOULD LIKE HIS TASTINGS ON PREMISE WHERE HE CAN ACTUALLY POUR ON PREMISE SO WHERE INDIVIDUALS CAN TASTE THE WINE THAT THEY'RE PURCHASING. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, HE CAN ALSO QUALIFY FOR THE FULL DINING VENUE SRX THAT ALLOWS HIM ON HIS EXISTING AND HIS BUILD—OUT IN ORDER TO HAVE HIS OPERATION RUNNING AT A LOWERER COST AND MORE FEASIBILITY IN ORDER TO EMPLOY MORE NEIGHBORS.
AS I STATED, LUTZ GREW BY 50 PERCENT SINCE 1990. HIS RESTAURANT HASN'T CHANGED. HE'S A COMMUNITY, HE'S PUT A LOT OF PEOPLE TO WORK IN THE COMMUNITY, HE PAYS WORKMAN'S COMP, AND HE'S GREAT TO THE COUNTY AND TO THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY. SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THIS EXPANSION, AND THERE SHOULD BE REALLY NOT A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTION ABOUT IT, BEING THAT HE WAS THERE PRIOR TO MOST OF THE BUILDUP IN LUTZ. THANK YOU.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, SIR. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
MS. HEINRICH: WE JUST HAVE TO GO OVER OUR STAFF REPORT. I'LL MAKE IT QUICK.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MS. HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AS YOU HEARD, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER FOR A 4—COP, AND THAT ALLOWS FOR BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF THE PREMISES. THE WET ZONE AREA WILL COMPRISE OF 7,114 SQUARE FEET, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE 1,137 SQUARE FEET OF OUTSIDE PATIO AREAS THAT THE GENTLEMAN OUTLINED FOR YOU THAT THEY'RE SEEKING.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 41, AND THE SUBJECT SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR A 4—COP UNDER SPECIAL USE PERMIT 08—0511. AND AS YOU SAW, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO EXPANELED THE INSIDE AND INCLUDE SOME OUTSIDE PATIO AREAS.
THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS FOR A TOTAL OF 4,267 SQUARE FEET. THERE ARE TWO COMMUNITY USES PER THE SURVEY THAT EXIST WITHIN 500 FEET. ONE IS LOCATED 400 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST, AND ANOTHER ONE IS LOCATED 142 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SAME SHOPPING CENTER. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT DOES NEED A WAIVER OF 100 FEET TO —— ON THE SURVEY, SHOWN ON THE SURVEY AS THE SUNRISE WORSHIP CENTER, AND A WAIVER OF 358 FEET TO WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY AS THE WELL OF LIFE COMMUNITY USE. AND NO OTHER WAIVERS ARE REQUIRED.
AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE SITE HAS BEEN IN OPERATION FOR 23 YEARS AND WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR A PERMIT. THE SUNRISE WORSHIP CENTER IS SEPARATED FROM THE SUBJECT SITE BY U.S. 41, A MAJOR DIVIDED HIGHWAY.
THE WELL OF LIFE IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTHEAST AND IS ORIENTED TO THE NORTH, WHILE THE EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT IS ORIENTED TO THE WEST FACING U.S. 41. THE OUTSIDE PATIO AREA IS ALSO ORIENTED TO THE NORTH AND THE PRIVATE PARTY AND WINE ROOMS WILL BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN END OF THE BUILDING, AND THOSE WILL BE ENCLOSED.
STAFF DOES CONCUR WITH THESE STATEMENTS AND WOULD ALSO JUST NOTE THAT AT THE PREVIOUS AB THE APPLICANT DID HAVE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WHICH IS STILL BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE APPLICANT IS IF AGREEMENT WITH KEEPING THAT RESTRICTION WHICH HAS TO DO WITH TIMES FOR THE EXPANSION.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MS. HEINRICH: STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANY REVIEWING AGENCIES, AND THEREFORE WE FIND THIS APPROVABLE. AND IF APPROVED, THIS WOULD RESCIND AND REPLACE THE PREVIOUS AB FROM 2008. I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
HEARING MASTER: NO QUESTIONS, VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
GIVEN THAT I ALREADY ASKED ABOUT THOSE IN SUPPORT AND THOSE IN OPPOSITION, I'VE COVERED THAT TERRITORY. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
MR. CIANCIOLA: DOMINIC CIANCIOLA IN REBUTTAL.
ONCE AGAIN, THE STAFF REPORT IS INACCURATE STATING THERE'S A CHURCH WITHIN A HUNDRED AND SOME FEET OF IT. THAT IS A VACANT PROPERTY. I REQUEST THAT YOU FURTHERMORE CALL THE APPRAISER'S OFFICE. THEY DO NOT HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT CHURCH THERE, AND IT IS A VACANT PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THAT WAIVER IS NONEXISTENT.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY.
MR. CIANCIOLA: LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I DID WANT TO GIVE YOU A FULL PACKET, INCLUDING THE INSPECTOR'S BEVERAGE REPORT. BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY PAID HIS $400 TO THE BEVERAGE LICENSE THAT THEY SAID WILL BE APPROVED, WITH THEY WALKED OUT AND SAW THE CONCRETE PATIOS NOT BEING WET, THAT'S WITH THEY DENIED HIM HIS PRIVILEGE. SO THEREFORE IT'S ALSO INCLUDED IN THE REPORT.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.
MR. MASCALI: BECAUSE THE TWO, I ASKED THE LADY, I HAVE 1,100 SQUARE FEET. THEY SAY I WAS BE APPROVAL. WHAT I NEED IS JUST THE ADDITION. AND THEY MAKE ME DO THE WHOLE THING, IS FOUR MONTHS. SO I JUST REALIZED THAT I'M A BUSINESS FOR 23 YEARS AND I STILL GROWING. YOU GOT TO BE PROUD OF PEOPLE LIKE THIS THAT LIVE THE AMERICAN DREAM.
HEARING MASTER: YES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES REBUTTAL AND THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AND STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
MR. FERNANDEZ: THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM I7. THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO A PD, PD 13—0123 LU. I WANT TO REMIND YOU THIS APPLICATION WAS GOING TO BE CONTINUED BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF ORDER FOR NOTICE, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE NEXT CASE, WHICH IS ITEM I8A. THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PD, APPLICATION NUMBER 13—0136A. AND IS A REZONING TO A PD, AND THE PD NUMBER 910045.
THIS APPLICATION IS RELATED TO THE NEXT APPLICATION THAT IS GOING TO BE HEARD. THIS APPLICATION AB APPLICATION 130136. BOTH LOCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA. SO IF YOU —— SINCE BOTH APPLICATIONS ARE RELATED, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE CAN LISTEN TO THE APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO MANAGE LIKE THAT OR HOW YOU WANT TO DO IT. BECAUSE THEY ARE EXTREMELY RELATED.
HEARING MASTER: YOU'RE ASKING ME IF WE CAN COMBINE THE TESTIMONY OF THE APPLICANT AND APPLY IT IT TO BOTH PROJECTS.
MR. FERNANDEZ: YES. IF YOU NEED ANY CLARIFICATION, WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO.
HEARING MASTER: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO THAT EITHER. THE APPLICANT.
MS. JAMES: GOOD EVENING. I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD. I HAVE NO OBJECTION.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.
MS. JAMES: THIS IS A SMALL ONE—AND—A—HALF ACRE PARCEL THAT CONSISTS OF TWO DIFFERENT FOLIOS, ONE ZONED PD AND ONE WHICH WAS A MOBILE HOME PARK, THE OTHER ONE IS AN RDC—12. THE PARCEL THAT WAS ZONED FOR THE MOBILE HOME PARK WAS NEVER DEVELOPED. IT ACTUALLY IS PART OF AN OLD ZONING CONFORMANCE CASE, AND AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT ZONING CONFORMANCE WENT THROUGH THERE WAS NO CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO PARCELS. IT'S BEEN SEPARATED OUT SINCE THAT TIME. WE'RE ASKING FOR RMC—20 TONIGHT.
MY CLIENT IS THE FLORIDA HOME PARTNERSHIP. THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, AND THE STAFF —— THE SITE'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED INTO TRIPLEXES FOR FAMILY WHOSE INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED 120 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME.
THERE'S GOING TO BE COUNTY GRANT FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR BUILDING OF THIS PROPERTY, AND I'M GOING TO PLACE INTO THE RECORD A LETTER FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT JUST SAYING THAT. AND ALSO ASKING FOR A FAST TRACK FOR PLAN APPROVAL. BUT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE ZONING TONIGHT.
HEARING MASTER: JUST CURIOUS, WHAT —— IF THEY WANT TO FAST TRACK, WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT.
MS. JAMES: THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
HEARING MASTER: THE SITE DEVELOPMENT?
MS. JAMES: YES, SIR. THE AREA IS A MIXTURE OF MULTIFAMILY MOBILE HOMES, APARTMENTS, DUPLEXES. WE HAD NO OBJECTION FROM ANY AGENCIES AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST CLARIFY: WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS HEARING —— AND WE HAVE HER TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE JUST GIVEN APPLY TO THE SECOND ITEM AS WELL.
MS. JAMES: YES. THE SECOND ITEM DEALS WITH THE EXISTING PD WHICH WAS FOR FOR MOBILE HOME WHICH WAS PART OF THE OLD ZONING CONFORMANCE. AND WE'RE SEPARATING OUT PART OF THE PARCEL, ABOUTAN ACRE.
HEARING MASTER: THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. IF YOU COULD SHOW ME. DO YOU HAVE A GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS ME THE PD AND HOW THAT WAS ONCE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE?
MS. JAMES: HEAR'S THE ORIGINAL 910045 PD. WE ARE PURCHASING THIS PARCEL RIGHT HERE. IT'S CURRENTLY OWNED BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. IT'S VACANT. IT WAS NEVER DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK.
HEARING MASTER: IS THERE A MOBILE HOME ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF IT?
MS. JAMES: THERE ARE SOME EXISTING MOBILE HOMES IN THIS AREA.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. AND THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH BIFURCATING THE PD?
MS. JAMES: I HAVE NO IDENTIFIED ANY PROBLEM.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. WHEN THE AGENDA SAYS IT'S 1.5 ACRES ON THE 136 AND THEN IT'S 1.5 ON 136A, IS IT THREE ACRES TOTAL OR ——
MS. JAMES: THERE'S AN ISSUE ABOUT THAT. THE ORIGINAL ZONING CONFORMANCE SAID THIS AREA WAS 3 ACRES TOTAL, AND WHEN YOU ADD THE ACREAGE FOR THIS PIECE AND THIS PIECE, RIGHT NOW IT COMES TO FIVE ACRES ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY AOPERATESER'S OFFICE. I HAVE NO WAY TO VERIFY IT. OUR PROPERTY IS 1.5 ACRES, WHICH IS THIS PIECE, PLUS THIS SMALLER FOLIO WHICH IS THE RDC—12.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. SO HELP ME THEN, FROM 136, WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THAT REZONING? BECAUSE IT GOES FROM RDC AND PD TO RMC—20. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 1.5 ACRES THEN, I WOULD ASSUME. I JUST DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO COME BACK ON THIS APPLICATION IF WE'RE NOT CITING THE RIGHT ACREAGE.
MS. JAMES: IF YOU GIVE ME A SECOND, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GET THE BIG FILE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT.
MS. JAMES: THE PARCEL THAT WAS PART OF THE PD IS ACTUALLY 1.38 ACRES, AND THEN THIS OTHER LITTLE PIECE HERE IN THE CORNER OF THE RDC—12, WHICH IS THE SEPARATE FOLIO, WOULD BE THE REMAINDER.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT.
MR. FERNANDEZ.12.
HEARING MASTER: 1.38 AND .12.
MS. JAMES: YES, SIR.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. AND THAT MAKES 136 THE REZONING FROM RDC—12 AND PD TO RMC—12 —— RMC—20 ON 1.5 ACRES TOTAL.
MS. JAMES: THAT'S CORRECT.
HEARING MASTER: AND THEN 136A IS RGC 12 AND PD, AND IT'S A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE PD?
MS. JAMES: THAT MAJOR MODIFICATION IS THE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO —— WE WENT AROUND AND AROUND WITH THE COUNTY STAFF ON THIS PROCESS. IN ORDER —— THIS ORIGINAL PD, WHICH WAS 910045, THE 1.36 WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THAT PD H.
HEARING MASTER: SO THE BALANCE, THE REMAINING PD H WILL ALSO JUST COINCIDENTALLY BE 1.5 ACRES.
MS. JAMES: I WON'T EVEN BEGIN TO TESTIFY ABOUT THAT.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. STAFF IS APPROXIMATING THAT IT'S 1.5 ACRES. ALL RIGHT. I THINK I'VE GOT THE SCORECARD ACCURATE. ANYTHING ELSE?
MS. JAMES: I DON'T THINK SO.
HEARING MASTER: VERY GOOD. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
MR. FERNANDEZ: YES. THE FIRST APPLICATION, THE MAJOR MOD 13—0136 IS A COUNTER INITIATED APPLICATION. BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING IS TO SUBTRACT THE FOLIO NUMBER 36230 OUT OF THE PD. IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT AND IS OWNED BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
WITH THAT, WHAT WE WILL DO WITH THAT MODIFICATION IS JUST TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PD. THE DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS ARE ALREADY —— ASSISTING DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS PD ON 9104 AND FIVE ARE GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME AND THE SAME PERMITTED USES. THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE. THE ONLY THING WE'RE GOING TO DO IS REMOVE THAT SECTION AND COULD BE REZONED TO RMC 20 BY THE APPLICATION 13—0136.
STAFF ANALYZED THE APPLICATION. WE DIDN'T RICHARDSON ANY CONCERN FROM ANY OF THE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS, AND WE FIND IT APPROVABLE, BOTH OF THEM.
HEARING MASTER: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
MS. MILLS: YENEKA MILLS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
FIRST LET ME CORRECT FOR THE RECORD IN MY REPORT IT REFERS TO REZONING 130136 B, AND IT SHOULD JUST BE REZONING NUMBER 130136. AND I'VE ALREADY GIVEN YOU THOSE —— CORRECTION OF THOSE MAPS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 20 LAND USE CATEGORY, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE UNIVERSITY AREA COMMUNITY PLAN. THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION TO REMOVE ACREAGE FROM THIS EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL—20 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. THE REMOVAL OF THIS PARCEL WOULD RESULT IN A DENSITY THAT'S UNDER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY WITHIN THIS FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
AGAIN, THE REMOVAL IS A PROCEDURAL —— IS PROCEDURAL AND ALLOWS THE ACCOMPANYING PROPOSED REZONING, AND BASED ON THESE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
HEARING MASTER: OKAY. AND THEN JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE REVISED GRAPHIC THAT YOU GAVE ME, MAJOR MODIFICATION IS —— THERE IS A DIVIDING LINE HERE WHICH DOESN'T INCLUDE WHAT WOULD BE THE EASTERN PORTION OF THAT SITE. SO JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I THINK THIS GRAPHIC IS ALSO NOT EXACTLY A HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT.
MS. STENMARK: THE GRAPHIC MATCHES THE ZONING MAP, SO WE WANTED TO HAVE THEM THE SAME. AND YOU'RE CORRECT, THERE'S A DIVIDING LINE THAT'S GOING AWAY INTO THE OTHER —— INTO THE ZONINGS THAT'S SUBJECT TODAY. SO THE EASTERN PORTION IS PART OF THE APPLICANT'S ZONING.
HEARING MASTER: THE EASTERN PORTION WOULD GO TO RMC—20.
MS. STENMARK: YES.
HEARING MASTER: AND THE WESTERN PORTION WOULD REMAIN AS PDH.
MS. STENMARK: YES.
HEARING MASTER: WE'RE SQUARE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT —— I'M SORRY.
MS. STENMARK: MS. MILLS HAS SOME MORE TESTIMONY TO GIVE ——
HEARING MASTER: I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
MS. STENMARK: —— ON 136A.
MS. MILLS: THE PROPOSED REZONING IS GOING TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. IT ALSO SUPPORTS THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA COMMUNITY PLAN AS WELL AS POLICIES SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO ALSO BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
HEARING MASTER: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. THERE'S NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AND ALSO CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- hillsborough county jobs opportunities
- hillsborough county civil service jobs
- hillsborough county government jobs
- hillsborough county careers jobs
- hillsborough county open jobs
- hillsborough county jobs openings
- hillsborough county schools job openings
- hillsborough county jobs
- hillsborough county florida jobs available
- hillsborough county government jobs openings
- hillsborough county elementary school map
- careers in hillsborough county fl