Good morning and welcome to the January 13, 2026 Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners land use meeting.

Would everyone please rise for the pledge and invocation given by our chaplain commissioner Gwynmyers?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

As we begin this meeting, Father, I ask that you would bless our agenda.

Bless all of our applicants who submitted an application as we discussed your project today.

Bless this board.

Bless our staff.

In your holy name I play.

Amen.

Thank you, Commissioner Myers.

Um Mr.

Grady, you want to review the changes to the agenda?

Morning, Commissioners Brian Grady, Hillsbury County Development Services.

We, in addition to the withdrawals, continuance and remands beginning on the published agenda on page three.

We have the following changes of the agenda on page four, item B one, major mod application 25-1081.

Existing condition three is being modified in corrector Scribner's error to update the reference to the correct streets.

That's subject to the improvements outlined in the condition.

The second change is on page four, item B one, major mod twenty-five-1081.

The apping is requesting continuance to the February 10th, 2026 BOC land use meeting at 9 a.m.

Next change is on agenda page 14, item EA, PRS 26-0179.

The app is requesting the continuance to the March 10th, 2026 BNS BOC land use meeting at 9 a.m.

And the final change is the Commissioner Wallstall item uh to discuss uh directing staff repair recommended amendments to the Hillsburg County Consolidated Impact Assessment Program Ordinance and Mobility Fee Program Ordnance to address impact fee mobility mobility fee assessments for minor increases in laboring area for existing residents.

That is all the changes to the agenda.

So moved.

Second.

The proposed vacate area was established in 1978 through the plat of Northdale, Section E Unit 2, as recorded in Platbook 49, page 22, and is generally located uh west of North Dale Mabrie Highway and north of Northdale Boulevard.

The petitioner has submitted this request to resolve an open code enforcement case related to the construction of a pool enclosure as well as encroachments into the easement by a vinyl fence, a pool deck, and a concrete surrounding the pool deck.

Pending resolution of the vacate, the petitioner will be required to submit a variance application for setback relief.

Reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

This public hearing, would you want like to speak to the item?

Saying none.

We have a motion.

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner Cohen.

Commissioner Wilstool, please record your vote on C1.

Motion carried seven to zero.

C2.

Next agenda item is agenda item C2 vacate petition 24-0016.

Victoria Rosenbecker for the record with facilities management and real estate services.

Item C2 today is vacate ID V24-0016.

This is a petition by Terry Benefield and Brenda Doerr to vacate portions of unimproved platted public right-of-way known as First Street and Second Street in Eastern Rural Hillsboro County, and consisting of approximately 0.48 acres.

The right-of-way proposed to be vacated was dedicated through the plat of Sydney Highlands as recorded in Platte Book 27, page six, and is generally located east of North Dover Road and north of East State Road 60.

The petitioners have submitted this request to ensure their sites are buildable.

Reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request.

Thank you for your consideration, and I can answer any questions.

Can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner Wolstool signed Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on C2.

Motion carried seven to zero.

C three.

Last one, Victoria Rosenbecker with Facilities Management and Real Estate Services.

Item C three today is vacate ID V25-0008.

This is a petition by Satya Prasad and Swaru Pirani Vodla Moody to vacate improved platted public right of way known as Hillcrest Avenue in Sefner Mingo, which consists of approximately 0.143 acres.

The right-of-way proposed to be vacated was dedicated in 1925 through the plat of Valvilla, as recorded in plat book 18, page 47, and is generally located east of Martin Luther King Boulevard and west of South Parsons Avenue.

The petitioner has submitted this request for the purpose of creating a more rectangular parcel that allows for a better designed development.

Reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request.

Thank you for your consideration, and I can answer any questions.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Mr.

Grady first e item.

Commissioner, the next item is agenda item E1, PRS application 25-0754.

Commissioners, this is a request for a minor modification of a PD that's located on Hall Road, north of the intersection of Frenonas Road and Hall Road intersection.

The request is to modify minor modification of the existing PD that's approved for a 10-unit mobile home park.

Uh they're modifying the center plan to reorient the mobile home uh mobile home units, uh requesting reductions of setbacks along the northern and southern boundaries and reducing the overall PD by one unit.

Staff has rooted this and find its approval and we're recommending approval and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, the applicant here.

Please come forward.

Good morning, sir.

Anderson applicant here with Eli Payne from Baseline Engineering.

We have nothing further to add, and we're available for questions.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Uh this time anyone here in support the application.

Anyone in opposition?

We have a motion.

Second motion, Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Wolstool.

Please record your vote on E1.

Commissioner Myers.

Motion carried seven to zero.

All right, thank you.

E2.

Next item is agenda item E2, PRS application 25-1360.

This is a request for minor modification of the to a to a 1.34 acre portion of a PD that's located uh southeast of the intersection of county road 579 and the I-4 interchange.

This is a requested to modify the the uses on this parcel that's currently approved for 4,000 square foot restaurant to reduce the size of the restaurant and uh and the remaining balance to be allowed for other commercial uses that's permitted in the PD and also to limit uh the use of the restaurant to uh drive through a walk-up.

Uh staff is recommending approval and when we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

I thank you.

Uh is the applicant here.

Good morning.

Good morning for the record.

My name is Patricia Ortiz.

My address is 2810 North Central Avenue.

Um, I have nothing further to add, but I could answer questions if if there are any.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Anyone in opposition?

No, can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner Wilson, Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on E2.

Motion carried seven to zero.

E3.

Next item is item E3 Pierce application 26-0008.

Uh, this is a request for a minor modification of the PD that's located on the east and west side of uh County Road 579, south of the state road 674.

They requested to modify uh garage setbacks to reduce required minimum setbacks from 25 to 20 feet, and also to add an additional access point onto County Road 579.

Staff is recommending approval, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

The applicant here.

Good morning, Cami Corbett with the law proof Hill Ward and Henderson.

I don't have anything else to add, but I'm here to answer any questions should you have any.

All right, thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Anyone in opposition?

Seeing none, can we move approval?

Second.

Motion, Commissioner Cohen.

Second, Commissioner Wolstool.

Please record your vote on E3.

Motion carried seven to zero.

E4.

Commissioners, E4 is PRS application 26-002.

Uh this is a request for a minor modification of the PD.

Uh something that's located on the uh north side of Fower Avenue, and basically known as the University of Square Mall site.

Uh they're modifying a portion of the PD in the northwest uh corner of the of the uh the PD.

Uh they're combining uh development blocks and modifying development standards and and road typologies associated with this request.

Uh the the implementation the implementation provisions for this PD are in the r lie within the comprehensive plan.

The planning commission has reviewed this and it and found the uh changes are are uh consistent with the applicable policies of the uh community plan.

Staff is also recommending approval of the changes.

I will note the applicant will be submitting into the record as part of their presentations some uh modifications to condition 5.23 to clarify provide some more uh information regarding uh landscaping uh proposed for enhanced landscaping and also commission nine 9B to clarify which uh increments of development are subject to the timing of required improvements associated with uh heart improvements.

Staff has reviewed these and have no concerns with those changes, and we are recommending approval and available for any questions.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good evening, Elise Batzel, Stearns Weaver Miller on behalf of the applicant related um as you know.

This is part of the old university mall project.

It's got a little bit of history.

I won't go through it specifically, but there's a couple nuances to this application that I want to bring to your attention.

The future land use is ICMU 35, uh, encouraging that mixed use development, that walkable environment.

The zoning is currently plan development.

This is a PRS to modify that plan development.

These are all of the changes to the original zoning that have occurred.

If you scroll all the way down to the area highlighted in blue, that's the area that we're talking about.

It's in the northwestern corner of this old university mall site.

We have put details that we usually wouldn't put on this particular plan just to make sure that staff has what they need to ensure that we are maintaining the intent of the original ICMU 35.

And we've as part of this application submitted a number of conditions as well to ensure that the built environment is what was envisioned as part of the original PD.

So we consolidate blocks five and nine into one larger block.

We do relocate the master, the major transit stops slightly to the east.

I'm gonna look at those in a little more detail.

This enables a mixed-use development with 367 multifamily units that comprise both apartments and carriage houses.

And we have added a lot of enhanced pedestrian access and conditions to ensure the walkability.

This is the area where the multifamily apartment buildings will be built if this is approved.

The carriage homes are along the southern boundary of the property.

And then here along the eastern boundary of this block, you'll see there's two future out parcels.

We've left those open for retail restaurant office.

This PD enables a number of uses that could be part of this mixed-use development, not only on the larger PD, but in this block as well.

And there are two areas to the south and to the east where we have added enhanced pedestrian access and conditions.

This is just a visual of sort of our rendering of what we think those enhanced pedestrian conditions will be.

As Brian mentioned, we do have two proposed conditions that are revised.

Really, this first one just puts some quantifiable definitions around what is enhanced landscaping.

So with your approval, um, Mr.

Chair, I would like to submit these into the record.

Yes, we just give it to the clerk, please.

And the second one relates to the timing of the major transit stop.

We've been working with HART.

That will be pushed out to no later than December 31st, 2027, or when the next development occurs for blocks 10, 11, 14, and 15.

When this was originally written, um, it said any redevelopment, and some of the redevelopment has already occurred.

So this transit stop in conjunction with HART will be provided either by the end of 2027 or with the next redevelopment in those four blocks.

We would request your approval today.

We have staff recommendation of approval with subject to the change of conditions.

Uh, our whole entire team is here to answer any questions that you may have.

All right, thank you.

Uh any uh proponent testimony.

Anyone in opposition motion?

Uh Commissioner Cohen.

Of course.

We have we've seen this before, haven't we?

You've had you have not seen this particular area.

You've seen on the opposite side on the northeastern side.

There have been two different things.

Is that the one where we had the back and forth about with the whether the trail was gonna go there?

We ultimately removed it because we thought it was unsafe.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, this is the complete other side.

But it's the same, it's the same of overall development.

It's just on the other side of this is in the north west corner, and that was like the northeast corner.

Yes.

All right, thanks.

Move approval.

Sorry.

Second.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Cohen.

Second, Commissioner Willstone.

Please record your vote.

Register, but it's counting.

Motion carries seven is zero.

Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you.

Next item commissioners next item is E5 is PRS application 26-0156.

Uh, this is a request to modify uh 4.26 acre parcel that's located on the west side of Patterson Road.

Uh the PD is approved for a number of development options.

One of those development options allows uh warehousing as for that particular use.

The applicant is requesting to modify parking standards, remove a required cross access along the western boundary and and remove a note in the plan that restricted the types of trucks that could uh access the site to accommodate this warehouse use.

Uh staff is recommending approval and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Hi, Elizabeth Rodriguez 18156 Sandy Point Drive, Tampa, Florida.

Here on behalf of the applicant.

We don't really have anything further to add and are available for questions.

Thank you.

Anyone here in support the application?

Anyone in opposition?

Can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Very good.

Motion, Commissioner Willston, second Commissioner Cohen.

Uh please record your vote.

Motion carried seven to zero.

All right.

Next item.

Next item is item E6, uh, PRS application 26-0169.

Uh, this is a request to modify a six point two-acre parcel of the low that's located on the west side of US 301 between Causeway and North and South Falconberg Road.

Uh Commissioners, this uh this request is to adding a second access configuration option for the project.

Currently, the project has direct access to US 301 with cross access to the north and pedestrian axis to the south.

This adds a second option to remove uh access to US 301 with uh primary access being to the through the north that's in the north through uh to the adjacent parcel and maintaining the pedestrian access to the south.

Uh staff is recommending approval and we're available for any questions.

Is the applicant here Adam or Brian?

You need to add anything.

Application not aware of any uh concerns with it.

Staff some support.

Yes, sir.

Is anyone here who want to speak to the E6?

What's the pleasure of the board?

I'll move approval.

Second.

Motion uh Commissioner Willstone, second commissioner Myers, please record your vote on E6.

Motion carried seven to zero.

E seven commissioners E7 is uh PRS application 26-0175.

This is uh request to modify the PD uh located uh west of US 41.

Uh along this approved for uh a range of uh manufacturing type uses.

Uh these modifications are gonna modify the site plan to provide greater flexibility in the in layout of approved uses, and they're also modifying updated updating uh conditions.

Uh staff is recommending approval and uh we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here morning?

Good morning, Barry Wilcox with Stern's Weaver Miller on behalf of the mosaic.

We're here to answer any questions you might have.

We do have a brief presentation if you feel a necessary, but otherwise uh agree with staff decision and here to answer questions.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone in support of the application?

Anyone in opposition?

Can we have a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Motion, Commissioner Myers, second commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay.

Commissioners, the next item is gen item E9 C D 26-0144.

This is a petition uh to establish the uh Barrie Bay 3 C D D.

Uh this petition was submitted by YM Wymama LLC to establish the Barry Bay 3 CDD.

The Barry Day 3 C D will encompass approximately 506 uh acres and is located on the east and west side of South County Road 579, south of six state road 674, and east of Bishop Road in Waimama.

No objections to the pro CDD were received.

Uh by reviewing agencies, staff finds the application meets the requirements of chapter 190 Florida statutes to establish community development district and recommends approval.

All right, thank you.

Uh this public hearing.

Anyone like to speak to E99?

Come here, motion.

Move for approval.

Motion Commissioner Miller, second commissioner uh Myers, please record your vote on E9.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Commissioners uh E10 is C D D 26-0168.

This is a petition to expand the Barrier Bay Community Development District.

This petition is submitted by the Barrie Bay CDD to expand the CDD by adding approximately 32.2 acres to the CDD.

The revised CDD would accomplish uh 506 acres and is generally located between US 301 and State Road 579 and south of Bonita Drive and north of Sappha Road in Wai Mama.

No objections to the pro CDD were raised by reviewing agencies.

Staff finds the applicant meets the requirement of chapter one Florida status chapter chapter 190 Florida statutes to expand the community development district and recommends approval.

We'll vote for any questions.

Morning, sir.

Good morning, Brian Lamb here on behalf of the applicant, Burry Bay C D.

Um we have nothing further to add, but we're available for any questions.

I thank you.

Anyone else like to speak to this item?

Seeing none, can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner Wellstool, second commissioner Miller.

Please record your vote on E10.

Commit motion carried seven to zero.

E11.

Commissioners E11 is uh C D 26-0200.

This petition to expand the Water City South C D community development district.

This petition is submitted by the Waters at South C D to expand the CDD by adding approximately 69.4 acres of the CDD.

The revived CDD would encompass uh 869.61 acres and is generally located on the north side of 19th Avenue, Northeast between US 41 to the West and I-75 to the east and South Pas Almaur Boulevard.

No objections approach CDD were raised by renewing agencies.

Staff finds the application meets the requirement of chapter 190 Florida statutes to expand a community district and recommends approval.

Okay.

Anyone like to speak this item?

Morning.

Good morning.

Alyssa Wilson with the law firm Key Tac Rock.

I'm district counsel for the Water Set South CDD, just available to answer any questions and thank staff for working with us on this item.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak this item?

Can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Wilson signed Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on the E11.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay.

It's greeting.

Commissioners, the next item is Jenna item F1, uh major mod application 25-0648.

Uh this is a request for a major modification of the PD located at the uh terminus of Apollo Beach Boulevard and Surf Side Boulevard and Apollo Beach.

The apping is requesting to modify uh create two new development options for this project.

Currently, the PD is approved for 53 attached single family condo units or 103 unit hotel motel.

Uh the app is proposing two development options, both removing the the uh option for the the hotel motel.

Option one would be 52 single family chatch condominium dwellings and a 2500 square feet of commercial neighborhood uses.

The second option would just would remove the neighborhood commercial neighborhood uses and provide for uh maximum 54 single family chatch condominium dwelling units.

Uh, as part of this request, the applicant is requesting to increase maximum building height from 50 feet uh to 60 feet.

Uh they are increasing side yard setbacks by 10 feet on the both the north and south and also requesting uh removal of other conditions of zoning.

Staff has reviewed this and found this approvable.

Planning commission found it consistent in hearing losses recommended approval, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, thank you.

Isabel Albert with half.

I'm here representing the applicant.

So basically the site is in Apollo Beach, it's a vacant site, uh, one of the last remnant sites in Apollo Beach, and it's also located in the urban service area.

So surrounding the development along um Apollo Beach Boulevard is commercial strips, and then it dead ends with the marina with open storage for boats, but it also has different styles of residential development around us with a multifamily, single family, and town homes.

The zoning is a standalone zoning, it's not part of the overall Apollo Beach.

It was established in 2004, 20 years ago.

Um, and it's also located in the office commercial 20 uh future land use.

It's the strip of land along the uh water.

So this is what was approved in 2004.

It was approved for 53 uh condos or 103 hotel units.

Um the request today is very similar.

We're just keeping it approximately the same layout.

We're increasing the uh north and south setback by 10 feet.

Uh the request is to eliminate the hotel use, but to allow two options, whether it's going to be 52 condos with 2,500 square feet of um uh uh commercial uses and or uh 54 condo units as well as to increase the height uh by 10 feet.

We're also requesting to remove conditions four and five.

These conditions have been um uh supported by staff because what uh number four has been complied with and number five was provided by the original applicant, but no further needed.

So this is what you're gonna hear today today is the Apollo Beach Community Plan.

The there's a policy in there that discourages uh over 50 feet in height in residential zoned areas, and that's important to stress out because again, we're um we're a standalone plan development.

We are in the OC20, and the policy just says discourage in residential zoning areas.

The site next to us is a residential development, but it was approved uh for approximately almost 60 feet, and on either side, because it's the OC20, where you have.75 uh FAR, 20 units to the acre, which is greater um density.

Um you have also approval for commercial uses on either side or multifamily or residential.

And this is where the location of the site it uh along the OC20.

The increase in height is consistent with the policies because it does just discourages, it doesn't prohibit, but also it's recognizing that an OC20 is more intensive than the Apollo Beach community, general Apollo Beach community of residential six.

That is a residential zoning.

Development services also reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding area.

And also the hearing officer also found it consistent and approvable subject to the conditions.

This generally concludes my application, my presentation, but I'm here to answer any questions.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Any proponent testimony.

Okay, any opponent testimony.

Please come forward.

Good morning.

You have a total of 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Good morning, commissioners.

My name is Carlyanos.

I'm with HKL and Associates.

I was hired by the residents of Apollo Beach to provide expert witness testimony.

I work with Becker on law firm, and we provided a report that's part of the record and was transmitted to the county on November 13 in 2025 in advance of the zoning hearing master.

The report analyzed the applicant's request, in which there are a few cons inconsistencies between the narrative and the site plan.

So this is the overall site plan.

This is the overall site plan for the project.

But let I zoomed in over here a little bit.

I don't know if you guys can see that.

So the site plan shows a maximum building height of 72.

So this is fairly inconsistent with what the applicant is requesting in their narrative.

Now, those were one of the few things that we saw.

Now in the report, we looked at that.

We also looked at um basically the you know the developments nearby the property, and we analyzed them for their maximum heights approved.

We compared it to the current request and the previous request for the subject site.

Now we when we looked at the previous request, we did find that um originally back in 2005.

So this is the so this is the 2005 hearing, February 8th.

And then we also showed here that they had requested something very similar, which was 90 feet in height, and they're then they got it reduced back down to 59.5 until they got it ultimately approved for 50 feet.

So they also had the discussion back then.

If you look at the transcript and part of the record, they had to describe um the discussion of whether or not this property could be developed at a height higher than 50 feet, and between the public hearings and opposition and county staff looking at it, they all basically agreed said this was too high for that community.

So we looked at not only um previous requests, but we also looked at um what is the overall impact for the Apollo Beach community.

So there's obviously a concern for the increase in height.

Now it could be the most visible building in Apollo Beach.

The applicant's request is similar to what was requested back in 2004.

Now we ran an analysis for the majority of the um the developments nearby the property.

It's part of the record, and as you can see, the majority of the buildings out there, and this is pulled all from your county records.

I went through Excel, I went through the PGM store, all of this information is part of your county records.

Now, as you can see, the majority of the buildings out there are 35, 45, and there's only one building that was approved for 60 feet of five-story building, which is Bellasol.

I identified this thoroughly in the report.

And again, there's nothing out there higher than the 60-foot building.

So this whole notion between requesting a building that's higher than 50 feet.

Your plan clearly indicates that it is discouraging buildings higher than that.

To implement something that's quite larger than all the buildings out there, it's going to create an eyesore.

Now, the other um thing that we looked at was the uh uses.

So the applicant is um requesting general CN uses.

Um typically, you know, my planning expertise, we would recommend um potentially limiting those CN uses.

Here I have a traffic memo.

My county staff indicating that because there's so many CN uses that could potentially go on the property, they have limited the amount of trips just to kind of cap that and make sure that the impacts are not affecting Apollo Beach entirely.

So what they put in as a condition is that later on, if they do have something that's coming in that might exceed those trips, they'll have to reanalyze it.

Again, this is too broad.

General CN uses, it's not appropriate.

It would have been better if the applicant would have um proposed some type of limits and uses.

Now, in conclusion, the proposed request um, you know, for a 72-foot um building is not consistent with the Apollo Beach community plan as it discourages um buildings over 50 feet in height.

And lastly, proposed CN uses are way too broad and it's too impactful for the community.

We can't really capture the whole thing.

And then um, you know, CN um if you would have limited the CN uses, we could have potentially looked at other aspects, whether or not is there a potential for mitigation or not.

So um, with that, I will pass it over to one of the Apollo Beach community residents.

Thank you.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning, commissioners.

Commissioner Miller, nice to see you again.

My name is Craig Major from Apollo Beach, and I'm here to talk about the increase in the height restriction to this property.

Because some 20 years ago, this commission lowered the height restriction on that property from 59 feet down to 50 feet.

They're trying to promote a neighborhood friendly feel in Apollo Beach, and I think we're really going a long way towards accomplishing that.

And 10 years ago, this commission uh rejected a request uh to exceed that 50 foot limit, and again trying to maintain the neighborhood feel of Apollo Beach.

Now today we are faced with yet another request to build something taller, an eyesore uh at the end of Apollo Beach Boulevard.

Um the problem with that is that that extra 10 feet they asked for is really 15 because they asked for 10 feet over the base elevation, and the and the base elevation is five feet over grade.

So we're really talking about a 65-foot structure here.

Uh that equates to about 30% higher than everything else around it.

Uh you heard um that there was a 60-foot structure uh just down the street, but that's over a half a mile away.

It's it's it's not really visible from there.

On the south side of this property is a two-story single-family home.

Can't be more than like 30 feet tall.

Uh on the north side is a small condominium building, uh, which is three floors over parking.

And and that building is no more than 40 feet tall.

Directly across the street are 44 town homes, uh, which are 46 feet high.

You heard the uh representative say that it was almost 60 feet high.

Well, there is a 56-foot high steeple in the middle of it that she counted as 60 feet high.

Well, we we would welcome for them to build a 60 or 70 foot high steeple or observation tower in the middle of their building, but they're talking about a monolith of of 65 feet high.

Uh so this modification calls for 60 feet over the base elevation to build four floors over parking, and their structure will be at least 65 feet.

Um it will dwarf any anything around it.

Um, but they say it's only 10 more feet.

Um speaking on behalf of the numerous families in Apollo Beach, I ask that you reaffirm the decisions of previous commissions and restrict the building on this lot to the 50 feet that has previously been established.

If they build three floors over parking instead of four floors over parking, they can easily stay within that 50-foot limit.

And that's just only 10 feet lower.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else in opposition?

Seeing none applicant has a five-minute rebuttal.

Good morning, Commissioners William Malloy, 325 South Boulevard, Tampa.

I'll keep this pretty brief and quick.

I think the line of code that we're all fussing about is in the Apollo Beach Livable Community element in the community plan.

And it reads very simply discourage development over 50 feet in height in residential zoned areas.

And I've had a problem with that line being applied to this case since the beginning.

This site is currently entitled for 103 hotel rooms.

That is a significant commercial impact, which we're taking off the table, Commissioner Wosel.

Um I think you understand what that means.

What we're asking here, the 10 foot increase in height is not out of greed or or anything like that.

We have a nationally recognized home builder that wants to deliver a beautiful project here, a beautiful condo tower.

The 10 feet just gets us to the aesthetic that we want.

We very respectfully ask for your support on that.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify also, um, it's been stated a couple times that uh the opposition represents the Apollo Beach community.

I have met months before we filed for this application with numerous residents.

I was invited for a podcast to explain what we were doing.

We had some great feedback, um, a lot of support of the community.

Obviously, they're not here, but um, I just wanted to point that out that I did hear a lot of support, and this is why we're here today.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Planning commission.

Thank you.

Melissa Linehard Planning Commission staff.

The subject property is located within the Office Commercial 20 future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located both within the limits of the Apollo Beach Community Plan as well as the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

As one of the most intensive future land use categories on the future land use map, the OC20 category may be considered for a maximum of up to 20 dwelling units per gross acre or a maximum intensity of a 0.75 floor area ratio.

The OC20 future land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural, community commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and residential uses.

The proposal meets the intent of future land use section objective 4.1 and policy 4.4.1 that require new development be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood.

In this case, the surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of vacant land and single family residential uses with light commercial uses further south of South Apollo Beach Boulevard.

Policy 4.4.1 states that any density or intensity increases shall be compatible with existing proposed or planned surrounding development.

Development and redevelopment shall be integrated with the adjacent land uses through the creation of like uses, the creation of complementary uses, the mitigation of adverse impacts, transportation and pedestrian connections, as well as the gradual transition of intensity.

The project is meeting that require the required two to one setback, which is consistent with policy direction relating to compatibility, with the subject site being in the office commercial 20 designation, which is one of the more intensive future land use categories in the comprehensive plan, along with the surrounding uses, the proposal for condominium units with a development option to develop uh commercial neighborhood uses.

The request meets the intent of that policy direction as it relates to compatibility.

While the subject site is in the Office Commercial 20 future land use designation, the Apollo Beach Community Plan does discourage development of over 50 feet in height in residentially zoned areas.

The applicant is proposing a building height of 60 feet, and though the proposed height is over the encouraged 50 feet building height in Apollo Beach, the site is also located within one of the more intensive future land use categories.

The applicant has previously had previously proposed a building height of 70 feet and did not meet the two to one setback in the land development code.

With the latest revisions, the applicant has reduced the height to 60 feet and is now meeting that setback requirement.

As such, the building height of 60 feet strikes a balance between the community plan language, which is an encouragement rather than an outright prohibition, the surrounding development pattern, and the site's location in the office commercial 20 future land use category.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

All right, zoning hearing master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed major modification to Plan Development 04 979, which is currently approved for 53 attached single family condo dwelling units or uh 103 room hotel.

The modification requests to eliminate the hotel entitlement and instead propose two development options.

Additionally, the modification requests an increase in the maximum building height from 50 feet to 60 feet.

Certain zoning conditions that pertain to signage required contribution to the parks department and maintenance of the landscape mediums are proposed to be removed as they are no longer applicable or are completed.

Testimony in opposition was provided relating primarily to the increase in height and incompatibility with the surrounding area.

The zoning hearing master noted that goal two of the Apollo Beach Community Plan discourages building height over 50 feet in residentially zoned areas, but does not prohibit it.

The applicant's representative stated that the subject property is currently approved for a 103-room hotel and is designated OC20, which is one of the most intense future land use plan categories.

Therefore, the property is not strictly residentially zoned.

The modification for the increase in height is supported by the development services department based on the applicant's commitment to increase the setbacks to the adjoining properties by 10 feet, as well as providing additional buffering and screening to the adjacent parcels.

The zoning hearing master concluded that the proposed modification is compatible with the surrounding development pattern and consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the land development code and concluded with a recommendation of approval.

Okay, we'll go into board discussion.

Uh Commissioner Wolstell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just wanted to say on page four of this backup.

I could really be persuaded to go either way on this one, but it is complicated because it does say residential designated areas.

And if you look on page four, 99% of the map is residential six, and this little strip is the only area that's designated as commercial on the whole map that was provided.

So I guess my question would be if that language about the 50-foot for residential areas was intended for residential.

Obviously, if this was in one of the RSC six areas, I would just immediately vote no against it.

But I guess my question is since that language is in there designating it for residential only.

How could it not be being applied to this single red strip of OC20 that's there?

It it seems like it was intended to leave out the commercial areas.

I don't know.

Um what I would say is either way, something's going to be built on this piece of property.

Is it going to be a 50-foot hotel or is it going to be a slightly higher?

It looks like they're reducing all of the rentals to a single family attached condominiums, correct?

Basically, just two different variations of it.

That's correct.

I guess I mean, really, the question is is do you want the potential of a transient hotel at the end of Apollo Beach, or do you just want single family attached condos is what we're really deciding today?

But I guess that's my main if if anybody else has a question, but I mean there's literally only like 20 plots of land that are not residential in the area, and that line of language seems to specifically protect the other 99%, not this.

But I could be persuaded to go either way.

I just don't, I just want to make sure the public knows that something's going to be built there.

It's already heavily entitled, and I I don't want them to leave here thinking um anything less.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cohen.

Yeah, I I would just reiterate the most important point, I think, which is that there's a hundred and there's currently a hundred and three-room hotel permitted to be constructed on this property.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but that it certainly couldn't exist in a place that just has pure residential zoning.

Commissioner, if this was in the res six category, that hundred and uh three hundred and three uh hotel units would be looked at much differently.

It would be a different type of analysis.

This type this OC20 future land use category does support that type of use, whereas the res six generally does not.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Cairman's beta.

Yes, um, it's only additional 10 feet, and I would like to move for approval.

Okay, we got a motion to approve Commissioner Cameron's beta.

Do we have a second?

I'll second it.

Second, Commissioner Miller.

I don't see anyone else in the queue.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay.

Next order.

Commissioner's next item is general item F two is a request for a rezone F2 PD 25 0932.

This is a request to rezone a parcel, 10.69 acre parcel on the west side of Fern Hill draw drive.

Uh the request is rezoned to allow for development options.

Uh the first development option would be for 50 53 single family units either attached or detached with the allowance for accessory storage for recreational vehicles, private pleasure class and utility trailers for the residents.

Uh the second option would just uh make the site uh allowable for the open storage of recreational vehicles, private pleasure class and utility trailers and art studio uh based on the surrounding development pattern and the extensive wetland systems on site that does provide for separation of the development area from the immediate adjacent property owners.

Uh staff did find this approvable.

Uh planning mission found in consistent with the comprehensive plan and hearing also record also recommended approval.

Uh we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

The applicant here.

Good morning, Isabel Albert with half uh representative of the applicant.

I have another further to add unless you have any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any proponent testimony?

Anyone in support?

Any opponent testimony.

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the suburban mixed use six future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Riverview Community Plan as well as the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

The site currently contains single family and vacant land.

Uh, there are also single family residential homes to the north, south, and west of the site.

There's also light industrial and heavy commercial uses to the north and educational uses to the south.

The applicant is requesting a waiver from the 20-foot buffer and the type B screening that is required to the northwest and south of the site.

Surrounding the site on these boundaries are heavily vegetated wetlands that create a natural buffer between the proposed use and the residential uses nearby.

The natural wetland that will remain in place creates a larger buffer and screening that is required for the request.

Option two includes a 10-foot buffer on the eastern boundary along Fern Hill Drive.

There will also be a six-foot high PVC fence and a row of evergreen trees, which are not less than 10 feet high at the time of planting.

Excuse me, that are spaced not more than 40 feet apart.

With the mitigation measures proposed, the request meets the intent of future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3 as they relate to compatibility.

Future land use section objective 4.7 and its associated policies address commercial locational criteria.

Policy 4.7.10 states that the Board of County Commissioners may grant a waiver to the intersection criteria for the location of commercial uses outlined in those policies.

The applicant has submitted a waiver request stating that approximately 86% of the land east of Fernhill Drive is already developed for non-residential uses, indicating that additional retail commercial space would support and complement the surrounding residential community.

With that justification, planning commission staff supports approval of the commercial locational criteria waiver request.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Hearing master the zoning hearing master considered the applicant's request for a rezoning from AR to a planned development zoning district for the development of two development options.

RVs, boats, and trailers.

It's open to the public.

No waivers are requested.

Testimony in opposition was provided during the hearing and submitted into the record.

Concerns primarily address the impact of the project traffic to the area on Fern Hill Drive from the proposed single family homes and commercial vehicle traffic associated with the storage of boats, RVs, and trailers, and the worsening of existing flooding conditions from the proposed single family homes.

Neighborhoods, neighbors, excuse me, testify that the existing school has resulted in the backup of traffic along Fern Hill Road, and that the addition of the project traffic would present a safety issue to children walking to the school.

In response, the applicant's transportation engineer stated that they did traffic counts on Fernhill Drive while school was in session and did not observe backups.

The applicant's representative stated that the developer will provide a 10-foot wide multi-use path that will connect the subject property south to the existing sidewalk and bike lane to the school, and also complete a missing segment of the bike lane on the east side of Fern Hill Drive.

The county transportation review staff had no objection to the rezoning application subject to the proposed zoning conditions.

The zoning here master concluded that the request for a PD for the development of the two development options is consistent with the code and with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval.

Motion Commissioner Cohen, second commissioner Cameron Sabeta, Commissioner Wilson.

I just the current flu is six units per acre, and they're going for five.

That's what I'm reading, correct?

Yes, correct plan for six units per acre.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we've got a motion and a second.

Please call your vote.

Motion carried seven to zero.

F three.

Commissioner, the next item is general item F3 rezoning standard 25-1316.

Uh, this is a request to rezone a 4.1 acre uh parcel at the northwest corner of Pine Street and the East Art Dr.

Martin Luther King Jewel Junior Boulevard is currently zoned commercial neighborhood.

Uh they're asking for commercial general with restrictions.

The restrictions include enhanced buffering screening along the northern boundary to address compatibility with the adjacent uh uh parcels, uh a uh transportation trip cap to limit uh the number of trips for any particular use that goes in the site to that outline in their proposed trip cap, and they also propose limitations of uses as I outlined in the staff report.

Uh staff is recommending approval.

Planning commission found it consistent with the plan, and the hearing officer also recommended approval when available for any questions.

Thank you.

That was the applicant here.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Uh Rebecca Kurt, I'm here with my land use partner Michael Brooks with Brooks Rushakolby and Rice.

We are here representing MLK GS2 LLC with the primary principals, Richard Gonzalez and the Henderson family office.

We also have with us today.

Our development partner uh Shag Bark properties and Michael Leeds is here.

We also have our engineer planning and transportation experts as needed.

Um this site is a 4.89 acre site along a portion of MLK, which is in the Seffner Mango planning area in an area that is specifically designated by the plan to encourage commercial revitalization.

Uh this slide shows the overall block area.

Our subject site again is a request to go from CN to CGR, which will increase the FAR and allow for a grocery store use.

Um, we are providing some restrictions, which we will go over further.

Um this also shows uh in blue the 250579, which is a rezoning you will be here hearing later today.

Uh our project stands on its own merits, but we wanted to show you the slide to show that the entire block is being revitalized with a logical mix of uses.

Uh, we did have one person speak in opposition at the hearing.

He was speaking, if you can see the blue uh rezoning abutz high view road.

His concerns were along High View Road, which are um improvements of that are being addressed in that PD.

We do have cross access, but we don't have direct access to High View Road.

Um at this point, I'm going to ask our planner to come up, talking about compatibility.

Good morning.

My name is Stephen Spizzato.

I'm a certified planer with uh level up consultant here in Tampa.

Uh the aerial and and street view on the screen is it's an MLK and Pine.

It's uh looking west, and the point is to clearly show that this site is underutilized and in need of uh revitalization.

The the project site was originally zoned rezoned to commercial about 50 years ago.

It was C1, it was changed in 91 through the zoning conformance process.

It it included a cap on uh uh on the FAR to 0.20.

FERs is uh one measure of intensity, not necessarily predictive of other intensity metrics such as traffic, and this uh this request will restrict traffic.

The um request is also facilitated by major modification 250265, which provides for the redevelopment of Mango Square, which is to the west of High View.

That eliminated the existing uh grocery, and so it's mentioned by Rebecca.

A goal of this request is to construct a grocery store.

It's also uh intentionally integrated with uh PD 25079, which we'll hear later.

Sorry.

The request is also supported by the Res 6 flu designation, which has a uh.25 FAR and the centers and connections uh designation.

The voluntary restrictions include those on uses typically that generate high peak necessit uh necessitating internal stacking, it includes a maximum trip cap and enhanced uh buffer along the northern edge.

And with that, turn it over to uh Mr.

Yates.

Uh good morning, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, and I have been sworn.

I just wanted to go over trip generation just real quick.

Uh basically, as you can see from the graphic, we are proposing to keep the AM trips as a reduction and the PM tree as substantially the same as the previously approved gas convenience store that was on the site.

They have an approved construction plans for that use there.

So what we were doing was keeping those trips the same, and you know, those trip numbers are reflective in the trip cap that we have proposed.

And we are doing improvements to uh Pine as well to facilitate uh better movements at the intersection of Pine and MLK.

Thank you.

That concludes our presentation unless there's questions.

All right, thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Anyone in opposition planning commission?

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the residential six future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Sephner Mango Community Plan.

The subject site consists of vacant land and two lake commercial uses.

Adjacent to the west is also vacant land and a used car dealership with PD and commercial general zoning.

Adjacent to the east are single family detached homes, a church and a bank with um RDC 6 and CN zoning respectively.

The proposal meets the intent of future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3 that relate to compatibility of future development based upon the surrounding development pattern today.

The subject site meets commercial locational criteria as the closest and qualifying intersection to the subject site is East Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard and Pine Street, and the site is located within the required 1,000 foot distance of that.

Goal three of the Sephner Mango community plan notes that commercial development should be directed to the U.S.

92 and Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard corridors.

Furthermore, one of the strategies is to recognize the commercial character of US 92 and Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard within the urban service area.

Along with that, another strategy under this goal is to encourage revitalization and redevelopment of older existing commercial areas and uses.

The proposed rezoning from CG to I'm sorry, from CN to CGR is consistent with the Sephen or Mango community plan as outlined in the livable communities element of the comprehensive plan.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the restrictions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Hearing master.

The zoning hearing master considered the applicant's request for a rezoning from the commercial neighborhood to the CG commercial general restricted zoning district.

The property is designated residential six by the comprehensive plan and located within the urban service area and the Sefner Mango community plan.

The proposed restrictions offered by the applicant, establish a trip generation cap for development.

Prohibits certain land uses and require the construction of a 20-foot-wide tight B buffer along the rear property line and include a solid masonry wall with evergreen shade trees.

Testimony and support and opposition was provided at the hearing.

Both comments addressed an adjacent property rezoning that was scheduled to be heard the same hearing.

The proposed restriction regarding the vehicular trip cap was found by the ZHM to ensure that future development equals or reduces the traffic impact on the area based on the existing CN zoning district entitlements.

The zoning hearing master concluded that the request is compatible with the development pattern and consistent with the land development code and the comprehensive plan and recommended approval.

Can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner Willstels and Commissioner Cameron Cepeda.

Please record your vote on F3.

Commissioner Miller.

Motion carried seven to zero.

F four.

Next agenda items agenda item F4 rezoning standard 25-1319.

This is a request for rezone of 0.9 acre parcel that's located on Lakeside Drive.

Request is a resonant from RSC 6 to RMC 9 with restrictions and restrictions, uh limit the limit development to single story structures and a maximum for attached units with those restrictions.

Staff did find this request compatible with the surrounding zoning and development pattern.

Planning commission found a consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval.

Staff is a vote for any questions.

Thank you.

Yes, good morning.

My name is Patricia Ortiz.

I'm with Ortiz Planning Solutions.

My address is 2810 North Central Avenue.

As Brian or Mr.

Grady stated, this is a request from RSC 6 to RMC9.

It's a standard district rezoning.

We are accepting restrictions to ensure compliance with the two for one setback requirement, the RMC9 development standards, and to uh ensure the uh low profile development pattern will remain.

Um, this petition has been re received uh favorable recommendations from all reviewing agencies and has been forwarded to you with a recommendation of approval from the zoning hearing master.

Our intent is to develop a single story fourplex.

The surrounding uses along the south side of Lakeside Drive include fast food, office, single family, and multifamily, and this demonstrates uh the transitional nature of this neighborhood.

We had one person speak in opposition at our ZHM hearing.

Um, this person had issues with flooding and indicated that she thought the zoning was to allow an office residential zone.

Um, to be clear, we're seeking a rezoning from RSC6 to RMC9 with restrictions.

Um, and with that, I could answer any questions that you might have.

All right, thank you.

Any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the residential nine future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Brandon Community Plan.

The current development of the surrounding area consists of single-family residential to the northeast and west of the site with light and heavy commercial uses to the south and largely oriented along Brandon Boulevard.

The residential nine future land use category allows for the consideration of up to nine dwelling units per gross acre.

With 0.9 acres, the subject site can be considered for up to eight units.

The proposed rezoning to RMC9 would allow residential units on the site, and the applicant has agreed to two restrictions to mitig to mitigate compatibility concerns for the site.

The site will be restricted to a maximum of four multifamily units, and after the fact, setback variances for the site will be prohibited.

The proposed restrictions ensure that the potential development on the site will be compatible with the existing development pattern and sensitive to the existing community character.

Therefore, the rezoning request is consistent with future land use section objectives and policies that relate to compatibility and neighborhood protection.

The site is located within the urban center brand and character district located within the Brandon Community Plan, which is described under goal six as an area that contains the most intense land uses and includes regional shopping areas and the State Road 60 overlay district.

Given the future land use of residential 9 and the location of the site between light and heavy commercial uses and residential uses, the proposed multifamily use in this area fits within the urban center uses and vision and provides transition of intensity between the urban center and the urban general character district areas of the Brandon Community Plan.

Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the restrictions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Zoning Hearing Master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the applicant's request for a rezoning to the RMC9 restricted zoning district.

The parcel is located within the urban service area and the Brandon Community Plan.

The applicant proposes a restriction that will limit the number of dwelling units to a maximum of four single story attached homes.

The proposed restriction regarding the limitation on four single story attached homes was considered by the zoning hearing master to be uh satisfactory and ensuring compatibility to the neighboring residential land uses.

And the zoning hearing master concluded that the request for the RMC9 restricted zoning district is compatible with the development pattern and consistent with the land development code and the comprehensive plan.

The zoning hearing master concluded with a recommendation of approval.

Can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Second.

Motion, Commissioner Cohen.

Commissioner Willstool, please record your vote on F4.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay.

G1A and G1B.

Commissioner next items are related items G1A and G1B.

Uh commissioners, the first item G1A is rezoning PD 25 0579.

It's a it's a request to rezone a 14.99 acre parcel located at the northeast of the intersection of Highview and MLK Boulevard from PD and CG to a plan development.

The Pandel proposes to have a mixed uses of uh 200 304 multifamily units and 27,000 square feet of commercial with the commercial along the frontage of uh MLK Boulevard and the residential and the remainder as shown.

Uh required buffering and setbacks are being provided as part of the multifamily.

I would also note that the app is requesting a uh residue density bonus for infill development pursuant to policy comprehensive policy 4.9.6.

Uh we did find this request compatible.

The planning commission found it consistent uh with the comprehensive plan and uh the hearing officer also is recommending approval, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

The applicant here.

Morning.

Morning, Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission.

Uh, for the record, Michael Brooks, 400 Northampa Street, suite 1900, uh Tampa 33602.

Um, I'm here this morning on behalf of umk GHS properties, which is uh uh Richard Gonzalez family and uh the Greg Henderson family.

Also have with me uh here this morning is Michael Leeds, who is uh working as the developer with the ownership group.

Of course, my land use counsel, Rebecca Kurt, Jeremy Couch is here today, Tampa Civil Engineering, Stephen Spizzode is also going to speak as our planner uh in Michael Yates on traffic and uh this development team has worked really hard on this.

This is a segue from the petition you just heard a few minutes ago, 2531, which was the uh grocery store site.

Um we have 10 minutes on this application and then the PRS.

Uh we can give the PRS application separately or we can touch on it, uh, but I know I only have 10 minutes, so I want to keep moving the hearing along this morning.

If I can figure out how to work.

There we go.

Uh this is an overview of the site.

It's within the urban service area, the Sephiroth Mango planning area.

It's a combination of Res4 and REST 20, and these are maps that are in your backup, of course.

Um some of you may remember that a portion of this particular PD we changed the land use category a couple years ago to Res 20 in anticipation of bringing this project back to you.

Um so just use an overview on the on the right-hand side of the image.

You can see the CG rezoning 251316 you just voted on.

To the left side of that photograph, you can see the approved mangrove praza uh development, which Stephen Snowdis just uh mentioned is being uh revitalized.

And then the blue cross hatch is the proposed PD of which this presentation is part.

The purple areas are the remnants that are associated with the PR, the companion PRS, as well as a track uh we call track day that is uh along the high view right-of-way.

And so with that, I'm not going to talk about the existing zoning at this moment.

I'm gonna ask Stephen Spazotto to come up.

This is a very involved, technically involved project, both from a planning standpoint and a transportation.

I'm going to ask Steven to come up and give the planning side of this because I can't possibly have Michael Yates do that as well.

But know that everybody's in here to answer questions when we're done.

Steven Spizzato with Level Up Consulting.

The regional, this map sort of picks a regional view of the site, has access uh nearby to I-75 and I-4 interchanges, is at a signalized intersection, and it fronts on a uh major commercial corridor.

It also abuts the uh centers and commercial and sorry, centers and connections designation.

The PD site plan depicts the residential, that's the tangerine color.

It caps the units at 304.

It's separated by an east-west shared access facility.

Uh south of that is the commercial designation with A B and C parcels, A and B allow up to 27,000 square feet of commercial, and parcel C will be uh parking and or retention.

It uh utilizes the infilled density bonus as well as the uh blending provisions of the comprehensive plan.

In terms of access, it's addressed comprehensively, it maintains the access to the advanced auto in the southwest corner, closes seven existing access points and facilitates east-west movement between high view and uh Pine Street, uh, and it also provides for pedestrian connectivity internally and uh externally.

Uh it does include a the same uh prohibition on certain CG uses, which I went over a little bit on the previous case for the adjacent project.

Um it does include uh a reduction in uh both AM and PM trips.

Uh there it includes substantial improvements on MLK as uh as well as high view, which includes a design exception.

I'll kind of go through those as uh Michael said if you happy to answer any any questions regarding these uh improvements and includes substantial buffering as depicted on this slide, substantial uh specifically I'm sorry, uh you see the kind of the darker green uh has is an enhanced tight type B buffer.

Um we also provide for variations on the buffering based on the unique circumstances of the property, including along high view, and then the and then also the internal uh east-west shared uh facility.

Um the building setbacks are also appropriately designed based on what is adjacent, and as mentioned um also uh Al Parcel C provides for potential combination with the the Euclidean zoning that we just talked about, the grocery uh store site.

I think with that, um Michael, any any additional comments.

I'm gonna ask Michael Yeach just to come up real quick and give you an overview, um, and then uh we'll just have a couple more sides for the PRS.

Again, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, and I have been sworn.

Um I I'll just go through very quickly on the improvements we're doing to High View.

Um again, uh Stephen went through this is a reduction in trips over what the previous zoning approval was for.

So we've reduced the trips and reflected that in a trip cap so that we will not exceed the trips uh based on our new data.

Uh but most of high view has nine foot lanes out there.

If you've driven it, you will know it's hard to pass another car, particularly as you go north on there.

Uh so what we are doing is we are providing 10-foot travel lanes.

Uh we are providing a uh an additional southbound right turn lane at the intersection of high view.

Uh, and then at the project access, we are providing a northbound right turn lane uh into the project driveway.

Uh this will include having sidewalks on both sides of the road, uh, and then on the northern section uh going up to the northern property line.

We will have the 10-foot travel lanes as well as a sidewalk on the east side of the road.

Uh there is a sidewalk being constructed on the west side of the road as part of the Mango Plaza redevelopment.

So this will get uh a new improved roadway, 10-foot travel lane sidewalks, ultimately on both sides of the road, all the way up to the northern property line.

And happy to answer any questions, but that concludes the traffic portion.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, that concludes our presentation on this item.

All right, thank you.

Any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the residential four and residential 20 future land use categories.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Sephenor Mango community plan.

The proposed mixed use development is compatible with the existing mixed use character and density of the surrounding area, which is consistent with the neighborhood protection policies outlined in the future land use section.

The residential four future land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, and office uses.

The residential 20 future land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and mixed use developments.

Future land use section policy 2.2.5 allows projects whose boundaries encompass more than one future land use category.

The density intensity calculations will allow for the blending of those categories across the entire project as long as the combined maximum density intensity allowed within the categories is not exceeded.

With 14.99 acres, the subject site can be considered for up to 303 dwelling units with the residential density infill bonus that is being requested.

Future land use section policy 4.9.6 incentivizes higher density and intensity development along major corridors and within mixed use developments through the residential density bonus for infill development.

State Road 574 is an arterial roadway and a major corridor in this area.

Therefore, the bonus is suitable for this site.

The site qualifies for the bonus because it is in the urban service area.

It is located along a collector or arterial roadway, and the requested bonus is within the 660 feet distance perpendicular from that road.

Goal two of the Sephner Mango community plan is to enhance community character and ensure quality residential and non-residential development.

One of the strategies under this goal is to support infield development and redevelopment within the urban service area while providing for compatibility with the existing land uses.

The request is consistent with the community plan vision based on the surrounding development pattern.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Zoning Hearing Master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the applicant's request for a rezoning from plan development and CG zoning to plan development zoning district for the development of 27,000 square feet of general commercial land uses and a maximum of 304 multifamily dwelling units.

Testimony in opposition was provided during the hearing.

Concerns expressed, address the impact of the project traffic to the area on the narrow high view road, possible flooding issues, parking, and the height of proposed buildings.

In response, the applicant's drainage engineer testified that the site is required to design the retention to volume sensitive standards, which will require significantly more retention than typical sites.

The applicant's land use planner testified that the code requirements to provide an additional two to one setback for buildings over 20 feet in height results in a setback of 80 feet on the side that a butt single family residential.

He stated that the setback would increase the height of the building, would increase, excuse me, if the height of the building was to increase.

The applicant's transportation engineer testified that there is sufficient right-of-way to provide the transportation improvements and that no right of way will be taken from existing parcels.

The zoning hearing master concluded that the rezoning request to plan development for the development of 27,000 square feet of general commercial land uses and a maximum of 304 multifamily dwelling units is consistent with the land development code in the comprehensive plan.

And the recommendation was for approval.

Okay, thank you.

Do you want to speak now or after the PRS?

After sign.

Okay.

Mr.

Grady, do you need to introduce PRS?

Just real quickly.

Uh the next G1B is PRS application 25-1377.

Uh, this is dealing with the parcel we just spoke about.

The PRS is basically to reflect removal of the parcels that are associated with G1B from the existing PD and recalibrate conditions to to recognize entitlements associated with the two parcels that remain in the PD, which are outlined to the north and south of the uh the area that's subject to G1A and staff is recommending approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Brooks.

Um morning commission.

For the record, Michael Brooks, 400 North Tampa Street.

Umite 1900, uh, Tampa 33602.

I'm gonna uh just go back in this presentation.

Just address three slides.

Um I want to talk about what the current site is approved for.

So this site was approved in 1990 for a planned development.

Uh there were two portions of it that you see on your screen, a PDH and a PDC.

The PDH housing residential portion is to the north, and by the way, this graphic is not to scale.

I'm not sure why.

Um the red portion was the shopping center.

Um that was approved, as I said, in 1990.

In 1999, there was an amendment done uh to this plan development.

I actually worked on this, um, and uh a portion of this PD came in to reconfigure the portion of the shopping center site for a grocery store at that time.

It was going to be a um, I think it was a food line.

Um that never happened, but this PD modification was approved.

And so what you have today is the existing site is approved for 125,000 square feet of uh non-residential uh shopping center.

Um mix of CN and many warehouse uses are allowed uh with the out parcel having 20 uh 12,600 uh some change feet.

And this is roughly a graphic that's similar to what Michelle Heimer just put up.

Uh you can see the remnant parcels subject to the PRS, they're in tank, they'll remain within that PD.

The uh lane in bold that's cross-hatched, that will be coming out and going into uh the new PD 250579.

And with that, um I have Jeremy Couch here to answer any questions.

Michael Yates, of course, Steven Supo, you've already seen.

Uh I do want to say to the board that two things that with regard to the community.

Um since the CPA, we have overnoticed on this site, and we did that just because of looking at the relationship of the surrounding residences and and the commercial and trying to make sure that we got enough of uh of the local community.

So we held a uh community meeting on the CPA, and we held two community meetings with an extended notice area just on the P just on these zoning petitions.

Uh and so uh I want to thank Michael Leeds, he has been the uh the contact for all the neighbors as they've been calling, and they're interested in the redevelopment of this site.

Um so um anyways, I'm proud of this team.

We've gone above and beyond to put together what we think is a good application.

Uh so with that I will close and ask for your consideration.

All right, thank you.

Any proponent testimony?

Any opponent testimony we'll go into board discussion, Commissioner Woolstrom.

Just briefly from I don't know if it's cleared up in the zoning hearing master hearings when somebody testifies about stormwater, but if they do listen, just to remind them that that's all handled during the permitting process, not during zoning.

And if they can't comply with stormwater needs, then then they can't build.

It's it's not handled during this process.

But um, I I only see one more person cute, so I'll go ahead and move for approval.

And okay, a motion approved G1A and G1B by Commissioner Willstels and Commissioner Cameron to Peta.

Commissioner Bowles.

I I had a question regarding the uh trip count.

The yes, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic.

Yeah, thank you.

I apologize, can remember the name.

No, that's okay.

Um with the Walmart revitalization that came before us uh a couple months back last year, and uh there were some concerns about the Terry Lane traffic, and I think they were gonna make some improvements to that or at least some buffering on nothing to do with your project per se.

I worked on that one as well, so okay.

I can answer.

So when the uh the trip count, is that do you include that or is this coming off high view and uh Martin Luther King because I know it doesn't have direct access, but it does kind of play in the I would see it playing into it.

Yeah, so Terry Lane.

I know it's not it's it's not a well traveled, but it's still an access from the Yeah, and Terry Lane has their primary access is to Mango.

Right.

And so I don't have an area that shows uh it's just to the where that is, but it's just to the northwest of our project.

Yeah, it's a probably one lot north.

Yeah, and so the majority of Terry Lane, and actually the very eastern 500 feet of Terry Lane is actually a county right-of-way.

Right.

Uh, but then it goes into a private road beyond that east of Mango.

And so the way the Mango Plaza redevelopment was it was taking the commercial component that faced Terry Lane that the back of the service to Terry Lane and moving it and rotating it to High View, and so doing a pond there adjacent to Terry Lane.

And so doing a pond there adjacent to Terry Lane.

So with this project, we're improving high view on the now east side of Terry Lane.

And so that will be improved all the way to the northern property line for 0579 zoning.

And then that will provide 10 foot lanes all the way down to the intersection of 579.

But I'd I think only maybe one home accesses Terry Lane to Highview.

Most of the access off of Mango.

Is off of Mango where there's improvements being done to Mango as part of the Mango Plaza redevelopment.

Yeah, yeah.

And again, I know that really it's connected in in my mind, they're connected in a way because they're all right there.

Right.

Kind of globbed on each other.

Um and the one thing with the uh the the I'm calling it a waiver.

You're asking for uh we're not putting a bike lane in because normally you would have to you ask over 10 foot instead of 11 foot with a seven foot bike lane.

Correct, we're just doing 10 foot.

We're just doing 10 foot lanes.

It's it's really a constrained right-away.

Yeah, uh it's really tight, particularly we're giving up, I think about nine feet of right-away to actually even build the section that we're committing to.

So it's really a constrained right-away.

This is to allow for a at least a standard section that is acceptable to the county engineer and provides a safe functional uh road section for the voting public.

Thank you, sir.

I got a motion to approve G1A and G1B.

Commissioner Willston second Commissioner Cameron Topeta, please call your vote.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay, Mr.

Grady, next item.

The next item is the uh the monthly update on the live local act uh uh zoning development projects.

I would note that we had two new applications uh filed since last month's uh report.

I would also note that these two sites are not eligible under the uh the current provisions under the Live Local Act for development under that provisions.

They rather they are actually seeking uh allowance for development under a different statute that uh allows for consideration of multifamily affordable housing for religious institutions subject to approval uh by the board of county commissioners.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

I don't know if I don't see any questions or comments, can I motion to accept the report?

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Willstill second, Commissioner Myers, please record your vote motion carried seven to zero.

Okay, next item.

The final item is Commissioner Wolstall's item, then Wolstra.

Thanks.

This item is really just to get you guys' opinion.

I don't I didn't know this was happening.

Um but we had a residence basically improve out.

I think he's in his in his email, it's like mid-50s, he's lived there for a long time and he improved out in an already enclosed patio that was built with the roof line of the home and the slab was poured um when the house was constructed.

And because of our flat-lined tier structure, it just by happenstance pushed him into the next bracket and gave him an exorbitant amount of mobility and impact fees to schools, et cetera.

That I I'm not okay with doing to folks, and um Mr.

Gormley had said that he did have some suggestions if we were willing to hear him that he could bring back for some amendments to that that would make it more amenable for our residents and give them some relief.

Um I just I just didn't think it was appropriate, he was like 1200 and 10, and it pushed them into the 1300 bracket if you had a chance to read the email, and and I didn't think that was right.

So if I don't know if anybody wanted to comment if you guys um yeah, go ahead.

Commissioner Merlin.

Thank you.

I actually asked about this because I think my briefing happened after your request.

Um I would really support that.

I you know, we get a lot of people that come and say I don't understand why we have additional fees attached, but if you're adding an entire separate dwelling, um, just because you've lived there for 30 years doesn't mean that it doesn't increase your property value could turn around and sell it, but this is completely different situation under the current roof line.

We're talking about enclosing in a porch or some additional thing that already existed on a home.

I think we should look at those separately.

I don't know how we go about making that happen, but I certainly would support um Commissioner Wussel on this.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yeah, and um I I did want to mention that.

Sorry, I I did want to mention that the suggestions would come back that if if someone is trying to build like a whole new 300 square foot bedroom or something in Porus Lab, and that that's gonna be included in his suggestions.

So I believe there's a suggestion, suggested motion on my item, and I would just move approval of that suggested motion for staff to come back with those ideas.

And um, I know that there's like a possibly per fit per per foot situation that we're not gonna get into today because it'll be more detailed um to offer better relief.

So thank you.

I got a motion by Commissioner Wolf, still send Commissioner Cohen.

Uh Adam, do you need you need to add anything on that?

Do you understand?

We understand, yes, Commissioner.

We'll come back with some suggestions on how to make these assessments more more uh equitable.

Uh yeah.

Yeah, please do.

Okay, please call your vote.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay.

Anything else?

All right, or adjourned.