captioning - webapps.hillsboroughcounty.org€¦ · web viewoctober 21, 2013. zoning hearing...

CAPTIONINGOCTOBER 21, 2013

ZONING HEARING MASTER

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

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THIS

EVENING'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

MY NAME IS STEVE LUCE, AND I'LL BE CONDUCTING THIS

EVENING'S HEARINGS.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF YOU'D ALL PLEASE RISE FOR THE

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]

THANK YOU ALL.

YOU MAY BE SEATED.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF TO INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SEATED AT THE DAIS, THEN TELL US IF

THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THIS EVENING'S AGENDA.

>>BRIAN GRADY: GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

BRIAN GRADY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION.

JOINING US AT THE DAIS TONIGHT ARE, TO MY LEFT, MR. LOUIS

WHITEHEAD WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND TO HIS

LEFT, MARCIE STENMARK WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY-

COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE HAVE NO CHANGES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, SO I'LL GO THROUGH

1

THE PUBLISHED WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES, BEGINNING ON

PAGE 5 OF THE AGENDA.

THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM A-2, REZONING APPLICATION 13-0896.

THIS APPLICATION IS BEING WITHDRAWN FROM THE ZONING HEARING

MASTER PROCESS.

ITEM A-3, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0344, THIS APPLICATION

IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE

NOVEMBER 18th, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A-4, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 13-0700, THIS APPLICATION

IS BEING CONTINUED BY STAFF TO THE NOVEMBER 18th, 2013,

ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A-5, REZONING APPLICATION 13-0856, THIS APPLICATION IS

OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE








AND ITEM A-8, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0895, THIS

APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING

CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 18th, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER

HEARING.

THAT CONCLUDES ALL WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. GRADY.

I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO THE RECORD, THE

2

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ

INTO THE RECORD, AND THEN WE'LL GET STARTED FOR THE FIRST

ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

FIRST, STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THE ITEM.

THEN THE APPLICANT AND ANY WITNESSES OF THE APPLICANT WILL

HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR REQUEST.

NEXT, THE STAFF OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND,

IF APPLICABLE, THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL

PRESENT THEIR REPORTS AND FINDINGS, AND THEY HAVE FIVE

MINUTES APIECE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THEN THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE PROPONENTS, WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BUT ARE NOT CONNECTED DIRECTLY WITH

THE PETITION, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR

STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT.

FOLLOWING THAT, THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE OPPONENTS, WHO ARE

AGAINST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15

MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION.

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT IS A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES FOR ALL

OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO MAY WISH TO SPEAK IN

OPPOSITION, SO IF THERE'S A LARGE GROUP, YOU MAY WANT TO

ORGANIZE YOUR STATEMENTS SO THAT ALL THE TIME DOES NOT GET

USED UP BEFORE EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

THEN IF EITHER STAFF HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR

REVISIONS TO THEIR REPORTS TO BE MADE FOLLOWING THE

TESTIMONY, THEY'LL BE MADE NEXT.

AND BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE LAST PERSON TO SPEAK

3

WILL BE THE APPLICANT, WHO WILL HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES OF

TIME TO REBUT ANY STATEMENTS MADE IN OPPOSITION TO THE

REQUEST AND TO SUMMARIZE THEIR APPLICATION.

THERE'S A CHIME AT THE PODIUM THAT WILL SOUND ONCE WHEN

THERE ARE 30 SECONDS REMAINING AND WILL SOUND THREE TIMES

WHEN THE TIME HAS EXPIRED FOR A SPEAKER.

IF IT APPEARS THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR ANY OF THE

PARTIES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE

GRANTED BY THE HEARING MASTER.

WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD.

AFTER YOU PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY, PLEASE SIGN IN WITH THE

CLERK -- THERE'S A PAD DOWN AT THE END OF THE PODIUM --

GIVING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

THESE ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE

DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BASED ON FACT-BASED

EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND AS PRESENTED IN THE HEARING

TONIGHT.

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL, THESE HEARINGS WILL BE

INFORMAL.

ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE REQUEST

BEING MADE BY THE APPLICANT, AND BECAUSE THERE ARE TIME

LIMITS, I ASK THAT YOU TRY NOT TO REPEAT TESTIMONY THAT HAS

ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.

IT'S REQUIRED THAT ALL TESTIMONY GIVEN REGARDING ANY

APPLICATION BE GIVEN UNDER OATH, SO AT THIS TIME, TO

EXPEDITE MATTERS, I'LL GIVE THE OATH TO ALL PARTIES WHO

THINK THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.

4

THOSE OF YOU WHO BELIEVE YOU'RE PROVIDING TESTIMONY

TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

[PARTICIPANTS SWORN IN]

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THE FIRST GROUP OF APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD TONIGHT ARE THE

SPECIAL USES.

FOR THE SPECIAL USES, TONIGHT'S HEARING IS THE ONLY HEARING

ON THESE PETITIONS, AND AS THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER, I

WILL RENDER A DECISION ON THESE APPLICATIONS.

MY DECISIONS WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN

15 WORKING DAYS OF TONIGHT'S HEARING.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL

NOW PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

LOUIS WHITEHEAD, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.

GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON SPECIAL USES HEARD

TONIGHT WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS ON NOVEMBER THE 12th.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVIDES THAT ANYONE WHO DESIRES

TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION BY MAIL

MUST FURNISH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD WITH THEIR NAME,

ADDRESS, THE CASE NUMBER, AND A STAMPED SELF-ADDRESSED

ENVELOPE.

DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON SPECIAL USES MAY BE

APPEALED TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD.

AN APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

5

DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE THAT THE

HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION IS FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE

BOARD.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS OR ENTITIES SHALL HAVE STANDING TO

APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OR TO INTERVENE IN

AN APPEAL: FIRST, THE APPLICANT, AND SECOND, ANY PERSON OR

ENTITY THAT "A," IS REPRESENTED OR REPRESENTED AT TONIGHT'S

HEARINGS AND PRESENTS EITHER TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY

EVIDENCE; OR "B," SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THEMSELVES

OR THROUGH ANOTHER PRIOR TO OR DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING;

AND "C," IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE

HEARING OFFICER.

THE EVIDENCE THAT THE APPEALS BOARD CAN CONSIDER IS LIMITED

TO THE EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED TONIGHT.

THIS MEANS THAT AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING ON EACH

SPECIAL USE, THE CASE RECORD CLOSES, AND NO EVIDENCE -- NEW

EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED.

IN ADDITION TO THE CASE RECORD, THE APPEALS BOARD SHALL

CONSIDER THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND ORAL

ARGUMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE PARTY APPEALING THE

DECISION, AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY WHO HAS STANDING TO

APPEAL OR TO INTERVENE IN AN APPEAL, EACH OF WHOM MAY BE

REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL.

IT IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S ROLE TO ENSURE THAT NO NEW

EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS ALLOWED BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD

IN CONNECTION WITH THIS DECISION.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL ADVISE THE APPEALS BOARD TO

DISREGARD EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT IS NOT IN THE RECORD.

6

THEREFORE, PLEASE BE SURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU MAY

DESIRE THE APPEALS BOARD TO CONSIDER IS PLACED INTO THE

RECORD TONIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. WHITEHEAD.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE

THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

>>BRIAN GRADY: FIRST ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-1 ON PAGE 9 OF

THE AGENDA.

IT'S SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0794.

THE APPLICANT IS JOVYIA COMFORT HOME.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR A COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL HOME, INCLUDING A VARIANCE TO THE PROHIBITION

OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS BEING PERMITTED ON SEPTIC TANK.

ISABELLE ALBERT WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING, MR. LUCE -- EXCUSE ME -- GOOD EVENING, MR.

LUCE.

LONG DAY.

FOR THE RECORD, MICHAEL HORNER, 14502 NORTH DALE MABRY

HIGHWAY, SUITE 200, TAMPA 33618.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNER AND OPERATORS, MR. AND

MRS. EMMANUEL JOSEPH.

THIS SITE, MR. LUCE, IS IN THE PLANT CITY PLANNING AREA,

7

UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, SOUTH OF STATE ROAD 60,

5.8 ACRES, 1709 WEST STATE ROAD 60, WHICH IS JUST WEST OF

CASSELS ROAD.

IT'S IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA.

IT'S ZONED AR.

IT'S IN THE AR OF THE COMP PLAN.

OUR CLIENTS ARE SEEKING A SPECIAL USE APPROVAL FOR A ALF,

OTHERWISE KNOWN BY THE LDC AS A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME,

TYPE "C."

THIS SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR AND CURRENTLY

EXISTS AS A TYPE "A" ALF FACILITY, MR. LUCE.

THAT CURRENTLY HAS THE APPROVAL OF FIVE BEDS.

WE'RE SEEKING THE EXPANSION TO 29.

THAT 29-BED COUNT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CALCULATIONS

PROVIDED UNDER 6.11.28 AND ALSO ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE

LDC THAT ALLOW FIVE BEDS PER THE ONE DWELLING UNIT PER ASC-

1 ZONING, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE AR ZONING.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FOR APPROVAL.

WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THEIR CONDITIONS.

PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THIS CONSISTENT WITH ALL RULES,

REQUIREMENTS, AND FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES AND

PROVISIONS.

I MIGHT NOTE THAT THE EXPANSION IS GOING TO BE SIMILAR TO

THE EXISTING FACILITY, SAME ROOF LINES, RESIDENTIAL.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTING A MULTISTORY, THIS WILL

BE A ONE-STORY ADDITION.

THIS ADDITION WILL BE IN THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING

FACILITY, SO NOT ANY CLOSER TO THE SURROUNDING PERIMETER

8

LOT LINES.

THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY MY CLIENTS IN JULY OF 2009,

AND THEIR ALF LICENSE WAS ISSUED IN 2011.

I'M GOING TO FILE IN THE RECORD, MR. LUCE, SOME DOCUMENTS

FROM THEIR WEB SITE WHICH SHOWS INTERNAL PHOTOGRAPHS THAT

YOU MAY NOT SEE IF YOU'RE OUT THERE DOING YOUR FIELD

REVIEWS.

SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED BY ALL FACTS.

WE HAVE HAD ALL GOOD COMMENTS, ALL APPROPRIATE RESPONSES,

NO OBJECTIONS FROM REVIEW AGENCIES, WE HAVE NO WETLAND

ISSUES.

THERE'S A FLOOD ZONE TO THE EAST THAT WE'RE STAYING OUT OF.

OBVIOUSLY IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, WE HAVE TO SERVE BY

SEPTIC TANK AND WELL, AND WE HAVE THOSE PERMITS PENDING FOR

THE EXPANSION OF THE SEPTIC TANK AND DRAINFIELD.

FDOT, MR. LUCE, DID COMMENT ABOUT A MONTH AGO, FIVE WEEKS,

ABOUT RELOCATING THE DRIVEWAY TO THE EAST.

WE HAD IT FURTHER TO THE WEST.

THERE IS AN ALIGNMENT ISSUE CONCERN THEY EXPRESSED.

WE HAVE NOW FILED THE REVISED PLAN, WHICH YOU HAVE A COPY

OF TONIGHT, THAT SHOWS THAT RELOCATION TO THE EAST.

YOU KNOW THESE FACILITIES.

THEY'RE BENIGN, LOW-INTENSITY, LOW TRAFFIC, LOW ADT,

CERTAINLY LOW PEAK-HOUR.

WE DID HAVE TO FILE A VARIANCE REQUEST, MR. LUCE, BECAUSE

THE LDC CONSIDERS ALF USES, COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME, AS

MULTIFAMILY, AND, THEREFORE, THE OTHER PROVISION OF THE

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMP PLAN, I MIGHT ADD,

9

REQUIRES PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER TO BE EXTENDED TO

MULTIFAMILY USES.

OF COURSE, WE'RE MILES FROM ANY URBAN SERVICE AREA, MILES

FROM PUBLIC SEWER.

SO WE DID FILE THOSE VARIANCE PROCEDURES AND RESPONSES.

I THINK THEY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM IN DETAIL.

YOU HAVE THEM IN THE RECORD, AT LEAST YOU SHOULD BEFORE YOU

THIS EVENING.

SETBACKS, AS YOU KNOW, IN AR DISTRICT ARE 50 FEET FRONT AND

REAR AND 25 FEET SIDE.

THIS STRUCTURE -- THE CLOSEST STRUCTURE, NOT EVEN THE

PROPOSED EXPANSION, WHICH IS A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY, IS

ABOUT 150 FEET FROM THE NORTH, ABOUT 116 FEET TO THE WEST,

AND APPROXIMATELY 80 FEET FROM THE SOUTH.

I THINK MS. ALBERT SHOWED ME A REVISED CONDITION SHEET THAT

WAS JUST CLEANUP LANGUAGE.

I DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS OR OBJECTIONS TO IT.

SHE'LL READ THAT IN THE RECORD AND PROBABLY FILE A COPY.

I DID RECEIVE A PHONE CALL THIS AFTERNOON FROM AN ATTORNEY

WHO INDICATED HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE REPRESENTING SOME

PROPERTY OWNERS.

I WAS SURPRISED BY THE LATE NOTICE.

I SENT HIM ALL THE REPORTS AT 4:00.

HE DID INDICATE TO ME THAT ONE OF HIS CLIENTS DID HAVE AN

AIR STRIP TO THE SOUTH, SO I'M NOT SURE A COMPATIBILITY

ISSUE EXISTS IN AN INVERSE APPLICATION OF CONCERNS, BUT IF

HE'S HERE, WE'LL ADDRESS THOSE IN REBUTTAL.

10

IF NOT, THAT COMPLETES OUR PRESENTATION.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AS MR. HORNER STATED, THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL HOME TYPE "C" WITH A MAXIMUM OF 29 BEDS.

THEY DO CURRENTLY HAVE ONE OPERATING AS A TYPE "A," AND

THEN BY INCREASING THIS -- THE NUMBER OF BEDS TO A

TYPE "C" CHANGES THE CATEGORY OF A SINGLE-FAMILY TO A

MULTIFAMILY USE, AND BY DOING SO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY

WITH ALL THE BUFFERING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS OF THE

CODE, AND THEY HAVE SHOWN THAT ON THEIR PLAN, SO THERE'S NO

OBJECTIONS THERE.

AND ALSO, THEY DID FILE FOR THE VARIANCE, AS HE STATED, AND

THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE BACKUP FOR YOUR REVIEW.

AND THEY ALSO COMPLY WITH FDOT REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT'S

ALSO BEEN INTRODUCED AS A CONDITION AS WELL.

AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANY REVIEWING

AGENCY.

WE DO FIND THIS SUPPORTABLE WITH THE CONDITIONS, WITH THE

AMENDMENTS, AS MR. HORNER STATED.

I'M JUST GOING TO READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.

IT WOULD BE CONDITION NUMBER 1, THE PROJECT SHALL BE

PERMITTED A MAXIMUM OF 13,639 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA

11

FOR A TYPE "C" COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME WITH A MAXIMUM OF

29 BEDS AND SHALL BE DEVELOPED PER THE AGRICULTURAL RURAL,

AR, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION

6.11.28.

THAT IS JUST TO CLARIFY EXACTLY -- MORE TO CONDITION NUMBER

1.

AND CONDITION 6, AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE IS, SHALL BE

PROVIDED ALONG THE EASTERN, SOUTHERN, AND WESTERN PROPERTY

LINES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>MARCIE STENMARK: GOOD EVENING.

MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL RURAL ONE

TO FIVE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IN THE RURAL AREA.

THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE IN THIS RURAL

LOCATION.

A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME USE IS DEFINED AS A CONGREGATE

LIVING FACILITY BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS ALLOWABLE

WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

OVERALL, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED

CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR A USE THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE

12

SURROUNDING AREA, AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE

PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF

HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: 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?

GOOD EVENING.

>> I'M DAVID GALLOWAY, 506 NORTH ALEXANDER STREET, PLANT

CITY.

I'M THE SOME LAWYER THAT CALLED THIS AFTERNOON TO SPEAK TO

MR. HORNER, HAVING JUST RECEIVED THIS.

PRESENTLY, THERE IS A ALF THERE ON HIGHWAY 60, WHICH HAS NO

SIGNAGE, NO -- NOTHING TO CALL ATTENTION TO IT.

IT APPEARS TO BE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, AND A NICE HOME,

CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S OUT THERE IN THE

AREA, WHICH IS BASICALLY AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL.

TO GO FROM FIVE BEDS TO 29 BEDS IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE,

AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE DRAWING, THE -- THE NEW

BUILDING IS SOME ALMOST 11,000 SQUARE FEET.

THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT OF A POND, A PARKING LOT, AND

MOVING A DRIVEWAY TO THE EAST CLOSER TO THE ENTRANCE TO MY

CLIENT'S PROPERTY, THE COOPERS.

13

THEY OWN 17 ACRES, WHICH IS BASICALLY TO THE EAST AND SOUTH

OF THIS PROPERTY SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CURRENT

ALF, YOU CAN SEE MR. COOPER'S 2.5-STORY HOME BACK BEHIND

IT.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CONCERNED AND HAVE MET WITH AN

APPRAISER, WHO'S INDICATED THAT HAVING A 29-BED ALF WILL

CERTAINLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY VALUE.

>>STEVE LUCE: DID YOU GET ANYTHING IN WRITING FROM THE

PROPERTY APPRAISER THAT YOU CONTACTED?

>> I DID NOT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> I DID A DRIVE-BY WITH HIM.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> JUST AS I SAID, I RECENTLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS, AND WE

JUST WENT OVER THERE THROUGH THE WEEKEND.

BUT THAT'S -- THAT'S A PRINCIPAL CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS

NOT THE TYPE FACILITY SOMEONE WANTS IN THEIR FRONT YARD,

AND IF IT IMPACTS FINANCIALLY, THEN THAT'S CERTAINLY A VERY

NEGATIVE THING.

THE -- I GUESS THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK

IN OPPOSITION?


STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

14

>> THANK YOU, MR. LUCE.

MICHAEL HORNER, AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD.

WELL, WE'VE MET MR. GALLOWAY.

I'M GLAD HE SHOWED.

I AM SOMEWHAT SURPRISED THAT WE HADN'T HAD THE PLEASURE OF

DISCUSSING THESE ITEMS PRIOR.

THIS HAS BEEN A CASE THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR OVER SIX

MONTHS, WE'VE HAD A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, SEVERAL

NOTICES, SIGNS POSTED, BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, I THINK YOU

ASKED THE QUESTION ON THE DIMINUTION OF VALUE ASSERTION.

CERTAINLY NO DOCUMENTS FILED FOR COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

WE CERTAINLY DISAGREE WITH THAT ASSERTION.

AGAIN, MR. LUCE, I WOULD REMIND YOU THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL

SUPPORT USE.

IT WILL BE DESIGNED AS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

I WOULD FURTHER POINT OUT THAT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF THIS

STRUCTURE AFTER IMPROVEMENT, WHICH WILL BE ONE STORY -- I

THINK HE MENTIONED HIS HOUSE -- CLIENT'S HOUSE WAS TWO

STORIES -- IS ABOUT .05 ON THIS 5.8 ACRES, SO THIS HAS MORE

THAN SUFFICIENT LAND AREA, SETBACK, BUFFER, SCREENING.

WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL SECTION 6.06 REQUIREMENTS AND

6.11.28.

WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND TALK

ABOUT SPECIFICS, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING SCREENINGWISE, A

TYPE OF FENCING, BUT WE HAVE TO MEET TYPE "A" SCREENING.

IT'S IN PLACE.

WE'LL MAKE SURE WE EXTEND THAT FOR THE PERIMETER, AND,

15

AGAIN, THE ONLY USES ON THE SOUTH SIDE WOULD BE THE

RETENTION POND, ON THE NORTH SIDE WOULD BE THE SEPTIC TANK

DRAINFIELD, AND THEN A SMALL LITTLE PARKING AREA, WHICH HAS

VERY LITTLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS GIVEN THE MINIMAL PEAK-

HOUR AND DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS FOR 29 BEDS.

MR. GALLOWAY DID ASK ME IF THIS WAS GOING TO BE A STEPPING

STONE TO A LARGER FACILITY, DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A

CERTIFICATE OF NEED WITH THE STATE, AND AS YOU KNOW, THAT'S

NOT TRUE.

THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL SERVICE, IT'S NOT A HOSPITAL, AND WE

CERTAINLY CANNOT EXTEND THESE ENTITLEMENTS BEYOND 29 BEDS

UNDER THE CURRENT COMP PLAN AND THE ZONING SPECIAL USE

REQUIREMENTS.

SO WITH THAT, I THINK I'VE ADDRESSED THOSE ISSUES.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND

MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-2, SPECIAL

USE APPLICATION 13-0850.

THE APPLICANT'S CARROLLWOOD BRASS TOP, LLC.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION

WAIVERS FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE 4-COP DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

COLLEEN MARSHALL WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF


>> ALL RIGHT.

FOR THE RECORD, CHAD HOPE, 5660 WEST CYPRESS STREET,

16

SUITE A, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33607.

I'M A MANAGING MEMBER AND REPRESENT THE CARROLLWOOD BRASS

TAP.

WE'RE CURRENTLY OPEN AND OPERATING A BRASS TAP CRAFT BEER

AND WINE BAR AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATION.

WE'VE SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED THAT PUTTING IN LIQUOR, HARD

SPIRITS, IS A PROPER BUSINESS DECISION, AND WE'RE

REQUESTING TWO SEPARATE WAIVERS, ONE FROM THE 1,000-FOOT

REQUIREMENT OF ALCOHOL AND BEVERAGE LICENSES FOR SPECIAL

USE AND THE SECOND BEING A DISTANCE FROM A PROPOSED

RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WAIVER.

AS TO THE FIRST WAIVER, THERE ARE FOUR APPROVED LICENSES,

AND TWO OF THE APPROVED LICENSES ARE NO LONGER IN USE,

REMAINING TWO EXISTING LICENSES.

AS TO THE DISTANCE WAIVER FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED

PROPERTY, THERE IS A 250-FOOT REQUIREMENT.

WE'RE ACTUALLY 230 FEET TO A PARKING LOT.

THE 250 FOOT EXCEEDS PAST THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.

THERE'S ALSO A PERMANENT FENCE THAT ACTS AS A BARRIER

BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND ALSO A SERVICE ROAD

BETWEEN -- WE FACE A PARKING LOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND THE

WEST SIDE TO DALE MABRY DIRECTLY.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

17

>>STEVE LUCE: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>COLLEEN MARSHALL: GOOD EVENING.

COLLEEN MARSHALL, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR A DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER FOR

A 4-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR BEER, WINE,

AND LIQUOR FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF THE

PERMANENT PREMISES.

THE APPLICANT'S SEEKING TO ADD LIQUOR SALES TO THE EXISTING

BRASS TAP CRAFT BEER AND WINE, LOCATED AT 10019 NORTH DALE

MABRY HIGHWAY.

THE WET ZONE AREA WILL COMPRISE OF 3,761 SQUARE FEET, 413

OF WHICH IS OUTSIDE AREA.

THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TWO WAIVERS, A WAIVER TO THE

REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE NO MORE THAN THREE APPROVED

SPECIFIC ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSES LISTED IN THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT CODE WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL

USE AND A WAIVER TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DISTANCE FROM

THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY

SHALL BE 250 FEET.

PER THE WET ZONE SURVEY RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 19th, 2013,

THERE ARE FOUR SUCH APPROVED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMITS,

AND THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO

RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY IS 230 FEET.

STAFF CONCURS WITH THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION TO THE

WAIVERS.

NO AGENCY OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED BY STAFF.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE APPROVABLE, AND I'M HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

18

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.





APPLICATION?



APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL?

>> [INAUDIBLE]


WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND STAFF,

WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT APPLICATION IS AGENDA ITEM I-3.

IT'S SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0873.

I'LL NOTE ON THE -- ON THE RECORD THAT THE AGENDA

INCORRECTLY LISTED THIS AS AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SPECIAL

USE PERMIT.

IT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A SCHOOL.

THE APPLICANT'S PETITT, WORRELL, CRAINE, WOLFE, LLC, AND

AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A

SCHOOL.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

19

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

MY NAME IS BIFF CRAINE, 4830 WEST KENNEDY, SUITE 475, WITH

THE LAW FIRM OF PETITT, WORRELL, CRAINE & WOLFE.

I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE ALSO JEFF DeBOSIER, WHO IS OUR

PROJECT ENGINEER, AND MR. TIM HAYES, WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND MR. RYAN KELLY, WHO'S THE HEAD

OF THE SCHOOL.

I BELIEVE THEY'RE ALL IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT WITH US AND

WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SUPPORTERS HERE ALSO.

I DON'T THINK THAT INDIVIDUAL TESTIMONY IS NECESSARY.

WOULD LIKE ALL THE SUPPORTERS TO STAND AND INDICATE THEIR

PRESENCE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

>> THANK YOU.

THE SITE LOCATION IS ON 38 ACRES NORTH OF BEARSS, WHICH IS

WEST OF NORTH BOULEVARD.

THE -- IT'S CURRENTLY THE HOME TO THE CARROLLWOOD DAY

SCHOOL AND 769 STUDENTS IN FIRST THROUGH 12th GRADES.

LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RES-4, AND THE USE HAS PREVIOUSLY

BEEN FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT

THE LAST SPECIAL USE HEARING WE HAD IN 2007.

I PRESENT AS EVIDENCE OF OUR CONSISTENCY WITH THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF'S REPORT, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU HAVE IN YOUR -- REPORT

20

IN YOUR INFORMATION.

OUR REQUEST HAS BEEN DEEMED CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN

BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, AND WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY

THREE REQUESTS IN OUR -- IN OUR PETITION TONIGHT.

WE WANT TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE

TO 24,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THAT WOULD BE FROM 230,000

SQUARE FEET TO 254,000 SQUARE FEET, WELL UNDER THE F.A.R.

FOR THE PROPERTY.

WE ALSO WANT A MODIFICATION OF THE LIGHTING STANDARDS THAT

WERE IMPOSED IN 2007, AND ALSO, WE HAVE AN ISSUE ON THE

ORIENTATION OF THE PLAYFIELDS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY.

AS YOU REALIZE, UNDER THE REGULATION OF THIS SPECIAL USE,

THE TWO THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT ARE THE ORIENTATION

OF THE PLAYFIELDS AND THE CONNECTION TO THE ROAD SYSTEM.

THE ROAD SYSTEM CONNECTION IS TO BEARSS.

THAT HAS NOT CHANGED.

THERE ARE TWO CONNECTIONS TO THAT ROADWAY SYSTEM, AN EAST

AND WEST ENTRANCE.

AS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHEN WE CAME BEFORE MR. SCAROLA

IN 2007 FOR THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE -- TO ALLOW THE USE OF

MODULAR BUILDINGS FOR UP TO 37-500 -- 37,500 SQUARE FEET,

AS THESE MODULAR BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN RETIRED AND APPROVED

WITH REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES, SCHOOL PLANNERS HAVE DIVIDED

UP THE NEEDS FOR THE COMING ENROLLMENT TO INCLUDE AN

ADDITIONAL 24,000 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL SCHOOL FACILITIES.

WITH THAT IDENTIFICATION, WE HAD ASKED FOR AND WOULD LIKE

TO RECEIVE APPROVAL FOR THAT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN

OUR APPROVAL TONIGHT.

21

WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE PROJECTED ENROLLMENT, BUT WE ARE

PROJECTING A HIGHER NEED FOR SCHOOL SPACE.

AS FOR THE -- THE LIGHTING MODIFICATIONS, WHEN WE CAME

BEFORE MR. SCAROLA IN 2007, BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE

APPLICANT WERE KIND OF IN THE DARK REGARDING LIGHTING

STANDARDS.

THE COUNTY HAD NOT DEVELOPED LIGHTING STANDARDS AS OF YET

FOR RECREATIONAL FIELDS.

THAT HAS BEEN DONE NOW IN THE COUNTY CODE AT 6. -- I

BELIEVE IT'S 6.11 -- I DON'T HAVE THE CITATION HERE.

I'LL FIND IT IN JUST A SECOND, BUT IT -- THERE IS A -- IT'S

IN THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AS TO WHAT WE APPLY TO.

AND THE -- THE LIGHTING STANDARDS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PUT

IN PLACE WERE NOT BASED ON ANY PHOTOMETRIC PLANS.

WE DO HAVE NOW PHOTOMETRIC PLANS THAT I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT

FOR THE RECORD.

THESE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS SHOW HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE THE VERY,

VERY POSITIVE RESULTS AT THE BORDERS ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF

THE SITE WITH THE LIGHTING STRUCTURES ONCE THE POLES ARE

RAISED TO A HEIGHT THAT WILL ALLOW THE FOCUS OF THE

LIGHTING BEAMS DOWN ON THE PLAYFIELD AREA.

THE PREVIOUS RESTRICTION LIMITED THE HEIGHT OF THE POLES TO

30 FEET, WHICH WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THAT LIGHT TO BE

FOCUSED, CREATING A GREATER AMOUNT OF SPILLAGE TO THE -- TO

THE PROPERTIES TO THE SIDE.

NOW, OUR -- IN OUR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN, OUR ENGINEER TOLD ME

THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THE STANDARDS THAT WERE

CURRENTLY ENUNCIATED IN THE -- IN THE EXISTING APPROVAL BUT

22

WE COULD EASILY MEET THE STANDARDS THAT ARE UNDER THE CODE,

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S 6.03.I I BELIEVE IT IS, SO WE -- WE

CAN MEET THOSE STANDARDS.

THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SHOWS TWO THINGS.

IT SHOWS THAT THE STANDARDS ENUNCIATED IN THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS THE IESNA RP-6-01 STANDARD,

WHICH IS THE STANDARD APPLIED TO LIGHTING OF RECREATION

FIELDS, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, CAN BE MET WITH THIS

LIGHTING -- LIGHTING PLAN, AND IT SHOWS FURTHER INTO THE

PLAN THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT THAT WOULD BE MEASURABLE IN FOOT

CANDLES AT THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE ADJACENT TO THE

PLAYFIELDS.

SO THE CHANGES IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL ALLOW US TO MEET

OR EXCEED THE CURRENT COUNTY STANDARDS AS ENUNCIATED IN THE

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT 6.03.11.I WHILE MAINTAINING THE

SPILLOVER LIGHTING AT A VERY LOW RATE TO THE ADJACENT

PROPERTIES.

AS FOR THE ORIENTATION OF THE WESTERN PLAYFIELDS, ALONG THE

WESTERN BORDER, GREATER ORIENT -- GREATER SEPARATION OF

ACTUAL PLAY SURFACES IS SOUGHT BY ROTATING THE LARGE

PLAYFIELDS AS SHOWN ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN.

ON YOUR INSPECTION OF THE SITE, YOU WILL NOTICE A LARGE

VEGETATIVE BUFFER CURRENTLY EXISTS BETWEEN THE HOMES THAT

HAVE NOW BEEN CONSTRUCTED SINCE THE 2007 PLAN WAS APPROVED

AND THE -- THE SCHOOL PROPERTY.

THAT -- THAT BUFFER WILL MAINTAIN INTACT AS GREAT AS WE CAN

MAINTAIN IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALONG WHICH BOUNDARY IS THE HEDGE?

23

>> IT'S NOT A HEDGE, IT'S JUST -- IT'S TREES AND OTHER

VEGETATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> IT'S ON OUR WESTERN BORDER.

THERE ARE -- THERE'S A SUBDIVISION CALLED HAVEN BEND, AND

IN 2007 THE HOMES IN HAVEN BEND WEREN'T CONSTRUCTED ALONG

THE FENCE LINE THERE.

THEY ARE THERE NOW, AND YOU CAN -- IN YOUR INSPECTION, IF

YOU WOULD NOT ONLY LOOK FROM THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ON

THE CAMPUS SIDE BUT ALSO GO INTO THE HAVEN BEND SUBDIVISION

AND NOTICE BETWEEN THE HOMES THE AMOUNT OF VEGETATION THAT

THERE IS EXISTING THERE CURRENTLY.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY JUST MODULARS THERE.

THEY'LL BE TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE AS THE PLAYFIELDS DEVELOP.

IN SUMMARY, AT OUR 2007 APPROVAL THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION,

AND THE CARROLLWOOD DAY SCHOOL HAS WORKED TO BE A GOOD

NEIGHBOR, AND HOMES WERE NOW DEVELOPED ALONG THE WESTERN

BORDER OF THE CAMPUS.

THE CHANGES SOUGHT TODAY CONTINUE IN THAT SPIRIT.

WE HAVE REVISED -- WE HAVE REVIEWED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION

AND CONCUR WITH THOSE CONDITIONS.

WE ARE ASKING YOU TO FIND OUR REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROVE OUR REQUEST WITH THE

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.

I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR OUR PROJECT TEAM.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

24




AS MR. CRAINE STATED, THIS REQUEST IS FOR A CONTINUANCE OF

A SCHOOL, AND THERE'S THREE MAJOR REQUESTS.

ONE OF THEM IS TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 24,000

SQUARE FEET.

THAT IS FOR THE -- INTENDED FOR THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE

SCHOOL AND -- BUT BY NOT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF STUDENTS.

THAT WILL REMAIN AS IS.

THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES THE REORIENTATION OF THE

PLAYFIELDS.

WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY HAD A SOCCER FIELD AND A BASEBALL

FIELD.

THEY COMBINED THOSE, REORIENTED THOSE, AND BY DOING

THAT -- HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WESTERN ONE -- IT KIND OF

SHIFTED THE PLAYFIELDS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

THE OTHER REQUEST WAS ALSO TO AMEND THE LIGHTING CONDITION,

AND AS HE STATED, THE HISTORY OF IT, WE HAD OUR STAFF

REVIEW THE EXISTING CONDITION WITH THE PROPOSED LIGHTING

PLAN, AND THEY DO CONCUR WITH THE APPLICANT THAT IT IS MUCH

MORE -- IT'S ACTUALLY SAFER TO HAVE WHAT'S -- WHAT THE CODE

IS REQUESTING, SO THEY'RE GOING TO MEET CODE REQUIREMENT.

AND ALSO -- THERE WAS FOUR POINTS.

THE LAST ONE WAS TO CLARIFY THE MODULAR BUILDING.

ONE OF THEM WAS IN CONDITION 3 THAT WAS RESTRICTING THE

TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE ALONG THE WESTERN

PROPERTY LINE, AND AT THAT TIME, WHEN I READ THE

25

TRANSCRIPT, IT DID STATE THAT THEY WANTED TO PROBABLY

REMOVE THAT AND PUT THE EXPANSION THERE, AND SO --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: -- THAT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT THEIR PLANS

WERE.

AND AS YOU SEE THE PLAN, THERE WAS ALSO SOME REMOVAL OF

WETLANDS, AND I CONTACTED EPC, AND THEY INDICATED THAT THEY

DID MEET WITH THEM PRIOR TO APPLYING, THEY HAD NO

OBJECTIONS, AND SO, THEREFORE, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE

REQUESTING, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.




>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE

LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE --

THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THE BUILDING SQUARE

FOOTAGE WOULD INCREASE, AND THIS INCREASE WOULD BE WELL

BELOW THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO WITHIN THE

RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

IN ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED BY

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL IDEAS

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

26

WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE INCREASED POLE

HEIGHT AND THE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO THE

WEST, AND IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT A GREATER AMOUNT OF

SCREENING IN THE FORM OF TALLER TREES, PERHAPS EVERGREENS,

BE PROVIDED ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY TO MITIGATE THAT

IMPACT.

IN ADDITION, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WAS CONCERNED THAT

THE PLAYING FIELDS COULD POSSIBLY BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC,

INCREASING THE FREQUENCY OF EVENTS AND IMPACTS ON ADJACENT

PROPERTIES, AND WE RECOMMEND A CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITION

THAT WOULD LIMIT THE PLAYING FIELD USE TO SCHOOL USE ONLY.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE

CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.





APPLICATION?




>> NOTHING FURTHER, MR. LUCE, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS.

27

>>STEVE LUCE: NO.

>> THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,


>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-4, SPECIAL USE

APPLICATION 13-0882.

THE APPLICANT'S HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A SURVEILLANCE

AND COMMUNICATION TOWER.



>> GOOD EVENING.

MAJOR INITIALS J.R. BURTON, B-U-R-T-O-N, HILLSBOROUGH

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

I COME TO YOU TONIGHT REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A

MONOPOLE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWER IN THE -- IN THE

NUCCIO COMMUNITY AREA.

I HAD A -- OR I HAVE A FAIRLY LENGTHY PRESENTATION PREPARED

HERE TO SORT OF GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, AND I

FOUND THAT I ONLY HAVE 15 MINUTES TO TALK, SO I'M GOING TO

SKIP THROUGH THIS PRETTY QUICKLY --


>> -- AND GET TO THE -- GET TO THE MATTER AT HAND.

WE ARE QUITE PROUD OF OUR EYE ON CRIME CLOSED CIRCUIT

CAMERA SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE, AND I WANTED TO TOUT THAT TO

YOU A LITTLE BIT THIS EVENING, BUT IT JUST WON'T BE

28

POSSIBLE.

I'LL GLADLY LEAVE YOU A COPY OF OUR PRESENTATION --


VERY GOOD.

>> -- FOR YOU TO REVIEW.

WE CURRENTLY ARE UTILIZING A CLOSED CIRCUIT CAMERA SYSTEM

UP IN THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY AREA, 29 CAMERAS, AS -- AS

OF THIS DATE, AND WE HAVE BEEN UTILIZING IT SINCE ABOUT

2009, PROBABLY INVESTED ABOUT $1.8 MILLION IN THE PROJECT.

THE NEXT PHASE OF THE PROJECT, PHASE 3, IS IN THE NUCCIO

COMMUNITY AREA, WHERE WE HOPE TO -- TO USE SOME INNOVATIVE

CRIME REDUCTION TECHNIQUES IN THAT AREA.

ONE OF THEM IS THE CLOSED CIRCUIT CAMERA SYSTEM.

DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY IN THE AREA, WE'RE HAVING TO ERECT

THIS 122-FOOT RADIO TOWER TO GET OUR SIGNAL OUT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> AND -- BUT LET ME ZIP THROUGH JUST A FEW SLIDES HERE AND

GET TO THE NUCCIO AREA.

I, AGAIN, HAD AN OVERVIEW OF SOME THINGS GOING ON IN THE --

IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS STAFF HAD EARLY ON, I THINK WE'VE

SATISFIED THAT, IS OUR CAMERAS ARE WHAT WE REFER TO AS AN

OVERT CAMERA SYSTEM, SO WE WANT EVERYBODY TO SEE THEM.

WE WANT THEM TO KNOW THEY'RE THERE.

THEY HAVE A BLUE FLASHING LIGHT ON THEM TO IDENTIFY THEM

AS -- AS SHERIFF'S CAMERAS, AND THERE WAS -- THERE WAS SOME

WORRY THAT IT MAY BOTHER THE NEIGHBORS WITH THE BLUE

FLASHING LIGHT.

29

AGAIN, CURRENTLY, USING 29 CAMERAS, NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM.

WE HAVE ACTIVATED SEVEN CAMERAS UP -- I'M SORRY -- FIVE

CAMERAS UP IN THE AREA RECENTLY IN THE NUCCIO COMMUNITY

WITH THE SAME BLUE FLASHING LIGHT.

NO ISSUE FROM THE COMMUNITY ON THAT.

WE CONTINUE TO HAVE SUCCESSES WHERE WE SOLVE CRIME AS A

RESULT OF THIS PROGRAM THAT WE USE.

IN -- IN UNVEILING THIS PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY, WE HAD A

PUBLIC MEETING ON AUGUST 28th OF THIS YEAR SEPARATE AND

APART FROM THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT GOES OUT FOR THIS

PROCEEDING, AND WE WERE LOOKING TO GARNER PUBLIC SUPPORT

AND TO UNVEIL A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE DOING IN THE

AREA.

THE PARK ACTUALLY HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE SHERIFF'S

OFFICE, AND WE HAVE PARTNERED WITH THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB

TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHILDREN IN

THAT AREA, AND WE'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS BY -- BY

ERECTING OUR -- OUR -- ONE OF OUR CAMERAS ON THE TOWER --

TWO OF OUR CAMERAS ON THE TOWER IN THE -- AT THE NUCCIO

PARK THERE.

SO WE HAD THE PUBLIC MEETINGS, OVERALL GOOD SUPPORT.

I HAVE A MAP HERE OF THE CAMERA LOCATIONS, AGAIN, NOT

RELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL REQUEST, SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST,

BUT PART AND PARCEL OF THE OVERALL PROJECT.

WE'VE HAD OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY IN

INSTALLING THIS SYSTEM.

I INCLUDED THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT I'LL JUST ZIP

THROUGH HERE QUICKLY THAT WILL BE IN MY PRESENTATION, THREE

30

LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND TO MY

KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO IT TONIGHT.

AS A RESULT, WE ARE ASKING FOR SEVERAL VARIANCES AND/OR

EXEMPTIONS.

THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT DUE TO THE

LOCATION THAT WE NEED TO PLACE THE TOWER TO GET THE RADIO

SIGNAL AND TO BE ABLE TO MOUNT FUTURE CAMERAS FOR THE --

FOR THE PARK AND OTHER AREAS, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SETBACK

TO BE -- TO BE AMENDED.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS A STIPULATION FOR THIRD-PARTY

ENGINEERING ON THE TOWER TO BE ABLE TO MOUNT OUR RADIO

EQUIPMENT ON AN EXISTING TOWER NEARBY.

WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE OF CERTAIN FCIC AND FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRES US

TO SECURE OUR INFORMATION.

THIS TOWER WILL ALSO PROVIDE A BACKUP FOR OUR DATA CENTER,

AND SOME SENSITIVE INFORMATION WILL BE GOING ON IT THAT WE

JUST WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PLACE OUR ANTENNAS IN THE PUBLIC

VENUE --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> -- SO WE ASK FOR THAT.

THERE WAS A -- A STIPULATION FOR A CAMOUFLAGE REQUIREMENT,

AND, AGAIN, WE ASK A VARIANCE ON THAT BECAUSE WE WANT

EVERYONE TO SEE OUR EQUIPMENT, WE WANT THEM TO KNOW IT'S

THERE.

AND FINALLY, THE 20-FOOT BUFFERING, BY NATURE OF THE DESIGN

AND LOCATION OF THE TOWER, IT -- I THINK IT WORKS OUT TO

ABOUT TEN FEET THERE.

31

WE'LL BE GLAD TO INSTALL ANY SORT OF HEDGING AROUND THE

TOWER AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

A PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT THE RADIO EQUIPMENT WILL LOOK LIKE ON

THE TOP OF THE TOWER.

AND THAT'S THE TOWER THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AT OUR STATION

UP IN NEW TAMPA.

THE TOWER THAT WE'LL BE USING IS REPURPOSED FROM THE

PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, SO WE'VE SAVED THE CITIZENS A

LOT OF MONEY BY DOING THAT, AND I WILL CERTAINLY ENTERTAIN

ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

HAVE YOU SEEN THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAS

PROPOSED?

HAVE THEY DISCUSSED THOSE WITH YOU?

THEY'RE ON PAGE 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE ZONING STAFF

REPORT.

>> LET ME GO THROUGH THOSE REAL QUICK.

I JUST GOT THAT THIS EVENING.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> YES, SIR, THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.


ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.



32



WELL, THE APPLICANT FOR THIS SPECIAL USE REQUEST IS THE

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND THE PROPOSED

TOWER IS AN EXPANSION OF A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE EYES ON

CRIME FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE, AND THE APPLICANT

WENT IN GREAT DETAILS OF WHAT THE PROJECT ENTAILS, AND

THE -- PART OF THIS PROGRAM STARTED BACK IN OCTOBER IN THE

UNIVERSITY AREA, AND THIS, AS STATED, WAS AN EXPANSION OF

THAT, AND SO, THEREFORE, THEY NEEDED CERTAIN HEIGHT FOR IT

TO BE FUNCTIONABLE, AND SO PART OF THAT HEIGHT, THEY WERE

NOT ABLE TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND, THEREFORE,

THEY REQUESTED WAIVERS TO THAT, AND STAFF CONCURRED WITH

THEIR REASONING FOR THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

THEY ALSO REQUESTED WAIVERS FOR THE CAMOUFLAGE REQUIREMENT,

AND AS THEY STATED, STAFF HAD NO OBJECTIONS FOR THAT, AND

NEITHER DID WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE BUFFERING AND

SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AND, AGAIN, WENT INTO THAT AND

EXPLAINED THAT.

THE APPLICANT ALSO FURTHER EXPLAINED THE COLOCATION

REQUIREMENT, THAT THAT CANNOT BE FEASIBLE IN THIS CASE, AND

WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONDITIONS, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS.

WE FIND THIS APPROVABLE.


THANK YOU.



33



STAFF.


LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THE

EAST LAKE-ORIENT PARK COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.

THE PROPOSED MONOPOLE IS INTENDED AS A SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

FOR CRIME AND A SIGNAL TOWER FOR A NETWORK OF SURVEILLANCE

CAMERAS.

APPLICATION OF TYPICAL SETBACK AND CAMOUFLAGING

REQUIREMENTS TO THIS MONOPOLE WOULD ACTUALLY IMPEDE THE

INTENTION OF THE PROGRAM, WHICH IS CRIME SURVEILLANCE.

WE FOUND THIS WAS A UNIQUE PUBLIC SAFETY FUNCTION AND AS

THIS SPECIAL USE IS DISTINCT FROM A TYPICAL COMMUNICATION

CELL TOWER, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED

SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THANK YOU.


AT THIS TIME IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT




APPLICATION?



AND APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> NO -- NO REBUTTAL, JUST A WORD OF THANKS TO YOUR STAFF.

34

WE'RE POLICEMEN --

>>STEVE LUCE: YES.

>> -- AND NOT BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS, AND PARTICULARLY

MS. ALBERT HAS BEEN EXTREMELY PATIENT WITH ME WITH A LITANY

OF QUESTIONS AND VERY HELPFUL, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.


VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.



>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER I-5,

SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0889.

THE APPLICANT'S FARMLAND RESERVE, INCORPORATED.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR LAND

EXCAVATION.

THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PERMIT THAT EXISTS ON

THE SITE.

CHARLES ANDREWS WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF


>>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING.


FOR THE RECORD, EVERETT MORROW, LANDMARK ENGINEERING, 8515

PALM RIVER ROAD, TAMPA 33619.

I'M HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING FARMLAND RESERVE, AND WITH ME

IS MR. WILL REDD OF FARMLAND RESERVE.

FARMLAND RESERVE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN MAY 10th OF

THIS YEAR.

35

THERE'S CURRENTLY A LAND EXCAVATION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY

APPROVED UNDER SU 05-0708-RU, AND THE OPERATION PERMIT 05-

5-LE.

THE OPERATION PERMIT WAS JUST TRANSFERRED OVER TO FARMLAND

RESERVE, AND AN EXTENSION WAS GRANTED TO THAT, AND THAT

EXTENSION IS GRANTED UNTIL OCTOBER THE 10th OF 2015.

THE PROJECT ALSO HAS CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL, WHICH IS

VALID THROUGH JULY -- I'M SORRY -- YEAH, JULY 8th, 2014.

THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE PROVIDED TO YOU, MR. LUCE, IS A

COPY OF THE PERMIT TRANSFER AS WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION

PLAN APPROVAL EXTENSION LETTER AND THEN TWO COLORED

DRAWINGS, ONE WHICH IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE LAND EXCAVATION

PLANS AND THEN THE OTHER THAT IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE

CONSTRUCTION PLANS.

AND THE FIRST ITEM I'D LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS

THE -- ON PAGE 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT, IT MADE

RECOMMENDATION OR MADE REFERENCE TO SEPARATION

REQUIREMENTS, AND IF YOU NOTICE ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN,

THERE'S A SMALL AREA THAT'S SHADED IN PINK.

THAT AREA WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SPECIAL USE PLAN

BECAUSE IT HAD TO MEET THE 1,000-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE

SCHOOL, BUT IT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN

APPROVAL PROCESS, SO THAT'S WHY IT SHOWS AS BEING INCLUDED.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT THIS POINT IS FARMLAND RESERVE,

IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, HAS MADE THE DECISION NOT TO GO

THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF EXCAVATING THE

AREA ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CREEK, AND IT'S -- IF YOU LOOK

ON THE LAND EXCAVATION PLAN, THE AREA ON THE EAST SIDE,

36

KIND OF A BROWN, THAT'S AREA "C," SO THE YELLOW AREA IS THE

ONLY AREA THAT'S TO BE EXCAVATED.

AT THIS POINT, THE PERIMETER OF THE BORROW PIT HAS BEEN

SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED, AND, REALLY, WHAT THIS SPECIAL USE

IS TO ADDRESS TWO ITEMS, NUMBER ONE, ADDITIONAL TIME TO

COMPLETE THE EXCAVATION AND, NUMBER TWO, AN ADDITIONAL 11

FEET OF DEPTH FOR THE EXCAVATION.

THE TOTAL VOLUME OF EXCAVATION HAS NOT CHANGED.

THE PIT HAS BEEN IN OPERATION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND IS

ACTIVELY PROVIDING DIRT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ROAD PROJECTS

PARTICULARLY IN THE AREA.

THE ONE THING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY OR DO A LITTLE

BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING, ON PAGE 5 OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS,

UNDER ITEM NUMBER 1, IT CURRENTLY SAYS, SHALL EXPIRE ON

AUGUST 30th, 2015.

THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUR YEARS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE

OPERATION PERMIT.

THE AUGUST 30th DATE WAS PULLED UP FROM -- WAS PICKED UP

FROM THE EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT PERMIT.

AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION ON ITEMS 6 AND 7, IT WAS

MISLABELED IN THE APPLICATION.

IT IS WILDCAT CREEK, NOT BULLFROG CREEK.

AND WITH THAT, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, THAT

CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.


VERY GOOD.


THANK YOU.

37

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>CHARLES ANDREWS: HI.

GOOD EVENING.

CHARLES ANDREWS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND AN EXISTING LAND EXCAVATION SPECIAL

USE PERMIT.

AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT, THERE WAS SOME HOUSECLEANING

ITEMS -- CLEANUP ITEMS ON THIS REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF

THE PERMIT JUST TO EXPIRE FOUR YEARS FROM THE APPROVAL DATE

OF THE OPERATION PERMIT FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPERATION

PERMIT AND A CLEANUP HERE ON THE BULLFROG CREEK TO BE

WILDCAT CREEK.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

DO YOU HAVE STRIKE-THROUGH AND UNDERLINE NOW OR YOU'LL

PROVIDE IT --

>>CHARLES ANDREWS: I CAN PROVIDE THAT LATER.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- AFTER THE HEARING?

>>CHARLES ANDREWS: YES, SIR.

I'LL PROVIDE THAT LATER.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

>>CHARLES ANDREWS: I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.


VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.



STAFF.

38

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL RURAL ONE

TO FIVE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE RURAL AREA.

THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, IF APPROVED, WOULD

MINIMALLY EXTEND AND EXPAND AN EXISTING EXCAVATION PERMIT.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT MAKE A

CONSISTENCY FINDING ON EXCAVATION, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY

CONCERNS FROM A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERSPECTIVE.


VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.





APPLICATION?




>> NO, MR. HEARING OFFICER, JUST THANK STAFF FOR THEIR

WORKING WITH US.


VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.



>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-6, SPECIAL USE


THIS IS A SPECIAL USE FOR A SCHOOL.

39

THE APPLICANT'S CHARTER SCHOOL ASSOCIATES.

TOM HIZNAY WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF


>> GOOD EVENING.

AGAIN, MR. LUCE, FOR THE RECORD, MICHAEL HORNER, 14502

NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, SUITE 200, TAMPA 33618,

REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT BEFORE YOU, CHARTER SCHOOL

ASSOCIATES.

WITH ME THIS EVENING ARE A COUPLE SPEAKERS AND ALSO

RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PTA IN

THE AUDIENCE THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE RECOGNIZED.

MR. CALKINS IS WITH US, WHO WILL BE SPEAKING SHORTLY ON

OPERATIONAL ISSUES ON-SITE, ALSO AN EMPLOYEE OF CHARTER

SCHOOL ASSOCIATES.

MIKE STRADER IS ALSO HERE THIS EVENING FOR ANY QUESTIONS ON

THE SCHOOL OPERATION THEMSELVES.

I DO NOT ANTICIPATE HAVING HIM SPEAK IN CASE IN CHIEF.

WE HAVE MR. STEVE HENRY FROM LINCKS & ASSOCIATES ON

TRAFFIC.

WE HAVE JEFF SOMERVILLE FROM McNEAL ENGINEERING IF YOU HAVE

ANY ENGINEERING QUESTIONS OR WETLAND QUESTIONS.

IF I COULD, MR. LUCE, JUST TO ASK FOR A SHOW OF SUPPORT

FROM MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO CAME IN SUPPORT OF THIS

PETITION JUST TO STAND UP AND BE RECOGNIZED.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

>> THANK YOU.

DID THAT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF THEM COMING UP AND

40

FORMING A LINE TO SPEAK.

UNDER SUPPORT, WE'LL ONLY HAVE ONE REPRESENTATIVE,

MR. LUCE, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THIS SCHOOL.

MS. JONES, IF I'LL BE ABLE TO GET SIX MINUTES A LITTLE

CHIME, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

FIRST, MR. LUCE, THANKS TO TOM HIZNAY OF STAFF; MARCIE

STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION; ENGINEERING, ROY MAZUR; MIKE

WILLIAMS, DOWN THE LINE, CHARLES WHITE.

I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THIS REVIEW.

IT'S BEEN UNDER REVIEW FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS, AND WE

APPRECIATE THEIR REVIEW TIME AND THEIR SUPPORT.

THIS STANDS -- WE STAND BEFORE YOU WITH FULL

RECOMMENDATIONS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN.

THIS IS A K-8 CHARTER SCHOOL PROPOSAL.

IT IS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF McINTOSH ROAD AND

U.S. 92.

THIS IS APPROXIMATELY A 13.8-ACRE TRACT, MR. LUCE; HOWEVER,

ONLY ONE PARCEL -- ALLOW ME TO ZOOM THAT DOWN, PLEASE.

SO THE PARENT TRACT OF BOTH PARCELS IN CUMULATIVE IS ABOUT

13.8 ACRES.

THERE ARE TWO PARCELS THAT WE'VE AGREED TO COME UNDER

UNIFIED SITE PLAN REVIEW.

ONE OF THOSE, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS BEFORE YOU THIS

EVENING LEGALLY UNDER THE SPECIAL USE, THAT'S THE LEGAL

DESCRIPTION WE FILED FOR THE SPECIAL USE, AND THAT

PROPERTY'S ZONED AI; THEREFORE, THAT REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE

TO BE FILED AND THE REASON WE'RE HERE.

THE SITE PLAN REFLECTS BOTH PARCELS, AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE

41

EASTERN TRACT AN ADDITIONAL PARCEL TO THE EAST THAT

PRIMARILY WILL ALLOW FOR FLOODPLAIN COMPENSATIONS AND

WETLAND AREAS, ALSO THE EASTERN DRIVE AISLE TO U.S. 92, AND

SOME BALL FIELD -- PARTIAL BALL FIELDS.

THAT IS, AS I SAID, ZONED CG, DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE A

SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

IT'S PERMITTED BY A RIGHT FOR A CHARTER SCHOOL, BUT WE'RE

BINDING BOTH PARCELS.

THIS IS A K-8 SCHOOL.

THIS IS IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, MR. LUCE.

YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS GENERAL AREA, MANY CASES

OUT HERE.

I'VE REPRESENTED A NUMBER IN THE PAST.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE SMU-6 IN

THE COMP PLAN, AND A RURAL SERVICE AREA UNDER THE UTILITY

OPERATIONAL PROVISIONS.

WE THOUGHT AT ONE TIME WE WOULD EXTEND PUBLIC SEWER DUE TO

THE PROXIMITY.

WE THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE.

MY CLIENT WOULD HAVE EXPECTED AND PAID FOR THOSE COSTS, BUT

WE RAN INTO SOME ISSUES ON THOSE RURAL SERVICE AREA

POLICIES, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA EXTENSION OF LINES, AND

UNDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, WE CANNOT EXTEND THAT AND

COMMIT TO THAT, SO, THEREFORE, WHILE WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE

PUBLIC SEWER, WE ARE GOING TO BE SERVED BY SEPTIC TANK AND

WELL, AND OUR APPLICATION IS CONDITIONED ACCORDINGLY.

WE DO HAVE SEPTIC TANK AND WELLS ON-SITE.

WE'VE ALSO NOTED ALL THE LOCATIONAL PROVISIONS FOR OFF-SITE

42

WELLS AND TO MAKE SURE WE MEET THOSE SEPARATION STANDARDS

AS WELL FROM RETENTION PONDS AND WETLAND AREAS.

JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT OUR DISCUSSIONS

WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH INDICATES THAT WE HAVE

APPROXIMATELY, UNDER THE FLOW CHARTS, ABOUT A 910, PLUS OR

MINUS, STUDENT CAPACITY UNDER EXISTING FLOW REQUIREMENTS,

SO WE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY THAT WE

WILL DO A FLOW ANALYSIS AFTER THE FIRST YEAR OR TWO OF THE

SCHOOL, AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND ADJUST ONCE WE KNOW

THE ACTUAL FLOW RATE PER STUDENT, AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT

WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THE 950.

THIS IS --

>>STEVE LUCE: HAVE YOU TALKED -- YOU HAVE A TEAM, AND

THERE'S A CIVIL ENGINEER THAT'S WORKING WITH YOU OR --

>> YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- THAT'S WORKING WITH THE HEALTH

DEPARTMENT?

>> YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND WHO IS THAT?

>> TONIGHT IT'S JEFF SOMERVILLE FROM McNEAL ENGINEERING.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND HE IS A PE?

>> HE IS A PE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> CHRIS McNEAL IS OUT OF TOWN, SO JEFF IS STANDING IN IN

HIS STEAD.


SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

43

SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE ADJUSTING THOSE FLOW

REQUIREMENTS AS WE GET INTO THE PROCESS IN A COUPLE YEARS.

I WILL ALSO MENTION, MR. LUCE, THAT WE HAVE A VERY TIGHT

TIME CONSTRAINT.

WE'RE HOPING TO OPEN IN FALL OF NEXT YEAR.

NOT TO APPEAR PRESUMPTION, BUT -- PRESUMPTUOUS, IN ORDER

FOR US TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALMOST A

SIMULTANEOUS PERMIT PROCESS, SO WE HAVE FILED FOR ALL

WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL LINES, WE HAVE FILED FOR DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH CAPACITY REVIEWS, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE

U.S. -- FEDERAL -- OR FLORIDA D.O.T. ON THE ACCESS

MANAGEMENT OPERATION, SO WE HAVE BEEN UNDER REVIEW FOR A

NUMBER OF MONTHS ON THESE ISSUES.

WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT YOUR SPECIAL USE APPROVAL, BUT

I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE JUMPSTARTED THIS SO THAT WE

CAN HAVE AT LEAST A CHANCE TO MAKE THE FALL OPENING FOR

NEXT YEAR OF THIS SCHOOL.

THIS AREA, MR. LUCE, AS YOU KNOW, IS A MIXED-USE AREA.

WE HAVE AN AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION PLANT TO THE WEST,

CONVENIENCE STORES, U.S. 92 AS THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, HAS

LOTS OF THROUGH TRAFFIC VOLUME, McINTOSH, OF COURSE,

CONNECTIVITY TO I-4.

WE FEEL THAT THIS IS AN IDEAL OPPORTUNITY, IDEAL LOCATION

FOR A SCHOOL.

THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT THE FIRST SCHOOL IN THIS AREA.

YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH STRAWBERRY CREST HIGH SCHOOL A LITTLE

FURTHER TO THE EAST AND THERE'S SOME OTHER SCHOOLS AS WELL

IN THE FOUR- OR FIVE-MILE RADIUS.

44

A PHYSICAL PLAN ITSELF OF THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO BE TWO

PHASES, PHASE ONE 700 STUDENTS, PHASE TWO 250 STUDENTS.

PHASE ONE IS ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THAT GRAPHIC THAT WE

PUT ON THE SCREEN.

IT'S A LARGER FOOTPRINT.

CUMULATIVELY, OVERALL, BOTH STRUCTURES, ABOUT 63,600 SQUARE

FEET, AND THAT EQUATES TO A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .11.

SO WELL UNDERUTILIZED IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL PROPERTY OF

THE 13.8 ACRES.

WE'RE ASKING FOR A TWO-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH,

BECAUSE OF SOME ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, WE'VE ASKED FOR AN

ALLOWANCE UP TO 50 FEET, AND THAT'S THE SAME HEIGHT MAXIMUM

THAT'S IN AI AS WELL AS CG, SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR

ANYTHING MORE.

WE HAVE REVIEWED SEVERAL ITERATIONS, MR. LUCE, ON THE

ACCESS.

I'M GOING TO LET MR. CALKINS DESCRIBE SOME OF THOSE

ITERATIONS FOR OPERATIONAL MOVEMENT CONCERNS ON-SITE.

THIS IS A SPLIT DISMISSAL AND ARRIVAL.

WE ARE LOOKING AT 8:15 TO 3:15 AND 8:45 TO 3:45 OUTSIDE OF

THE MORNING AND EVENING PEAK HOURS, AND MR. HENRY FROM

LINCKS & ASSOCIATES WILL BE ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES AS

WELL.

THIS COMES TO YOU WITH FULL SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION, FULL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM PLANNING AND

GROWTH MANAGEMENT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I WASN'T AWARE OF ANY OBJECTIONS.

I HAD ONE CALL FROM A PROPERTY OWNER IN SUPPORT.

45

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE CONDITIONS.

I BELIEVE MR. HIZNAY IS GOING TO FILE AN AMENDED CONDITION

LISTED IN THE RECORD.

WE BELIEVE SIX INITIALLY IS A LITTLE TOO RESTRICTIVE ON

BACKING DOWN THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WE'RE SEEKING, BUT WE

UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S THERE, AND WE'RE NOT SPECIFICALLY

ASKING FOR THE REMOVAL.

AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO TURN THE PRESENTATION OVER TO

JEREMY CALKINS FROM CSA.


>> THANK YOU.


>> GOOD EVENING.

I WASN'T SWORN IN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

IF YOU COULD, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

[PARTICIPANT SWORN IN]

OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>> JEREMY CALKINS, 101 SOUTH COLLINS STREET, PLANT CITY.

MR. LUCE, OVER THE PAST FOUR AND A HALF YEARS, IT'S BEEN MY

RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HANDLING OUR ON-SITE

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY.

I ACCOMPLISH THIS BY WORKING WITH OUR TEAM OF ENGINEERS AND

COUNTY STAFF TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL MITIGATE

IMPACTS TO OUR NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING

COMMUNITY.

46

CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE STILL RELATIVELY NEW TO OUR COMMUNITY,

AND WE'VE ALL LEARNED A LITTLE ALONG THE WAY, ESPECIALLY

WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC.

WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE OUR SYSTEMS

OF OPERATION, SPECIFICALLY OUR METHODOLOGIES TO THE

CIRCULATION PLAN AS WELL AS THE OVERALL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

PLAN.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL AT ALL SCHOOLS,

NOT JUST CHARTER SCHOOLS, ARE EVENTS, AND JUST LIKE ANY

OTHER EVENT, PROPER PLANNING WILL HELP ALLEVIATE POTENTIAL

CONCERNS.

WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE PLANNED PROPERLY FOR THE McINTOSH

ACADEMY, AND WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT OUR PROCEDURES FOR

ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL WILL BE HANDLED ON-SITE WITH

NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND HERE'S

WHY.

NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE SELF-REGULATED BY ADDING MORE QUEUE AND

MORE PARKING SPACES THAN IS REQUIRED BY CODE.

WE HAVE ASKED OUR ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE US WITH 62 MORE

SPACES THAN IS REQUIRED, AND WE BELIEVE THIS IS

SIGNIFICANT.

NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE ADDED A FREE-FLOW DESIGN FEATURE, THE

ROUNDABOUT, WHICH WILL ALLOW US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEND

VEHICLES THAT ARRIVE EARLY TO THE BACK OF QUEUE WITHOUT

FORCING THEM TO EXIT AND REENTER THE PROPERTY.

WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE ADDED OPTIONS THE ROUNDABOUT

CREATES FOR THE DAYTIME EVENTS, AS WE CAN ESSENTIALLY MOVE

CARS TO DIFFERENT SPOTS ON OUR PARKING LOT WITHOUT HAVING

47

ANY IMPACT ON U.S. 92 AND McINTOSH ROAD.

WE ARE VERY CONFIDENT IN THIS PLAN.

IT OFFERS MORE QUEUE, MORE PARKING, AND ON-SITE

MANEUVERABILITY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND IF THERE'S NOT ANY QUESTIONS

FOR ME, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER,

MR. STEVE HENRY.


VERY GOOD.

>> GOOD EVENING.

STEVE HENRY, LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, 5023 WEST LAUREL.

WE CONDUCTED A DETAILED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THE PROJECT,

AND PART OF WHAT WE HAD DONE IS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS

WAS LOOKED AT THE EXISTING VOLUMES THAT WERE ON THE ROAD TO

TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL TIMES, SO

WHAT WE'VE DONE IS TRIED TO MANIPULATE THE ARRIVAL AND

DISMISSAL TIMES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE PEAKS BASED ON THE

OTHER SCHOOLS THAT ARE IN THE AREA.

IT'S -- THAT'S WHY WE'VE COME UP WITH THE ARRIVAL AND

DISMISSAL TIMES THAT WE HAVE IN THE ANALYSIS, AND THEN

ALSO, WE'VE STAGGERED THE HOURS, SO INSTEAD OF HAVING 950

STUDENTS ALL ARRIVING AT ONE TIME, THEY'LL ACTUALLY BE

STAGGERED IN TWO DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS TO HELP SPREAD THAT

OUT OVER THE HOUR.

WE'VE ALSO MET WITH D.O.T. REGARDING THE ACCESS TO U.S. 92,

AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM DURING THE

PERMITTING PROCESS TO DETERMINE GEOMETRY, WHAT'S NEEDED,

AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE PERMIT FOR THAT.

48

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, UNLESS YOU'VE GOT ANY

QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST -- JUST ONE QUESTION.

IF -- IF THERE'S A NEED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING ON OPEN HOUSES

OR SPECIAL EVENTS, IS THERE ANY WAY THEY'D BE ABLE TO PARK

IN THEIR BALL FIELDS?

IS THAT --

>> I'LL LET MR. -- YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT ONE?

>> THAT WILL BE MR. SOMERVILLE, MR. LUCE, WHO IS NOT A PE.

I STAND CORRECTED.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.


JEFF SOMERVILLE WITH McNEAL ENGINEERING, 15957 NORTH

FLORIDA AVE., LUTZ, FLORIDA.

THERE IS --

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, ARE YOU A CIVIL

ENGINEER?

>> I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.

I'M NOT A PE.

I'M A DESIGN DRAFTER FOR McNEAL ENGINEERING.

CHRIS McNEAL IS THE ENGINEER.

HE'S OUT OF TOWN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

>> THERE IS OPTION ON THE PLAN FOR PARKING OF A PORTION OF

THAT SOCCER FIELD THAT --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

49

>> -- SEPTIC -- SEPTIC SYSTEM WOULD BE BENEATH ANOTHER

PORTION, SO THAT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OVERFLOW

PARKING.

>>STEVE LUCE: SO YOU HAVE LOOKED AT WHERE YOU COULD PUT

OVERFLOW PARKING IN THE EVENT OF AN OPEN HOUSE FOR THE

SCHOOL?

>> WE HAVEN'T LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT IT, BUT WE'VE -- WE'VE

DONE THAT IN THE PAST ON OTHERS, BUT I KNOW --

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.

>> -- THAT THIS SITE THAT THE FULL FIELD WILL NOT BE

AVAILABLE BUT PORTIONS WOULD BE, YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: HOW BIG WOULD THE SEPTIC TANK DRAINFIELD

NEED TO BE, DO YOU KNOW?

>> THE SIZE WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE ABOUT A THIRD OF THE

FIELD RUNNING RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD.

I DON'T KNOW EXACT NUMBERS.

IT'S 65 FEET IN LENGTH, WHICH WOULD BE ORIENTED NORTH TO

SOUTH, AND THEN IT WOULD RUN FROM THE WESTERN END LINE TO

APPROXIMATELY THE -- THE EASTERN GOALIE BOX OR SOMEWHERE

BETWEEN THE GOALIE BOX AND THAT NEXT PLAY LINE.

>>STEVE LUCE: COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR, COULD YOU PULL A

GRAPHIC OF THE SITE PLAN UP.

I THINK THERE'S ONE ON THE ELMO.

CAN YOU JUST GENERALLY POINT TO THE LOCATION OF THOSE

SEPTIC TANK DRAINFIELDS ON THE GRAPHIC?

>> THE SEPTIC -- THANK YOU.

THE FIELD WOULD RUN APPROXIMATELY FROM THIS END LINE.

IT WOULD -- THE SOUTHERN LIMITS WOULD BE ROUGHLY HERE, THE

50

NORTHERN LIMIT'S ROUGHLY HERE, AND THEY WOULD EXTEND TO

APPROXIMATELY THIS LINE -- OOPS -- EXCUSE ME -- IT'S

STICKING DOWN -- APPROXIMATELY THIS LINE HERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

SO IT WOULD RUN ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE FIELD?

>> ALMOST -- ALMOST THE LENGTH OF THE FIELD, YES, SIR.


OKAY.

I GET THE IDEA.

ALL RIGHT.

MR. HORNER, ANYTHING ELSE?

>> MR. LUCE, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT GRAPH IF I COULD A

LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE HAVE A PLAN.

TYPICALLY WE STAGGER OUR EVENTS, AND IF YOU NOTICE ON THE

GRAPH, HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ARE THE EXTRA SPACES THAT I

REFERRED TO DURING MY PRESENTATION.

ALSO, DURING EVENTS, IF YOU NOTICE, THOSE ARE DRIVE AISLES,

SO WE WOULD STACK THE CARS THERE FOR EVENTS AS WELL.

SO WE HAVE 62 EXTRA SPACES THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED, AND THEN

WE CAN ALSO USE THOSE DRIVE AISLES THERE FOR EVENT PARKING.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> AND THEN WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL I BELIEVE IT'S CLOSE TO

900 LINEAR FEET OF QUEUE THAT WE COULD USE AS WELL.


SO YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT?

>> YES, SIR.


VERY GOOD.

51

THANK YOU.


NOT ONLY HAVE WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, WE HAVE PREPARED ABOUT

17 ITERATIONS, SO I THINK THE CONCERN STAFF WAS HAVING IS

THAT WE HAD PRODUCED SO MUCH DETAIL, IT BECAME

OVERWHELMING.

WE BACKED OUT.

WE AGREED TO LET THAT GO ON TO THE CIRCULATION PERMITTING.

I'M GOING TO FILE A FEW OF THOSE ITERATIONS IN THE RECORD

SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT HAS BEEN THOUGHT OUT AND

CONTEMPLATED.

WE ARE MORE THAN CONFIDENT THAT ADEQUATE QUEUE IS GOING TO

BE AVAILABLE, AND WE HAVE PARKING FOR OVERFLOW AS WELL, SO

IMMENSE THOUGHT AND PREPARATION HAS GONE INTO THIS -- GONE

INTO THIS, MR. LUCE.

A NUMBER OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH EFFORTS ON THE PRIOR SCHOOL

CSA OPERATES, VIDEOTAPING, ON-SITE MANEUVERING, THEY HAVE

EMPLOYEES, TWO-WAY WALKIE-TALKIES ON-SITE, SO THIS IS DOWN

TO ALMOST A SCIENCE.

AND HAD TO I PULL MR. CALKINS BACK BECAUSE HE WANTED TO

SPEAK FOR AT LEAST A HALF HOUR ON THOSE SPECIFIC OPERATION

GOALS, BUT WE ARE HERE FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

I WANT YOU TO KNOW THE DESIGN PERMITTING SIDE, WE HAVE A

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS UNDER REVIEW THAT HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED

BY STAFF.


VERY GOOD.

>> THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION, MR. LUCE.

52

THANK YOU.


THANK YOU.


>>TOM HIZNAY: GOOD MORNING -- EXCUSE ME -- GOOD EVENING,

MR. HEARING MASTER.

TOM HIZNAY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

AS MENTIONED BY MR. HORNER, I HAVE SOME REVISED CONDITIONS.

THE MAIN REVISION IS IN CONDITION 6.

I'LL EXPLAIN THAT CHANGE IN A MINUTE.

THERE'S ALSO A COUPLE OF CHANGES FOR SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL

ERRORS.

MR. HORNER DID A GOOD JOB DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF THE

PROJECT AND WHY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ONLY COVERS HALF OF

THE SITE.

I'M JUST -- AND THE STAFF REPORT IS SELF-EXPLANATORY, SO

I'M JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES.

ONE YOU'VE KIND OF ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IS WASTEWATER

FOR THE SITE.

IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, IT'S

ANTICIPATED THAT THIS SITE WILL USE OR REQUIRE THE LARGEST

SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT CAN BE PERMITTED BY THE HEALTH

DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS A 10,000-GALLON SYSTEM, THAT

POTENTIALLY IS ADEQUATE FOR THE FULL ENROLLMENT OF 950

STUDENTS, BUT IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT

THAT DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE SCHOOL OPERATION,

SUCH AS IF IT INCLUDES FOOD SERVICE, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT

IT WOULD AFFECT THE NUMBER; THEREFORE, YOU'LL SEE IN OUR

53

CONDITIONS THAT WHILE THE SCHOOL'S CAPPED AT 950 STUDENTS,

WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS THAT WILL BE

PERMITTED THERE ARE GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON TWO THINGS,

AND ONE OF THEM IS ADEQUATE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE,

SO THEY'RE NOT GUARANTEED 950, AND AS -- DURING THE SPECIAL

USE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HEALTH

DEPARTMENT STAFF, BUT THEY SAID THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE

FOR THEM TO MAKE ANY KIND OF FIRM DECISION ON THE NUMBER

THAT COULD BE ACCOMMODATED ON THE SITE UNTIL SUCH TIME THEY

ACTUALLY FILE FOR A SEPTIC TANK PERMIT, BECAUSE I IMAGINE

THERE'S A LOT OF ENGINEERING AND THINGS LIKE THAT INVOLVED.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU KNOW, THEY THOUGHT THAT THE

SITE WOULD, INDEED, HAVE ADEQUATE -- ADEQUATE AREA FOR THE

SEPTIC DRAINAGE FIELD AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO -- BUT

AGAIN, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE CONDITIONS SPECIFICALLY STATE

THAT THEY'RE NOT GUARANTEED TO ACHIEVE 950.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>>TOM HIZNAY: THE SECOND BIG ISSUE THAT WAS REVIEWED HERE

AND EMERGED REALLY AS A PRIMARY ISSUE WAS TRANSPORTATION,

PARTICULARLY DEALING WITH ON-SITE QUEUING AND CIRCULATION

PATTERN.

AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE RECORD

IS OF THE ON-SITE QUEUE LANES FOR THE SITE IS NOT ANYWHERE

NEAR ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT 950 STUDENTS ARRIVING AT THE SAME

TIME, SO IT WAS QUICKLY IDENTIFIED THAT A -- WHAT'S CALLED

A SPLIT START AND DISMISSAL PLAN WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS

SCHOOL, AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE REVIEW, A NUMBER OF

ON-SITE CIRCULATION PATTERNS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE

54

APPLICANT.

ORIGINALLY THOSE WERE FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE BY OUR

TRANSPORTATION STAFF, BUT AS THE PROCESS EVOLVED, THEY THEN

DID COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND SHOWN ON THE

OCTOBER 10th SITE PLAN, WHICH IS THE SPECIAL USE PLAN

THAT'S REFERENCED IN THESE CONDITIONS.

AND IN CONDITION 6 -- AND THIS IS THE MAIN CHANGE, BUT IT'S

NOT REALLY SIGNIFICANT -- IT ACTUALLY REFERENCES THE ON-

SITE CIRCULATION PLAN DATED 10/11/2013, AND -- I GUESS THAT

SHOULD HAVE BEEN 10/10, I'M SORRY, BUT SUBSEQUENT TO THAT,

THEY ACTUALLY SUBMITTED ANOTHER CIRCULATION PLAN, AND SO WE

DECIDED LET'S NOT REFERENCE ANY DATE --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>>TOM HIZNAY: -- LET'S JUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT A

CIRCULATION PLAN AND SPLIT ARRIVAL/DISMISSAL PLAN

ACCEPTABLE TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MUST BE SUBMITTED AND

THAT THE ACTUAL ENROLLMENT, AGAIN, MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE 950

STUDENTS, DEPENDING ON THAT PLAN.

THE IMPORTANT THING IS IS THAT BY THE TIME OF THE

CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIAL USE REVIEW, THE APPLICANT HAD

SUCCESSFULLY SUBMITTED A CIRCULATION PLAN THAT

TRANSPORTATION STAFF FELT THEN VERY COMFORTABLE IN

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS

THAT YOU FIND.


>>TOM HIZNAY: OKAY.

WHEREAS EARLIER IN THE PROCESS, THE CIRCULATION PLANS THEY

HAD SUBMITTED, TRANSPORTATION STAFF WAS NOT COMFORTABLE

55

WITH THEM AT ALL.

SO TRANSPORTATION STAFF, AGAIN, DOES NOT OBJECT, SUBJECT TO

THE CONDITIONS YOU SEE, AND, AGAIN, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO

HAVE THE CIRCULATION PLAN.


>>TOM HIZNAY: WITH GENERAL COMPATIBILITY -- YOU'VE BEEN IN

THE AREA -- AS MR. HORNER STATED, IT'S SURROUNDED BY

AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL USES FOR THE MOST PART, SO WE

HAVE NO GENERAL COMPATIBILITY ISSUES.

WE FIND THAT THE APPLICATION ALSO MEETS THE COUPLE CRITERIA

THAT'S IN THE CODE FOR ELEMENTARY -- I MEAN, I'M SORRY, FOR

CHARTER SCHOOLS, WHICH ARE CONSIDERED PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND

ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE CRITERIA DOESN'T EVEN APPLY, AND THEN

THE OTHER ONE DEALS WITH THE LOCATION OF THE PLAYGROUND,

AND WE FIND THAT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA IN THE CODE, SO WE

FIND THIS APPROVABLE, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M

AVAILABLE.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO.

THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION.


AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.


STAFF.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN A SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6

FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE RURAL AREA.

THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE, ALLOWING A CHARTER SCHOOL, WOULD

ALLOW DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES.

IT IS UNIQUELY LOCATED IN THE RURAL AREA AND SMU-6 FUTURE

56

LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, AND THE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO

IS WELL BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED WITHIN THE SMU-6 FUTURE

LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE DEFINED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS

RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USES AND CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE

SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

DUE TO THE ISOLATED NATURE OF THE SITE, THE PROPOSED USE

WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE


PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO


GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME'S IAN WEITZ, 3014 VIA SIENA STREET, PLANT CITY,

FLORIDA 33566.

I AM CURRENTLY THE BOARD CHAIRMAN FOR THE SCHOOL, AND I

JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR THE CONSIDERATION

OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> WE HAVE UNDERGONE OR ARE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A VERY

STRICT TIMELINE FOR OUR SCHOOL TO BE BUILT.

WE WERE GIVEN A YEAR TIME TO BE OPEN IN AUGUST.

LIKE THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE ARE

57

GOING IN PARALLEL WITH PERMITTING AND SUCH.

WE KNOW AND HAVE -- THE BOARD ITSELF HAS DISCUSSED THE

TRAFFIC ISSUE, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN AMONGST THE

COMMUNITY AND WITH THE SCHOOL, THE FACULTY, AND THE BOARD

MEMBERS AS WELL.

WE HAVE BOARD MEMBERS WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA ALSO.

AS DISCUSSED, BECAUSE WE ARE A CHARTER SCHOOL, WE ARE RUN A

LITTLE BIT MORE INDEPENDENTLY THAN A STANDARD PUBLIC

SYSTEM, MEANING THAT WE CAN OFFSET OUR HOURS, WHICH, AS YOU

SEE, WE ARE WITH A SPLIT ARRIVAL AND SPLIT DISMISSAL.

THOSE TIMES ARE AFTER YOUR NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS,

ESPECIALLY WITH A STRAWBERRY CREST HIGH SCHOOL BEING THERE

THAT WILL START AT 7:30, THE BAILEY ELEMENTARY WHICH STARTS

AT 8:00, SO WE ARE OFFSETTING OUR HOURS ENOUGH TO WHERE WE

WILL NOT INTERRUPT WITH THOSE TRAFFIC DENSITIES FOR THOSE

SCHOOLS, AS WELL AS HAVING THE TWO ENTRY AND EXIT POINTS

FROM McINTOSH AND FROM 92.

THE QUEUING SHOULD HELP.

WE HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM OUR SCHOOL.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE MOVING TO A -- TO A NEW LOCATION, AND WE

FEEL THAT THE -- THE SCHOOL AND THE STUDENTS' WELFARE AND

EDUCATION CAN OUTWEIGH SOME OF THE TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT, YOU

KNOW, MAY BE BROUGHT UP TO YOUR ATTENTION, AND WITH

EVERYTHING THAT THE CSA IN THE JOURNEY HAS DONE FOR US, WE

ARE NOT CONCERNED.

WE ARE VERY -- WE THINK THAT THE TRAFFIC ISSUE AND THE FLOW

WILL BE FINE, AND AS YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, SEEN ON THE PLANS, I

THINK WE SHOULD BE OKAY.

58

AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PARENTS FROM THE PTA.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANT TO SPEAK, IF YOU WANT TO HEAR

FROM THEM.

THEY ARE PARENTS, NOT MEMBERS OR FACULTY AND NOT THE SCHOOL

BOARD, BUT TO SHOW OUR SUPPORT AS WELL.


THEY STOOD UP EARLIER AND WERE RECOGNIZED --

>> THEY DID.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- BUT I'LL ASK IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO

SPEAK.

>> SO WITH THAT SAID, I -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE

THE SCHOOL MOVED, HAVE A PERMANENT BUILDING.

OUR SCHOOL'S IN PORTABLES, LEASED PROPERTY.

WE ARE BEING REQUIRED TO MOVE, AND ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE UNDER

A VERY STRICT TIMELINE.

IF THAT IS TO HAPPEN, THEN I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE'RE GOING

TO BE AT FROM THERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> THANK YOU.


THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK

IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?


ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION?

>> LET ME JUST CLARIFY.

I DIDN'T WANT TO RUN UP HERE.

59

IT'S TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.

WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT AT ALL, BUT

I DO AGREE WITH THE CONCERNS SAID ABOUT THE PARKING, AND I

JUST WANT TO PLACE IT ON RECORD THAT WE DO HAVE SERIOUS

CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING AND QUEUING AND ALL OF THAT.


>> WE HAVE EIGHT SCHOOLS WITHIN A THREE-MILE STRETCH OF

ROAD, AND SINCE CHARTER SCHOOLS CAN OPEN JUST ABOUT

ANYWHERE ANY MORE NOW, ANY SCHOOL REALLY, IF WE KEEP ADDING

AND ADDING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REAL BACKLOG.

WE'VE HAD SOME HORRENDOUS EXPERIENCES WITH THE SCHOOLS.

IT'S NOT JUST CHARTER SCHOOLS, IT'S ALL SCHOOLS, SO I JUST

WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> I GUESS THERE -- ONE CLARITY I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, AND I

CAN ASK MIKE ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE

ISN'T AN APPLICATION IN AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THIS

SCHOOL YET, SO THAT WOULD PRECLUDE, IN MY MIND, OPENING FOR

-- I THINK THE DEADLINE WAS AUGUST FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS, BUT

THERE COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON THAT WE DON'T KNOW

ABOUT.

THANKS.


THANK YOU, MA'AM.

DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

>>BRIAN GRADY: MS. FLOTT, YOU NEED TO -- MS. FLOTT, YOU

NEED TO SIGN IN.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

60

SORRY.


>> GOOD EVENING.

ELIZABETH BELCHER, POST OFFICE BOX 739, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.

MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE SEWER LINES.

WHEN STRAWBERRY -- THE STRAWBERRY HILL CREST -- STRAWBERRY

COMPLEX, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GRADE SCHOOL, MIDDLE

SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL, WAS BUILT, THE DED -- THE LINES WERE

SUPPOSED TO BE STRICTLY DEDICATED FOR THAT.

NO ONE ELSE WAS SUPPOSED TO TAP INTO THAT.

AND NOW I'M -- I DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE

SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO TAP -- TAP INTO

THAT BECAUSE -- I MEAN, I REALIZE THAT THIS IS A VERY GOOD

IDEA, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE GOOD IDEA, IT'S JUST THE

IDEA OF BEING -- GIVING THEM AUTHORIZATION TO DO SOMETHING

THAT WE AGREED WHEN STRAWBERRY CREST WAS FIRST BUILT THAT

IT WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, AND I'M AFRAID --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

JUST SO YOU KNOW, STAFF'S PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THIS

PROPOSED CHARTER SCHOOL WILL NOT BE ON PUBLIC WATER OR

PUBLIC SEWER.

>> OH, WELL, AT SOME POINT OR OTHER IN TIME, THEY MAY COME

BACK AND ASK FOR A REQUEST TO TAP INTO THE STRAWBERRY HILL

CREST LINE, AND I WISH TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR THAT IT

SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT ONCE WE

START ONE PROJECT, WE'RE GOING TO START GOING DOWN TO A

SLIPPERY SLOPE.


61

FAIR ENOUGH.

ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?



NO.

AND THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.


MICHAEL HORNER, AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD.

WE APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF MS. FLOTT AND MS. BELCHER AS

WELL.

I'M GOING TO HAVE MIKE STRADER FROM CSA ADDRESS MS. FLOTT'S

SPECIFIC CONCERN IN A MOMENT.

YOU ALREADY ADDRESSED MS. BELCHER'S CONCERN REGARDING WE

ARE NOT AND HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT REQUEST THAT PUBLIC SEWER

CONNECTION.

WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE AT ONE TIME, BUT WE

PRECLUDED THAT OPTION AND REMOVED IT FROM OUR PLANS.

MR. LUCE, I'M GOING TO FILE INTO THE RECORD, AGAIN, AS I

NOTED BEFORE, SEVERAL ITERATIONS, ALSO THE ITERATION NOTING

THE OVERFLOW PARKING THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT MR. SOMERVILLE

MADE REFERENCE TO, AND ALSO AN E-MAIL TRAIL BETWEEN TOM

LaFOUNTAIN OF EPC AND OUR STAFF -- ACTUALLY

MR. McNEAL'S STAFF, ADDRESSING THE WETLAND PERMIT APPROVAL

HAD ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED AND NO OBJECTIONS FROM THEM.

I KNOW THE REPORT SAYS, SUBJECT TO, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW

THAT WE HAVE GONE ALREADY DOWN THAT LINE, AND AS OF THE END

OF LAST WEEK, THEY HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR HELP, WE APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE

62

ON THIS.

I WOULD ONLY EMPHASIZE THAT BEHIND THE SCENES WE HAVE DONE

MUCH AND WE HAVE NARROWED THIS PRESENTATION ONLY DOWN TO

THE 14.5 MINUTES TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA THAT WE HAVE WORKED

THROUGH ALL THOSE ISSUES, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU, AS

MR. HIZNAY INDICATED, RIGHT UP TO THE WIRE WE HAVE BEEN

WORKING WITH ALL THE ENGINEERING STAFF, ALL THE PERMITTING

STAFF, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, FDOT, ENGINEERING, AND EPC AS

WELL, SO WE HAVE THE SOLUTIONS.

WE KNOW IT CAN BE PERMITABLE.

I'M GOING TO HAVE MR. STRADER JUST BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE

SCHOOL BOARD CLASSIFICATION OF THIS SCHOOL.

THANK YOU, MR. LUCE, FOR YOUR TIME.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.


VERY GOOD.

GOOD EVENING.


MY NAME IS MIKE STRADER.

I'M PRESIDENT OF CHARTER SCHOOL ASSOCIATES WITH AN ADDRESS

AT 12524 WEST ATLANTIC BOULEVARD, CORAL SPRINGS, FLORIDA

33071.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK WITH US AS

APPLICANTS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'VE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND

HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH US, AND THAT'S BEEN MUCH

APPRECIATED.

MS. FLOTT MENTIONED THAT SHE WASN'T AWARE OF A CHARTER

63

SCHOOL APPLICATION BEING FILED WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD OF

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT WOULD GO AT THIS LOCATION, AND

THAT'S BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXISTING SCHOOL THAT WOULD BE

MOVED TO THE NORTH -- NORTHEAST CORNER OF 92 AND McINTOSH,

AND THAT SCHOOL'S A KINDERGARTEN THROUGH AN 8th-GRADE

SCHOOL, SO WE WOULD BE MOVING ONE -- THAT SCHOOL, AND

THAT'S WHY THE BOARD CHAIR TALKED SO MUCH ABOUT THE

TIMELINE AND THERE BEING NO BACKUP PLAN SHOULD THIS NOT GO

THROUGH.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.


THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.



>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT PORTION OF THE AGENDA ARE THE

REZONING ITEMS, SO WE'LL NEED TO HEAR FROM THE COUNTY

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING THE PROCEDURES THAT GOVERN THE

REZONING ITEMS.


VERY GOOD.

>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: LOUIS WHITEHEAD, ASSISTANT COUNTY

ATTORNEY.

TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING IS THE FIRST OF TWO STEPS IN THE

COUNTY'S REZONING PROCESS.

TONIGHT'S HEARING IS THE TIME FOR APPLICANTS AND INTERESTED

64

CITIZENS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE.

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE

FACTUAL RECORD OF EACH CASE.

THE RECORD OF EACH CASE WILL CLOSE AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S

HEARINGS, AND NO EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED THEREAFTER.

THE SECOND STEP OF THE REZONING PROCESS IS A PUBLIC MEETING

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AT WHICH TIME THE

BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION ON EACH PETITION.

THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH

PETITION HEARD TONIGHT ON NOVEMBER THE 12th.

AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, EACH INDIVIDUAL

WHO DESIRES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MUST

FILE AN ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF

BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER THE 22nd.

TONIGHT'S PETITIONS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD

AT THE BOARD'S DECEMBER THE 10th LAND USE MEETING.

THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER ONLY THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S

HEARING AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING MASTER IN

RENDERING ITS DECISION.

PLEASE NOTE THAT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS MUST BE RESPONSIVE

TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION.

ACCORDINGLY, ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE FILED

UNTIL THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN

DELIVERED TO THE COUNTY.

THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE

PUBLIC MEETING; HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE

BOARD CAN ELECT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT FROM A PARTY OF

RECORD.

65

A PARTY OF RECORD IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FITS INTO AT LEAST

ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR CATEGORIES: FIRST, AN INDIVIDUAL

WHO IS PRESENT TONIGHT AND PRESENTS ORAL TESTIMONY OR

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; SECOND, AN INDIVIDUAL CERTIFIED BY

THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AS HAVING BEEN MAILED NOTICE OF

TONIGHT'S HEARING; THIRD, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE MASTER FILE AT LEAST TWO

BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S HEARING; OR FOURTH, AN

INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THROUGH

ANOTHER DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING.

IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT,

PARTIES OF RECORD WHO HAVE FILED RESPONSIVE, TIMELY

REQUESTS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD CLEARLY INDICATE WHY ORAL

ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS AT LEAST ONE OF THE

FOLLOWING FOUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES: NUMBER ONE, TO RESOLVE

AMBIGUITIES IN THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; NUMBER TWO,

TO UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST TO ENTER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INTO

THE RECORD; NUMBER THREE, A MISTAKE IN THE HEARING MASTER'S

RECOMMENDATION; OR FOUR, TO ADDRESS A MATTER THAT WAS

INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT BUT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN

THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION.

THE SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE CONTENT

OF THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED VERBALLY OR

IN WRITING TO THE HEARING MASTER TONIGHT.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S ROLE IS TO ENSURE THAT ONLY

INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MET THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO

SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD AND THAT NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY

66

IS NOT INTRODUCED OR ALLOWED AT THE PUBLIC MEETING.

FOR THESE REASONS, PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT

YOU DESIRE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AT THE PUBLIC MEETING IS

PLACED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT.


>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. WHITEHEAD.

AND MR. GRADY, INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM, THEN, IS AGENDA ITEM I-7,

REZONING APPLICATION 13-0695.

THE APPLICANT'S TODD PRESSMAN.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL RDC-6, WHICH IS A

DUPLEX CONVENTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT, TO RMC-9 WITH

RESTRICTIONS.

THIS IS A MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.

MICHELLE HEINRICH, WITH COUNTY STAFF, WILL PROVIDE STAFF


>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

APPLICANT, PLEASE.

>> MR. HEARING OFFICER, MY NAME IS TODD PRESSMAN, 334 EAST

LAKE ROAD, SUITE -- OR ITEM -- SUITE NUMBER 102 IN PALM

HARBOR, FLORIDA.

THIS IS A REQUEST THAT ACTUALLY STARTED AT A COMMERCIAL

LEVEL TO MATCH THE SELF-STORAGE, WHICH IS ABUTTING ON THE

SOUTH, SO AFTER HEARING A LOT FROM THE STAFF AND HEARING

FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DID A SIGNIFICANT ABOUT FACE, AND

WE'RE HERE FOR A REQUEST THIS EVENING FROM RDC-6 TO RMC-9

WITH SOME PRETTY HARD-HITTING, SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS.

67

THE FIRST ONE, RESTRICT THE SITE TO A TOTAL OF 36

MULTIFAMILY UNITS; SECONDLY, WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE

ADDITIONAL SCREENING ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE --

PROPERTY LINE; PROVIDE BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPING ALONG

TAYLOR ROAD; AND PROHIBIT ANY FENCES OR WALLS WITH THE

BUFFER ALONG TAYLOR ROAD.

DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THIS VERY POSITIVELY.

TRANSPORTATION REVIEWED IT AND HAS NO OBJECTION.

THEY REPORT TO YOU THAT THE INCREASED TRIPS IS ABOUT 17

COMPARED TO WHAT'S PERMITTED THERE TODAY.

ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL RESOURCES INDICATES NO WETLANDS OR

OTHER SURFACE WATERS.

NATURAL RESOURCES HAS ALSO PROVIDED A POSITIVE REPORT.

YOUR ZONING STAFF WILL TELL YOU IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY

THAT THE SITE IS COMPATIBLE, AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS

SWITCH OVER TO THE OVERVIEW HERE FOR A MOMENT, IF I MAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> SO THE SITE -- THE SITE IS IN YELLOW, AS YOU CAN SEE

HERE, AND TO THE SOUTH IS A SELF-STORAGE.

THIS IS ANOTHER COMMERCIAL USE.

ADJOINING OR ABUTTING ON THE EAST IS A SHOPPING CENTER --

SUPER MARKET AND SHOPPING CENTER.

ALSO TO THE EAST IS RDC-12.

SO AS YOUR STAFFS HAVE POINTED OUT TO YOU, IT CLEARLY IS A

GOOD TRANSITIONAL SITE TO THE LESSER ZONING FURTHER IN.

IT'S A SITE THAT WOULD PROVIDE BUFFERING TO THESE MORE

INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES AND ADJOINS MUCH HIGHER DENSITY,

AND CLEARLY, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RESTRICTIONS, WHAT'S

68

PROPOSED IS VIRTUALLY, IN TERMS OF DENSITY, THE SAME THAT

WOULD BE PERMITTED TODAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. PRESSMAN, HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU THINK

THEY COULD BUILD TODAY UNDER EXISTING ZONING, JUST A

BALLPARK?

>> IN TERMS OF PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER OF THE SITE

PLAN, I REALLY DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT FOR YOU.

WE LOOKED AT THIS STRICTLY AS EUCLIDEAN, SO I DON'T HAVE AN

ANSWER FOR YOU.

WE'VE RESTRICTED IT TO THE NUMBER AS PER IN THE STAFF

REPORTS TO YOU.

AND THEN I WOULD JUST BRIEFLY SAY THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, THEY REFER TO THE COMPATIBILITY

FACTORS IN MOST OF THE MANNER THAT I INDICATED AND THEIR

OPINIONS IN THAT RESPECT, AND THEY LIST A NUMBER OF THE

DIFFERENT POLICIES THAT WE MEET, WHICH WE AGREE WITH, ALSO,

AS WELL AS THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THEY REPORT TO

YOU THAT, AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS VERY SIMILAR TO

WHAT COULD OCCUR THERE.

THE ONLY, REALLY, DIFFERENCE IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER

BUILDING.

IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER THEM FOR YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU.


>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING.


69

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THIS A STANDARD REZONING WITH

RESTRICTIONS.

THE PROPERTY'S CURRENTLY ZONED RDC-6, THAT'S RESIDENTIAL

DUPLEX CONVENTIONAL, AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO GO TO

RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY CONVENTIONAL, RMC-9, WITH THE FOUR

RESTRICTIONS THAT MR. PRESSMAN OUTLINED.

THE SITE IS 5.54 ACRES IN SIZE, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF

TAYLOR ROAD, ABOUT 500 FEET NORTH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

BOULEVARD, AND CURRENTLY, THE SITE IS VACANT, BUT THERE IS

A HOME ON IT THAT ISN'T USED.

AND AS I STATED, THERE ARE FOUR RESTRICTIONS BEING

PROPOSED, A MAXIMUM OF 36 UNITS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL

SCREENING ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, TO PROVIDE

BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPING ALONG TAYLOR ROAD, AND TO

PROHIBIT ANY FENCES OR WALLS WITHIN THAT BUFFER ALONG

TAYLOR ROAD.

TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, AND THEY

DO NOT OBJECT TO THE REZONING.

AS MR. PRESSMAN STATED, WHEN THEY COMPARED THE CURRENT

ENTITLEMENTS UNDER RDC-6 COMPARED TO ALLOWING A MAXIMUM OF

36 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WHAT THEY FOUND IS A DIFFERENCE WAS

17 TRIPS WITH A MAXIMUM A.M. AND P.M. OF TWO TRIPS, AND

THAT'S OUTLINED IN OUR REPORT.

THEY DO NOTE THAT THAT MAY BE LOWER BECAUSE THAT IS JUST

BASED ON 36, AND AS YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO IN THROUGH SITE

DEVELOPMENT, ROADS, STORMWATER PONDS, OTHER FEATURES LIKE

70

BUFFERING MAY TAKE UP SOME OF THAT AREA, SO THEY DO

RECOGNIZE THAT IT COULD BE LOWER THAN THAT, AND THEY WILL

ASSESS THAT AT SITE DEVELOPMENT STAGE.

EPC, TAMPA BAY WATER, AND NATURAL RESOURCES HAVE REVIEWED

THIS AND OFFER NO OBJECTIONS.

STORMWATER HAS ALSO REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, AND THEY ARE

HERE TONIGHT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN

APPROACHED BY SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE STORMWATER

CONCERNS.

STORMWATER'S AWARE OF THOSE, AND THEY'VE EXPLAINED TO STAFF

AND THE CITIZENS THAT THAT IS EVALUATED DURING SITE

DEVELOPMENT, AND MR. CABRERA IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TOO MUCH FOR HIS STUFF BECAUSE I'M

NOT VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THAT AND DON'T WANT TO GO OFF

BASE.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE RES-9, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE

LOOKING AT THE RMC-9.

PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FOUND THIS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH

THE RESTRICTIONS WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND I DID WANT TO GO OVER SOME INFORMATION ON

COMPATIBILITY, AND I WANTED TO PUT UP A COPY OF THE ZONING

MAP ON THE ELMO.

THE SUBJECT AREA IS IN BLUE, AND THEN THAT SHOWS YOU SOME

OF THE DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY THAT YOU SEE GOING ON AS WELL

AS THE ZONING DISTRICTS AROUND THE SITE.

AS YOU'LL SEE, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF USES FOUND AROUND THE

71

SITE, WHICH MR. PRESSMAN DISCUSSED.

THERE IS A COMMERCIAL ALONG THE SOUTH, AND THAT IS A MINI

WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND A BANK.

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND WEST

ACROSS TAYLOR ROAD.

TO THE EAST OF THE SITE IT IS ABUTTING COMMERCIAL AND TWO-

FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, THE

SHOPPING CENTER THAT MR. PRESSMAN SHOWED YOU, AND THEN TO

THE NORTH OF THAT IS A DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S A TWO-STORY DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE GENERAL AREA TO THE NORTH IS ZONED

RDC-6, AND THAT ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY

AND TWO-FAMILY.

IN LOOKING AT THE HISTORY OF THE AREA, BECAUSE SOME

RESIDENTS DID EXPRESS HOW THINGS HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME,

WHAT WE FOUND IS WHEN LOOKING AT THE '73 AND '66 ZONING

MAPS, IT WAS ZONED R-2, SO AS FAR BACK AS THE '60s IT IS

THE SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY TYPE OF USES THAT HAVE

BEEN DEVELOPED AND APPROVED IN THAT AREA.

PROPERTY TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH AND NORTHWEST -- YOU SEE

THOSE LONG RECTANGULAR LOTS IMMEDIATELY NORTH AND WEST OF

THAT, THOSE WERE -- THOSE ARE LARGER LOT SIZES.

THEY'RE ABOUT 2.4 ACRES IN SIZE, AND THEY WERE DEVELOPED

WITH SINGLE-FAMILY, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE AN RDC-6, AND THAT

DEVELOPED -- MOST OF THOSE WERE DEVELOPED IN THE 1970s.

FURTHER NORTH, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD, IS A

SUBDIVISION, I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED OAK VALLEY, WHICH HAS

7,000-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS, IN THAT AREA.

72

AND THEN FURTHER UP ON THE ZONING MAP, YOU'LL SEE SIX LOTS

THAT WERE ZONED RMC-6, AND THAT ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY, BUT

CURRENTLY THEY ARE USED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY.

AND FROM WHAT WE SAW, THE AREA FURTHER TO THE NORTH, AUBURN

LANE, WHICH IS AT THE VERY TOP FURTHER NORTHWARD TO OLD

HILLSBOROUGH AVENUE WEST, IS WHERE WE FOUND MORE OF THE

LOWER-INTENSITY ZONING, RSC-2, 3, AND THE AG ZONINGS.

AS YOU SAW, THERE ARE THE MOST INTENSE COMMERCIAL

DEVELOP -- OR THE MOST INTENSE USES ARE FOUND ALONG THE

SOUTH WITH THE COMMERCIAL, AND TO THE SOUTHWEST, THAT AREA

IS USED FOR DUPLEX AND SINGLE-FAMILY.

IT TOO HAS THE RDC-6.

IT'S A VERY OLD PLATTED SUBDIVISION, 50-FOOT-WIDE LOTS.

SOME HAVE DEVELOPED AS SINGLE-FAMILY AND SOME HAVE

DEVELOPED WITH DUPLEX.

AND AS MR. PRESSMAN STATED, RIGHT NOW THE PROPERTY CAN BE

DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE-FAMILY OR TWO-FAMILY UP TO SIX UNITS

PER ACRE, AND WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY,

WHICH THE CODE SPECIFIES AS THREE OR MORE UNITS.

SO THAT COULD BE TOWNHOMES, IT COULD BE APARTMENTS, YOU

KNOW, ANY OF THOSE QUADRUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR EVEN -- IT COULD

STILL BE DEVELOPED AS A DUPLEX BECAUSE IT DOES ALLOW THE

LOWER INTENSITIES.

AND WITH THE REZONING, THE RMC-9 STANDARDS WOULD BE

APPLICABLE, AND THOSE ARE ACTUALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN

THE RDC-6 OR THEY'RE THE SAME.

UNDER RMC-9, THE SETBACKS ARE THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE SIDE

YARD, WHICH INCREASES FROM 7.5 TO 10; HOWEVER, WHEN IT IS

73

DEVELOPED WITH MULTIFAMILY, BUFFERING AND SCREENING COMES

INTO PLAY AND ALSO AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK WHEN THEY GO OVER

20 FEET IN HEIGHT.

THE RDC-6 ALSO ALLOWS THE -- THEY HAVE THE SAME MAXIMUM

HEIGHT AT 35, BUT ONCE YOU GET TO THE MULTIFAMILY, THEY

HAVE THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK THAT COMES INTO PLAY, AND THE

APPLICANT HAS NOT REQUESTED A WAIVER FROM THAT.

BASED UPON ALL OF THIS, THE PROPOSED REZONING WILL HAVE

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT MEET OR EXCEED THE CURRENT

ZONING'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

FURTHERMORE, ADDITIONAL COMPATIBILITY RESTRICTIONS ARE

PROPOSED FOR SCREENING, BUFFERING, AND LANDSCAPING.

ALONG THE NORTH, ALL THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE MULTIFAMILY

WOULD BE A FIVE-FOOT BUFFER WITH TYPE "A" FENCING, WHICH,

AS YOU KNOW, COULD BE A WOODEN FENCE OR A WALL.

WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED, WHICH IS FOUND IN THE

SECOND RESTRICTION, IS A PVC FENCE, AND THEY'VE ALSO ADDED

HEDGES AND OAK TREES.

THEY DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO PRESERVE THE ONES

THERE, YOU KNOW, WITH CONSULTATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES OR

DO SOME PLANTINGS.

AND ALONG THE WEST, THE RESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSED TO US

THEY -- THEY ENJOY THE VIEW OF THAT ROADWAY, THE TREES, AND

SUCH, SO WHAT WE PROPOSED WAS A 20-FOOT BUFFER, AND THERE

ARE OVERHEAD POWER LINES, SO WE COULD NOT ASK THE APPLICANT

TO PLANT OAK TREES TO MATCH WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE, SO

NATURAL RESOURCES DID PROVIDE US WITH WHAT THEY RECOMMEND

UNDER POWER LINES, WHICH THEY SAID SHOULD GIVE A VERY

74

PLEASING LOOK TO THE PROPERTY.

AND THE APPLICANT ALSO AGREED TO NOT HAVE ANY WALLS OR

FENCES WITHIN THAT 20-FOOT BUFFER, SO THAT WOULD LEAVE A

20-FOOT AREA OF OPEN SPACE.

YOU COULDN'T HAVE PARKING LOTS, NO LARGE WALLS LIKE YOU SEE

ON THE MINI WAREHOUSE TO THE SOUTH, IT WOULD REMAIN OPEN

EXCEPT FOR THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING THAT HAS THE ORNAMENTAL

TREES.

AND PRETTY MUCH, IN LOOKING AT THIS, WE FOUND THAT THIS

DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROVIDE A GOOD TRANSITION ON TAYLOR ROAD

FROM THE COMMERCIAL USES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH ON MLK AND TO

THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND EVENTUALLY TO THE LOWER

RESIDENTIAL -- OR LOWER INTENSITY AND AGRICULTURAL, AND WE

FIND THIS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND

APPROVABLE WITH THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.


THANK YOU.



STAFF.



SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.

THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE

WITH THE SURROUNDING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND IT

WOULD MINIMALLY CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT ON THE

75

SITE.

SEVERAL PARCELS IN THIS VICINITY HAVE ZONING

CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ALLOW DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT, AS NOTED BY

MS. HEINRICH.

ALTHOUGH THE PARCELS TO THE NORTH AND WEST ARE WITHIN THE

RDC-6 ZONING CLASSIFICATION, THEY ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED

WITH LARGER RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AS EXPRESSED BY MS. HEINRICH,

AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED

RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE A TRANSITION BETWEEN

WHAT'S PROPOSED AND WHAT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED TO THE NORTH

AND THE WEST.

WE FEEL THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING


PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.





APPLICATION?

>> YES.


>> MY NAME IS KRYSTLE BOOTH, AND I AM THE HOMEOWNER AT 1304

SOUTH TAYLOR ROAD, WHICH IS TWO HOUSES NORTH OF THE

PROPERTY THAT'S UP FOR REZONING.

FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO --

76

>>BRIAN GRADY: MA'AM, COULD YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE A

LITTLE BIT CLOSER SO --

>> SORRY.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THANK YOU.

>> IS THAT BETTER?

>>STEVE LUCE: YES.

>> FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE

SEVERAL HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING THAT

COULD NOT MAKE IT THIS EVENING DUE TO PRIOR SCHEDULED

VACATIONS AND COMMITMENTS.

THIS WAS CREATED BY A CONTINUANCE DUE TO THE APPLICANT'S

INDECISIVENESS FROM THE BEGINNING ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH

THIS PROPERTY'S REZONING.

THE PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING HAVE

GIVEN ME PERMISSION TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE NOTE THAT BECKY HALCOM, WHO IS AN

OWNER DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPERTY, AND I RECEIVED

SIGNATURES FROM HOMEOWNERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE OPPOSED

TO THIS PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST.

100% OF THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WE SPOKE TO ARE IN OPPOSITION

TO THIS REQUEST.

WE HAVE OVER 50 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT ARE IN THE

BINDER THAT I JUST TURNED IN TO YOU.

THAT IS IN SECTION 2.

LET ME START OFF BY GIVING YOU A PICTURE OF THE COMMUNITY

THAT WE ARE IN, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN SECTION 1, WHICH IS IN

A PICTURE REPRESENTATION.

BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THIS ROAD IS STILL A RURAL STREET.

77

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE POST OFFICE STILL HAS US LISTED AS

A RURAL ROUTE.

WE HAVE NO SIDEWALKS, WE HAVE NO CURBS, WE HAVE NO

STREETLIGHTS.

WE STILL HAVE OVERHEAD POWER.

HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE ON THIS STREET HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 20,

30, SOME EVEN LONGER THAN THAT.

THEY DEVELOPED THIS ROAD BACK WHENEVER IT WAS ORANGE

GROVES.

IT IS MADE UP PRIMARILY OF RELATIVES, PARENTS, BROTHERS,

SISTERS, AUNTS, AND UNCLES, WHO ARE ALL DOWN THE ROAD FROM

EACH OTHER.

HIGHWAY 92 AND MLK ARE BOTH STATE HIGHWAYS THAT ARE AT THE

END OF THE STREET.

THERE ARE NO RED LIGHTS AT EITHER END.

WE ONLY HAVE STOP SIGNS.

TRYING TO GET OUT OF HERE IS A NIGHTMARE AS IT IS, MUCH

LESS IF YOU WERE TO INCREASE THE POPULATION ON THIS ROAD,

AND CURRENTLY THERE IS NO INTENTION OF PUTTING A RED LIGHT

AT EITHER END OF THIS ROAD.

PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY BEEN KILLED ON THIS STREET BECAUSE IT

IS SO DARK, PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS ALIKE.

THIS WOULD ONLY ADD TO IT.

THE SPEED LIMIT IS CURRENTLY 40 MILES AN HOUR, BUT PEOPLE

DO WELL IN EXCESS OF THAT, USING OUR STREET AS A DETOUR FOR

THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION THAT IS CURRENTLY ON MLK AND BECAUSE

OF THE ROAD CLOSURES THAT ARE ON PARSONS.

SINCE THESE ARE STATE HIGHWAYS, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IT

78

IS NOT THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT IN RED LIGHTS AT

EITHER ONE OF THOSE INTERSECTIONS, WHICH IS FINE, BUT THAT

DOES NOT SOLVE OUR CURRENT TRAFFIC SITUATION OR THE ONE

THAT WOULD BRING ABOUT BEING -- CAUSING INCREASED TRAFFIC

VOLUME WOULD BRING TO US.

MOST OF THE OTHER TRACTS ON THIS ROAD ARE RDC-6, BUT NONE

OF THEM ARE BUILT TO THAT.

THERE IS NOT A PRECEDENT FOR THAT, SO NOW WHY WOULD WE

INCREASE THE USAGE TO 9?

THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THERE ARE DUPLEXES HERE --

THERE'S A DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT DUPLEXES ON THE ENTIRE ROAD ALL THE

WAY FROM MLK TO 92.

THERE ISN'T EVEN A MARKET FOR DUPLEXES ON THIS STREET, MUCH

LESS ANY TYPE OF OTHER BUILT-OUT STRUCTURE.

THERE HAVE BEEN THREE SIMILAR REZONING REQUESTS ON THIS

STREET IN THE PAST FIVE TO SIX YEARS, AND ALL OF THEM HAVE

BEEN DENIED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF OUR

NEIGHBORHOOD.

THESE CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 1 OF THE BINDER BEHIND THE

PICTURE REPRESENTATION.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD

SINCE THIS -- SINCE THESE REQUESTS WERE DENIED.

PROPERTY HAS BEEN BOUGHT, SOLD, OR INHERITED; HOWEVER, THE

CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NOT CHANGED.

CURRENT PROPERTY IS ZONED, AND PEOPLE ARE WELL WITHIN THEIR

RIGHTS TO DEVELOP IT; HOWEVER, THEY HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO.

THIS TYPE OF ACTION TO EXPAND TO RMC-9 IS PREMATURE

79

WHENEVER NOTHING IS STILL BUILT OUT TO A 6.

THE STAFF REPORT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION NEIGHBORING

STREETS, FUTURE LAND USE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND CERTAIN

PROTECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLINED JUST A COUPLE OF

MINUTES AGO; HOWEVER, WHAT IS ON PAPER SOMETIMES IS NOT AN

ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE.

ONE EXAMPLE IS ON ROBSON STREET, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THIS

PROPERTY AND WAS JUST LISTED AS BEING A DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT;

HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT EVEN MEET THE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA

BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE EVEN FOR DUPLEXES.

THIS CAN BE FOUND IN YOUR BINDER IN SECTION 3 BEHIND THE

STAFF REPORT, AND IT IS IN A COLOR-CODED GRAPH.

MANY OF THESE LOTS ARE JUST AROUND 5,000 SQUARE FEET, SO

THEY DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR EVEN BUILDING DUPLEXES.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO COMBINE THE LOTS IN ORDER FOR IT TO MEET

A DEVELOPMENTAL CRITERIA.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE

STAFF REPORT TAKES INTO -- TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION PARSONS

AVENUE.

PARSONS IS A BUSIER STREET WITH MORE THOROUGHFARE AND IS A

HIGHER DENSITY THAN TAYLOR ROAD.

EVEN THESE DEVELOPMENTS ON PARSONS, WHICH ARE ZONED FOR

NINE UNITS, ARE ONLY BUILT OUT TO AN AVERAGE OF SIX, NOT

WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE BUILT OUT TO, THE HIGHEST

WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN BUILT OUT TO APPROXIMATELY SEVEN.

WE FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE ARE ALREADY

BUILT OUT BUT DO NOT REFLECT THE ZONING CATEGORIES ON THE

STAFFING REPORT AND ON THE ZONING STAFFING MAP.

80

ONCE AGAIN, THESE CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 3 OF THE BINDER

BEHIND THE STAFFING REPORT.

IF THIS WERE APPROVED, IT WOULD SET THE PRECEDENT FOR

GETTING A FOOTHOLD IN FOR HIGHER INTENSITY INTO THIS AREA.

IT WOULD LEAD TO INCREASED TRAFFIC, AND OUR ROAD CANNOT

SUPPORT IT.

WE HAVE TWO HISTORIC CEMETERIES ON THIS ROAD, AND WE ARE

ALREADY LIMITED TO FUTURE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.

IN SECTION 1, BEHIND THE PICTURE REPRESENTATION, I HAVE

INCLUDED AN EXCERPT FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE

HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE BELIEVE IT IS A

VALID QUESTION REGARDING THE APPLICANT AND WHO'S CONSIDERED

THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THE APPLICATION CITES THAT CARLINA MERCER IS THE PROPERTY

OWNER; HOWEVER, PRIOR COUNTY DOCUMENTS SITE JOE HERNDON AS

THE MERCER TRUSTEE AND OWNER, WHILE OTHER DOCUMENTS LIST

LEROY GONZALEZ AND ANOTHER MORTGAGE ON THE PROPERTY.

DEPENDING ON WHEN YOU LOOK AT COUNTY RECORDS, A DIFFERENT

PERSON IS LISTED.

WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY AND ITS

OWNERS HAVE DONE NOTHING BY WAY OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE

COMMUNITY.

IF ANYTHING, IT HAS BEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD NUISANCE THROUGH

NUMEROUS CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS AND PROPERTY ISSUES

THROUGH AT LEAST THE LAST TEN YEARS.

THERE HAVE BEEN CITATIONS FOR DUMPING, OVERGROWN TRASH,

DEBRIS, INOPERABLE VEHICLES, JUST TO NAME A FEW.

81

IN ADDITION TO DRAINAGE ISSUES, THIS PROPERTY CAUSES THE

REST OF THE HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE ADJACENT TO IT DUE TO A

DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT IS LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE

PROPERTY, WHICH -- IN THE PICTURE REPRESENTATION, YOU CAN

SEE PICTURES OF FLOODING ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY ON

PAGE 9.

THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON AT LEAST FIVE HOMEOWNERS'

PROPERTY AFTER IT RAINS.

THERE'S ALSO A HISTORY OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES IN SECTION 4

THAT GO BACK TO THE EARLY 2000s THAT WE HAVE BEEN DEALING

WITH.

THIS DISPLACES STORMWATER ONTO AT LEAST FOUR OTHER

HOMEOWNERS FROM THE NORTHGROVE SHOPPING CENTER.

FURTHER DOCUMENTATION HAS ALSO BEEN CITED AND CAN BE FOUND

IN THE STAFF REPORT UNDER AGENCY COMMENTS BY STORMWATER

DIVISION.

IT SPECIFICALLY POINTS OUT THAT THE RETENTION AREA MUST

CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF WATER DISPLACED FROM THE SHOPPING

CENTER ONTO NEIGHBORS NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY.

THIS MEANS THAT THERE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL -- SUBSTANTIAL

DEVELOPMENTAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY THAT WILL BE LOST DUE TO

STORMWATER RETENTION.

BECAUSE OF THESE ISSUES ALONE, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS HAVE

NO EXPECTATION THAT ONCE A REZONING HAS BEEN APPROVED THAT

ANYTHING WILL CHANGE OR THAT CONDITIONS WILL APPROVE --

IMPROVE.

THE PROPERTY AND BUILDINGS COULD LOOK THE SAME AS WHAT THEY

DO NOW, WHICH YOU CAN ALSO FIND IN SECTION 1 ON

82

OF THE PICTURES ON THE FLIP SIDE THAT ARE LABELED AS

APPLICANT PROPERTY ISSUES.

THE APPLICANT WOULD ALSO PRESENT THAT THEY HAVE WORKED WITH

THE COMMUNITY ON THIS REZONING.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE EITHER.

THE REASON SO MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT IS

DUE TO THEIR INDECISIVENESS ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH THIS.

FIRST IT WAS COMMERCIAL GENERAL, THEN IT WAS COMMERCIAL

RESTRICTED, NOW IT'S MULTIFAMILY, THEN IT'S MULTIFAMILY

WITH RESTRICTIONS.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING ON HOW THEY

WANTED TO PROCEED.

THEY ONLY WANT TO MAKE IT MORE APPEALING TO POTENTIAL

BUYERS AND DEVELOPERS WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR OUR

SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY.

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION IS TO REZONE THIS

PROPERTY TO RMC-9 TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE THE

BUILDING STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING TYPE, BULK, AND HEIGHT,

WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR APARTMENTS, QUADRUPLEXES, AND INCREASE

THE NUMBER OF TOTAL UNITS CONNECTED.

TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE, PAGE 13 IN SECTION 1, WHERE YOU CAN

SEE THE VAST DIFFERENCE IN THE BUILDING TYPE THAT WOULD --

THIS WOULD CREATE ON OUR STREET AND ON THE ADJOINING

NEIGHBORS AND THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT IS NOT THAT WE ARE ANTIGROWTH, WE JUST DO NOT HAVE THE

MEANS TO SUPPORT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND TO SUPPORT WHAT IS

CURRENTLY ON OUR STREET NOW, AND A VIABLE SOLUTION TO US IS

NOT BUILD IT NOW AND WE WILL ADDRESS IT LATER.

83

IT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION NOW BEFORE IT

CONTINUES TO PASS AND WE KEEP GETTING THE IT'S NOT MY

DEPARTMENT, IT'S THEIRS.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE LIVE HERE, AND THE TRAFFIC, NOISE,

SPEEDING, AND LACK OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, NO SIDEWALK, NO

CURBS, OVERHEAD POWER, AND NO STREETLIGHTS, AND DRAINAGE

THAT WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH FOR THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES

WILL ONLY CONTINUE TO GET WORSE IF THIS IS BROUGHT IN.

BY APPROVING THIS APPLICATION FOR REZONING, IT SENDS A

MESSAGE TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL OF THE 50-PLUS

SIGNATURES THAT WE HAVE IN THAT BINDER THAT OPPOSE THIS

THAT THIS ONE PROPERTY OWNER OR THIS ONE DEVELOPER MATTER

MORE THAN EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN

THIS COMMUNITY.

AND TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, WHERE DOES THIS ONE

PERSON OR THIS ONE DEVELOPER'S RIGHTS BEGIN AND ALL OF OURS

END?

FUTURE LAND USE IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN

NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THE PRIOR DENIALS.

IT IS STILL INCONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD AND

LAND USE, AND IT DOES NOT PROVIDE A GOOD ENOUGH TRANSITION

INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAVE SUBMITTED PHOTOS, A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE LOTS,

AND EXISTING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT, IN ADDITION TO PRIOR

CASES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL, REMANDED, AND THEN

DENIED AGAIN.

THIS IS AND CAN BE CONSIDERED BY LAW SUBSTANTIAL AND

COMPETENT EVIDENCE, AND WE BELIEVE THERE'S ENOUGH TO

84

WARRANT A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

MA'AM, THERE'S A NUMBER OF COURT CASES THAT YOU'VE

SUBMITTED IN YOUR BINDER.

>> MM-HMM.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU COULD, JUST BRIEFLY POINT OUT, IF YOU

KNOW, WHAT THE SUBSTANCE IS OF THESE COURT CASES.

THERE'S ONE HERE, SHEILA A. ALFONSO VS. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA

WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND SOUTHEAST PARTNERS.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT?

>> THAT IS FOR THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT IS ON THAT --

>>BRIAN GRADY: MA'AM, YOU NEED TO BE ON THE --

>> SORRY.

THAT IS FOR THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT IS ON THAT PROPERTY

--

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> -- BECAUSE WHAT THE HOMEOWNER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER DID

WAS THEY ACTUALLY HAULED IN FILL DIRT AT THE BACK END OF

THAT PROPERTY IN ORDER FOR THE WATER FROM THE NORTHGROVE

SHOPPING CENTER TO OVERFLOW INTO OUR PROPERTY, SO THAT'S --

THAT'S WHAT THAT IS REGARDING.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

SO THE SHOPPING CENTER BROUGHT IN THE DIRT?

>> NO, THE HOMEOWNER BROUGHT IN THAT DIRT BECAUSE --

>>STEVE LUCE: BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BLOCK THE DRAINAGE?

>> WANTED TO DIVERT THE SHOPPING CENTER'S OVERFLOW --

85


>> -- ONTO OUR PROPERTY.

>>STEVE LUCE: ONTO YOUR PROPERTY?

>> CORRECT.

ONTO THOSE FOUR OR FIVE PARCELS NORTH OF IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> AND SO, THEN, WHAT THEY WORKED OUT IS THAT THE

NORTHGROVE SHOPPING CENTER PAID THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO PUT

IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT THE BACK END OF HIS PROPERTY,

WHICH STILL DIVERTS THAT WATER ONTO ALL OF OUR PROPERTY, SO

THEY GOT PAID TO PUT IN AN EASEMENT THAT STILL DIVERTS

WATER ONTO OUR PROPERTY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE BY THE PHOTOS

THAT WE STILL FLOOD.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I JUST BRIEFLY LOOKED AT YOUR BINDER, BUT WAS THAT THE ONLY

LAWSUIT OR LEGAL CASE THAT'S IN THIS BINDER?

>> AND THERE'S ALSO LETTERS THAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN TO THE

BOARD --

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT, BUT --

>> -- IN ADDITION TO THAT AS WELL.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, SORT OF LEGAL

PROCEEDINGS, THAT'S THE ONLY CASE THAT YOU'VE ATTACHED IN

THE BINDER?

>> CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

86

>> MM-HMM.

>> TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, AND I'M GOING

TO MODIFY WHAT I'M SAYING SO I DON'T REPEAT, SO IF YOU'LL

JUST BEAR WITH ME REAL QUICKLY.

I THINK EVERYTHING RELATING TO THE INTENSITY AND DENSITY OF

THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE OPPOSED TO IT.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SECTION 5, NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNS,

GOAL 12 CLEARLY STATES, DESIGNS NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH ARE

RELATED TO THE PROMINENT CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDINGS.

SINCE THERE IS NO PLAN, WE RELY TOTALLY ON WHATEVER THE

DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA IS AT THE TIME THEY DEVELOP, SO IT'S

REALLY AN UNKNOWN ENTITY AT THIS POINT OTHER THAN WE KNOW

THAT THE BULK OF THIS PROJECT, MEANING THE BULK -- BUILDING

BULK, CAN BE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER

RDC-6.

I MEAN, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT'S MISREPRESENTATIVE, THE

ZONING OF THE AREAS IS MISREPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT IS THERE.

THAT AREA HAS NOT BEEN BUILT OUT TO WHAT THE ZONING MAP

IDENTIFIES.

I THINK THAT WAS SAID.

PUTTING IN A FEW SIX-FOOT TREES WITH A TWO-INCH CALIPER

ALONG THE SOUTHERN -- EXCUSE ME -- NORTHERN BOUNDARY ISN'T

GOING TO PROTECT THOSE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE ABUTTING IT,

PARTICULARLY IF THEY WIND UP BEING TWO-STORY APARTMENTS,

TWO-STORY TOWNHOMES.

IT'S JUST -- YOU KNOW, AN EXTRA FIVE FOOT ISN'T GOING TO

MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU CAN

HAVE EIGHT OR MORE OF THESE TOWNHOMES OR APARTMENTS IN A

87

ROW.

IT'S THE BULK ISSUE THAT IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM, AND IT'S

NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE COMMUNITY.

SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE SUPPORTS INFILL, BUT IT ALSO

NEEDS TO BE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.

THAT WAS CLEAR IN OUR PLAN.

MAKING SOME TREES -- PUTTING TREES IN, THINGS LIKE THAT ARE

IMPORTANT.

WE HAD HOPED THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE GREATER TREES TO

PROTECT THE COMMUNITY SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO SUPPORT THIS.

AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -- AND HERE'S SOME KEY ISSUES

THAT I REALLY WANT TO SAY.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ONLY ESTABLISHED A LONG-RANGE

MAXIMUM LIMIT ON THE POSSIBLE INTENSITY OF THE LAND USE AND

DOES NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY ESTABLISH AN IMMEDIATE MINIMUM

LIMIT; THUS, THE PRESENT USE OF LAND MAY BY ZONING

ORDINANCE CONTINUE TO BE MORE LIMITED -- MORE LIMITED THAN

THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY -- THE FUTURE LAND USE MAY

ALLOW.

BY LAW -- AND CASE -- THERE HAS BEEN CASE LAW ON THIS THAT

IT CAN BE LESS.

IT CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

CHARACTER IS A VITAL AND IMPORTANT PIECE TO THIS -- THIS

CASE.

IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE APPLICANT TO RELY SOLELY ON THE

FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS AN ARGUMENT.

THE MERE FACT THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT IN ITSELF

88

GIVE THE LANDOWNER A RIGHT.

IT'S NOT A RIGHT, IT'S JUST THE LANDOWNER DESIRES IT.

FURTHERMORE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE LANDOWNER TO

SUBSTANTIATE WHY THE STATUS QUO, WHICH IS RDC-6, IS NOT

SUFFICIENT.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD THAT TONIGHT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

TO THIS POINT, WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANY SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT

EVIDENCE TO THAT FACT.

IT'S FOR ALL THESE REASONS AND MORE, EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE

HEARD, EVERYTHING THAT YOU'LL REVIEW IN THAT MANUAL, WHY

WE -- WE ARE OPPOSING THIS PROJECT.



THANK YOU, MA'AM.

DOES ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN

OPPOSITION?

>> YES.

>>BRIAN GRADY: MS. FLOTT.

>> I DID IT AGAIN.

I NEED A BELL OR SOMETHING, COW BELL.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS ELIZABETH BELCHER, POST OFFICE BOX 739, SEFFNER,

FLORIDA.

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION HERE.

IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR SOMEBODY WHO -- WHO IS A

REPRESENTATIVE OR -- A REPRESENTATIVE OR THE -- THE -- AN

ENTITY THAT IS NONEXISTENT TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS AND HAVE

STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS OFFICIAL RECORD AND BE CONSIDERED

89

BECAUSE BASED ON THE -- I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT VERY GOOD.

BASED ON THE STATE OF CORPORATION, FLORIDA STATE

CORPORATIONS, THE -- TODD PRESSMAN -- PRESSMAN & ASSOCIATES

HAS BEEN DISSOLVED IN 2010.

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. WHITEHEAD, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE

QUESTION?

I THINK -- I'M NOT QUITE SURE MYSELF, SO THAT'S WHY I'M

ASKING YOU IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

>> WHAT I'M --

>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: YEAH.

I THINK SHE'S SAYING MR. PRESSMAN'S CORPORATION WAS

DISSOLVED.

>> YES, IT WAS.

>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: BUT HE'S A REPRESENTATIVE INDIVIDUALLY.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> OKAY.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

IT SAYS THAT HIS CORPORATION WAS DISSOLVED IN 2010.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> OKAY.

WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN --

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. WHITEHEAD, CAN HE --

>> -- WHY IS THE STATE --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

LET ME JUST ASK A QUESTION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

MR. WHITEHEAD, CAN MR. PRESSMAN REPRESENT THIS APPLICANT

HERE TONIGHT?

IS HE IN ORDER REPRESENTING THIS APPLICATION?

90

>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: MR. PRESSMAN, ARE YOU REPRESENTING HER

INDIVIDUALLY?

>> I -- AS ON THE RECORD, I'M REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY.

I BELIEVE I'D HAVE TO REVIEW THE EXACT PAPER.

TYPICALLY I DO LIST IT AS PRESIDENT OF PRESSMAN &

ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, OF WHICH I PAID CORPORATE TAXES

THIS YEAR.

I ASSURE YOU THAT I'M -- I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS WOMAN SEES

THAT MY CORPORATION IS DISSOLVED BECAUSE IT IS NOT.

>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE,

MR. HEARING MASTER.


THANK YOU.

YOU MAY PROCEED.

>> [INAUDIBLE] STATES THAT IT IS.


ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO, THAT'S IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.


OPPOSITION?

>> HI.

MY NAME IS JOY INGRAM.

I'M AT 12349 JESS WALDEN ROAD, DOVER, FLORIDA.

I DON'T LIVE ON THE STREET.

I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE CHARACTER-OF-THE-NEIGHBORHOOD

ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

ONE FURTHER POINT THAT HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED THAT I WANTED

91

TO JUST BRING UP IS THAT I BELIEVE IN SOME WAYS THE

ALLOWANCE OF PUTTING AS MANY PEOPLE IN THAT SPACE AS

POSSIBLE IS -- IS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO THE GOAL OF THE

COUNTY OF LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION THAT IS SO HOT RIGHT

NOW.

EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AT HOW CAN WE -- HOW CAN WE GET LIGHT

RAIL, HOW CAN WE INCREASE OUR BUS SERVICE, AND THE WAY TO

DO THAT IS NOT TO CONCENTRATE THE POPULATION IN THE OUTER

EDGES BUT TO LOOK AT REDEVELOPING THE INNER CITY, AND IF WE

WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, WE WOULD BE MUCH MORE SUCCESSFUL IN

GETTING SOME OF THESE OTHER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES SOLVED.

THE MORE WE PUT PEOPLE OUT, THE MORE PEOPLE WE HAVE TO

MOVE, AND I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP BECAUSE THAT'S

OFTEN FORGOTTEN.

YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE THINK THAT WE'RE

OPPOSING -- WE'RE OPPOSING GROWTH, AND WE'RE NOT, WE'RE

JUST LOOKING TO CONCENTRATE PEOPLE IN THE AREAS WHERE WE

CAN DEAL WITH THEM BEST, PROVIDE THE BEST SERVICES, AND WE

DON'T BELIEVE THAT PUTTING MORE PEOPLE -- POSSIBLY PUTTING

APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO

FURTHER THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY

BE SOMEWHAT RECOMMENDED OR AT LEAST PART OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THANK YOU.


THANK YOU, MA'AM.


OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

92



LET ME JUST ASK ABOUT STORMWATER.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

THAT ARE PRESENT HERE WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

I MEAN THE NORMAL WAY WE WOULD DEAL WITH SUCH STORMWATER

ISSUES IS THAT THEY WILL BE LOOKED AT DURING SITE

DEVELOPMENT, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE IF THE STORMWATER

REPRESENTATIVE HAS ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR TO SAY ABOUT THIS

APPLICATION THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHER

APPLICATIONS?

>>RICK CABRERA: GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

RICK CABRERA, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

NOTHING UNUSUAL IN THIS CASE.

ONCE WE DO HAVE THE PLANS PRESENTED TO US, WE'LL BE ABLE TO

EVALUATE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR STANDARDS.

THE AREA IN QUESTION IS DEEMED VOLUME SENSITIVE BY THE

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, MEANING THERE WILL BE MORE

STRINGENT DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON THIS PROPERTY.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE

COMMERCIAL USES TO THE SOUTH AND PERHAPS THEY DIDN'T

ADDRESS, WHENEVER THEY WERE DEVELOPED, ALL THEIR STORMWATER

ISSUES AND PERHAPS THAT STORMWATER HEADS NORTH, DO YOU

ADDRESS THAT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR

SITE?

>>RICK CABRERA: WE WOULD.

THERE WOULD BE -- THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT

WHAT'S ENTERING THE PROPERTY AND WHAT'S LEAVING IT AND ALSO

93

BECAUSE OF THE MORE STRINGENT CRITERIA IMPOSED IN THIS

AREA, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

BUT IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IS THERE A EXTRAORDINARY

STORMWATER ISSUE THAT'S PRESENT AT THIS LOCATION THAT WOULD

PRECLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY?

>>RICK CABRERA: NO, SIR.

WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE DESIGN WOULD BE FIRST IN

ORDER TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL EVALUATION OF IT.


FAIR ENOUGH.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

AND STAFF, ANYTHING ELSE?

NO.

ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR

REBUTTAL.

>> YES, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

TODD PRESSMAN, 334 EAST LAKE ROAD, NUMBER 102, IN PALM

HARBOR, FLORIDA.

I RESPECT THE LADIES WHO SPOKE HERE THIS EVENING AND

PARTICULARLY MS. BOOTH, WHO PRESENTED A LOT OF MATERIAL TO

YOU, BUT TO BE COMPLETELY FRANK, MY OPINION OF THE

INFORMATION THEY GAVE TO YOU IS NOT ONLY PARTIALLY

MISLEADING, SOME OF IT'S FALSE, SO LET ME REVIEW THAT WITH

YOU.

I MADE -- WHEN WE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT THIS APPLICATION IN,

94

IT WAS FOR COMMERCIAL.

THAT WAS A PLAN PROPERLY FILED WITH THE STAFF.

IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHAT IT WAS PROPOSED TO BE.

WHEN WE STARTED TO GET RESISTANCE WITH THE STAFF, WE LOOKED

AT THOSE ISSUES, DECIDED TO CHANGE THEM.

I PERSONALLY MADE A ROUND OF CALLS TO NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING

TO A NUMBER OF THE BOOTHS.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS KRYSTLE BOOTH OR NOT, BUT THERE WERE

A NUMBER OF BOOTHS WHICH I CALLED.

I ONLY GOT ONE OR TWO CALLS BACK.

I DIDN'T GET ANY ABILITY FOR COMMUNICATION WITH THE

NEIGHBORS, EVEN THOUGH I REACHED OUT TO DO SO, SO TO SAY

THAT THE APPLICANT WAS CONFUSED OR THE NEIGHBORS WERE

CONFUSED OR AN ATTEMPT WAS NOT MADE IS FALSE.

ADDITIONALLY, AT THE HEARING, WHEN WE CAME TO CONTINUE THE

CASE, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS HERE, WHICH I

INTRODUCED MYSELF.

I DON'T KNOW IF MS. BOOTH WAS HERE OR NOT.

I PERSONALLY INTRODUCED MYSELF TO A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS.

I WAS TOLD, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK WITH YOU, TALK TO

TERRY.

TERRY AND I ACTUALLY GET ALONG PRETTY WELL.

TERRY AND I HAVE COMMUNICATED AND E-MAILED.

IN FACT, WE E-MAILED JUST A FEW NIGHTS AGO.

SO TO SAY THAT THERE WAS MISDIRECTION -- EXCUSE ME, THAT

WORD WAS NOT USED -- TO SAY THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION AND

CONTINUANCES OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED HERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT

CORRECT.

95

NEXT POINT THAT WAS RAISED WAS THIS WOULD BE A BAD TRAFFIC

SITUATION, IT WOULD BE A BURDEN ON THE ROADS.

THAT, TO ME, APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT AS WELL.

YOUR OWN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TOLD YOU THE DIFFERENCE

WOULD BE 17 TRIPS TO WHAT COULD BE ALLOWED TODAY, SO TO

MAKE ANY KIND OF CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL IMPACT OR BURDEN TO

THE ROADS I BELIEVE IS AN UNINTENTIONAL MISDIRECTION.

YOU WERE TOLD THAT THERE WERE THREE OR FOUR ZONING CASES OF

SIMILAR NATURE AT A PARTICULAR TAB.

I WENT THROUGH THE BOOK.

I ONLY FOUND ONE PARTICULAR CASE THAT FROM MY PULLING UP MY

GPS IS NOWHERE NEAR THIS SITE, IT IS WAY UP BY 92.

IN FACT, IT'S NOTED AS 1100 FEET SOUTH OF 92.

IN MY OPINION, THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NOT GERMANE TO THIS

CASE WHATSOEVER.

IF THERE ARE OTHER CASES IN THE BOOK, I COULDN'T FIND THEM.

>>STEVE LUCE: I BRIEF CURSORY LOOKED AT IT.

I WILL OBVIOUSLY LOOK THROUGH EVERY PAGE, BUT I SAW TWO

CASES, BUT I DIDN'T GET INTO THE DEPTH OF THEM TO SEE --

>> YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- WHERE THEY WERE LOCATED AT --

>> YES, IT'S DIFFICULT TO.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- BUT I WILL.

>> THERE WERE A LOT OF PAGES THERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.

>> I COULD NOT DISTINGUISH A SECOND LOCATION.

IT LOOKED LIKE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A SECOND RECOMMENDATION.

I COULD NOT DETERMINE A LOCATION IN THE RECORD AS I WAS

96

FLIPPING THROUGH VERY QUICKLY.

WHEN MS. BOOTH TALKS ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD NUISANCE OR

FLOODING, YOU'VE HEARD FROM YOUR STAFF ALREADY, AS YOU WELL

KNOW, IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH

SITE PLANNING.

IF THERE'S PROBLEMS NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FIXED AND

ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE.

WE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT RESPONSE -- WELL, I REPRESENT THE

PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THE GENTLEMAN COMING TO DEVELOP THE

PROPERTY, OF COURSE, IS GOING TO HAVE TO BRING THIS UP TO

SPEED.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CORRECT PROBLEMS.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THIS MEET COUNTY STANDARDS.

SO IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS OUT THERE, IF THERE'S A NUISANCE IN

TERMS OF STORMWATER, THE SITUATION WILL BE GREATLY RELIEVED

ONCE THIS IS -- OR IF THIS IS APPROVED AND MOVES FORWARD.

MS. BOOTH INDICATED THAT THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT WAS TO

INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS -- TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF

UNITS AND THE ABILITY TO PUT AS MANY UNITS THERE AS

POSSIBLE.

THE LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEVEL HERE IS RES-9.

THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY'S DIRECTION IS.

WE'RE NOT REACHING THAT.

AS YOU KNOW, WE RESTRICT IT BELOW THAT, SO TO SAY THAT

WE'RE CRAMMING SOME -- NOT WORDS USED THERE, BUT AN INTENT

THERE IS TO INCREASE THE UNITS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IS

SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.

AND I HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT A BUFFER.

97

WELL, AGAIN, I WILL JUST -- I WON'T BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT

THESE UNITS COULD GO IN AT VIRTUALLY THE SAME NUMBER

WITHOUT AS MUCH A BUFFER AS PROPOSED HERE TODAY.

YOUR -- WE WORKED CLOSELY -- WE DID WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH

YOUR STAFF.

MICHELLE AND I WENT BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH, AND

THEY WERE HITTING US HARD, BUT WE WANTED TO WORK WITH THEM,

AND WE REACHED AN AGREEMENT.

NOW, I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT I QUICKLY WENT THROUGH THE

BOOK, AND THERE WAS TALK ABOUT 50 SIGNATURES.

I SAW QUITE A NUMBER OF SIGNATURES ON MELROSE, WHICH IS WAY

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 579.

I MEAN, THAT'S QUITE FAR AWAY.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED IN TERMS OF STATUS QUO HERE, THAT

DOES NOT HAVE AN EFFECT OR GERMANE TO THIS CASE.

I SAW A NUMBER OF SIGNATURES ON AUBURN.

THAT IS ALSO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 579.

IN FACT, MELROSE IS CONSIDERABLY SOUTH.

I WAS NOT ABLE TO PULL UP VINEWOOD.

VINEWOOD, I ASSUME, PROBABLY WOULD HAVE THE SAME ISSUE.

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHEREVER THE ADDRESSES

ARE, I HAVE THE ABILITY TO --

>> YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE LOCATION OF

THOSE ADDRESSES.

>> SO I WOULD JUST RAISE TO YOU THERE ARE -- CERTAINLY,

THERE ARE SIGNATURES OF FOLKS ON TAYLOR ROAD, AND I

UNDERSTAND THAT, WE ACCEPT THAT, BUT THERE APPEARS AS THAT

98

THERE'S QUITE A NUMBER OF SIGNATURES OF OTHER ROADWAYS MUCH

FARTHER AWAY THAT DO NOT HAVE AN EFFECT HERE.

I THINK YOUR STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB HERE.

I THINK IT'S VERY APPARENT THAT WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD

WITH THE RESIDENTS AND THE COUNTY TO STAY WITHIN THE

PARAMETERS AND TO PRODUCE A SITE THAT DOES ABUT A

COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, DOES ABUT A COMMERCIAL STORAGE

CENTER, AND DOES ABUT A I BELIEVE IT'S RDC- OR RMC-12 ON

THE OTHER SIDE, SO THOSE USES AS ABUTTING USES CLEARLY ARE

MUCH MORE INTENSIVE THAN THIS SITE AND WOULD BE A GOOD,

AGAIN, BUFFER OR TRANSITION ZONE.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.



VERY GOOD.

AND IF YOU COULD RETURN THE EXHIBITS.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.


MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE A

SHORT BREAK FOR THE -- FOR THE REPORTERS.


RIGHT NOW, WHAT TIME IS IT?

IT'S QUARTER AFTER 8:00.

WE WILL RECONVENE AT 8:30.

[RECESS TAKEN]

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

99

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL RECONVENE TONIGHT'S ZONING

HEARING MASTER HEARING.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE

THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-8.

IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 13-0764.

THE APPLICANTS ARE MARCO AND DEBRA RAFFAELE.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY

CONVENTIONAL-3 WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY TO A BUSINESS

PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT WITH RESTRICTIONS.

CHARLES ANDREWS WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER


>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.



FOR THE RECORD, MARCO RAFFAELE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> I, ALONG WITH MY WIFE, DEBRA RAFFAELE, OWN THE PROPERTY

LOCATED AT 11016 U.S. HIGHWAY 301 SOUTH, RIVERVIEW 33569.

WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY SOME TEN YEARS AGO, AND IT HAD

PLANS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE; HOWEVER, WITH THE RECENT

EXPANSION OF HIGHWAY 301, THAT'S CHANGED OUR PLANS AND MAKE

EVERYTHING DIFFICULT TO MARKET; THEREFORE, WE'RE REQUESTING

TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RSC-3 MOBILE HOME TO BPO.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.


THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

100

>>CHARLES ANDREWS: GOOD EVENING.

GOOD EVENING, CHARLES ANDREWS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE TO THE

BPO-R, WITH RESTRICTIONS, ZONING DISTRICT.

WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND

WE HAVE SEVERAL RESTRICTIONS HERE THAT KIND OF FALL IN LINE

WITH SEVERAL OTHER PDs THAT ARE ALONG U.S. 301, KIND OF

PLAYING TO THE CHARACTER OF THE EXPANSION OF 301 AND

IDENTIFYING SOME OF THOSE CONSTRAINTS ON THE SITE.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAD THEM.

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST BRIEFLY, FROM THE ZONING MAP, YOUR

STAFF REPORT REFERS TO A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT ACROSS THE

STREET.


THE PD-H, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET --

>> YES.

>>CHARLES ANDREWS: -- ACROSS 301, THERE'S A PORTION ON

THAT THAT WAS APPROVED -- I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE -- PER A

MAJOR MOD BACK IN 2009 FOR 14,000 SQUARE FEET OF BPO USES

FRONTING 301.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

SO IT'S JUST -- PD-H IS -- JUST SORT OF HIDES THE FACT THAT

THERE IS SOME OFFICE INCLUDED.


THERE'S MOBILE HOMES IN THE BACK, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE --


>>CHARLES ANDREWS: -- AND THEN ON THE FRONT THERE, THAT'S

WHERE THE BPO WOULD BE.

101


SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY SORT OF KITTY-CORNER TO THE NORTHWEST

FROM THE SITE?



VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>>CHARLES ANDREWS: YOU'RE WELCOME.

>>STEVE LUCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.


STAFF.



THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW USES COMPARABLE AND

COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND ALLOWABLE WITHIN

THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS WILL ENSURE THAT THE SCALE AND

INTENSITY OF THIS NONRESIDENTIAL USE IS COMPARABLE TO AND

SUITABLE ADJACENT TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PATTERN.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOT LOCATED AT AN IDENTIFIED

INTERSECTION MEETING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.

FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.6 ALLOWS EXCEPTIONS FOR

OFFICE USES, INCLUDING SITES UNSUITABLE OR UNDEVELOPABLE

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND AS NOTED IN THE STAFF

REPORT, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THIS SITE

MEETS THAT EXCEPTION.

THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN, RIVERVIEW DISTRICT CONCEPT

MAP IDENTIFIES THIS AREA AS 301 CORRIDOR, WHICH IS A MIXED-

102

USE AREA WITH HIGHER DENSITIES AND A VARIETY OF BUSINESSES,

AND WE FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING SUPPORTS THIS

CONCEPT.



PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.





APPLICATION?



AND APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>>STEVE LUCE: NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, WE'LL CONCLUDE THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,


>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-9, REZONING


THE APPLICANT'S HASHIM SULLAIMAN.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY

CONVENTIONAL-1 TO RMC-12, WHICH IS A MULTIFAMILY ZONING

DISTRICT.



103

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.


GOOD EVENING.

>> MY NAME IS ROY BOWEN.

I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.

MY ADDRESS IS 12818 HAWK HILL DRIVE IN THONOTOSASSA 33592.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

LET ME JUST -- MR. GRADY, JUST CONFIRM THAT HE REPRESENTS

THE APPLICANT.

SIR, WERE YOU THE ONE WHO FILED THE PAPERWORK?

>> YOU WANT TO SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT?

HE'S HERE.

>> [INAUDIBLE]


IF I COULD JUST GET HIM TO COME FORWARD.

PUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE RECORD AND STATE WHETHER

OR NOT THE GENTLEMAN STANDING TO YOU RIGHT IS REPRESENTING

YOU ON THIS APPLICATION.

>> FOR THE RECORD, I HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

[PARTICIPANT SWORN IN]

OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>> YES, HE REPRESENTS ME.

>>STEVE LUCE: I'M SORRY?

>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

104

>> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> HASHIM SULLAIMAN, 14927 LAKE FOREST DRIVE, LUTZ,

FLORIDA.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND -- AND WHO IS REPRESENTING YOU ON THIS

APPLICATION?

>> MR. ROY.


VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

YOU MAY PROCEED.

>> YES.

THIS IS JUST A STRAIGHT STANDARD REZONING, OKAY, AND --

>>STEVE LUCE: SIR, IF I CAN GET YOU TO MOVE A LITTLE

CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.

>> SORRY.

THIS IS A STRAIGHT STANDARD REZONING THAT HE'S SEEKING TO

THE RMC-12 FROM THE ASC-1.

THE AREA SURROUNDING IT IS ALREADY ZONED MULTIFAMILY TO THE

SOUTH AND ALSO TO THE WEST.

THERE'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST.

STAFF HAS DONE A VERY THOROUGH EVALUATION OF IT, AND

THEY'VE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.


VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.



105


I'D LIKE TO KIND OF ADD TO WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING.

IT'S A STRAIGHT -- IT'S A STANDARD REZONING, AND THE

PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED RMC-12.

ACROSS THE STREET IT'S ALSO ZONED RMC-16.

TO THE EAST THERE ARE -- THERE'S SOME DEVELOPMENT THERE

THAT'S BUILT TO, I BELIEVE, RSC-9 STANDARDS, SO YOU HAVE

DENSITIES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THIS REQUEST, AND I'D BE

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.


>>CHARLES ANDREWS: THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.


STAFF.



THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT COMPARABLE TO

THE ESTABLISHED MIX OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA

AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE MINIMUM DENSITY POLICY.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD

ALLOW DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING PATTERN IN THE

VICINITY.



PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.


106




APPLICATION?

>> GOOD EVENING.



MY NAME IS MARIELA HURST, AND I RESIDE AT 15821 LIVINGSTON

AVENUE IN LUTZ.

I AM SUBMITTING THIS LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO REZONING

REQUEST RZ 13-0879 TO REZONE A 5.4 PARCEL OF LAND FROM ASC-

1 TO RMC-12.

WE OWN AND RESIDE IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON TWO ACRES OF

LAND IMMEDIATELY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY OF

THIS PARCEL.

OUR PROPERTY ABUTS THE 5.4-ACRE FOR A DISTANCE OF 440 FEET,

WHICH INCLUDES THE LAND EXTENDING INTO THE POND THAT

STRADDLES THE THREE PROPERTIES, THE SUBJECT PARCEL, OUR

PARCEL, AND ONE OWNED BY MY MOTHER, MRS. VIRGINIA DEZAYAS.

WE'VE RESIDED IN OUR HOME SINCE 1985 AND HAVE OWNED THE

LAND SINCE 1982.

MRS. DEZAYAS HAS OWNED AND RESIDED ON HER LAND SINCE 1969.

HER PROPERTY ABUTS THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT

PROPERTY FOR A DISTANCE OF 600 FEET, AND TWO ADDITIONAL

PARCELS ABUT THE REMAINING 285 FEET OF THE NORTHERN

BOUNDARY AND ARE OWNED BY DEBORAH AND MARC TURMEL.

THEY ALSO HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS AT THIS LOCATION FOR IN

EXCESS OF 40 YEARS.

107

TOGETHER WE COMPRISE A GROUP OF RESIDENT LANDOWNERS WITH

SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE INEVITABLE ADVERSE IMPACT THIS

REZONING WOULD BRING TO OUR LAND USE, LIFESTYLE, AND HAVE

CHOSEN -- AND HAVE CHOSEN TO THE FRAGILE -- AND THE FRAGILE

ENVIRONMENT AROUND US.

WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT OUR OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING

REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, THERE'S FIVE POINTS THAT

WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES

THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER RMC-12 ARE NOT COMPATIBLE IN

HEIGHT, SCALE, AND BULK WITH OUR DETACHED ONE-STORY FAMILY

HOMES.

POLICY 1.4 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, ACHIEVING A

DENSITY OF 12 UNITS PER ACRE WOULD REQUIRE LARGE BUILDINGS

THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT DUE TO THE SITE'S DIMENSIONS AND

THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES.

12 UNITS PER ACRE ON A 5.4 ACRES WOULD YIELD APPROXIMATELY

65 DWELLINGS, 130 VEHICLES, AND MORE THAN 200 RESIDENTS OR

MORE.

THESE NUMBERS DO NOT SUPPORT THE REQUIREMENTS OF POLICY 1.4

AS IT RELATES TO THE ADJACENT USES EXISTING IN HARMONY NOR

DOES IT PROMOTE MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT AS IT RELATES TO OUR USE AND TO THE PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT JUST TO THE NORTH AND DIRECTLY EAST OF THE

SITE.

THE AFOREMENTIONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPOSED OF

EXCLUSIVELY DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH OVERALL

DENSITY OF 2.75 UNITS PER ACRE.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAS

108

APPROVED ON A 40-ACRE PARCEL THAT WAS DESIGNATED RES-12 AND

RES-4 ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND I'VE INCLUDED A COPY

OF THAT PLAN.

ORIGINALLY, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAS PROPOSED WITH A

MIXED-USE OF 114 HOMES AND 94 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN

REZONING HEARING RZ 02-0063.

THE HEARING MASTER RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE REQUEST,

FINDING THAT THE OVERALL DENSITY AND HOUSING TYPES ARE NOT

CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

HE ALSO FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY -- THE PROJECT DENSITY AS

ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY

DEALING WITH TRANSITIONING DENSITIES AND DID NOT ADDRESS

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

THE RESULT OF THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS A REMAND HEARING,

WHICH EVENTUALLY PRODUCED A PD WITH 111 SINGLE-FAMILY

DETACHED HOMES.

THAT SAME REASONING SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THIS PROPOSED

REZONING, AS THE REQUEST DOES NOT PASS THE TEST OF

COMPATIBILITY AND TRANSITIONING CRITERIA.

ON POINT NUMBER TWO, A DENSITY OF 12 UNITS PER ACRE ON THIS

PARCEL WOULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE POND ENVIRONMENT

AND WETLAND ON THE SITE, AND THAT WETLAND IS A RUNOFF FROM

OUR POND THAT RUNS OFF INTO THAT WETLAND AS WELL.

AS STATED ABOVE, THE POND EXTENDS INTO OUR PARCELS, AND,

THEREFORE, THAT HIGHER DENSITY WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR

USE AS WELL.

POLICY 1.3 STATES THAT NEW REZONING APPROVALS FOR

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF LESS THAN 75% OF THE ALLOWABLE

109

DENSITY WILL BE PERMITTED IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR INCOMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT

LAND USES.

BASED UPON THIS POLICY, WE STRONGLY FEEL THAT ANY

DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE SHOULD SEEK MUCH LESS DENSITY, ONE

THAT ADDRESSES OUR CONCERNS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND

COMPATIBILITY.

AND POINT NUMBER THREE, GRADUAL TRANSITIONING OF

INTENSITIES BETWEEN OUR LAND USE AND THE PROPOSED RMC-12,

POLICY 16.2 CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED DUE TO THE LONG, NARROW,

AND IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.

THERE'S A BOUNDARY MAP INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE THAT I GAVE

YOU.

THE PARCEL IS ONLY 107 FEET WIDE FOR ABOUT 285 FEET AT ITS

WESTERN END AND 198 FEET WIDE FOR THE REMAINING 1,020 FEET

TO THE EAST.

THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PARCEL CONTAINS THE POND AND

WETLANDS.

THIS ALSO RELATES TO POLICY 14.5, REQUIRING THAT 25% OF THE

NEW DEVELOPMENT BE SET ASIDE AS OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION.

COMPLIANCE TO POLICY 14.5 WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE LARGE MULTI-

STORY STRUCTURES CLUSTERED INTO A DENSE CONFIGURATION.

IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT ANY SITE DESIGN SENSITIVE TO THESE

ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES COULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE BUFFERING,

SCREENING, FROM TWO- OR THREE-STORY STRUCTURES AND FROM THE

PARKING FACILITIES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

ON POINT NUMBER FOUR, WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT HOW

POLICY 14.5 MIGHT BE APPLIED TO THE SITE, POTENTIALLY

110

AFFECTING THE POND AND WETLAND.

THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THESE FEATURES WILL BE PRESERVED

IN THEIR PRESENT STATE.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED

FOR MODIFYING THE WETLAND OR FILLING IN A PORTION OF THE

POND TO CREATE BUILDABLE SPACE, ADVERSELY AFFECTING US.

ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC GENERATED BY HIGHER DENSITIES WOULD

WORSEN THE ALREADY PROBLEMATIC CONDITIONS ON LIVINGSTON

AVENUE.

LIVINGSTON IS A LONE COLLECTOR OF TRAFFIC FOR MUCH OF THE

DEVELOPING AREA AND CONTINUES TO BACK UP SEVERELY DURING

PEAK HOURS.

INGRESS AND EGRESS TO OUR PROPERTY IS ALREADY VERY

DIFFICULT AND DANGEROUS DUE TO THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ON

LIVINGSTON.

THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED FOR A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT.

IT IS OUR SINCERE BELIEF THAT THE UNIQUE QUALITIES OF THIS

PARCEL MANDATE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AT THE VERY

LEAST.

WITHOUT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY A

GENERAL SITE PLAN, WE HAVE NO CLUE AS TO HOW THIS REZONING

WILL ULTIMATELY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY.

WE SINCERELY REQUEST THAT THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICE AND

COMMISSION LOOK CLOSELY AT THESE ISSUES WE HAVE RAISED AND

CONSIDER THAT WETLANDS, THE TREES, DRAINAGE IMPACTS, AND

THE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC AT THIS LOCATION MAKES INTENSE

MULTIFAMILY ILL-ADVISED AND NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE

NEIGHBORHOOD.

111

IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION -- IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR

APPROVAL, WE ASK THAT STRINGENT CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO

BUFFERING, SCREENING, AND PROTECTION FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL

FEATURES BE REQUIRED.

THOSE CONDITIONS SHOULD INCLUDE A MASONRY WALL ALONG THE

ENTIRE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE, PRESERVING TREES

ALONG THE BOUNDARY, LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES,

ENHANCED VEGETATIVE SCREENING, AND PRESERVING THE PONDS AND

WETLANDS IN THEIR PRESENT STATE.

THANK YOU.


>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN

OPPOSITION?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>>STEVE LUCE: CAREFUL.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

GOOD EVENING, SIR.

MY NAME IS ANNA LANPHEAR.

I LIVE AT 15801 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, AND THE PROPERTY IS

OWNED BY MY MOTHER, ANA DEZAYAS, AND MY HUSBAND, MAYNARD

LANPHEAR, ALSO LIVES THERE.

THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN OUR FAMILY SINCE 1969, AND AS YOU

WERE JUST TOLD, WE LIVE NEXT DOOR TO MY SISTER, SO IT'S

KIND OF A CLOSE ENVIRONMENT.

112

WE SHARE A PORTION OF THE POND, WHICH HAS PROVEN TO BE

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE, PARTICULARLY WITH SOME OF THE

DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OCCURRED TO THE NORTH OF US AT DEER

PARK PRESERVE.

IT IS -- IT HAS BEEN A PART OF THE MAJOR RUNOFF FOR LUTZ

FOR DECADES AND GOING RIGHT THROUGH THE POND AND OUT

THROUGH THE NORTHERN DRAINAGE, WHICH GOES OUT TO THE

CYPRESS CREEK SWAMP, WHICH DUMPS INTO CYPRESS CREEK, WHICH

DUMPS INTO HILLSBOROUGH RIVER.

OUR PROPERTY IS ALSO AND HAS BEEN THE HOME FOR HORSES FOR

OVER 40 YEARS.

WE HAVE LIVESTOCK ON THE PROPERTY, AND FOR DECADES, THE

PROPERTY THAT IS IN QUESTION, 15515, HAS ALSO HAD SOME SORT

OF LIVESTOCK ON IT, AND WE REALLY ARE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT

THAT THIS ZONING WILL CHANGE OUR LIFESTYLE SIGNIFICANTLY.

DESPITE PRIVACY SIGNS AND FENCES AND ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT

OUR LIFESTYLE, WE'RE ALREADY HAVING DIFFICULTIES WITH

PARTICULARLY APARTMENT DWELLERS IN THE AREA WHO SEEM TO

FEEL THAT OPEN PROPERTY LIKE OURS IS FREE FOR ANYONE TO

COME ON.

WE'VE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF THIEVERY ON OUR PROPERTY.

OUR ANIMALS HAVE BEEN PUT UNDER DURESS.

WE'VE HAD PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO INJURE THEM.

THEY WILL BREAK INTO OUR VEHICLES.

THEY GO THROUGH OUR BUILDINGS.

THEY TAKE WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY WENT JOYRIDING IN OUR GOLF CART.

IT'S BEEN A LOVELY SITUATION.

113

AND IN THE INSTANCES WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO TRACK DOWN THE

PEOPLE THAT WERE CAUSING THESE PROBLEMS, WE ALWAYS ENDED UP

BACK AT THE LOCAL APARTMENTS.

AND HAVING THEM WITHIN TEN FEET -- THE PROPERTY LINE IS

LITERALLY WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE SOUTHERN END OF OUR HOUSE,

AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, AT TEN FEET IS

THE PROPERTY, AND A TEN-FOOT BUFFER WILL GIVE US 20 FEET,

WHICH ISN'T VERY MUCH WHEN YOU'RE USED TO HAVING A LITTLE

BIT MORE THAN THAT.

SORRY, I'M NERVOUS.

>>STEVE LUCE: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

TAKE YOUR TIME.

>> I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO TO PROTECT OUR

PRIVACY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN LOST.

OUR ANIMALS HAVE BEEN IN JEOPARDY.

MY 85-YEAR-OLD MOTHER HAS BEEN IN JEOPARDY BECAUSE OF

PEOPLE INVADING OUR PRIVACY.

AND WE HAVE LITERALLY HAD PEOPLE GET ANGRY WITH US WHEN

WE'VE ASKED THEM TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE

WE'RE BEING SELFISH FOR OWNING LAND AND THEY DON'T HAVE

ANY.

THE DEER PARK PRESERVE, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY TO OUR NORTH,

THEY'VE SHOWN MORE RESPECT, AND WHEN WE'VE ASKED THEM TO

LEAVE, THEY'VE BEEN RESPECTFUL AND -- EXCEPT FOR SOME

TEENAGERS CLIMBING THE FENCE AND WANTING TO SWIM IN THE

POND OR GO FISHING.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT,

THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY.

114

WE'VE HAD RELATIVELY LITTLE PROBLEMS WITH THEM, BUT IT'S --

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A TRANSIENT NATURE OF THE APARTMENT

DWELLERS OR WHAT IT IS, BUT WE'VE HAD AN AWFUL LOT OF

TROUBLE WITH IT, AND IT'S JUST TWO DIFFERENT LIFESTYLES

THAT JUST ARE NOT MINGLING AT ALL WELL.

THE NARROWNESS OF THE PROPERTIES IS -- IS GOING TO MAKE IT

VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANY PRESERVATION OF OUR PRESENT

LIFESTYLE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY THERE IS VERY, VERY NARROW,

AND WITH TRYING TO PROTECT THE POND THAT'S IN THE BACK AND

THE WETLANDS IN THE BACK, THAT'LL MEAN THEY'LL HAVE TO HAVE

MUCH MORE OF A CONCENTRATION TOWARDS THE FRONT, WHICH IS

WHERE WE ARE, WHICH IS, AGAIN, GOING TO BE VERY

ENCROACHING.

AND I THINK THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH AS I CAN TALK ABOUT.

MY HEARTS GOING.


DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?

>>STEVE LUCE: NO.

THAT'S VERY CLEAR.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION VERY WELL.

>> I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU.


AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE

THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

SIR -- SIR, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>>STEVE LUCE: OH, OKAY.

115

VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

AND THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT UP TO THE COUNTY

STAFF, OKAY, AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES, AND THEY WILL

GOVERN WHAT CAN BE DONE HERE AND WHAT CANNOT BE DONE.

THERE WILL NOT BE ANY WETLAND IMPACTS, OKAY, SO THAT

EXISTING POND OUT THERE WILL HAVE A BUFFER AROUND IT

ESTABLISHED BY EPC.

NO DEVELOPMENT WILL BE ALLOWED WITHIN IT.

ALL THE OTHER CONCERNS WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF

PLANNING.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> [INAUDIBLE] ONE MORE TO SAY.

WE HAD THE LAND SINCE 2005.

>>STEVE LUCE: CAN YOU PICK HIM UP?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>>STEVE LUCE: NO.

COULD YOU START OVER.

>> WE OWN THIS PROPERTY NOW SINCE --

>>STEVE LUCE: FIRST, BECAUSE HE WAS SPEAKING, STATE YOUR

NAME.

>> HASHIM SULLAIMAN.


>> WE OWN THE PROPERTY SINCE 2005.

THE LADY BEFORE, I GUESS SHE HAD SOME PROBLEMS, AND I WAS

116

SURPRISED, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS, AND IF YOU CHECK THE

POLICE RECORDS, YOU WOULDN'T FIND ANY THAT WE HAVE.

THERE'S NO PROBLEM -- CRIME RECORDS THERE WITH THE

APARTMENT COMPLEX ALL SURROUNDING US.

I WAS SURPRISED THAT SHE HAD THESE KIND OF PROBLEMS.

WE HAVE ANIMAL STOCKS TOO, WE HAVE SHEEPS, AND WE NEVER HAD

ANY INCIDENTS IN THIS PROPERTY.

THE LAKE THAT'S OVER THERE, IT'S A SMALL POND, THE -- THE

RUNOFF, IT'S ALMOST GETTING DRY, THERE'S NO RUNOFF INTO

OTHER PROPERTIES RIGHT NOW.

IT'S COMING TO THE POINT THAT IT'S SHRINKING.

THERE'S NO OTHER RUNOFF COMING FROM -- COMING FROM THE

PROPERTY.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE WATER FROM THE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN

DIVERTED.

THAT'S ALL.


VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU.



IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-10.


THE APPLICANTS ARE LAWRENCE AND SUSAN M. MILLER.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO ASC-1,

AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL-1.

117

COLLEEN MARSHALL WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER


>> GOOD EVENING.

I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.

I REPRESENT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS PROPERTY DOES LIE WITHIN THE RES-1 CATEGORY OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THERE'S NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF ASC-1 AND AS-1 ZONING

SURROUNDING IT.

TO THE NORTH IT'S ALL ASC-1 AND AS-1.

TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST IT'S ASC-1.

TO THE WEST THERE IS AN AR PROPERTY.

MY CLIENTS DO HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THAT PROPERTY

OWNER THAT IF THE ZONING'S APPROVED TONIGHT, THAT THE

DRIVEWAY WILL BE A MAX -- A MINIMUM OF 130 FEET FROM HIS

PROPERTY, SO, BASICALLY, WE WILL PUT THE DRIVEWAY IN THE

MIDDLE OF OUR PROPERTY, AND IF YOU GO OUT TO THE SIDE, IT

WOULD GO DOWN BETWEEN THE BARN AND THE HOUSE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> SO WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.


THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.


>>COLLEEN MARSHALL: COLLEEN MARSHALL, DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT

136 -- 13261 LEWIS GALLAGHER ROAD FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL,

118

AR, TO AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL, ASC-1.

THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO

SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO LOTS.

NO REVIEWING AGENCIES OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS.


THANK YOU.



STAFF.


LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE RURAL AREA.

THE STAFF FOUND THAT THE REQUESTED REZONING WOULD PROVIDE A

COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOUND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING

AREA.

WE FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE

OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.





APPLICATION?



APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

119

>> I DID WANT TO CLARIFY.

STAFF SAID THAT WE WANTED TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO LOTS.

THAT WAS NOT OUR APPLICATION.

WE SAID WE WANTED THE ABILITY TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY.

WE COULD DO TWO, THREE, OR UP TO FOUR LOTS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> THANK YOU.


THANK YOU.



>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-11.


THE APPLICANT IS MIKE LAWRENCE AND STAR PROPERTY

DEVELOPMENT, LLC.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO THE

"M," MANUFACTURING, ZONING DISTRICT.



>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

APPLICANT, PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

GOOD EVENING.

I'M KEVIN MINEER OF THE GENESIS GROUP, AND I AM ASSISTING

MIKE LAWRENCE, START PROPERTIES, AND PLATINUM BANK IN THEIR

REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY TEN ACRES OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE

GREATER PALM RIVER COMMUNITY AREA OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO

"M" TO ALLOW INDUSTRIAL USES.

120

THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT

PROPERTY IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

THE CURRENT APPROVED ZONING ON THE SITE IS AN OLD 25-YEAR-

OLD PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 88-37, THAT WAS NEVER BUILT,

HAS VERY LOW F.A.R., AND WITH ACCESS ONLY ON ADJACENT 66th

STREET.

ADJACENT USES HAVE NOW CHANGED SURROUNDING THE PARCEL, A

AND WE FEEL IT ELIMINATES THE NEED OF THIS PD.

THESE SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE ACTIVE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS

AND IDENTICAL TO THE "M" ZONING TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH,

AND TO THE WEST.

CASE IN POINT, MADISON PARK OF COMMERCE IS TO THE SOUTH AND

TO THE WEST OF US WITH TWO -- OVER TWO MILLION SQUARE FEET

OF INDUSTRIAL USES, AND IT INCLUDES JOANNE KEARNEY

BOULEVARD, AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD, WHICH TERMINATES VERY

CLOSE TO OUR PARCEL, AND THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY IN

THE FUTURE TO GET ANOTHER TIE-IN THROUGH KEARNEY BOULEVARD

BESIDES 66th STREET.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT LIES WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL

FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

THIS PERMITS A FULL RANGE OF INTENSIVE USES SUCH AS THE

PROPOSED "M" ZONING, AND IT IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE GREATER

PALM RIVER COMMUNITY PLAN.

KEY GOAL STRATEGY OF THAT PLAN IS GOAL 5-B, WHICH IS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHICH PROVIDES -- WHICH IS, AND I

QUOTE, TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS GROWTH AND

JOBS IN THE PALM RIVER AREA, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF

121

DIFFERENT STRATEGIES, ONE WHICH PROPOSES TO UPGRADE

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING WATER/WASTEWATER, TO

SUPPORT THE CHARACTER OF PALM RIVER, ALSO TO RECOGNIZE AND

SUPPORT THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL AND PORT AREAS THAT

CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMIC -- ECONOMY IN CHARACTER OF PALM

RIVER, AND WE BELIEVE THAT OUR PROJECT NICELY DOVETAILS

INTO THESE STRATEGIES AND POLICIES.

AND BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE PLANNING

COMMISSION STAFF AGREED WITH US, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER

REVIEWING STAFFS ALL AGREE WITH US, AND EVERYONE'S

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AND WITH THAT, I CAN ANSWER

QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU COULD, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WILL

HAVE TO GO THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT

THAT TAKES PLACE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THE GRAPHIC THAT WAS

SUBMITTED AND IS A PART OF THE STAFF REPORT IS A PLAT OF

THE SUBJECT SITE?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

AND IT SHOWS THE EASEMENT FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END OF

JOANNE KEARNEY SHOWING IT -- THE OPPORTUNITY IS THERE TO

TIE IN.

NOW, OF COURSE, WE'LL HAVE TO DO A MINOR MOD, BECAUSE IT IS

A PD, TO MADISON PARK COMMERCE TO TIE IN, BUT WE THOUGHT

THAT WAS A NICE LITTLE ALTERNATIVE OPPORTUNITY TO GET

ANOTHER ACCESS FOR THIS INDUSTRIAL SITE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> WE FEEL THAT IT WAS APPROVED DECADES AGO AND THINGS HAVE

RADICALLY CHANGED AROUND IT, AND IT'S A VERY CUMBERSOME

122

EXISTING PD WITH LOTS OF CONDITIONS THAT YOU CAN FIND IN

THE ZONING CODE TODAY.

A VERY LARGE EASEMENT, TECO EASEMENT RUNS THROUGH THE

MIDDLE, SO IT'S A CHALLENGING SITE TO BEGIN WITH, BUT WE

FEEL IT'S A NICE PARCEL THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED,

PERHAPS, INTO MADISON PARK OF COMMERCE.

THERE'S SOME CONNECTION BETWEEN SOME OF THE DIFFERENT

OWNERS, AND SO, YEAH, WE THOUGHT BY MAKING IT INTO AN

"M" ZONING DISTRICT, IT WOULD REFLECT WHAT'S GOING ON

AROUND IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: I GUESS MY POINT IS YOU DO HAVE LEGAL RIGHT

TO EXTEND THE EXISTING CUL-DE-SAC INTO YOUR CLIENT'S

PROPERTY?

>> ONCE WE APPLY FOR AND GET -- ASSUMING WE CAN GET

APPROVED A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PD WITHIN THAT, BUT,

YES, WE DO.

IT'S -- WE HAVE CONNECTIONS WITH BOTH.

AND THEN, TO BE BLUNT, IF -- IF, FOR SOME REASON, IT FALLS

THROUGH, WELL, THEN, WE STILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS ON

66th --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> -- BUT WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO USE THAT ACCESS ALSO.


VERY GOOD.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.




123

AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THERE IS INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO THE

NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD THE PD-I ZONING DISTRICT ON IT FOR

QUITE A WHILE, SINCE 1988, AND IT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE

REZONE REQUEST, SO I'M HERE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.


STAFF.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FUTURE


GREATER PALM RIVER COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.

THE PROPOSED REZONING IS ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION AND WOULD ALLOW USES COMPATIBLE

WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.



PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

MR. GRADY OR MR. ANDREWS, IF I COULD JUST GET A

CLARIFICATION, AND MR. MINEER.

I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO ALL THREE OF YOU.

THE PLAT THAT YOU SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE BACKUP SHOWS

LOTS 1, 4, 5, AND 6, AND THE SUBJECT REZONING IS NOT ALL OF

THOSE LOTS, IS IT?

124

>> IT'S NOT ANY OF THOSE LOTS.

THAT PLAT IS THE PD TO THE SOUTH OF US.

THE REASON THAT I SUBMITTED THAT PLAT WAS TO SHOW JOANNE

KEARNEY BOULEVARD AND SHOW THAT IT HAS A LITTLE

EASEMENT --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> -- ACCESS AS WELL AS UTILITIES, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT,

AND THAT'S THE THING THAT I'D LIKE TO STRESS.

PALM RIVER HAS A CHRONIC PROBLEM WITH GETTING AVAILABLE

WATER AND SEWER AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THROUGH JOANNE

KEARNEY TO -- THIS SITE WILL BE ON PUBLIC WATER AND PUBLIC

SEWER.


SO SHEET 4 OF 4 IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S LABELED AS

SHEET 4 OF 4 ON THE GRAPHIC --

>> I'M GETTING THERE.


>> YES, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.


THAT SHOWS THE EASEMENT THAT GETS TO THE SUBJECT REZONING

SITE --

>> YEP.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- THAT YOU'RE HERE FOR TONIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

OUR SITE IS THE PIECE TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST OF THAT.


>> YEAH.

I CAN POINT IT OUT ON THE ELMO.

125

>>STEVE LUCE: NO, THAT'S FINE.

>> YEAH, YOU'LL NOTICE IT SHOWS BOTH A ACCESS

INGRESS/EGRESS AS WELL AS UTILITY EASEMENT --


RIGHT.

>> -- SO IT'S A GREAT WAY TO GET SEWER AND WATER TO THE

SITE.


VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO



ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SEEK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION?




>> STAFF WAS GREAT TO WORK WITH.

I APPRECIATE IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.



>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-12, REZONING


THE APPLICANT IS AGI ACQUISITIONS II, LLC.

126

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE

TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING.

COLLEEN MARSHALL WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER


>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

APPLICANT.


I'M CATHLEEN O'DOWD WITH THE LAW FIRM OF SHUMAKER, LOOP &

KENDRICK, 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, SUITE 2800, AND I'M

HERE THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF AGI ACQUISITION II, LLC.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PETITION IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY

LOCATED AT 3816 WEST LINEBAUGH AVENUE FROM BUSINESS

PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN ORDER TO

ALLOW FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL FOR A USE THAT WE

BELIEVE IS COMPATIBLE WITH AND COMPLEMENTARY TO THE

SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.

IF I MAY TAKE A MOMENT TO PRESENT SOME PICTURES THAT SHOW

THE SURROUNDING AREA.

>>STEVE LUCE: YES, THAT'S FINE.

>> THIS IS THE AERIAL THAT STAFF INCLUDED IN THE STAFF

REPORT, AND I JUST WANTED TO SHOW IT FOR PURPOSES OF

ORIENTATION.

THIS IS THE SITE THAT MY CLIENT IS SEEKING TO REZONE TO CN,

AND SURROUNDING IT IS THE CORPORATE PARK THAT WAS ZONED PD-

MU BACK IN 1986 WITH A MODIFICATION IN 1998, AND IT ALLOWS

FOR ONE-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, AND THEN WE'VE GOT PROPERTY

FRONTING LINEBAUGH TO THE EAST THAT IS ZONED CN, WHICH IS

THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT WE ARE SEEKING.

127

THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE PARCEL WE'RE SEEKING TO REZONE AND

SHOWS THE FOUR-STORY BUILDING THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE

SITE.

IT IS A FOUR-STORY 46,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING FOR OFFICE

USE.

JUST ANOTHER PICTURE FROM INTERNAL OF THE SITE.

AND A LITTLE FURTHER BACK.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST, WHICH IS PART

OF THE PD-MU PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN FROM 1986.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S SHOWING A ONE-STORY BUILDING,

SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER IN SCALE THAN MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.

ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH.

THIS IS THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH, AGAIN, STILL PART OF THE

PD-MU ZONING.

AND THEN THE BUILDING TO THE EAST STILL PART OF THE PD-MU

ZONING.

AND I'LL ENTER THESE INTO THE RECORD WHEN I'M DONE.

AND THEN THIS IS THE PICTURE -- THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT

IS ZONED CN, COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S JUST A VIEW FROM WITHIN THE SITE PLAN OR THE SITE.

A CLOSER PICTURE OF IT.

AND THIS IS A -- THIS SHOWS THE SAME CN ZONING.

IT'S A PICTURE FROM LINEBAUGH, AND THEN THE SIGN SHOWS THE

TYPE OF USES THAT ARE WITHIN THAT -- THAT BUILDING.

AS STAFF NOTED IN THEIR REPORT, THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN

ZONING WILL ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH

THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA AND WILL OFFER A

128

RETAIL BUSINESS USE THAT IS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE

SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.

THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEFINES COMPATIBILITY AS

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT USES OR ACTIVITIES OR

DESIGN WHICH ALLOW THEM TO BE LOCATED NEAR OR ADJACENT TO

EACH OTHER IN HARMONY.

ELEMENTS AFFECTING COMPATIBILITY INCLUDE HEIGHT, SCALE,

MASS, AND BULK OF STRUCTURES, PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR

TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS IN PARKING.

THE PICTURES THAT I PRESENTED SHOW A FOUR-STORY 46,000-

SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING THAT IS HIGHER AND LARGER IN

SCALE THAN THE SURROUNDING ONE-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS.

MY CLIENT INTENDS TO REDEVELOP THE PARCEL FOR USE AS A

RETAIL BANK BRANCH OR SIMILAR RETAIL USES PERMITTED WITHIN

THE CN ZONING DISTRICT.

IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE CHANGE IN USE WILL BE OF A

HEIGHT AND SCALE IN KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING PATTERN OF

DEVELOPMENT.

THE SHARED ACCESS, PARKING, AND PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR

CIRCULATION WITHIN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT WILL REMAIN

UNCHANGED.

FOR THESE REASONS, I SUBMIT THAT THE -- THAT THE PROPOSED

CHANGE IN ZONING WILL ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS

COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND WILL ALLOW

FOR SIMILAR USES FOUND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

ON BEHALF OF AGI, I ASK FOR YOUR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION

TO THE COMMISSION AND AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

YOU MAY HAVE.

129

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

JUST ONE QUESTION IS -- IF YOU GO TO A CN ZONING DISTRICT,

YOU'RE SUBJECT TO THE EUCLIDEAN ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND IT'S AN EXISTING FOUR-STORY OFFICE

BUILDING, WHICH HAS A HEIGHT OF 40-PLUS FEET, ROUGHLY?

>> YEAH.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND MR. GRADY, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT

RESTRICTION ON CN ZONING?

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS -- YOU PROBABLY GO FOR ONE FOR ONE

OVER A CERTAIN HEIGHT, PROBABLY.

>> IF IT WILL HELP --

>>STEVE LUCE: BUT ANYWAYS, I'M GETTING AT --

>> YEAH.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- THE POINT THAT IT'S -- I DON'T KNOW HOW

CHANGING IT TO CN ZONING AFFECTS STAFF IN TERMS OF ANY KIND

OF --

>>BRIAN GRADY: IT'S 35 FEET.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- ANY KIND OF FUTURE CHANGES YOU DO TO THIS

SITE.

>> MY CLIENT INTENDS TO DEMOLISH THAT BUILDING.

THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF MOVING THE TENANTS INTO THE

SURROUNDING OFFICE BUILDINGS, SO THE INTENT IS TO DEMOLISH

IT AND START FROM SCRATCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THERE YOU GO.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

130

>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.

THANK YOU.



>>COLLEEN MARSHALL: COLLEEN MARSHALL, DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO REZONE

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE,

BPO, TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, CN.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND USES IN THE

SURROUNDING AREA, AS THE APPLICANT HAS DESCRIBED.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.


>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S WITHIN THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20

FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA

AND THE CARROLLWOOD-NORTHDALE COMMUNITIES PLAN BOUNDARY.

THE PROPOSED REZONING TO THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING

DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDING AREA AND SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING ZONING

PATTERN.



PLAN.

131


THANK YOU.





APPLICATION?




>> [INAUDIBLE]

>>STEVE LUCE: NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL.


MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE FINAL ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS

AGENDA ITEM I-13.


THE APPLICANT IS SCHWENK PROPERTIES, LLC.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AR TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.



>> GOOD EVENING.

I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 70 ACRES TO A PD.

IT'S IN THE SMU-6 DESIGNATION LAND USE ELEMENT, SO WE HAD

TO GO TO A SITE PLAN DISTRICT.

IT'S OWNED BY B&P TREE FARM AND THE ANDERSONS.

132

IT'LL BE DEVELOPED IN ONE OF THE LAST UNDEVELOPED PARCELS

WITHIN RUSKIN, AND TOTAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE ABOUT 360

UNITS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN ON THE ELMO BEFORE YOU, TO THE

NORTH OF US IS A PD THAT'S ZONED FOR APPROXIMATELY 110 LOTS

ON 55,000 SQUARE FOOT.

ON THIS PORTION, IT'S PART OF THE SOUTHSHORE DRI.

IT'S ZONED -- IT'S -- CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE FOR

TOWNHOMES.

ALONG OUR EASTERN BOUNDARY HERE WE HAVE SOME RESIDENTIAL

UNDER THE SOUTHSHORE DRI, A COUNTY PARK, AND A NEW

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT'S SUPPOSED TO OPEN IN 2014.

THEN AROUND THE AREA WE HAVE WELLINGTON NORTH -- EXCUSE

ME -- BLACKSTONE, AND WELLINGTON SOUTH SUBDIVISIONS WHICH

ARE ALL PLATTED.

THEY WERE IN THE BACKUP PROVIDED TO COUNTY STAFF, AND I CAN

GIVE YOU THE PLAT BOOKS AND PAGES IF YOU NEED THEM.

THEY'RE ALL AT THE MINIMUM 5500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS SUCH AS

WE'RE PROPOSING.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM OUR SITE PLAN, WE ARE PROPOSING SOME

IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN THE NETWORK.

OUR ACCESS WILL PRIMARILY BE OFF THE EXTENSION OF --

BRINGING -- IMPROVING 18th STREET SOUTH TO ITS -- FROM ITS

PERMANENT TERMINUS, TAKE IT THROUGH OUR PROPERTY.

AS IT COMES THROUGH THE PROPERTY, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO

HAVE LOTS FRONTING 18th.

IT WOULD NO LONGER REALLY BE FUNCTIONING AS A COLLECTOR

POINT AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IF YOU COME HERE TO THEIR

133

SOUTHERN BOUNDARY AND GO SOUTH, 18th WAS NEVER BUILT.

IT'S AN OLD 40-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WAS JUST PLATTED BUT

NOT BUILT.

>>STEVE LUCE: DOES IT CONNECT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT TO THE

SOUTH?

>> WE HAVE A ZONING CONDITION STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT

WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THE ROAD TO THE EDGE OF OUR PROPERTY

LINE, BUT IT WON'T CONNECT TO A ROAD, IT WILL CONNECT TO AN

OLD UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THEN ON 11th -- WE WOULD TAKE 11th OVER TO 24th AVENUE.

WE'VE WORKED WITH STAFF IN TERMS OF THAT.

WE WOULD BE -- WE WOULD BE AGREEING TO PROVIDE FOR A 20 --

25 FOOT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THIS PORTION AND UP TO 50 FEET

OF RIGHT-OF-WAY THROUGH HERE.

IF WARRANTED, WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO IMPROVE THIS SECTION OF

THE ROAD, PRIMARILY LOOKING AT THE AREA RIGHT IN HERE,

ALTHOUGH OUR SITE PLAN DOESN'T SHOW US USING 11th AVENUE.

THERE WAS A STAFF CONDITION, AND WE ORIGINALLY AGREED TO

IT, THAT WE WOULD DO A CONNECTION AT DELAMO -- DELANO,

EXCUSE ME, AND CARSON WHITE; HOWEVER, AS I MET WITH THE

CITIZENS BEFORE THE HEARING -- HERE'S THE PLAT OF

WELLINGTON NORTH, AND WHAT HAPPENS IS -- HERE'S DELANO

TRENT STREET.

DELANO TRENT STREET WAS BUILT TO THE EDGE OF -- NOT TO THE

EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S AN EXISTING WETLAND DITCH THAT WAS PLATTED AS A

DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND A WETLAND CONSERVATION AREA, BUT IT

IS NOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO WE CAN'T CROSS THAT DRAINAGE DITCH

134

TO CONNECT TO DELANO STREET, SO WE'RE JUST -- ASK THAT

CONDITION 3.2 BE DELETED.

THAT WOULD BE APPLY TO DELANO STREET AND ALSO TO CARSON

LANE.

IT'S THAT SAME TRACT THAT'S OWNED BY THE HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION.

LET ME SEE.

THERE WAS A -- THERE'S A CONDITION IN THE SITE PLAN THAT WE

WOULD PROVIDE FOR OPEN SPACE EITHER UNDER THE CURRENT RULES

OR UNDER FUTURE RULES, WHICHEVER'S IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF

DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT WE PLAN TO APPLY FOR.

WE DO HAVE A CLUBHOUSE ON THE SITE PLAN AS LABELED

CLUBHOUSE, CIVIC USE, OR DAY CARE.

IT'LL MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TWO USES WITHIN SMU-6.

AND AS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD COMMENT REGARDING THE ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL, BECAUSE OF THE NEW SCHOOL BEING BUILT IN THE AREA,

THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE CAPACITY BY 2014 WHEN THE SCHOOL

OPENS.

WITH THAT, I BELIEVE THE HOMEOWNERS FROM WELLINGTON NORTH

HERE -- ARE HERE TONIGHT.

WE TALKED TO THEM ORIGINALLY ABOUT DELANO STREET AND CARMEN

WHITE, AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO SAVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL AND ASK

FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

THANK YOU.


THANK YOU.



135


SO AS MS. JAMES STATED, THIS IS A 70.53-ACRE PARCEL ZONED

AR, AND THE REQUEST IS TO BE REZONED TO A PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW 5,500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS.

THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF DID DISCUSS WITH MS. JAMES

REGARDING THE CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS THAT SHE PROPOSED,

AND I WANTED TO READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.

I'M SORRY.

CONDITION NUMBER 5, AFTER THE SENTENCE, 11th AVENUE

NORTHEAST TO ADD, EAST OF 18th STREET NORTHEAST AND

ADJACENT TO FOLIOS 55390.0 AND 55370.0100 AS SHOWN ON THE

SITE PLAN, AND PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION, THE APPLICANT WILL

NEED TO SHOW THAT DEDICATION ON THE PLAN.

AND THEN FOR CONDITION NUMBER 6, THERE'S GOING TO BE, IF

WARRANTED, THE DEVELOPER MAY BE REQUIRED TO BRING A PORTION

OF 11th AVENUE NORTHEAST EAST OF 18th STREET NORTHEAST AND

ADJACENT TO FOLIOS 55390.0 AND 55370.0100.

I'LL LET RONNIE DISCUSS THE 3.2.

I WILL LET HIM DISCUSS THAT IF HE AGREES --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: -- IF HE AGREES WITH --

>>STEVE LUCE: MS. ALBERT, I THINK THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE

REFERRING TO ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE NUMBERS I HAVE.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: WHICH NUMBERS?

>>STEVE LUCE: THE ZONING CONDITIONS THAT YOU JUST REFERRED

TO?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: CONDITION 5 AND 6?

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.

136

THEY'RE DIFFERENT IN MY STAFF REPORT.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: LET ME JUST TAKE A LOOK.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>>STEVE LUCE: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: CONDITION 5, PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT

APPROVAL?

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.

THAT ONE STARTS OUT THE SAME WAY.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: I CAN BRING IT OVER TO THE ELMO.

>>STEVE LUCE: DO YOU HAVE IT HANDWRITTEN ON YOUR -- LET ME

JUST DOUBLE-CHECK WHAT YOU'RE --

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: MM-HMM.

>>STEVE LUCE: I'LL HAND IT RIGHT BACK TO YOU.

I JUST WANT TO CHECK.

OKAY.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 5?

I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CONDITIONS IN

CONDITION 4.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: 3.2.

3.2 IS NOT ON MY WRITTEN CONDITIONS.

MY WRITTEN CONDITIONS ARE FOR CONDITION NUMBER 5 AND

CONDITION NUMBER 6.


>>ISABELLE ALBERT: AND CONDITION NUMBER 3.2, ONE MOMENT,

PLEASE.


SO CONDITION -- THE INTENT OF CONDITION NUMBER 5 IS TO

SIMPLY CLARIFY WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO

137

DEDICATION OF 25 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

AND WHAT'S THE INTENT OF NUMBER 6?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: THE INTENT?

I WILL LET MR. RONNIE DESCRIBE -- EXPLAIN ALL OF THAT, AND

HE CAN ALSO REFER TO THE NUMBER 3.2.


THANK YOU.

>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: GOOD EVENING.

RONNIE BLACKSHEAR, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.

AS FAR AS CONDITION 6, MR. HEARING OFFICER, IT WILL STATE,

IF WARRANTED, THE DEVELOPER MAY BE REQUIRED TO BRING

PORTIONS OF 11th AVENUE NORTHEAST OF 18th STREET -- 18th

STREET NORTHEAST AND ADJACENT TO FOLIOS 55390.000 AND

55370.0100 UP TO COUNTY STANDARDS.

THAT IS THE PORTION THAT REFERS TO A PORTION OF 11th AVENUE

NORTHEAST.

THAT'S PORTIONS OF IT THAT LIES EAST AND WEST OF 18th

AVENUE.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT, HOW DOES ONE

DETERMINE IF IT'S WARRANTED?

>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: IT WILL BE DETERMINED IF IT'S

WARRANTED BASED ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT'S GOING TO BE

CONDUCTED AND WHATEVER THE APPLICANT SHOWS WITH REGARDS TO

THE INFORMATION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING TO US,

AND WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TO DETERMINE IF, IN

FACT -- IF THE TRAFFIC FLOW SHOWS WHETHER THAT ROAD -- OR

138

SECTIONS OR PORTIONS OF THAT ROADWAY WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE

IMPROVED.

>>STEVE LUCE: WELL, DOES THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAVE

THRESHOLDS THAT SAYS IF YOU HAVE A SUBDIVISION WITH ONE

DRIVEWAY CONNECTION, YOU CAN HAVE SO MANY UNITS AND OVER --

OVER THAT NUMBER OF UNITS, YOU NEED TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE

DRIVEWAY CONNECTION?

>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: WELL, IN THIS CASE, WE'RE NOT

SPEAKING OF DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE

IMPROVEMENT OF THE ACTUAL ROAD ITSELF.

WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A DRIVEWAY CONNECTION OFF OF 18th

STREET.

I MEAN, IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD.

IT'S BASICALLY IF, IN FACT, THE NUMBERS THAT ACTUALLY

SHOW -- AND I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME TO

EXACTLY TELL YOU -- TO TELL YOU EXACTLY THOSE NUMBERS, WHAT

THEY WILL BE, BUT BASED ON THE CRITERIA OF THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT CODE, IF, IN FACT, IT DOES MEET THOSE

CRITERIAS, THEN PORTIONS OF THAT ROAD WILL BE -- WE'LL MAKE

THOSE DETERMINATIONS THAT THEY BE -- SECTIONS OF 11th

AVENUE WILL BE IMPROVED UPON, IMPROVED TO COUNTY STANDARDS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: AND WITH REGARDS TO -- UNDER

CONDITION NUMBER 4, SUBSECTION 3.2, MS. JAMES HAD INDICATED

THAT THE WESTERN CROSS-ACCESS CONNECTIONS TO DELANO --

DELANO TRENT STREET AND ALSO CARSON WHITE LANE, THERE WAS

AN EASEMENT THERE.

INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT WE WILL DELETE THAT CONDITION, WE

139

WILL -- WANTED TO PUT THE LANGUAGE IN THERE, IF FEASIBLE.

IF, IN FACT, IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO MAKE THOSE CONNECTIONS,

THEN THEY WILL NOT BE MADE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

>>BRIAN GRADY: AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE'LL ALSO CORRECT

THE NUMBERING IN CONDITION 4 SO THAT IT'S 4.1, JUST ON --

>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: [INAUDIBLE]


ANYTHING ELSE?

ALL RIGHT.

AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.


STAFF.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6

FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND

IS ALSO WITHIN THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN AND SOUTHSHORE

AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN BOUNDARIES.

THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT

PATTERN COMPARABLE TO THE APPROVED AND EXISTING USES IN THE

SURROUNDING AREA.

THE PROPOSED DENSITY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE MINIMUM

DENSITY POLICY -- FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 1.3.

FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 19.1 REQUIRES SITES GREATER

THAN 40 ACRES AND WITHIN THE SMU-6 CLASSIFICATION TO

INCLUDE TWO LAND USES.

THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL USES

140

AND A CLUBHOUSE/CIVIC/DAY CARE USE AND MEETS THE INTENT OF

THIS POLICY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN AREA 2 ON THE RUSKIN AREA

NEIGHBOR MAP, AND THE PROPOSED LOT SIZES SUPPORT THE

CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOOD GUIDELINES, AND THE

PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES MULTIPLE POINTS OF

ACCESS AND INGRESS AND EGRESS AND ROADWAY CONNECTIONS THAT

ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE GROUP HOME THAT'S CALLED FOR OR

SUPPORTED IN THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN.



PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: COULD YOU JUST REPEAT YOUR FINDING AT THE

END.

I DIDN'T QUITE --

>>MARCIE STENMARK: OH, OKAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- HEAR THAT CORRECTLY.

DID YOU FIND IT CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT?

>>MARCIE STENMARK: YES, WE FOUND THIS REZONING -- I'M

SORRY, DID I SAY INCONSISTENT?

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I MUST BE TIRED.

IT IS CONSISTENT --


>>MARCIE STENMARK: -- WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I APOLOGIZE.

141


>>MARCIE STENMARK: THANKS FOR ASKING.


ALL RIGHT.



>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE IN SUPPORT --

>>STEVE LUCE: SIR, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD,

YOU HAVE TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.

>> MR. ZONING OFFICER, I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE IN SUPPORT OR

IN OPPOSITION OF THIS.

>>BRIAN GRADY: SIR, COULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> MY NAME IS CRAIG MARGELOWSKY.

I'M PRESIDENT OF WELLINGTON NORTH AT BAY PARK.

MY ADDRESS IS 909 CRISTELLE JEAN DRIVE IN RUSKIN, FLORIDA.

>>STEVE LUCE: WELL, WHY DON'T YOU PROVIDE TESTIMONY, AND

WE'LL KIND OF FIGURE IT OUT AS WE GO.

>> OKAY.

THANK YOU.

CAN I ACTUALLY SCOOT OVER HERE AND SHOW YOU THIS?

>>STEVE LUCE: YES.

>> I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE AND IT'S ON YOUR

[INAUDIBLE]

ONE THING THAT WE JUST LEARNED ABOUT IS -- YOU'RE SAYING --

YOU'RE ADDING LANGUAGE SAYING THAT IF FEASIBLE, TO CONNECT

CARSON WHITE, WHICH IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, AND DELANO

TRENT STREET, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY DEAD-ENDS THAT -- THE HOA

142

ACTUALLY HAS AN EASEMENT OF -- IT'S CALLED AN ESP EASEMENT?

IT'S A WETLANDS EASEMENT THAT ACTUALLY EXTENDS AN

ADDITIONAL 15 FEET TO THE END OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT NOW

TOWARDS WHAT THEY WANT TO CONNECT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S

NEEDED IF THERE'S -- IF POSSIBLE.

>>STEVE LUCE: WELL, THERE'S PRETTY STRONG LANGUAGE IN BOTH

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WHEN

SUBDIVISIONS ARE DEVELOPED THAT THEIR INTERNAL LOCAL

RESIDENTIAL STREETS SHALL CONNECT, NOT -- NOT THAT THEY MAY

CONNECT, THAT THEY SHALL.

NOW, THERE'S EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT AND SORT

OF VERIFIED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT TONIGHT BY STAFF THAT --

AND YOURSELF THAT THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL EASEMENTS AT THE

END OF THOSE STUB-OUTS --

>> CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF THE

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THOSE ROADS ARE MEANT TO CONNECT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY,

SO STAFF IS A LITTLE RELUCTANT TO JUST WAIVE THE CONDITIONS

AND SAY THOSE STUB-OUT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE DELETED BY THE

APPLICANT.

BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT

IT WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHEN THE

DEVELOPER AND THE ENGINEERS PLATTED THIS DEVELOPMENT AND

WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STAFF, THERE

WERE ENVIRONMENTAL EASEMENTS PLACED IN THE PATHWAY OF THOSE

STREETS, SO IT'S KIND OF A CONUNDRUM, SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE

SAYING, IF FEASIBLE, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE TO YOU.

143

>> IT DOES, ACTUALLY.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> THE MAIN ISSUE THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE ACTUALLY IS MORE

WITH THE -- RIGHT HERE, THIS IS 11th AVENUE, AND CURRENTLY

THIS IS AN UNIMPROVED ROAD.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE A PICTURE OF IT, I HAVE MY LAPTOP WITH

PICTURES OF IT; HOWEVER, IT IS BASICALLY A ONE -- ONE-LANE

ROAD THAT -- WE HAVE ACTUAL BUSES THAT GO DOWN THIS.

YOU HAVE 20 TRIPS BY SCHOOL BUSES GOING TO CYPRESS CREEK

ELEMENTARY, WHICH WOULD BE OFF TO THE EAST OF HERE, AND WE

HAVE -- WE'VE HAD ACTUALLY TWO NEAR FATAL ACCIDENTS AT THE

CORNER OF 15th AND 11th RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THIS TURN IS

HORRIBLE.

YOU CAN'T SEE AROUND IT GOING EAST, AND WHEN YOU'RE COMING

WEST, YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH THE RIGHT-HAND LANE TO

GET TO THE LEFT-HAND LANE OF 15th, SO MY -- MY ISSUE WITH

THE WHOLE THING IS IF THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEIR PRIMARY

INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE GOING TO BE THROUGH 18th AND THROUGH

11th STREET GOING EAST, NO ONE THAT LIVES IN THIS

NEIGHBORHOOD AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE AREA THAT WE LIVE IN

RIGHT NOW -- BECAUSE WE ARE WELLINGTON NORTH, AND I ALSO

HAVE TALKED TO BLACKSTONE AND TO WELLINGTON SOUTH'S

PRESIDENTS TODAY, THAT IF THEY FIND OUT -- AND, I MEAN,

GRANTED, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME -- THAT THEY HAVE A

STRAIGHT SHOT RIGHT HERE FROM 15th GOING DOWN -- HERE'S

SHELL POINT DOWN SOMEWHERE AROUND HERE, AND THEN DOWN HERE

THERE'S COLLEGE AVENUE.

IF THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THERE, THAT IS THE FASTEST WAY TO

144

THE INTERSTATE FOR THEM, EVEN ONCE THEY IMPROVE 24th

STREET, BECAUSE 24th STREET CURRENTLY IS BEING IMPROVED

FROM SHELL POINT ROAD TO COLLEGE AVENUE.

WHEN THAT GETS IMPROVED, IT'S NOT GOING TO MATTER MUCH FOR

THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WHEN

YOU GO THROUGH THERE, YOU HAVE HCC SOUTHSHORE, YOU HAVE

LENNARD HIGH SCHOOL, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WHICH IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE RIGHT

ABOUT HERE, AND, I MEAN, NO ONE'S GOING TO GO DOWN THROUGH

ALL THE SCHOOLS TO TRY TO GO TO WORK.

I MEAN, IF I GO TO WORK AND I'M GOING TO -- GOING THROUGH

THERE, I AVOID SHELL POINT AND 24th LIKE THE PLAGUE.

NO ONE WANTS TO GO THROUGH THERE.

ONCE THESE PEOPLE FIGURE OUT THAT, HEY, THEY CAN GO THROUGH

15th, YOU'RE GOING TO PROBABLY DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC

THAT GOES THROUGH 11th AND 15th STREET RIGHT THERE, AND IF

THAT'S UNIMPROVED -- IT IS ONE OF THE WORST INTERSECTIONS

IN RUSKIN.

I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY MORE PEOPLE GET RUN OVER.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE -- WE HAD A DUMP TRUCK HIT A FORD -- OR

A TOYOTA PRIUS, ALMOST KILLED THE PRIUS DRIVER, BECAUSE

THERE ARE GARBAGE TRUCKS THAT GO THROUGH THERE, THERE ARE

DUMP TRUCKS THAT GO THROUGH THERE, AND IT IS THE WORST

INTERSECTION IN RUSKIN, REALLY.

SO I'D LIKE -- AS A HOMEOWNER IN THE AREA AND AS THE

PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, I WOULD LIKE LANGUAGE IN WHATEVER

APPLICATION THEY'RE DOING THAT THEY HAVE TO IMPROVE BETWEEN

HERE AND HERE.

145

>>STEVE LUCE: AND BETWEEN HERE AND HERE IS --

>> I'M SORRY.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- 11th AVENUE NORTHEAST; CORRECT?

>> IT'S ON 11th AVENUE NORTHEAST --

>>STEVE LUCE: FROM --

>> -- WEST -- FROM 18th AVENUE WEST TO 15th.

>>STEVE LUCE: YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT SEGMENT OF

ROADWAY IMPROVED TO COUNTY STANDARDS.

>> TO COUNTY STANDARDS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> BECAUSE, I MEAN -- I HATE TO SAY IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO

BE ABLE TO AVOID THE TRAFFIC, WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THE ROAD

IMPROVED BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE IS GOING TO BE SERIOUS

TRAFFIC ISSUES.


I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.

>> ALL RIGHT.

I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO, IT'S CLEAR.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN

OPPOSITION?

I DON'T KNOW IF I GOT TO EVERYBODY WHO WAS IN SUPPORT, BUT

I'LL SWITCH OVER TO OPPOSITION AT THIS POINT.

146



DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT REGARDING THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE

HERE IN OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT, WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE YET,

ABOUT THE STREET THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, 11th AVENUE

NORTHEAST?

>>BRIAN GRADY: WELL, I THINK IN OUR STAFF PRESENTATION,

TRANSPORTATION STAFF ADDRESSED THAT.

I MEAN, I THINK IT -- I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS

THAT HE'S RAISED, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION'S

ALSO AWARE OF THAT, SO I THINK CLEARLY THAT'S SOMETHING

THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT CLOSELY DURING SITE

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ASSUMING THIS GETS APPROVED TO SEE WHAT

NEEDS TO OCCUR WITH RESPECT TO 11th AVENUE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> I JUST WANT TO STATE AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, WHEN YOU LOOK

AT DELANO TRENT AND CARMEN WHITE, THERE'S ACTUALLY A GAP IN

OWNERSHIP.

WE CAN'T CONNECT TO THE EXISTING DEAD-END OF THE ROAD

BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OWNS THAT LAND -- THAT

STRIP IN BETWEEN, SO, I MEAN, IF THE COUNTY STAFF WANTS TO

ADD THE LANGUAGE, IF FEASIBLE, THAT'S FINE, BUT THERE'S A

GAP IN OWNERSHIP.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT IT LOOKS INFEASIBLE --

>> RIGHT.

147

>>STEVE LUCE: -- BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH --

>> I LIKE THAT.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- THE -- YOU KNOW, THE GOAL OF TRYING TO

MAKE THE CONNECTION, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES, BASED ON THE

EVIDENCE PRESENTED, LOOK LIKE IT'S --

>> AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE 11th AVENUE, JUST TO STATE FOR

THE RECORD THAT THE PORTION OF 11th THAT IS ADJOINING THE

BLACKSTONE SUB -- WELLINGTON NORTH SUBDIVISION, THAT'S ONLY

A 40-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THERE'S INSUFFICIENT RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THAT A

COUNTY-STANDARD ROAD.

>>STEVE LUCE: HMM.

>> THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 11th AVENUE.

>>STEVE LUCE: DO WE KNOW WHEN THAT SUBDIVISION WAS

PLATTED?

>> 2005.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THAT'S IT.


WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.


THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT --

>> [INAUDIBLE]

148

>>STEVE LUCE: I'M SORRY?

SOMEBODY LEFT THEIR IPAD HERE.

THAT CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

WE ARE ADJOURNED.

149

captioning - webapps.hillsboroughcounty.org€¦ · web viewoctober 21, 2013. zoning hearing...

Documents