Zoning Hearing Master - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the works. We're going behind the scenes with Hillsborough County's temporary traffic control to find out how they plan, manage, and monitor our roadways and traffic, all while keeping the county running smooth.

TTC is critical to the safety of the roadway in Hillsborough County. We're making sure that that work zone is set effectively so that it provides the safe traveling path for the persons that are driving through that work zone.

If you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, I'd appreciate it. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you so much. Please have a seat. Good evening, everyone. I want to welcome you to the July 20, 2026 Zoning Hearing, Master Hearing. My name is Susan Finch, and I will be presiding as the hearing master over tonight's cases. Let me start by introducing Ms. Michelle Heinrich. She is with the Development Services Department, and she will introduce other staff members that will participate in tonight's hearing, as well as go over any changes off the agenda changes tonight. Ms. Heinrich.

Again, Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Up here with myself to my left, we have with the County Attorney's Office, Mary Dorman. and Jared Delfino with the Planning Commission. We have Alexis Myers, and in addition to myself in Development Services, we also have James Ratliff with Development Services joining us. And we do have two off-the-agenda changes. The first one is Agenda Page 7, Item D1, Major Mod 26-0062. The applicant is requesting it continues to the August 24, 2026 Zoning Hearing Master Hearing. And this will need to be heard by the hearing officer and decided on by the hearing officer.

All right. Thank you so much.

Is the applicant here?

Good evening. Give us your name and address, please.

Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive. We are requesting a continuance this evening because we are still working through some comments on our AV and DE that are associated with the case. We were told that transportation department would support this continuance so that we had time to work through some additional comments and make sure that those be found approvable before we come to the CHM hearing.

Okay, thank you.

Happy to answer any questions.

No questions. Let me just get comments from interested parties. Is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak to the continuance of this case, not the merits of the case, but only the continuance? All right, I see there's one person online. Are there two, I believe, that were to speak to this case? Yes, so two. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak to the continuance? All right, no one. All right, then we'll start with, is it Ms. Lavery, I believe? Yes, it is. All right, give us your name and address, please.

My name is Mary Lavery. I live at 123 St. Martin's Way, Apollo Beach, Florida.

All right. And you heard the applicant's representative asking for a continuance to August 24th and the reasons for it. So I just wanted to make sure if you have any comments regarding the continuance, not the case itself.

Yes, my comment would be, or is, they were, as far as I know, they were aware of this at the last meeting emails that had to have gone back and forth or conversations that had gone back and forth that they needed to submit updates and to be looking at the transportation concerns. However, they did not follow that. And so I'm wondering why they would be given a continuance if they already knew that fact.

All right. Thank you. I'll ask the applicant's representative when we bring her back. And then we have, is it Ms. Banks? Who is the other person online that wanted to speak? Yes, ma'am. It is Ms. Banks. All right. Give us your name and address, please.

Lynn Banks, 102 St. George Court, Apollo Beach, Florida. Okay. And... This company has asked for continuances since January at the earliest that I can recall, 2026. For those of us that are trying to keep up with this and try and maintain status with what's going on in this very concerning application, We're seven months into this, and I'm wondering how many more continuances are allowed before the project either gets terminated or something is done to ask the developers what they plan on doing in total.

All right. Thank you. It's certainly a good question. We'll ask staff to give you that information. Before I move on, is there anybody else that wanted to speak regarding the continuance? All right. Seeing no one. Let's go back to Ms. Heinrich, if you could answer her question about how long this possibly could go on in terms of their application timelines.

Per the Lane Development Code, when we have a rezoning application that's associated with a development of regional impact, which this one is, there is no limitation on the continuance request numbers.

Okay. All right. Thank you. If you could come back and maybe provide more detail as to why it is another continuance and when you really expect to come back.

Sure, Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive. I'll start with addressing the AVs and the DEs timing. So we did submit these a while back. We've gone through multiple rounds of comments. We were under the impression that they would be found approvable before this ZHM, but I think that Mike Williams has a few additional comments. So we wanna make sure that we address those because of course we do not wanna come forward with those recommended as not supportable. We do plan to come forward in August. We were really hoping that we could come forward this evening As Ms. Heinrich mentioned, this is associated with the DRI. There has been a lot of back and forth in terms of trade-offs and how that's been calculated, so we're trying to work through that. It's a very complex case, so we just need a little bit more time, but we are very hopeful that August is our final.

All right, and just to be clear, for people that don't do this every day, AV is administrative variance? Yes, ma'am. And a DE is a design exception? That's right. Okay, thank you so much. All right, then, given that and your commitment to bring this home and come back to the ZHM in August, I'll grant the continuance of major modification 26-0062 to the August 24th, 2026 zoning hearing, master hearing at 6 p.m. Ms. Heinrich.

Our second item is agenda page seven, item D3, PD rezoning 26-0445. Staff is requesting a continuance of this application to the August 24th, 2026 ZHM hearing. Okay, is the applicant here?

Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?

Yes, sir. Mr. Pressman, if you give us your name and address, please.

Sure. Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg, Florida. We got some later comments from Natural Resources who have concerns about the buffer. So we have been working with the county staff. We have an arborist working to work out that issue.

Oh, we lost your audio, Mr. Pressman.

Can you hear me now?

I can. We lost the tail end of your sentence. If you could just recap.

So we have brought out an arborist to work with Natural Resources, and I have a good confidence that we should be able to be at the ZHM in August with the issues resolved.

All right. Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak to the continuance of this application? All right. Seeing no one. We'll continue RZPD26-0445 to the August 24th, 2026 Zoning Hearing Master hearing. Ms. Heinrich, that completes the off the agenda changes. Is that correct?

All right. Thank you, Officer.

Thank you, Mr. President. All right, then with that, let me start by going over our procedures for tonight's hearing. Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by a Zoning Hearing Master. I'll conduct a hearing on each agenda item and we'll file a recommendation within 15 business days following tonight's hearing. That recommendation is then sent to the Board of County Commissioners who make the final decision. Our hearing tonight is informal. I'll ask questions related to the scope of direct testimony. I may call and question witnesses as I deem appropriate, and I will decide all questions of procedure. I'll take evidence but will exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. Evidence may be presented in written form, and all testimony must be under oath. Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient alone to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action. Our order of presentation for tonight is as follows. Ms. Heinrich of the Development Services Department will make a brief introduction for each agenda item. We'll then go to the applicant. The applicant and their team has 15 minutes total to make their presentation. Then we'll go back to the Development Services staff planner that was assigned the case. They will have five minutes to discuss the Development Services findings on each application. Next up, the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission also has five minutes to discuss the application's consistency with the comprehensive plan. Then we'll turn to proponents, anyone who would like to speak in favor of an application. Everyone combined, 15 minutes. Next up, the same is true when we go to opponents, anyone who would like to speak against an application. Everyone together, 15 minutes. We'll then circle back to the Development Services Department to see if they have any additional comments or findings based on tonight's testimony. And then finally, the applicant has the last word with five minutes for rebuttal. Regarding the time for proponents and opponents, that 15 minute time frame, what I will do is I will ask for, when we get to that section, anyone who would like to speak in favor or against to raise their hand. We have, as you've just seen, we have people that are in the room, and we also have people that are participating virtually. So we'll get a count of how many people want to speak, and we will divide that 15 minutes as equally as possible. If you want, you can take this time to organize your presentation. Maybe one speaker uses your time effectively. If not, we will clock you based on how many people want to speak to keep to that 15 minutes total. When you do speak, if you're in the room or online, if you could start by giving us your name and address for the record. We are recording this hearing and we want to make sure we have your information correct. And if you're in the room, if you're at the podium, When you're done speaking, if you could see Michael. Michael, raise your hand. He's with the clerk's office. Michael is keeping a written log on the top of the dais. So when you're done, if you could please just stop by, sign in with your name, address, and the case number to which you spoke. All right. Now we have that out of the way. Let me ask the county attorney's office to provide you the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Ms. Dorman. Good evening. Mary Dorman from the County Attorney's Office. Tonight's public hearing is the first step of a two-step rezoning process. This hearing is the time for rezoning applicants and interested parties to present evidence and testimony. Any evidence presented tonight will become part of the complete factual record of each application and no additional evidence can be introduced after the closing of each application. The second step of the rezoning process is a public meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, where the Board will make its decision on each application heard tonight. Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the Board at its September 22, 2026 land use meeting, unless a different date is stated by staff. When considering applications, the Board will only review the record and the recommendation made by the land use hearing officer for each application. The land use hearing officer will file a recommendation for each application heard tonight on August the 10th, 2026. The Board of County Commissioners has established a policy that directs which rezoning and major modification applications are to be placed on the consent agenda of the board's land use meeting. The following applications may not be placed on the consent agenda. Applications that propose to add density outside the urban service area, applications on roadways with a failing level of service, applications that do not have consistent recommendations of approval, and applications that have had evidence or testimony in opposition provided to the record by non-applicant parties of record either prior to or at tonight's public hearing. The board will allow testimony by any party of record at its public meeting to consider the land use hearing officer's recommendation for any item on the regular agenda. Testimony by a party of record shall be limited to the record of the proceedings before the land use hearing officer. unless additional evidence has been found admissible in accordance with Section 10.03.04 of the Land Development Code. A party of record is an individual who fits into at least one of the following four categories. First, someone who's present tonight and presents testimony or documentary evidence. Second, someone who's been certified by the U.S. Postal Service as having been mailed notice of tonight's hearing. Third, someone who submitted documentary evidence to the master file at least two business days prior to tonight's hearing. Or fourth, someone who submitted documentary evidence by proxy at tonight's hearing. The content of oral argument before the board shall be limited to the content of the testimony or another evidence submitted verbally or in writing to the Laney's hearing officer. It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that only individuals who have met these requirements are allowed to speak before the board and to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is introduced or allowed at the board's public meeting. For these reasons, please make sure that all information you wish the board to consider at its public meeting is entered into tonight's record.

Thank you so much, Ms. Dorman. As I mentioned, all testimony must be under oath. So if you plan to speak tonight, if you could please stand, raise your right hand, and I'll swear you in. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you so much. Please have a seat. All right. Then, Ms. Heinrich, that brings us to the first case, which is a little bit different. So if you want to introduce it, and then Mr. Clark can Give us the framework for the case.

Sure. Our first item is item B1. This is a remand of Major Mod 23-0132. Cameron Clark with the County Attorney's Office is here to provide a presentation. All right. Good evening.

Good evening. You're familiar with this case. This originally came to you three years ago in the summer of 23. And at that time, subsequent to that, it went to the board. The board voted to deny the application. The applicant appealed that denial to circuit court, where the applicant prevailed. The county then appealed that to the District Court of Appeal and then prevailed, although on relatively narrow grounds. It went back to the circuit court where essentially the judge cured the issues, the problems with his initial order, and the board opted not to appeal that second court ruling. So that brings us, essentially it came, the application in itself came back to the board At that time, our office would have otherwise recommended approval of the item consistent with the court order. But during that interim period, there was an ex parte communication between, not the applicant, but between an interested party, the golf course owner, and a commissioner's office. And so the recommendation at that time was to have a limited focus remand, because the best way to address that would be to HAVE THAT COMMUNICATION THREAD ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE TO ALLOW IT TO BE COMMENTED ON AS PART OF THE RECORD AND THEN ULTIMATELY GO BACK TO THE BOARD. SINCE THAT TIME IN COMMUNICATION WITH A COUPLE OF RESIDENTS THERE WAS A RECORD SEARCH THAT SHOWED THE SAME INDIVIDUAL CONTACTING A FEW OTHER COMMISSIONER'S OFFICES WITH SUBSTANTIVE matters that are subject to the application. Honestly, not evidence so much as just additional argument on the application. None of those offices replied to that email, so far as I'm aware. However, since it was at least an attempted communication between infant party and commissioners, In communication with the applicant's attorney, I believe that they're not in objection at it being also considered in order to sort of again try to cure this ex parte issue that was created. So the purpose of this hearing is to enter into the record these issues that were raised and discussed by the board, these ex parte communications, to allow interested parties to comment on the substance of those communications. It's not to bring up new and unrelated evidence on the subject matter. It's not to rehash arguments that are being taken before because, again, most of that stuff's really been settled already by the court opinion. So with that, I'll step out of the way if you don't have any questions.

I do have a question. Do you have those additional emails to submit into the record tonight?

I believe, from what I've seen, they were submitted by a resident. I saw them, I think, get submitted to the record. Mr. Zimborski, I think, was his name. And it was a few... While you bring that up, I also saw a thread that was submitted to staff. It had a bunch of legal argument in it, case law and stuff like that. That's really not something that, obviously, you can address or even the board can address. That's stuff in case anything went to court again. But I did see it get sent to the communications I'm discussing, I did see get sent to be added to the record. So ideally, it should be there. But typically, we don't submit it ourselves. I believe it was some of my residents to Development Services.

All right. Well, then let me just ask you this, because I have not seen, I've seen the first email exchange, but I have not seen the subsequent ones that were evidently submitted by a resident. So let me ask you this. If the reason for the remand is to bring in these emails into the record, correct? And we are going to take public testimony based on that email or those emails, Can you provide me, I understand what the email from the golf course property owner says about the project, and so purportedly it would, any comments would be limited to that, correct? To the same subject matter, yes. And so, but do the other emails open other issues that would then allow comment for that?

Well, I'd hate to summarize only to say that in my review of them, they seemed to repeat a lot of positions that were previously taken. I want to say there were some comments about there were residents who had changed their mind as to they used to be opposing, now they're in favor. But for the purpose of rezoning application, that doesn't matter anyway. It's not supposed to be a popularity poll. It's supposed to be a finding of consistency with the comp plan, consistency with land development code. So in terms of substance, there's nothing when I look through that that looked like it was anything that was unfamiliar to the case already.

All right. And I will do my best to limit people in the audience that want to speak to limit you to the issue that is addressed in the email only in terms of your public comment. Is that correct?

Yes.

And with that, just for clarity, when this item goes back to the Board of County Commissioners meeting, public be able to speak regarding that limited subject matter as well? Yes.

Oral argument would work the same as usual. So there's the limited scope of this remand public hearing. So anything that anyone says at this hearing or something that they spent this hearing that's on point with what the purpose of the remand is, they can then repeat and make the same comments before the board. Okay. All right.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Then we'll go, Through our normal process, because this is so limited in scope as to the purpose of this remand, we would, I'll go through and I'll call on the planning staffs and so forth, but if you could just confirm that your report has not changed and so forth on the record, we'll try to shorten this up and then entertain anybody that would like to speak regarding the limited scope of the hearing. All right, so with that, I will go back to Development Services. Ms. Heinrich?

There's no change in our staff report for that remand.

All right, thank you so much. We'll go to the Planning Commission. Yes, there's no changes to our existing report. All right, thank you very much. Then we'll call for anyone that would like to speak in support, anyone in favor of this project that would like to testify regarding the limited scope of testimony, either in the room or online. Seeing no one. Is there anyone in opposition that would like to speak? Okay, how many hands do we have? I see two. Okay, anybody else? Anybody online? Okay, if you both could go ahead and come forward. We'll do 15 minutes, Michael, between the two of them. Or seven and a half, I guess.

you give us your name and address good evening emma zimborski 9012 hogan's bend tampa florida 33647 i am adjacent property owner who will be directly impacted by the rezoning i understand that today's proceedings are in regard to one ex parte communication that was dated on april 7th brought forth by the county's attorney however i was the individual who had the public records request submitted I do have copies for you if you would like to see them in person. But after retrieving several additional one-way ex parte communications that involved the owner and Hillsborough County commissioners, I've discovered that the ex parte communications that were submitted as evidence involved numerous dates and multiple emails to various commissioners. I understand that the legislative aides should filter through these, hopefully intercepting any inappropriate comments. However, as we've seen with the one email, that may not always be the case. And for example, I've discovered that there was a three page letter directly from the owner to multiple commissioners. And the issue that I have with this three page letter is that it directly discusses the rezoning application and again references the same statement that was similar to the April 7th email in regard to being the best option. Local public officials may read communications, and I understand that. However, a written communication that relates to a quasi-judicial action pending before a local public official shall not be presumed prejudicial unless it is excluded from the record prior to final action. None of these emails nor the three-page letter were submitted prior and are not a part of the application record. And this is a direct violation of Florida Statute 286.0115 and violates Statement of Freedom from improper influence. The Hillsborough County Land Development Code does not specify ex parte communications involving quasi-judicial proceedings, specifically between an owner or an applicant and the Board of County Commissioners. Therefore, according to Florida Statute 286.0115, due to the absence of specification in the Hillsborough County Land Development Code regarding ex parte communications, the Zoning Hearing Board would then have to abide by Florida state law, and the presumption of prejudice for ex parte communication would remain. Based on the evidence that I've provided, I'm asking the board to recommend denial for this application based on the presumption of prejudice arising from ex parte communications with local public officials, lack of disclosure, and improper influence. Thank you.

Thank you. And if you could submit those into the record, I would really appreciate it. Don't forget to sign in. Next, please. Good evening.

Hi.

Good evening. My name is Leslie Green. I'm at 9014 Hogan's Bend, located in Pebble Creek, where I've lived for over 30 years with my husband, Michael Green. I am a direct adjoining property owner to the property being considered for rezoning, and I am specially injured by the fact that I will be dealing with the dust, noise, and the possibility of health risks associated with remediation of this contaminated soil. Based on the evidence provided, it is my understanding that due process has not been awarded to Pebble Creek. I object to the limiting of this hearing to only select lines of the remanded email. I believe that the email should be remanded in its entirety as well as to include the other emails and documents that the last speaker spoke of in order to give content or excuse me, to give context to the actual email itself. The people who live here deserve a fair and unbiased hearing. Commissioners are not robots. They are thinking, rationalizing, emotional beings and are naturally influenced by information they see and hear. Whether or not an ex parte communication ultimately changes the outcome of the decision is uncertain. What is clear, however, is that such communications have the potential to influence decision makers. Once a persuasive statement has been communicated, it cannot simply be unheard, unseen, or erased from memory. The potential influence remains, and the parties adversely affected may be at an unfair disadvantage. The limited portion of the email communication being addressed today references what may be the best solution for the community. I respectfully disagree. In my view, there would be no need for a solution if this proposal had never been brought forward for rezoning. Keeping the zoning as is would have been in our better interest, in my opinion. For example, the public record reflects that portions of the property contain arsenic at levels significantly above residential standards. And I have in record also a copy of the actual soil samples and just a portion of the results. There is an area that is 25 times the allowable amount. This is already on record. And I think it's about page 575 of the record.

Ma'am, you understand the limited scope of your comments tonight are only to address that email and so forth and not revisit any environmental, transportation. All of those issues have been settled by the court.

OK. What I'm trying to get across is that the statement that this is maybe the best solution, can I address the fact that I believe otherwise as far as what might be the best solution?

I don't, if it, and I really hate to rein you in, but I must, based on the county attorney's advice, that this hearing is only about those emails that were of an ex parte nature. and not the actual substance of any particular environmental or soil issue.

OK. So I would like to restate my position that the commissioners may have been persuaded, swayed, or otherwise had their opinion changed based on information that can be given in an ex parte communication. Given one side is unfair to the other parties. In other words, the people who are opposed to this rezoning we're not given the same opportunity to send in emails after the record has been closed. And given that, the object of this limited hearing, I still would like to put on record that I do object to it being so limited and would like to see the entire email as well as the others remanded as well.

Thank you so much, I appreciate it. Don't forget to sign in, and you're welcome to submit your documents into the record. All right, seeing no one else, Mr. Kramer, I realized I've forgotten to call on the applicant as a part of this. We got a little off track in the beginning, so I'll give you your opportunity to make the applicant's presentation.

Yes, ma'am, thank you. Jake Kramer, 2002 West Cleveland Street, number 203 in Tampa. I just have a few comments for you, just a few items to address. The first is this question of the prior email from the landowner that was mentioned. And I think we heard even from the speakers that that email was not prejudicial because there's no indication whatsoever in the record at this point that any commissioners actually read that email or acted on it, the additional email. And I would suggest that email, it's really no different than the hundreds of emails that the commissioners received in advance of deciding whether to not move forward with the appeal and the litigation. So we've talked about only one of those, but many, many emails were sent to the commissioners. My understanding is there's a process in place where the aides work to shield them from those communications. Those communications were, I would argue, were not ex parte communications in the way we normally think about them because the board, before they opted to send the case back to you, the board didn't have jurisdiction over the case. The jurisdiction was actually in the court system. So it's a little bit different than what we think about normally for an ex parte conversation. I do want to just emphasize on the record that these emails were not generated by the applicant, my client. They came from the landowner. The landowner could not be here tonight, but he did ask me to place into the record his apology in the form of a letter for causing this inconvenience of coming back here today. I also did receive two letters from two supporters of the project that asked me to place these in the record so they could comment on them. Again, as the county attorney's office, as they suggested, I don't think these communications are actually that relevant, but just in case you find in the entirety of opposition and support for the project that you'd need to consider them, I've been asked to, so I'd just like to put these in the record on my way out. And so with that, that's really all I have. You know, it's an unusual circumstance, but I think that really that we've done our job of hearing from the citizens for the board asked us for you to take any comments directly related to those emails, place them in the record so they can ultimately make that final decision. So I think we've done that tonight. I appreciate your time.

Absolutely. Thank you so much. Don't forget to sign in. All right, we'll try to get back on track and go back to development services. Ms. Heinrich, anything further before we move on? All right, and then Mr. Kramer, you have the last word if you need it. Okay, then with that, we'll close major modification 23-0132 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item C1, standard rezoning 26-0811. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from ASC1 to CN restricted. Sierra James with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right. Is the applicant here? Good evening. Good evening. Give us your name and address, please.

Tamara Cribben, and it's 19119 North Delmabry Highway, Lutes, Florida, 33548. Thank you so much. This is my husband, Rob.

Good evening. Rob Cribben, 19119 North Delmabry Highway, Lutes, Florida. Yes, sir. Rob Cribben, 19119 North Delmabry Highway, Lutes, Florida.

Good evening. This is, our property is on Delmabry Highway, and as any reasonable citizen of Hillsborough County or Lutes, the expectation of foreseeable commercial development going up Delmabury Highway all the way from the south to the north, including all the way up to Pasco County, I believe is foreseeable and expected. I did take a look at the Planning Commission's reports, and I just wanted to point out a couple of things where the sensitivity to the established character and scale and development pattern around the community. My husband and I actually live, our property is connected to the property in question. We've been there for 27 years. We have absolutely no desire to do anything that's incompatible or would tarnish the charm of Lutz. I think one of the issues is that a lot of times people come through with the rezoning with an establishment already on paper and that's not what we're asking. We've been told by several entities to Do the rezoning first and then seek to have what we're going to put on the property. So we are going at it without an actual structure plan for you guys to look at. However, in our application, we did. that we would be matching all the variances, whether that's setbacks or the natural barrier that is part of the Lutes Plan with shrubbery and other natural aesthetics to follow that plan. One of the things that it says on the bottom of the first page is that most of the subject property near us, the surrounding uses are primarily vacant land to the east, west, and north. I do happen to disagree with that, and I did bring a couple printouts. The Lutes Rehabilitation Center is located to the west. Directly across the street is a Dunkin Donuts. which when we pulled from the satellites is 0.06 of a mile, which is a total of 316 feet from the subject property.

There's an overhead there. You can put that face up and HTV will pick it up and you can show it. And then you're also welcome to submit those into the record when you're done.

Thank you.

Okay, there you go.

So that 316 feet away is actually considered urban, and we are considered rural. Even though we are directly across the street on Delmabry Highway, our subject property is directly across the street on the northbound lanes versus the southbound lanes. The other thing I wanted to point out is that there is a, There's the Lutz Rehabilitation Center, again, right beside the property. And then up from the property to the north is the dental office that you see. And after Arbor Drive, there is a Publix and an entire shopping plaza. So through this report, we are surrounded by activity centers, both to the north and the south. To the south, there is Just past this nursing home, this is an urgent care center, and then just south of that is the, it's called Al's, it's a lawn mower repair shop, and then a gas station, and then it continues south, and there's fast food restaurants, et cetera. So it kind of seems that our rural piece is like one teeny tiny sliver and that the rest are activity centers that are already considered commercial. And I wanted to also point out in the response from the Planning Commission, the future use in Objective 2.2 is that The future use is RES-1, and this category allows for neighborhood commercial, and that is what we're asking for. So it is already in the future use that is identified for the piece of property in question. The other thing I would point out would be that our property is not on a main crossroad, and that is something that they pointed out, that we needed to be within 660 feet of an intersection where two roads, two roadways functionally cross just south. From north of Van Dyke Road, there are Wendy's Chick-fil-A, Chipotle, and none of those are on an intersection. So there's a whole string of the commercial drive-through fast food restaurants that are also not on an intersection. So the Chick-fil-A is 1.7 miles, Wendy's is 1.6, Chipotle is 1.6, The McDonald's is 1.6, and then the Publix is actually to the north. Those were all south. Publix is to the north by one mile. And as I said, the Dunkin' Donuts is directly across the street by 300. 16 feet. So we do believe that we are not asking for anything that isn't foreseeable and that reasonable citizens wouldn't expect to see on Delmabry Highway. It is the main thoroughfare through all of Tampa, including Lutes.

All right. Does that complete your presentation? Yes. All right. Thank you so much. Please sign in, and you're welcome to submit your documents into the record to Michael if you'd like. Thank you. All right, development services. Good evening.

Good evening, Sierra James with Development Services. The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel from ASC1 to CNR with the following restrictions. The following uses shall be prohibited, car wash facilities, motor vehicle repair entities, and freestanding emergency rooms. To the east, south, and west are parcels zoned ASC1 with the parcels to the south and west developed residentially, both taking access through easements on the subject site. The north, sorry, the site north of the property zone PD 05-1244 permits business professional and medical office uses. The site to the north across Northdale-Mayberry zone CN is located within the community activity center. The site is subject to the North Delmabry Overlay District. The intent of the North Delmabry Overlay District is to prohibit the expansion of strip commercial development patterns by identifying appropriate locations for activity centers. The three activity centers act as commercial hubs to serve the surrounding community whose uses shall be those of the underlying residential zoning districts, the site is not located within one of the three activity centers. While the applicant is proposing restrictions on a few intensive uses, the CN zoning district permits shopping centers and other retail type uses, which is not encouraged outside of the activity centers. Based on these considerations, staff find the request not supportable. I'm available for any questions.

I do have a question, Ms. James. I just want to make sure that I'm clear and the applicant is clear. In the development services staff report, there's a statement in there that says the site's not located in one of the three activity centers. Yes, ma'am. It's across the street. And thus can, and this is my question, and thus can be considered only for office uses. But it was my reading of the Dale Mabry overlay that to qualify for those office, for consideration of those office uses. you had to meet commercial locational criteria. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. And this property does not, is what I understand. No, ma'am. Okay, so I just don't want to have a false expectation. They are not eligible to be considered for office. Is that correct?

No, ma'am.

Not without the locational. Without a waiver. Yes, ma'am. Okay, that was my only question. Thank you so much. Plenty Commission.

Alexis Myers planning commission staff. The subject site is located in the residential one future lanes category. It is in the rural area and is located within the limits of the Lutes community plan. Although commercial uses exist north of Northdale Mabry highway, they are separated from the subject site by the roadway and are located within the urban service area where a different development pattern and intensity are anticipated under the comprehensive plan. The subject site does not meet commercial locational criteria as established in future lane section objective 4.7. The closest qualifying intersection to the subject site is Northdale-Mabry Highway, a state principal arterial roadway, and Garcia Road, a county collector roadway, which is over 2,000 feet away from the subject site. The applicant submitted a waiver to the CLC criteria, in which noting that the commercial uses on Northdale-Mabry Highway, I'm sorry, noting the commercial uses on Northdale-Mabry Highway. Planning Commission staffs recommend the board deny the waiver request. Absent a site plan controlled zoning district, it is difficult to fully evaluate the proposed intensity of the zoning district, as well as potential mitigation measures in this location. The subject property is not located within any of the designated commercial activity noted within the loose community plan, which are the historic downtown area extending to New Burger Road, Second is the Crystal Lake Road to Sunset Lane corridor. And third is the Crenshaw Lake Road. Based upon those considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff find the proposed rezoning inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Yes. How many people want to speak? I see two hands. Anybody else? Okay. If you could both come forward. Everyone that wants to speak in favor, if you could come forward, please. Do we have anybody online? I don't think so. OK, so three people want to speak. Is that right? Michael, if you could do five minutes apiece. Oh, wait. We have four. It's dwindling. Oh, OK. So three people, perhaps. Yeah, five minutes apiece. Good evening.

I'm Ray and Tom Mims. We live at 18810 Arbor Drive in Lutes, Florida, 33548. We are about a half a mile, if not three quarters of a mile, from the property we're discussing. And we're totally in favor of the rezoning on it.

Okay, thank you for coming down. We've lived in the area for over 20 years.

We need your name and address, sir.

It's Tom Mims and Ray Mims.

18810 Arbor Drive, Thomas Mims, Luce, Florida.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate it coming down. If you could please both sign in. Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Kevin Zimmerman. I'm at 18735 Jirasi Road. I'm just down from Delmabry, just shy of the property, about a quarter mile. I'm in favor of supporting.

All right. Thank you for coming down. I appreciate it. All right. Seeing no one else to testify in support, is there anyone in opposition that would like to speak? All right, seeing no one, no one online. We'll go back to Development Services. Ms. Heinrich, anything else?

Nothing further.

All right. Ma'am, you have the last word as the applicant for rebuttal, if you'd like to take it.

Thank you. Again, on rebuttal, I would say that we do recognize that our piece of property is carved out of those activity centers. And again, that Delmabry Highway, I would believe that even looking now based on what they may have seen back when they did the Lutes Plan, that the development with apartment complexes going in and the intensity of the population that has grown within that area. We're just looking to meet the community's need. And we do feel that Delmabry Highway is a main thoroughfare and that it would be reasonable and expected. We do almost touch activity centers all the way around us. and don't feel that it would be incompatible. And again, we would meet, whether that's transportation or any of the other LUTs plans with the setbacks and any kind of fencing or buffering with the aesthetics with shrubbery, we would be certainly happy to meet any of those. And again, it seems that in the future plan that neighborhood commercial seems to be a part of that. And it does say that the subject site would accommodate a 70,000 square foot non-residential use. Again, we don't know what we're looking at yet, but we would certainly be willing to fit into any of those criteria that meets the Lutes plan.

All right. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Then with that, we'll close rezoning 26-0811 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item C2, standard rezoning 26-0901. The applicant is requesting a rezone property from CN and RSC3 to CN Restricted. Sierra James with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right. Is the applicant here? Is the applicant here for rezoning 26-0901?

I'm here to represent the applicant. My name is Misra Medina. Okay. Address is 4908 East Broadway Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33605. All right.

Ms. Medina, before you go on, the county has a policy. If you're going to participate virtually, you have to turn on your camera so that we can see you.

Okay, one second, because my camera is not working very well. One moment. Bear with me, because it was not allowing me access to open the camera.

OK. Let's see here.

OK, can you see me?

Not yet.

It's saying that it won't allow me to. OK, can you see me now? Oh, now I see you. Yep, I see you. Sorry. I'm working from home. I'm very sick, so I didn't want to come in person.

Well, I appreciate you participating. So if you want to go ahead with your applicant's presentation.

Yes. So good evening, commissioners. My name is Ms. Ramadina. Address of record is 4908 Broadway Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33605. And thank you for taking the time to consider the rezoning. Our request is straightforward. We are just requesting or asking to remove the split zoning on the property and rezone the entire parcel to commercial neighborhood. I believe it's a CNR, if I'm not mistaking. The property is currently split zone with CN and RC3, where there's actually no residential occupants whatsoever. on the property. This is strictly commercial used right now. Approving the requests would simply just create consistent zoning with the classification across the entire property. Currently, my client is utilizing the property as a place where people come together and they eat. She has a food truck on the property, so they classified it as almost like a fast food restaurant. And so the restriction became when there were seats added and she basically wants to have people come and eat and she wants to be able to operate there permanently because she's been doing that for several years but it I guess I don't know what happened it just became a thing where she received a valid violation so what we're just trying to do is we're trying to simplify the process by just making everything commercial across the board for her to be able to operate the food truck there with no issues okay does that complete your presentation

Yes. All right, thank you so much. All right, then now we'll turn to development services.

Good evening, Sierra James of Development Services. The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel from CN and RSC3 to CNR with the following restrictions. The following uses shall be prohibited, drug store, service station, shopping centers, tobacco shop, vaping retail shops, convenience stores with or without gas pumps, car wash facilities, freestanding emergency rooms, and all drive-through uses. and no development shall be permitted that generates more than 20 westbound to southbound lefts or more than 50 eastbound to southbound rights. The surrounding area has a mix of land uses with properties to the south and west zone AR and developed with mobile homes. The property zone RMC 6 to the east is currently vacant A property west of the site is zoned C-N and appears to be an abandoned commercial site. And to the north of the site, a property is zoned C-G and occupied by a warehouse type use. Based on these considerations, staff find the request approvable. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Planning Commission.

Alexis Myers planning commission staff. The subject property is in the residential six future land use category. It is located in the urban service area within the limits of the Ruskin community plan and South shore area wide systems plan. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the future land use section objective 1.1, and Policy 3.1.3 regarding compatibility. The restrictions proposed on the site to not allow specific uses and to not create development that will exceed a threshold of peak hour trips to the site help mitigate potential compatibility concerns with the site as commercial intensity is increased. The site also meets the commercial location criteria established in Objective 4.7 and Policy 4.7.2. Based upon those considerations, In the following goals, objectives, and policies, planning commission staff find the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the restrictions proposed by the Development Services Department.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one.

Anyone in opposition? No one. Ms. Heinrich, anything else?

Nothing further.

All right. Ms. Medina, you have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it.

Nothing further. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. With that, we'll close rezoning 26-0901 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item C3, standard rezoning 26-0918. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AI to M. Logan McCaig with Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right. I understand the applicant is virtual. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

All right. Give us your name and address, please.

That's Pete Piacenti, 5960 Jensen Road.

Mr. Piacenti, I don't see your camera is on.

Oh, I'm sorry. It is not. Is that acceptable? Do I need to put my camera on?

It is not. Yeah, you have to turn. The county has a policy that you have to turn on your camera so we can see you.

Please excuse the background. I'm out and about right now.

Okay. Good evening. Go ahead with your presentation.

Yeah, we are going to be an owner-user of this property, and we are looking to change the property zoning from AI to M. And we are a construction company, so we want to use the property in keeping with the same types of uses that are in that area. If you're familiar, there's an asphalt plant and some other pretty heavy industrial uses we're completely surrounded by.

All right. Does that complete everything you needed to say?

Yes, it does. The application is pretty self-contained, I think.

All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

We'll go to Development Services. Good evening.

Good evening. Logan McCaig, Development Services, rezoning standard 260918. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from agricultural industrial to manufacturing. Site is located along East Jensen Road, east of US 41, approximately one mile from Tampa Bay. Considering the M-Zone parcels to both the east and south of the property, along with the LI designation from the future land use, the request is compatible with the surrounding properties and uses. Staff recommends approval. Is available for any questions? None at this time. Thank you so much. Planning Commission.

Alexis Myers, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is located in the light industrial future land use designation. It is in the urban service area within the limits of the Riverview Community Plan and the South Shore Areawide Systems Plan. The subject property is surrounded by the land designated light industrial in the future land use map. Planning Commission staff do not find, I'm sorry, do not identify compatibility, incompatibility concerns with the proposed rezoning. The request is consistent with Future Lane Exception Objective 1.1 and Policy 3.1.3 regarding compatibility. Based upon those above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff find the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the restrictions proposed by the Development Services Department.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one, anyone in opposition? No one? Ms. Heinrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

Mr. Piacenti, you have the last word if you'd like it.

No, thank you. We appreciate it. That's everything. All right.

Thank you for your testimony. With that, we'll close rezoning 26-0918 and go to the next case.

Our next item is item D2, rezoning 26-0437. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AI and AR to plan development. Chris Granlinard with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening. Hi, good evening. For the record, my name is Patricia Ortiz. My address is 2810 North Central Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33602. And I am representing Ravi Patel, in this request for planned development rezoning. The request is as stated by Ms. Heinrich. The intent is to develop a storage facility for operable RVs, utility trailers, and boats utilizing a mix of covered, partially covered, and uncovered storage spaces. We're also planning to construct a 2,500 square foot office. The enclosed storage will be located along the north east and west property boundaries and will effectively block visibility of the uncovered storage area from off-site. The recently approved LDC text amendment 25-0399 demonstrates storage of operable private pleasure crafts and utility trailers is a neighborhood support use and and is appropriate near existing and planned residential. The maximum building height we're proposing is 25 feet. The FAR is capped at 15%, and the building coverage is limited to 92,603 square feet. The unenclosed storage area is capped at 336,900 square feet, and this is all captured in condition of approval number one. We are seeking a variation from the buffering and screening requirements outlined in section 60606. In lieu of the six foot tall masonry wall, we're proposing an eight foot tall opaque fence to be located along the perimeter except in the areas of wetland conservation area, wetland buffer. and the ditch that runs through the property along kind of in the northern part. Here, we're seeking to allow the existing vegetation to serve as buffering material. We're also asking for a waiver to the commercial location criteria. In regard to compatibility, we're proposing a 30-foot wide buffer along the east and west and that 8 foot tall opaque fence. The area of development is going to be separated from the lands to the north, which are owned by the school board by a minimum distance of 100 feet. The stormwater will be located in that northern portion, that 100 foot area. All buildings will maintain a 30 foot building setback. And I'd just kind of like to note that the on-site wetland kind of acts as a defined spatial transition between the development and the surrounding property on that west side. And that's really all I have. I can reserve the remainder of my time, if you wish, for rebuttal, if necessary. I would like to say I've received no calls of speaking to opposition. OK. All right. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Development Services. Oh, Ms. Ortiz, if you could sign in. Good evening.

Good evening. Chris Grauman, Development Services. This is our request to rezone approximately 13.79 acres from AR and AI to planned development. The proposed use is a storage facility for operative recreational vehicles, private pleasure craft, and utility trailers. which includes covered, partially covered, uncovered, and enclosed storage areas with an accessory office building. The surrounding area consists of single-family residential, agricultural, and institutional uses. The proposed PD allows up to 90,103 square feet of enclosed building coverage with a maximum height of 25 feet and includes 86 enclosed storage stalls located along the east, west, and north. Approximately 2.5 acres of wetlands in the southeast portion of the site will mean undisturbed, creating internal separation within the project. To address compatibility, the applicant is providing a 30-foot setback and a type C buffer along the boundaries, an eight-foot opaque fence outside wetland areas, and natural vegetation as screening where fencing is not permitted. Staff finds the project compatible because the site layout limits development to upland areas, preserves environmentally sensitive areas, and includes substantial buffering and screening that establish clear spatial transitions between the proposed storage facility and surrounding residential and agricultural properties. These measures maintain separation, reduce visual impacts, and protect adjacent land uses. Development is limited to approximately 7.73 acres of uplands, with the accessory office capped at 2,500 square feet and located internally within the site. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. I'm available for any questions you might have.

Just one to clarify, you submitted a revised staff report into the record, and I just want to clarify, it's only, or just point out, it's only to correct the square footage and the corresponding floor area ratio. Is that correct?

Yes. I apologize. I should have mentioned that.

That's okay. No problem. Just want to make sure. All right. That was it. Thank you so much. Planning Commission.

Alexis Myers, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is in the Suburban Mixed Use 6 feature lane use category. It is in a rural area and not within the limits of any community plan. The proposed development has been designed to provide appropriate separation of and buffering from adjacent uses. Furthermore, the proposed use is low intensity in nature and does not generate the scale of activity typically associated with more intensive commercial or industrial development. The site does not meet Future Land Use Section Objective 4.7 regarding commercial locational criteria. The applicant submitted a CLC waiver outlining the unique CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE, INCLUDING ITS LOCATION ALONG THE U.S. HIGHWAY 92 CORRIDOR AND PROXIMITY TO THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND STORAGE-RELATED USES NEAR MCINTOSH ROAD. WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND THE COMBATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED USE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WAIVER REQUEST. BASED UPON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS AND THE FOLLOWING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFS FIND THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE UNINCORPORATE, I'M SORRY, WITH THE the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Heinrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

We'll go back to the applicant. The applicant has the last word if you'd like it. All right. Then with that, we'll close rezoning PD26-0437 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D4, major mod 26-0556. The applicant is requesting a major modification of PD19-1421. Tanya Ciappella with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. All right. Is the applicant here?

Good evening.

Hi, good evening. Nicole McInnis, Barbus Kramer Law Firm, 2002 West Cleveland Street is my address for the record. We are here today requesting a major modification to property off of Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa. It's located at folio 041181. As I go through the presentation, I'll describe different lots that are within this boundary. The applicant had started going through the plotting process prior to filing this rezoning. And so that is in the process of being finally approved. And so it is going to be split into different pieces. So I can show you the configuration of those when we go through the site plan. But as you see them right now, it's one folio. OK. The property is in the OC 20 future land use category. It's currently zoned plan development 19-1421 and it's in the urban service area. Future land use map. And then here is the PD zoning map. The request today is requesting two different options for this property. The first would allow the applicant to change the types of tenants that are on the property, but would not involve any changes to the existing buildings or trigger any site improvements. Lot one will remain as it is today, which is professional services uses under the existing PD and as developed. Lot two would allow for a variety of different types of commercial general uses, Those are outlined in our application narrative, but this includes uses like business services, diagnostic centers, employment services, professional services, professional office. Lots three and four, which are currently developed as a auto sales and repair facility, would be allowed to remain on the property as well, and that would be the permitted use on those two lots. Option B would allow for redevelopment of lots two through four so they could remove the existing structures but they would have the same list of permitted tenants. Here's the option A plan. So lot one is all the way over to the west side. That is grayed out and is not part of this application as the uses on that lot are not changing from the current configuration of professional office. Lots two, three, and four start from going from west to east. Lot two is a large parcel that you can see kind of wraps behind lot three to the south. Lot three is a small square that's right on top of the lot two that drags over, and then lot four is all the way on the east side. And lot four is what's currently developed right now as that auto repair and sales business. Option B, as I mentioned, this would allow for the same list of uses on the property, but it would allow for the property to be redeveloped, the buildings to be moved around, and it would allow for redevelopment on any of those parcels. The project has been deemed consistent with the comprehensive plan, as I mentioned, is in the OC20 future land use category. Our maximum FAR is 0.5 and the maximum allowed in OC20 is 0.75. Hillsborough Avenue is a major commercial thoroughfare and the uses requested are consistent with those commercial uses. We're also in the urban service area and along a HART bus route. We're also consistent with the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan, which is providing commercial activities that are compatible and designed to serve the community. Again, we're along a major commercial corridor. For trip generation, the project will not, committed to not exceeding the trip generation from the prior PD approval. So we will be limited to the maximum trips that could be generated from 217,000 square feet of professional office and service uses. Those are what's approved as part of the prior PD. There are two variations submitted as part of this request. The first is to allow the existing six foot decorative metal fencing to remain in the front yard. That is an existing built fence that we would be requesting to remain under option A or B. The second would be to allow the existing type A buffer along the southern boundary. As part of our request, we did limit the buildings and uses that could go in that area. Specifically, it could be used for parking or stormwater ponds or for buffer, but there couldn't be any BUILDINGS UNLESS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST TODAY IN THAT AREA. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND HAS DEEMED IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND OUR APPLICANT TEAM AND THE CLIENT ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE. FIRST, IF YOU COULD GO BACK, I THINK IT'S TWO SLIDES PERHAPS WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH 217,000 SQUARE FEET. YES. is adjacent to my question, why are you reducing the square footage from 217 to 216,977?

I think there was a discrepancy with the last approval. The PD site plan showed 217, but then in the conditions, it was 216,977. So we were trying just to clarify that to be the actual number that was part of that original request.

So the number you're requesting is 216,977? Yes, let me confirm that. And while you're looking, wouldn't it then? Yes, it's 216,977, so 23 square feet less than. Okay, then wouldn't it then stand to question, to reason that your traffic cap would be tied to that same number, not 217? Correct, so it would be 216,977. Okay, all right, fair. All right, and then my second question regards the plan development variation and the reduction of the 20-foot buffer to a 5-foot buffer. A couple things. One is your application and your narrative that you submitted says the applicant, I think you just said it too, the applicant is also requesting to maintain the existing five foot type A buffer in lieu of the 20 foot type B buffer along the southern boundary. The original PD, original condition number three requires the 20 foot type three, type B buffer. So how is it referred to as an existing five foot buffer?

So when the last PD was approved, Suncoast had the intent that this property was going to become their corporate campus. It was going to be redeveloped and was all going to be developed for Suncoast related business and uses. None of that was ever actually developed on the property. And so they never went forward with remodeling it. It sort of stayed as it was prior to that PD approval. And so with this option, we're requesting just to keep what is out there today. But in the event that they go to option B and they do scrap the structures, they do redevelopment on the property, they will continue to have those restrictions.

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

No, so when I say existing, it's what's built out there, not what's necessarily approved. And again, that's just because they never built the entitlements that they would have been allowed under that 2019 PD.

But weren't they required when they built it to provide the 20-foot type B buffer?

They never built anything in response to the 2019 approval. So you mean like prior to 2019?

I'm just trying to understand it. I'm not following how there's an existing five-foot buffer there.

Yes, Dallas Evans, Flamingo Civil Design, 2709 North Rocky Point Boulevard, Civil Engineer. That's referring to there was an existing approved site plan, um, from prior to the previous application for the PD. That's what the site was built under. Uh, so that site plan under a previous code was built, um, with the five foot buffer on the south property line.

So the, um, PD number is 19, right? So when were these buildings built prior to 2019?

Yes, I believe it was the 80s.

Okay. It's an older development. Thank you. That's the connection I missed. All right. So these buildings were existing when it was rezoned in 2019? Correct.

And the intent was that it was going to be redeveloped. It was going to be a corporate campus for Suncoast. But then after COVID happened, a lot of employees started working from home. And so those plans were scrapped. And that's when they didn't go forward with the $230,000. 16,977 square feet.

Okay, and the five, are any of those existing buildings built within that southern buffer, the 20 feet?

I believe on, I don't think that any of them are in the existing buffer. On lot two, there are some existing buildings that are very close on the south side, but mostly there's parking in that area, and then there's ponds as well.

And I saw that there's a 15-foot utility easement that runs along that southern boundary. There is. So I just, I'm not understanding, other than perhaps it relates, the five feet relates back to a prior site plan when these buildings were built. Not understanding the reason why you would reduce it from 20 feet to five feet.

Well, because the applicant is not looking under option A to make any changes to the current property, they don't want to make any improvements because they would just be changing internal tenants. So that's why we would be requesting the five feet for it to just stay how it is developed out there right now, not trigger any site-related improvements since they're not going to be moving buildings, building new buildings, anything like that.

But didn't you just say that there are no buildings built within 20 feet?

They're not, they're just, they're very close on that side, but they're not necessarily in that area. But they don't want to build the buffers, build the trees, that sort of thing.

I understand the landscaping is probably not installed because they never did anything to trigger it, but it still doesn't, I still don't follow then why it has to be reduced from 20 feet to five feet if under the existing scenario, they're not in the 20 feet, and it was a requirement of 2019 that they agreed to. I don't understand the rationale.

I'm happy to go back and ask them if they would be willing to install the buffering. It's mostly just because they wouldn't be making any site improvements. It's just internal changes to the tenants. And so to not make any site improvements since they never built out the 2019 entitlements. All of the buildings that are built here were built a long time ago.

Right.

So they never acted on that 2019 approval.

I get that now and especially even more so to my point, option B contemplates that buildings would be removed and then built in accordance with these conditions. And if it's not changed to five feet, they would still be required to adhere to that 20-foot type B.

Right, they would allow, so under the option B, they would be allowed to, there wouldn't be any buildings in that area, but they could have parking, ponds, that sort of thing in that area.

Okay, all right. I believe that ends my questions. Is that the end of your presentation? Yes, ma'am. All right, don't forget to sign in, thanks. All right, development services. Good evening.

Good evening. Tanya Chapela, Development Services. This request is a major mod currently approved for, sorry, it's a major mod to PD 191421, which is currently approved for professional office uses, including an accessory parking building with medical offices prohibited. The modification applies only to lots 2, 3, and 4. Lot 1 will remain unchanged. Option A will retain the existing structures and site layout, while option B will allow redevelopment. This site is surrounded primarily by commercial and light industrial uses with single-family residential development to the south. Staff finds the proposal compatible with the surrounding development pattern and finds the requested fencing and buffering variations supportable. Transportation staff has also provided prior to certification comments, and it's available to explain those requirements. This concludes my presentation. Staff recommends approval subject to the proposed conditions.

Thank you so much. Mr. Ratliff, did you want to comment before I move on?

Yes, if I can figure out how to turn it on. Thanks. For the record, James Ratliff, Transportation Review Section. We did submit a revised staff report into the record for the, essentially we added a new third bullet under the other conditions. It's a prior to certification condition. On the 2019 site plan, there was the shared access facility was shaded and that somehow just got left off in these options. And so essentially the shared access facility that's referenced in the conditions is just putting the shading back on so that there's something to tie the words and the conditions to the site plan. Okay.

Is that it? All right. Thank you so much. Then we'll go to the planning commission.

Alexis Marais, planning commission staff. The subject site is located in the office commercial 20 future land use category. It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park community plan. The request is consistent with the future land use section objective 3.1, and its policies relating to compatibility. With the site being 8.66 acres and being in the OC20 category, the site may consider up to 282,922 square feet, as only 216,977 square feet are Being proposed, the request is consistent with the intensity permitted for this site. The proposed use will maintain the established commercial character of the site and surrounding corridor while remaining consistent with previous approved uses on the property. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff find the proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one. Anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Heinrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

All right. Go back to the applicant if you have the last word, if you'd like it. Nothing further to add. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Then with that, we'll close Major Modification 26-0556 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D5, PD 26-0558. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AR and PD 12-0032 to a planned development. I will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening.

Hey, good evening. My name is Tyler Hudson. My address is 400 North Ashley Drive. With me this evening is my client, Trammell Crowe. Mark Riker's here. He's going to give a little bit of a closing presentation towards the end. We have some public, there are some experts on the project who are available to speak, but probably only in questions. So let's get started. This site is on 301 at the intersection of 301 and Walker Road. It's just a shade under 10 acres. This entire area, there's sort of a triangle that's formed by what you're looking at, 301 to the south, the bypass canal to the west, then Fletcher to the north. That entire triangular area is SMU-6. As you would expect, along 301 and the boundaries of that triangular area, there's pretty pervasive commercial and light industrial activity. SMU 6 expressly contemplates light industrial uses. It probably goes without saying, given the location, it is in the urban service area. It is on a principal arterial road. It's important to note, because we are gonna, just a sneak preview, we are gonna talk a little bit about compatibility this evening. It's important to measure the compatibility a little bit based on what is allowed currently on the site. And so this is a site that currently has split zoning, almost exactly the southern half has a PD that allows the warehouse, logistics, distribution type use that we are seeking. This is not sort of a consumer self-storage facility. This is for companies that need, 45 foot tall buildings with racks for their employees and their equipment. So I think, and I think in deference to staff, I don't think there's a question really about whether warehouse is an appropriate use here at all. It's about how that warehouse is laid out. So what we're seeking here is to have a PD that encompasses both the site that's currently zoned warehouse, together with an adjacent parcel to the north that's currently AR, where I would note the permitted buy-right height's 50 feet. What's different about the 2012 approval, which my client had no part of, is the conditions that we're offering to soften the edges of this use to ensure the compatibility that the comprehensive plan seeks, and that's what we'll talk about in a second. This is an option A, option B plan. We don't present this as a either or to see which one you like better. We do think that both options are viable and really depend on the types of businesses that are going to utilize this building. I'll talk a little bit about option A first. They do have some similarities, especially as it regards square footage. The option A, which you can see on screen, contemplates a singular building with circulation around the perimeter. It's 115,000 square feet. That's just a touch above half of what is allowed in SMU 6. So SMU 6 allows 0.5 FAR for this type of use. Land development regulations need to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. We did our best to pack that in, but we're only using just a touch over half of what is allowed under this land use category. The maximum height's 45 feet. That includes parapet. That's the highest point of the building. These types of buildings are sort of tilt-up walls. You have prefabricated concrete panels that are then tilted up. That creates some dimensional constraints that I can talk a little bit about later why you can't have necessarily vertical setbacks or get it really exotic with little touch-ins on the site. These buildings are made to be rectangles, not because it's easy. That's what the folks who operate businesses inside of them require. 90-degree angles, 45-foot clear heights for racks and equipment and things like that. Option B, I'll just do a little quick transition in the hope of it seeming like an animation. You'll notice with option B, certainly it's two buildings. The biggest difference, of course, is that there's a primary access point that runs through the center or it runs through the division between the two buildings. It functionally creates the division between the two buildings. What you'll note about this option, it's a little bit, it's 8,000 square feet smaller. That part's immaterial. But this option B has no circulation at all on the north side. In both instances, as I'll talk about in a second, loading is prohibited on the north side. either A, by condition, B, by just impossibility. It's gonna be a fire lane. But those are the main distinctions between the two. If you look to the west, I'll cover the west in a second. So we're obviously here, we weren't able to gain the support of Development Services and Planning Commission. They really do center around similar reasons. I don't think this is a case where we're talking about six or seven very different things. We're really talking about one somewhat hard thing, which is compatibility and what that means. We agree to disagree that compatibility is one of the tests we should be looking at. I think we have a little bit of a disagreement about how we fulfill that. The good news is that the comprehensive plan does give us some sense of really what does compatibility mean? I mean, I sort of view it as It's a recipe that's formed of different ingredients, buffers, transitions, things like that. It's an attempt to get to a point of harmony. We believe that we have gone above and beyond in offering enforceable conditions in this PD either by text or by the design of the plan itself that creates a compatibility with the adjacent uses and the adjacent properties. So let's take those one by one. The first is the type of use obviously if you go back to the very the earliest days of zoning we Came up with the idea of zoning to make sure that very noxious uses We're not near uses where that would impede people's quality of life keeping externalities away What we're seeking here It's a PDE but we are seeking to have all M zoning uses a lot of M zoning uses are things like commercial that I don't think anyone has any quarrel over and It does allow a lot of industrial uses, and those come in two flavors in your land development code. Those are heavy industrial and light industrial. We're prohibiting heavy industrial uses entirely. That is not our intent at all. This really is going to function more akin to a warehouse and distribution center the reason some manufacturing uses are important, all of which would sort of fall into the rubric of light industrial is certain tenants might have. Minimal manufacturing in that you are connecting you have one box of component parts another box of different component parts you're putting them together. but this is not like the Keebler cookie factory, but we do want to make sure we're covering all our bases to ensure that the businesses that are going to actually use this to grow their businesses have every possible use covered. The good news is that does not require any heavy industrial use permission at all. That's been prohibited. Next is the north side. That is the side where I think staff would probably agree there's been the most scrutiny. What we're proposing here Is an enhanced landscape buffer so we're talking about doing 14 foot and that's from day one 14 foot live trees planted out of 20 foot spacing. Certainly, the code has a lot of invitation, a lot of local zoning codes do to just put giant white walls. We don't think that's the right thing for the site we don't really think that's the best thing for the environment, the neighborhood by the time these trees get to maturity during seed. the building height, and from day one, they're gonna nearly double the size of the masonry wall that would be there. CMU block doesn't grow, live oak trees do. This is something that we are offering to do, not offering, it's on the site plan to do that is beyond what code requires to ensure that there is a physical barrier between the site and the residential neighborhoods, the residences to the north. On the west side, I alluded to this earlier, I don't think there's a whole lot of consternation necessarily on the west side from staff, but we do have very large stormwater ponds that create, I mean, as you can see on screen, I mean, I think at option A, the rear property line of a home on the west side to the face of our building, I think is an excess of 200 feet, but that is an intentional design choice. Really only to talk about the north and the west sides, because those are the only two parts of our building that don't front a street, Another thing that came up in discussions with staff, one thing that was discussed that we're willing to do is ensure that that north side has a frontage feel. I think there was a concern really early on, sort of anecdotal concern. Well, what happens if people are staring at just a giant blank wall? We have binding commitments regarding the architecture. transparency, things like that, so that it can't be that. We're not going to be able to get a permit for the building we want to build if we don't show something that looks similar to this. This is an actual building, rendering an actual building that this client has developed in Apopka, Florida. So the goal is that the sides that face the northern residents, it does not look like a sheer blank wall. Again, trying to do our best to make this compatible, and we think we've done that. Let's talk about operational conditions. So these are not necessarily depicted. These are in text. We're prohibiting loading on the north side, period. You can't do it. It would be a little dimensionally challenging because you'd be blocking a drive aisle. But that is a commitment in the PD. You cannot load on the north side for option A. Option B, it's really impossible to do because there's no drive aisle there. We are reducing the permissible noise decibel level for industrial adjacency. That's 70 decibels. We're willing to lower that down to 55. THE LIGHTING WILL BE FULL CUTOFF. THIS IS NOT A TOP GOLF THAT YOU'RE MEANT TO SEE FROM SPACE. THE LIGHTING WILL BE IN A MANNER OF .1 FOOT CANDLE SUCH THAT IT DROPS DOWN, DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NO ONE'S INTENT. KIND OF BASICALLY JUST SAID THIS. BUT BOTH OPTION A AND B, WHILE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, DO FURNISH GENERALLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF COMMITMENTS I think public benefits is an important thing to talk about. So when you go northeasterly on 301, you'll take a left on Walker Road into this site. That road is substandard in width because it turns out the county doesn't own it. It turns out it's part of the subject property. So we are voluntarily dedicating 38 feet of width to ensure that Walker Road becomes an actual functional roadway. There's currently a curb cut. It doesn't work very well. Another offer, not offer, a commitment that we've made is to ensure that there's a single access point that meets dimensional standards. We're also going to be pulling in utilities actually from the city of Temple Terrace because this is so close to the city of Temple Terrace. It's in their service area. for sewer and potable water, so we'll be pulling in infrastructure that doesn't exist. Today, I don't believe transportation has any dissent. We do have a couple of administrative variances and design exceptions which have been found approvable, which I don't think we're gonna plan on going into here. Michael Yates can go into that if you have questions. And again, noting where we're going above and beyond what is strictly necessary. Right now, heavy industrial uses aren't banned. They'll be banned if this gets approved. The noise caps, reducing the standard by which we have an enforceable code complaint if we're too noisy, that's not in what's currently approved. And planning 14-foot live oaks on day one, I've never really seen that commitment from an industrial developer. We think that makes a lot more sense than a CMU brick wall because the screening gets better over time. That's something that a CMU block wall is simply just not going to accommodate. Just to reiterate from the top down, this is consistent with the comprehensive plan because this is exactly the type of use SMU6 contemplates. We talk about wanting to direct growth into the urban service area. That's where this is. And Policy 312 specifically talks about how buffering in site design is a way to establish compatibility. There's a big hang-up, and you'll see it in the staff report, about this two to one setback. Problem by applying that to strictly is it would create such a massive setback that when you combine that with the unusual jagged geometry of the Southern property, you'd be down to a very minuscule amount of FAR. You simply can't cite a building that needs to be rectangular with that large of a setback coming down from the north with what's sort of a jagged edge on the south. We don't believe a two-to-one setback is the exclusive. And just to be clear, nowhere in the code does it say that or in the comp plan that a two-to-one setback is the exclusive means of accommodating compatibility. There's flexibility in the code to allow compatibility to be established and measured in different ways and put together all of those things that we're proposing. We respectfully submit does create that compatibility and that this should be found approvable. And with that, I'm gonna ask Mark just to say a couple words about the company that's asking for this.

Okay, thank you. Don't forget to sign in. Good evening. Good evening.

Mark Reeker with Trammell Crow Company. Just a little bit about Trammell Crow Company. We're the largest and I think probably longest standing developer in the United States. Opened in 1948. Been around for a very long time. We're in every major market throughout the United States We're also invested in Hillsborough County have done several projects here We're currently involved in the construction on a project less than two blocks from this site at Williams Road and between Fowler and 301 and And it'll look very similar to the one that you see up on the screen. We took a look at this site early on, as we do with a lot of sites, and really assessed it on the basis of what it offers to the community, which we believe is very strong, and what the downsides could potentially be by integrating it into an area that is somewhat residential. But this is a site that when you really look at it, has some innervated residential to the north and some very solid residential to the west. We were particularly cognizant of maintaining some separation to the properties to the west. We think we've presented ample reasoning behind our feeling that staff should have supported this project. So we were surprised that it didn't receive staff support. We believe we meet all the criteria for staff support. We introduced conditions that are consistent with PDs of this nature. If you could just wrap it up. OK. And we're in a current area that the comp plan is already in place. We didn't ask for a comp plan amendment. Bottom line, we feel like without staff support, we would certainly need CHM support. We know that BOCC is the final authority. But not having either staff support or CHM support, we think we'd be in a compromised position going forward. So thank you for your time. Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

just putting conditions of approval on the record.

Yes, and I have a question after you do that. Mr. Hudson, just in reading the staff reports and your request and so forth, it appears that, as you said, it's not the introduction of warehouse because warehouse is already approved, obviously. That's right. But it appears to be the scale of it. And so that mini warehouse that is approved is about, what, 12,000 square feet.

Mm-hmm.

And what you're asking for is 115,000 square feet. That's right. And so that appears to be the crux of the issue is the scale of this. That's right. And I think you answered in your presentation the two-to-one setback, because that was going to be one of my questions. Why is that? Why not just make it smaller to meet that requirement to try to gain staff support? So I think you already answered that. But tell me about the circulation and the request to even further get PD variations regarding the buffer reductions.

Sure. Why is that justified? If I can get the site plans, I can share those. OK. Before I depict them, I will just say, in general, the buffer reductions are limited in both cases to very specific points in the perimeter. These are not perimeter-wide variations.

Right, but understanding that they're there because of an adjacent residential use. Sure. I see it. That's the one point. If you could bring that microphone with you. There you go. It'll come with you.

That's the one point right there. It's the 90 degree angle formed by the adjacent property line, sort of a poke into the site. That is the only area. It's almost at that point at which we can't meet the buffer because the adjacent property line comes in at that 90 degree, rotated 90 degree angle right there. It's not a perimeter wide. That is not something we would seek, obviously, in light of the discourse that we've had with staff about the importance of buffers. But that is something that is unavoidable based on the site. Redesigning the whole site around that one pinch point just completely denude the site of the development rights attendant to it by virtue of its comprehensive plan designation at first and then second to the point about the operational necessities of buildings like this the way they're constructed it wouldn't be possible for us to sort of poke the building in a manner that would allow that buffer to exist so but i i do want to make clear that that variation while it's sort of plainly stated and it's generally identified IT'S NOT AS TO AN ENTIRE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, MUCH LESS THE ENTIRE PERIMETER. IT'S REALLY JUST DUE TO THAT ONE POINT. THAT'S OPTION A. is right there in the northeast corner. I don't think we have the option of adding sort of like narrative explanation to these variations. This is a reduction. It's really more of an encroachment. The T turnaround for fire access is located in the buffer, which I think under a very strict reading of the code means it's not a buffer because there's also a T turnaround access point for fire. The hope is that there's never a fire truck in that. I think it's gonna be very, very rare that there ever is one functionally. I do wanna root this in sort of the function and get beyond just the strict reading of the code itself. Functionally, that is going to work as a buffer. The fact that it has a dual nature also as a T-turnaround area for fire EMS, I don't think in any meaningful, practical way for the benefit of the neighbors dilutes the benefit that that space is there. It just has another potential contingent springing use laying on it that we hope is obviously never used.

Okay. That answers my question. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Development services.

Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Staff reviewed a rezoning request for properties zoned AR and PD to a new PD to allow for M zoning district uses. The subject area contains AR property along the north and PD zoned property along the south. The PD zone property was rezoned from CN to PD to allow for mini warehouse in limited CG zoning districts or district uses at an FAR of 0.10 with a maximum building height of 35 feet. And I will just state right here, mini warehouse is different than warehouse for our land development code. So checking on that, it is approved only for mini warehouse. This proposal requests an FAR of 0.5 to 0.27 under two development options, as you saw. Option one features one primary building with drive aisles on all sides, while option two features two buildings separated by a drive aisle and drive aisles along the western and eastern side. Both options propose a maximum building height of 45 feet. The site is located in the urban service area in the SMU 6 future land use category and within the Thonotis-Sassa community plan. And as you saw in the applicant's presentation, there is existing single family residential located directly to the north and northwest of the PD. Staff does have compatibility concerns with this proposal due to numerous factors. Firstly, while the site does depict a warehouse with distribution use, all M zoning district uses are proposed. This is one of the most intensive zoning standard zoning districts in the land development code, which could permit incompatible uses directly adjacent to residential. While examining for compatibility, staff looks to development standards such as setbacks, heights, and buffering and screening as ways to mitigate any impacts. The proposed building height of 45 feet requires an 80 foot setback inclusive of the 30 foot wide buffer. The setback is not met by 16 feet for option one and by 38 feet for option two. Additionally, the building length does also require another setback or enhanced screening, and that is not proposed to be met. The 30-foot wide buffer with Type C screening is proposed with the enhancement of taller trees. The project proposes no hours of operation, which could permit overnight hours for an intensive use adjacent to single-family residential. Option 1 restricts loading and unloading from the northern drive, but truck circulation will remain permitted. Option 2 removes the northern drive aisle adjacent to residential, but places the fire truck turnaround within the buffer and places the loading and unloading area a minimum of 30 feet from the property line. PD variation to buffering and screening for each option is proposed. Under option one, a zero foot buffer is proposed within an area along the southwest, which is adjacent to an office use. Under option two, an encroachment of 12 feet into the northern buffer is requested to accommodate the fire truck turnaround. Neither of these PD variations are supported by staff, as they are necessary due to maximizing the development, which impacts the compatibility. Staff acknowledges the applicant's proposals to address compatibility, which included architectural enhancements, restricted loading and unloading areas, noise limits, and lighting limits. However, we are unable to find these proposals as adequate measures to address compatibility, and I'm available if you have any questions.

None at this time. Thank you so much. Planning Commission.

Alexis Myers, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is in the Suburban Mixed-Use 6 Future Land Use designation. It is located in the urban service area within the limits of the Tonnetta-Sassa Community Plan. Manufacturing is generally considered a higher intensity land use and create compatibility concerns when located in close proximity to established residential neighborhoods. Given the predominance of single-family residential development surrounding the site, particularly to the north, the proposed use does not appear to provide a gradual transition of use as visioned by Future Land Use Section Policy 3.1.2. While Planning Commission staff recognize the value of the applicant's proposed mitigation measures, such as enhanced screening, location of the drive aisle in option B, and architectural commitments, compatibility concerns remain regarding the proposed development's relationship to the adjacent single-family residential uses. Based upon those considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff find the proposed plan development inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one. Anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Heinrich, anything further? No, ma'am. All right. Mr. Hudson, you have the last word if you'd like it.

Thank you, ma'am. Tyler Hudson for the record. Jennifer Malone, a certified planner with our firm, is going to just give a couple points on the compatibility concerns raised by the Planning Commission.

Okay, sure. Good evening. Evening, Jennifer Malone, Gardner, Brewer, Hudson, 400 North Ashley Drive. I'm a certified planner. And I just wanted to add a couple points. First point is about urban service area and job growth. This site is in the mixed use category, SMU 6. There is a policy in the Future Land Use Section 4.2.6 that quality employment opportunities, office slash industrial, shall be provided within mixed use categories, which was not in the staff report. Again, it's in the urban service area where we should direct at least 80% of new growth through 2045. And the Planning Commission's own long-range growth forecasts project USA population growing by over a million by 2050. And three out of every four new residents locating in the USA, the new jobs within the USA would increase 44% over 2020. And so job growth is forecast to outgrow PACE POPULATION GROWTH IN THE PERCENTAGE TERMS AND THIS EMPLOYMENT HAS TO LAND SOMEWHERE. THE PROJECT SUPPLIES EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY IN THE USA IN A MIXED USE CATEGORY WHERE THE PLAN SAYS QUALITY INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED. DENYING PLANNED EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY HERE WOULD PUSH IT OUTWARD AGAINST THE OBJECTIVE. I'D ALSO JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS THE GRADUAL TRANSITION. THE POLICY 3.1.2 DOES STATE THAT THE DIFFERENT LAND USES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THROUGH THE USE OF PROFESSIONAL SITE PLANNING, BUFFERING AND SCREENING TECHNIQUES AND CONTROL OF SPECIFIC LAND USES. THE ENHANCED SCREENING TECHNIQUE AND THE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THOSE ARE ENHANCED SCREENING TECHNIQUES. should meet the intent of policy 3.1.2. I'd also like to point out policy 4.4.4, sorry, excuse me, policy 4.4.1 provides a couple different tests for density and intensity increases compatibility. And it's an A through E argument. So there's the creation of like uses, complementary uses, mitigation of adverse impacts, transportation and pedestrian connections, and then a gradual transition of intensity. I would contend that this project is meeting all of these standards. The staff's own report describes the general area as containing residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Those are like uses. For complementary uses, the plan itself supports locating targeted industry employment proximate to residential development for the workforce. Jobs near housing is a complementary according to the plan. The mitigation of adverse impacts, I think we've already covered that pretty sufficiently, but again, that enhanced buffer, the enhanced live oaks and the front facade architectural entreatment is the mitigation of adverse impacts. Transportation and pedestrian connections, the project is creating a pedestrian connection that does not exist today, the new five foot sidewalk, and then gradual transitions of intensity The project is utilizing about half of the category maximum with the proposed FAR. It is providing professional site planning and buffering called for by the plan. I also just want to add that the variation criteria responses were submitted in the record, and I think that those were passed out again. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much. Don't forget to sign in. All right. Then with that, Mr. Hudson, that concludes your rebuttal, correct? Yes. Okay. Then with that, we will close rezoning 26-0558 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D6, PD26-0660. The applicant is requesting your rezoned property from AS1 to Plain Development. Tanya Ciappella with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Is the applicant here?

Jennifer Malone, Gardner-Brewer Hudson. This is a rezoning before you tonight at 260660. This is located at the southwest corner of Sheldon Road and Citrus Park Drive. It is currently vacant. There is residential located to the south and the west of the site, but there are commercial uses very prevalent along Citrus Park Drive, and it is in the urban service area. This is a planned development before you for 228 dwelling units. It is located within the urban service area. It has frontage along an arterial roadway, and it is providing an alternative to strip commercial development. Again, comprehensive plan objective 1.1 directs the county to proactively direct new growth into the urban service area, and especially discourages against that strip commercial development. There are wetlands on the site. The applicant has gone through extensive impacts or conversations with the Environmental Protection Commission, and preliminary wetland impacts have been approved through review number 82176-07. This is a single consolidated building. There is a boardwalk pathway. It was replacing the paved path to help preserve more wetlands. And there is a 100% underground vaulting system, which is also supported by the comprehensive Plan 1 water policies as low-impact development. The applicant is also committing to replacing all remaining wetlands in a conservation easement. They'll be permanently protected through that recorded easement. Development Services Planning Commission, Transportation, Environmental, and Wastewater either found it approvable, consistent, or no objections. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

I just had one quick question, and we can pass this to the staff if you don't know. I understand there's a PD variation request? Yes. And that is to eliminate the required buffer to the east, including the screening, in recognition of those wetlands being retained. And I just had a question about what is actually required. If you don't know, I'll ask staff, but...

Yeah, I would have to grab, well, and I don't have my papers up here with me.

Okay, all right, fair enough. We'll just ask staff. So don't forget to sign in. Development services. Good evening again.

Good evening, Tanya Ciappella, Development Services. I'm gonna need some time to find your information. No problem, no problem. The request is to rezone the property from AS1 to plan development to allow up to 228 multi-family dwelling units. The maximum number of units is based on the comprehensive plan provisions addressing environmentally sensitive lands and the residential density bonus for infill development. Development exceeding 186 units will require final EPC wetland documentation and final plan approval. The applicant also requests the variation to eliminate the required eastern landscape buffer where existing wetlands and wetland setbacks will remain. Staff find that these natural features provide adequate separation from the commercial development to the east. The proposed buildings may reach 60 feet in height and are required to maintain setbacks for 80 feet from the north and east boundaries and 100 feet from the south boundary. Based on the proposed setbacks retained with land offerings and surrounding development pattern, staff finds the request compatible with the surrounding area. This concludes my presentation except for your question.

Yeah, well, I'll move on and then we'll come back. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Planning Commission. Alexis Myers planning commission staff. The subject property is located in the residential 20 future land use category. It is in the urban service area within the limits of the Northwest Hillsborough community plan. Future land use section objective 4.9 and policy 4.9.6 establish incentives for higher density and intensity development along major corridors and within mixed use areas as an alternative to strip commercial development. The property is located within an area characterized by a mix of commercial, residential, and utility uses, including established strip commercial development to the north and east. The proposed multifamily residential development provides an alternative to the additional strip commercial development along Sheldon Road and supports the residential development pattern consistent with intent of the rest 20 future use category. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan development advances the intent of policy 4.9.6 by promoting residential infill on a vacant property within the urbanized area with access to existing infrastructure and services and is therefore consistent with this policy direction. based upon the above considerations. In the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff find the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the proposed conditions by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one. Anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Development Services.

Michelle Hainrich, Development Service. Oh, I'm sorry, Todd. I was trying to save her from coming back up. We checked during Planning Commission's presentation, and the requirement is 20 feet.

20 feet, and what is the screening? Type B. Type B, perfect. That's what I needed. Thank you so much. Any other comments? Ms. Hainrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

All right. Then we'll go back to the applicant who has the last word.

Jennifer Mullen, we're going to waive rebuttal.

All right. Thank you so much. And with that, we'll close rezoning 26-0660 and go to the last case.

Our last item is item D7, major mod 26-0805. The applicant is requesting a major modification, the PD-05-1787. Chris Granlenar with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation. All right.

Good evening. Hi, good evening. Ann Pollack with Trenum Law, 200 Central Avenue in St. Pete. Today I'm representing the applicant PSS, and our engineer and traffic engineer are here for any questions. So this is a very simple request just to increase entitlements, but it's a little complicated how we get here, so I'm going to go through it a bit. The PD that this property is located within is shown in blue here. It's an 8.29 acre site just east of US 301, south of Duncan Road and Bloomingdale. It's developed as a commercial condominium with warehouse, office, contractor space, flex space they call it. 40 units have been built, about 43,000 square feet. The major mod area is in red. These are the two remaining vacant parcels within the PD, about .97 acres. And what we're looking to do is build two new similar units of 20 units and 15 units each. Over time, really the entitlements for the PD have changed as various ideas for completing the development were put forward. Originally it was about 95,000 that was approved. But then there was an idea for a car wash and an idea for a church and nothing ever ended up happening with those. So 20 years later, the subject parcels remain vacant. And what the applicant really wishes to do is complete the development with the flex space units as was originally approved in 2005. and contemplated by the condominium. So the PD site currently as a whole is allowed 77,800 square feet of non-retail uses and 25,000 square feet of retail CG uses. The major modification area, again that area in red, is currently allowed an additional 3890 square feet of non-retail CG uses. And the PD has a total maximum allowed of 81,690 square feet of retail and non-retail uses. So you cannot build everything that is approved. The maximum you can build is 81,000. What we are proposing is no change to that existing 77,800 and 25,000 retail so that all the other units can continue to build whatever they are interested in. but it would allow the major mod area an additional 18,310 square feet of non-retail CG uses. That would be, with that 3,890 square feet that's already approved, would be a total of 22,200 additional square feet that could be built within the major modification area. And the request also increases the PD maximum to 100,000 square feet of non-retail and retail uses. So the whole site can be built up to that 100,000, but nothing beyond that. This is a picture of the site plan, and you can see the major mod areas outlined in blue. To the left of that are the two buildings that are already built. No changes are being proposed to the site plan. We are correcting some typos and missing words that appear to have been lost over time throughout the PRSs that have been approved, but we are just increasing the entitlements. There is existing access to US 301, There is approved cross access to the north and the south, but those have not been built because the north and south properties have not been redeveloped. There's a stormwater pond on the east side, and then further from that is a conservation easement for the residential development that is even further east from there. And so again, the purpose is to allow this site, which is developed as the warehouse office condominium with 40 units, to be expanded to allow the two new buildings with 35 additional non-retail uses. The site has limited marketability for retail, but the non-retail flex space office warehouse is very in demand here. And it will generally mimic the existing buildings on site. And again, we'll complete the vision that was proposed in 2005. The building and the proposed expansion of the entitlements is very compatible with the area. We are not proposing any use changes. The major mod parcels are within the PD. They're surrounded by common area owned by the Condominium Association and the existing flex space buildings that are already developed. Outside the PD, the surrounding vicinity is similarly similarly developed with a mix of intense commercial uses, self-storage to the north, mobile home sales and service to the south, strip center, restaurant, retail to the west. And then to the east, again, is the conservation area within the common, the stormwater within the condo area, followed by a conservation easement for the residential further to the east. This really is the ideal location for this development and the rezoning approval will allow additional flex space workspaces to be built and available for the community. And it will really provide office and storage space for a variety of small businesses providing a substantial benefit to the Riverview area. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan located in the urban service area, suburban mixed use six future land use, which permits office light industrial and other retail and non-retail commercial uses like what is existing and we are proposing. The FAR is consistent with the suburban mixed use six future land use, which allows up to 0.35. The project does balance the need for additional commercial space in the area while integrating the new construction into a well-established commercial area. And quoting the planning commission who said that this project will not change the existing character of the subject site, from 2005 and it won't impact adjacent uses which are similar in nature. The project is also consistent with the Riverview Community Plan and the Uptown-Downtown Riverview Overlay. The Community Plan says that Riverview is truly the commercial commerce crossroads for East Tampa and Central Florida's West Coast, and businesses and industries are coming here in that area, bringing jobs and workers. Goal seven encourages development by supporting local businesses while attracting a variety of new uses. And this is really exactly what we are doing. The site is in the Highway 301 corridor district, which as the Planning Commission confirms, this project will contribute to the mixed-use corridor by expanding existing commercial development for more economic opportunities while providing appropriate site design that doesn't negatively affect existing corridor or adjacent properties. It's this mix of uses and it will allow this new modern space to bring in which the market is demanding and lots more opportunities for small businesses in Riverview. It is located on US 301, so it will require FDOT review for the access and any changes, but it will only result in a minor increase in new peak hour trips. There are no medical office uses on site and a new condition will prohibit those in the major modification area. But our traffic study analyzed all existing non-retail as medical office because that would be the worst case scenario for the existing. And even though the PD General has extremely limited amount of retail uses, the study analyzed as if there was a maximum of 25,000 square feet of retail. And again, only a minor increase in new peak hour trips. Again, cross access is being provided for, and we have no objections or added conditions from transportation staff. Conditions of approval, as I think Chris will explain, we're just requesting a small change to condition 1.1.A to be revised to read as it essentially was in the last approval with the updated entitlements. We think this is clear given the confusion about who gets what entitlements in this project. And again, medical office is removed as an allowed use. But no matter what, we're not touching any of the uses that are allowed or the entitlements that are already allowed in the existing development in the other existing buildings. So there's no impact there. So in summary, compatible with the existing PD approval and the established character of the whole area. We're not requesting variations or waivers. I'm not even asking for administrative variance or a design exception. The Planning Commission found it consistent and county staff finds it approvable. No objections from transportation or other reviewing agencies. I really think that this application is a, It's kind of the last step for the applicant to complete that warehouse office flex space development that was planned 20 years ago. And with your approval and support, we can move forward with that. So thank you very much.

Thank you. I appreciate your presentation. Don't forget to sign in. Development services.

Good evening, Chris Granlenard with Development Services. I'm here to present major modification 260805, which is a major modification request for two parcels located at 6528 South US Highway 301. It's totaling 0.968 acres. The surrounding area consists of single-family and multi-family residential, office, and commercial uses. The modification updates the planning plan development to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet commercial general uses within the PD area. This includes flex space, storage, non-retail uses and retail within the modification area, 22,200 square feet of flex space and non-retail commercial uses will be specifically allocated, medical office uses will be prohibited on these parcels. The modification continues the established development pattern along Highway 301, where commercial and flex space uses are commonly located along major roadways with residential neighborhoods situated behind buffers. The existing buffering and screening through stormwater features, conservation areas, and landscape common areas will remain in place, maintaining separation from nearby residential properties. Building height limits and general site configuration remain consistent with the adjacent development. Staff finds the proposed modification compatible with the surrounding development pattern as the commercial flex space use on the site is a longstanding along the US 301 corridor. It serves nearby neighborhoods and existing commercial activity and the modification does not introduce new or more intensive use types beyond the established development pattern already presented within the planned development. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Glad to answer any questions.

Just one. You submitted a revised staff report into the record, and I just want to confirm that's to amend the 1.2A.

Yeah, the A section that was requested by the applicant. Perfect.

That's all.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Planning Commission. Alexis Maris, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is in the Suburban Mixed Use 6 Future Land Use category. It is located in the urban service area within the limits of the Riverview Community Plan, as well as the South Shore Areawide Systems Plan. The current area is largely commercial with a mix of multifamily and single family residential uses. Therefore, the proposed major modification meets the intent of Future Land Use Section Objective 1.1. With the 8.29 acres, the site may be considered for a maximum of 126,389 square feet, The 100,000 total square footage the applicant is proposing with the major modification to the plan development does not exceed the maximum allowable density or uses allowed within the SMU 6 future land use. Therefore, the proposed major modification is consistent with future land use section goal 2 and objective 2.1. The proposed major modification will provide additional commercial and office space within a predominantly commercial and industrial area along US Highway 301 and therefore meet the intent of Objective 3.1 regarding compatibility and Objective 4.4 regarding neighborhood protection. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff find the proposed measure modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak in support or online? Anyone who would like to testify in support? Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Heinrich, anything further?

No, ma'am.

Ms. Pollack, you have the last word if you'd like it. No, thank you. Okay. Then with that, we'll close Major Modification 26-0805 and adjourn the hearing. Thank you all for your time and testimony.