To speak in favor of an application.

And it is, that's true.

Okay.

Anyway, proponents, uh 15 minutes.

Sorry, that threw me off.

Fifteen minutes, everyone combined, uh, to state your uh beliefs in favor, and then also true when we go to opponents, anyone who would like to speak against an application.

Fifteen minutes for everyone.

We'll then circle back to the development services department who has five minutes to make any comments or changes based on tonight's testimony.

And then finally, the applicant has the last word with five minutes for rebuttal.

I don't think we have this this evening, but I'll go over uh when it is that time for proponents or opponents to speak in favor or against an application.

I'll ask for a show of hands and we'll count how many people would like to speak total.

There are people in the room that we may also have someone participating virtually, so we'll get a count of that, and we will divide the 15 minutes by the number of people that want to speak and to give everyone a fair shot.

When you come up to the podium, if you could give us your name and address to start.

We are, as you heard, recording this um hearing, and we want to make sure we have your name and information correct.

Then when you're done, if you're in the room, if you could see Alison, Allison will raise your hand.

Allison's with the clerk's office, and she has a written log that she's keeping on top of the dais.

So when you're done speaking at the podium, if you could go and sign in with your name, address, and the petition number to which you spoke.

All right, with that, let me now turn to Ms.

Dorman of the County Attorney's Office, who will provide you the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Any evidence presented tonight will become part of the complete factual record of each application, and no additional evidence can be introduced after the closing of each application.

The second step of the rezoning process is a public meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, where the board will make a decision on each application heard tonight.

Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the board at its April 7th, 2026 land use meeting, unless a different date is stated by staff.

When considering applications, the board will only review the record and the recommendation made by the land use hearing officer for each application.

The land use hearing officer will file a recommendation for each application heard tonight on March 16th, 2026.

The Board of County Commissioners has established a policy that directs which rezoning and major modification applications are to be placed on the consent agenda of the board's land use meeting.

The following applications may not be placed on the consent agenda.

Applications that propose to add density outside the urban service area, applications on roadways with a failing level of service, applications that do not have consistent recommendations of approval, and applied applications that have evidence or testimony in opposition provided to the record by non-applicant parties of record, either prior to or at tonight's public hearing.

The board will allow testimony by any party of record at its public meeting to consider the land use hearing officer's recommendation for any item on the regular agenda.

Testimony by a party of record shall be limited to the record of the proceedings before the land use hearing officer unless additional evidence has been found admissible in accordance with section 10.03.04D of the land development code.

A party of record is an individual who fits into at least one of the following four categories.

First, someone who's present tonight and presents testimony or documentary evidence.

Second, someone who's been certified by the U.S.

Postal Service as having been mailed notice of tonight's hearing.

Third, someone who submitted documentary evidence to the master file at least two business days prior to tonight's hearing, or fourth, someone who submitted documentary evidence by proxy at tonight's hearing.

The content of oral argument before the board shall be limited to the content of the testimony and other evidence submitted verbally or in writing to the land use hearing officer.

It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that only individuals who have met these requirements are allowed to speak before the board and to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is introduced or allowed at the board's public meeting.

For these reasons, please make sure that all information you wish the board to consider at its public meeting is entered into tonight's record.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right.

As I mentioned, all testimony must be under oath.

So if you plan to speak tonight, if you could please stand, raise your right hand, and I'll swear you in.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you so much.

Please have a seat.

All right.

Then with that out of the way, we are ready to call the first case, Miss Heinrich.

Our first application is item C1, standard rezoning 26-0297.

The applicant is requesting the rezon property from RSC9 to RMC 20.

Sierra Jeems has reviewed this for development services, but I will be providing her staff findings tonight after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

There you go.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Aileen Rosario, 2504 and a half West Crest Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33614.

I'm sorry, Mimi, if you could just pause for one moment.

Um HTV is having some difficulties.

They've asked if we could just pause for a moment.

Okay.

Hold that thought.

Sorry about that, ma'am.

Okay.

We are recording this, so we need to make sure that that's working properly.

Thank you for your patience.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Well, welcome back to the February 23rd, 2026 zoning hearing master hearing.

We are back from our technical difficulties.

And I believe we were ready for the applicant for case number 26-0297.

Good evening.

If you could give us your name and address again.

Good evening.

My name is Eileen Rosario, 2504 and a half West Crest Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33614.

My client has a property located at on the southeast corner of West Lye Avenue and North Himes Avenue.

And what he would like to have what we're trying to do today is to rezone the property from an RSC9 to the proposed zoning of RMC20 to be able to put six apartments for one bedroom and two bedroom apartments.

And we haven't had no complaints from none of the neighbors.

No one has called actually.

I ended up getting a new client from she called in and she needed some work done on her property.

So we haven't had no bad feature at all.

In reference to building some apartments in that area which are needed for homelessness, of course.

Okay.

All right.

Does that complete your presentation?

Mayor.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

I have no questions at this time.

If you could please sign in with the clerk's office.

Thank you.

Development services.

Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

Staff reviewed a request to rezone property from RSC9 to RMC20.

The site is located at the southeast corner of Himes and Sly Avenues within the Res 20 feature land use category.

Property to the north is zone RMC 20, while properties to the west, east, and south are zone RSC9.

Staff uh received no objections from reviewing agencies and recommends approval.

I'm available if you have any questions.

None at this time, but thank you so much.

Planning Commission.

Willow Mickey, Planning Commission staff.

The subject property is located in the residential 20 feature land use category, is in the urban service area and not within the limits of the community plan.

The res 20 feature land use category surrounds the site on all sides with office commercial 20 located further west.

There is also residential six and public quasi public feature land use categories located to the southeast.

The four to six multifamily dwelling units being proposed for the site are within the density permitted for res 20, and the site is surrounded on all sides by residential uses, including single family homes, two family homes with additional multifamily development located further east.

Furthermore, the site is surrounded by the same future land use as the site itself.

As such, the proposed rezoning maintains a compatible transition and density with the surrounding neighborhood.

The site is also within a designated center and connection area.

High density residential projects defined as residential land use categories that are nine acres per acres or higher should be encouraged in these areas.

Also provides that all new development or redevelopment within designated CNC area should achieve a max a minimum density of 75% of the allowable density of the adopted future land use category.

In this case, 75% of the allowable density would be four units, which aligns with the four to six dwelling units being proposed.

The site is also within the wellhead resource protection area, zone two.

The environmental services division reviewed the proposed rezoning requests and provided comments indicating that the applicant's request does not appear to be associated with any wellhead resource protection area zone two prohibited or restricted to activities.

Based upon these considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, all right.

Miss Heinrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

All right.

The applicant, you have the last word if you'd like it.

I don't see you.

Are you good?

All right, thank you so much.

Then with that, we'll close rezoning 26-0297 and go to the next case.

Our next item is item D1, uh PD rezoning 24-0921.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from ASC 1 to Plain Development.

Sam Ballwood Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Good evening.

My name is Isaac Tarpin.

I'm the owner of True Builders.

My address is uh 4000 North Frontage Road, Plant City, Florida is 33565.

Uh, we're excited to uh share our expansion plan with you.

Uh we're a home service company, and this is kind of vital to our company, our employees and the customers that we serve.

So excited to share it with you.

I'll hand it off to my engineer.

He's a lot smarter than me.

So okay.

Thank you so much.

If you could please sign in.

Hopefully.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Ryan Renardo.

I'm a civil engineer with R Squared Engineering.

Uh, address is 10312 Bloomingdale F, suite 108367, Riverview, Florida, 33578.

To start the presentation, just want to familiarize you with the project location.

We're way out east on I-4 in the plant city area, uh, in almost directly between County Line Road and Charlie Taylor Road, uh immediately north of the uh Interstate 4 Frontage Road.

Uh just a quick aerial overview of the site, uh, currently undeveloped.

Um what's interesting about this property is immediately to the west.

You'll see there's an existing PD that True Builders brought forth about 12 years ago for us exact same use at contractor's office, which was approved 12 years ago.

Future land use map for this area.

Future land use is residential one.

General, you know, immediate vicinity of the project is surrounded by residential one, a little bit of a zoom out to include some of the areas within Plant City.

You can see there's a lot of industrial, a little bit of commercial in this you know, overall regional area.

Existing zoning is ASC 1.

We're surrounded on the east and the south by ASC 1.

Immediately west of the project site is that plan development from 2014, which is the current True Builders Headquarters.

North of the project site is also an RSC2 AS1 zoning.

So our credit our request before you today is to rezone the subject property from ASC 1 to a plan development to allow a contractor's office without open storage with a maximum building area of 20,000 square feet.

Our proposed 20,000 square feet works out to a proposed floor area ratio of 0.187.

One important thing to point out, and you'll see why on the site plan here in just a minute, and the rear setback, we're proposing a 70-foot setback in the rear.

That's to building and parking vehicle use areas.

We've only got 50 feet wide coming in off of the frontage road.

So in order to fit the road, the sidewalks and the buffers, we are requesting a reduced buffer on the west from a 20-foot type B to a 10-foot type B, and along the east side of our entry road, we're requesting a variation from a 10-foot type A to a six-foot type A.

And again, both of the variations are so we can fit the typical road section in there with the sidewalks, the curbs, the road.

Here's a site plan.

Just a couple quick things I want to point out.

In the rear of the plan, we've got that 70-foot setback.

We also have the stormwater pond located in the rear of the property, which is immediately adjacent to the single family residential homes to the north.

Can I interrupt you for one second?

I'm apologize.

The site plan is being shown, but it's not being shown on my monitor.

Oh, yeah, which you would not know.

So I'm hoping someone in HD TV will HTB would uh fix that.

Yeah, that'd be very helpful.

Yes.

If we could go back to the display, yes, now I see the the site plan.

Thank you so much.

Go ahead.

I apologize.

Perfect.

But are you good?

Do we need to back up at all for you?

Okay.

No, I got it.

Thank you.

Um, so uh a couple things just to point out, I think are very important on the site plan.

Uh from a buffering perspective, we are aware that there's single-family residential immediately adjacent to this property.

So to the north, we've got that 70-foot setback that we're proposing for building in vehicle use area.

We're also putting the pond up there to provide that additional that distance and you know, to ensure it's basically open space that no development would take place there.

Um that 70-foot, if you look where my cursor is going, it basically coincides with the southern edge of those single family parcels to the west.

So we're trying to be very sensitive with our buffering to make sure that we have no impact on those neighbors.

Additionally, this is where I was uh indicating that the two variations we're requesting.

We're requesting a uh 10-foot type B buffer along the western edge of our inbound drive aisle, and along the eastbound edge of our drive aisle, we're requesting a six-foot type A buffer or a 10-foot type A would normally be required.

Um what we are committing to on this on the site plan is to put to incorporate a six-foot tall white vinyl or solid vinyl fence along the uh immediately adjacent to that one single family home that's located there.

Um, so that'll go it'll go north following our drive aisle and it'll turn west following our property line along that residential parcel.

So compatibility with surrounding area.

Um, this is always just a good reminder for me that compatibility is not does not indicate this exact same as, but rather refers to the sensitivity of our development relative to existing surrounding development.

So just to familiarize you with this location in this area, to the north of our project site, which is outlined in red on this map, there is single family homes that access off of Swindell Road.

The closest home is about 210 feet away from our property line.

Very thick vegetation, almost like a dense forest, if you will, between our property line and the rear of those homes.

To the east is an existing church.

To the south, we've got the I-4 frontage road, which our site would be accessed from.

Looking to the west, we've got that existing True Builders headquarters I mentioned that was approved under PD 14-0798.

And then just a little further west, there's a huge cemetery.

You've probably driven by it a million times.

It's about 20 acres in size.

And then tucked in the kind of the corner of our property, I call the southwestern portion of our property.

There is an existing single-family home there, which we are trying to be sensitive to with our buffering and screening standards.

So we've reviewed the comp plan, and we've got in our narrative a detailed breakdown of all the different policies that we believe were consistent with.

Policy 7.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, and 16.5.

We do have a waiver request of the comprehensive plan policies.

It's a request to the commercial locational criteria outlined in objective 22 of the future land use element.

This policy would require us to be within 660 feet of one of the two intersections where the frontage road would either tie into Charlie Taylor Road or to Swindell Road on the east.

Looking at our project site relative to those intersections, we're roughly 2,750 feet and 2,650 feet.

Let's just call it right in the middle of the two intersections.

There are some exceptions to the comprehensive plan policies regarding the commercial locational criteria, one of which is 22.6B, which is exception for offices where you know, if it's proposed on a parcel that's unsuitable or undevelopable for residential development.

You know, we've evaluated this site.

We we believe it's too small for a multifamily development at only two and a half acres, uh, and it's undesirable for a single family home accessing directly off of an interstate highway system.

Uh also policy 22.7, neighborhood commercial activities that serve the daily needs of residents.

You know, this is a proposed contractor's office.

They do air conditioning, electrical, mechanical, uh, plumbing, restoration services.

They serve this area and the overall larger regional area.

And then lastly, policy 22.8 that the Board of County Commissioners may grant a waiver to the intersection criteria if there's unique circumstances.

Um we believe there's some unique circumstances on this site.

Um, most notably is probably that the site is fronts on the highway or interstate highway system directly off the frontage road.

Um in order to get into the residential neighborhoods to the north, you know, you got to drive about a half a mile around the block and then down Swindell Boulevard to get to the first home.

Um the surrounding area uh contains a mix of uses, it's not a consistent use pattern down the road.

There's single family homes or cemeteries, there's the existing contractor's office.

Um then just zooming out a little bit and looking at the uh quadrant or the intersection of county line road and the I-4 frontage or the interstate four, the northeast and the southeast and the southwest are either fully built out as commercial industrial or are currently entitled for commercial industrial uses.

So we believe this area is a commercial industrial quadrant of that major interchange.

Um again, the existing home to the north, about 210 feet away from the project boundary with heavily heavily uh vegetation, and then again to reiterate, we just don't believe it's ideal to have single family homes at front directly onto a frontage road.

So the attempt with the commercial locational criteria is to prevent commercial developments from sprawling into established residential neighborhoods and to locate commercial developments at intersections to ensure adequate access.

So when we look at this surrounding area, while we acknowledge that there's an established neighborhood to the north on Swindell Road, we don't believe as you're traveling along the frontage road that that would be considered an established residential neighborhood.

And secondly, the access with the frontage road getting us to the major interchanges at Charlie Taylor Road or County Line Road provide excellent access for this use where we're dispersing out the service calls on a daily basis.

Um neighborhood coordination, this was important to us.

We sent out notices as required to the you know 500 foot radius.

We didn't receive any support or opposition from those.

We got one phone call, and they thought we were calling about some big industrial project on the north side of Swindale Road, and when they found out that that was not us, they were very happy and had no comment on our project.

We are we we acknowledge that there's a you know church to the east and a single family residential home immediately to the west.

Um so we had meetings with both of them.

In fact, I went with uh Isaac to the church board meeting and we talked through our proposal.

Um the church was agreeable with our proposal and subsequently uh signed an adjacent neighbor statement that they've got no objection to this use, which and that's in our in the record of this application.

Uh similarly, um Isaac's had a long-standing relationship with the owner of the single family home.

It's immediately southwest of us.

Um he's met with them several times on the project, and they have uh they also agreed that they've got no objection to this application and uh signed the adjacent neighbor statement indicating such, and that is also in the record.

So, in closing, uh we respectfully request your recommendation of approval of this application, and both Isaac and myself were available if you have any questions.

We can answer for you.

Okay, thank you so much.

I did see the two letters uh of no objection in the file.

Um I see this application has been around a while, and if you could just briefly tell me what happened.

Yeah, absolutely.

We this has been a very challenging piece of property to deal with.

We submitted, found out that it wasn't a legal lot of record, so then we had to take it through the certified parcel process.

During that process, you know, Isaac's company being a restoration company got blasted when the hurricanes came through the back to back in late 2024.

Kind of further delayed us being able to get some of the work done that we needed to get done for this uh certified parcel application.

Um, and then FDOT got involved and they didn't want to give us access, and so we had to talk to the church again about shifting a driveway to meet driveway spacing.

Um, and just recently we're able to get in a letter from DOT saying that they are agreeable with our proposed access solution where we're gonna shift the church's driveway over and meets to meet spacing with our new driveway.

So there's a lot of little compounding problems for such a small project.

Understood.

All right, thank you so much.

Um I don't think I have any other questions at this point, but thank you so much.

If you could please sign in.

Go ahead.

Development services.

Good evening.

Uh good evening.

Uh Sam Ball of Hillsborough County Development Services.

Uh the applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 2.45 acres from ASC 1 to plan development to allow the uh property to be developed for a contractor's office without outdoor storage.

Uh the property is located along the I-4 service road, um, approximately half a mile west of North County Line Road.

Uh development and in the area includes a wide variety of uses, uh, which include the 350-foot portion of I-4 to the south, uh, single family uh religious institution to the east, single family and residential to the north.

Uh there are properties to the west, which are part of a 18.9-acre cemetery, a DOT stormwater pond, a single-family dwelling, and a contractor's office about open storage that's owned by the applicant.

Um, is approved, development be limited to 20,000 uh square feet of gross floor area to be used as the contractor's office about open storage.

This would result in a 0.187 FAR.

Uh the application staff finds that the application uh request uh to reduce the required buffer widths along the uh eastern boundary from a 10-foot type A screening and a uh and a uh reduction.

I'm sorry to reduce the 20-foot uh type B buffer to a 10-foot buffer uh would have minimal impact on the um on these properties.

That the area where the buffer is next to the residential is would be a driveway area, and then the um the church also submitted a letter of no objection uh that and then within that letter of no objection, they acknowledge that there's a variation request for the for the landscaping.

So staff finds that those would have very minimal impact.

Um the required buffering screening along the south adjacent to the single the single family house would still be provided.

Uh the residential properties to the north would be separated from the building envelope with a 20-foot type B uh screening, a stormwater pond, and a 70-foot setback.

And they're uh approved for and developed for contractor's office without open storage.

Uh based on the surrounding zoning and development pattern uh proposed uses and development standards staff finds the request approvable subject to conditions that includes my report.

All right, thank you so much.

No questions at this time.

Thank you.

Planning commission.

Will a Mickey planning commission staff?

The subject property is located in the residential one feature land use category, is in the rural area and not within the limits of the community plan.

The intent of the Res1 flu category is to maintain rural character while permitting rural residential uses compatible with short-term agricultural activities.

While certain rural scale commercial office and multi-purpose projects may be considered, they must comply with applicable locational criteria and development regulations and demonstrate compatibility with surrounding uses.

The proposed PD would introduce a more intensive commercial development pattern within an area not designated for that level of activity.

This would allow uses that are not compatible with the established rural residential pattern and would incrementally increase non-residential development pressure within the rural area.

The surrounding area consists primarily of single family residential uses directly to the north and southwest with public quasi-public uses to the east and west.

A church and cemetery are located to the east.

The introduction introduction of contractor offices and enclosed storage facilities, including associated vehicle activity and operational characteristics, would not maintain the prevailing rural residential character.

While the applicant proposes a stormwater pond with buffering to reduce visual impacts, this measure does not resolve the fundamental incompatibility of introducing a non-residential contractor-oriented use into a rural rural area intended for low density residential and agricultural activities.

The subject site does not meet meet commercial locational criteria.

The subject site is approximately 2800 feet from the closest qualifying intersection of Charlie Taylor Road and Frontage Road.

A request to waive the commercial locational criteria pursuant to future land use element policy 22.8 has been submitted, but staff recommend denial due to the intensity of uses adjacent to single-family residential uses.

Based upon the above considerations in the following goals, objectives and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan.

Um just a quick question, Miss Mickey.

Um the Mr.

Ball and the applicant's representative testified that this property owner owns a contractor's office approximately eight feet from this property to the west.

And I just wondered if you had any information.

I uh presume that that property was similarly situated with not meeting locational criteria in the rural service area, and if you had any information about the zoning or permitting history of that.

I can take a look real quick and get back to you.

Perfect.

I will come back to you.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

All right, we'll call for anyone who would like to speak in support.

Anyone in favor of this application.

See no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

All right, Miss Heinrich.

If you have um, I'll ask you the same question if you have any information on that um property that is eight feet away that is owned by this property owner that they testified is also a contractor's office.

Only the the what it's approved for.

I don't have any information in regards to when it was rezoned.

If there were any concerns raised.

And that's a plan development.

Perhaps the applicant will know.

So but that is a plan development, is that correct?

I believe so.

Okay.

All right.

Ms.

Mickey, any anything else?

Um the the light industrial property that's owned by the same owner is um part of a rezoning from 2014.

Um as far as commercial locational criteria, I can pull up the um the report for 2014 and and try to find that.

I don't have it offhand, right?

No, understood.

All right, so we'll go back to the applicant for rebuttal, but I'll circle back and see if you have anything else.

All right.

You have uh five minutes for rebuttal.

If you have any information regarding that other site and how it was permitted, I appreciate it.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, what I can definitely tell you off the top of my head is um there was a the there was a recommendation from planning commission for consistency uh of consistency for that application with a recommendation to approve the commercial locational criteria waiver.

Um, that is uh part of that record.

Okay.

Um couple things I just want to highlight from my presentation that I I think are just important for this project.

Um, you know, when you look at the commercial locational criteria waiver, and I knew that I I know that this is probably the biggest sticking point with this.

Is that the intent with that is to keep commercial development from traveling through a residential neighborhood to get to commercial development?

Uh and when you when you look at this project and you look at access along North Frontage Road, um, there's no established residential neighborhood there.

Um there's a couple sporadic houses, but it's mostly churches, the existing contractor's office, um, and a huge cemetery.

Secondly, um, you know, when we're looking at compatibility, that word sensitivity to your neighbors is very important in my opinion.

Um, you know, we're 70 feet away from the closest residential properties to the north.

Uh we've put our stormwater pond up there, um, and we're doing what we can do to mitigate any potential impacts to those properties.

Uh probably the most important is that there's no opposition from any neighbors on this.

We met with the two neighbors that are the most affected by this uh application.

Both of them have no objection, as evidenced by the letters that we submitted into the record.

And finally, just I'd like to just end by quoting uh directly from the development services staff report, section 5.1 compatibility.

Staff finds that based on the existing zoning and development pattern in the area, the immediate proximity to interstate four in the proposed development plan that the proposed development will have minimal impact on the area.

And we completely agree with that.

We don't think this project's gonna have any impact on the area, but what it's gonna have is huge impact on this local business owner to be able to expand their business and further enhance their services in the Tampa Bay area and overall larger regional area.

And with that, we'll end our presentation and thank you for your consideration of this application.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right, Miss Mickey, any information?

The um commercial locational criteria was requested and approved.

Um I can read the statement from their staff report.

Okay.

This um the subject property does not meet commercial locational criteria.

Feature land use element policy 22.8 allows the board of county commissioners can to consider waivers to locational criteria.

As part of the application, a waiver to the criteria is being requested.

As noted in the above section of the report, the subject property is in a unique location, and the proposed rezoning with the noted conditions would allow development compatible with the surrounding area.

Um and planning commission staff recommends approval.

Um I would have to look and to see what those specific conditions were for that site, but I believe that the conditions are the reasons for approval.

And the unique location, perhaps.

All right, thank you so much for that information.

I appreciate it.

All right, then with that, we will close rezoning 24-0921 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D2, PD 25-0582.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from plane development to plane development.

I've reviewed this for development services and provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right, good evening.

Good evening, Colin Rice uh with the law from the Bulbia Lundy 1000 West Cass.

I have been sworn.

I submitted a PowerPoint.

I have the paper as well, if that's easier.

Uh whatever you'd like.

Let me see if they can pull up your PowerPoint.

I'll just use paper.

That's okay.

That works for me too.

It's okay to work.

Okay, Colin Rice again for the record.

Um, here for the applicant ProTAC 34th Holdings LLC on rezoning application RZPD 250582.

Specifically, the request is to rezone from PD to PD, allowing for contractor's office with and without open storage and warehouse.

And I'll explain what that means in a second.

Um to orient you, we are a butting I-4 between Orient Road and MLK.

And then uh feature landing is actually this should be gray.

This was changed to light industrial plan, which I'll refer to as LIP last year.

It's surrounded by R6.

Um, to the south is Research Corporate Park, um, FDOT property, Penske Truck Rental, and this is a chemical supply company.

So just your property is LIP now?

Correct, just this one.

Okay, thank you.

Uh just to give you a sense of the zoning out here.

Again, we're directly abutting I4 CIA chemical supply company, agricultural intensive um PD RSC4, these are single family to the media east.

All right, so zooming in, uh, we're outlined in red.

This is an active, this is ProTEC, this is uh active contractor business occurring out here.

Um this is an older PD from the early 90s that hell out for a host of uses, including the like Masonic Lodge, like an OLX Lodge kind of thing and residential.

Um this triangle as it crashes into I-4 has become less and less residentially friendly.

So the ask tonight is to bring the P part of LIP to life with the carefully planned uh development for these uses.

And so to that end, this is the site plan.

Um this is the existing structure to remain, which is reflected in the proposal.

The uh open storage is isolated purely here, so it is buffered between the existing building.

Oh, the proposed new building in the interstate highway.

Um, so while shielded from the residences here.

We have a 30-foot type C landscape buffer proposed, uh, and the building is biased uh to the west as well.

The uses proposed for the new construction will total at 40,000 square feet.

Um, and they will consist of contractor's office in warehouse and not to exceed the uh trip caps as submitted in all of our transportation applications.

Um access here to Chelsea and heading to the east will bring you to Orient Road.

Um again, we were successful with our um future land use amendment last year.

We're proud to have universal finding of support um from planning commission from reviewing staff.

We want to thank staff for all for patience and hard work with us um finding a good solution here.

The um transportation applications have been found approvable.

Um to date we're not aware of any uh opposition to this project.

Um so with that I will conclude.

Uh happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Just a quick question as to what is the nature of the open storage.

What are they storing?

So um the current operators going to remain they do like roofing and solar and contracting business, so it's mostly for their large trucks and equipment, that sort of thing.

I see.

Okay, that was my only question.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Development services.

Michelle Heinrich, development services.

Um, as you heard, the applicant is requesting a rezoning from PD to PD to allow for a contractor's office with open storage, a contractor's office without open storage, and warehousing.

Prior to this rezoning, the site's feature land use category was changed to LIP.

The site is located on the north side of Chelsea Street, directly south of I-4.

The area consists of non-residential uses to the west and south, and single family residential to the east.

To ensure compatibility, the applicant has limited the location of the open storage and will provide a 30-foot-wide buffer with type C screening along the east.

No PD variations are requested.

Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and does recommend approval subject to proposed conditions.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Will a Mickey planning commission staff?

The subject property is located in the light industrial plan feature lane use category, is in the urban service area, and is within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan.

The LIP category is potentially suitable for industrial activities, but are located outside of concentrated industrial designed designated areas or in areas where the need for a site plan would be beneficial to ensure land use compatibility.

The proposed uses are compatible with the existing light and heavy commercial operations nearby, and there are adequate mitigation measures such as buffering and screening in place to minimize potential impacts on the adjacent residential properties.

The applicant is proposing to orient the primary structure away from residential uses to further mitigate potential impacts.

A 30-foot buffer in type C screening are provided provided along the eastern boundary, providing additional separation between the residential properties and the proposed development.

Additionally, the open storage area is strategically located in the northwest portion of the site, positioned behind the existing contractor's office and the natural buffer provided by I-4 to the northwest.

With these mitigation measures in place, and given that the proposed uses are consistent with the intent and allowable uses within the LIP feature lanes category, the request is compatible with the surrounding development and supports a transition between the residential and commercial uses in the area.

The proposed uses support continued industrial and employment related development aligning with the community plan's long-term economic vision.

Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives and policies.

Planning commission finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services department.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, Miss Heinrich.

All right, Mr.

Rice.

Anything further?

All right, thank you so much.

Then with that, we'll close rezoning 25-0582 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D3, major mod 25-1372.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 83 0173.

Chris Greenlinard has reviewed this for uh development services, and I'll provide his staff findings tonight after the applicant's presentation.

Thank you so much.

Good evening.

Good evening, Cammy Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson.

Subject properties located on Martin Luther King Boulevard.

It's got a future land use category of UMU 20.

You can see the picture on the right is what's they are now, which is an existing office building, and then also a hotel that's out front.

You can see the surrounding zonings are a variety of different types.

There's industrial, both to the south and then to the west, and then we've got some PDs and some residential to the north on Chelsea Street.

We'll talk about what we're doing on Chelsea Street in a little bit.

This is the area of modification.

And this essentially wrong way.

This is the option B site plan.

You can see we're already entitled for C3A and C1 commercial office uses.

And we are asking for all M uses except heavy industrial uses.

And it's subject to a trip cap, though.

Setbacks are 50 feet on all sides, and the maximum height is 50 feet.

Upon Chelsea Street is the one area of concern.

There was concern from the planning commission about truck access onto Chelsea Street because it's a local street.

Uh, through this application, we are have conditions that we cannot have access onto Chelsea Street for trucks, and we are also reducing the number of access points on Chelsea from three that are existing and in the new P or in the existing option A and reducing those to two.

And you can see from the site plan they align with project boundaries or I'm sorry, driveways on the north side.

Staff has found it consistent for a variety of reasons, and uh planning commission has found it consistent and compatible, and we would respectfully request any reapproval.

And then I do have housekeeping, unless you have any questions first.

I do have questions, but if you want to do your housekeeping, we can go that way.

Okay.

No question.

Okay.

All right.

Um, I just want to confirm for the record that option B doesn't propose to add the C3A and C1 uses.

It it correct.

Takes those out and is replaced with M, except for heavy industrial crop.

Okay.

That's exactly right.

C3A and C1 go back to my recollection as a 1976 zoning code.

Yes.

Um, any contemplation of uh updating those categories to something that's used today?

It's not something that was discussed with staff, and since we really just were gonna leave what was already approved and didn't want to get into whole discussion about what might be able to be developed or what might be redeveloped, we just thought it was best to just leave it as is.

Okay, to preserve the options.

So, as far as you know, there's no intent to redevelop this under that C3AC1 correct zoning.

The intent was to get this zoned for an industrial use and warehousing light industrial uses, and protect your use with leaving an option with what you have currently.

Okay, and then finally, the option B site plan shows a height of 40 feet on the notes.

Is that one of your housekeeping issues?

Yes.

Uh so it has a proposed and a maximum on the site plan.

We're not sure why the 40 feet was included.

The maximum is 50 feet, and that's what we're asking for, and that's what's in the conditions.

Okay, all right.

Yes, that is that is in my that was the end of my questions.

One more housekeeping related to the plan, Michelle.

On this page, this arrow that is on the area to be modified is pointing at the wrong parcel.

It's the triangle park parcel that's uh shaded, so that should be corrected prior to certification as well.

And then I also provided Ms.

Heinrich with some reorganization of the conditions the relating specifically to what's allowed in option A and which option B just to clean it up, and then we also modified a condition uh regarding the requirement to potentially install a traffic light at MLK.

We added language that allows us to uh gives us an out if F DOT denies it.

Um, and so we retained it for both options.

We just rewarded it and we provided that wording to staff.

Um, in Michael Yates has spoken with Michael Williams about that change, and I think Richard Perez indicated to Michelle this evening that it was okay, he was okay with him.

He was okay with him.

So those conditions, and then one more cleanup in addition to that, Michelle.

Condition eight of the staff report leaves in the 90 days of approval language from a PRS where we submit our certified plan 90 days from the date of the board approval.

Here we're going to do our certified plan before the board date.

Okay.

I didn't have anything further.

Okay.

I don't need that.

Okay, thanks so much.

I appreciate it.

Don't forget to sign it.

All right.

We will go to development services.

Michelle Henry, Development Services.

Staff reviewed a major modification request to PD 83-0173, which requests a second uh development option.

The PD is currently approved for industrial and commercial uses at a maximum FAR of 0.22.

If approved, uh this major modification will allow M zoning district uses at an FAR of 0.27.

The site is located on the north side of Dr.

Martin Luther King Boulevard, northwest of I-4 in the UMU future lane use category.

The surrounding area is developed with residential and non-residential uses.

As the applicant stated to ensure compatibility with residential found to the north, the applicant proposes a 30-foot wide buffer with type C screening, limited access points in access to be limited to domestic cars.

Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and does recommend approval subject to proposed conditions.

I'm available if you have any questions.

None at this time.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Willow Mickey Planning Commission staff.

The subject property is located in the urban mixed use 20 feature land use category, is in the urban service area, and is within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan.

Given the established commercial and industrial development pattern, the proposed major modification is compatible with the surrounding area and maintains the prevailing neighborhood character.

Policy 4.8.1 states that high-intensity non-residential development shall be located external to emerging and established residential neighborhoods and access on arterial or collector roadways.

In accordance, in accordance with this policy, the applicant has restricted truck access as stated in the conditions of approval to State Road 574, a state designated part principal arterial roadway, and has prohibited truck access from Chelsea Street, which is a local roadway.

This access strategy directs heavy vehicle traffic away from adjacent residential areas in local streets, ensuring that the proposed high-intensity light industrial use is appropriately served by the higher capacity roadway network.

Objective 3.2 and policy 3.2.4 require that community plans throughout the county be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The East Lake Orient Park Community Plan's economic development goals seeks to provide opportunities for big business growth and job creation, supporting a diverse mix of employment uses and strengthening the local economy.

The proposed major modification to allow light industrial use is consistent with this economic development as it would support the expansion of employment generated uses and strengthen the area's role as a regional employment hub.

Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition.

No one.

Nothing further, ma'am.

Ms.

Corbett, anything else?

All right.

Then with that, we'll close close major modification 25-1372 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D4, PD rezoning 25-1382.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from RSC 6 to plan development.

Tanya Chapella with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Brentwood Townins on behalf of the Dance Center, 911 Brian Road, Brandon, Florida 33511.

I'm here with my wife Hannah Townend uh to present our case before you all.

Okay.

Okay.

So we are the Dance Center.

Um we teach excellence of character through excellence and dance to students of all ages.

Um the studio has existed for over 30 years in the Hillsborough County area.

We teach ballet jazz, TAP Modern and Contemporary, and we moved into our current location uh at 911 Bryan Road shortly after Hurricane Milton flooded us out of our previous studio space uh on Bloomingdale.

Uh here is uh just where we are location-wise on the map.

Um the parcels located at the intersection of Bryan Road, two lane roadway and East Lumson Road, a four-lane roadway.

The area surrounding the property to the north, south, east, and west is zone RC6 and is developed with single-family homes, adult daycare, and a church.

Across East Lumson Road to the southwest is a corner property zone PD 130685 approved for professional services uses.

Okay.

So we just wanted to point out why we think this application should be approved.

The rezoning application meets the objectives set forth in the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, specifically objective 1.4, which calls for the county to provide diverse recreational programming opportunities that reflect the community needs for all ages and abilities.

The dance center just by existing meets that objective.

We provide multi-level class offerings that serve varied age groups, and we are actively providing the type of diverse and community responsive recreational programming envisioned by this objective.

Objective 3.5 policy 3.5.9 calls for the county to encourage lifelong opportunities for the arts for all county residents.

But our role in fulfilling this objective is twofold.

So not only do we train dancers in the art of dance, but we also actively cultivate participation in the broader community.

Our programs emphasize technical instruction and performance, but also arts appreciation, audience engagement, and support of other local artistic initiatives.

Lastly, objective 5.7 calls for a balanced, connected, and multimodal transportation system that promotes pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use in addition to vehicular travel.

And the unique place of where this is located is in a residential area.

And some of our students do come from that residential area and express thankfulness that they can walk to dance class instead of having to get in their car and drive to all these other different places.

So I think those are why our application should be approved.

Okay.

Anything else?

We also just wanted to kind of just present the broader scope of this.

So the ultimate objective of this rezoning is to complete an interior build-outs of non-impact partitioning walls.

In our previous space, we had two studios, and the current space is it's just one giant room, and so we're really just focused on interior work that would allow for multiple studio spaces inside the property.

And previous property history has shown that commercial purpose were allowed under the RSC six zoning.

We've included that here just for reference.

And our goal here is really just to be as compliant as possible with the county regulations while still being able to move forward with what will help us grow our business in the way that we need to after the hurricane.

And in conclusion, uh we are a family-owned small business that directly advances the county's objectives for lifelong arts access, diverse recreational programming, and walkable community-based services.

We're proud to contribute to the cultural and civic vitality of our community.

This is us at the our recital in June of this past year after the turbulent year that we had of uh renting out various spaces in the community, and um we're committed to continue with what we believe in.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Yeah, good evening.

My name is Eric Blackwell.

I'm a general contractor uh retained by the towns for this project.

Um I just wanted to uh go through a couple of P points here.

For from construction standpoint, this is a true adaptive for use.

The scope is limited strictly to interior innovations.

There's no expansion of the building footprint, no increase in height, no additional impervious services, no modifications to existing access points, and request authorizes use only the physical site remains unchanged.

I do believe that uh transportation staff did review the existing driveway configuration and determined that the administrative variants to be approvable, so uh contingent on the planned development approval.

Uh certified traffic did go through it as well.

The analysis confirms the proposed use generated 177 daily trips with county thresholds and not requiring a full transportation study.

Importantly, the prior church assembly use produced concentrated peak traffic, whereas the proposed dance studio distributes traffic more evenly.

Uh, from a compatibility and site impact standpoint, this project does not intensify the property, it reactivates an existing structure without expanding development or infrastructure demand.

And again, like I said, from a construction and site impact perspective, this is in controlled, low impact, adaptive use that maintains compatibility while uh activating an existing building, and we respectfully request approval.

Thank you so much.

I just had a quick question for either Mr.

or Mrs.

Town.

Um, the proposed zoning conditions that the the staff has helped draft for this plan development.

Number one talks about a it gives the specific square footage for your your use, and then it talks about a general indoorslash outdoor recreational use.

And I wondered if you had any intent to have an outdoor component to this studio.

No.

Okay.

That was my only question.

Thank you so much.

Sir, if you could please sign in as well.

I appreciate it.

Development services.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Tanya and Chapella Development Services.

The subject property is currently zone R is the six, which permits single family residential uses.

The applicant is requesting a plan development to allow a neighborhood scale dance studio.

The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding RS6 districts in terms of size, height, and intensity.

The structure is one story approximately 18 feet in height, which is comparable to typical single family homes permitted in this district.

Proposed setbacks provide adequate separation from adjacent properties and maintain the established residential pattern.

The project does not expand the existing building footprint or significantly modified the site layout.

The only access change is proposed is the removal driveway access to Lumson Road.

And overall, the physical character of the site remains substantially unchanged.

The proposed use is compatible with surrounding development, including a church to the west, an adult day care facility to the north, and a professional office zone PD to the southwest.

The dance studio is limited to a low intensity neighborhood scale, which a minimal operational impacts.

Additionally, the proposed FAR is below the maximum allowed under the REST six comprehensive plan category.

And staff uh finds the requested variation supportable as the proposed buffering meets or exceeds minimum requirements in critical areas, preserves mature vegetation, and incorporates fencing to ensure effective screening and compatibility with adjacent properties.

Staff finds the request compatible with the surrounding development pattern and recommends approval subject to conditions.

Just one quick question, Ms.

Chappella.

Um, in reading the staff report, I could track all of the PD variation requests.

I just couldn't determine for that variation to the east, where they're required to have a 20-foot type B buffer, what it goes to.

What are what is the variation request for the east only so um they're requiring a the required um buffering and screening is 20 foot wide buffer with a type B screening?

Um so the change is on the screening because they're keeping the 20-foot um buffer.

Okay, but what they're trying to do is to keep the existing vegetation, which is not equal to the uh LDC requirement for the screening for type B.

And they're also going to have so it's their existing vegetation plus the six-foot PVC fence.

Yes, it is correct.

Okay, perfect.

That's all I needed.

Thank you very much.

Uh, planning commission.

Will a Mickey planning commission staff?

The subject property is located in the residential six future lanes category, is in the urban service area and within the limits of the brand and community plan.

The subject site is surrounded by residential future lanes categories, specifically the residential six and residential four categories with a mix of residential and commercial zoning districts.

The current development pattern consists of residential uses with commercial uses oriented towards East Lumsden Road.

The proposed buffering and screening consists of a fence and a 20-foot buffer along the north and east boundaries adjacent to single family uses.

The proposed rezoning is consistent with the feature land use section objectives and policies related to compatibility in neighborhood protection.

The branding community plan delineates areas that are defined as character districts.

The subject site is located within the suburban character district, which under goal six is defined as a primarily residential area of single-family detached homes with side and perimeter yards on one quarter acre or less.

Mixed use is usually confined to certain intersection locations.

Goal five of the community plan seeks to provide recreational and cultural resources needed to support a family-friendly community.

The addition of a ballet dance studio increases the recreational opportunities to the adjacent residential communities by providing a low impact recreational use within the established community.

Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Yes, sir.

While you're coming up, is there anyone else that would like to speak in support?

Yes, if you could go ahead and come forward now.

If whoever wants to speak, if you could line up.

Is there only one additional person?

Is that right?

Okay.

Um then Alison, we'll do seven and a half minutes apiece because it's 15 minutes total.

So if you could start by giving us your name and address.

Nicholas Karas, 3723 Holloway Drive, Val Rico, Florida.

Uh, my wife and my two daughters are students at the dance center, and I'm here to register my strong support for this proposed change.

All right, thank you so much.

Please sign in.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Jessica Benitez, and I live next door, 610 East Lumston Road, Brandon, Florida, 33511.

And my daughter is the one that attends there.

She's the one that walks there.

We walk her there almost every day.

Um, so we are in favor and we support them.

All right, thank you for coming down.

I appreciate it.

Don't forget to sign in.

All right.

Seeing no one else in support, we'll ask for anyone who would like to speak in opposition.

Seeing no one, Miss Heinrich.

Anything further?

No, ma'am.

All right.

Sir, you have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it.

You're good.

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close rezoning 25-1382 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D5, major mod 26-0216.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 13 0177.

Jared Follen with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

And this is associated with a comprehensive plan amendment.

So both the major modification and the comprehensive plan amendment will be heard together at the April 9th, 2026 public hearing, which is in this room beginning at 6 p.m.

All right.

Is the applicant here?

Good evening.

Hi, good evening.

Uh Nicole McKinnis, 2002 West Cleveland Street at Barbara's Kramer Law Firm here for the applicant.

Uh we are here today to request a major modification to an existing plan development project.

The property is located in the Res 9 future lane use category, and as staff mentioned, we are requesting a companion comp plan amendment to the Res 16 category.

This property is located off of Waters Avenue in the town and country area.

It's within the urban service area and it's about 45 and a half acres.

It was later converted to an ALF facility in addition to the mobile homes.

And then in 2020, when COVID happened, a lot of the ALF facilities did go under just based on the issues with the outbreak.

And so when the ALF closed, the way the ALF density is calculated is different than a traditional mobile home or a multifamily project.

And so we are here today to bring the property into compliance with how it's currently developed.

The uses on the property are not going to change.

They are going to remain exactly as they're built today.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Please sign in.

Good evening.

Good evening, David Smith, 401 East Jackson Street, Director of Development and Zoning for Stern Tweaver Miller.

Had Nicole leave this up because if you stop on 2013, basically you go out there today, it looks exactly like it did in 2013 when it was rezoned.

Existing future land use is Res 9.

It's going to Res 16.

Have support from the planning commission.

They found it consistent during the public hearing.

Zoning map PD.

As you can see surrounding us, we have Res 4, single family subdivisions, a PD that has a combination of single family and multifamily, and then across the street also additional single family development on Waters Avenue.

So the use of the property, as Nicole indicated, we have 669 equivalent dwelling units.

That's a combination of existing rental mobile homes and also existing modular rental units.

Essentially, the ALF at the time split up these modular units, so you may have a mobile home lot that has a module unit that has three or four or five bedroom single occupancy units, all have kitchens, they meet the definition of dwelling units.

Uh that's where the density issue came in when the LF went went out, and we've been working hard and and so far successfully with staff on both the planning commission and uh development services staff uh to bring this uh into the uh 2026 standards.

Um again, we have uh residential amenity support uses were on the properties.

You can see in the site plan, there's a parcel B and a parcel A.

Parcel A is essentially the residential component of the development.

Parcel B is the amenity and support use portion of the development, with the only uh potential exception is parcel B.

Parcel B, we call it the pavilion building.

Uh the pavilion building was an ALF purpose built building.

So it needs to be repurposed to either to community support use, or we have a provision in the conditions that allow it to be converted to traditional apartments based upon a 1.58 um mobile home unit equivalency.

So if you give up one 1.58 uh equivalent residential dwelling units of mobile homes, you can create one residential dwelling unit.

We uh figure that is the the newest building on the property, and it would be a shame not to be able to utilize that for some uh for good purpose.

Access points on the property.

Uh the current PD had four access points.

We now have two.

Uh main access is to Waters Avenue.

We have an emergency access, limited use access that is on the north, well, on the west southwest corner of the property.

Um it enters through a residential subdivision, uh, but that's restricted again to emergency solid waste deliveries, very limited use on the property.

So if I get to get this to go over.

Uh consistency with comprehensive plan.

We're in the urban service area.

Uh that the we have central water and sewer, the heart has service uh out in front of the property.

Matter of fact, there's uh they're covered full amenitized um bus stops.

And the we're on a uh connection.

So in the center of connection policy is when you're going to increase density, it's encouraged to occur along these corridors because these corridors are transit expected to be transit corridors and uh to redevelop.

Um we could have used the density bump up policy, but we felt it was more appropriate to utilize an actual comp plan amendment, and that has been supported by staff.

Again, when we're looking at this, um the town and country expected this to be a residential area and corridor.

Uh, we're consistent with that vision.

Uh we are conforming this property to the existing comp planning code, and that it allows these uh mobile home uses and uh modular rental uh residential uses uses to continue.

And the most important part, it doesn't require anybody to move out due to the density reduction that would have resulted if we stayed under the current comp plan category.

The um we have a slide in there regarding transportation, that's just out of the traffic report of by the staff.

Um but the reality is is when you look at this, um, it's been operating at 669 equivalent dwelling units previously, and what we're proposing is basically to have it be the same.

So the reality is you're not gonna see any difference in actual traffic coming out of this property with the change.

With that, I'll let Nicole close.

Okay.

Nicole McKinnist again for the record.

Um we did have a community meeting where uh residents of the uh existing community as well as surrounding residents were able to come and attend, ask questions about what we were doing with this very unique request of we are not changing anything on the property, we're just coming into conformance.

We as you can expect got a lot of questions about that.

Um, but it did address their concerns through this community meeting.

Um we do have staff recommendations of consistency and uh a recommendation of approval from both planning commission staff as well as Hillsbury County staff.

Um they do not have any compatibility concerns with the proposed project, um and staff is also recommending approval of the comp plan amendments.

Um and our team is here if you have any questions.

I do have a couple.

Um first, I think Mr.

Smith just confirmed this, but I just wanted to verify for the record, it's 669 units total.

And if if those uh units in the pavilion are converted, then you have to show you've reduced a modular or mobile home unit equivalently.

Right, it's the equivalent equivalent.

So if we did that conversion, there would actually be less than 669 dwelling units physically in the property.

But overall, they because of the way they're uh developed, they would be 669 would be the cap.

Okay.

So we may end up with 26 or 30, you know, um individual units, but when you do the trade-off, all we're doing is taking those units out and trading them out of the equivalent two basis.

Next question.

Um what are the setback standards for parcel A for those units?

So parcel A, we have 10 10 foot all the way around the perimeter.

We're recognizing the existing standards that were put in place uh for this property, and and so it's really an as is except and the only place that there's a change is they had a variance that was granted for a structure that was built in the amenity area, and that one is at five feet.

Okay.

So and where is that stated?

I don't see it in the conditions.

It's it's in the development standards on the on the site plan.

On the there's a table on the site plan.

All right.

Okay, so if you take a unit out, you replace a mobile home for another remobile home, then there's somewhere for someone in the building department to go and look and make sure that that setback and so forth is adhered to.

Right.

Right.

Those are those are set forth in the development standards on the site plan.

The again the uh I think development service can also answer that question, but I will.

Um the way we've worked with them is that all these are really mobile home spaces that have been established.

They had those minimum stepbacks and standards established.

So the trade out of those would still subject them to the same standards that they had been in the in the original condition.

Okay.

And then my last question is on parcel B.

Could you build I don't see this in the conditions as being contemplated, maybe you don't expect to do this, but could you build multifamily if you tore the pavilion building down?

It's not provided for in the conditions as we've stated uh as they're stated now, um, because all there's multiple, there's some modular units, there were old ALF units that could be repurposed for amenity and or um residential support uses.

There's some more sperm structural um buildings that are put in place that have the office and some of the old uh communal dining area.

Those are all going to be used for amenity or support purposes.

The pavilion building is the only one we have a trade-off for.

And there's no proposal to or and in your in your reading of these conditions for your client, there's no contemplation that the pavilion building will be torn down or repurposed and other than how you've described it.

Right, right.

The the only uh the only building in the entire area that could be repurposed for residential is the pavilion, and the pavilion is the newest building out of all of them.

Okay, that was it.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Development services.

Good evening.

Good evening, Jared Fallon with Development Services.

Uh so this is a request to modify PD 13-0377 in order to redefine the uses of the property.

The property was developed as a mobile home modular home park, but was defined as a community residential home use or assisted living facility.

With this modification, the applicant is seeking to remove the status of the property as a community residential home and change it to a standard single family use.

With this change, the weight of density was calculated was was revised and a number of maximum dwelling units was established, which will be 669 units.

This places the proposed density at 14.99 dwelling units per acre.

To allow this, a comprehensive plan amendment was submitted to change the future land use category from res 9 to res 16.

The amendment case number is CPA 2534.

The site plan is divided into three parcels.

Parcel A contains the majority of the resident residential and is mostly fully developed.

This parcel will continue to allow mobile homes or modular homes.

A church is also located on this parcel and is proposed to remain.

Parcel B contains non-residential and residential structures.

Proposed uses include utilizing these structures for residential support and amenity uses, as well as multifamily as an option to be developed within the structure labeled pavilion.

Parcel C is a small small parcel that is only utilized for ingress and egress into the property.

So the property is essentially going from one residential use to another, and the area around the site is predominantly single family.

Multifamily is not new to the conditions as it is currently allowed in parcel B.

Um, and with it being contained within an existing structure, we have no issues with it.

Development services is supporting the application and find it approvable subject to the proposed conditions and approval of the comprehensive plan amendment running concurrently with this application.

Just a quick question.

I I get notice uh prior to this hearing of revised staff reports and my preparation.

And I had notice of one, but I don't see it.

Is there a revised staff report?

Um I forgot.

Okay.

It was a ch there was changes to the transportation.

That was, I believe that was the only change.

I think that was the only.

But we can I can maybe go upstairs and print print some out.

Uh I'll see it in optics.

Okay, yeah, it's an optics right now.

I apologize for that.

All right, that's okay.

Just wanted to clarify.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Willow Mickey, planning commission staff.

The subject property is in the urban service area and within the limits of the town and country community plan.

The site is designated as residential nine on the feature land use map.

However, there is a pending comprehensive plan map amendment.

HCCPA 25 34 to change a portion of the site's designation to residential 16.

The requested major modification is concurrent with independent upon approval of that amendment, and the analysis of this request is based on the pending res 16 designation.

The surrounding area includes a mix of single family residential, multifamily residential, light commercial, and public quasi public uses.

Collectively, this development pattern demonstrates that the existing mobile home community is compatible with the surrounding mix of residential and supporting commercial uses, consistent with feature land use section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3.

The surrounding properties are residential in character, creating a logical transition among residential density categories.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

Nothing further, other than I I believe Jared was correct.

The changes were to update some transportation items and everything is in optics.

Okay, perfect.

I'll review it.

Thank you so much.

So we'll go back to the applicant if you'd like to add anything.

Nothing further.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Then we'll close major modification 26-0216 and go to the last case.

Our last item is item D6, PD rezoning 26-0220.

The applicant is requesting a rezone property from AR, AS1, PD 220692, and PD 970251 to Plan Development.

Sam Ballwood Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right, is the applicant here?

Okay.

You're back to back.

Okay, good evening.

Uh Nicole McKinnon's Barbara's Kramer Law Firm 2002 West Cleveland Street for the record.

Um here today on behalf of the applicant for a rezoning uh for 57 acres out in the East Lake Orient area.

Um this property is also has an interesting history.

So the northern half of the parcel that you can see here was actually rezoned back in 2022 for industrial.

This request is to add in the parcel to the south, um, and there's multiple parcels that are built in that that block, um, added in to add additional warehouse uses on that property.

So because of that property being zoned, um, AS1, AR, and PD, it became a brand new PD with everything in it.

Um, the property is in the UMU 20 future land use category.

Um, it's border by 75 and Hillsborough Avenue.

Um here are the future land use maps and zoning for the property, as I mentioned, UMU 20, and then we're in scattered PD, AS1, and AR zoning districts.

I'm gonna turn it over to David Smith to talk about the existing project.

Okay, thank you.

David Smith, uh 401 each Jackson Street uh development and zoning director for Sterns Weaver Miller.

Um Nicole introduced uh this is uh essentially an expansion of an existing development um currently under construction uh out there today, uh which is zoned in 2022.

Uh the access point is remaining the same.

Essentially, there will be an access point off of 301.

Uh that access point will carry all the traffic from both pieces of the property.

There's a companion um vacation of right-of-way for TANRA Road uh in between the two parcels uh that would prevent it from being a dead end road and um and also we're uh preventing traffic from this property from using Tanner Road uh for truck purposes.

And also we're preventing traffic from this property from using Tanner Road for truck purposes.

It's only going to be emergency access only.

So essentially, we're renewing the phase one approval for the PD was about 380,000 square feet, expanding it to add the additional properties identified.

The FAR obviously goes down when we add more land when Tanner Road is vacated, but it goes down from 0.31 to 0.30 building heights or 45 feet.

It has indicated the access point as to Hillsborough Avenue.

Already have had meetings with FDOT regarding signalization of the 301 access point.

It's US92.

Sorry about that.

Too many projects on 301 recently.

So that is well underway.

And if you have any questions regarding that, Steve Henry's here to answer those questions.

Here's the unified site plan.

As you can see, it consolidates to do properties.

It has access coming through from the main entrance where which we plan for signalization through the existing site plan that's under construction, then access points across old Tanner Road, and we have buffering and screening that protect the properties immediately to our west, similar to the fashion that phase one was.

Looking at the surrounding properties, essentially these the properties are being acquired now where almost everyone was related.

And as a matter of fact, I think every almost everybody was probably related on all these properties at one point in time.

So over time, the the whole family has transitioned out of this area to provide an opportunity for the expansion of the economic development program we have here.

Further you go south, then you connect up with the large office development to the south.

So this is truly an economic development opportunity along I-75 taking advantage of its location.

So here's the uh variations that have been requested.

Uh again, phase one already had these variations, but again, we're we're matching it with phase two.

Masonry walls are required.

We're uh requesting the PV sense to uh be permitted in lieu of the masonry wall.

It's a spacing issue with the the different grades on the property in order to accomplish that.

Consistency with comp planned in the urban service area.

We have central water and sewer, we're well under the maximum FAR.

Um we're not required to meet the minimum two uses in UMU because it's a completely industrial project, so it meets one of the exceptions, and the uh it's a desirable economic development project, uh consistent with goal seven of the comprehensive plan.

We're also consistent with East Lake Orient Park Community Plan, and again it focuses on providing uh business growth and jobs uh in these quarters, supports goals to create commercial mixed use district along uh these major highways within uh the development, and also provides guidelines to perfect adjacent residential uses.

Uh if there's any questions on traffic generation, Steve Henry is here to answer any any questions.

But again, I think the important uh part of that is is that we have had our meeting with FDOT.

We are looking at already signalization, it meets the warrants, and uh Steve can answer specific questions on how that's going.

Um staff found it consistent, Hillsborough County staff finds it approvable.

Um that's it, and we're available if you have any questions.

Thank you so much.

A couple quick questions.

Um just to confirm.

So phase one is the old is the existing PD 220692.

That's phase one.

Yep, that's the one.

And then is it fair to say phase two is a mirror of those uses that are already permitted in phase one?

Yep, exactly.

We're just adding in additional buildings.

Um so it's 380,000 square feet that are approved in phase one.

We're asking for another 380,000 in phase two.

But the same types of uses that were approved in phase one.

All right, and then I'll ask you this.

I uh have had conversation with county staff about one of your PD variations prior to this hearing.

I want to put it on the record that I called the county attorney's office to ask whether the uh variation you're asking for regarding the differ the uh increase in the slope of the stormwater pond met a PD variation request because in my mind that was a technical issue that required an expertise of a drainage engineer, similar to how people get uh transportation administrative variances by the county engineer, seemed similar in my mind, and whether that was applicable.

So I made a phone call to today to the county attorney's office to ask, and they have uh, and I'll let them speak for this, but they have said yes that that was as you know, that was a something that was approved under the 2022 PD, um, which doesn't mean that we do that forever, but they have opined that yes, that that can be a request as a part of your um rezoning that you can ask for that similarly.

So um I'll ask staff specific questions about that, but I wanted to get it on the record to know in the full interest of disclosure that I had a conversation with them about whether it qualified to be a PD variation or not.

So that's that.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

All right, development services.

Uh good evening, Sam Ball of Hillsborough County Development Services.

Uh the applicant is requesting to rezone uh 57.85 acres from AR, AS1, and PD 220692 to plan development, which would accommodate the second phase of an appropriate approved development that's currently under construction for up to 380,000 square feet of warehousing uh distribution, manufacturing and processing uses.

Uh the development is located at the south uh west corner of East Hillsborough Avenue and Interstate 75, which is approximately one-third mile south of the I-4I75 intersection.

Uh, this application includes two variation requests and is related to a right-of-way um vacation application for the portion of Tanner Road within the development.

Uh the uses in the immediate vicinity are mixed a residential office and commercial.

Uh the adjoining properties to the west are developed for a mobile home and RV park, uh single family uh multifamily auto repair and service and and vacant land.

Uh the property to the south is developed for a corporate office.

Uh the interstate right-of-way uh butts the eastern boundary with widths that vary from uh 431 to 677 feet, and the properties to the north of East uh Hillsborough Avenue uh are developed as a propane gas supply company, a memorial park, and a mixed-use site with residential and commercial activities.

Um if this application is approved, the development of the project would be limited to no more than 760,000 square feet of gross floor area.

The allowable uses would be restricted to warehousing with profile distribution, uh wholesale distribution manufacturing, processing, production, and professional services.

Including the right-of-way vacation, the development would have a floor area ratio of 0.3.

The application includes variations for the PVC defense in lieu of the masonry wall and increase to liable slope of the stormwater pond within a buffer.

Uh these variations would apply to the western boundary of the property where the site adjoins the residential properties to the west in phase one and developed AR zone property in phase two.

Uh due to the 30-foot buffer um type C screening.

Um additional building envelope separation and the allowance of passenger vehicle parking only staff finds the use of the six-foot tall PV cents would provide adequate screening uh between the proposed development and the residential properties that um and that the increased slope within the buffer would have minimal impact on the neighboring properties.

Uh traffic from the development would also be limited to 3,686 gross uh average daily trips, 289 AM peak hour trips, 274 uh PM peak hour trips, uh direct access to Tanner Road would be also restricted to emergency ingress and egress, except for emergency access.

Um access would be restricted to East Hillboard's each East Hillsborough Avenue and routed away from the neighboring um residential properties based on the surrounding zoning and development pattern of proposed uses and development standards and uh staff finds this request approvable subject to conditions.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you so much.

I'll just um I think this is the opportunity to talk about that question I had for uh that we talked about with the PD variation for the slope, the increase in slope.

And um if you want to, Mr.

Ball or Ms.

Heinrich comment on the uh how it meets the definition of a PD variation.

Uh sure, Ms.

Shah Development Services.

Um primarily uh it gets to the buffer because in the definition of buffer that explains what is and is not allowed to be in the buffer, and one of those items that's not permitted in the buffer is um stormwater ponds of a certain slope.

Um so if they are not of that slope, you can request a variation or you could reduce the buffer width and take them out of the buffer altogether.

Um in this instance, they opted to uh recognize the other slope that they intend to have there, and also just to let you know when those slopes, such as they're proposing, are present.

It our stormwater technical manual does require that they be surrounded by fencing for safety reasons.

And those stormwater ponds, if this were to be approved, those stormwater ponds are approved by or reviewed by the county's stormwater technical staff for safety and and so forth, and not uh perhaps a function of this hearing.

Correct.

Is a more detailed professional review after the fact.

Yes, understood.

All right, thank you.

That's all I needed.

Appreciate it.

Planning commission.

Will the Mickey planning commission staff?

The subject property is located in the urban mixed use 20 feature landings category, is in the urban service area and within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park community plan.

Surrounding the site, there are light industrial, residential, and commercial uses considered collectively.

This mix of surrounding lane uses establishes a development pattern that supports the proposed use, especially as it is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Hillsboro Avenue in I-75, where similar uses are found.

The proposed plan development adheres to the compatibility criteria by complementing the surrounding development pattern and appropriately integrating with adjacent land uses by providing adequate buffering and screening.

The southeastern portion of the site abuts a family multifamily use.

However, the proposed buildings are oriented to be along the stormwater and open space areas of the adjacent site away from the existing residential buildings.

Additionally, along the southern portion of this of the site, there are wetlands to be preserved as well as stormwater areas to provide additional buffering between any residential uses.

The economic development goal of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan seeks to provide opportunities for business growth and jobs.

The expansion of the previously approved plan development will increase the current economic opportunity on the site and create additional job opportunities within this area.

Based upon the above considerations in the following goals, objectives and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

All right, Miss Heinrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

And uh uh just you did receive a revised staff report at the beginning of the meeting.

Yes, Mr.

Ma handed it to me.

And if you just want to go over what the changes are, he I think he mentioned they were for transportation purposes.

Um I don't know if they were for transportation, I believe natural resources referenced uh site development process that we were expanding.

So if it's not preliminary, it could be construction.

That's correct, it's condition 20 that was originally written to require uh to account for the grand oaks at the preliminary plat or plan stage, and if they go straight to construction, then if they intend to go straight to construction, that can stop them from going straight to construction, they have to go through the plotting uh preliminary plan process.

All right, thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

All right.

Uh so then that takes us to rebuttal.

You all have the last word if you'd like it.

No rebuttal just to confirm the change that he was talking about was because if this goes straight to construction, it seemed like it was forcing us to go to preliminary rather than being able to go to straight.

And so that's what the condition changed it.

All right, understood.

Thank you for that.

Appreciate it.

Then with that, we will close rezoning 26-0220 and adjourn the hearing.

Thank you all for your time and testimony.