Zoning Hearing Master - Regular Meeting

Hold on, I got two right here. No, there's two right here, two little ones.

Obviously, when we pull up, we're asking like, hey, is that your dog? They said when they approached it, it started to growl at them. They were obviously hesitant, but they're like, it doesn't look in good condition.

We found one dog in there that was barely alive. It's literally skin and bones.

Oh, my god. That is just ridiculous.

In Hillsborough County, your tap water is more than just convenient. It's safe, trusted, and affordable. Every drop is monitored 24 hours a day and tested regularly to meet strict state and federal standards so you can trust what's coming out of your tap. Skip the plastic water bottles and go with tap. That way, you're choosing sustainability and savings. Hillsborough County Water Resources is proud to deliver quality on tap. For helpful tips and for more information, visit hcfl.gov slash quality on tap.

you

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this evening's Zoning Hearing Master hearing. My name is Steve Luce and I'll be tonight's Zoning Hearing Master. Before we get started, if we could all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, you may be seated. At this point in time, I'd like to introduce Michelle Heinrich who will introduce the other staff members that are here tonight and go over any changes to tonight's agenda.

Good evening, Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. We do have one unpublished change to announce, and that is on agenda, page four, item A3, Major Mod 26-0622, a revision to the, we're revising the agenda to reflect the current application number, which is Major Mod 260062.

Okay. I don't know if you want to introduce anybody else here.

Sure. We also have a few contingencies to let the public know about. Okay. In case anybody's here tonight, we certainly don't want you waiting too long. But I do have a list of cases that have been continued to the June 22nd hearing. And those include standard rezoning 25-10-26. which is at 4512 South 66th Street, Major Mod 25-1261, which is at 2715 West Sly, Major Mod 26-0062, which is in the vicinity of Apollo Beach Boulevard and Gulf and Sea Boulevard, PD 26-0095, which is in the vicinity of Hannah Avenue and Grady Avenue. PD 26-0422, which is in the vicinity of Dorman Road. PD 26-0433, which is in the vicinity of Hillsborough Avenue and George Road. PD 26-0437, which is at 13030 Highway 92 East. PD 26-0445, which is at 4020 West Waters Avenue. Major mod 26-0546, which is located at 3611 East County Lane Road. Major Mod 26-0553, which is in the vicinity of Hideaway Lane and Loma Vista Drive. Major Mod 26-0556, which is located at 6605 East Hillsborough Avenue. PD 26-0558, which is located at 1102 North Highway 301 and 11404 on Walker Road. and then we do have two cases which are continued to the July 20th hearing, and those include PD 26-0206, which is located at 5707 West Sly Avenue, and PD 26-0363, which is in the vicinity of Lakewood Drive and Truman Drive. and all of those are reflected on the agenda if anyone needs to take a look. We do have agendas available outside and we have a few up here if you need them. And to introduce everyone up here with the County Attorney's Office, we have Mary Dorman and next to her we have Jared Delfino and with the Planning Commission we have Tyreek Royal and with Development Services over on the other side joining me is James Ratliff.

Okay, very good. I have a few instructions. Yes, sir.

In regard to item 810-260-445, that should be continued to July. I did mention the staff. I don't know if we need to state that or not, but I want to be sure that was on the record.

Yeah, what will happen in that case is it's shown on the agenda till June and then the June ZHM. We would have another continuance reflecting July.

I just want to be sure that when we're going to have to do a notice for June and then July.

Yeah, we'll get with the with the coordinator to make sure that the notice is done efficiently.

Thank you.

Mr. Pressman, can you come sign in please?

Okay, our hearing tonight consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by the zoning hearing master. I will conduct a hearing on each agenda item and will file a recommendation within 15 working days after the conclusion of tonight's hearing. Those recommendations are then sent to the Board of County Commissioners who will make the final decision on these applications. Our hearing will be informal. I will ask questions related to scope of direct testimony. I may call and question witnesses as I deem appropriate and will decide all questions of procedure. I will take evidence but will exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or duly 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. Now I'll read the order of presentation for each application tonight. First Ms. Heinrich will introduce the item. Then the applicant and their witnesses will have 15 minutes for their case. Then Development Services presents their staff reports and they have five minutes for that purpose. Then the Planning Commission staff has five minutes to go through their staff report and their findings. Next, those people in support of the application will have 15 minutes to speak in support. Next, those people who wish to speak in opposition will speak and they have 15 minutes for that purpose. Then Development Services will have an additional five minutes to address any comments that were made at the hearing. And finally the applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal and that would conclude each case. Regarding the time for proponents or opponents, The 15 minute time frame is the total time for each category. If there are a number of people to speak, we will add up the total number of people and the 15 minutes will be divided as equally as possible. You may wish to designate a single spokesperson to more efficiently use the time. When you come up to the podium to speak, please start by giving your name and address for the record. The meeting is being recorded and we want to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record. When you are done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name, address, and the application number of the agenda item you are speaking to. There's a pad down at the end of the counter. If the clerk raised your hand, sign in with her and she has a pad in front of her. At this point in time, the County Attorney's Office will now provide the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.

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 a decision on each application heard tonight. Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the Board at its July 21st, 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 June 16th, 2016. I'm sorry, 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 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 Lane 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 four categories categories, one of the four following 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 testimony and other evidence submitted verbally or in writing to Delaney'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.

Okay, thank you. All testimony must be provided under oath. Therefore, if you plan to speak, please stand and raise your right hand so I may swear you in. All those who wish to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. You may be seated, thank you. Ms. Heinrich, I believe there's also an overflow room on the first floor where people can sit. And I think there's monitors, they can watch the hearing.

Correct, we do have one application that does have a large group of citizens who are participating tonight so we do have the overflow room available and of course as Room opens up in here being as their last or more than welcome to come up But we'll make sure they're aware of the progress and like you said it is being televised downstairs.

All right, very good All right, that concludes the instructions for tonight's hearing at this point in time is the sign Rick if you could introduce the first item I

Our first item is standard rezoning 26-0728. The applicant is requesting a rezone property from ASC1 to CIR. Sierra James with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant please. Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Jose Garcia. I'm here for case RZ STD 260728. Excuse me, sir, your address? 3118 Summer Cruise Drive, Valrico, Florida, 33594. We are here requesting rezoning from ASC1 to CIR, commercial intensive restricted. The property has a light industrial future land use designation and is required... And this request is consistent with that designation. The proposed future use is an enclosed mini warehouse or self storage type use. We have accepted the transportation condition requiring future access to be designed as a hard access facility with a neighboring parcel as requested by county staff. Final site design, access, buffering, drainage, and permitting will be reviewed later during site development review. The staff report finds rezoning request approvable and the planning commission found the request consistent with that future land use designation. Based on that consistency with the future land use designation compatibility with the surrounding development pattern and staff's recommendation, we respectfully request approval.

Thank you. And sir, could you specify are you the property owner or the rep? I am the representative applicant. Okay. All right, very good. No questions at this point in time, thank you. And please sign in. All right, development services staff.

Good evening, Sierra James Development Services. The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel from ASC1 to CIR with the following applicant proposed restrictions. The developer shall provide a cross access stub out along the western property boundary in the location which meets the applicable requirements and considers the volume of total traffic anticipated to such facility in the future. Such project access and all internal driveways between this access and the access to Hartford Street shall be considered shared access facilities with folio 47174.0200. The site is located along Hartford Street within the Palm River Progress Village community plan area. Properties to the south and west of the site are used for open storage, while sites to the north and east are used for residential and agricultural uses. The development standards in the CI zoning district would be applicable, including buffering and screening and building setbacks. Based on these considerations, staff find the proposed rezoning approvable.

All right, thank you. And Planning Commission staff? give to the entire Royal Planning Commission staff. The surrounding area is characterized by a mix of single-family residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, and institutional uses, with heavy industrial and commercial development located to the south, east, and west of the site. Nearby properties also include light industrial, light commercial, educational, and quasi-public uses, reflecting the area's diverse development pattern. The request aligns with Fluid Objective 1.1, directing growth to the urban service area with Fluid Policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with the surrounding land use. South found the proposed mini warehouse self-storage compatible with established character of the area due to the presence of nearby industrial and commercial activity. The proposal is also consistent with FLU Goal 2 and FLU Objective 2.2. That's the request that commercial intensive zoning supports uses permitted within the light industrial future land use designation, including warehouse and storage facilities. The request complies with FLU Objective 4.4 and Policy 4.4.1 by integrating development that complements adjacent land uses and maintains compatibility through appropriate transition and intensity. Although the site is located within a coastal high hazard area, the proposal is limited to non-residential uses and is not expected to adversely impact evacuation routes or shelter capacity, which is consistent with Flu Objective 4.3 and related policies. The request also supports the goals of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan by promoting and coordinating compatible development with the overall community. Overall, staff finds the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? See no one responding. Just one question for staff. The restriction is that they provide cross-access to the west, I think, and it's to a PD.

I believe it's to the east here.

It's to the east, my apologies. Did you check that PD and does it have a corresponding cross access requirement?

If it is property to the east, that's shown as ASC1. To the west is PD 890138. Okay.

The restriction is to the east, correct? Correct. And you're saying the zoning to the east is?

ASC1.

ASC1, okay. All right.

Wait, it says, in looking here, it says stub out along the western property boundary in a location that meets applicable requirements. So if it is to the west, that is to a PD rather than east.

All right, so strike that, it's to the west, and then there's a PD there. Do you know if there's a corresponding cross-access requirement for that PD?

I don't know if that's required for instances of shared access. I don't know if transportation has any updates on that or would require an actual access point on the PD.

For the record, James Ratliff, Transportation Review. And Sarah Rose is here who can answer specific questions if needed. But generally speaking, I would say what, even if it didn't, what we're trying to do is set it up so that in the future if they came in and intensified or anything changed or they needed a variance and couldn't get one, that there's a provision in place for them. Not necessarily that it has to be used, but that it can be used. Fair enough.

All right, thank you. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Okay. An applicant, an opportunity for rebuttal. Any final comments from the applicant? I don't see them coming forward, so I think we're good. All right, with that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, you're ready for the next item.

Our next application is item C2, standard rezoning 26-0740. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from ASC1 to RSC6. This has been reviewed by Logan McCaig, and I'll present his findings tonight after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening. Justin Wilkerson, 3118 Buttercup Street.

Yeah.

We are wanting to rezone from ASC1 to RC6 to be able to subdivide to add an additional house for my wife and son and I on my parents' property.

Okay.

Currently the land is zoned for ASC1 with a future land use of R6. We are wanting to rezone to RC6 so that we can subdivide to the parcel into two plots and build one house on the subdivided parcel. Our proposed utility connections are through county water and sewer being the placement of the property and house already verified through county utilities. There are no wetlands on this property or upland habitats. I think that the future lane use with the amount of density surrounding us makes this applicable. Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you.

Okay.

All right, development services staff.

I'm Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Staff reviewed the rezoning request for a 1.21 acre parcel from ASC 1 to RSC 6 for the purposes of allowing a smaller lot size for a future subdivision of the property. The site is located in the Res 6 future land use category in the urban service area. Staff found the request to be compatible with the surrounding development and no objections from reviewing agencies were received. If approved, the applicant will need to subdivide the parcel through the county subdivision process. Additionally, the subdivision of the subject lot into more than two lots may be limited due to access requirements.

Have you discussed the access issue with the property owner applicant?

Yes. The reviewer is Sarah Rose, and I believe that she spoke with Mr. Wilkinson last week regarding some of the restraints if he wanted to do more than two lots.

Okay.

All right, Planning Commission staff, Good evening again, Tyree Corral, Planning Commission staff. The surrounding area is predominantly characterized by established single-family residential development with additional multi-family residential and public quasi-public uses located nearby, including Sefner Elementary School along South Kingsway Road. The 1.21-acre site is designated Residential 6, where it permits low-density residential development at a maximum density of six dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from ASC 1 to RSC 6 to allow one additional dwelling unit on the property. The request aligns with Fluid Directive 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area and with Fluid Policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with the surrounding residential development pattern. The proposal is also consistent with Fluid Directive 2.2 as the requested density remains well below the maximum allowable density under the REST 6 future land use category. With approximately 1.21 acres, the site could accommodate up to seven dwelling units, while the proposal includes only two total dwelling units. The request complies with Flu Objective 4.4 and Flu Policy 4.4.1 by maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential properties and preserving established residential character of the area. Additionally, the proposal supports the intent of the Brighton Community Plans Suburban Character District, which encourages primarily single-family residential development with compatible housing types. in traditional suburban development patterns. Overall, staff finds the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Okay. An applicant opportunity for final comment, rebuttal? Sir, we're good? Good, all right, very good. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Hymerick, we're ready for the next item.

Our next item is item D1, major mod 26-0045. The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 85-0215. This has been reviewed by Chris Greenlenard, who will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, applicant, please. Yes, good evening, Mr. Hearing Master. My name is Matt Newton of the law firm Shoemaker, Loop, and Kendrick, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2800 here in Tampa. On behalf of the applicant, United Rentals. This is a major modification to a 1985 PD to allow open storage and rental of commercial equipment and machinery. Just to quickly orient you, and no pun intended, because it's on Orient Road. You can see here's Hillsborough Avenue, Orient is here, and then off of Orient, East Hanna Avenue heading west. Here we are indicated in red. This is part of a industrial park that was platted at the same time this was rezoned called Park East. It contains an assortment of industrial and commercial uses. A little bit of background, this site was originally operated by High Reach II, another equipment rental company. This is from a press release in January of 2025. United Rentals acquired High Reach II as part of the due diligence, noted that the existing PD did not permit this existing land use. So this is the result of due diligence as opposed to any kind of code enforcement issue. To the north is U.S. Foods Distribution Center. Just to the east is a land use that was recently approved by the BOCC for 13,000 square feet of a truck maintenance facility to be operated by U.S. Foods. This also includes the overnight parking of trucks. You'll see that in the conditions. South of us is another distribution center, and then west is an existing asphalt plant. And as Planning Commission will go into more detail, we are requesting a flex to allow the open storage use. which the Planning Commission supports. Just quickly gonna go through a few kind of quirks and features of this site plan as you go through and prepare your report. Here was really one of the most bizarre things I've seen in my career, and I think Mr. Ratliff would agree. You'll see a note here about a previously vacated right-of-way that we're preserving. Kind of going back and forth in here, this was platted right-of-way. Here you can see to the north of our site, Hanna can connect to the west. This was approved for vacating in 2012, but as you can see, It's also on the corridor preservation of the map. So was it vacated in error? Kind of weird, but ultimately the landowner agrees. We'll just treat it as corridor preservation area for now. And you can look at proposed condition 15.1 through three, which we agree to. And that's essentially the summation of that. Another quirk and feature, you'll notice that there's two accesses to the site. Normally there would be one. We did apply for a administrative variance to approve these dual accesses, which is found approvable by the county engineer, as opposed to having to shut one down and deal with that hardship. That's in condition 16. And finally, we are asking for relief for the screening for this land use, considering the consistency of the area. Essentially kind of keeping this existing screening paradigm, but adding evergreen shrubs. You can see the existing trees, you can see an existing fence. Staff does support this, and we support adding the additional landscaping. So just kind of a brief summation. Actually, no, before I get there. Planning Commission will go into more detail. Just want to touch on that they have found that it's consistent and compatible with the existing community, satisfies the criteria for FLEX, and supports the economic development goal of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan, which of course is essential. And here's just kind of an indication that we are well within the 500 feet for a FLEX. It's about 350 feet. So finally, I wanna thank Development Services and the Planning Commission for their coordination with us. Both find it supportable. And we have received some feedback from the community, just more agnostic curiosity. Didn't receive any opposition or concern. So thank you for your time.

All right, thank you, sir. All right, and Development Services staff.

Good evening. Chris Graumanar, Development Services. I'm here to present Major Modification 26-0045, which is a major modification to PD 85-0215 for a 3.89 acre site at 6350 Pine Grove Road The request seeks to add sales and rental of commercial vehicles and equipment with associated open storage as a permitted use. It also includes future land use flex to extend the light industrial designation to fully support the open storage component. The surrounding area consists of established industrial and service oriented uses, including warehouse, manufacturing, and similar open storage operations. Steph finds the proposed use consistent and compatible with this development pattern. As a part of the request, the applicant seeks a variation of the open storage screening requirements. Instead of the standard six foot solid barrier and 100 foot interior screening, the variation would allow a four foot evergreen shrubs at 75% opacity, transparent gates, and a screening limited to the frontage. Staff supports this because the frontage already contains mature vegetation, providing substantial natural screening, and the industrial context reduces visual impacts. The alternative method continues to meet the intent of the buffering standards. Development services finds the request compatible and approvable subject to the conditions in the staff report That's lose my report. I'll be able to answer any questions you might have no questions.

Thank you Planning Commission staff You have an entire girl planning commission staff the surrounding area is predominantly characterized by industrial and commercial development including distribution centers warehouses and open storage area areas Nearby uses include U.S. Foods distribution facility to the north, approved fleet vehicle storage to the east, and asphalt plant to the west, an additional warehouse and industrial operations to the south. The 3.89 acre site is designated as a research corporate park, which permits research offices, warehousing, light industrial, and related commercial uses. The applicants are requesting major modification to offer open storage and rental of heavy equipment. This aligns with Flu Objective 1.1 by directing growth to the U.S.A. urban service area with Flu Policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with the surrounding industrial development pattern. The proposal is also consistent with Fluid Director 2.2 and association policies governing land use categories. NAPA client requested a flex to the adjacent light industrial future land use category to allow the proposed open storage use. And staff determined the request satisfies the criteria of Fluid Policy 2.2.3 and 2.2.4, including proximity to the existing light industrial boundary, compatibility with the surrounding uses, and consistency with the comprehensive plan goals. The proposed use is similar in nature to surrounding industrial activities and represents a reduction in maximum non-residential intensity from a 1.0 FAR in the RCP category to a .75 FAR under the light industrial category. The request also complies with fluid directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by maintaining compatibility with adjacent industrial uses and minimizing impacts to nearby properties. Additionally, the proposal supports Fluid Objective 7.1 in the Eastlake Community Park by preserving industrial land, supporting employment opportunities, and promoting continued business growth within the area. Overall, staff finds the proposed major modification compatible with the surrounding development pattern and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you.

Okay, and just some bookkeeping. The original report, I don't think, addressed the flex, but do you have a revised report?

The report I'm seeing here, it addresses the flex, and it outlines all the criteria. Okay. Yes, very good, thank you. No problem.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? So no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Okay, we have an opportunity for rebuttal. With that, no need for rebuttal. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D2, PD26-0217. The applicant is requesting to rezone property that's currently AR and AS1 to Plain Development. Carol Ann Petal with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening, Cami Corbett with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson. This is very high tonight. I have not been sworn.

Okay. Raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

So the subject property is located south of Big Bend Road, just east of the interstate. This is one of the remaining vacant parcels in this Simmons Loop area, which is nearly developed out. Most of the parcels are already entitled for something. They're either being built or entitled for other uses. The zoning is AR and AS1. You can see it's kind of an unusual parcel, but it's... something that when combined works together for this mixed-use development. You see we have UMU 20 to the north and then we have CMU 12 to the west. We had actually considered a planned amendment to CMU 12 but realized that we really ultimately did not need that and withdrew that amendment. So we're proposing a mixed-use village with several different villages, three actually, and the staff report reflects that we had modified this to three. There were originally four. And each village will have unique uses, and I'll go through those. Village A is a typical townhome duplex structure or single family structures. And we have the difference in the number of units for each type of structure based on the transportation analysis. And these units can either be platted or unplatted. In Village B, we have traditional multifamily. And note that we have an 80 foot, minimum 80 foot Building setback line from the eastern and southern property boundary lines. You can see it's real small in the site plan, but you see the site plan and the staff report and you can see that we are providing that minimum 80 foot distance separation to have concern to make sure we're compatible with the single family residential. And then Village C contains some of the natural areas, and we're proposing both agricultural uses, but also low intensity commercial uses of 20 recreational vehicles, pleasure crafts, or utility trailer vehicles in this village.

Just to elaborate, because the village, you label it as Village C, and it covers three different tracks?

Yes.

Right, and where would the parking of the vehicles be?

that will be determined at site. We didn't locate a specific area. We need to work on the access, and that's something we've deferred to site. EPC has no objection to us moving forward.

Well, that's where I'm leading to.

Yes. EPC is aware, and there's emails in the file that makes it clear that EPC is aware that we intend to access that parcel, and they're fine with us doing that at the time of site development, generally speaking, because it's such a low-intensity use.

I suppose it's not the use per se. It's the crossing of the creek and the floodplain and wetlands.

And we may not need to cross the creek. And so that's why the proposed conditions that are in the staff report address that. That also will be addressed at site and development services and EPC and all the reviewing agencies will have to address that at the time of site development.

Okay. All right.

and just this is a buffering in screening slide uh... showing that we are providing the twenty foot tight the buffer uh... where we have but the multi-family to the single family uh... we are asking for some variations with uh... perspective buffers that would be required in village c essentially they're about in the multi-family so we're asking just to uh... no have no buffer in those areas were buffering to ourselves uh... we have a buffer on the east side uh... between the single family and medical office type use that was approved to the east on the north side of Simmons Loop, they're providing that buffer as part of that development. It's a medical rehab use. That was rezone sometime last year. And this is just a typical what each of the buffers look like. This is the type A buffer, the type B buffer and the elevation of the right away buffer to give you an idea of what will be seen from the roadway and from internal and external to the development. Lastly staff has found Planning Commission staff has found this consistent and approvable and development services It's also found it approvable subject to the conditions There were some revised conditions or some optics issues over the weekend But there were also the staff report that is that you have now is the correct staff report and we're here to answer any questions Steve Henry is our traffic expert. He's here Tampa civil and their team are here if you have any questions, okay, can you go back to the site plan and

Which picture? Show me how the access works.

Show you how the access works? You mean how does Mary Lou?

How do you get off the main highway to get into the project?

Through Mary Lou Drive, which is the yellow highlighted. It's a local roadway.

Okay.

So you come off Simmons Loop. We do actually have typical section.

Okay.

If that helps.

Yeah, and what about that strip of land that's south of Mary Lou? Is that being used for access?

No, it is not being used for access. It doesn't have any proposed development. It's just open space. We just left that as open space. It is part of the folio that we're rezoning, but we're not proposing any use or access there.

Okay. The access point... that's in the southwest corner of the site. What kind of access is that?

In terms of how would you categorize it?

Is it gated?

It is not gated. Oh, it is gated. Yes, it is gated, sorry. It's not emergency access, but it is gated.

It's gated, but it's not an emergency access, because there's more than one way in and out?

yeah it was really more a function of that access point was driven primarily by the PD to the south that showed a cross access arrow and showed the roadway continuing. And so without having a local roadway continuing through the middle of Village B, this was the alternative that was arrived at with staff in terms of how we could address providing access, but allowing the local, the driveways in the apartment complex to serve as sort of internal only. So it was largely driven by, I guess, access to the south, but it was more driven by the fact that there's an arrow on the PD to the south.

Okay. What kind of comments did you get from APC about Village A? And I see that today, parts of it is a fish farm, or used to be a fish farm? Did EPC have any comments?

I don't recall any specific comments related to Village A. There were some discussion about Village B and we got pretty far down the reasonable use path with Village B impacts, but not really anything with Village A.

Okay. There are conditions that talk about compatibility with preservation areas.

Yes. So again, this picture is probably the best one. So that's the Belmont CDD conservation easement to the south of Village C. Directly adjacent? Directly adjacent.

Okay.

So it's just a standard conservation easement. It's not ELAP, it's owned by the Belmont CDD, but that's what the conditions are to address it. If that site development, that's determined to be a natural preservation area, then we have to do the compatibility plan.

Yeah, some questions ahead. Thank you.

Okay.

All right, development services staff.

good evening carolyn petal development services again this is rezoning pd 260217 due to optics or issues with optics at the time of filing and requested changes you'll have the revised report that i provided before the hearing again the applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 124 acres of land from ar and ASC1 to allow three village pockets with designated uses with a total of 460 dwelling units. Village A would permit a total of 80 single family attached units or 35 single family detached units. Village B would allow for 380 multi-family dwelling units, while Village C will allow for agriculture with accessory equipment storage, beekeeping, passive recreational uses, and storage for up to 20 recreational private pleasure craft and utility trailer vehicles. The overall PD is within two future land use categories. Village A and B are within the SMU 6 category, and Village C is within both the SMU 6 and UMU 20 future land use categories. The proposed plan development is located south of Big Bend Road and bordered on the east by Interstate 75 North where the two railways meet. The area is prominently developed with single family dwelling units of various lot sizes to the south and east of the subject parcels. The abutting PD 240512 to the south was designed to allow access to continue north through the future development into the proposed PD. Though there are properties zoned PD approved for commercial and office uses to the north, the design of the existing PD would provide adequate buffer and screening to Village A uses. Although the multi-family uses in Village A and B will not be required to increase the building setback by two feet for every one foot for building greater than 20 feet tall, the design setback and buffering and screening provided should be adequate separation for the single family residential units to the north, south, and east. And the PD variations to LDC section 606 for landscape and buffering was requested as part of this application, but no waivers were requested. Staff finds the request approvable subject to the proposed conditions. That concludes my report. I'm available for any questions if you have them.

Just help me with the conditions. If you could, you said between optics and what was filed and today, there's a slightly different report. I don't want to get into every minor change, but could you just, in general, tell me what's changed?

So there were a few things changed to the prior to certification conditions, mostly in regards to some of the transportation requirements, and then There was a change to condition nine and 11 and 12 in regards to transportation conditions as well. And then to conditions 23, 24, and 25, which were for the compliance with section 401 for the conservation easement to the south of Village C. Okay.

Help me if there's a typo, I'm not sure. Condition number three,

Condition number three.

Let me know when you get there.

Okay.

The first line talks about for non-platted residential development multifamily. That's within Village A.

Yes.

Okay. But Village A, per condition number one, says it's single-family attached or single-family detached.

Yes, so Village A can either be platted or unplatted. So we broke up the conditions for Village A to reflect the development standards for platted units and then development standards for unplatted, which would be multifamily.

Okay, all right, thank you.

You're welcome.

All right, Planning Commission staff.

Good evening, Tarek Royal, planning commission staff. The surrounding area is characterized by a mix of vacant land, agricultural uses, single-family residential development, and public quasi-public uses. The 124-acre site is designated Suburban Mixed-Use 6 and Urban Mixed-Use 20, which allow for a range of residential, agricultural, commercial offices and mixed-use development. The request aligns with Fluid Directive 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area of Fluid Policy 3.1.3 by assuring compatibility with the surrounding development pattern and maintaining character of the area. The proposal is also consistent with Flu Goal 2 and Flu Objective 2.2, as the proposed 460 residential units remain below the maximum allowable density permitted under the site's future use designations. Applying the environmental sensitive land calculations required under Flu Policy 2.3.9 for properties containing significant wetlands, the site is permitted up to 528 dwelling units. The request complies with Fluid Directive 4.4 and Policy 4.1 by integrating a mix of housing types and complimentary uses while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding residential and agricultural development. Environmental considerations has also been addressed through the preservation of approximately 59 acres of on-site wetlands consistent with Fluid Directive 6.1 and 6.2 and related environmental protection policies. The request further supports the goals of the Apollo Beach Community Plan, Riverview Community Plan and South Shore Area-Wide Systems Community Plans by promoting diverse housing opportunities, preserving agricultural uses and encouraging sustainable land and cluster development patterns and supporting coordinated community growth. Overall, staff finds the proposed plan development compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Staff, anything further?

Nothing for zoning. Transportation is available as well if you have any questions about the transportation condition changes.

No, I'm good. Thank you. All right, any applicant opportunity for rebuttal?

just to clarify your question with respect to the condition three the nomenclature has changed a couple times so it's see where you're pointing out some inconsistently see on how they are described the intent is for the eighty five units that they can be either townhomes which can be platted or unplatted but they can also be like duplex or villas that are single family style or single family structures but that are attached in our multi-family and so that's i think why you see different words being used for that was one of the things that we clarified in between the original filing of the staff report and the version that you have in front of you now so the intent I think everyone's in agreement on what the intent is yeah let's put that on the record the intent is you're not proposing an apartment complex within village a no it's townhomes duplex villas okay attached you know all right low rise all right very good anything else not if you don't have any questions

I do not.

And we respectfully request your recommendation for approval.

Okay, thank you. With that, that concludes this application and staff are ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D3, PD rezoning 26-0303. The applicant is requesting a rezoned property from CG to Plain Development. Chris Greenlenar with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening, Mr. Hearing Officer and staff. My name is Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 St. Petersburg.

This is Mr. Bill Rice, who's the property owner.

He'll speak in just a moment. As this comes forward, Planning Commission is consistent, Development Services approves, there's no agency objections, no opposition on the record when I checked a couple days ago, and I could not pull up optics this afternoon, and there is a code citation pending. So the issue is rezoning from CG to PD for road services. It's a smaller parcel, .46 acres. Basically, Mr. Rice has been running a towing and repossession firm, a towing yard, open storage of passenger and commercial vehicles, RVs, equipment, and operating office. So we're located in the Thunona-Sassa area as shown here. on Harney Road, running a little bit south of Highway 301. Looking closer here, it accesses on Harney Road. It does not access to Main Street. And looking at the aerial, what you'll see running on the south is a mini storage approval on the abutting parcel, then Main Street, and as indicated, it accesses on Harney Road. This is as per the property appraiser. national wetlands, there's wetlands across the street under U.S. Fish and Wildlife. So the PD plan is the site will basically remain as it is. There'll be some light changes, which is basically the one-story building will remain. There'll be an area of open storage, which is for obvious purposes of storing the vehicles. There's an access driveway at Harney as shown here. Zoning, as I've shown you, 45,000 square foot mini storage is abutting on the south, and you have CG that wraps around the site on the other three sides. A little bit further to the east is an interim outdoor storage of equipment and trucks, which will turn to CG. Future land use category is SMU-6. As Planning Commission notes, that allows light industrial uses are expressly contemplated when permitted within the SMU-6 designation. So this is the site in Harney. You can see there's a pretty nice tree canopy there now. You can see that there's a solid fence, which is one of the variations that's before you. And this is the site, again, looking the other direction from Harney. You can see the site is well blocked visibly and is not in disrepair. This is the abutting neighbor to the east, which is very intensive. You can see trucks. You can see a large 18-wheeler truck. You can see a lot of activity occurring on the site here. And this is the neighbor to the west. You can see, again, very intensive activity, large mounds of dirt and a piece of excavating equipment on the right. Development Services note the site is bordered by CG zone parcels with commercial operational uses. The plan reflects separation between the proposed storage areas and nearby properties through fencing, buffering, and the placement of storage areas towards the interior. We do have one transportation issue, which is a cross access, and there is a request for administrative variance for no cross access to the southwest, which would be this small, thin parcel, which was not approved by the county engineer. However, as we look closer with it, What becomes a critical concern is security, but tow yards demand high security by state and local laws and rules and regulations. These are two very small, tight parcels. This parcel alone is .46 acres, very unique shape. It doesn't support a cross-access between either for any purpose. And the purpose, one of the main purposes for cross access is to reduce traffic on the main road. And this has been a very safe roadway on Harney. Per our traffic consultant, there's been zero crashes over five years. So in terms of the need or requirement, it didn't seem that it met that standard, let alone that these two small tight sites cannot provide it. But under state statutes, these types of businesses take legal care and custody of the vehicles and the items inside the vehicles. So, under state statutes, that becomes a critical concern and part of the industry, and insurance as well requires them, in turn requires them, to maintain physical storage yard that meet secure and strict security benchmarks and triggers which could trigger the revocation of a state operating license. So a cross-access would be in the face of the state statute requirements. Florida Administrative Code carries the same thing. Under this code item notes that these facilities must be fenced and locked for the protection of vehicles and property. All fencing shall be chain link or solid wall type, which we're asking for here, at least six feet high. And as well, trespass towing or mobilization rates carries through in section 50.178 under local ordinances. So there's very compelling reasons the cross-access should not be approved.

Overall... Mr. Pressman, go back to that prior slide, if you don't mind. Is that Florida statute?

This is local section.

Well, what do you mean by local?

Hillsborough County.

Hillsborough County.

Yeah.

Got it. All right, thank you.

And this is all, of course, will be filed with you.

All right.

Looking at transportation on the tire site in terms of trips, the county transportation report tells you that there's a reduction of 24-hour two-way volume of 2,217 trips and tremendous reductions in AM and the PMs. Obviously this is a very infrequently located site in terms of customers or people coming there. It's very quiet. So Planning Commission notes light industrial uses already exist within the immediate vicinity and that the presence of the existing use demonstrates the involvement as a transitional mixed use corridor where there's a variety of land uses that coexist in close proximity. They note that the proposed development can't be integrated into the surrounding area without creating land use conflict, and proposed intensity is substantially below the maximum FAR. They note that the waiver for a commercial location criteria is based upon the existing light commercial uses. Planning Commission staff recommends the Board approve the waiver request, and they note overall that it is consistent. Development Services note that the building height, which is low, 14 feet, building coverage overall intensity remain low, storage areas and circulation routes are limited to designated portions of the property, and contributes to additional screening. So with that, we have a very good element of support. Mr. Rice is here. If you would allow him to say a few words in regard to his business.

Sure. The property owner would like to come forward, please. State your name and address for the record.

How are you doing this morning or evening? My name is William Rice. I have 10423 Harney Road. My name is Bill Rice. I am a small family business owner that has been in business for 21 years. All my family plus my daughter and some of my employees' kids and their grandkids have worked for me throughout the years. I've been located on Harney Road for the past four years since 2021. Following Hurricane Helene and Milton, we worked with Hillsborough County as well as our neighbors in our community cleaning the roads and yards from fallen debris, trees, We run a good, clean, responsible business as a road towing service and store towed cars. We work with Tampa PD. and Tampa FDOT Hillsborough County shares in local banks in repossession of vehicles. So you can imagine how critical security is for me. We have multiple cameras in our yard. When you look at the business opportunities on either side of us, they are similar industrial type of businesses. We are very quiet. We are very few people coming and going. Come in sorry about that in coming here at night on behalf of my family employees that we would like you to Consider our application. I'm sorry. No, you did fine.

Thank you, sir Mr. Pressman that conclude your presentation At this point time staff

Good evening, Chris Graminardi. Here to present PD 26-0303. The request is to rezone 0.46 acres at 10423 Harney Road. uh... from cg to pd to allow a tow yard especially uh... a road services operation for uh... with accessory open storage for towing uh... vehicles and equipment repossession uh... the existing nineteen hundred and ninety seven square foot building room will remain as the site's office The site lies within a suburban mixed use six future land use category. The surrounding area includes single family residential and commercial uses with CG zone parcels to the east and west. and PD entitled commercial to the south, reflecting a corridor where small-scale commercial operations are established. To ensure compatibility, the plan places storage areas in the center of the site, maintains low building intensity, and uses a six-foot opaque metal fence around the perimeter, along with a 15-foot landscape buffer along Harney Road. Existing vegetation on the southeast and west contribute to screening. Two zoning variations are requested, retaining the existing metal fence as the required fence screening, reducing the 100 foot screenings setback for open storage and replacing it with the enhanced 15 foot buffer. uh... seth staffer supports uh... both of those due to the parcel small size the existing screening and the adequate visual separation combines buffering provides uh... staff recommends approval uh... uh... because because uh... the application we feel that the application provides sufficient buffering enough uh... to protect adjacent residential commercial uses maintains low intensity with no new enclosed buildings and fits within the SMU future land use category regarding commercial character. That concludes my staff report.

I'm glad to answer any questions you might have. No questions, thank you. I do have a question for the transportation staff. Yes. Given testimony of the applicant, and I will review his PowerPoint presentation and look over his comments about cross access and he's referencing I think state law and local laws that somehow the tow truck business has to have some kind of security. One, were you aware of that? Did they present that information to the county engineer? Did you take that into consideration? I just wanted to see if you had any thoughts on the matter.

So, for the record, James Ratliff, I think it's important to start out by saying that this is a separate administrative review process that is carved out in 6.04.02 of the Land Development Code, which is an administrative review process that is sort of reserved to the county engineer and there's a separate appeals process in there. So I'm not exactly sure what the applicant was, you know, by putting that into the record, it's, you know, I'm not sure what the intent was, whether.

So your position is that the zoning hearing master doesn't have a jurisdiction? Correct. For that issue? Correct. If you don't mind, let me turn to the county attorney's office and see if they have any thoughts on that comment.

I can provide that reference at 60402B8, which states that the conclusion of the administrator with respect to approval or denial of the variance request may be appealed to the land use hearing officer. Again, that's not typically a de novo review. It's whether or not the rendered denial met the burden of law. Again, if the idea was for that to be ripe and appealed before this move forward, that would be one way to handle it. Obviously, I don't believe that the issue is .

In which case, Mr. Hearing Officer, it will be appeal before you or the other hearing officer that the county has as a consultant.

Let me reframe that. Am I precluded from making a recommendation on whether or not cross-access should be provided or not?

I would agree with Mr. Ratliff on that point.

Okay, gotcha. All right, very good, thank you. Thank you both. All right, Planning Commission staff.

Good evening, Tyreek Rowe, Planning Commission staff. The surrounding area is characterized by a mix of single-family residential, commercial, institutional, public, quasi-public uses, and light industrial uses located along Main Street, East Fowler Avenue, and US Highway 301 corridors. The .46 acre site is designated Suburban Mix Use 6, which supports a broad range of residential, commercial offices, mixed use, and light industrial development. The applicant is requesting a plan of development to allow open storage of passenger, commercial, and recreational vehicles, equipment storage, and operating offices associated with the towing and repossession yard. The request aligns with Fluid Directive 1.2, Fluid Policy 3.1.3 by demonstrating compatibility with the surrounding mixed-use development pattern and integrating with nearby light industrial and commercial uses without disturbing established character of the area. The proposal is also consistent with fluid drafted 2.2 and table 2.2 as light industrial uses are permitted within the suburban mix use six future lane use category. The proposed development incentives remain well below the maximum allowable floor area ratio with the proposed FAR of 0.19 compared to the maximum permitted of 0.50 for light industrial uses. The request complies with Fluid Objective 4.4 and Policy 4.4.1 by maintaining compatibility with adjacent uses through an intensity and operational character similar to surrounding commercial and industrial development. Although the site does not meet commercial locational criteria under Fluid Objective 4.7, staff supports applicant's waiver request due to the existing pattern of nearby commercial and light industrial uses and the site's compatibility with the surrounding corridor. Additionally, the proposed proposal supports Fluid Directive 7.1 by promoting employment-oriented development and contributing to the local economy. Overall, staff finds the proposed plan development compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you, I'm here for any questions. Thank you.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Okay, applicant opportunity for rebuttal? We're good? All right, thank you. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D4, PD rezoning 26-0329. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from CG to Plain Development. Tim Lamkin will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation and he is attending virtually.

Okay, applicant please.

Good evening, Mr. Hearing Officer and staff. Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg, Florida. This is PD 260329. Issue is a professional residential facility zoning a CG to PD in the Sefner-Mango area. seeking a maximum of 40 beds, 55 beds is the maximum allowed, on .99 acres with no agency objections. Planning commission's consistent, development services supports, no agency objections, and as I last checked, there are no public objections in the record. So as indicated, this is in the Seffner-Mango area. It's located near the intersection of of 75 and I-4. See the parcel here for the property appraiser. Parcel shape is long and not very wide. Now interestingly enough, prior approved 24-155 for a professional residential facility was approved by the same owners and same operators directly abutting next door. and also noting that you'll see Anna Drive separates the use to the north. Department of Services note that subject site is predominantly surrounded by properties with a CMU 12 future land use category which has potential to print light industrial commercial office multipurpose uses. The site is adjacent to commercial industrial type use properties as well as residential. PD plan is pretty simple, general building area, conceptual parking, accesses to Anna Drive, and there's a shared cross access to the west, which as I've shown you, was the prior approved residential facility by the same owners, same operators. As shown, the future land use category is CMU 12, primarily in the vicinity, and CMU 12 includes commercial light industrial uses, SMU 6 to the east. Under zoning, you'll see that there's intensive uses, manufacturing, CICG, outdoor boats and repossessed motor vehicles, CI uses under the PD. There are a few mobile homes to the north, which I've shown you is separated by Anna Drive. Under transportation, under the county transportation report notes a tremendous reduction of trips, 5,952, tremendous reduction of AM at peak hours with this use. Planning Commission notes, as it is allowable and compatible in the CMU 12 category. Developments consistent with the goals, objectives, policies of Hillsborough County comp plan. Development services notes relief from the additional compatibility setback requirement of two feet for every foot of building height above 20 feet is approvable. Staff concurs that the site's exceptional narrowness limits development potential. providing a 10 foot type B buffer along the south property line. Development Services notes, that there is a 1,200 foot separation provision to address compatibility with the surrounding development plan, particularly with this use and the one next door, which of course, again, is of common use. But they know it is in a transitional location. It is adjacent to commercially developed properties to the media south. The proposed facility is adjacent to the existing proof facility, which is found to be compatible with the surrounding development pattern. It would just be an extension of sorts from what's approved already. So with that, we appreciate your attention and consideration. On this application, we noticed 18 persons two times, and there was no HOA. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Development Services staff.

Good evening, Tim Lampkin, Development Services. The applicant seeks to develop a property. It's located approximately 625 feet north of East US Highway 92 and approximately 700 feet south of the intersection of I-75 and I-4 interchange. And as the applicant stated, the request is for rezoning from commercial general to plan development to allow for a professional residential facility with a maximum of 48 residents. The applicant proposes a maximum building height of 30 consistent with the height permitted for the adjacent 100 Resident professional facility approved under PD24-1155. And the applicant request relief. And as the applicant stated, staff concurs that the site's exceptional narrowness limits development potential if the additional compatibility setbacks were strictly applied. The proposal is in compliance with buffering and screening requirements of LDC section 6.06.06. Additionally, the applicant proposes to provide a 10-foot wide buffer with type B screening along the southern perimeter, furthering compatibility for the residents of the professional residential facility. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the 1,200-foot separation provision, which is to address compatibility with the surrounding development pattern. The proposed, as the applicant noted, the proposed professional residential facility that they're requesting the waiver from is currently under the same ownership. Staff notes that surrounding properties to the north and east across Anna Drive which is an enclave of about seven lots bounded by I-785, I-4 interchange to the north and west. It's primarily a larger lot of agricultural uses. And a mobile home park. To the south are commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed facility adjacent to the existing approved facility is found to be compatible with the surrounding development pattern. Based upon the above consideration staff finds the request Okay, thank you and that concludes stuff, thank you All right planning commission staff

Good evening, Tarek Royal, Point of Commission staff. The surrounding area is characterized by a mix of single-family residential, light commercial, heavy commercial, and vacant properties. The .99 acre site is designated Community Mixed-Use 12, which permits residential, commercial, office, and mixed-use development. The applicant's requesting a plan of development to allow for a 40-bed professional residential facility. The request aligns with Fluid Objective 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area and Fluid Policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with surrounding mixed-use development. The proposed facility is residential in nature and approximately appropriately scaled to complement nearby residential and commercial uses. The proposal is also consistent with Fluid Directive 2.2 to associate policies governing allowable density and land uses within the Community Mixed Use 12 Future Land Use category. Based on the site's acreage, up to approximately 59 beds can be permitted under a maximum allowable density, while the applicant is only proposing 40 beds. The request complies with Fluid Directive 4.6 and Policy 4.6.1, which supports residential support uses, such as adult care facilities within It is designed to be compatible with the surrounding development. The proposal also meets the intent of fluid directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by integrating with the surrounding neighborhood pattern and maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses. Overall, staff finds the proposed plan development to be compatible with the surrounding uses area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? There's no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? There's no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal. Applicant's good. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Before we go to the next item, I needed to advise you that in regards to item C1, standard rezoning 26-0728, there is somebody in the audience who wants to speak to that item, but that item has closed and there's no change in that.

Are they still here?

I believe so, yes.

But is the applicant still here?

I don't believe so. So we're not able to take any testimony.

Right, and the point of bringing it up at this point?

I didn't know if there was any...

other way that he could be heard I did check with the county attorney's office and the records been closed I don't know if the gentleman that's a little tough for you know the applicant didn't have an opportunity to to hear what the gentleman had to say and right that's tough I'm sorry that he, I don't know if he was here or he didn't hear the case. I don't know what circumstances were, but can you meet with him? Can the county attorney's office, do you have anything else to add to that comment?

I would just state that once the case is closed, I believe that it's closed.

Yes.

And it's my understanding that that's how the county has always held these proceedings.

Understood. but if you get his name and number and at least get his comments and maybe there's some way to informally at least hear his concerns and maybe there's something to be done outside the context. Sure. Of this hearing, okay. Thanks. All right, sign right if we could then let's move forward with the next case.

The next application is item D5 PD26-0338. The applicant is requesting a rezone from ASC1R and RSC6 to plan development. Caroline Petal with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening, Cami Corbett with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson. I'm representing the applicant, Richmond American Homes, and I do have Tampa Civil and traffic, Steve Henry from Traffic Mobility here with me as well. Subject property is an infill site. It's only 11.43 acres east of Williams Road and south of Broadway. It's within the urban service boundary and in the Brandon Community Plan. It's currently zoned ASC1R and RSC6. The future land use is res six, allowing up to six units to the acre. We have CMU 12 to the west, UMU 20 to the north and west, and then res nine further north. What we are proposing is 49 single-family homes, which is a density of 4.3 units per acre. And the main access is from Williams Road with no connection to Jillian Road proposed. That's the access point to the east. And that's important to point out because some of the letters in the record were very concerned about access to Jillian Road. And if you look at the site plan, that dashed line running north-south on the east side of the property, that's actually a drainage ditch. and that was part of the justification for not providing that interconnection there. So we are only doing 49 single family homes at 4.3 units per acre, and we are not proposing a connection to Jillian Road.

Is that drainage ditch owned by the Hillsborough County?

Yes. And then this is a conceptual layout. You'll be able to see this. Obviously, this is not shown on the site plan because we don't show where the stormwater ponds are necessarily exactly located. But the way the site lays out, there will be stormwater ponds to the east as well, providing additional buffering and screening to the east. And we actually are providing a 10 foot type A buffer where none is required. So we are being sensitive to the north and south boundaries to provide that 10 foot type A buffer. And then you can see the renderings to the right of the slide. We are providing a sidewalk extension along Williams Road. And this is just a graphic that shows that. And ultimately staff has found the request consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and our team is here to answer any questions should you have any.

No questions, thank you. Development services staff.

Good evening, Development Services, Caroline Petal. Again, this is rezoning PD 260338. The applicant is proposing rezoning the 11.43 acre site from ASC 1R and RSC 6 to plan development to allow for a maximum number of 43 single family detached units at a rate of 4.3 units per acre. The site is located on the east side of Williams Road and south of East Broadway Avenue in an area which is comprised of single family detached and townhome residential uses at various lot sizes. The adjacent properties to the north, south, and west are zoned RC6 which allows for a density of six units per acre which is greater than what is proposed in the plan development. While the adjacent properties to the east are zoned IPD1 developed for single family attached dwelling units or townhome dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed would allow for an overall density less than what is permitted in the surrounding area. There are no PD variations or waivers requested with this application. Staff finds the request approvable subject to proposed conditions. That concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions if you have them.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Planning Commission staff. Good evening, Tarek Earl, Planning Commissioner Staff. The surrounding area is predominantly characterized by single-family residential development with HOA common areas to the south and west, public quasi-public uses to the north, and limited nearby light industrial activities, including Ashley Furniture Store to the northwest of the site across Broadway Center Boulevard. 11.43-acre site is designated Residential 6, which permits residential and limited neighborhood commercial and mixed-use development at a maximum density of 6.1 units per acre. The applicant is requesting a plan of development to allow 49 single-family detached homes at a density of approximately 4.31 dwelling units per gross acre. The request aligns with Flu Policy 3.1.2 and Policy 3.1.3 by providing compatible residential development pattern in a gradual transition in density between higher density townhomes to the west and lower density single-family development to the east. The proposal is also consistent with Objective 2.2 and Flu Policy 2.2.1. So requested density remains below the maximum allowable density on the RS-6 Future Land Use Category. Based on the site's acreage, up to 68 dwelling units can be considered, while only 49 units are proposed. The request complies with fluid directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1, by integrating compatible residential uses, incorporating buffering and screening through a 10-foot type A buffer and a six-foot fence, and maintaining connectivity to the nearby transportation corridors and complimentary land uses. Overall, staff finds the proposed plan development compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you.

So anyone in the audience that wish to speak in support of the application? There's no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Teresa Bauer. I reside at 1805 Brandy Way. I've been a resident of Brandon for approximately 40 years, and I've been in my home for 28 years. The development that is proposed, if we can ensure that it's single family, that's what I would like, single family homes, not townhomes. There are townhomes. on the west or the east side of Williams Road, there's only one set of townhomes. The surrounding area are single-family homes, so if they can be consistent with single-family homes, that is great. I have safety concerns and traffic concerns as well. As it is now on the west side of Williams Road, there are two townhome developments and off of Columbus Drive, there are apartments and there are also townhomes there. They use Duffield Place as a cut-through to get to Lakewood. On Duffield Place to Sunny Hills Drive, there are speed humps. With this proposed development, they're gonna have one entrance and one exit off of May Street. In order to get to Lakewood, they're either gonna go south and cut across Duffield Place to get to Lakewood, or they're gonna have to go north to Broadway and then the next east-west street is MLK. Is there any possibility that they would consider putting in speed humps from Sunny Hills Drive to Lakewood?

Off of Duffield? If you don't mind, let me turn to the transportation staff real quick.

Yes.

Mr. Ratliff, you heard your comments about cut-through traffic and speed humps and just my initial comment and some of that kind of concerns are sort of town hall meeting kind of thing where it's just kind of outside the scope of this hearing. But with that, let's see if you have any comments about her comments.

Sure. For the record, James Ratliff with Transportation Review. It sounds like there's an existing issue potentially out there, and so what I would recommend is submitting through the Hillsborough County At Your Service request. At Your Service? It's a website that will allow you to put in a ticket and have it get routed to the right place. There's a program that the county has called the Residential Traffic Calming Program where it's possible. We can't just put speed humps in anywhere. There's a process for reviewing it. Part of that's looking at fire rescue and things like that. But putting in that ticket would allow you to make contact with that appropriate staff department who can look at that issue and talk to you about moving that process forward regardless of whatever happens with this particular project.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

And I do have some concerns with the entire development and the neighborhood that I'm in. We had flooding, as a number of people did a year and a half ago when Hurricane Milton came through. The ditch embankment that runs along the cul-de-sac on Brandy Way and then also Jillian, that almost crested. So we have standing water. They're proposing to put in two, is it one or two, ponds, retention ponds?

Well, they have a conceptual site plan, but what happens that should this application be approved, there's a whole separate next step involved where they have to design the site to meet current state and local regulations regarding stormwater treatment and discharge off-site.

Okay. And will they come in, and I'm probably ahead of the ballgame in asking these questions, will they come in totally plow the areas from the trees and the wildlife that's there?

Again, that is something that gets reviewed during the site development process should the application get approved.

And is that one we can request to have instead of the little scrub oaks that they put in to have the larger trees replaced when they take out the wildlife and the trees and...

They have to meet current regulations. If there are specific issues that go beyond the regulations, then I'm afraid that staff probably doesn't have any power to absolutely require an applicant to do that. But there's always room for people to chat with each other, right? Okay.

Okay. Thank you for hearing me out.

All right. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience? I do believe we had someone signed up online that was in support.

Okay. Let me first finish up with those in opposition. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition? I see no one responding. All right, at this point in time, we'll go back. Is there someone online that wants to speak in support of the application?

Yes, Your Honor. So I would like to actually talk about it a little bit. So I'm very happy to actually see the development is going on over there that will add the beautification to that location.

Excuse me, we need the Speaker to state his full name and address for the record.

Could you? My name is Chris, and I'm located in 3011 Williams Road, Brandon, Florida. So I would like to actually say one word here.

I'm so sorry to interrupt. He also needs his video on.

Sir, can you put your camera on your computer that you're sitting at in front of?

Yes, sir. My computer does not work for the camera. That is a problem. So I'm fine with that.

Hold on a second. Sir, hold on a second. He's saying his camera doesn't work.

Yeah, I don't believe that we're allowing people to testify unless they can also show their video. That's been something that we've done since COVID. No problem, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thank you, sir. No problem. Thank you. Okay, all right. At this point in time, staff, anything further?

No.

Okay, applicant and opportunity for rebuttal.

Kami Corbett, again, for the record, I think you addressed the issue with the stormwater, that that's something that we have to deal with at site development and that the regulations we have to comply with don't allow us to flood anyone else's property. As far as the traffic concerns, I did want to point out in the staff report that we are. Because of the existing zoning being RSC-6 and ASC-1, we are only increasing the average daily trips by 29 trips and the AM peak hour trips are three additional trips and seven additional in the PM. So in terms of the traffic analysis, and that's in your staff's report that shows that, that the development, this particular development is not going to be generating significant traffic. And I will note that although we're calling it cut through traffic, those roads are all county roads and they're all public roads. So I just wanted to make that point that it's not like we're trying to go through someone's neighborhood. People would be traveling on county public roadways. And same thing with the trees and the species. We have to comply with all regulations and we will do that at that time. And with that, I conclude my presentation and respectfully ask for your recommendation.

Okay, thank you. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, are you ready for the next item?

Our next item is D6 PD26-0339. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from CG to Plain Development. This has been reviewed by James Baker and I'll present his findings tonight after the applicant's presentation.

Okay. The applicant, please.

your honor mark bentley four hundred north ashley drive tampa three three six oh two represent the applicant and uh... it's a a veterinary clinic long-standing clinic it's a minor addition to allow about eighteen hundred square feet for ct imaging services and actually it's an improvement from a transportation standpoint is uh... not only they get a d for ingress and egress but they limited the uses on the property to solely a clinic, presence zoning, CG. So that being said, I'll turn it over to our planning director, Ryan Manassi. He'll go over the site plan, some of the planning issues. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Ryan Manassi, Director of Planning with Johnson Pope Forerunner, North Ashley Drive, Suite 3100 Tampa. So kind of going on with Mark, this request involves a very modest expansion to an existing veterinary clinic located within Brandon. The request seeks approval of the plan development to recognize existing site conditions and permit a roughly 1700 square foot addition, which consists of a CT scan building to provide specialized veterinary services to the community. and that's showing you on screen generally that area. This is not a request to intensify the property with a new commercial use. The veterinary clinic already exists and has operated in this location for some time. The request simply allows for a modest building expansion to accommodate upgraded medical imaging and veterinary care services. The property is located within an intensely developed commercial area of Brandon and is surrounded on all sides by established commercial non-residential uses. The surrounding development pattern is characterized by professional services and related commercial activity. And the subject site functions as an integrated part of the established non-residential area. This is an infield redevelopment style request involving the already developed site, the existing structures, predate portions of the current code framework, which resulted in existing legal non-conforming characteristics related to FAR, ISR, and building coverage. The PD provides a mechanism for the county to formally recognize those conditions while allowing a reasonable expansion. The future land use Oops, went ahead of myself. The future land use category permits up to a .75 FAR. The proposed project remains well below the threshold at approximately .41 FAR. The proposal is entirely consistent with the office commercial 20 category and represents a low intensity professional service use appropriate for this corridor. Compatibility is straightforward in this case. The surrounding properties are all commercially zoned and developed with office or commercial uses. There are no residential adjacencies requiring enhanced buffering or transitions. Importantly, the building addition is placed internally toward the rear of the site, minimizing visibility impacts or potential impacts. The project retains the existing directional access pattern currently serving the site. Transportation staff and the county engineer reviewed the existing conditions and found the requested administrative variances approvable. One of the most important findings in the staff report is the proposed PD substantially reduces potential traffic impacts compared to what could otherwise occur under the CG zoning. Under generalized worst case CG entitlements, the site could generate nearly 5,900 daily trips. The proposed veterinary clinic generates only 272 daily trips, which is a dramatic reduction. Planning Commission found the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and locational criteria. The proposal represents reinvestment into an existing commercial corridor within the urban service area and preserves the established development pattern of the surrounding area. All reviewing agencies either found the request approvable or consistent. There are no environmental concerns, no code enforcement issues, and utilities are readily available within the urban service area. Development Services ultimately concluded that the request is approvable subject to the conditions of approval. The conditions appropriately memorialize the approved site layout, access configuration, and use limitation. In closing, this request represents a modest and compatible reinvestment into an existing veterinary clinic that has long served the Brandon community. The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with the surrounding commercial uses, substantially reduces potential traffic impacts compared to the existing entitlements, and has been found approvable by both Planning Commission staff and Development Services staff. With that, we'd respectfully request your recommendation of approval, and I'm available for any questions.

Okay, no questions right now, thank you. Thank you. All right, development services staff.

Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Staff reviewed a rezoning request from CG to PD for a 0.71 acre parcel located on Robertson Road. The site contains an existing animal hospital facility which requires a higher FAR than permitted in the CG zoning district to accommodate an expansion. The site is located in the OC20 future land use category and within the urban service area. The area is characterized as commercial consisting primarily of medical and medical related uses. It should be noted that the building was constructed in the late 1970s slash early 80s when the site was under previous zoning which was CC community commercial. Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable subject to proposed conditions.

Let me ask you and probably same question for the applicant to address on rebuttal. Have they come in for a commercial site plan review yet at a preliminary meeting?

I believe they have initiated the site development process, which is when these issues were brought up, but I would ask the applicant to confirm that.

Because it was developed a long time ago, right? So they're adding roughly 1,800 square feet, but there's, you know, all impervious surfaces. So it doesn't look like there's a stormwater pond, doesn't look like the parking is exactly per code today. So I don't know how your staff is gonna treat that and whether or not the zoning addresses sort of the grandfathering in status of what's been built already and existed for the last 20, 30 years.

Well, one thing through the PD process is that it would memorialize what's there now. So there are some things that are currently over CG and many other standard zoning district standards. So those are in the conditions of approval. And then the site plan does provide a conceptual layout. For one thing, the access issues that the applicant noted having the in and out driveway. So that would be... what would rule for zoning. I don't know if the applicant has investigated other requirements.

When they get a chance, maybe they'll provide some comment as well. At this point, I'll turn to the Planning Commission staff.

Good evening, Tyra Crowell, Planning Commission staff. The surrounding area is characterized primarily by light and heavy commercial uses, including a bank directly to the east, credit union to the south, and additional commercial and residential uses in the broader vicinity. The .71 acre site is designated Office Commercial 20, which supports office, commercial, mixed use, and compatible residential development. The applicant is requesting a plan of development to allow approximately 1,700 square feet of CT scan building addition to an existing veterinary clinic. The request aligns with Fluid Directive 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area and Fluid Policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with the surrounding commercial development pattern. The proposal is also consistent with Fluid Directive 2.2 as OC20 Future Lane Use Category allows for office and commercial uses at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75. The proposed expansion results in a total development intensity well below the site's maximum allowable square footage, demonstrating compliance with intensity limits in the Future Lane Use Policies. The request further complies with Fluid Objective 4.4 and Policy 4.4.1 by maintaining compatibility with the surrounding commercial character and integrating the addition into an existing established veterinary clinic without altering the use or increasing impacts to the adjacent properties. Overall, staff finds the proposed plan development compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant, an opportunity for rebuttal. A given comment I had for staff about how do you deal with an old site that's coming in for a minor change and meeting new standards. I don't know where you would fall in terms of commercial site plan and any issues that may stop you from moving forward.

Right. I appreciate the question. I think one point to bring up is that area where this minimal or roughly 1,700 square foot area is going is already impervious. So when the engineers are doing the impervious calculations, obviously that site plan review, they'd have to address the stormwater concerns. So if they're If the remaining of the area is already impervious and this new addition is only 1,700 square feet, then if there is a code requirement that we have to retain so much water or it wasn't considered impervious, the engineering team would address that at the site review during permitting. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I suppose it's just a disclaimer for you. Is that right? Understood.

We're dealing with zoning now, but... Correct. We understand, and our team understands. And they did do a preliminary review. That's where these initial concerns came up, and that's why we went through this process. All right.

Anything else?

Nothing to add. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you, sir. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Our next item is item D7, major mod 26-340. The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 98-0667. This has been reviewed by Tim Lampkin, who will present findings after the applicant's presentation. And also this is with a companion comprehensive plan amendment. So both items will be heard at the July 16th hearing, the Board of County Commissioners.

Okay. The applicant, please.

Good evening. Nicole McInnis at Barbus Kramer Law Firm. My address is 2002 West Cleveland Street, for the record. Here today with a major modification, number 26-0340. I'm going to turn it over to our expert planner, Cynthia Spiedel, for the presentation. Thank you.

Okay.

Good afternoon, my name is Cynthia Spadell. I'm a planner with Barbus Kramer at 2002 West Cleveland Street. I have been sworn. I'm an AICP certified planner with over 20 years experience in both the public and the private sectors. And our whole team is here from the landowner, Our engineering team is here, transportation team is here, and obviously Nicole is our land use attorney. So the property location, it's the Lazy Days site. You may know it well. It's right off of I-4 interchange on Mango Road, also known as County Road 579. And it's also, it doesn't encompass the entire Lazy Days PD, it's just the northern portion of it that's north of Sly, and it's the area in yellow here on this slide. This just kind of shows the context of the surrounding area for compatibility purposes. We've got the solid waste land use facility right across the street, Amazon facility, LAP, and I have some aerials coming up that will reinforce that. So just to sort of touch on the concurrent CPAs that are accompanying this zoning action, we have CPA 2535, CPA 2536. It's to change the Res 4 to SMU 6, and also to bring it into the urban service area. And on January 12th, 2026, the Ellsborough County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of both CPAs. So this just kinda, I'm just gonna fly through the USA, but I wanted to give you some context on the bifurcation of the property by the USA, current existing USA boundary. So this just kinda shows you where, you know, part of it's in, part of it's not in. And this is another way of showing it. This is an aerial photograph, and it just kinda shows the timing of the issue. So the urban service area was originally adopted in 1993. And the PD boundary was approved in 1988. There is a condition of approval in the original PD that says everywhere has to connect to water and wastewater, and that the developer is responsible for that. And then this just kind of shows you that urban service boundary overlaid on the PD. And then here are your current water and wastewater diagrams. So the site kind of already is being serviced, so I see the USA portion as a technicality. And here's the urban expansion boundary. It's in there as well. We are part of the Thonotis Acid Community Plan, and the plan recognizes County Road 579 south of Pruitt to I-4 as a commercial corridor. Having this area as a commercial corridor has been a recurring theme since all the way back to the 90s, where a planning commission actually considered this corridor and voted to allow non-residential uses along the corridor on a case-by-case basis. So getting back to the Thonotus Asset Community Plan, it's to protect the rural character. It already is Res 4, which is considered more of a suburban category. The property is currently zoned RV Supercenter. So the concurrent PD rezoning just ensures that the current use can continue to exist. And that's the reason why SMU 6 was selected, to make sure that the current use could continue to exist. And that's RV resort and storage. U.S. Highway 301 aka Mango Road is a designated truck route. This just kind of shows you the corresponding res 4 to SMU 6 and you can see on the proposed side that the entire we have some anomalies associated with the parcel. The parcel is larger than the area that's in the PD and we only are amending the what we call the impacted area to SMU 6. So the other land uses will remain within the folio and within the PD for that portion just west of the dotted line. So compatibility, just wanted to show the context of the surrounding area. We've got the solid waste landfill across the street. We've got lazy days. We've got auto facilities, Cracker Barrel, Flying J, Cass Creek, and a 304,000 square foot Amazon facility directly across the street. So this modification to the PD is to allow two options, and one is to allow the current RV resort, campground, and storage to continue to exist. And option two would be up to 750,000 square feet of light industrial warehousing distribution as conditioned in the staff report. So, I just wanted to briefly go over the two variation requests from buffering and that is to accommodate the anomaly that we have that the folio is actually bigger than the PD boundary and there's a wetland and that you can see it in that top left section there. So, we basically want to keep that as is, keep the wetland protected. And then the southern portion, what we call the western boundary south, the intent of the buffer is met, it's just separated out. And there's a, I don't know if you can see it, but there's a whole tree line along that southern segment that kind of, you know, is it on the neighbor's property, is it on our property? It kind of goes back and forth. So what we're just doing is we're putting the masonry wall closer to the impacted area so that we don't have to impact the trees. So we had an open house, got a lot of community feedback, was held at April 16th at the Zeffner Inn and Suites, which is right there, close to the project. We had about 13 attendees attend, and the big issues that were raised were the traffic associated with the Flying J just south of us, and also buffering. We had some residents that came out, I believe they're here as well, that live on the north side of Buster Bean, and they were concerned about buffering. and how the area has transitioned due to the interchange. So what we did after the meeting is we worked with staff to exceed the minimum requirements associated with adjacent residential activity. So instead of a six foot wall, we're gonna do eight feet, and then at time of planting, we'll make sure those trees are 15 feet versus 10 per the code, just to sort of exceed the minimum code standards.

Is that offering screening, is that memorialized in the zoning commission?

Yes, it is a condition of approval, correct. our transportation folks and our engineer here as well to talk about the design features that transportation staff has asked us to do on Sly. This just kind of gives you a brief overview. So all three access points will remain, but how they function along Sly will change. We're going to have restricted turning movements, a raised median, unlimited access at that one easternmost. It's the first one when you're coming from Mango. The other one will mean a full access. So just want to get on the record, the Hillsborough County Planning Commission staff report, despite our unanimous support from that planning commission themselves for both comprehensive plan amendments, we have an inconsistency finding in your agenda packet. The staff report talks about the introduction of light and industrial warehouse uses. So this is really intended to show you that we're not introducing anything that's not already there. There's a 304,000 square foot Amazon fulfillment center directly across the street. Staff talked about, Hillsborough County Planning Commission staff talked about future land use objective 4.4 and specifically policy 4.4.1. But we just wanna get on the record, compatibility is not the same as and your code regulates how. So if you look at the purpose of the land development code, Section 1.02.02 says it is the purpose of the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County to establish standards, regulations, and procedures for review and approval of all proposed development of property in unincorporated Hillsborough County to provide a development review process that will be comprehensive, consistent, and efficient in the implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. So your code allows different uses to coexist and the code tells you how to do that and we are exceeding that So in my opinion if you're consistent with the code It's really not accurate to say it's inconsistent with policy four point four point one Our whole team is here to answer any questions on January 12th the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of both CPAs and County staff development services staff recommends approval based on the conditions and the mitigation measures We're providing and we ask that you recommend approval as well. I'm happy to answer any questions No questions at this time.

Thank you development services staff Good evening Tim Lampkin development services as the applicant stated they're proposing to allow a second development option on approximately thirty seven point eight six acre area and located on the north of the Northwest Quadrant of the I-4 interchange, County Road 579, also known as Manger Road. And as the applicant stated, there is a concurrent comprehensive plan amendment and two ones to change the future land use and from Reds 4 to SMU 6. And the second one is to expand the urban service boundary. The subject property is located on the north side of East Light Road between County Road 579 and Derry Road. The site is within the rural service area. However, again, they're proposing they have an application to expand it and bring it into the urban service area. The subject property is surrounded by a mix of uses, including commercial to the south, east, and residential to the west and north of the subject site. Adjacent to the north of the subject site is a single family residential development located on Buster Bean Drive. Immediately west is the location of single family homes on large lots on the southwestern portion. Whereas the northwest portion that the applicant was talking about not being as part of this application is actually a stormwater retention area. It's on the same folio, but it's not part of the PD. The applicant is providing, as they stated, and it's actually a condition 5.3.1a. They're providing a 30-foot wide buffer with type C screening enhanced. So 5.3.1.a.1 requires a masonry wall eight feet in height and finished on all sides with brick stone or painted pigmented stucco. And additionally, they're providing numerous plantings that's within the same condition. And that's to further mitigate potential impacts to the north. The applicants proposing a LDC variation of 6.06.06 buffering and screening. They're requesting a variation, and this is where they were talking about providing the six-foot masonry wall adjacent to the driveway, as shown on the site plan. Normally it would be within the 30-foot buffer, but instead they're proposing to keep the vegetation, and so they're putting the buffer on the east side of the existing vegetation. The applicant did provide justification in their variation. The applicant has not requested any variations from the general site development requirements found in the remainder of the land development code. Based upon the above consideration, staff finds the request approvable subject to the conditions.

Okay.

And that concludes my presentation, unless you had any questions.

I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Planning Commission staff? Good evening, Tyrek Royal, Planning Commission staff. The surrounding area is characterized by a mix of single-family residential, commercial, institutional, agricultural, and light industrial uses, with residential neighborhoods primarily located to the north and west, and non-residential uses concentrated along County Road 579, East Isle Avenue, and US Highway 301. The 38-acre site is currently designated Residential 4 with the pending Future Land Use Amendment to Subramanian Mix Use 6. The applicant is requesting a major modification to either continue the existing recreational vehicle sales and services, which is Option 1, or allow redevelopment with three 250,000 square foot light industrial warehouse buildings with accessory outdoor storage, which is Option 2. The request aligns with Fluid Objective 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area as proposed under the pending land amendment, urban centers area expansion amendment and with FLU policy 3.1.3 by requiring compatibility through surrounding development patterns. The proposal is also evaluated under FLU objective 2.2 and associated policies governing future land use intensity and permitted uses under the pending SMU 6 designation light industrial warehouse and related employment uses would be generally permissible within the site's development framework. However, while the proposed uses fall within the range of considered uses by SMU 6, size finds compatibility remains a critical issue under Fluid Objective 4.4 and Policy 4.4.1. Option 1, which maintains existing recreational vehicle sales and service use, is consistent with the established development pattern and maintains compatibility with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. In contrast, option two introduces large-scale industrial buildings up to 50 feet in height and 250,000 square feet in size, which are not compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses to the north and west due to concerns related to scale, massing, lighting, noise, truck traffic, and insufficient transitional buffering. Although the proposed setbacks provide some separation, they didn't adequately mitigate the incompatibility between the intensity of the industrial development and surrounding residential context. Additionally, the site does not meet commercial locational criteria under Fluke Objective 4.7, as it's located more than 8,800 feet from the nearest qualifying intersection. And while a waiver was requested, the staff finds that Option 2 does not overcome the broader compatibility concerns. The proposal is also inconsistent with the Sonoma Disaster Community Plan when considering the scale of industrial development proposed in Option 2, whereas Option 1 Supports the existing character and housing stability of the area Overall staff finds option one is compatible with the comp plan option two is not consistent with the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you Okay Let me understand how the process works you initially when they file the application your staff comes up with a recommendation about consistency or a consistent with the plan amendment and and then it goes to the Planning Commission, and they voted on it, and the testimony I heard was that they supported the amendment. Does that then factor into any reconsideration of staff?

Yeah, so with the Planning Commission, the comp plan amendment of residential fort is suburban mixed use six. We have to take into consideration uses allowed under suburban mixed use six, which we did outline that in the staff report. The uses that they're asking for are allowable uses within SMU six, but we look at the broader compatibility. So the site, the request is three 250,000 square feet warehouses on a site that doesn't meet locational criteria adjacent to residential single family homes. Okay, so you'll support the plan amendment, but you don't support the rezoning. I believe the Planning Commission supported it, the USA expansion and the plan amendment. But just because it's an allowable use within a future liens category in the USA doesn't override supersede that compatibility. Thank you.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Yes, ma'am. Good evening.

Good evening. Please excuse my nervousness.

It's all right. Ma'am, if you could state your name and address.

Yes, sir. My name is Cynthia Godwin-Wilson. My address is 11413 Buster Bean Drive, Saffner, Florida, 33584. My property faces the proposed development and is only 30 feet from the Lazy Days slash proposed development property line. The plan shows 30 foot buffer and 60 foot parking area equals only 90 feet before this 250,000 square foot, two to three stories high active warehouse operation is constructed. And this is only unit one. There are two more units proposed. This is my second time around being notified by a developer in Hillsborough County about development for this property. The original being the proposed development from Orange Grove to Lazy Days RV Resort. I went to the Hillsborough County land development meetings, major modifications, and zoning meetings downtown. I voiced my concerns about lights, noise, and other ways of being affected by this development before construction. I went to the community meeting and voiced my concerns there. We were shown a conceptual, now this one right here, Cynthia from the existing developing staff was nice enough to give me that picture, but it's a similar picture that was shown to us when we were at the community meeting for Lazy Days. We were shown a conceptual picture of what the resort and block wall and barrier trees would look like, we were told no minimum impact, excuse me, we were told no to minimum impact. After all that, Buster Bean Drive ends up with a chain link fence and green slats that does no good at all. You can see through the fence, you can see them, and they can see you. I would like to share just a few incidents that I've experienced and deal with on a daily basis because of chain link fence and green slats. From Lazy Day's property line, there is only a 30 foot buffer where the RV's back into. I'm getting to my point about this development. And I am in approval. Several guests on vacation, inviting family and friends, grilling food, playing music, partying and dancing, and walking dogs is very loud with no barrier. They're on vacation. They have right to enjoy themselves. And I have no right to say anything to them or complain to the office. Yesterday, Memorial Day, well let's just say they had a great time and I end up inside watching war movies. Any commotion at the resort makes my dogs run to the fence and gates barking like crazy. Every time I have to investigate and see what all the commotion is about, mostly RVs backing in and getting set up, guests walking dogs, and as mentioned before, guests on vacation. But that's what dogs do. They bark at strangers. Your dogs bark at strangers. And I don't think I should have to make my dog stop barking or settle down for doing what dogs do naturally. The permanent pole lighting, RVs, passenger vehicles, and even the golf carts traveling northbound, their lights shine in our home, which that shouldn't have happened at all. And it was one of my concerns at the community meeting. Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the unforgettable and the unexpected beep, beep, beep of the RVs when they are backing up. But the straw that broke the camel's back was when my dog started barking, and I went to investigate. Wait for it. A lazy day's guest was urinating behind his RV. That freaked me out, and I wasn't expecting that. And frankly, I still see that picture in my head. I know you do not have any control over human behavior, but here's my point. Without that block wall and barrier trees, I have been extremely affected by the decision to install chain link fence and slats instead of block wall and barrier trees. Now with the new proposed development of a three-unit, 250,000 square foot warehouse establishment and daily operations of metal doors rolling up and down, proposed parking spaces in front of my home, permanent pole lighting, vehicle lights facing northbound, people roaming about discussing business, chatting on their cell phones, This time the vehicles will come and go on a daily basis versus the RVs staying in place for a few days. Now tell me how I will not be affected this time by the construction and daily operations of the warehouse establishment without the block wall and barrier trees. I am a novice when it comes to Harrisboro County land development. major modification in zoning language. The words conceptual in the block wall and barrier trees exceeding code makes me very nervous. That a second time around with major modifications that there is still a chance that the block wall and barrier trees will not be approved. I am not opposed to this proposed development. Just what issues will affect my family and livelihood? I have spent thousands of dollars improving and maintaining my property. I've made it to retirement. I enjoy being outside working on my chores, gardening, playing with my dogs. Heck, I'm a native. I can even handle the heat. And that's why I have all these concerns, to enjoy my life and continue my livelihood that I'm used to. And with all due respect, I trust the developer and the departments involved with this proposed development to protect its longtime existing residents that live here being affected by proximity, lights, and noise, et cetera. We live here and what I've told you are the facts. And with respect, I would not be looking forward to having to gather evidence and presenting them to the commissioners after the fact, which I know will be an uphill battle. I might be one person, but I'm a determined person. Like I said several times, my property faces the proposed development and is in close proximity. I'm fighting for my livelihood and my sanity. I hope we all get a win-win from this development. Thank you. Oh yeah, see you in July.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Thank you for your time. Thank you, ma'am. I see no one else responding. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to the application? Yes, sir? Good evening.

Hey, good evening. Thomas Godwin, 11219 Russell Drive, Sefner, Florida. First of all, I grew up here in that area on Big Cattle Ranch. It's bad enough seeing one big warehouse. Now having to look at these eyesores is going to be bad enough. But I want to know what they're going to do with Sly Avenue. That's our only main entrance to our neighborhood, which we live behind. I've been told that they're going to close it off. We can't use that anymore. The only other one we have would be Pruitt Road, and it's a one-lane road.

We'll ask the staff to address that question. If I could, sir, I'll ask the transportation staff to answer your question about Sly.

Yes, Sly Avenue is going to remain open. The applicant chose to defer a determination about whether they have to make substandard road improvements or to what extent to the site construction plan phase, but it will remain open for traffic from the west.

What are we going to do about the traffic on 579? The infrastructure is not there for what's there now. Do you have any improvements to it?

Sir, there are zoning conditions to address at least turn lanes in and out of the development. Beyond that, I'll let the applicant respond to your comments. Anything else?

Nope, that's it, thank you.

All right, thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to the application? So no one responding? Staff, anything further?

I'm Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. I will just note for you and to the citizen who spoke, there are specific conditions in the PD specifically condition 5.3.1, which specifically requires along the north property boundary of this parcel the 30-foot wide buffer, and then screened to consist of a masonry wall eight feet in height and finished on all sides with brick, stone, or painted pigmented stucco. Secondly, a low-growing evergreen plants or mulch covering the balance of the buffer. And thirdly, a row of evergreen trees which are not less than 15 feet high at the time of planting and two inches in caliber and spaced no more than 20 feet apart. So that would be required, and at site development, both zoning and natural resources would check that that requirement is complied for on their site development plan.

Okay, thank you. All right. And applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. And I'd remind you, you heard the comments about traffic.

Thank you, Cynthia Spidell. I'm gonna ask our transportation, engineer to come up and speak to that. But I wanted to just reiterate what Michelle, Ms. Heinrich said with regards to the condition. And I want to thank Cynthia for coming out and giving her thoughtful comments. I think some of the insecurity from her side is the visual depiction that we showed says conceptual. The color of the wall could change. The condition won't change, right? But the visual depiction of it is conceptual. So that's where I think some of her concerns may be. And with that, I'm going to introduce Joe Goldberg.

Hi, my name is Joe Goldberg with Langan Engineering. So we did do a...

Excuse me, sir, your full address as well.

Oh, yes, 1221 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33139. So we did do a comprehensive analysis that included an assessment of all turn lanes into the proposed driveways, and we did confirm that the project generated traffic does not warrant the need for any additional turn lanes beyond what already exists today.

Could you explain what are those turn lanes?

So there is an existing northbound left turn lane on Mango Road to the existing driveway connection, and then, oh yeah, that might be helpful. Yeah, this one's good, I think. Yeah, let's do that. Okay, and so then we also looked at the existing access along Sly Avenue as well as the new proposed westernmost access on Sly Avenue which is intended to operate for truck access. And so we actually looked at this both based on FDOT guidelines and of course Hillsborough County guidelines and we did determine that the volume that is projected to enter All three driveways do not warrant the need for a turn lane. However, there is an existing turn lane on north, an existing northbound left turn lane on Mango Road to that existing driveway connection, and we did confirm that the existing storage length can accommodate the expected queues once the project would be developed.

Okay, and what about the, there's a driveway connection on 579? Is there?

That's the one to Mango Road. Yes, and that's the one I'm referring to. There is an existing, a northbound left turn lane, which, yeah.

Also, is there a northbound left turn onto Sly? From Mango Road? Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay, anything else?

No? Yeah?

It's closing with the golf cart.

Oh. Yeah. So the existing, or what's shown as the proposed westernmost access point, that today serves as a golf cart access. And so through this modification, that will be closed to provide the access point for trucks.

Okay.

And so just to give a little more context, because I know there was a little bit of concerns about the truck access on Sly Avenue, what we're projecting in terms of peak hour traffic for truck traffic, it's approximately two in the morning peak hour and then two in the afternoon along Sly Avenue. And I believe it's a four on Mango Road. With the warehouse development, what you find is that truck traffic can be distributed throughout the day. So it's not necessarily through one specific peak hour and that's why we are not expecting to have this extreme increase in truck traffic. A lot of the concerns we heard had to deal with the existing truck traffic as a result of the Flying J. This is a different operation. A lot of trucks going to the Flying J This might be their first time stopping there. They're on the highway. They're using this as a service stopping point. The truck traffic, that would be going to this site. This is going to be scheduled traffic. They will be knowing how to enter and exit this facility. Okay.

All right. If you don't mind, I think the gentleman has one more question about traffic. I'll allow that.

As far as coming in on Sly Avenue, are you going to have trucks entering on Sly?

So there will be truck access through this westernmost driveway point. okay the problem is is when the trucks are lined up to get into the flying j we've got one lane that goes to our neighborhood that's it right so now you're going to have them blocking that too so so that guy was saying the amount of truck traffic we're expecting from this facility it's relatively small compared to what you're seeing at the flying j we understand that the flying j is producing a lot of truck traffic that's a bit beyond what this development can be responsible for, the best we can do is provide the secondary access. That way you're distributing truck traffic both between Sly Avenue and then along Mango Road.

So why can't you just use Mango Road because when they get backed up there to turn into the Flying J, they actually have...

Excuse me, sir. I need you to speak in the microphone and not to the gentleman.

but they have it backed up on 579 where cars can't even go through 579 because of truck traffic.

Thank you, sir. All right. And we understand that. I think the logic with having two separate access points is it allows for better and safer distribution of truck traffic to and from the site.

I think it's going to be a nightmare. Okay.

All right.

Thank you. Cynthia, anything more?

I have nothing else to add. I just think that some of the confusion with the closing was the fact that we had to add to the site plan that the existing golf cart crossing would be removed. So I'm happy to answer any of the questions you may have, but that's all I have.

Does your attorney have anything else to say? Okay, you're good? Okay, all right, with that, that concludes this application. And Michelle Heinrich, do we want to take a brief stop? Break?

If you would wish, we could certainly do that. There's no requirement to stop or go forward. It's purely up to the Zoning Hearing Master.

You have told me in the past that there is a requirement for a break. Right. But there's not. There is not. Okay. I'm prepared to move forward then.

Okay.

Let's do it.

Our next application is item D8 PD26-0426. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from AS1 and PD920425 to a new plan development. This has been reviewed by Jared Follin and I will present his staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay. The applicant, please.

Good evening, Mr. Luce. Elise Batzel with Stearns Weaver Miller representing the applicant tonight. This property is located east of the Veterans Expressway, north of Gunn Highway, and west of Henderson Road. It is within the Urban Service Area and within the Greater Carolwood Northdale Community Planning Area. The current future land use includes a portion that is R4, and it's also adjacent to R20, which will become important in a moment. The zoning is AS1 and PD currently, and this would be a new PD for the whole property. It's an interesting mix of surrounding uses. To the north are wetlands and multifamily residential, to the south, commercial and office and institutional, to the west, existing multifamily residential, and single family detached residential shown there in yellow. The current approval is the existing Jewish Community Center campus off of Gunn Highway. There's a two-story senior building, preschool, daycare, and various recreational uses. It does permit currently 187,640 square feet. The request tonight is to rezone that property to a PD for 346 multi-family units, amenities, and we are requesting a flex from the R20. Now, if you look, you are actually looking to the west, not to the north. It's just a very long, narrow site. It's really important, I think, for the community that is here tonight to note for the record that all of that floodplain to the north and those wetlands are not included in the application. So I wanted to emphasize that and put that on the record. We really thought a lot about thoughtful design and development. I have to give kudos to Flournoy because they went in and specifically created a gradual transition away from the single family residential. You can see that the garages, which are along the property boundary, are 20 feet in height. And then if you continue away from the single family residential, we've placed two-story buildings, those are 35 feet in height, and carriage homes, which are 32 feet in height. Further away, over 100 feet away from the property line, you have the four-story buildings that are consistent with the development further to the west. We've also provided an enhanced 20 foot Type B landscape buffer along the eastern boundary in the area that's directly adjacent to the single family residential. And finally, we placed all of the passive recreational and stormwater closer to the single family homes to create additional buffering and screening. From an access perspective, there is two access points. There's a primary access point along Gunn Highway and also an emergency access. At this point in time, I want to turn it over to David Smith just from a land development perspective. May I also submit documentation in the record as well as our resumes from our technical experts? Yes. Thank you.

Good evening, David Smith, 401 East Jackson Street, Director of Development and Zoning for Stern Tweaver Miller. The Planning Commission has found the project consistent with the comprehensive plan and supported by numerous goals, objectives, and policies. As mentioned, the flex request has been made and found to be supportable, meeting the criteria. also that the compatibility criteria have been met. Specifically in the comprehensive plan policy, this project is located along the Centers and Connections. Centers and Connections is a new concept in the comprehensive plan that encourages higher density development to be placed along these corridors, particularly corridors that are ready for or have transit. There are transit stops immediately proximate to this location, which supports this policy and also its compliance with it. Also with respect to the flex, the flex is a 500 foot flex of the R20 across the property. This graphic indicates the extent of the flex. As you can see, it does not go all the way across the property. The density that provides for us, it's about 16.13 acres. The rest of it remains R4. Under the PD, the overall density is blended across the site into the mix of uses and building sizes indicated by Ms. Batzall. The flex criteria, this is also kind of new in the comprehensive plan. But all the criteria are availability and adequacy of public facilities, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and furthers to goals, objectives, and policies. The Planning Commission found these were met and partially what we've already talked about supports the compatibility and furthering the goals. I think the operative term, our point is the compatibility is really achieved by the transition of densities away from the single family properties. All the other surrounding properties are either passive properties or multi-family similar to, if not almost identical to that proposed. We gradually transitioned from 20-foot tall buildings to 35 and eventually to the 40, again, over 100 feet away. The zoning conditions provide for compliance with the two-to-one additional setbacks in height. That assures that rather than measuring it out on the site plan, when it goes to construction, we'll have to meet those two-to-one for those properties abutting the single-family homes. Carol Wood Northdale Community Plan. Well, it's not very specific. That plan has a lot of global policies, but we are proposing a compact, contiguous development that is discouraging urban sprawl. We're assuring that there's adequate density for future transit system to be supported. Again, there's transit there now. This further, it would enhance its use and it integrates, our project integrates recreation and open space uses on the property to provide also an additional transition. Planning Commission said supports the vision of the Greater Carolwood Northdale Community Plan. I think overall also there's no access point changes. Today there's two access points. The proposed access points are those same access points. So overall, the Planning Commission found the immediate vicinity of the subject site includes a mix of single-family and multi-family uses, like commercial, heavy commercial, and quasi-public and institutional, and finds it compatible with the surrounding uses, and in particular, the single-family to the east. Thank you.

I'd just like to call up Steve Henry, our expert transportation engineer, to give some testimony.

Good evening, Steve Henry, Lincoln Associates, 5023 West Laurel, Tampa, 33607. We did conduct the traffic analysis for the project, and what's before you tonight is a comparison, this is actually in the staff report, but there's also a comparison of the traffic of what the existing zoning would allow versus what we're proposing. And if you look at this from a daily standpoint, there's about a 1,241 daily trip end reduction over what could be built there today versus what we're proposing, and about a 368 decrease in the a.m. peak hour and about a 175 decrease in the p.m. peak hour. So a pretty significant decrease over what could be built there today based on the existing zoning. Thank you. Thanks.

That concludes our presentation. If you have any questions, please let us know.

Thank you for your time. All right. Development Services staff.

Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. The applicant requests to rezone property from AS1 and PD to a new PD to allow a multifamily development. A flex of the OC20 future land use category found to the west is requested. Under the flex request, a total of 346 units are requested. The project will consist of multiple buildings at varying heights. To ensure compatibility with existing single family to the east, building height will be limited to 35 feet two stories and provide required buffering and screening. Additionally, the two to one setback will be provided in compliance with the LDC. Taller buildings are going to be within the project at maximum height of 60 feet for four stories and those are located more in the center and the western portions of the PD. Property to the west of the PD is developed with a multi-family development with buildings at three and four stories in height and that PD has a maximum height of 62 feet. A small area of AS1 zoning is found to the northeast. This site contains wetlands and retention ponds and no development currently on the property. Staff has reviewed the, has reviewed, I'm sorry, staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and does find the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions. I'm available if you have any questions.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Staff.

Good evening, Terri Crowell, Planning Commission staff. The resigning area is characterized by a mix of residential, multifamily, commercial, and public quality public uses with the multifamily development located directly to the west of the site and single-family residential uses located to the east across the Veterans Expressway. The 22.08 acre site is designated Residential 4 with a proposed flex to Residential 20 to support higher density residential development. The applicant is requesting to plan development to allow for 346 dwelling units on the site. The request aligns with Fluid Directive 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area in Fluid Policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with surrounding land development patterns, which includes a mix of residential intensities and supporting commercial uses along nearby corridors. The proposal is also consistent with Flu Goal 2 and Flu Adjective 2.1 and 2.2 as it requests 246 dwelling units do not exceed the maximum allowable density under the combined RES 4 and RES 20 flex framework. The site proposed density reflects a calculated blend of higher and lower intensity land use areas and remains within established intensity thresholds The flex request meets the criteria of fluid policy 2.2.3 and policy 2.2.4 as applicant demonstrated adequate public facilities, compatibility with surrounding uses, and consistency with the comprehensive plan objectives. The site design further supports compatibility through enhanced buffering along the eastern boundary and steep building height, transition from east to west, reducing impacts on adjacent single family residences. Overall, staff finds the proposed plan development compatible with their shining area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you.

This point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Yes, sir. Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Berger. My address is 2913 West San Nicolas Street, Tampa, Florida, 33629. And I'm here tonight because I have the honor of serving as co-president of the Tampa Jewish Community Centers and Federation. The Tampa JCCC and Federation is a nonprofit entity that owns the property which Florida Development Group seeks to rezone. Both I and the organization I am speaking for this evening strongly support the application. We hope that you will recommend approval. I want to use my time to give you some additional color that might help with your decision. When we made the very difficult decision to close and sell our campus after nearly 35 years of operations, we learned that the highest and best use for the property today is multifamily residential. and we had a significant amount of interest from many companies who wanted the opportunity to redevelop the property for that purpose. From this group of potential developers, we chose Flournoy in large part because of how they approached this project. They were thoughtful, deliberate, and considerate with their planning and design for this new use of the property. We talked to developers who wanted to build many more units on the property, wanted to effectively pave over the entire site, or wanted to put four-story buildings right near the single-family homes located to our east. But Flournoy's design team didn't do any of that. They chose a site plan that carefully balanced the amount of development that would be reasonably workable with the amount of impact that would result from that development as it relates to both the neighboring subdivision and the environment. You've already heard the design elements that they've talked about, so I'll just go over that very briefly, but they intentionally reduced both the unit density in the building height in the areas of the property closest to the single-family homes to our east. They placed the recreational facilities, the areas that could generate the most noise, closest to Gunn Highway and away from the neighboring residential areas. They preserved the lakes and some of the green space in the north that provides wildlife habitat, which we know is very important to our neighbors to the east. I personally had many conversations with our neighbors about that very issue. These were all deliberate and considerate decisions that Flournoy made to balance the inherent tension between development and impact. And as members of this Gunn Highway community for about three and a half decades, this thoughtful balance was important to us because we knew that it would be important to our neighbors and to you. I would also submit that Florida's redevelopment of this property will reduce the impact to the adjoining property owners from that which they now have to deal with due to our use of the property, and certainly from that which our neighbors would have to deal with if we utilize the property to the full capacity to which we are currently entitled. Right now, today, our pool and our tennis courts are located very close to the single family residences to our east, and we learned during neighborhood meetings that that has been an irritant to our neighbors. But when Flournoy removes our pool and tennis courts, when it relocates the recreational facilities far away from the eastern boundary line, the music played from the pool deck, the whistles from the coaches running swim team practices, the screams of children playing outdoors all year round, and the constant pounding and pinging of tennis balls being smacked around, all of that will go away. Moreover, as you already heard from the traffic engineer, but the traffic impact resulting from the redevelopment of the property from a community center, preschool, day camp, and assisted living facility to Flournoy's residential development will likely be favorable rather than unfavorable. I want to give some numbers that we have today. We've had well over 100 employees regularly working at our facility, coming and going every day. Our assisted living facility was licensed for 90 residents. And sure, not all of our residents drove, but their friends and family came to visit, and we had staff, doctors, nurses, deliveries, and more coming to and from the facility at all times. We had over 100 kids, still have many kids, enrolled in our preschool, had to be dropped off every morning, picked up every afternoon or evening, many at peak times due to our aftercare programs. That doesn't even account for the teachers. And preschool for us isn't seasonal. We run camps during the summer and during school breaks. So these traffic inflows and outflows occur all year round. Our JCC members at our peak numbered in the thousands, and while not everyone came to campus daily, many came regularly. Our special events regularly brought hundreds and hundreds of people to our campus for each event, and our affiliated agencies' food bank distribution days brought hundreds more people to our campus every month. Given that the current PD zoning would entitle us to build a significant amount of additional building square footage on the campus, our traffic impact could, under current zoning, be much worse. So a residential project with 346 units will generate less traffic impact than we did and far less than we could have generated. Finally, I wanna say a little something about the Tampa JCCs and Federation, which I mentioned earlier is a nonprofit organization. Now I know that the zoning rules don't change based on whether the property seller is nonprofit versus for-profit. But if the decision before you was a close call, and I certainly hope that it is not, then perhaps this will help nudge it in favor of a recommendation for approval. If you approve Floranoi's rezoning request and our sale to Floranoi goes forward, then the proceeds of the sale will not line anyone's pockets. They will be used for purposes consistent with our mission and our community-driven operations. That won't just benefit the Jewish community, it will benefit the broader community as well. Please consider this. Approximately half of our members of the Tampa Jewish Community Center are not Jewish. Let me repeat that. Half the members of the JCC are not Jewish. Same for the kids we serve in the community. More than half of the children in our preschool, in our aftercare programs, in our day camps are not Jewish. And importantly, we offer need-based scholarships and financial aid for our preschool and other programs and those are blind applications. So our scholarships and financial aid programs aid Jewish and non-Jewish families alike. We have an amazing Parkinson's program that you're gonna hear more about later. We collaborate with Tampa General Hospital on programs to help their patients address physical challenges. We offer and participate in a variety of multicultural events and activities and engage in multicultural outreach. I believe that we may have some of our friends from the Philippine Cultural Association and the Hindu Temple of Tampa here with us this evening to support the rezoning application. We have social programs like men's clubs, women's clubs, mahjong classes and more, all of which are open to everyone, Jewish and not Jewish. You don't even have to be a JCC member to join our clubs and participate in these programs. We offer security training and classes that are open to everyone in our community, and we offer security assessments and evaluations for many other institutions, including churches. We are the largest financial supporter of Tampa Jewish Family Services, an affiliated 501 organization that operates a food bank and provides other emergency and critical services to people of all faiths in Hillsborough County. They do phenomenal work for so many people in need. I could go on, but the point is the successful completion of this rezoning and our transaction with Flournoy will not only benefit our local Jewish community, it will benefit the broader community at large. The ripple effect from your recommendation of approval of this rezoning request will extend far beyond our organization in a good way. Our time to speak is limited, but we have a significant number of people here who support the approval of Florida's rezoning petition. I'd like to ask everyone here who have come this evening to show their support for this rezoning to now stand and be recognized.

Okay, thank you. There's about 15 .

Thank you very much, and thank you all for your willingness to be here this evening to show support. So on behalf of the Tampa JCCC and Federation, on behalf of everyone in the room here supporting us, I urge you to recommend approval of floor noise zoning. Thank you very much.

Good evening, my name is Gary Gould. I live at 10463 Greendale Drive, which is not too far from the campus that we'd like to sell to Florida. Our organization is not generating too much money for the county or for the citizens this new initiative will generate tax dollars it will also create jobs throughout the building process that's not why we're looking to sell but as a resident in the community that's important to me personally the funds that we will receive from selling this facility will be used in a lot of different ways. Mr. Berger did an excellent job laying them out. I just wanna talk about one program. We have one of the most robust Parkinson's programs in North America operating out of a community center. We have almost a thousand people participating. We're opening up a new facility renting it beginning June 1st to be able to accommodate the folks who participate. As Mr. Berger suggested, probably about half of the people who are involved in this program are not Jewish. People who are suffering with a disease that can affect their lives and their families' lives in a extremely impactful, negative way. So some of this money will be invested in enhancing and increasing the number of people participating in our Parkinson's program. Just so you have a sense of the credibility of our program, we're partners with the University of South Florida, partners with the Michael J. Fox Foundation doing research on Parkinson's, partners with the Tampa General Hospital providing the most dynamic services possible. For these types of reasons, we've made the decision, it's a tough one, to sell a facility. We feel great about the people we're selling it to and we're going to invest money in serving our community. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Yes, sir. Good evening.

Good evening. Ray Berryman, 6615 Gantt Road, Tampa, Florida, 33609. My family owns the 10 acres east of the development. It goes across Lake Gantt. And our neighbors to the east of us own 10 acres that also goes across Lake Gantt. So Mr. Berger worked very closely with us on our interest in protecting the habitat. because everything around the lake is pretty much unimproved. So we have a lot of native wildlife, a bobcat, coyotes, raccoons, eagles, you name it that's out there. So those of us east of them are doing our best to preserve that area. And he worked very closely with us and our concerns. So we really definitely appreciate his work. And the JCC and Flannoy also did a very nice job with the people they brought in to work on the development and work with the neighborhood. So we appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I'm online, and my name's Lori Metzger, 11915 Keating Drive, Tampa, Florida. And I appreciate all your time this evening. I realize it's later in the evening. I've been on the call since 6, so I get it. And I know all of you guys do as well. So thank you for that and for your attention. And I want to address right up front, before I even get started in what I compared, as you can imagine, I'm just a citizen, so I'm a little nervous, although I'm very good at public speaking. I do appreciate... Jeffrey Berger and Gary Gould and Ray Berryman speaking to some of the concerns that I myself had. But I'm not only speaking on my behalf. I'm speaking, I know you had 15 people stand up in that room. I have over 100 that have signed a petition about this as well. So what I'm speaking to is not just for me, obviously. It's for much of the community as well. And it's growing. We just put this survey out this evening. So it's going to continue to raise numbers. But I respectfully oppose the proposed rezoning of the former JCC and Weinberg village property for residential development. I understand. that property has been sold. I know the nursing home is already closed and the remaining operations are scheduled to close soon. And so when we talk a little bit about traffic, which I've heard you all address, the measurements of any traffic since the announcement came out of the closure has significantly diminished. Members are no longer there. Weinberg Village closed in the middle of the year, or I lie, back in November. So I don't know that that's a true reflection of what the traffic actually is. This hearing is not about preventing change or ignoring economic realities. It's about truly ensuring that the future use of this land reflects responsible planning and protects the long-term interests of the community. This property represents far more than a vacant parcel available for maximum development. It's a unique piece of open land containing lakes, mature trees, natural habitat, recreational space, community infrastructure that's served generations of residents. And as you mentioned, those residents aren't just Jewish ones that live in the northern area of Tampa, not South Tampa, the northern area of Tampa, but all residents, Jewish, not Jewish. And this is kind of an abandonment of that property. You know, yeah, I thought I heard you saying hearing children outside playing is disruptive. I couldn't believe my ears because I grew up next to a baseball field and I loved it. Even if the existing operations are ending, the environmental and community value of the land itself does not disappear. In an incredibly developed area, Properties like this become more important, not less. The lakes, the green space, they support wildlife, tree canopy, stormwater absorption, environmental balance that can't easily be recreated and once destroyed. And I appreciate that you're working with the developers to preserve as much of that as you can. But the traffic alone is also a disruption. And every time a large open parcel is converted into dense residential development, Habitat becomes more fragmented. Flooding risks increase. Traffic intensifies. And communities lose another piece of accessible green space. Conservation is not only about preserving distant parks or isolated preserves. This was an opportunity. You have soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, pool. There was a nursing home, a preschool. an after-school program. This was a community environment. It was closed. This proposal raises serious concerns about not only about traffic, congestion, stormwater drainage, increased density and infrastructure strain, loss of green space, wildlife displacement. And yeah, we're creating jobs for new people, but what about all the other people that have lost their jobs? Let's not pretend that's not happening. Yes, I know that there were opportunities presented for people that could be transferred possibly. There are other people that couldn't and lost their livelihood because of the closure of this property. Once this property is rezoned and developed, these natural and community features cannot be restored. I urge the board to carefully consider whether this level of residential development is truly appropriate for the site and whether alternatives with a lower density, greater conservation, or meaningful preservation of open space have been fully explored. Growth should be thoughtful and balanced. Not every available parcel should automatically become dense residential housing simply because it can be. to the Jewish Community Center right at the beginning of this decision. I expressed that I have been a member all through 15 years of its existence. I encouraged them to hear out the community, of which I was told that they had, where I was never asked any input from. And neither had any other members that I am friendly with. This has been an environment that created a space of development and growth and friendship and lifelong community membership for me and my family and other members of this community. So I ask of you to consider the impact this is having not only on, obviously they've made this decision and they're deciding to close, and abandoning a lot of the northern jewish community and the residents in this community but environmentalist somebody that really takes pride in that in that environment it saddens me to see us just kind of give that up visit that property see the use of that space kids were going in the lakes and canoeing they were fishing they did archery that can't be replaced by living structures and traffic from multiple residents. So I thank you all for your time and your consideration. As you can tell, I get very passionate when I speak, but this was a very meaningful environment to my family and the community.

All right, thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to the application? See no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Any applicant and opportunity for rebuttal?

Thank you, Elise Batzel for the record. I just want to draw your attention back to this graphic. There are acres and acres even north of what you can see here that are not included in this application. I think perhaps that the person speaking in opposition doesn't understand that the area of impact is the area that's already impacted by the existing operations on the site. All of the property to the north, and can I have the ELMO as well? I think this is a better aerial visual. So just to draw your attention to the north, you can see the lakes that she's referring to, and you'll specifically notice that all of those areas of wetlands and lakes and recreational area that are part of the existing Jewish Community Center, they are being purchased by the applicant, but they are not being incorporated into the development, and there's no proposed impacts to any of those properties, to any of that acreage to the north. With respect to traffic, our transportation engineer has submitted a traffic study and it does show that there's adequate capacity for the development. And I do understand that community members don't want the loss of a community center, but again, those issues aren't before the land use hearing officer of the Board of County Commissioners. And so with that, we'll answer any additional questions that you have.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you for your time. All right, thank you.

Now with that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, let's take a 10 minute break. It's 8.53 right now. We'll get back together at, how about 9.05? Okay.

Thank you. you you Thank you. so so

Ladies and gentlemen, we are reconvening the tonight's zoning hearing master hearing if you all could take a seat And we'll proceed with the next item on tonight's agenda as Heinrich if you could introduce the next item

Our next item is item D9 PD 26-0528. The applicant is requesting a rezoned property from RMC 6 to Plain Development. Carol Ann Petal with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, applicant please.

Good evening. My name is Margaret Perez with Landis Evans and partners. My address is 3810 North Dale Boulevard, suite 100 in Tampa, Florida. I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant Florida home partnership and I have been sworn Florida home partnership is a nonprofit organization that provides quality affordable housing. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to a planned development district. The subject 1.98 acre property is located within Wamama at the northeast corner of Balsa Street and Railroad Street. Here is an area of the property. Adjacent uses include an acquired environmental elapse site to the north, mobile homes to the east and south, and single family detached to the southwest and west. The property is within the residential six future land use category as are all the surrounding properties with the exception of natural preservation future land use to the north. The property is currently zoned RMC 6 which allows for a maximum of 11 multiple family dwelling units. The ELAP land to the north was dedicated through a planned development zoning of the adjacent single family residential properties as RSC 6 with the mobile home overlay. The rezoning request is for a planned development to allow for a maximum of seven single family detached dwelling units. And to summarize some of the key findings from the staff report, staff has found the request to be compatible with nearby development patterns. The Planning Commission has found the proposed development to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and staff has found the request approvable. With that, I'll conclude my presentation and respectfully request your recommendation for approval. I am available to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay, thank you, ma'am. Development Services staff?

keeping caroline petal development services again this is pv reasoning twenty six zero five two eight that cancer christian reason the one point ninety acre property from arm c six to plan development to allow for maximum number of seven single-family detached dwelling units at a rate of 3.54 units per acre. The site is located on the corner of Railroad and Bassett Street in an area which is comprised of mobile homes, single family detached, and multi-family residential uses at various lot sizes. The adjacent properties to the east, south, and west are zoned RSC 6 with mobile home while the adjacent property to the north is zoned planned development PD 19-0093 with approval for a maximum of 674 single family detached units. The proposed PD has similar development standards to the Northern PD. The surrounding properties to the south of the PD 19-093 and west of the end street have a future land use designation of R6, while the properties to the north and east have a designation of WBR2, which is Wilmama Village Plan 2. Although the plan development will not be utilizing the Wilmama downtown overlay standards, given that the code does not require single family units to comply with the overlay, the design and development standards of the proposed subdivision are comparable with the overlay lot types, which will still contribute to a walkable downtown with small town character feel. There are no PD variations or waivers requested as part of this application. Staff finds a request approvable subject to the proposed conditions. That concludes my report. I'm available for any questions if you have them.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Planning Commission staff. Good evening, Tarik Royal Planning Commission staff. The site is designated Residential 6, which permits up to six dwelling units per gross acre, allowing for a maximum of approximately 11 units on the subject site. The proposed seven dwelling units are therefore within allowable density. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature, including single-family, multi-family, and mobile home uses, with scattered vacant parcels and nearby institutional and limited non-residential uses. Supporting compatibility under Fluid Directive 1.1 and Policy 3.1.3, The proposal is consistent with comprehensive plan policies supporting compatibility and field development, appropriate transition, and residential density. The proposed lot sizes and internal connectivity align with surrounding neighborhood patterns, and the project supports infill development objectives and flue objective 4.9. It's also consistent with the South Shore Areawide Systems Plan and the Waimama Village Community Plan, both of which encourage clustered, well-planned residential growth and a mix of housing types within the downtown center area. Overall staff finds the request compatible with the surrounding development pattern consistent with the goals objectives and policy of the comprehensive plan. Thank you.

Thank you Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? No one responding anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application Still responding staff anything further. Yes, sir applicant opportunity for rebuttal. I No need for rebuttal. Okay, with that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, are you ready for the next application?

Our next application is item D10, Major Mod 26-0551. The applicant is requesting a major modification, the PD06-1564. Chris Grelinar with Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Applicant, please.

Good evening, Mr. Hearing Officer and staff. Todd Pressman, 202nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg. This is Major Mod 260551. Planning Commission found consistent development services supports meets locational criteria, no agency objections under code enforcement review. This case has had a couple of different directions it's gone. First of all, the generation of the issue began seeking to split the original PD and uses. Some history is that the site came in under 241141 to the ZHM in April 2025. DSD, PC, ZHM, BOCC all denied it. So today, what we've done is we have listened very carefully to what all the concerns were, and we've addressed them. And we significantly reduced uses and what's proposed. And we even submitted the application earlier, rather, before one year, which was permissible, staff approved it, with the site and use reductions approved for the early submittal. So, location is in Lutes Avenue, Lutes area, .90 acres. located near 275 and located at the intersection of Sinclair Hills and Livingston Avenue. Now these are the two parcels under your consideration this evening. The issue is to remove the dry cleaners and allow 6,000 square foot of restricted CN level commercial professional services, health practitioner uses, and enhanced buffers. And we've excluded some uses that we didn't think would work or might be more intensive, like wedding chapel, banquet, reception hall, public private charter school. So specifically, the site use reductions and eliminations from the denied application was a removal of two food trucks, which is 1,200 square feet, clean the property up, CG and CN uses are all now CN uses or office type, and three buffer screening variations to two, removal of the variation which was against residential. So when we looked at this closely, we looked at the BOC transcript of the denial, which was very clear. We wanted to follow that explicitly. And the ZHM has stated, as the late night, early morning operations of the food trucks, trash on site were a problem. Commissioner Walsto, and this is from the transcript, one of the options essentially placing the commercial business right on top of the homeowners, which was the food trucks, had been removed. and Commissioner Cohn saying the same thing. He has trouble with the buffers, which we removed one. Honestly, food truck option abutting residential waiver is just, to me, not going to do it. So those are the specific elements that we addressed and eliminated. So the current 06 approval are the two parcels that I showed you, but there's also the continued PD to the south. This is all under 061564. And again, driving us home, just this portion along the roadway, Sinclair, is under your review, not included, and remains the same as limited CN uses. Now, critically what I want to point out is that when this was all under one PD, originally everything was fine. Some point after, I don't know what it was, there was a big falling out between the different property owners, which is as indicated what generated this change today and move this forward. But critically, what I wanna make sure you're aware of is that the adjacent residential along Livingston, I'm showing you here, are the same PD owners. I believe they're here this evening because they had concerns before. And that PD is still written in stone and it'll be the same that they are a part of. So this is a site looking at street level. On the left is the site. The smoke shop is there now. And then behind that was where all the food trucks were. Across the street is a mobile gas station. This is looking from the other perspective, Sinclair Hills, looking towards the intersection. You can see the site is all cleaned up. I have to say it really was a mess. It was really bad. Cleaned it all up. As you can see, it's vacant and everything has been removed. And here's a closer view. You can see actually one of the pads is still there when I took the pictures of the food truck. So this is the prior PD to walk you through what we've done here, which is we had variations, 10 and 15 feet type, which was against residential. We had the food trucks, which were against residential, one-story commercial CG uses. So the reductions and eliminations was to get rid of the variation against the residential, get rid of the food trucks against the adjacent residential, and reduce the uses to the one-story CN and office uses. which would be a larger building envelope. Under today's PD then, what you have is, again, that elimination of that critical variation, which was against residential, the modified reduced uses under the proposed buildings at the intersection. And as the Planning Commission notes, the increased landscaping buffers between the modification area and the southern parcels, which I'm showing you as an enhanced 20 foot B buffer, we're putting trees at 15 feet on center, which is the enhancement. that the enhanced type B buffer of trees on the center is proposed, which they support. And of course, activity would be focused away from any of the residential in the area. But critically, again, The PD running to the south, which the current owners are a part of, remains as retention and parking. Planning Commission notes a significant amount of retention area is proposed, providing a buffer from adjacent residential uses. And the areas abiding the same in the PD, same owners, remains the same. Again, the two parcels under your purview today. So there are a few letters, but they all appear to be from two people. Those two people are the PD owners to the south who of course own the PD and the retention area that's proposed and the uses. That's not changing. They also apparently, from what we can see, have an interest in the gas station across the street under a DBA. Mr. Soufan, which is also Mr. Soufan listed in the letters, appears to be the same and appears to have an interest in the gasoline station. That's not related in the opposition letters, but we think it's important as we research this deeper to understand who our opposition was and is, which we didn't understand previously. and this is the state of Florida Sun Biz reform, and under a DBA, for New Way Food and Deli is listed at 15202 Livingston Avenue under Mr. Soufan, which is 15202 Livingston is the gas station across the street. So the Planning Commission notes, a significant amount of retention here is proposed providing a buffer to the adjacent residential. Development Services notes the modification incorporates enhanced buffering and screening intended mitigate impacts on nearby residential properties where adjacent to existing residential. But again, under the PD, where there is opposition, those are PD owners. They have their PD that shows retention C in uses. Future land use is R6, across the street is R20, where the gas and C store are, and zoning reflects that. Traffic on Livingston was 13,993 vehicles in 2020. We do have a limit that no development should be permitted that causes community development to exceed 64 gross a.m. peak hours or 64 gross p.m. peak hours. Luce Community Plan does refer to the desire to retain existing and encourage new commercial uses geared to serving daily needs of residents in scale and design that complement the community and the character of the community. Also notes improved design aesthetics to make physical development in the community more attractive and provide for individual expression. Planning Commission notes that this will complement the existing residential. The proposed development will complement the surrounding neighborhoods and are compatible with the existing development pattern and notes that the major modification would allow for development that is consistent with goals, objectives, policies of Hillsborough County. Development Services notes that the enhanced buffering and screening intended to mitigate potential impacts on residential properties. would be compatible and is less than the standard commercial zoning districts in terms of maximum height. They note that the proposed increased square footage does not exceed the maximum permitted. The majority of proposed uses are permitted elsewhere in the PD and are limited to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. So with that, what I'd like to say in summary is that we looked extremely closely at what was brought before. We made significant withdrawals or reductions and eliminations. We looked to see how we could enhance the plan and we were able to bring this back to you with agency and the planning staffs in support. Happy to answer any questions you might have.

No questions at this time, thank you.

Thank you.

Development services staff?

Good evening, Chris Grelinart again. I'm here to present Major Modification 260551, which is a major modification to PD061564 for 0.86 acres at Livingston Avenue and Sinclair Hills Road. The request would replace the previously approved dry cleaners on lots one and 20 with up to 6,000 square feet of restricted CN level commercial professional office and health practitioner uses while prohibiting higher intensity uses such as banquet halls, wedding chapels and schools. The surrounding area includes single-family, multi-family, and small-scale commercial uses, and staff finds the proposed uses appropriate for this transitional corridor. The modification includes enhanced buffering, including a Type B screening and fencing along the residential, and limits building height to 25 feet to ensure compatibility. There are two zoning variations requested, reduced south buffer with their existing building limits with screening maintained and a reduced right-of-way buffer along Sinclair Hills Road offset with an enhanced hedge and a 10-foot multi-use path. Staff finds both variations acceptable due to site constraints and added frontage improvements. Staff finds the request compatible with surrounding development and approvable subject to conditions in the staff report. That concludes my staff report. I'm glad to answer any questions you might have.

No questions at this time. Planning Commission staff?

Good evening, Tyrek Rowe, Planning Commission staff. The .86 acre subject site is designated as Residential 6. The applicant is requesting a major modification to allow it to 6,000 square feet, eliminate neighborhood commercial professional services, medical office uses, while excluding higher intensity commercial uses such as drive-through, gas stations, vehicle sales, and entertainment-oriented uses. The site includes partially developed light commercial parcel and a vacant commercial parcel, and is surrounded by a mix of single family, multi-family, and light commercial uses, including a nearby gas station, supporting a transitional land use context, The proposal is consistent with Flu Policy 3.1.1, which encourages the restriction of incompatible land use, and Flu Policy 4.4.1, which requires new development to be integrated with surrounding land use through compatibility, buffering, and appropriate transitions. The proposed limited commercial uses are consistent with the surrounding residential and light commercial pattern, and are further supported by enhanced buffering, retention areas, and internal circulation improvements. Requested intensity remains well within the allowable limits of the residential six future lanes category and the site meets commercial location criteria for neighborhood survey uses overall staff finds the proposed Compatible with the serenity area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you.

Thank you So anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application I

Good evening. Good evening. My name is Nasha Soufan. My property is 15118 Livingston Avenue. Right next to this property. The lawyer show you pictures that the property is clean, but the property is really disgusted. I mean, I'm there. The concrete's still there, the pipe is still there, the old power that they put over the weekend is still there. There's a tank on the ground where people used to wash their hands on all the stuff, the soap going there is still there. And we have the smoke shop next to our house, which is supposed to be a laundromat, or used to be, like, supposed to be a dry cleaner. And they start to open, they open at six o'clock and they close two o'clock in the morning. And all we see is cars in and out, all night, cars in and out. People taking, using the bathroom on my fence, which I put the fence there, so it's three-foot fence. I put it there. And this land, when we bought our property, we bought it for our kids' future. And the land that you're talking about, that's farming land. not to build stores. We don't need no stores there. First of all, they're saying on the file that there's sidewalks. There's no sidewalks in the neighborhood. The only sidewalk is just to go to the bus stop. That's it. And they say people need these things. When they say CNN, whatever the thing this is, they're talking about a lot of things, not just things. And just six months ago, the commissioner voted seven to nothing against it. And one of the commissioners say, if this is like three striking out, this be out. And now they change a few things, and they lie on the maps, what are they gonna do? You could open anything when you say CN. You could open like a barber shop, you could open a restaurant, food, cafes, and this street doesn't handle all this traffic. And nobody from the neighborhood. We have Walmart. We have Wawa. We have Bravo, food dollars. We got like 20, 30 convenience stores. We got food trucks. Everything like in less than a mile radian. And people's not waiting for them to bring their lives. They're doing this to fill up their pockets with money. And they don't live in the neighborhood. They live in nice million-dollar homes. and they couldn't afford to put a lawyer to do the job for them just to get away with it. And the smoke shop is not supposed to be a smoke shop. I mean they broke the law, the last time the tent they towed down, they broke the law, they built them without permit. That's why they'll tow them down. And the smoke shop, even if it's not supposed to be a smoke shop, it's supposed to be a dry cleaner. I don't know why they're still open. And that's the middle of my, next to my house, and always accident there, always accidents.

Excuse me, sir, can you please repeat your full name and address for the record?

Nashat Soufan, N-A-S-H-A-T-S-O-U-F-A-N.

Address?

Address.

It's okay.

15118 Livingston Avenue. Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am.

Debbie Hines, 15123 North 24th Street, Lutes, Florida. It's zoned agricultural residential. And it's so nasty over there it floods. You can go now and take pictures. And it's going to flood our yard, too. It affects the whole neighborhood. And there is no sidewalks. Okay, anything else? I just get so upset I'd get in trouble. Okay. But I don't approve of it at all. All right, very good, thank you, ma'am. Okay, sir?

ross pappas address 1503 d week court lutz florida um i used to stay in sean's house at 15518 livingston avenue with the smoke shop my nieces and nephews were here to put put it simple to you i had to send my nieces back to new york because there was too much traffic open at two o'clock in the morning the uh flooding and when they had the food um believe it or not that field is flooded with infested with rats the smoke shops infested with rats the traffic is not going to be able to turn to there i don't care what they do what barriers they put up it's just going to mess up the whole neighborhood it's not it's not for it it's also a flood zone i've talked to numerous of the uh I drive the hard bus drivers. They don't want it there. They can't even make the turn sometimes with the bus because of the flood, the smoke shop with the things going in and out. That smoke shop was never supposed to be here. We've had other buildings there. They were told they had to close at six o'clock. There was a barbershop, which was a friend of ours. He literally moved out of the building because he was told he had to close at 6 o'clock because that's not what it is. It's just not a, I don't approve of it. It's very dangerous. All right. Thank you, sir.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition?

Ross Pappas.

And your address?

15803 DeWitt Court, Lutes, Florida.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, I'm Barbara Fite, F-I-T-E 16102 East Lake Burrell Drive. And this lot has always been a mess. And it does flood, it's always been pretty nasty. And my concern is that if they get this rezoning, they're gonna come back for other higher rezonings. And so I just think it needs to be something a lot more simpler than what they're proposing.

Okay, all right, thank you. And he mentioned the traffic in 2020. This is 2026, so that's a big difference. That thing is so easy. We can't afford no more traffic.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition?

I see no one responding.

Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Any applicant and opportunity for rebuttal?

Yes, Mr. Chair and Officer. For the record, Todd Pressman, 200 2nd and South, number 451 St. Petersburg. The first gentleman that spoke, Mr. Soufan, I think was his name, complained about trash and debris and remnants or that the site is still unsightly and I showed you the pictures which I took, oh I don't know, about a month ago. The site is just virtually vacant except for the smoke shop which you saw. He also seemed to complain about the uses and the intensive uses, CN, when literally less than a stone's throw across Sinclair Hills is a gas station. As far as we've been able to understand, it seems pretty clear from what we can see from the record that he has an interest in either running it or running under the DBA for the food services. So this seems a little conflicting. The nice old lady that spoke as I got her address, 15123 24th, is not adjacent to the site. From what I could see checking her address, she would not be directly impacted by this. The other address on D Wood, I was unable to run down. I'd like to take a look at the addresses and see where those come up. where previously, last time it came around, we were not understanding where these neighbors and where these concerns came from, so we're trying to be very diligent in that respect and bring that out. I don't like to get deep into that sort of thing with residents, but in this circumstance, it became apparent it was necessary. Some of the other comments about sidewalks, of course, were required. If there's drainage issues, of course, there would have to be retention. In fact, the PD plan shows complete retention. I'd also add, on the other side of the property where the older woman spoke, the nice older woman, there is no activity there. There's nothing planned there. When you look at the PD, today's PD, the uses are only at the intersection. They're not over the North 24th at all. In fact, less than half the property would contain any kind of structure. There's a building envelope and then the one story existing structure which is of course why we're here. I indicated that we are under code enforcement. The rest of the property is vacant except for retention and there's a circulation of traffic of cars coming through but those would be cars coming as you can see from the adjacent PD of the gentleman who spoke this evening and who were in the record. So again, it's a little of a disparity that we're hearing complaints about these sort of things from the PD people who know what their uses are and have their uses, and that stub out, that cross-access is part of the PD plan. So with that, we appreciate your attention, and I'd like to look a little closer at the addresses and just get a copy of those so I can refer to those.

All right. So very good. With that, that concludes your rebuttal?

Yes.

All right, thank you. That concludes this application. Ms. Harmon, get ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D11, PD26-0555. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PD from property zones CIM, RMC16, RMC20, and RC6. Tim Lampkin with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings. Okay.

Good evening. For the record, Elise Batzel, Stearns Weaver Miller on behalf of the applicant. This property is really interestingly located. And I say that because if you look, it is directly in between several major roadways, 301, 618a which of course is the selman expressway and i-75 i we were having commissioner meetings and one of the commissioners who is not usually in favor of multi-family is like listen if there is a place that multi-family should go it is here this is within the urban service area within the brandon community plan and in the light industrial character district There are two future land use categories, UMU 20, that's the majority of the site, and R9, which has the little bit of yellow that you can see containing 1.82 acres. The zoning is a combination, so there's actually M zoning currently approved on a portion of this site, RMC 20, RMC 16, CI zoning, and RSC 6. You'll hear more about the potential entitlements that could be built here versus what we are proposing, and you'll see it's a drastic difference. This should help you as you're reviewing this more carefully after this hearing, but to the north, there are governmental multifamily uses directly across the Selman. To the south, there are commercial uses and the single family neighborhood that you see outlined in yellow. To the west is commercial and industrial, and to the east is multifamily and commercial. Our request to rezone tonight is to rezone a portion of the property to plan development for 325 multifamily units and to maintain the existing church uses that are on the property to the south. We are not asking for any variations as part of this application. And just to be clear about the two areas that we're talking about, the new multifamily development is going to go up against the Selman Expressway. That's the area in yellow. The existing church property is in purple. And all of the existing uses that you see here and outlined in the site data table exist on that purple area today. Okay. Just to visually give you a conceptual overview here, those 325 multifamily units are located away from the existing single family homes. Access will remain exactly like it is today in the PD, and it will go through the church property. I'll go into more details about that. But all of the areas that you see in green here are conservation areas in green and retention in blue, and the building envelope areas are grayed out on your diagram. As I mentioned, the project falls well under the existing future land use limitations. We could ask for 536 units on this property, but we're asking for 325. And with respect to the church parcel, we could ask for 1,139,000 square feet. And the existing church property is only 91,000 square feet. So significantly under the future land use limitations. There are three access points to the property. One full access connection to Ventura Avenue, that's the area shown in blue. One full access connection to Causeway Boulevard, that's through Visconti Boulevard. And finally, one full access connection to Falkenberg Road via Tuscany Ridge Drive. At this point in time, I'll ask David Smith to quickly go over consistency with the comprehensive plan and compatibility with surrounding land uses.

Good evening, David Smith, 401 East Jackson Street, Director of Development and Zoning for Stearns Weaver Miller. As Elise has pointed out, this property is currently a mix of various zoning categories, developed as a church, undeveloped for manufacturing, commercial intensive, and regional mixed use, excuse me, RMC 20, which is a multifamily category. The Planning Commission has found the proposal consistent based upon its support of numerous goals and objectives and compatibility criteria. Looking at the criteria or the objectives, proactively direct 80% of the county's anticipated growth in the urban service area. We are developing this site as shown in this graphic. The boot of Italy that I would call it is off to the left which is staying as preservation land. and the core of the development is due north of the church and due south of the Selman. From a compel Middle East perspective, we have multifamily to our east and west and the church property and uses today serve as a buffer between this multifamily and the single family south and west of the property. This requires a mixture of uses, two uses, church uses and multi-family uses. It was mentioned the Brandon Community Plan were in the light industrial district. That begs the question, why aren't we light industrial? Looking from a compatibility standpoint, the predominant uses south of the Selman are not light industrial uses in the community plan. They have been developed as commercial and multi-family, single family. There is some light or heavier commercial right at the intersection of 301 and the interstate. This is an infill opportunity and given our surrounding property owners, this is the best use and has been determined to be consistent with the brand and community plan and supports the vision of the community plan. Compatibility. New development must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As I indicated, the surrounding neighborhood immediately adjacent to the proposed new use are multifamily uses not dissimilar to what's being proposed in this project. We are meeting all the buffering and screening requirements appropriate for the development. Planning Commission found additional multifamily and church uses in the area would complement the existing multifamily and single family residential uses. And accordingly, they found the proposal consistent with the compatibility criteria. With that, I'll answer any questions.

I'm Steve Henry, Links and Associates 5023 West Laurel, Tampa 33607. We conducted the traffic analysis for the project and the graphic that's before you tonight has indicated that the property is made up of a number of zoning and this is actually in the staff report but give you just a summary from a trip generation standpoint. This compares what could be generated by the existing zoning versus what we're proposing. As you can see, there would actually be a reduction of over 3,500 daily trips based comparison of the existing zoning versus what we're proposing. and then a reduction of 415 during the a.m. peak hour and about 444 during the p.m. peak hour. So a significant decrease in what could be developed on the property based on the existing zoning versus what we're asking for today. Thank you.

And just finally, there have been administrative variances and variations to 6.06.00 with no objections and found approvable by county staff.

Okay.

We're available for any questions. No questions right now. Thank you. Thank you.

Development Services staff.

Good evening. Tim Lampkin, Development Services. As the applicant stated, they're proposing to develop an approximately 53.66-acre development. It's located approximately 1,600 feet east of U.S. 301 and 1,670 feet east of the U.S. Highway 301 Causeway Boulevard intersection and approximately 500 feet to the off-ramp from the Selwyn Expressway to US Highway 301. And the request is, I'm not going to list out the zoning district. Well, I guess I will. There's MRC6, RMC16, RMC20, CI, and they're both proposing the planned development to allow 325 multifamily units and to recognize the existing church campus in the parcel B. Multifamily developments are located to the east-west of the subject development adjacent to the multifamily parcel. And the proposed location of the multifamily is not adjacent to the single family. They're placing it towards the rear near the Selman Expressway. And they have extensive retention ponds in the back. The applicant actually is requesting one. It's an internal variation to LDC section 6.06.06 buffering and screening. And they're requesting the two internal uses. Normally, you'd be required to have a 10-foot wide buffer with type A screening. And the applicant's requesting not to provide that because it's internal. They provided justification, in part including that the proposed internal buffer reduction supports the overall developing, allowing for more efficient use of the land. The design sensitivity that's evident on the plan, for example, the wetlands and the retention areas. Staff has reviewed the justification statement submitted by the applicant. There's no objections. The applicant has not requested any variations from the general site development requirements found in Part 6.05.00 or 6.07.00, Fences and Walls of the Land Development Code. The application shall be required to be in compliance with all the requirements of the Hillsborough County Land Development Code based upon the above consideration. Staff finds the request approvable.

OK. Thank you. Planning Commission staff?

Good evening again, Tarek Earl, Planning Commission staff. The site is governed by a mix of future land use designations, including Residential 9 and Urban Mixed Use 20, and surrounded by a combination of high density residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, particularly along the US 301 corridor. The proposal is consistent with Fluid Directive 1.1, Policy 3.1.3, as the surrounding development pattern reflects a higher intensity mixed use environment, where multifamily institutional uses are already present and supported. The project remains within allowable density and intensity for the applicable future land use categories and complies with FLU policy 4.2.1 by providing a mix of uses, which is multifamily, residential, and church facilities within a sequel plan development and also satisfies FLU objective 4.4, policy 4.4.1 by ensuring compatibility with surrounding residential, commercial, industrial, and intentional uses through appropriate transition and use and intensity. Additionally the proposal is consistent with the branding community plan as it provides a transitional development pattern between surrounding and character districts While supporting the area's vision for integrated higher intensity development near major transportation corridors Overall staff finds plan developments compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you Is there anyone in the audience? I wish to speak in support of the application Good evening.

Good evening. I'm Pete Cowell. My address is 3304 West Wyoming Circle, Tampa, Florida, 33611. I'm here representing Mr. John Erb, who owns the property at 10412 Ventura Avenue. Okay, and he's concerned about the flooding along Ventura Avenue and is wondering what is gonna be done for the site to try and relieve that situation. Other than that, other than the fact that we need more multifamily housing, I think it's great.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Sir, can I get you to sign in, please? Okay.

Good evening. Good evening. I don't get this opportunity much, but I want to just say thank you for your service to our community. Y'all put in the hours, obviously. So, honestly, thanks for that. My name is Jonas Alday. I'm the executive pastor and the treasurer and the vice president of the Crossing Church. And my address is 1400 North Gordon Street. But I came tonight just because I want to let you know that we've been here in the community for over 30 years at our Brandon location. We have three locations. But at our Brandon location, we've been here for 30 years serving the community, and we believe in continuing to serve our community the best we can. In this partnership with the sale of part of our property, It's going to provide much-needed funds for improvement to our parking area that we've needed for a long time. Currently, where our people park, it's grass and dirt in areas. So when it rains, you have ladies coming through there. We rent golf carts to try to pick them up to keep them from it, but truthfully, it is what it is. But the proceeds from this sale and from the rezoning are actually going to help us be able to build a better parking area for our people and a better experience. And actually address some of the needs in the community, too, which you'll hear about in a few minutes. But, you know, we have thousands of people we service every weekend, and we just want to service them the best we can. And so we thank you for hearing our case and respectfully ask that you would pass us. All right. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.

Sorry, anyone, sir, if I could get you to sign in. Yes, sir, please come forward.

Good evening. Hi, how you doing? My name's Steve Reddy, resident of 11833 Sand Hill Road in Otisassa. I'm the campus development director at the Crossing Church for the past 20 years, and... Mainly what I want to talk about is Partially what he was talking about the flooding issue that's been happening in the residential area at the stop sign area there and like Jonas said the Financial issue during this project that will help us to resolve that issue. We're the last developers in the area. So It's you know, it's falling for us to make sure it's taken care of. So we have a lot to do there. Also on the front area where the parking area is, we had approximately about 30 homeless people that's been gathering there for the last, It's been almost 10 years and it's been pretty dangerous. Some of the issues has been out there. We had fire started and we had to call the fire department and sheriff's department with issues going on. So this has helped us to totally resolve that issue also. And so we think, you know, traffic wise right now, the way we are because of our parking situation, we have just one ingress and one egress. So the new development of the parking lot up front on Causeway gives us three ins and three outs, which disperses the traffic much better. We also hire Sheriff Department off-duty officers that work every services and they give us help with cars leaving the campus and dispersing, and we always give priority to the neighborhood next to us that we have a stop sign that stops us. They always have the priority with going in and out. And that's what we plan to do is to make this a much better situation. It's the... The storm water situation is very expensive for us to fix, but it will help the community around us as much, because their situation's been bad, and it's just as bad for us, too. So we hope to resolve every bit of that with this project.

Okay, very good.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? Yes, please come forward. State your name and address for the record.

Thank you so much. It's terrible being short. Thank you, Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you, as well as, I believe, a number of other people in opposition tonight. The area that you saw on this.

Please state your name and address for the area.

So sorry.

It's okay.

Christina Harrison. It's spelled K-R-I-S-T-I-N-A. The residence is 2705 San Marco Place. That's S-A-N Marco Place. Got it. I am actually the inheritor of that property. But I grew up in that property. We moved in in 1975. and I moved out in 1993. During that time our neighborhood has had on and off again flooding issues. Some of them were originally caused by the surrounding property which at one point in time was actually farmland and the farmer had cattle. The drainage ditches unfortunately were not necessarily cared for. until my mom found out that the county had been deeded right of way so that they could fix it and that was fine depending on how heavy the rain was unfortunately we still had flooding problems because the drainage ditches ran into the alifier river fast forward to when the church was built the church unfortunately did not do their due diligence with regards to the drainage and our drainage got messed up the church in favor had to rent a pump so that when the water accumulated, it was pumped where it needed to go. As someone who grew up in the area and now who actually has a residence under my name, I'm concerned about the continuing flooding. And quite frankly, the church has not done their due diligence in trying to fix it until now, years later. This flooding has been something that never should have continued once they made their plans in order to build and have all the drainage go where it needed to go. So with the expansion that is now being proposed, with the housing development that is now being proposed, I have to wonder how much more it will actually impact the drainage in the neighborhood. We are actually like Louisiana. We're in a fishbowl. We are lower than the street level of Causeway Boulevard and 301. There have been plenty of times that I've come and I've realized just how low the neighborhood is, which also contributes, unfortunately, to the flooding issue. Certainly we cannot stop the Alifaya from cresting when it gets flooded. but there were a number of days where I actually watched from my front window the tide roll in. And that of course would happen before the church came. But the church coming and everything that they have done has unfortunately not made the situation better. In the proposed plan, I see that the developers are also citing that they are using the Brandon development plan. My question is, with knowing where my neighborhood is, which is actually signified by that yellow box that they had. My area has always been, with that neighborhood, Claremont Commons, considered part of Claremont City, an unincorporated portion of Hillsborough County. To my knowledge, the city of Brandon has not annexed any of that land. So that would also indicate that the church is not within the city limits of Brandon. If I am wrong, please correct me, because I have not lived in this area for more than 20 years.

Well, it's all part of unincorporated Hillsborough County.

But should they be using the Brandon development plan and not the Hillsborough County only?

Brandon is subject to the rules and regulations of the Hillsborough County Plan Development Code and all the stormwater regulations.

And I appreciate the clarification.

Sure.

But I do wonder with the development that's going to happen, how much also our development may or may not see increased traffic. Because at one point in time, the county had to come in and put speed bumps within our neighborhood to prevent people from bypassing the intersection of 301 and Causeway Boulevard. But I can tell you, unfortunately, it still gets used that way. We also feel, and I know this is a different subject, but we also do feel that our neighborhood has been neglected.

Our roadways are full of potholes and big empty spaces where the asphalt has just disappeared.

And along with the rainy season coming, this then makes it so that the water is going to pool in those streets and create breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Now I did contact Public Works earlier today and expressed my concern to them as well. Hopefully they will be getting back with me. But as somebody who grew up in that neighborhood, who knows what the entire area was before, seeing what is happening now is concerning that again, we're going to be flooding and there's going to be no resolution for another 20 years. Again, I thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition? Yes, sir. Please come forward.

My name is Todd Boggess, 9918 Courtney Palms Boulevard. Thank you for your time tonight. I know you guys put a lot of time in here. I wouldn't want to do this job. It takes long nights. I can see that. You know, we saw those guys talk about the map. They don't even know where the map is. When we were at the information meeting, they were pointing here, pointing there. There was an older lady in the back. She knew the map way better than they did. So, you know, my... Problems with having more units put in there we from the corridor from 301 to Falkenberg There's already 800 units in there. We're gonna add another 300 then on the other side of Culver's over there on the other side of Falkenberg There's another 450 new units there. So I mean we have like we're gonna add we're gonna have 1,500 units in a small area yeah i mean it's great because it's everybody's theirs is multi-family but it's not really i mean how many are we going to do how are we going to keep putting more in there another three four hundred another three four hundred i mean over by brandon mall there's even more they're just keep putting them up and putting them up i mean how many condos are we going to put in the area this is one of the main questions I mean, with them having so many, and the traffic, and the leading into the traffic problems on 301, I mean, they keep adding lights, they keep making it worse, it keeps getting worse. I've lived there 20 years in Courtney Palms. I've been there my whole time in Florida, and it continuously gets worse. The 301 and Causeway intersection's horrible. Falkenberg and Causeway intersection's horrible. They're getting worse and worse and worse. And then the flooding. When we had the hurricanes, we had three feet of flood in the back of Courtney Palms. All the cars got flooded. But that's not just the hurricanes. We're talking just a regular rainstorm causes seven, eight inches of rain in the back of Courtney Palms, in the back of the site where they're talking about putting the new 325 units. It's all going into this area where we're there. I see it all the time. I've been back in those where they're proposing the spots. Seen it. It floods eight to 10 inches on the regular. So, I mean, the flooding's definitely a problem over there. I mean, you talk to Royal about how many parking spots are you gonna put in? At Courtney Palms, we have 708 parking spots. They're talking, when he talked to us in the meeting, it was 450 to 500. Not even gonna be close to enough spots for them. So I don't know what they're doing there either, but... A lot of this comes down to, is there enough room for everything? Is the water drainage gonna be big enough? Are they gonna have enough room for these parking spaces? Are we just putting too much in that corridor? I mean, you've added, now we got 800, now we're gonna put 1,200 in there, 1,500 over with the ones on Land Tower over there by Culverds. I mean, it just seems like more and more and more. I mean, I just don't know what we're gonna do about it. And where do they plant? I mean, we lived across from Coca-Cola. That's my last thing. We lived across from Coca-Cola. We watched them bring in dirt, dirt, dirt, dirt, dirt. I mean, it went on for months. I mean, hundreds of trucks a day. How are they going to bring the dirt and stuff into this proposed location? That's going to be on that far right side. They're going to come up in there, Vesconti, and kind of up that... I mean, up the way on the far right side of the church parking lot, they're gonna come in there and bring all this dirt in and make this all great. The drainage is gonna be great back there. I appreciate your time. Thanks for letting me speak. Sure, thank you, sir.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition? No one else responding. Staff, anything further? If you could make a comment about drainage and how drainage is looked at during site development.

Sure, Michelle Hiring Development Services. Pretty much at this stage, what we're looking at is rezoning the property, giving it entitlements. It's not the stage where a specific site development would occur. So if it's approved, it would have to go through a site development review, which involves multiple agencies, one of which is Stormwater. and they would have to comply with all county requirements for stormwater, which is to keep it on site, not to exacerbate any existing situations.

Okay, all right, thank you. Anything else? Michelle, anything else?

No, sir.

Okay, very good, thank you. And the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Good evening. For the record, Elise Batsel, Stearns, Weaver Miller. With respect to traffic, again, you have the transportation management plan and transportation analysis and Steve Henry has testified on the record, your staff report concurs that there's a significant reduction in trips for this particular proposed development over what is approved today. With respect to parking, we will meet the code required by Hillsborough County. Whatever that is, if we build less than 325 units, we'll comply with code. If we build the maximum of what the project is proposing, we will provide parking as required under the code. I just want to point out that with respect to both traffic and drainage issues, the testimony that you heard from the neighborhood relates to existing conditions today. Those are not conditions related to this development entitlement or what the project that is proposed. But I do want to have Artie Centrone from Kimley Horn, our engineer, briefly talk about drainage on the site because I think it will be helpful for the community members.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

Good evening, Artie Central and Kenway Horn, 201 North Franklin.

I forgot the zip code.

So, appreciate everyone's time here and as Elise has stated, I wanted to quickly just discuss the process Michelle had talked about. We will have to go through regulatory review and permitting with both Hillsborough County and Southwest Florida Water Management District. This site will be required to retain and manage a stormwater in compliance with both Hillsborough County and SWIFT requirements, resulting in discharge levels significantly below the pre-development conditions. As Lisa said, the existing conditions now do cause flooding. The Hillsborough County has recognized this and has actually placed this area in a volume-sensitive basin. This happened about two years ago. So being in a volume-sensitive basin actually increases regulations in the amount of stormwater that is needed to be retained significantly more. So now we are required to hold a 100-year storm, and I'll try to keep a high level, the 100-year storm event to a 10-year rate. So development of this area will actually significantly reduce the discharge that's going there. Just wanted to state that for the record. Okay, all right, thank you.

We have no further comments. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, we're ready for the last item on tonight's agenda.

Our last item is item D12 PD26-0560. The applicant is requesting a rezoned property that's currently zoned ASC1, RSC2 and plane development to a new plane development. Tim Lincoln with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

The applicant, please.

Good evening, Cami Corbett with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson. I'm here representing the applicant, Meritage Homes. Subject property is just under 46 acres. It's directly south of I-275 and it's within the urban service area and the Lutes community plan. What we're requesting this evening is 86 single-family homes, which is a change from the staff reports that were filed. We originally were requesting 40-foot lots and a maximum of 130 lots. We did let staff know that we were changing that request in response to, we had some conversations with community leaders who had concerns about lot sizes and particularly 40-foot lot sizes. So we were able to talk with Meritage and talk about this being a move up location for them and we would be able to accommodate the larger lots. So it'll be a minimum 60 foot lot and a 6,000 square foot lot for minimum lot sizes. So 86 single family homes. So less than what is?

Did you say minimum 7,000 square foot lot?

6,000.

6,000, okay.

marriage homes they're one of the largest home builders uh... in the country they are a industry leader with energy efficient construction and the target buyers like i said for this community are their first uh... move up oriented buyers so it's not a starter home it's the next level up they are uh... contributing members to the community and again they are leaders in energy efficiency uh... one of the few builders that's is uh... still doing that and leading the way in that in that regard This is the product type that we are going to be using with this development. This is the 50 foot product that would go on the 60 foot lots. And we just wanted to show that in terms of the quality and care that they put into the design of this development. This is also a conceptual layout and you'll see that the site has natural features that buffer the development from the adjacent property owners in the surrounding area. On the left you have the previous layout of 130 units and on the right you have the revised layout and you could see that we are able to make the ponds bigger and make sure that we're not impacting wetlands and overall we have very little external impact in terms of visual impact to the surrounding lot owners. We are providing additional buffering and screening when it's not required by the code in the two locations where we are abutting residential property. You can see that in the purple, the five-fit verticals buffering and screening easement. We are not asking for any PD variations for this request. And at this time, I'd like to ask our planner to come up and make a brief presentation regarding compatibility.

Kayla Witkowski with Clearview Land Design, 3010 West Isiel Street. The subject property has a future land use of residential four, which would allow for up to 183 units. This area slowly transitions from Res 1 and Res 2 north of the interstate to Res 4 directly south of the interstate with higher density residential closer to bears. This request is for the development of up to 86 units, which would result in a density of 1.8 units per acre, which is less than half of what the comp plan would allow for. Future land use objective 2.3 and policy 2.3.1 of the comprehensive plan encouraged development within the urban service area to utilize the allowable density of the land use category in order to maximize utilization of infrastructure and the efficient use of land. However, future land use objective 3.1 and policy and policy 3.1.3 also emphasize the importance of compatibility with surrounding development. This request balances both objectives by respecting the existing development pattern while also thoughtfully utilizing the land. The subject property is within Duluth's community plan area, which includes areas both within and outside of the urban service area. The distinction between these two areas is very important because each has been developed with a different character and development pattern. The portion of Lutes within the urban service area is depicted in yellow and is made up of suburban style development with communities such as Cheval, Heritage Harbor, Stonebriar, and the area depicted in blue is within the rural area and is largely developed as semi-rural large lot development. The interstate just serves as a dividing line between the rural area and the suburban area, and this site is directly to the south of that line within the urban service area. With a semi-rural density of less than two units per acre, in the inclusion of thoughtful buffering. We believe that this request provides an appropriate transition between the character of the areas to the north and the higher density residential to the south. With respect to compatibility, this graphic shows the density of other residential developments within a mile of the site. You have multifamily, including apartments, student housing, villas. There is a mobile home park and a condominium association. Immediately adjacent to the site, there are larger lot residential developments that are of similar density to what we are proposing here. This development serves as a rational transition between the lower density to the north and the higher density to the south. It's important to note that the comprehensive plan defines compatibility as being sensitive and maintaining the character of the existing development, and this proposal does just that. This map illustrates the site's relationship to surrounding public facilities and community infrastructure. As shown, the property is centrally located within an established urbanized area and is well served by existing public services and utilities. From a school capacity standpoint, the site is located within proximity to several schools and the school district has confirmed that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. This map also demonstrates the availability of emergency services with two fire stations within approximately two miles supporting public safety coverage for the area and In addition this site is also like located within close proximity to a public library and other civic resources The site will be served by the city of Tampa for utilities. I In conclusion, this request aligns with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with the Land Development Code with no variations or waivers requested, has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by both Planning Commission and Development Services staff, and with that, we respectfully request a recommendation of approval.

Thank you. And do you have any additional questions?

No, not right now. Thank you.

Okay. I'd like to possibly reserve the additional time we have remaining for rebuttal depending on if it's needed. If it's not needed, then not for it.

Just a court reporter reflect sheet. Talk for about seven and a half minutes.

Okay.

All right.

Development services staff. Good evening. Tim Lampkin, development services staff. As the applicant noted, they revised the request and there was a revised staff report submitted. They're seeking to develop an approximately 45.89-acre unified development of 86 single-family detached homes. It's located approximately 1,350 feet south of the Interstate 275 overpass at Livingston Avenue and directly south of Interstate 275. And they're proposing to rezone it from ASC1, RSC2, and PD19-0083 to plan development to allow the development of the 86 single detached. The applicant proposes a maximum height of 35 feet consistent with the height permitted for the adjacent RSC2 development located at the southwest of the subject site and less than the 50 foot maximum allowable height within the ASC1 zoning district property located to the east. to further compatibility as the applicant already presented. They're proposing a condition requiring a five-foot vertical buffering screening easement adjacent to the homes located to the immediate southwest and southeast. The applicant has not requested any variations of the land development code based upon the above considerations. Staff finds the request supportable subject to conditions.

Okay, thank you. Planning Commission staff?

Good evening, Tiger Corral, Planning Commission staff. The site's currently designated as Residential 4, which permits up to four dwelling units per gross acre, which is approximately 178 dwelling units. The surrounding area is primarily characterized by single-family residential development with some agricultural uses to the north and beyond I-275 and public, quasi-public, and institutional uses to the south and east, creating a generally low-density residential transition context. The proposal is consistent with Fluid Directive 1.1, Policy 3.1.3, as it introduces residential development that aligns with the surrounding single-family pattern and remains within allowable density of the Residential 4 designation, while clustering development and preserving environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands. Compatibility is further supported under Fluid Directive 4.4 and Policy 4.4.1 through the site design elements such as access management, the primary access directed to Livingston Avenue, emergency access across only from Curry Road, as well as buffered along residential edges. The proposal is consistent with the Lutz Community Plan as it supports semi-rural residential character through lower density clustering, preservation of natural features, and scenic roadway buffering along Livingston Avenue. Overall, staff finds the plan of development is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? Okay. I see a lot of hands up. I don't... And let the record reflect that there's probably, I don't know, your guess is as good as mine. 50 people stood up in opposition. I don't know if you all have it.

And one online. One, another one online.

Got it. I don't know if you have a spokesperson for your group or not, but okay, good.

It's helpful. I'm Alan Vernick, 2110 Curry Road, Luce, Florida, 33549. The proposal, as they said, is for 86 homes on 6,000 square foot lots, while the total parcel is about 45 acres. Wetland and storm water requirements along the outside parameter significantly reduce the buildable area. As a result, the homes are clustered in very tightly with minimal side yards and compact suburban layout. The applicant claims that this area is already physically and functionally separate from the rural Lutes community and preserves the character of existing development. And that's simply not accurate. I will also say that they're planning an eight foot cement wall along I-275 that will in fact isolate us from the rest of Lutz. So this is the neighborhoods directly surrounding the site. Curry Cove, Finchwald Country, Livingston Acres, and others, and they represent the actual development pattern along Livingston Avenue. These are low density communities. Typical lot sizes are about half an acre to over two acres with custom or semi-custom homes, significant spacing, mature trees, and an open rural character. This is the existing condition immediately adjacent to the proposed development. The applicant points to Cheval, Colusa Chase, and Heritage Harbor as comparable communities, but even those neighborhoods have larger lots, generally 7,500 to 10,000 square feet, and often much larger. More importantly, they are miles away and not adjacent to this site. There is no precedent in this immediate area for 6,000 square foot lots or this level of density which is four times, four to 20 times the density of the surrounding homes. So this is not compatible and it is not transitional. It is within the Lutes Community Plan So the Lutes Community Plan should take precedent. It does not reflect the established Lutes development pattern, and for these reasons, I respectfully ask that this request be denied. Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you. My name is Valerie Rebecca and I live at 16103 Darnell Road in Lutes, Florida, 33549. I live in the community that is directly south of this proposed development and I've been there for 26 years. I'm very opposed to the planned development it is not in line with the Lutes Community Plan. We may be on the edge of the Lutes Community Plan, but that does not mean the developer can just ignore it. In their project narrative in the section on background context, he admits, or she admits, that it is in the Lutes Community Planning Area. Then in the very next sentence states that quote, It is also located within the Tampa service area, which makes it effectively a part of the countywide urban service area, end quote. Doubt he or she is correct given that our neighborhood is directly south and adjacent to the back half of the property they wish to develop and none of us here are on city water nor sewer service. Hillsborough County, not city of Tampa, provides our trash service. All the rest of us have our own well for water and we have a septic tank for sewage and we want it to stay that way. The developer goes on in the next paragraph to describe the surrounding area by stating, quote, to the south there are single family developments of various lot sizes, student housing, and multi-family housing, as well as some neighborhoods serving commercial. To the north, the property abuts the interstate which separates the project from semi-rural large lot residential development, end quote. He is not completely being honest there. Directly to the south are large lots averaging 1 1⁄2 to one acre or more in size. Most are somewhere in between. Mine is a little over 3⁄4 of an acre. The next neighborhood south of us are houses on about 1 1⁄3 to 1 1⁄2 acres. Then south of there, is out of the Lutes Community Planning Area, which are some mobile homes, then south of those begins the multifamily housing with apartments and duplex, then still further south, well out of the Lutes Community Planning Area, are the student housing. The Violet Curry Preserve and the Cypress Creek Preserve act as a buffer between the Lutes Community Planning Area and the Denser Urban Area. The property developer is wanting to develop is most certainly not in the urban service area. The only existing public utility would be electric and telephone internet service. There is no water nor sewer in that area as he seems to think can easily be obtained there. He states that the interstate to the north, quote, separates the project from semi-rural large lot residential development, end quote. But he is not admitting that directly adjacent to the south of his project are also semi-rural large lot residential development. I believe he's trying to fool you into thinking that we are single family developments of various lot sizes, student housing and multi-family housing. Please come drive through our neighborhood on Curry Road and Darnell Road and you will see that what he's saying is not true. Lastly, I see that the developer has planned for a, quote, emergency access on Curry Road, end quote. I fear that many of the residents in that development would use the access for a shortcut out of their neighborhood into our neighborhood. That will make much more traffic in our neighborhood. Our Curry Road is the one and only access road for our whole neighborhood, for all of those who live on Curry Road and Darnell Road. Also, I am concerned the amount of traffic on Livingston Avenue will significantly increase. He states that there are future plans to widen Livingston Avenue to four lanes, however, provides no proof that it is going to be done. I have lived here for 26 years now and have not heard of any plans to widen that road. It's hard enough to make a left-hand turn onto Livingston Avenue from Curry Road, I cannot imagine what it would be like when that many homes are added just north of us. And in addition to this application, there are two other applications that are going to affect traffic on Livingston Avenue. Those are PRS, 26-0632 and RZ-PD 26-0281. I hope you are taking these other plan development applications into consideration when you are deciding whether or not to approve this application. Please deny it. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Maria Elena D'Amico. I live at 16105 Darnell Road, Lutes, my neighbors. I am here in opposition to the zoning request. While the applicant has reduced the number of homes from 130 to 86, the fundamental issue has not changed. This is still a suburban subdivision, now with 60 foot wide lots being introduced into a community that is clearly semi-rural. The 1.9 units per acre is based on the gross acreage, not the net usable land. The Lutes Community Plan is very clear in its intent. It calls for maintaining a low density, semi-rural character with lot sizes typically around one acre. And even where clustering is used, it contemplates lot sizes of at least one half an acre. What is being proposed here, 60 foot lots that are a fraction of that size, does not reflect the vision. The plan goes even further. On page two of the Lutes Community Plan, it distinguishes between different parts of the community, describing East Lutes as maintaining a semi-rural character with large lot residential development and natural features, while more suburban planned subdivisions are concentrated to the west. This property is in East Lutes. So while suburban style development may exist in other parts of Lutes, the plan specifically contemplates that this area remains semi-rural in character. This proposal does not follow the framework, it contradicts it. And even the applicant acknowledges that the Lutes Community Plan applies here. In their own revised submittal, titled the Livingston PD Rezone Project Narrative, dated April 22nd, 2026, page four, they state that this property is located in the Lutes Community Planning area. So there is no disagreement that the plan applies here. The question is whether the proposal actually follows it. And based on the lot sizes, the developmental pattern, and the overall character being proposed, the answer is no. Staff recommendation relies heavily on the idea that compatibility does not mean the same. But the Lutes Community Plan goes even further. It defines the character this community is supposed to maintain. And a subdivision of 60 foot lots is not compatible extension of that character. It is a fundamentally different development pattern. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on consistency with the unincorporated Hillsborough County plan, not the Lutes Community Plan. And we already have acknowledged that this is clearly part of the Lutes Community Plan. We also hear that the project is under the maximum allowed density. But the comprehensive plan makes it clear that not every allowable use or density is appropriate in every location. Being under a maximum density does not make it consistent. Even with the reduction to 86 homes, the core issue remains unchanged. The lot sizes, the layout, and the overall character are still suburban in nature. There is no meaningful transition being proposed. A buffer or a wall does not create compatibility. It simply hides the contrast. True compatibility would require a change in developmental pattern, not just a reduction in unit count. The traffic and the infrastructure are also serious concerns. According to the traffic study for this project, the community is expected to add nearly 700 new daily trips to the area, with significant increases during peak hours. And at the same time, Livingston Avenue, the primary access point, is already a substandard two-lane roadway. It is a failed road. Now we're being asked to accept not only that additional traffic, but the extension of water and sewer infrastructure along the same corridor, and the addition of a 250 foot turn lane into the development. This means construction disruption, added congestion, and long term strain on a road that is already failing. And while the applicant suggests traffic will remain on Livingston, we all know how this works in real life. When congestion increases, drivers look for alternatives. Even with the so-called emergency exit access point, the proposal creates something that does not exist today, a second connection into Curry Road at the back of an established neighborhood. Right now, Curry Road has a single access point to Livingston Avenue. It functions as a contained residential street. This proposal changes that. It introduces a new connection point that has a potential to turn Curry Road into a pass-through for cut-through traffic, especially as congestion increases on Livingston Avenue. And once that connection exists, there's no guarantee that it will remain emergency only. We do not want traffic coming through Curry Road, period. And finally, this does not stop with this project. Approving this request will set a precedent. It signals that high density, suburban style development is acceptable on the east side of Lutes, despite what the community plan calls for. And once that door is opened, it becomes much harder to close. The community was promised no density higher, as high or higher than Deer Park Preserve, which was rezoning 02-0063. We fought hard for that and we were able to limit that to 60 and 70 foot lots. Now I don't know if anybody remembers that, probably not, but we were promised at that time that it would not be any higher up the road. What will follow are more applications just like this one. Pointing back to this approval is justification. And over time, this is how the character of the community will change. One decision at a time. This proposal, even at 86 homes, does not preserve the semi-rural character of Lutes. It changes it. And for that reason, I respectfully ask that this request be denied. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition?

I do.

I have one person coming up to the podium right now in the room and I've got somebody who just said something online.

Yes, correct.

All right, we'll let the person on the line speak and then you can speak. I just want the folks that are here in opposition that you in total are giving 15 minutes to speak in opposition and you've used about 13 minutes so far I mean, in certain special circumstances where there's a lot of people here in the audience that want to speak, I have some latitude to give a little bit more time, but let's try to keep, recognize how much time we should be allocating, which is 15 minutes. But we'll take it speaker by speaker and play it by ear. All right, with that said, all right, the person who's online, please go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Adriana Jenner, 8108 Curry Road, Lutz, Florida, 33549. And I live in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed development in Lutz. I'm formally objecting to the proposed rezoning as well as the request to reduce the required 150 foot zoning offset between this development and existing low density residential homes. This proposal represents a significant increase in land use intensity that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan or FOEU policy 3.1.3, which requires comparability based on the scale, traffic, buffering, and neighborhood character at the point of adjacency. The property is currently zoned for low density residential use. The requester are forced zoning places higher intensity development directly adjacent to half acre residential loss without a meaningful transition or buffer. The applicant size urban service areas and master plan communities. However, those developments are fully planned and engineered with infrastructure and transitional design. That is not the case here. In addition, the proposal reduces the required 150 foot zoning offset, which is specifically intended to provide separation between adjacent residential intensities and protect neighborhood character the applicants proposed tree plantings along the property edge are not a substance also includes a proposed interconnection or emergency exit into our neighborhood which will function as a permanent access point and introduce additional traffic into already low capacity residential streets impacting safety and quality of life Finally, our neighborhood relies on private well water, and the subject property includes wetlands, raising concerns about runoff, drainage, and long-term groundwater impacts. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board deny the rezoning, deny the reduction of the 150 foot zoning offset, deny the proposed interconnection to the existing neighborhood, require full compliance with the comprehensive plan, and ensure full environmental traffic and infrastructure review. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay. And the person that walked up to the podium a minute ago? Yeah.

All right, my name is Amy Howe. I live at 1807 Curry Road, Lutes, Florida, 33549. A lot of my points were already hit on. Obviously, it's been stated several times, it doesn't abide by the Lutes community plan or the homes in the community. in the nearby neighborhoods. I did wanna call out just a couple of items. I know the traffic impact analysis report was put together and provided on page seven. What I wanted to identify is although they reduced the number of homes proposed, the increase to the PM peak hours is an 87% increase. So although they are saying that there's a 44, 44 homes is what would match the community. What they're proposing, although it is only double the homes, is much more traffic in the surrounding areas impacting our community, as well as 80% increase on the a.m. peak hour trips. So again, I know the numbers look small, but as it relates to the neighboring communities and an already congested road of Livingston, it does have an impact. The other thing I wanted to mention is, the concern on design exceptions, and I think it was mentioned, but the turn lane and where the entrance would be is very close to that overpass that goes over 275, so I have some safety concerns about just visibility, and I think all of our community does. We have tons of children in the neighborhood, lots of families that are traveling to schools and work and all of that. And that's directly in the path to some of the schools very close in our area. And so I think there's a major safety concern with where that turn lane is. last point or no go ahead okay and last point is um i would love to see where it is funded to actually expand livingston and bring the water and other facilities up livingston road as far as i know there are no plans to do so currently thank you all right thank you ma'am

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak? I know time's up, but I'll give another five minutes.

All right.

Okay.

Got it? Okay, my name's Donald Miller. I live at 2415 Forest Crest Circle, Lutes, Florida, 33549. I am actually in this neighborhood located right here on the map. If you see my fat finger, just let it. All right. They wanna come in through Curry Cove, but our neighborhood backs right up to them. So that easement, when they come in in Curry Road, which is a very short, small two-lane road, when it gets back up to get out to Livingston during peak hours, they're gonna come through our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is a circle. We already have enough problems with people come flying in off of Livingston through our neighborhood to avoid traffic, number one. Number two, as the builder said, these other developments on this land south of their proposed site, my home was built in 1986. That neighborhood was 1986. Most of these neighborhoods are old. They are not new developments. Fiddler's Cove across the street, Sutton Estates, a lot of these are older subdivisions. We do not need any more traffic on Livingston Avenue. It is a thoroughfare from Pasco to Barris Avenue. If you go down that road any time between 6.30 and 8.30 in the morning, you can count on 45 minutes sitting on that road trying to get to the light of Barris Avenue. That's all I've got to say, thank you. Thank you, sir.

Okay, that concludes, based on time, the opposition. And let the record reflect, about 50 people did stand up in opposition, that's in the record. So at this point in time, staff, anything further?

I'm Michelle Hiring, Development Services. For zoning, I would just emphasize one point, which is in this is in the urban service area, and they're required to utilize county services. Well and septic would not be permitted. And I believe James Ratliff has some points to speak to in regards to some of the comments you heard about the condition of the roadway and emergency access.

It's a city of Tampa, public water and sewer.

They're the service area.

Right, so they would have to talk to and apply for service from the city of Tampa.

Yes.

Right, okay. All right, and traffic?

Yes, for the record, James Ratliff. So with respect to corridor preservation, we heard a citizen, I think, questioning that. I can confirm that on the corridor preservation plan, Livingston is planned as a future four-lane road south of Vandervoort. North of that, it's what they call a two-lane enhanced. I think... They expressed concern about when that would be done and we can't speak to that issue those get programmed Not in the CIA. It's not in the CIP, right? So it could be a future project can't say it can't say when but it is identified as land being preserved for that to be widened in the future. With respect to the connection to Curry, the Land Development Code requires those kinds of emergency access connections because, God forbid, something like a sinkhole opened up or a power line goes across or a tree goes across a road and people are stuck. That works both ways. This community will be able to benefit from that secondary connection.

What does that mean? What does that mean? What does it mean by emergency?

So for emergency connection, it would only permit pedestrian access. There would be a gate. It doesn't specify it in the conditions, but that's a gated access with a Knox box and the fire marshal would have a key. This is not something that they will have the option of opening whenever they want to. Traffic's bad, so I'm going to open it up. Absolutely not. If that were to happen, citizens could call code enforcement. That would certainly be a violation of the zoning conditions.

So it's locked and only the fire department has access? To the gate.

Correct. I mean, it could also be. I mean, there could be other, you know, officials that open it, but it's not the neighborhood deciding that, oh, there's a traffic emergency. This is not a congestion thing. This is not a because I desire the connection thing. So it's it's truly meant for emergencies.

Anything else?

That's all.

All right. And now the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. I'm sorry.

Sure for the record, that's James Ratliff with the Transportation Review.

Kami Corbett again. For the record, excuse me, I'm gonna have Mike Yates come up and address traffic issues right now.

Good evening, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, 4006 South MacDill Avenue. Can we go to the screen? I just want to go through a couple of the traffic questions that were raised during the comments. We did do a traffic study out there. We had used the 130 units, so obviously it's been reduced down to 86 units. uh... but we did look at the capacity of livingston uh... based on the existing volumes that were adjusted to peak season traffic added in the hundred and thirty units uh... there was sufficient capacity to accommodate the project uh... not by a lot but there is capacity out there But that is not a requirement of the code. The county has obviously done away with transportation concurrency, but just wanted to provide that as informational. We did do intersection analysis, which is part of the code, and we're able to show the intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service.

Are you doing any improvements at that intersection?

We are, and it was really, this is the design exception request that has been reviewed and found approvable, but we are providing a northbound left turn lane into the project to access. and then we are also adding five foot paved shoulders along the project frontage for the entire frontage on both sides of the road and then we will be providing the sidewalk along the west side of the property and so in addition to that we you can see on the The design exception, there is a right-of-way dedication, and then there is also the right-of-way preservation. Those two, the dedication and the preservation together, are the necessary right-of-way requirements for the future four-laning of the facility. Livingston, so this provides the right-of-way set aside for that future four-laning. And then what's on the screen is the corridor preservation that does show it as a four-lane facility. And the conditions within the transportation review do identify that dedication preservation for that future four lanes. That was it, unless you had any other traffic questions. if you know it uh... you wear any safety issues of the location of that proposed his point now we have gone through that with the county engineer we place the driveway to avoid those safety issues uh... you know we had taught we had originally looked at moving into the north but providing the northbound left turn lane we have to have transition areas and they're also is because it's in after your t redway uh... to the north uh... there is a limited right away Section to that north so we have to be able to provide the left turn lane in transition before we get to that right-of-way That is protected by dot so we have sufficient sight distance Both to the north and south and we meet access connections facing standards for the county code.

Okay Thank you No, sir, please No, please

Sir, sir, please.

Kayla Witkowski with Clearview Land Design. I wanted to clarify a couple of points and concerns that were made by residents. First, the 150 foot zoning offset that was referenced by one of the residents, that is just a boundary along the perimeter of the project to capture adjacent parcels so that way we can show on the plan the adjacent zoning land use and future land use of the adjacent parcels. So that's not, we're not asking for any variations or requests for that. It's really just informational. As far as the Lutes Community Plan. There are requirements in the Lutes Community Plan for larger residential lots, but that is only applicable to areas in the rural areas. service areas. So the Lutes community plan provides the framework and then within the land development code there's a section about the Lutes rural development standards that are only applicable to the areas that are not within the urban service area. And to tag on to that point, this, as was previously mentioned, this site will be served by the City of Tampa Public Utilities. So even though it won't be served by unincorporated Hillsborough County, it is still a part of the county-wide urban service area. And I wanted to revisit this slide because even though some of these developments that are on the screen are not within the Lutes community plan, they are within a mile of the subject property and the residential developments that are directly adjacent to our site are very similar in density to what we are proposing here. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am.

Oh, yes. Jamie Corbett again with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson. And I think we're about one minute 48 in our additional time. And so we had a look. I'll try to wrap up as quickly as possible, though. I think this slide is important in terms of what we're asking for. We're asking for 1.8 dwelling units per acre. And granted, the four units per acre is not a guarantee when you're rezoning a property. We are providing a semi-rural density. The community may not appreciate the fact that the comprehensive plan actually encourages clustering to eliminate impacts to wetlands, but that is exactly what we're doing here. We are preserving the wetlands and we are clustering, which Mr. Royals said in his testimony, you heard that that is something that is encouraged by the Lutes Community Plan. and he reiterated as an expert, as our planner did as well, that the Lutes Community Plan and how it should be interpreted is what the community is asking for is essentially asking you to apply the rural standards to a property that's within the urban service boundary. And this is another map. And we're not comparing ourselves to Cheval or Calusa Trace. We were comparing ourselves within that map that Ms. Witowski put up on the screen with respect to what we were in terms of compatible densities in the surrounding area. And that is why we voluntarily reduced the number of lots from 130 to 86 and increase the lot sizes from 40 to 60 because we recognize that when you are looking at the surrounding area that is a little bit different and it is appropriate to look at some reduction. But to go to say it has to be a half acre lot or one acre lot in a location that's within the urban service area where the future land use is designated for R4, simply ignores the property rights of this property owner, some of whom have owned the property for a long time, who are seeking a reasonable development right on their property. And the expert testimony in the record with respect to compatibility from the Planning Commission, Development Services, and our expert on the matter of...

Okay, Ms. Corbett, if you could wrap up.

Okay, three seconds. Compatibility, essentially, that's the expert testimony in the record, and that's what you should rely on, and we respectfully request your approval.

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate everyone's patience tonight. That concludes this application and it concludes this evening's zoning hearing, master hearing. We are adjourned, thank you.