Good evening, everybody.

My name is Steve Luce, and I will be tonight zoning hearing master, hearing officer.

Before we get started, if we could all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Maybe seated.

At this point in time, I'd like to introduce Michelle Heinrich from Development Services staff who introduced the folks at the Dais and go over any changes to tonight's agenda.

Good evening, Michelle Heinrich, Development Services.

With the planning commission, we have Tyreek Royal, and with transportation review on the other side, we have Richard Perez.

And we do have some changes to the agenda to go over.

This application has been withdrawn, so this will not be heard tonight.

Okay.

Secondly, agenda page ten, item D five, PD twenty-five-thirteen eighty-seven.

And third, uh agenda page eleven, item D eight, PD twenty-six-0214.

This is to revise the agenda to correct the existing zoning to PD O one eleven eighty and RSC to MH.

Okay.

Agenda page eleven, item D nine, major mod twenty-six O two one five.

Um this is a revision to the agenda and a continuance.

Um firstly on the agenda, the correct future land use category is only the NMU four three.

And the applicant is requesting a continuance to the April twenty-seventh, twenty twenty-six ZHM.

And this one would need to be um reviewed by yourself and approved for that continuance.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to the continuance only?

Yes, sir.

I do have a couple items on continuance, but I wasn't sure if you're referring to the ones Michelle just spoke of or any on the agenda.

Yeah, I'm talking about item D twelve.

It's 260349.

Is that it, Michelle?

Major mod twenty-six oh two one five.

All right.

Okay.

So to be clear, D 9, case number 26-0215.

Correct.

Okay.

And to reiterate the reason for the continuance.

It's because we're making some changes to the plan, and we would like time to have staff review it.

Okay.

Thank you.

And your name for the record?

Isabel Albert.

And your address?

Els in North Ashley Drive, Tampa, Florida.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak regarding the continuance only?

See no one responding.

Isabel?

I'm sorry?

Okay.

With that, that this one more.

Yes, sir.

The last item is agenda page 12, item D12, PD 26-0349.

This is being continued by staff to the April 27th, 2026 ZHM hearing.

Correct.

Okay, that's one I thought we were talking about.

Got it.

So those two will be continued.

And Mr.

Pressman, was there something on the agenda that you wanted to speak to regarding continuances?

There are two items.

The first one is 25-0270.

That will need to be continued out to June because we've already passed the resubmit date.

The same with 26-0283.

That requires a resubmit.

We're past that.

That's stated for April on the agenda, but we're past the resubmit date, so that needs to go to June as well, please.

Sorry.

Can I have your name and address for the record, please?

Todd Pressman to uh 22nd Avenue South number 451, St.

Petersburg.

We understand the applicant does want to continue to June.

What's published on the agenda is the 427, so at that hearing, we would request the or notify anyone who's here to speak on that that it's being continued to June.

We wouldn't be able to do it at this one because it's says it's being heard in April 27th.

So we can still we can't do it verbally tonight, but on the next agenda in April's agenda, we can recognize that continuance.

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Michelle.

Sonric, does that conclude the changes to this evening's agenda?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I have a few instructions to read into the record.

I believe the county attorney's office may have a comment.

And then we'll get started with tonight's agenda items.

Okay.

Our hearing tonight consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by the zoning hearing master.

I will conduct a hearing on each agenda item and will file a recommendation within 15 working days after the conclusion of today's hearing.

Those recommendations are then sent to the Board of County Commissioners who will make the final decision.

Our hearing will be informal.

I will ask all questions related to the scope of direct testimony.

I may call and question witnesses as I deem appropriate, and I will decide all questions of procedure.

I will take evidence but will exclude evidence that is irrelevant immaterial or unduly repetitious.

Evidence may be presented in written form, and all testimony must be under oath.

Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient alone to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action.

The order of the presentations are as follows.

Then the planning commission staff has five minutes for their findings and their presentation of their finding of consistency or inconsistency.

Then those members that are in support, proponents of the application, have 15 minutes.

And those members in the audience that wish to speak in opposition have 15 minutes as well.

Development services will then come back and have five minutes to address any comments that are raised during the hearing.

And finally, the applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal.

Regarding the time for proponents and opponents, the 15-minute time frame is a total time for each category.

If there are a number of people to speak, we will add up the total number of people, and the 15 minutes will be divided as equally as possible.

You may wish to designate a single spokesperson to more efficiently use the time.

When you come up to the podium to speak, please start by giving your name and address for the record.

The meeting is being recorded, and we want to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record.

When you are done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name, address, and the application number of the agenda item you are speaking to.

At this point in time, the county attorney will now provide the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Mary Dorman from the County Attorney's Office.

Tonight's public hearing is the first step of a two-step rezoning process.

This hearing is the time for rezoning applicants and interested parties to present evidence and testimony.

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

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

Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the board at its May 12th, 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 April 13th, 2026.

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

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

Applications that propose to add density outside the urban service area.

Applications on roadways with a failing level of service.

Applications that do not have consistent recommendations of approval, and applications that have had evidence or testimony in opposition provided to the record by non-applicant parties of record, either prior to or at tonight's public hearing.

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

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

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Torman.

All testimony must be provided under oath.

Therefore, if you plan to speak, please stand and raise your right hand.

So I may swear you in.

Okay, thank you.

You may be seated.

Okay.

With that, Ms.

Heinrich, you're ready for the first item.

Our first item is a remand item B125-1338.

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

And I'll provide staff findings after the applicant comes up to speak.

Okay.

The applicant, please.

Do we know whether or not the applicant intended to attend tonight's hearing?

They were told about tonight's hearing.

We can certainly try to reach them, or you could continue it to the end of the agenda or proceed.

Yeah, let's um final call.

Application 25 1338.

The applicant.

Yeah, yeah.

So it just slides this.

Good evening to everyone.

My name is Sayed, last name Ali, and I'm the applicant.

And to give a little bit of a question.

Can we state your name and address, please?

My name, my name is Sayed S Y A D.

And my address is 602 Okone, OCO NEE Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33606.

Okay.

And sir, before we get started, let me ask either staff or film services or county attorney's office.

This item was heard by me at a prior ZHM hearing.

And it was remanned because of a notice issue.

Correct.

So how much of the prior hearing carries forward with this tonight's hearing?

This is a is a new hearing.

Okay.

All right, sir.

Even though we did have this hearing once before, um, you'll have to uh put your case on if you had to if it was your first time.

Oh, this is the first time to start again.

Okay.

Well, it was heard back in November 18th.

Nonetheless, I think we can start all over.

Um if that's the case, maybe I may have to use a little help of the slide to read through.

Uh the subject property is located at 7814 East Elm Street, Florida, 33610.

It lies within the urban service area of Hillsborough County and is part of the East Lake Orient Park community area.

The property is currently zoned RSC-6 and mobile home and carries a future land use of CMU 12, which permits a residential density of up to 12 units per acre.

The parcel measures approximately 0.91 acres, resulting in a density of 10 residential units.

The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by a diverse mix of mobile home, manufacturer home, and single family, old single family homes.

So we also have noticing for the record that there have been several approved PD averting to the site.

On the east, a PD has been approved for 14 duplices and 40 57 town homes, and on the north of the property site, uh the PD has been approved for 14 town homes, and the proposed development is intended to complete and revitalize the existing community in the fabrics.

Moving forward on the slides, and this is a street view of the existing conditions of the street and the picture is uh kind of self-explanatory, and this is the existing houses around.

And that's the view from the site.

The site is on the left side, if you were to see, and we are this is our proposed site plan, um, showing all the 10 um five duplexes, and this is how the street view is gonna be once it's developed.

And and in the conclusion, of course.

That's uh on the left you have the existing condition, the right is a proposed, and we can see the improvement.

This the project is gonna bring to the to the neighborhood.

Um this is the overall side plan showing what it is now and what it's gonna be once it's done.

And we feel that I think this could be a um good improvement or it could be very conducive towards the improvement for the future.

Uh that's probably I have and I can conclude with that.

If any comments or any questions.

No questions.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

All right, staff.

Uh development services, uh, Michelle Heinrich.

Um, as you heard, this is an application was out of order to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners due to a notice error, so it was remanded back to the CHM hearing.

Uh staff reviewed a request for rezoning from RSC 6MH to PD to allow for two-family um development consisting of 10 units total.

The site is located south of Sly Avenue, east of 78th Street, and at the end of Elm Street.

The site is located in the urban service area and within the CMU 12 future land use category.

Uh as you saw on during the applicant's presentation, surrounding uses include single-family detached, single family attached, and multifamily.

Staff receive no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request compatible.

And therefore, we do recommend approval subject to proposed conditions, and I'm available if you have any questions.

No questions.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening, Tyreek Royal, Plan Commission staff.

The site is designated community mixed use 12, which permits a range of uses, including residential development up to 12 units per acre.

The applicant seeks to rezone the property to plan development to allow construction of 10 dwelling units, which is consistent with the maximum allowable density.

The proposal aligns with the comprehensive plan objectives, directing growth to the urban service area, ensuring compatibility of their surrounding development and adhering to land development regulations.

The surrounding area is predominantly single family residential.

The proposed development matches this character and density and scale while incorporating features like perimeter fencing for compatibility.

It also supports the plan uh goals by providing pedestrian connectivity.

Overall, the proposal is deemed consistent with uh Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

All right, thank you.

This at this point time is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application.

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application.

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant, any final comments.

Thank you very much for all for the time.

All right, thank you, sir.

That concludes our first item tonight.

Heinrich, you're ready for next item.

Our next item is item C1, standard rezoning 26-0359.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property um from RDC twelve to RMC twelve.

Logan McCa with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Applicant, please.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Matthew Spiro.

My address is 311 West Palm Avenue, uh part of 423, uh Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Uh good evening.

I'm requesting the rezoning of uh our property on Orient Road, 3614 Orient Road, uh, from RDC 12 to RMC 12.

Uh the intent is to develop a triplex uh which aligns with the surrounding uses and provides appropriate density for the area.

Okay.

All right.

I don't have a no question.

I'm sorry.

It's straightforward, sir.

I I understood.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Development services staff.

Good evening, Logan McKay Development Services.

Uh 250359.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from RDC 12 to RMC 12 for the purpose of allowing multifamily uses on said property.

The proposed rezoning does not increase the density, and the property will remain in residential uses.

Uh the project will be required to meet all RMC 12 development standards, including setbacks and height.

Additionally, as there are other RMC zone properties within the area.

Including to the northeast and southeast along Orient Road.

Staff recommends uh approval for this application is available for any questions.

No questions.

Thank you.

Uh Planning Commission staff.

Good evening, Tyreek Royal, Planning Commission staff.

The proposal is consistent with flu objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 as it ensures compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, which includes residential and vacant properties, and miss requirement for integrating with adjacent uses through complementary development, minimizing impacts and providing appropriate transitions and density and connectivity.

Additionally, the rezoning aligns with flu objective 3.2 and policy 3.2.4 by supporting the goals of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan, particularly in expanding and diversifying housing to create sustainable livable communities.

The residential 12 future land use category allows for a maximum of 12 dwelling units per gross acre, and with 0.29 acres, the subject site can be considered for a maximum of three dwelling units.

Overall, the rezoning is compatible with the existing development pattern, is consistent with the Hillsburg County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions by development services.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

This point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward.

Good evening.

This is Bobby Shiver.

I uh own the property across the street from this site they're trying to get redeveloped.

State state your name for the uh name.

I'm sorry, your address for the record.

Oh 20 2101 Fairfield Drive, Brandon, Florida.

Great, thank you.

Any anyhow, I'll you know, been there a long time.

We've been longtime residents.

Uh this my uh I've got a duplex across the street from this development.

Orient Road is a two-lane road, and I mean we have got a lot of business or a lot of stuff going on right now, and nobody is making turning lanes or you know, or are improving the roads that is going to supply this stuff.

So right now, you know, I don't know if there's uh sewer and water.

I know there's water, but I don't know if there's sewer there, so this is gonna be all on septic tanks.

We have ditches in front of our houses, so you know there's you know no drainage, and you know, and and by putting more and more people on that two-lane road is gonna do nothing to improve the area.

It's just going to get you know more and more traffic, and it's going to be more and more dangerous for the kids.

So, you know, I've got a my property used to be a uh two do two uh two duplexes per acre.

How it got changed to 12, I have no idea.

But again, this is just you know, putting these of duplexes and triplexes and quadplexes all over the place is not improving our lifestyle in a rural area.

And with these sub the uh condominiums and and apartment complexes, it is just totally wiping out our roads and our you know, our way to move around in Hillsborough County.

And you know, again, it's it's getting to be right now.

You can see uh, you know, what's going to happen to it if you do not improve these roads and have a develop a reason for you know taking care of the services to these areas because most of the subdivisions being built, they they're not putting turning lanes on these roads, and it's causing a lot of accidents.

Not helping anybody so you can develop the land, but if you don't develop the roads, we've got a problem.

We've had a problem, and it's just going to get worse.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

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

See no one responding.

Uh staff, anything further?

Uh, nothing from zoning.

I don't know if you have any questions for transportation.

Um just uh the comment about water and sewer.

This is uh if it's a triplex, they would have to connect to public water and sewer.

Yes, this is in the urban service area.

And um for traffic, uh do we know what the level of service is on Orient Road?

Yes.

Okay, okay.

Yes, the uh level of services included in uh staff's comments.

Um level of service is showing per the Hillsborough County level of service 2024 level of service report um operating a peak hour level of uh C and the level of service standard is a D.

Okay.

I would state we do we do not consider level of service in our review for the zoning.

Um, but I'll point out that in looking at the trips potentially generated.

This um zoning change would not increase the number of units, so it would it would uh in our estimate stay the same.

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, this point time the applicant opportunity for final comments on a rebuttal.

Uh no rebuttal is not okay.

All right, very good.

Thank you, sir.

Thanks.

With that, that concludes this application.

Simon Correct for the next item.

Our next item is item C2, standard rezoning 26-0457.

The applicant is requesting a rezone property from AR to AS1.

Logan McCaik with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Hey, applicant, please.

Good evening.

Um Don Thompson, 10829 Al Breton Road, Lithia, Florida 33547.

Um, I am the applicant along with my wife Catherine.

Um this is uh primarily has been uh applied for because currently the parcels non-conforming for any use whatsoever.

So we have asked for a rezoning from the agricultural AR designation to the AS1.

Um sort of like the other gentleman, I don't have a fancy presentation.

I I think this is a pretty straightforward situation, um, but haven't been any indications of any conflict with the community standards, maintains a rural setting consistent with the community.

So we'd ask that it be approved.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

And development services.

Good evening again.

Logan McKay Development Services for 260457.

Applicant is requesting to rezone the property from AR to AS1 for the purposes of constructing single family homes on the property.

During review, it was discovered that the property uh in question is a non-conforming lot.

Rezoning of the subject site to AS1, consisting of 3.68 acres, will bring the non-conforming lot into compliance with the proposed zoning district.

Additionally, the area in general consists of both AR and AS1 zonings.

As such, staff finds the proposed rezoning approvable.

Okay, thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening, Tariq Corolla, Planning Commission staff.

The proposal is consistent with flu objective 1.2, policy 3.1.3, related concert comprehensive plan uh provisions governing appropriate land uses and development intensity.

The subject property is designated residential one, which allows for a range of low density uses, including uh residential development up to one dwelling unit per gross acre.

Um, with 3.63 acres as um the subject site supports uh approximately three dwelling units.

The proposed rezoning aligns with this designation and is compatible with resurrounding land uses with uh consists of primarily single family uh residences, agriculture uses, and vacant land.

It also supports flu objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by assuring development is compatible with the existing neighborhood pattern and incorporates appropriate transitions and integration with uh adjacent uses.

In addition, the request is consistent with flu objective 3.2 and policy 3.2.4 and aligns with the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan by supporting housing opportunities while maintaining compatibility with local infrastructure and development patterns.

Overall staff find the rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Very good, thank you.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

With that, that concludes this application.

Simon, ready for the next item.

Our next item is item C3, standard rezoning 26-0468.

The applicant is requesting the rezon property from AS1 to AS1 with the show business overlay.

This was reviewed by Sierra James, and I will be presenting her staff findings tonight after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

Is the applicant here tonight?

I am.

Okay.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I wasn't sworn.

I didn't realize we were going to be speaking until I saw everybody getting up and speaking.

Do I need to be sworn?

Okay.

If you could raise your right hand.

You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but that truth.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Uh so the reason for the overlay.

Can you state the name and address, please?

Sorry, my name is Art Chillette.

Uh 1002 Alpha Street Gibbs and the reason for the overlay is just to better bring us into compliance with the current zoning ordinances.

That's all.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Development services.

Michelle Heinrich, development services.

Staff uh reviewed a request to rezone property from AS1 to AS1 with a show business overlay.

The subject site is 0.86 acres in size and has been certified as a legal non-conforming lot.

For show business overlay, the site is reviewed with LDC Section 3.01.02, which provides criteria to be met to be considered for the overlay.

The criteria is primarily locational in relation to other surrounding properties, with those also being in the overlay or zoned the former standard zoning district of RSB.

For this application, staff found that criteria was met due to the presence of the show business overlay to the west and RSB zoning to the south.

Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request compatible.

And we do recommend um approval.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening again, Tariq Roll, Planning Commission staff.

Uh the subject site is designated residential four, which is intended for low density residential uses.

The applicant proposes rezoning from AS1 to RSB, which is consistent with the surrounding development pattern.

There's primary single family residential and mobile homes with existing RSB zoning located directly to the south.

The proposal aligns with flu objective 1.1 by supporting development within their uh urban service area and flu objector 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 by maintaining compatibility with adjacent uses and neighborhood character.

It also complies with food policy 3.1.2 by supporting appropriate transition between late line uses as the RSB zoning already exists nearby and the site is currently developed with residential uses.

The request means consistent with the intensity and density allow it in the residential forward future lineage category and does not exceed permitted development thresholds.

Additionally, it supports flu objective 3.2 in the Gibson 10 community plan by reinforcing continue present uh presence of residential sub business uses and ensuring compatibility resurrecting residential and agricultural related uses.

Overall staff finds the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application.

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Any applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

No need for rebuttal.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Very good.

That concludes this item.

Signric, ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D1, PD 25-0882.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AS1 to Plan Development.

Chris Greelinar with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

Applicant.

Good evening.

My name is David Wright, president of TSP Companies.

Address is 8956 West Sherland Drive, Lando Lakes, Florida.

I'm requesting the rezoning of a 9.66 acre property from AS1 to plan development to permit the development of a hotel resort with up to 50 rooms in a 68,000 square foot building with 10,000 square feet of ancillary support uses, including clubhouse, snack bar, swimming pool, and conference rooms.

Property is comprised of two parcels identified by folio numbers 5507 4.0300 and 55074.0400 in Ruskin.

Property consists of 2.782 acres uplands and 6.882 acres of wetlands.

The wetlands are a man-made lake, former borrow pit that is proposed as a central feature of the development to be used for recreational purposes associated with resort and hotel.

The record includes a wetland delineation survey and the wetland concentration line is included on the PD site plan.

No impacts to the wetlands are proposed.

Buffers and screening are proposed in accordance with the land development code, and a PD variation is requested to LDC Section 6.0600 to permit a 10-foot wide buffer with type B screening along the north and east perimeter of the PD.

The variation is requested to accommodate site constraints and staff supports the variation based on the preservation of existing natural vegetation and environmental features on the site, providing which provide additional visual screening to mitigate the reduced buffer.

PD was also designed with the hotel and accessory buildings along the PD's west perimeter adjacent to I-75.

Therefore, the lake effectively increases the buffer between the proposed buildings and the uses to the north and east.

The application proposes a single full access to 33rd Street Southeast and gated emergency access to 33rd Street Southeast and 14th Avenue Southeast at the locations depicted on the site plan.

A trip generation letter is included in the application, resulting in 17 uh AM peak hour trips and 24 p.m.

peak hour trips.

The proposal is left in the 50-trip mesh threshold requiring a full transportation analysis.

Hillsborough County Transportation Staff has no objection to the request.

33rd Street Southeast is 33rd Street Southeast is an FDOT roadway.

And an FDOT pre-application meeting was held on August 19th, 2025.

I've got a copy of the pre-application meeting notes that I'll submit into the record.

Okay.

Um FDOT will require a traffic study and analysis of the intersection of highway 674 and 14th Street during site development permit review.

The property is located within the urban service area and will be required to connect to the Hillsborough County public utility system.

We completed a public notice as required by the land development code and received a single response from citizen Barbara Klein.

Ms.

Klein was concerned about gopher tortoises located on the subject property, and I assured her that a gopher tortoise survey and relocation of the any tortoises to another suitable habitat will be required prior to any land development of the property.

Ms.

Klein stated she was satisfied with my response.

Development service staff has recommended approval subject to proposed conditions and planning commission staff found the request to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Here for any questions and a request your recommendation or approval.

All right, very good.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

And development services staff.

Good evening, Chris Grainar.

Planner with development services.

Presenting uh PD 25-0882.

It's a request to rezone 9.66 acres at the northeast corner of 33rd Street Southeast and 14th Avenue Southeast in Ruskin from AS1 to plan development.

The proposal is for 68,000 square foot hotel resort with up to five 50 rooms and 10,000 square feet of ancillary facilities.

The project also incorporates an existing six-acre man-made lake with an eight-foot walking and biking path around its uh upland perimeter.

Uh the surrounding uses include uh single family residential to the south, two family residential to the east, and vacant land to the north and west.

To address compatibility with nearby homes, the applicant proposes setbacks of 25 feet to the north and south and 50 foot east to the uh 50 foot east and 10 foot west.

Um the require there are also um there's a an uh eight-foot buffer on the west and south, and a 10-foot uh B type B buffer on the north and east, and a six-foot opaque or perimeter fence.

Uh the hotel building is placed on the western side of the site, oriented towards 33rd Street Southeast and I-75, with the lake providing internal open space and separation for residential areas.

Environmental conditions address wetlands, surface waters, and tree preservation, including incorporating the EPC wetland line into all future site plans and avoiding significant tree uh avoiding uh significant trees where available uh possible.

Uh variation is requested to allow a 10-foot type B buffer instead of the standard 20-foot requirement along the north and east.

Staff supports this due to existing natural vegetation, and um that that continues to provide accura adequate separation.

Uh development services finds the request approvable subject to the conditions in the staff report.

That concludes my concludes my presentation.

I'm available for any questions you might have.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

All right, planning commission staff.

Thank you.

Supports higher intensity closer to mixed use development in urbanized areas.

Consistent with flu policies 3.12.2 and 3.1.4.

The proposal also complies with fluid directive 2.2.

It relates uh related policies.

That's a hotel and air slower uses fall within the allowable intensities and development parameters of the CMU total designation, including environmental sensitive land calculations that confirm the project remains within permit limits.

Initially, the development supports mobility and recreational goals under the comprehensive plan by incorporating pedestrian and bicycle amenities around the lake.

Overall, staff are on the proposed plan development to be compatible with their surrounding area and consistent with the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to conditions.

Thank you.

Okay.

And just to clarify and reinforce for the record, the calculations in the staff report as to how you get to the maximum square footage.

Um in the report, it states 75,685 square feet are permitted.

And the applicant's request is for 68,000 square feet of a hotel building and 10,000 square foot of ancillary support space, which is includes uh a pool and probably some recreational areas that are not building square footage.

But you're satisfied that the application itself falls within the 75,685 square foot threshold.

Yes, sir.

Um I believe there's also the 1.25 um, you know, uh environmental sensitive land uh credit as well, so uh that incorporates both non residential uses as well.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Uh at this point in time, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Development services, anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

With that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, are ready for the next item?

Our next item is item D2, PD 25-0939.

The applicant is requesting a rezon property from CG to plane development.

Team Sbaker with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

And this case is associated with the comprehensive plan amendment.

Therefore, both the comprehensive plan amendment and the rezoning will be before the board on May 14th, which is reflected in our staff report.

Okay.

Thank you.

The applicant, please.

Mr.

Hearing Officer and Staff Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

This is RZPD 25-0939.

Consists of 8.55 acres.

Planning Commission staff finds a consistent DSD supports.

Planning Commission Board found the companion comp amendment is consistent and there's no variations proposed.

Located the Ceftner Mango area in the USA.

A little closer view here along East U.S.

Highway 92, and looking closer per the property appraiser.

Site fronts on U.S.

92, and it is close to closest intersecting road is Williams Road.

Currently a mobile home park.

Issue is for CG zoning or PD with CG zoning, excuse me, CG zoning to PD for M zoning uses, which would exclude heavy industrial uses.

PD site plan is bubbled, showing you where the location of a proposed 100 square foot industrial warehouse would be.

A couple points that are made by the staffs, which are very good points, is there's a significant buffer in the rear, uh which is composed of wetlands areas and uh natural areas.

There are four access points.

You see, there's three on highway 92, and there's one to the rear.

Uh three of the access points will be removed, and new access is indicated on the site plan.

Zoning of the site is CG.

You can see it's a very intensive corridor at this point with a lot of CINCG, and on the future land use categories, of course, that mirrors it with CMU 12 and SMU 6.

So you can see the site as it lays partly in the SMU6 and partly in the R6.

This is the current site, which is going to be removed.

It's past its prime, way past this prime, and uh all what you see here will be removed.

A little closer look at the future land use categories, and there's a 500 foot extension of the SMU 6 planning commission notes and is important to note that industrial uses are currently permitted on the northern portion of the subject site.

Um this is the diagram showing that extension.

The Sepharma community plan specifically looks for commercial development, be directed to the US 92 of Martin Luther King Boulevard corridors, uh, and a courage of revitalization redevelopment of older existing commercial areas and uses.

The site is a budding uh with intensive uses on the west, as you can see here, and a butting on the east as well.

But from the arrows, you can see that there's quite a bit of activity uh intensive wise, both on the east and west as well.

Across Hillsborough Avenue is a commercial use.

Planning commission notes is consistent with the Septor Mango Community Plan compatible with the existing development pattern.

DSD uh DSD notes that preserving the wetlands as natural resource and incorporates required environmental protections.

Vehicle access will be consolidated from four to a single controlled access point, represents a more appropriate and compatible long-term use, does not proceed any compatibility concerns.

Uh U.S.

Highway 92 at this point is part of the county truck route plan.

It's a state principal arterial and currently carries 15,100 vehicles per day.

The county transportation report uh states view that this would be a difference reduction of 5,716 annual daily trips, reduction of 381 AM peak and 453 PMP.

With that, we appreciate your attention.

Uh as I'm aware, or we're not aware of any uh emails or opposition to the requests.

We noticed about 37 individual persons or HOAs.

All right.

Um I'll ask Planning Commission staff in quite what's the status of the complan amendment?

Has it gone to any hearings yet?

It were yeah, the uh the uh comp plan hearing did occur, and the planning commission board did vote and found that consistent.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Staff.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

James Baker planning development services.

This is for PD 250939.

The proposal is to develop an 8.55 acre area to a plan development district to facilitate the development of M zoning district uses, excluding heavy industrial.

There are two mobile home parks containing 27 leased mobile home units that take access from both East Hillsborough Avenue, which is U.S.

Highway 92, and Old Hillsboro Avenue.

The site is currently developed with a mobile home park.

The applicant has submitted an affidavit statement of the site is not subject to Florida statute chapter 723.

The application is associated with CPA 25-38, requesting a future land use category of SMU 6 over the entire site.

The area is characterized by a variety of commercial and industrial uses at varying intensities, particularly along U.S.

Highway 92.

This is a request to resonate folio 63010.500 and 63013.000, respectively, comprised of approximately 4.12 and 4.73 acres CG zoning to a plan development to facilitate industrial development services does not foresee any compatibility concerns with the proposed development.

The density of the proposed development is appropriate for the area and does not pose any negative impacts to the surrounding residential uses.

Staff recommends approval, subject to proposed conditions.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening, Tiger Coral Planning Commission staff.

The site has a split future land use designation of residential nine, suburban mixed use six.

There's a comprehensive plan amendment HC CPA 2538 pending to change a portion of the residential nine on the sites of suburban mix use six.

This request is uh for this rezoning is considered concurrent and dependent on their approval HGCPA 2538.

The surrounding areas characterized by mixed residential, commercial industrial uses, particularly along U.S.

Highway 92, which serves as primary corridor for non-residential development.

While residential neighborhoods exist nearby, especially to the south, the area also includes warehousing, light industrial and commercial activity, reflecting transitional land use pattern.

The proposal aligns with fluid directive 1.1 by supporting growth within the urban service area and fluid directive 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding uses through appropriate design and buffering to address compatibility and neighborhood protection under fluid directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1.

The project incorporates uh wetlands, a man-made pond, and required uh landscape buffers to reduce impacts on adjacent residential properties, particularly to the south and east.

Access is also directed away from local residential streets and towards U.S.

Highway 92, minimizing neighborhood disruptions.

These measures help ensure gradual transition between industrial and residential uses.

This report overall compatibility with their surrounding development.

The request also complies with the attendant suffering community plan by concentrating commercial and industrial development along U.S.

92, improv improving roadway connectivity and supporting uh plan transportation improvements included right away.

Overall staff rise proposed plan development consistent with the Hillsburg County Comprehensive Plan.

It's up to conditions.

Thank you.

And uh same question for you.

I asked the applicant the status of the comp plan amendment.

Yeah, it looks like on January 12th it was um adopt um voted as uh consistent with the complan by the planning commission board.

And then and then the next steps is what are involved be May 12th.

Um it will be heard by the BOCC.

Right, thank you.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Yep.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application?

Excuse me, sir.

I'm sorry, uh correct this May 14th will be heard by the board.

Okay, very good, thank you.

And to reiterate, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding, development services.

Anything further?

No, sir.

Okay, any applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Okay, very good.

That concludes this application.

Sign Rick, ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D4, PD 25-1386.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property that's currently zone AR, AS1 and Plan Development to a new plan development.

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

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening, Isabel Albert with half uh North Ashley Drive, suite 900, and I'm a certified planner.

So what we have here is a 634 acre parcel that is comprised of an existing plan development, and we're adding um acreage to the existing Cypress Ridge that is in the urban service area, and it's also within the Waiamama Community Plan in the South Shore area system plans, and it has a future land use of residential floor.

So it's currently approved.

Uh it's about 500 acres for residential uses and a school and as well as community support.

Uh that's comprised of 25 acres of the school and 25 acres for the residential support use.

And the request is adding approximately 106 acres uh to the existing Cypress Ridge plan development uh that's shown here in yellow.

And it's also to allow a maximum of 2,000 uh units that's comprised of different styles of uh residential, which is from bungalows to townhomes, villas, and single family uh development.

Uh we also requested the removal of the school, which the school board reviewed and had no objections, as well as a community support use compatibility.

Um the site is surrounded by existing development as well as approved plan development that are very similar in nature uh to what we're proposing, and the Swift Mud is uh property to the uh east.

So it's brings me to transportation Mr.

Yates is here to talk about it.

Good evening, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, and I haven't sworn.

I just wanted to go through traffic uh very briefly.

Um we are doing uh some improvements associated with this.

Uh there will be a MUFASA that will be going to the board uh as part of this application uh for an improvement to the intersection of Bishop and Westlake.

Next plan should show it.

It is a modified uh traffic circle uh that it has an irregular shape but will help in traffic control at the intersection and to slow traffic down because that section of Westlake is a pretty long segment.

Uh and then as you can see on this plan, there is a section to the north of Westlake that is currently under construction.

That was part of another MUFASA that was uh being done that coordinates with the school board and uh one of the Lenar projects to the north.

Uh so that is actually under construction and mostly done, which provides 10 foot sidewalks on both sides, and so the Bishop Road uh to the east will be uh modified as part of this project in addition to the intersection there uh to provide the uh 11 foot lanes and uh while this graphic shows eight foot sidewalks.

I think we're able to fit 10 foot multi-use path.

So uh that will go through the project.

All right, so the agreement that's going concurrently, yes.

Correct.

They're working on the finalizing that agreement, but it will be an agreement that goes to the board uh concurrently with this project.

Okay, and does it cover Bishop overdue?

It is specifically just for the intersection.

Okay.

Uh Bishop uh from Westlake 2301 is being built as part of this project and serves as part of the access.

So as part of this project, the uh there is a typical section uh that is being approved as part of the design exception uh that covers the section from Westlake to its current terminus to the east.

Okay, that's under construction now.

It's going through permitting now for the final construction plans, and then east of that is already built.

Okay, and then to the south Westlake.

There is a south section of Westlake that is being done as a separate project uh not associated with this one.

Uh and there is a site, there is an approved plan that they are working through that will take West Lake and improve it south of Bishop.

Um, but it is a zoning condition that's incorporated into this application to build West Lake from this traffic circle south.

There should not be uh well then help me out then William 325 South Boulevard Tampa, Florida.

Mr.

Hearing Master, I believe that we are building the section of Westlake that runs through our subdivision, which will be an extension of Westlake Drive, and another developer is taking Westlake from the peanut down south.

Further south to our division.

Okay, there's condition 17A that says to extension of Westlake between Bishop Road and proposed access Y it's condition 17A.

Is it do we have the site plan?

It's not on there, it's on the southern boundary.

There we go.

So if you can see here, see where the triangular shape is at the very uh bottom corner.

Um that is the section of Westlake.

You can see there's a little uh loop in dark gray.

So that is the section of Westlake that we are building through our project at the southern end.

Oh, just within your boundaries, just within our project boundaries.

Okay, but there is another developer that has the commitment to build it from Bishop, Westlake and Bishop intersection to this spot.

Okay.

And are you coordinating with the other we have been okay?

All right, sorry to interrupt, but I no no no clarify.

That was it.

I just wanted to make sure, and thank you for mentioning that.

Okay.

I think that's all we have.

Mr.

Malloy, does that conclude your presentation?

It does, yes, sir.

All right, thank you.

Development services staff.

Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

Uh staff reviewed a request to rezone property that is approximately 634 acres from PD 181048, AS1 and AR to a new PD, which will be PD 251386 to allow for 2,000 residential units that will be attached and detached.

Um as you saw, majority of the site is within PD 181048, and the site is located in the Res 4 feature land use category and the urban service area.

The site is located within the Waimama area, which is a growing area of master plan communities at densities varying from three to four units per acre.

The area also consists of large conservation preservation areas within the ELAP program.

Various housing types are proposed with development standards that are comparable to other recently approved plan developments.

Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request compatible.

Therefore, we do recommend approval subject to proposed conditions.

Okay, thank you.

Planning commission staff.

The surrounding area is predominantly characterized by a mix of single family residential neighborhoods, micricultural land, vacant parcels, and nearby plan developments.

Recent approvals in the vicinity includes large residential PDs with similar housing skills and community-oriented layouts, further supporting the proposed intensity and structure of development.

The request aligns with fluid directive 1.1 directing glow to the urban service area and flu policy 3.1.3, ensuring compatibility with the surrounding land use.

The proposal also consistent with fluid directive 2.2 as a total number of units and double development intensity remain within the allowable threshold of the residential floor future landings category.

The proposal complies with fluid directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by integrating gradual transition of housing types, incorporating buffering and clustering, and maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential and agricultural uses.

Environmental considerations have also been addressed through preservation of one-time wet line wetlands consistent with fluid directive 6.2 and related environmental protection policies.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um before I get to proponents, opponents, Ms.

Heinrich.

Do you know the status of the high school?

Uh I guess the school complex on Westlake or the applicant may know.

Um I'm not aware of it.

Uh perhaps the applicant does have some updates on that.

Isabel Albert uh for the record.

Oh, sorry, what was the question again?

The status of the school.

Uh the I think it's open and kids are now going to the state.

South of the lake?

Yes.

Yeah, some of it is opened, and I don't know if the high school is actually.

I'll have to double check, but no, I I know that the front portion is open.

Isn't it?

Okay.

I thought so, yeah.

Mr.

Yates.

It's not really answering your question.

I'm sorry.

Maybe he looked at it in terms of looking at traffic impacts.

Michael, yeah, it's palm traffic and I have been sworn.

Um yes, uh, I know the back portion, which I believe was the high school, is open and operating it open this for this year.

Uh the other portions are, I think, getting ready to start construction, but uh it's the back portion that has been built, and the improvements on West Lake were done in a question in accordance to support that opening.

Right.

All right, thank you, sir.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Mr.

Lutz, we and the Lloyd again.

I would just add that we did not have to do a prop share here.

You're asking about the school, and there was capacity.

Yeah, well, the school board staff said they'd no longer need the school site, so there are that's why I was asking.

There are other schools that are coming online.

Yes, sir.

In this service area.

Okay.

Okay, we're good.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, that concludes this application.

And Ms.

Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D5, PD 25-1387.

Uh the applicant is requesting to rezone property from ASC 1 and RSC 3 to Plan Development.

Tim Leemkin with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening.

My name is Jerry Diedenbach.

My address is 11801 Research Drive, Allachua, Florida 32615.

We're here tonight on behalf of East Sly LLC to request a rezoning of approximately 4.98 acres along the Hillsborough River on East Sly Avenue.

The intent is to create a small plan development with multifamily that cannot be accomplished without the rezoning.

This furthers the objectives of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan vision.

It broadens housing choices in northern Hillsborough County.

It preserves the existing neighborhood character, which is surrounded by multifamily residential development and light commercial uses, and it creates a safer environment by utilizing crime through environmental protection design elements within the project.

This is the entrance to the former single family lot on East Sly Avenue that you can see, which will be utilized in the overall PD master plan.

East Sly Avenue has several large oak trees beneath which we will be creating a sidewalk that will interconnect to the nearest point on the west side of the project site.

We began our process in August of 2025, and we're pleased to be here tonight for the zoning hearing master public hearing.

This is the context map that shows you the property along East Sly Avenue.

And it is between Harney Road and 56th Street.

The call-outs that you see on this map are additional housing areas that are around the property and some commercial uses to the south side, and there are parks also on the south side.

Part of the charm of this site and why our clients have purchased this site is because of its access to the Hillsborough River and the fact that it has an existing boat ramp on the site.

When we told EPD staff that we were going to have a kayak shack so the residents here could kayak peacefully along the Hillsborough River, some of the EPD staff said we'd like to live at a place like that where you could live conveniently and launch your kayak in the afternoon and enjoy the beauty of the river.

We intend to keep that boat ramp and probably put a dock there, but we realize that will happen after this action.

The future land use element has residential 20 on the site, which will allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre.

And the site's existing future land use allows 55 dwelling units on the acre, but we are only requesting 47.

There are no wetlands impacts proposed to the site.

The site has both RSC3 and ASC1 zoning presently.

The PD zoning that we are requesting will permit the residential units in two attached buildings upon the site.

Tampa Family Medical is to our immediate east with their driveway, parking lot, and stormwater management facility.

To the west is a small lot, four lot subdivision.

The proposed plan will have an east and west building.

The east building runs longitudinally, north to south.

To the east of that, is Tampa Family Medicals parking lot, circulation, drive aisles, and stormwater management.

If I could ask, where's the stormwater conceptually?

Our stormwater conceptually is located to the north of the east building outside of the wetland and buffer areas here, approximately under this label.

Okay.

The existing boat ramp, as you can see, is here to the west side of the site.

Have you done any preliminary design yet?

Yes, the pro sorry jumped forward.

The preliminary design has been completed in concert with our architects.

That's how we came up with this plan.

Since we are a butting commercial uses to the east, we've located this building longitudinally running north-south.

And so to create better curb appeal and to preserve the residential character, we've located the southern building with its narrow side against the single family lots that are here, and then immediately this transitions into townhomes and other multifamily development.

So we've designed the site to be sensitive for compatibility purposes as well as to preserve the um street front of Sly Avenue and present a better residential product along the corridor.

Again, we will be adding sidewalks in front of this project, mindful of the large oak trees that are there that will connect further to the west of River Tree Landing.

So we'll create a continuous sidewalk system along there.

Staff has identified in their work 13 elements of the comprehensive plan that this project is consistent with overall, and also it is consistent with the land development codes.

Staff has recommended approval of this, and we would entertain and request respectfully your approval also.

Thank you very much.

Um display in time, development services.

Good evening, Tim Lampkin, Development Services.

As the applicant uh summarized, it's an approximately just under five acre property.

They're proposing 47 dwelling units within two buildings.

Uh, the properties currently developed with a single family home with uh wetland areas located on the Hillsborough River, and the property is located on the north side of East Sly Avenue.

It's approximately 2500 feet east of the intersection of North 56th Street and East Lie Avenue.

The applicant proposes a variation of the landscape and buffering.

Uh they're proposing a variation from land development code 6.06.00, specifically regarding a 10-foot wide uh with buffer with type A screening in place of the required 20-foot wide buffer with type B screening.

The applicant uh proposes a maximum building height of 46 feet.

Uh and they're requesting in a just they provided justification within their application regarding that the relief from the compatibility setback along the eastern and western boundaries is supported by the functional role of the proposed small-scale multifamily development within the surrounding land use context.

And uh the applicant has not requested any additional variations of the land development code, and based upon the above, uh staff finds the request approvable unless you have any questions.

And no questions, thank you.

Thank you.

And planning commission staff.

Good evening again.

The request is consistent with flu objective 2.2, and so the proposed 47 dwelling units fall below the maximum density permitted within the residential 20 feature land use category, even after accounting for wetlands and density calculations under policy 2.3.9.

Additionally, the project complies with flu objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by integrating to a mixed use corridor that includes higher density residential and instantial uses with appropriate buffering and site planning to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.

Overall staff finds that the plan development is consistent with comprehensive plan compatible with the surrounding development pattern, subject to the recommended conditions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application?

No one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

Applicant, an opportunity for rebuttal.

None, sir.

Okay, very good.

Thank you, sir.

For that, that concludes this item.

Sign Rick, we're ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D6, PD 26-0070.

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

This is associated with a comprehensive plan amendment, and both the rezoning and the comprehensive plan amendment will be heard at the same hearing, which is March, um sorry, May 14th, which is reflected in our staff report.

And this was reviewed by Jared Foland, who will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

The applicant, please.

Good evening, Mr.

Lewis.

Jake Kramer with Barbus Kramer.

This application is uh, as our planner will explain to you, is really it's it's it's proposing an industrial project in an area at the county that's quickly transitioning uh from vacant agricultural and scattered residential to uh more industrial and commercial, and that's really what this application is about is ensuring that what we're proposing.

I don't think anyone seems to have a concern about the use.

It's really about whether our mitigation measures uh have been uh uh accounted for properly.

Um development services, we do have their support tonight, and uh with that I'll bring up my planner Cynthia to walk you through the details.

Okay, thank you.

Uh good evening, my name is Cynthia Spidel.

Uh with Barbis Kramer at 2002 West Cleveland Street in Tampa.

I have been sworn.

I'm an AICP certified planner with over 20 years experience, both public and private sector planning.

Um, and just to introduce this location, it is um consists of 6.8 acres, it's south of U.S.

Highway 301, it's west of Williams Road, it's north of Ripley Road, it is within the urban service area, and it is within the zona to Sassa Community Plan.

And may I ask what's the way to move forward?

Is it the button here like that?

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

Uh these maps just show you the location of the urban service area and in the Thonetus Asset community overlay.

Uh US 301 is a designated truck route, and that is a major factor in why we're seeing this area transition.

Um, it is also in an opportunity zone, and this basically is a federal tax program designed to encourage uh investments in distressed areas, um, and it provides economic and job creation benefit for people who live and work in these targeted areas.

So the area is currently distressed.

We do have some members of the community out here to speak about some of the concerns that they have for the area.

Um, and overridingly, we've had a lot of support.

This uh this landowner has really gone above and beyond to walk around and connect with the neighbors and get their feedback and incorporate their feedback into the PD plan.

So the request is uh rezoning from AR to PD to accommodate a light industrial warehouse.

Um, and this is you know, this graphic here really shows how the area is in transition and why we are here before you today.

Um we are surrounded by a vast variety of um light industrial and and the area is clearly um transitioning and leveraging that 301 corridor.

Yeah, if you could well take a moment, walk me around these various so we are the area in the bottom in the yellow immediately to the do you want me to go north?

Which way you want which way you want me to go?

Counterclockwise, okay.

So um you'll if you see the little sign there that says Empire Truck Repair and Tire Super Towing Cash for Cars, Junk Cars.

That's the um, and I've got another slide down the road that shows a better picture of it, but that's why you see all these trucks um immediately adjacent to the property.

That's uh that business that's already in existence.

Um directly to the north of us isn't a it's a vacant, it's currently vacant, but it has been approved for a uh light industrial warehousing site as well.

Um it's called Taurus Development Group, MM 250811.

That was approved.

That major modification was approved to December 25th.

Now, notably that is part of a it was originally approved as part of an SMU six flex, but that project is included in the boundary of our corresponding comprehensive plan amendment to LIP.

So even though it's not part of this PD, it is part of the corresponding, and I have a slide uh later on that shows that.

Um then as you go further north, um, there's more warehousing, and then there's the happy travel RV park that's in existence.

Um it's shown kind of in white in here, but um, but that's but that's in existence as well.

And then moving around, there's the TCC Walker Road rezoning PD 260558, and that's an industrial development site proposed for light warehouse.

So does that answer your question?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So with this PD, we have three variation requests, and um they the two are buffer very the two of them are the same variation but in two different spots, and that's shown in green here.

And it's to request to go 30 to 15 feet um pursuant to code section 6.0606 that requires 30 foot buffer transition next to residential.

So the unique configuration of the site has kind of we have a lot of different abutting uses, so we have 15 here and 30 here, and so to make it uniform and also to ensure that we were balancing the needs for truck maneuverability.

Um we are requesting this variation to 15 feet.

We've worked with the neighbors.

We do have a letter of support for the variation on the southwest corner from Sun McNulty.

That's in the in the record.

Um, and for and I'll go through the mitigating mitigating measures on the next page, but we worked with staff and with the community to ensure that uh sufficient mitigation measures would be in place to compensate for the waiver request.

There is one technical variation needed on the along Ripley Road, and that is because if it's technically a double frontage lot to Williams and Ripley, and the maximum wall that you could have there or fence would be four feet.

So we work with staff.

Staff would like us to have the six foot fence along Ripley to ensure um transition and separation for the residential to the south.

When you say fence, what do you what do you mean by that?

Is that a six-foot it's a six-foot yeah, it's a opaque fence?

Correct.

Okay.

So these are the compatibility mitigation measures that we agreed to, and we worked carefully with staff, and we thank them for taking the time to meet with us in person to go over it and brainstorm together.

So we did enhanced screening, we have minimum setbacks.

You can see them on the on the plan 120 feet over there in the southwest corner, 65 feet, uh in the middle there on the on the east side.

Um the building height is capped at 35.

Rip Ripley Road has that six foot fence.

Uh there will be no access to Ripley Road.

We have limited the hours of operation from 7 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

We have gated access.

Um there are specific designated areas for loading and unloading.

There will be no unloading or unloading in that 65 foot setback area that's adjacent to that one residential property, and open storage if there is any.

Um the zoning does allow for open storage, but it is undetermined at this time if there would definitively be any, but we ensured that that would be limited to 60 feet along the western side of the building.

Are all those points incorporated into zoning conditions?

Absolutely, yes.

Um, comprehensive plan.

So this shows you that the tourist site to the north.

I have sort of like a blue dotted line in the middle of it.

Um the tour site is to the to the north of the property, the property is the southern portion of that area in black.

We did go to planning commission for the comprehensive the court the concurrent and corresponding comprehensive plan amendment that went on October 13th, 2025.

We had a similar recommendation of inconsistency from the Hillsborough County Planning Commission staff, but the Hillsborough County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the CPA to light industrial planning.

And when was that?

That was October 13th.

And what was interesting about that discussion is that the community came out and spoke in support, and what came out of that discussion is that this whole quarter is going to be looked at, and Michelle Heinrich sent uh not Michelle Heinrich, but um my gosh.

What's her name?

Terry, what's your question?

Melissa Lineheart.

Oh god, thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I just blanked there for a minute.

Um I just subsequent letter was entered into the record that this quarter would be studied by the planning commission in conjunction with an update to the uh Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan and the corresponding policies in the Hillsborough County Unincorporated Comprehensive Plan.

So um, so the Hillsborough County uh Hillsborough County Planning Commission staff report talks about introduction of light industrial uses, adjacent uses, um com plan versus the LDC and the intent of the PD.

Um but it I think where we had our disconnect with the planning commission staff is simply in the mitigation measures and if whether or not those are adequate to um address the compatibility issues and we do have members from the community out here to talk in support of those mitigation measures.

And did you meet with the planning commission staff prior to the yes we did in person, yeah?

They came to our meeting.

How did you go meet with them?

Independent of your public hearings.

Well, we we actually set up a meeting with staff, and then uh they they attended.

Okay, and that was what two weeks ago, two or three, maybe a month ago now.

Okay.

So we met in person, so um so community engagement.

So this is the um letter support for the south from uh from the south western corner, some McNulty.

Um, that supports the mitigation measures in place.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any of your questions.

We have our engineer here, a traffic engineer as well.

Yeah, just if you have a traffic person, could he come forward for just a second?

Sure.

So good evening, Micro Yates with bomb traffic and I happens for the road they're going to connect to is Williams Road.

Williams Road?

Yes.

And what's the functional class of that road or is a collector roadway?

And we did do a full analysis and were able to demonstrate that the uh driveway would operate at an acceptable level of service with the proposed improvements.

We are as also adding a southbound right turn lane uh that you will see reflected in the conditions of approval.

Okay.

And the primary movement of of trips from this site to will be south south beyond our yeah, they'll be coming from 301 south to the site and then going back to the main attractor is 301.

Yes.

Roughly, what's the split if you if you recall?

I think it was probably like 90, 10.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Um anything else, sir.

Are we good?

Thank you.

No.

Mr.

Kramer, are we good?

Okay.

That development services staff.

Good evening.

Jared Fawn with Development Services.

Uh, this is a request to rezone approximately 6.8 acres from agricultural rural to plan development to allow 80,000 square feet of warehousing, distribution, and light manufacturing, as well as accessory open storage.

The request includes variations to the buffer and screening standards of the LDC, which ask for reduction of buffer yard widths and additional screening.

The subject site is located in an area between non-residential and residential single family uses and is adjacent to single family to the southwest, east, and south.

The property is also adjacent to non-residential uses to the north and northwest, which are zone CG and PD.

This PD was recently modified in 2019 to allow warehousing, a hotel and banquet hall.

To mitigate the potential impacts to the nearby residential properties, the applicant has proposed a number of restrictions to the development.

This includes larger minimum setbacks, additional and enhanced screening, restricting the open storage to be within 60 feet of the west side of the building, and restricting truck traffic activity, including loading and unloading of trucks, to be limited to 7 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

daily.

Two variation requests two variations requested by the applicant pertain to two buffer yard locations along the adjacent single family property to the southwest and one of the adjacent single family properties to the east.

This variation requests reducing the buffer yard width from 30 feet to 15 feet.

However, to supplement this reduction, the applicant is proposing to increase the masonry wall to eight feet tall and increase evergreen plants to 15 feet at the time of planting.

The other variation pertains to adding additional screening along Ripley Road frontage, which route which we requested uh to screen from the residential properties to the south across the across the Ripley.

The proposed restrictions and screening and hand enhancements of the reduced buffer areas has addressed our concerns of the potential impacts of the surrounding residential area and find it to be properly screened.

Development services finds the application supportable and recommends approval.

Happy answering questions.

No questions, thank you.

All right, planning commission staff.

Thank you.

The applicant is requesting um a plan development contingent on approval of concurring comprehensive plan amendment HC CPA 2525, which was found consistent by the planning commission on October 13th, 2025.

We'll move forward to adoption on May 14th of this year, which is uh Wayne Used Excellency of White Industrial Plan to allow for 80,000 square foot of light industrial warehouses.

The site is currently surrounded by primarily by residential uses with additional nearby agricultural, vacant, and scattered commercial and industrial properties, creating predominantly residential context with pockets of non-residential development.

Well, the proposed light industrial plan allows for um light industrial uses within the project's proposed intensities and is within allowable limits.

Staff finds the request is not adequately meet compatibility requirements under fluid directive 3.1 and policy 3.1.3.

The surrounding area is residential in nature, and the subject site is but mostly embedded within residential fabric compared to nearby industrial uses, which are buffered by major roadways and commercial transitions.

The introduction of an industrial roadhouse in this location will significantly increase intensity without sufficient transitional uses.

Although the proposal includes enhanced screening, fencing, and operation operational restrictions such as limited truck hours.

The project does not provide the gradual transition and intensity required by flu objective policy 3.1.2 and 3.1.4.

Additionally, the proposal does not align with the intent the Tenochtitless community plan, which emphasizes new commercial and industrial development should be appropriately scaled and compatible with surrounding community character.

While this project supports economic development objectives under flu objective 7.1 compatibility with existing residential uses remain the overriding concern.

Overall, staff finds that the proposed use is generally consistent with the LIP future land use category in terms of allowable uses and intensity, but it's not compatible with the surrounding development pattern, does not meet comprehensive plan policies related to neighborhood protection and transition.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposed plan development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name's Rodney Smith.

I live at 10,001 Ohio Avenue in Noda Sassa.

Everything they're doing on this, or at least planned with buffer it buffeting and uh walls and everything is hiding what is in there.

You have already this zoning board has already allowed right to the west of this a truck center.

Zero uh they are putting trucks at zero lot line and even crossing the lot line, and it's running 24 hours a day.

There's trucks pulling in there, there's welding, there's hammering.

The noise is horrible from that.

This place is limiting the noise, is putting buffers for setbacks, and is going to enhance the area versus what this board has already allowed to do.

So when you say it's not consistent, it's really more consistent in a better plan than what you have already allowed.

You know, you should never have allowed that truck center to be put there.

They are pushing trucks into residential property, backing them up.

If you go out there and look at pictures, they already had some pictures up here, what it looks like.

It looks like a dump now.

It used to be farm.

That was agriculture with the people who originally owned it had horses.

Now it looks like a dump.

Looks like uh a junkyard with semi-trucks that are actually coming in there 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

So this here is enhancing it because they are taking into consideration the residential people with the wall, with the planning, uh putting plants up and hedges and everything else to hide what's there and limiting the noise.

Where other places right adjacent is not done that so you need to look at what you're saying and what you're actually doing.

So I am for this before it turns into another before that truck center expands into another junkyard into the same area.

Okay.

So again, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next, please.

Hey, how are you doing?

Um, Ray Foster 10724 Williams Road, the Nona Sasa.

Um, I'm also for this.

Uh I have talked to several people in that area, uh, especially the one that's kind of surrounded by the plan, the James.

Uh, they're an elderly couple.

They didn't want to show up tonight and they didn't want to sign anything because James don't trust the government.

The trip may like full and teeth with that woman.

But um, great people, and I would not be in if they were not supportive of it.

I would not be up here supporting it.

I can tell you that for sure because I've known these people for 35 years.

They're like family to me.

Um, but they support this.

Okay, they're all for it.

Um, I'm all for it.

We're tired of looking all looking at all the trash laying around the field.

Um, just the other day, somebody threw out some more tables and trash next to the field, and it's uh pretty pretty big eyesore for us for the community.

Having an LIP there brings uh actually it cleans up the neighborhood a little bit, makes it look nice, presentable.

Um it also gives a lot of people in that neighborhood that do walk around or do don't have that don't drive for whatever reason.

I'm not going to judge them.

So I'm floored.

Okay.

I think they've done a good job with the uh what they're proposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

No one responding.

Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

Applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.

Yes, sir.

Just a moment.

Jake Kramer with Barbara's Kramer.

Uh, the clerk's office told me I didn't give you my address before.

It's two thousand two West Cleveland Street, number two oh three.

Um, you know, I would I would just suggest in in that in this case, development services is is really better suited for the compatibility analysis and just figuring out the mitigation measures that to in the planning commission's defense, they're in kind of a weird position where they're trying to interpret the code, which is not really um, in my view, really in their purview.

Um, and when they get into the code, they're I think they're struggling with understanding whether mitigation measures are enough to justify that reduction.

Um but in this case, you know, a lot of times we talk about development and whether it's going to make the neighborhood better off.

I think the testimony you heard here is that uh you know the neighborhood believes it really will.

And that was uh the same message we heard loud and clear in the community meeting we had.

Uh and this is one of the first cases I've had where my client actually went and knocked on door, literally knocked on doors in neighborhoods, sat in people's kitchens, talked to them about what they're doing, because they're going to be long-term neighbors.

Um, so with that, we'll close unless you have any questions, and we appreciate your time.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, that concludes this application.

And Miss Heinrich, there's one more before my understanding there's quite a few people here to speak.

For D7.

Right.

So I don't I don't know if there's a separate room elsewhere in the county center.

So we have one item, probably take well, I guess it's next, right?

This it's next.

It is.

It's next on the agenda.

So I didn't know if you wanted people to come up if they plan to speak.

Yeah, let's give it five minutes.

People come upstairs if they're downstairs.

And um, so right now it's seven thirty-seven.

Let's give it eight minutes.

Well, that gives us two five.

Sure.

Okay.

We'll reconvene at seven forty-five for the next item on tonight's agenda.

Thanks.

Yes.

And so you can just write it down.

The next item on tonight's agenda, Miss Heinrich, if you could introduce it.

Sure.

Our next item is item D seven, PD rezoning twenty-six dash due two- zero two one three.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AR to plan development.

Tim Lambkin with development services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

Michael Yates is here this evening as our transportation engineer.

And Todd Amidon is here as the project engineer.

Kind of where we're going, and then we'll hand over to Miss Albert.

The subject property, I'm not going to go too far into this.

You can see here the urban service line.

Uh this res two area is bound uh as you can see by the uh the urban service boundary uh on the east, and then uh you can see the RP2 where the uh the uh suburban villages of Fishhawk and Channing Park have been developed.

And so it is it is unique in that it is is it effectively a uh transitional type uh use because it moves to res one and then it moves to AR, and again, these are land use categories, of course, uh Mr.

Lewis within this corridor that I've described for you, um, there are remnant agricultural rezonings.

Um much of that land, and we've outlined in that with that dotted uh or that dashed red black dashed area is part of the Tico corridor, so that that will remain AR.

And so what you have here is uh again, some remnant AR that is uh inside the urban service area, outside of the historic and traditional fish hawk development, shielding park development, and uh for that reason we think uh we looked at this, the development team looked at this as an opportunity to propose a transitional type use.

And so you'll hear that you'll hear that quite a bit from us tonight.

In my opinion, this is a relatively straightforward application.

Now, with saying that you're going to hear some conflicting interpretations, of course.

There are a lot of folks in this room this evening, some for and some against.

Some of the testimony is going to involve fundamental matters to the structure of the comprehensive plan.

Things like the differences between urban and rural service areas, what does it mean to be AR, and what kind of things can you do in AR that might be surprising to some folks?

Um along with the line in those lines of of a transitional use, what the applicant has proposed, we believe, is very significant and strong design techniques and conditions of approval, extensive conditions of approval, which are part of the record, uh, that would mitigate the impacts on the adjacent areas, and uh would provide uh a good and productive use of of this piece of land uh relative to its res two land use category.

We're not here asking for a 20-unit subdivision, we're not asking.

Um, if I go back, one of the things you can see is that very recently the board has approved two uh res 4 land use categories within this area.

Uh most recently, just about less than 24 months ago, down to the south, uh, and uh slightly before that, uh just on the other side of the Tico corridor, um, another parcel.

So we're not here asking for that.

Um we have read all of the letters in the backup, and there are substantial letters.

We're going to enter about I'm told this is about 175 letters of support.

Those will go into the record today, so um, you know, put those competing together.

Uh but the crux of the opposition letters is we read them are preserve all AR zoning.

And there's no distinctions made between underlying land uses, no distinctions made between urban and rural service areas, and so that's what we're here to do this evening.

And so, with that, um I'm going to oh lastly, I want to say you're going to hear this evening, undoubtedly, that there was work that happened on site, uh, and there have been activities on site, uh, some of which did not occur prior to applicable approvals and and uh permits.

Um you you're aware that those are not relevant land use issues to the zoning.

The purpose of a zoning process is neither to privilege nor to punish an applicant, and so we hope that um that we won't have a lot of that conversation here tonight.

Um so with that I'm gonna hand over to Miss Albert.

Thank you.

Um Isabel Albert for the record, 1000 North Ashley Drive.

Um I am a certified planner.

So as you heard, um, this site is really functioning as a transition transitional use.

The most of the area inside the urban service area is developed with residential platinum residential lot up to the um USA line.

And some, and if you look at this, the open space that you see is actually uh natural features that are there, but this pocket where about 15 lots there that are kind of stuck between the rural service area on one side and the TICO on the other, and they're just kind of cut off.

So that's why we we see this as a transitional use.

And if you go local closer to the site, you see that just to the south of us, there is a horse training facility, and to the north of us, there's a dog training facilities.

And these uses are permitted in the agricultural rural zoning district.

These are all uses that some of them are actually more intensive than what we're proposing with our recreation use.

So as you heard, we are providing a plan development to retain the single family home on site.

We have two indoor facilities located to the south, which are in blue, and then we have another two-sided facility just to the north of those structures, and three practice fields.

You'll also notice that the front of the properties maintained as as open spaces as what it is currently right now with no activities there.

We also limit the gross peak hour trips, and we also made sure that the those structures, those enclosed structures, will not have no access pedestrian ascets or doors on the south side of these structures.

And it takes you into the operation limits, the limitations.

We again have a longer list of conditions that's in the record, but you know, we were focusing on how to reduce the number of people on site, which is by no competitive games.

We have our restricted hours of operation, the outdoor uh use of loudspeakers and whistles and everything and similar devices have been prohibited.

We also are installing automatic cutoff switch for the lights and to make sure that the lights does not spill over the properties, adjacent properties, and this is actually more restrictive than what's found in the code.

But we also had to think about compatibility with the Boyette Road, and what we have, as I stated, is to keep that 1.7 acres up front as open as it is, and this view is not going to change.

That's the single family home on the property, and uh with our property there.

And by that, we're providing uh fencing there in the rural nature, similar to the uh horse training facility next to us, and adding vegetation screening.

Now, this comes to the commercial location criteria.

Uh, our use is considered a commercial use, um, and to meet the commercial location criteria, you have to be within a thousand feet of a qualifying intersection, which in this case the coalifying intersection is uh dormant and boyette over here.

And it has to be also uh the majority of the property, 75% has to be within that thousand feet.

Now, by doing that, you'll see here that the um the red portion is within a thousand feet of the qualifying intersection of dormant and boyet, and that's where we we've established those indoor uses, and we have also located the fields in the in the rear of the property because we wanted to maintain that 1.7 acres of natural vegetation up front.

So this kind of meets the intent of the commercial location criteria of the comprehensive plan.

And you have to look at this because although it's it's classified or it's permitted in commercial uses, unlike typical commercial uses that are found in the land development code section 2020 two with the allowable uses, they have them by by categories.

You have the you know high-intensive commercial category, and you'll see it in there, all the different uses, and you also have you know the office and medical office uses category, but our use is actually under the regional actually, the um outdoor passive and recreational use.

So our use really functions more like a park, a public park that has these training facilities throughout the county.

Uh, you can see that you know, parks are allowed in every zoning district, and the county has already established that these practice fields, these parks are compatible next to residential.

And I'm just gonna go through quick three examples of how and where you see them adjacent to residential properties.

Now, this brings us to the South Shore Community Plan.

Um Planning Commission stated that uh the community plan uh policies is frameworked around to make sure to recognize the largely rural and low density residential development pattern that exists in throughout much of the South Shore area.

But that is exactly what that is not.

South Shore community plan is approximately 245,000 acres.

It is recognized that it's in the urban service area, rural um area, and that the South Shore Community Plan is not set up to only recognize the low density, it is also set up to recognize sites that are in the urban service area, and just to show that under the same South Shore Community Plan, that they talk about economic development.

The first objective is recognizing what's in the urban service boundary, and that the viable use of the land should be the property holder's responsibility and determined by the the property owner, and that has been overlooked.

So this brings me to the capital improvement program.

Um transportation comments from Mr.

Yates.

Thank you.

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

Um just want to go briefly over the transportation with you real quick.

Um as part of the approval, we did do a design exception uh that will provide a five-foot sidewalk along the west side of Boyette Road that would encompass our project frontage as well as continuing south uh to Dorman Road.

There are two CIP projects that are from Dorman Road south to Browning.

Uh, one is a tier one program, uh, which is some signage and pavement marking modifications, and then there's a tier two project, which will include some pedestrian enhancements uh that is currently going through uh the planning aspects right now.

Uh there is also a modification uh to the existing bridge there uh that will provide an improvement.

Uh again, uh as part of this project, uh we are doing the trip cap, uh, which is going to limit it to a relatively minor number of trips.

Uh and then also uh Boyette Road uh from the staff report uh is operating at a level of service C today with a level of service D standard.

Uh so with that I'm gonna turn it over to Michael Brooks to finish up.

Yeah, unless you had a question.

Yeah, how do you go to the ITE manual and and figure out what a classify this use has?

It it was a recreational facility, and but uh what we did is we took each of the individual uses uh that could occur there and developed a trip generation for each of those uses, and so uh it we did a trip generation letter, but that's how we did it.

We broke it out into the individual uses, like you can see.

We have a soccer practice facility, and so we we use the soccer field there, so probably a little higher trip generation than what what will actually occur, but it was the best thing that we could come up with.

We spent a lot of time working with staff uh to work through that because we had the exact same when we started this.

How do you calculate trip generation for this?

And is it is it uh specific to certain sports or yeah, and that's what we did, and that's kind of what sports were gonna plan to occur on the site.

That's how we did the trip generation.

And again, to back that up, we're willing to commit to the TRIPCAP based on those calculations.

So the idea is generally it's soccer, uh soccer and but primarily baseball, baseball practice.

So again, there's conditions in there that there are gonna be no games there.

It's a just a practice facility.

And do you is there a need to look at other parks nearby to count cars or you just we did, and it's such a unique use.

Um and again, it's not a traditional sports facility.

You're not gonna have people coming there to play games, you're not gonna have these big recreational facilities.

You know, there's a big one in Fish Hawk out there today that has you know immense number of traffic.

This is specific to practice facilities, and you will hear from some of the people coming in support.

It's just particularly for that application.

Okay, that's why we were able to commit to the trip generation that we are.

Okay, thank you.

If I could follow up on uh just your question uh from the land use perspective, the attorney's perspective.

This is believed the only the third case since 2019 where this type of uses uh come before the county uh the first in 2019 was a volleyball facility, there was a soccer um fields uh in 2022, and so this doesn't come up a lot, and this was the first time I've ever run across this itself, and um I certainly wholeheartedly believe the uniqueness of it.

And so this doesn't come up a lot.

And this was the first time I've ever run across this itself.

And I certainly wholeheartedly believe the uniqueness of it.

And from your client's perspective, what who's their clientele?

What's the business plan?

Student athletes.

Okay.

High school, middle school, soccer players, softball players, baseball players.

Michael did not mention on the in-sore building.

There may very well be basketball training going on.

So these are not this is not like a park in the sense that people can just show up.

These are uh scheduled training events, supervised uh training for uh kids who want to move on to the next level and get better uh at sports, they're not just out there kicking a ball around kind of burn off energy.

So you have to become a member of the yard to go there.

I don't I can find out the I can ask the I understand the question.

If you would give me a moment, come back up on fine.

Just conclusion.

I'm just trying to get general sense as to like the YMCA rather than a park, right?

You have to go to the Y, you have to be a member.

Go to the County Park, you don't need to be a member.

Right.

I think the member is uh probably an overstatement, uh, but you cannot just walk up.

You you have to be part of a trainer, right?

Um a lot of the trainers who we anticipated, and some of who you were going to hear from tonight, um, are coaches of teams in the area.

And uh so I think they can provide good flavor of the types of student.

That's where I was going next.

In terms of his staff.

Well, what give me a feel of the scale of the of the of the business?

How many employees do they have?

How many coaches, trainers?

So there will be the residents will remain.

And it's anticipated that one of the coaches from the one of the local high schools uh will live there is you know uh the closest thing I can think of is like a parsonage type or you know, it's but it but it is a full residence, the existing home.

Uh but other coaches in the area will be able to secure spots uh to bring their stud their uh players, trying to use the right words here, to bring their players there to do specialized training that they are having difficulties finding places to do that.

Okay.

That didn't really answer the question.

How many how many employees does he have?

There they're if I could come back up on um uh maybe rebuttal in a moment.

That's right.

Uh because we're I'm just trying to get a feel for the scale of the use and the activity.

Yeah, in the traditional sense, we're not talking about employees, we're talking about the number of coaches that would have access to the facility.

All right.

Sorry to interrupt.

Does that conclude your presentation?

Uh last thing if I could.

Um there are a number of people here going to speak in uh support, some of whom are uh young student athletes who are here on a school night and are here getting a civics lesson.

And I'd like to at least have the opportunity for them to stand, even though they're not going to speak.

Sure.

Um, so they they can be recognized.

So kids.

Okay.

Right.

Let the record reflect there's about 10 students.

Stood up.

So that answers part of your question.

Those are that's the kid part.

Okay.

Mr.

Brooks, is that conclude your presentation?

Oh, I just assumed I was well over my time.

Yes.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

All right, development services staff.

And by the way, how much time did he take?

Four minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, uh, Tim Lampkin Development Services.

Uh I will uh be brief because the applicant went into such detail in their presentation.

Uh they are proposing to go from AR to plan development for the property.

It's uh located on the south side of uh Boyette.

It's approximately 750 feet north of the intersection of Boyed and Dorman and a mile south of uh Boyette and Lithia Pinecrest.

Uh they're proposing to allow 28,750 square feet of enclosed structures for recreational uses.

Additionally, they're proposing outdoor training practice facilities, which the applicant proposes conditions that they submitted into the record, limiting the size of practice fields.

Accessory features include uh storage buildings and a parking area, and as the applicant stated, they propose to maintain the existing single-family home and condition it to not be allowed to be platted as a separate lot.

The subject site is mainly surrounded by larger lots, single-family residential homes, an equestrian facility with a single family home to the north and a hundred-foot TICO easement located to the west that's owned by TICO.

Pursuant to the applicant's uh request, uh they did again it in the uh record propose a number of restrictions to create more compatibility with and acknowledging some sensitivity to the surrounding area, which they went over.

Um for example, uh prohibiting the use of amplified sound, uh prohibiting concession stands uh regarding outdoor lighting and hours of operation.

Uh the applicant has not requested uh any variations from the general plan, uh, however, they did uh request a um variation to the buffering and landscaping on the north and south sides that would be two separate variations, and they did go over that.

What they're proposing is for it to be back from the street, and they're proposing a four-foot-high semi-rural style fence constructed of either a split rail three board, uh, four board horsewire with single board or other natural wood materials.

Uh however, uh, overall uh zoning staff acknowledges that the applicant has provided significant mitigation measures to protect adjacent properties located to the immediate south and north of the subject site in particular, however, the potential adverse impacts uh due to the development pattern surrounding the subject site for the proposed use, make it difficult to create a substantial tradition of uses and uh buffering and potential impacts.

Uh overall staff does not uh find it supportable, and that concludes my presentation unless you have any questions.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, planning commission staff.

Thank you.

Sorry, Coral Planning Commission staff.

The surrounding area is predominantly semi-rural residential in character with single-family homes or larger lots and scatter agricultural and low-intensity residential uses.

While the site is in the urban service area, development must still be consistent with the comprehensive plan policies requiring compatibility of the surrounding neighborhood under flu ejective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3.

In this case, the immediate vicinity is characterized by low density residential development, including single family homes directly adjacent to the subject site.

The proposed recreational facility will introduce a more intensive commercial like use with extended operating hours, lighting, and increased traffic activity.

As a result, staff finds the proposal does not demonstrate sufficient sensitivity to the surrounding residential context.

It's not consistent with established development patterns.

Although flu objective 2.2 allows consideration of ranges of uses within the residential two feature lanes category, including limited non-residential multi-purpose uses, the proposed scale and operational characteristics of the recreational facility exceed what is typically compatible with the semi-rural residential setting.

The proposal does not meet intent flu objective 3.1.2 and 3.1.4, which require gradual transition between different land uses and intensities through buffering screening and site design.

While the applicant proposes buffers, screening, fencing, and landscaping, the scale and nature of the use combined with extended daily operating hours, limit the effectiveness of these mitigation measures in achieving compatibility with adjacent residential property.

Additionally, the subject site does not meet commercial locational criteria under rejective 4.7.

Although a waiver has been requested, and the applicant states that the use is recreational in nature.

Staff notes that the proposal still functions as an active commercial type facility and situated within predominantly residential and agricultural context.

Further raising compatibility concerns.

Finally, the South Shore Area-wide system plan emphasizes maintaining the role and low density residential character of the area.

The proposed development introduces a level intensity and activity that's inconsistent with this vision and it's not reinforced established uh community character.

Overall, while the proposed use may provide a commercial or community recreational function, it is not compatible with the surrounding development pattern and does not adequately transition from existing residential and agricultural uses.

Therefore, the request is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies.

Thank you.

Well, I mean I'm gonna ask both you and Michelle a question.

Michelle start with you is when you looked at this application, and if we start with is it a park, and if it was Hillsburg County Park, they probably go through neighborhood meetings that there's no zoning involved, but they do get community input and make a decision about does the community want the park or not, is it's a good location, they got their service areas, they know where neighborhood parks should go in general, where community scale parks go, regional parks go, and but when you looked at this, you said that you don't believe this is in the same category as a park, and therefore it's it's incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

I'm trying to get a feel for where your perspective was on the use that was requested.

Sure, Michelle Hiring Development Services.

Um, this is would be classified as a general indoor outdoor recreational use, and those could um include for-profit and not for profit businesses.

Um, and in this case, it is a you know providing services, you know, at a cost, so we would view this more as a commercial type use, and the primary concerns were you know, some of the agricultural uses currently going on in the area that would be impacted by some of the operations of the site, and um also the ability to um maintain that it would be only for practices and certain sports, so um, and also that it did not meet locational criteria.

So, for those reasons, even though we do understand that the applicant provided very many um proposed conditions, um, all in all, when looking at the entire picture, it's something we did not support.

Okay, planning commission of staff, the same question from your perspective.

When you met internal with your staff, you came to the conclusion that this was not supportable.

A little bit more than what's in your staff.

Yeah, of course, yeah.

So, this um the proposal is more intended more as a commercial use.

So, when we look at gradual transitions of intensities and densities within the surrounding area, we ought to look at those policies.

So, the site doesn't meet commercial locational criteria.

Um, you know, they requested a waiver, we recommend denial that waiver.

Um, also the maximum FAR, although they were limited, they're within their FAR maximum, that's only including what's enclosed, not outdoor.

Um, so there's no way to account for FAR outdoor wise.

Um, the overall proposal is just in our in our purview, it's too intense for what's the res two future land use category is intended for, which is low lot residential development.

Okay.

All right, thank you both.

Appreciate it.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that we should speak in support of the application?

Yes, sir.

Come forward.

Good evening, commissioners and members of the board.

My name is Juan Manco.

I reside at 17403 Chelsea Downs Circle.

I'm also a 24-year Marine Corps combat veteran, a father of a student athlete at Newsom High School, and one of the founding members of the nonprofit organization called the Veteran Development Group, which helped veterans transition into purposeful lives after military service.

I'm here today to speak in strong support of the rezoning request that would allow the development of the yard, a use sports performance and training facility.

I like to start with something personal.

I grew up as an inner city kid in New York.

Facilities like these were simply not available to us.

We played wherever we could, crowded courts, uneven fields, streets, or even parking lots.

I often think about how many young people could have benefited from structured environments where they could train, learn discipline, and be surrounded by positive mentors.

Sports changed my life.

They taught me resilience, teamwork, accountability, and purpose.

The same values eventually carried me through a 24-year Marine Corps career.

During my time in the military, I had the privilege of traveling across the world and experiencing different cultures.

One thing that consistently stood out in societies with strong public health and strong communities was their investment in youth athletics and physical development.

When communities invest in youth sports, they're not just building athletes.

They're building confidence, discipline, leadership, and healthier citizens.

That's why facilities like the yard matter.

As a father, I see firsthand how important these opportunities are for my son Isaiah.

He is a freshman at Newsom High School, as I stated earlier.

He plays football, trains jiu-jitsu under Coach Travis, and enjoys basketball and soccer.

Like many young athletes in this area, he wants to continue developing skills beyond team practice.

But our county facilities are already heavily utilized with games and team practices.

Individual skill development, strength training, agility work, those opportunities are limited.

And many families are forced to drive long distances through heavy traffic just to access training.

Having a facility like the yard close to home would create a structured environment where young people can stay active, train safely, and continue developing both physically and mentally.

But there's another reason this project means so much to me personally.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm one of the founding members of the veteran development group.

This nonprofit organization is dedicated to helping veterans rediscover purpose after after military service.

One of the greatest challenges many veterans face after leaving the military is finding meaningful ways to continue serving the communities.

Facilities like the yard create opportunities for veterans to do exactly that.

Many veterans leave service with deep experiences in physical training, leadership, discipline, and mentorship.

Those are the same qualities young athletes need in the coaches and trainers who guide them.

Imagine a place where our youth are learning discipline, confidence, and resilience for men and women who spend years serving their country.

This is the kind of positive community ecosystem that projects that projects like this one can create.

Those are the kinds of investments that strengthen communities for generations.

The yard represents more than just a training facility.

It represents health, mentorship, opportunity, and community connection.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to support this rezoning request and allow this project to move forward.

Thank you for your time, your service to our count to our county, and your commitment to our community.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for your service.

Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in support of the application?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward.

How are you doing?

My name is Travis Baumgartner.

I live at 10139 Bryant Road, Lithia, Florida, 33547.

I uh much like before the speaker before.

Sorry, I'm nervous.

Take your time.

I went to the boys and girls club growing up in Tampa.

I lived in Tampa a very short time as a little little kid until I was like four or five, and I've been in Lithia the whole ever since then.

Um there is a huge there is a huge need for a facility like this in our area.

There are similar facilities that do almost the same thing, but it's not the same.

Like this is more like a boys and girls club where it's actually helping the kids and the people of the community.

I'm the assistant one of the assistant coaches at Newsom High School for the wrestling team.

I'm not an official assistant coach at Bloomingdale, but I'm like an assistant coach at Bloomedale.

I sponsor several several sports teams around the area.

And I just want to read a couple benefits of one why I think this sports facility should pass it.

Let me ask is there another one somewhere nearby?

Not like this, no, sir.

How do you how do you know what it's like?

What do you mean?

You said that it needs facilities like this one.

Sports, places for people to come, people come to train, to learn, to keep them occupied.

It kind of goes on to my next point.

I apologize.

That's okay.

Go ahead.

Yes, sir.

So youth sports provide essential physical and mental and social benefits, including improved cardiovascular, stronger bones, lower disease, disease risk.

Mentally, they focus on self-esteem, reduce stress, and improve focus, while socially they foster teamwork discipline, lasting friendships.

A few of the benefits of having a facility around like this and kids being able to train sports on a regular basis is physical development, mental health, like stress, bullying, um, all kinds of different things.

Um social skills and character, it helps them to make friends, learn how to associate with people, learn how to like get along in life essentially, you know, like being out in the real world, not around your parents, all right.

And the and and in my eyes, growing up, the main thing that it does in my eyes is it keeps kids out of trouble.

Like there are thousands of kids around this area where if these kids don't have anything to do, there's a possibility where it can start affecting the community the community.

Sorry.

Okay.

All right.

So that's why I think this property should pass and why I support it.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else in the audience wishes to speak in support?

Yes, sir.

Hi.

Evening.

Um my name is Brendan McCafferty.

I live at 6102 Fishhawk Crossing Boulevard in Lithia, Florida.

Um I moved here 20 years ago to Fishhawk.

I like many people came from another state and transitioned here, and I remember calling my real estate agent and saying, what's the best suburb outside of Tampa I could possibly move to?

And they said Fishhawk, and it's not disappointed, right?

It's been a wonderful experience.

I have graduated three boys from Newsom High School on to state colleges and have a 13-year-old daughter currently in the area.

Um I live right in the heart of Fishhawk.

I am exactly four minutes from Publix and four minutes from the yard, like equidistant distance.

Um I also have been coaching for over 20 years, um, and I'm currently the president of uh the Fishhawk Soccer Association there that uses the Fishhawk complex.

Um, to try to help understand the need, because I think that's some of the questions that you have.

So I I'm the president of the club, right?

So I run the club and we're trying to service all these athletes and soccer people that want to use the county fields.

The county fields are packed, and we have practices and the fields are packed from six o'clock to nine o'clock.

And if there's players that want to do additional training to get better, we have a very difficult time supporting that, right?

We can do a team practice, a team-based thing.

But if we say, you know, you need to get better at a specific technical requirement like shooting or something like that.

There's really very little outlets for that and training facilities for that.

People today, how I've done it with my kids is somebody's backyard or the little park across from Park Square that's tilted like this, and people are twisting their ankles, and you get chased off of it, right?

And trying to hire professionals to do it.

For 20 years, I've been going to like Wesley Chapel to try to get footsal games, which is a supplemental training for soccer, because there's no facilities here.

Um, over the summers, we would go try to find a church in over near Lowe's in Brandon, right?

So to try to find locations to service this, I've been looking, I consider myself an expert, at looking for my children to find some type of training, and there's just none available.

This is the first available, it's really meeting a market need for a developed community like Fishhawk.

You could see in those maps, you could see the fish hawk fields were right above there, and how accessible they are, and they're they're full, like you know, and I manage them, right?

So um, so I know the need.

So um, you know, and I and having those type of facilities does, you know, I think as Travis said, it it for the for the people that want to achieve and get better.

I spend my day trying to figure out how I can try to help the whole population of student athletes, right?

From the recreation student athletes to the high performing student athletes, and try to find something for everybody.

And there's gaps, right?

And one of the major gaps is the ones, whether they're recreational or high level that want to say, I want to get better, where can I do it?

There are trainers, and we talk about um the facility use.

My understanding is there's a few trainers that have nowhere to train players, because most of them are coaching at night, but there's a few trainers that have nowhere to train players that could train private sessions at that location.

Low numbers are the better training, and I think we'll have a trainer talk to it.

But low numbers are how you develop better training.

We do practice with big numbers all the time.

There's only so much we can.

Hopefully that helps clear.

It does.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

And um is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak in support?

And uh Clerk can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's counting down about four minutes to go.

Right.

Okay.

So those who want to speak in support, is there anyone else besides this gentleman?

It's at the podium.

Okay.

Keep that in mind, there's four minutes left.

Those who want to speak in support.

Uh, my name is Ashani Firclof.

I am the current professional soccer coach with the Tampa Bay Sun, which is our local women's professional soccer team.

I'm also the technical director at Further Premier FC.

Uh I am one of the coaches that I am highly interested in the individual players' technical development.

And within the Fish Hawk area, there is absolutely nowhere else that you could go in the current moment to go and provide this training for young players.

Uh, being a professional soccer coach, I have tons of requests from young players to go and do extra skill training, whether that's working on their individual skills, their shooting, their dribbling, uh, different aspects of the game that will help with their individual growth.

And in the current moment, there is nowhere to go.

And even being involved with a professional team, you have a number of the women that live in the Fish Hawk area that asked to get involved with the youth development.

And I've put them in touch with young players, and the truth is there's nowhere for these professional women to give back to the community with individual skill training on a weekly basis.

And this facility provides that for the young the young players in the area.

So I tried to make it quick so that this gentleman could go as well.

But this is the gist of why I think this facility is definitely needed within the area.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Can you state your address, please?

Uh 731 Kenton Tunnel Circle, Fish Hawk, Florida.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commission.

My name is Rashad Davis.

I live at 5402 Osprey Ridge Drive in uh Fish Hulk.

Uh I've been a resident of Fish Hawk for 13 years.

Uh during that 13 years, uh, my business, uh, which is a personal training facility, we work with kids during that entire time.

Uh more uh you know, specific to this uh development.

I've also been a volunteer basketball coach for the past five years.

And the number one issue that we have, like to answer your question, like what's the need?

Like, we have nowhere, no indoor facilities near Fish Hulk where we get the opportunity to practice.

And so, like I have my two boys here.

Um, we have to drive at least 25 to 30 minutes just to go to practice.

I've worked with multiple programs over the five years, they've they've played for four different programs, and it's the same issue.

There are, I want to say 20 to 30 uh basket local basketball teams in the area, and we all fight over uh the same few training facilities that are located in Brandon.

Uh we go to Brandon uh what twice a week, and then we also have to go to Plant City, which is like 40, 45 minutes away.

We have nowhere to practice, nowhere to train.

And I think that having a basketball facility in Fish Hawk that we'd be able to use would be huge.

Like, I mean, like when parents found out that this place had a potential of coming to Fish Hulk, like all the basketball parents.

I mean, they were aesthetic.

You probably have a bunch of letters over there that we've already submitted from tons of parents whose kids play basketball because we're sick of traveling.

Like we're sick of traveling, like practices, these kids they go to elementary school, middle school, right?

So they don't get out until like rush hour traffic.

And so we're fighting traffic to get out of fish hulk, and some of us have multiple kids, right?

That you know have different teams that they have obligations to.

So we're trying to be in two, three different places at one time when we could have a facility for you know, five minutes away, you know.

So um, and and more, you know, that that's a huge issue, and more of a on a personal level, uh, me personally, I grew up with what you would probably describe as as an un uh at-risk youth, right?

And so my environment, we just there's a lot of uh crime and stuff like that, and my environment where I grew up, and luckily, uh, you know, I had a mentor that took me under his wing.

We used to go play basketball together at a facility that was about five miles from where we lived, uh, me and some of my friends.

And what we learned through basketball, like basically, like there's tons of people from you know, just a diverse group, different socioeconomic uh right uh situations, education levels, all of this stuff.

And I always uh I'll often say like basketball saved my life, and it's true because when you know, before I got into basketball, to be honest, man, there was no hope.

You couldn't see hope of getting out of the environment that I was in.

And so uh time's up.

So yeah, but I guess basketball provided that for us.

So hopefully you guys will include this.

Okay.

If you could please sign answers, all right.

Um 15 minutes are up for those in support.

Mr.

Lewis, could I just ask for the there are other people here who are not going to speak besides the children?

If they would stand up, just uh sure, understood.

Okay.

All right, we'll let the record reflect there's another 15 or 20 people that stood up in support who will not be speaking tonight, but they're here in support.

All right, thank you.

At this point in time, I'll turn to opposition.

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

Okay, if you could please come forward.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh my name is William County Ireich.

I reside at 18232 Lithia Ranch Road, Lithia, Florida.

Um I think that uh some of the speakers here sort of give you uh that have spoken in favor of this, give you an understanding that actually this is more of a commercial venture staff has found than is a you know recreational park or you know, county sponsored park or something like that that's open to the public.

It's it's not really something that's open to the public, it's for specific training.

Um, and you know, some speakers have suggested practice, which um seems contrary to what's been proposed in any event.

Um I have a personal knowledge of youth sports because I founded South Tampa States Youth La Cross League 21 years ago, so I'm very familiar with youth sports, and I understand the challenges that they face, but that's not really the issue here.

That's somewhat of a red herring for for this purpose.

The purpose here is to decide whether or not it fits within the criteria of the county for zoning land use purposes.

And your staff has found that it's uh contrary to uh you know it's not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um I also there was a suggestion about the the roadway in terms of the commercial uh uh the uh commercial the functional classification.

The road that the county suggests is actually a mile away.

It's at Lithia Pinecrest and Boyat, not where at Boyat and Dorman.

Um the surrounding use, and I live in the you know the area, is uh you know, residential agriculture.

There are large lots typically.

This is not a use.

The roadway system is not compatible or you know, somewhat substandard to uh support the kind of traffic that this would generate.

Um and I will turn it over to others to speak as well.

Uh thank you, sir.

Next, please.

Good evening.

Eric W.

Smith with Lambert Law Offices, located at 617 West Lumsden Road, and attorney presenting the uh Boyac Dorman and Browning Rhodes community uh for opposition.

Okay.

So most of the farms athletics LLC consists of three non-resident investors of a commercial entity.

Um the claim is that this is gonna be for regional use, general indoor, outdoor, or single family residential.

However, based on the advertisements and the evidence that's been provided and was brought to for attention, um, it's clear this is for commercial use, for profiteering.

Many of the members who have spoken today are coaches who will be profiting from this business venture in this area.

The actions by almost the farms athletics LLC have shown that they cared not about the neighbors, the community, and those who uh would establish a community partnership, it's more about profiteering and this business venture.

This timeline shows the property was purchased through a business entity and publicly marketed as a commercial sports facility well before any rezoning application or permits were submitted.

Despite claims of personal use for family and friends, online advertising indicates otherwise, demonstrating a deliberate commercial intent.

Uh flu policy 3.13 emphasizes compatibility with the surrounding area, which requires sensitivity to the scale, character, intensity, and operational features of nearby land uses.

The proposed development does not meet this criteria, as was stated before.

The low density area surrounding the property is characterized as AR zone single family homes, pastures, and home base agricultural related businesses with parcels ranging from one acre to 20 acres.

Neighbors state nighttime construction using lights, days of uh dump trucks, dumping fill dirt, construction debris, and insulation blowing into the pastures and yards, and legal move removal of trees and brush, and then months of vehicles coming and going, groups of children and coaches and parents inside and out, sometimes up to 50 or more uh have been counted, and my clients have a hard time of understanding how this was allowed to happen.

And then with this slide here, we see the light pollution that's being affected in the area.

This is uh intrusive lights into where there's annual animal patchers, chicken coops, uh front porches of living rooms, and even bedrooms.

Even with the proposed timer on lights, most days neighbors would be subjected to morning lights from 6 a.m.

to sunrise uh and sunset to 9 p.m.

Now the drivers have complained about the dangers of the bright lights from buildings and fields as Boyette is a dark, dangerous road to travel at night.

Uh the subject properties is uh designated residential to or res two on the future uh land use map, which is intended for semi-rural residential development within limited urban areas, while the proposed building area is the low the maximum intensity permitted under the FER standard.

The nature of the proposed use introduces a level of activity and intensity that is inconsistent with the intended character of a res two designation.

Now, as you can read, uh objective 1.4 of the revised information sheet is misleading and not a space for community use or for anyone but paying customers.

As shown in the following online ads, uh this is before a for a for-profit business charging fees per session, lessons, clinics, camps, and more.

In addition, the entire field rentals are available on Sundays for extra team practice.

You will see in some of these ads that there is a cost of 200 per session or a uh membership fee of 199.

Obviously, for those who are part of the boys and girls club, they would not be able to afford such services in this area.

This is not something for those who would be missing the opportunity to play a sport or to grow from a sport.

This is for a for-profit business.

There was one slide that showed it would be 415 for a membership or to apply for the uh services of the yard.

Many events were held all while proper zoning was not in place, and in the absence of proper permitting as shown below.

With regard to the 22,000 square foot building, this will shed roughly a hundred, I'm sorry, 13,700 gallons of water for every inch of rain.

During heavy storms, uh approximately two inches per hour, the flow rate can exceed 200 to 300 uh gallons per minute, which would require a high capacity drainage system to be in place.

Now the trip uh uh I guess description that we would bring in 286 daily extra trips as proposed by their uh I guess report would not be the worst case scenario.

Obviously, based on the advertisements, a lot more uses would be used in this area.

One of the slides shows that there is a one and a half lane only on Dortmund Road, Dorman Road, where many of the agricultural businesses use this road, but clearly it's not going to have the capacity to service all these different individuals who would be willing to use the services of the yard.

Flu Policy 3.1 C requires gradual transitions and intensities and densities between different land uses through professional site planning, buffering, and screening techniques.

However, the proposed development does not adequately address these requirements as the intensity of the recreational facility is not compatible with the surrounding low designated uh residential areas and uses not gonna play the sound.

So back on play something for me.

So can you stop the time for a second?

The one that was gonna play.

I'll try to click it and looking forward.

Yeah.

Okay.

So unfortunately, this is a battery and it's very loud, and that's one batter.

Yes, so and this the slide would show one battery just performing uh the act.

However, multiply that by 20 or by 40.

Clearly, there's no indication that this uh proposed plan would have any limitation on noise pollution in addition to the light pollution.

And at this time, I like for those who oppose who are not going to speak to also stand for your okay for the record.

Sure.

And in addition, there are about 35 downstairs in the overflow who also oppose.

Stood in opposition.

And sir, you say there's more people downstairs?

Yes, yes, sir.

And we submitted several opposition letters.

Over 500 petitions have been signed, it's over 9,000 followers of this preserved rural lithia who has formed to prevent this from happening and harming their community.

Uh just for those are just some last minute concerns.

And so some last minute uh last remaining concerns that we do have is how this approval would affect the uh or provide a precedent for others to use the same example of I'm not going to do a site plan, I'm not gonna do the buffering, I'm not gonna show limitation of noise pollution and light pollution until well after I develop first because I want the land in a very specific area, an area where there is a higher demand of a rated schools, those who will be able to afford to pay for these services, and not so much for a boys and girls club where all could be available to have services free of charge.

Uh in the advertisements, you did see that it wasn't just going to be for um uh membership that was or a few trainers.

Many people want to be able to have the ability to make uh a profit from this venture, which is clearly commercial.

Other issues are where are the restrooms gonna be uh uh uh located?

Um was there septic permit obtained for the facilities?

That has not been shown in any of the reports.

Uh and there is a clear history of trying to skirt around the rules developed first, but this is something that should not be allowed because others would follow in the same precedent.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh is there anyone else in the audience that wants to speak?

Yes, man.

Good evening.

Hi, I'm Catherine Wiggins.

18808 Boyette Road.

Um, I live and operate my ag business directly south of the yard.

I am the horse person.

In March of 2021, I fulfilled a lifelong dream of carrying the legacy of Horse Fleet Academy.

But in 2024, the property next door was purchased and hard changes began.

All right, so for the record, you're the horse person, you are the direct adjacent property owner to the south.

I'm I am directly south of it.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Construction when construction began many long days and sometimes into the night happened without regard for the environment or the use of protective barriers along property lines.

Debris and even fiberglass insulation blew into my horse pasture, creating a dangerous environment for them.

Throughout construction and then daily sports training operations, my livelihood has been impacted.

I have lost multiple days of lessons, an essential essential source of my income because I cannot risk the safety of my students when they're pulling down trees and a horse spooks or they're building something in a horse boots.

The worst of baseball bat tinks and a horse spooks.

Proposed modifications that remove whistles and bullhorns or add in buffers do not fully address the horses are highly sensitive animals.

The chaotic voices of coaches and children echoing with the noise of all the different sports activity can lead to the stress colic, um, which is deathly to them, and even spooking.

I also have lost prospective boarding clients who are deterred by the presence of a large commercial operation built so close.

My business is completely contingent on the yard following the rules.

If past actions dictate their future business practices, then allowing a rezone would send us us residents to a lifetime of policing.

As you are aware, submitting any code enforcement complaint requires a personal name.

This would leave us neighbors in an unjust situation.

Just for my opposition, I have been subjected to actions like this.

And he also warned that if not rezoned, they had buyers that would construct townhomes instead.

To conclude, our AR zoning is all we have to protect.

Our homes, our lands, our ag businesses.

Thank you, ma'am.

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

Will it be anybody else besides the gentleman that's coming forward?

Okay, if you could, because time's getting a little shorter.

So, sir, come on forward.

And then, sir, why don't you get up and get ready to speak right after he's done?

Um, David Secret, 18920 Boyette Road, uh, the property directly north of the parcel in question.

I've lived in this location for over 50 years.

My family home is on the north side of almost a farm's athletics.

I'm speaking to you in opposition of the rezoning of this property.

My family, like many of my neighbors, has deep roots in the community.

Residents are increasingly worried about the loss of agricultural land that is erasing the integrity of our community.

The introduction of a commercial facility in the residential area will negatively affect surrounding home and land property values.

The possibility that a commercial sports facility would be granted permission to operate in the immediate proximity of our property is unthinkable.

This would be completely incompatible with its surroundings.

Besides my home, I use some of the land to raise cattle.

My land is directly impacted by the noise light commotion of the soccer fields and lights that operate until 9 p.m.

or later under some circumstances.

I dread whatever future expansion they may plan for the business.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And hi, I'm Levon Kendrick.

I live at 1883 Boyette Road.

About five years ago, my husband and I bought the property directly across the street from the yard.

It's a place where we spent spend time with our children, grandchildren, and raise cattle, chickens, and grow our food.

Moving from Fishhawk, we happily poured our heart, sweat, and finance into restoring our seven-acre farm and farmhouse, believing it would be a slice of paradise in our retirement years.

But in this last year, our rural life dream has been changed by the development of the yard.

These businesses have already out of there by converting a horse farm into a large non-ag for-profit commercial sports training business.

None of the three businesses has ever cared about introducing themselves or showing any regard for our property.

Negative effects from daily business operations include noise, traffic, light pollution.

This is my husband in the front of our house.

That's what happens.

We moved here to enjoy sunsets from our front porch, but this is an example of the yard spotlights shining on my home.

That's my husband's shadows.

May nights, the lights left on after the last person leaves, and we do not trust that the proposed light timers and lighting would be used responsibly.

And proposed repositioning of the driveway would bring daily headlights from dozens of parents dropping their children's off and picking them up.

I'm also concerned about the increased traffic from this business.

It is already very difficult to pull out of my driveway at times, and is even dangerous to get your mail.

In closing, it's my belief that if they are allowed to rezone the yard will negatively affect our quality of life, our home that we value dearly, and ultimately our property value.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay.

Is there anyone else who wish to speak?

Anybody speak?

I think we clerk, correct me if I'm wrong.

How much time is left?

We're done.

We're done.

All right, Sarah, how long do you think you need?

Me?

Yes, you.

A couple of minutes, three minutes.

All right.

Uh time's up.

Can you keep it shorter than that?

Delight.

Excuse me.

What was your question?

Uh, the time's up for those who want to speak in opposition, so I'm just asking you to keep your comments brief.

All right, I'll do my best.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right.

My name's Gary Taylor.

I stood at this podium.

I live at 10,005 Bryant Road in Lithia, where I've lived for the past 40 years.

I was at this podium about a month ago on a different subject, but uh the talking points are the same, they haven't changed.

Uh, what I'd like to focus on in my brief presentation is the traffic.

Highway 640, where it crosses Fishhawk, Boyette, my road, and highway 39 is horrific on a good day.

Uh, whoever made that statement about transportation in a C zone instead of a D zone has never sat 20 minutes to go a half a mile to try to get to Walgreens before they close.

Uh our community does not need this project to further impact an already treacherous situation that will not be corrected anytime soon, and not without a ton of money that the county doesn't have.

I raised three kids, they all played sports, one got a college scholarship in softball.

And I taught them all out the front pasture with a bat and a ball.

They didn't need a highfalutin $20 an hour sports complex to teach them how to play baseball.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right.

That concludes those uh speaking in opposition at this point in time, development services staff.

Anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

For the record again, Michael Brooks, um, and I believe Isabel Albert may uh speak as well.

I I will keep these comments short.

Obviously, there's a lot of passion on both sides.

One of the passion is is relative to needs and um and the the uh the availability of um sports opportunities, the other is passionate about the preservation of the rural area, and certainly a concern about precedent.

I started this presentation with the uniqueness of this property, right?

And the uniqueness of the use.

There's only been three of these, I and I believe that I can verify this.

Um that have that have uh come before the county commissioner in the last six years.

Um we do believe that.

I mean, the word red herring was used earlier, and I don't know that's a perfect analogy, but to apply locational criteria in a traditional commercial analysis to a use like this, essentially means that 10-acre type facilities like this should be pushed to the intersections.

The valuable locations, the only valuable locations in our county where true commercial uses can occur.

From a policy standpoint, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Um and I gotta apologize because I don't know how to get our slides back up.

While Isabel is is helping me here, I I do want to touch on just a few things.

I can't verify and authenticate any of the photos that were shown.

We do know that at least one of those photos was a picture of a light from a crane during uh during a concrete pour.

Um that's obviously not an example of of uh what the day-to-day operations would be like and I'm gonna pull up a photometric set here so you can um you could see what I'm talking about.

Um while we're doing this, I'll touch on traffic.

Um Mr.

Lucius, you're aware, chapter 163, 3180 is very clear about transportation and a mobility fee structure.

I don't need to touch greatly on that.

Um we specifically um designed the cap so that it was de minimis under the at least the county's access management standards, and so we're not looking to uh to increase the traffic on this on this section of the roadway.

On light, uh this is the adjacent property, and and and and I don't mean to bring this up to point fingers at any of the neighbors, but this is the south property line between the horse operation, which yes is agricultural in nature, but is equally as much a business as nature.

I would submit to you is what we're proposing.

Um you can verify there.

This was taken last night at 9 33.

Um, there's a lot of light spillage coming over on to um, you know, that fence line is the property line.

Uh, and you can see how far the light spillage from what I believe is a Tico pole.

There's two of them.

In fact, here's the other one.

Right.

So this is an and if you haven't already taken a visit to to this area, the rural area out here, uh, or semi-rural area, uh, I encourage you to do so because this is a very this is not a bug, this is a feature of these areas.

Um we did have a photometric study done, and uh this is in your pack up, it's going to be on the zip drive.

Uh, this is both the black and white imaging.

Um there is some slight bleeding that it's about a 0.1.2 candle foot uh on the north line towards the back where there will be a six-foot fence, so this doesn't take into account uh the fencing.

Um this is another one, another photometric that is in your backup uh that shows us in a different format.

Uh and you also have in here the side and sealed engineering um uh study in which all of those were based.

I will say for the record that the lights that were used for this photometric study are not exactly the lights that are out there now.

Uh those have been turned off and have not been turned back on, and they will be replaced if this uh approval is uh if this project is approved.

Um so that's it with uh with regard to light.

Mr.

Brooks, you got roughly a 30 seconds to a minute.

I don't know, did mostly say I think just to also uh Isabel Alba for the record, um, just to to recognize that there's a lot of passion for the rural area, but we are in the urban service area, and we are functioning as a transitional use, and it they has to be recognized.

There is a line, and it has to be acknowledged.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, that concludes this item.

I appreciate everybody's patience.

Um why don't we take another five-minute break?

And it's now what is it?

9.03, we'll come back at 9.10.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're reconvening tonight's zoning hearing master hearing.

Ladies and gentlemen in the audience, if you could please have a seat.

We get started.

We have one, two, three more items to go tonight.

Umrick, we're ready.

If you could introduce the next item.

Sure.

Our next item is item D eight, PD twenty-six-0214.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from PD and RSC2MH to a new plane development.

Uh Tonya Chapello with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, applicant, please.

Good evening, Cami Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson, one oh one East Kennedy Boulevard, suite thirty-seven hundred, Tampa, Florida.

This is a fairly straightforward request.

Um we have CMU twelve future land use.

This is um just west of the bypass canal.

The existing zoning is PD in RSC2 mobile home, and then in the area we have CGCI, CIAI and M.

This is a location that if it looks familiar, it's a Dallas Bull uh nightclub that is still there.

Uh the remainder of the PD is behind it.

We recently rezoned this for 150,000 square feet of light industrial uses, which is the property to the west.

The property in the box that is blue with the yellow highlighted is actually two point two three acres that we are adding to this new PD, and that's all we're doing here is adding that acreage to allow for stormwater ponds.

Everything else remains the same.

We had a prior PD variation in between the property that we're now rezoning in the industrial property because that was residential property, but now we're eliminating that but uh that variation, but we are asking for a VR variation to allow for a ten-foot type B enhanced where a 20-foot type B is currently required.

Uh staff is supporting that PD variation.

Staff has found it consistent.

Uh, Planning Commission staff has found it consistent.

Development services finds it supportable, and I'm here to answer any questions, should you have any.

Uh no questions, thank you.

All right.

Development services staff.

Good evening.

Uh Tanya Chapella, development services.

This request is for a modification to an existing PD 01180, as much recently modified by measure model twenty-five oh nine three three.

The subject property is currently zoned RSC2 with the mobile home overlay and PD.

Um, the applicant is proposing to add approximately two point twenty-three acres to the existing PD.

This additional area will be dedicated solely to stormwater management and will not include any active uses or structures.

Um the existing PD allows two development options, including flex space and business um professional office uses, um, a night glove and light industrial uses.

The proposed modification does not introduce any new uses and maintain maintains the previously approved entitlements.

Um area will be used exclusively for storm water infrastructure.

Uh the overall development intensity of the project is reduced.

The resulting floor area ratio remains below the maximum allowed under the CMU twelve future land use category.

And um, in terms of compatibility, the surrounding area is uh characterized by industrial and light industrial uses.

The proposed development remains consistent with this pattern.

Additionally, the Tampa Bay Pass Canal Associated drainage areas and Tabala Industrial Boulevard provide physical separation between the site and surrounding properties.

Buffering and screening condition vary along the side boundaries.

While a reduced buffer is proposed along limited portion of the canal frontage, enhanced uh screening is provided.

This includes a 10-foot wide buffer with trees planted at a height of 14 feet, exceeding the minimum 10 foot requirement, along with a six-foot uh solid fence.

Based on this uh factor, staff finds that the proposed modification does not introduce new impacts and remains compatible with the surrounding area.

Therefore, staff recommends approval.

This concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um very good, thank you.

No questions.

And planning commission staff.

Good evening again, Terry Coral Planning Commission staff.

The request aligns with flu objective 4.4 policy 4.4.1 is requiring new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.

The subject site is already a part of approved light industrial development.

The proposed addition of a storewater pond is supporting infrastructure improvement rather than intensification of use as such.

It is consistent with the surrounding community mixed use 12 feature land use designation and the existing industrial and commercial character of the area.

From a land use intensity standpoint, the CMU 12 designation permits urban level development with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.

The overall development remains within the liable intensity for the site, and the storewater pond does not contribute to non-residential intensity calculations in a mirror that would exceed plan thresholds.

The site also complies with flu policy 4.2.1 as it maintains multiple land uses within a larger PD framework consistent with the mixed use requirements for sites over 10 acres.

Overall staff finds that the proposed plan development is compatible with the sounding development pattern and supports the intent of East Lake Orient Park Community Plan.

Therefore, the request is consistent with the goals, objections, and policy of the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

No one responding.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application.

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Cammy Corbett again, not rebuttal, just one point of clarification that I clarified with staff ahead of time.

There are two development options associated with this PD.

The first relates to some office.

The PD plan that's before you shows the 150,000 square feet of commercial.

So prior certification, we're gonna go ahead and add the option one site plan to the site plan set just to include that.

So I just wanted to add that on the record.

Staff, you have any objections.

No, and everything's reflected in the conditions.

Okay.

So I just want to put that on record.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

With that, that concludes this application.

Signric ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D 10, Major Mod 26-0335.

The applicant is requesting a modification of PD 23-0257.

Tim Limkin with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, applicant, please.

My apologies, I thought there was one before us.

There was, but it got continued.

Gotcha, gotcha.

Um, good evening, Ryan Manassey with Johnson Pope, Director of Planning.

Thank you for having us here tonight.

I'll go over this presentation.

Um, you should be able to see it on screen.

Um see my address is 400 North Ashley Drive, suite 3100, Tampa, Florida.

And again, we're here tonight to present on the request for a major modification to an existing plan development, generally located at the northwest corner of Bloomingdale Avenue and Providence Road.

The request replaces a previously approved 100 bed residential facility with office uses limited to 19,300 square feet or 35 feet in height.

The site is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, and multifamily uses, making it a natural transition point between intensities.

The SMU 6 category specifically contemplates office and commercial uses.

The proposed FAR of 0.18 is well below the maximum allowed, which is at 0.25.

You'll see on the screen the goals, objectives, and policies with which our application is consistent with, as also outlined in the planning commission staff report.

Now the site plan zoomed out is on the left and then zoomed in a little bit for your view is on the right.

It provides flexibility for development while maintaining substantial setbacks and buffering on all sides.

The red outline represents the property boundary, and the lightly shaded orange area represents the buildable envelope.

Obviously, portions of which will ultimately be utilized for site circulation and parking.

The project exceeds typical setback requirements, especially to the north, providing enhanced separation from nearby residential uses.

And again, our height is to that of a residential character of 35 feet.

The site is well connected with multiple proposed access points showing shown with the green arrows, which include a shared connection to Bloomingdale Avenue and direct access to Calvin George Place, allowing for efficient circulation.

Now the surrounding area already includes higher intensity commercial developments, including a four-story multifamily project, and that's to the uh west.

And then the commercial uh uses are more to the south, uh, making this proposed office use compatible and comparable with the existing built environment.

Regarding the height and buffer, uh we are seeking to modify the two to one setback ratio.

Uh again, we're limiting the project to 35 feet in height, which is uh reminiscent of the RSC or RSC4 zoning district, which is to our north.

Um, this rest we feel is appropriate because the adjacent PD to our west allows for a height up to 55 feet, and they're and they're not held up to the two to one ratio, I don't believe.

Um, strict app strict application of the standard uh in this case would be unnecessary and inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern.

Additionally, staff has found the request to be support uh supportable.

Now, regarding the variations, we have two variations requested.

Variation one to the west buffer, and that's the 20-foot type B, and what we're requesting is a five-foot type A.

This variation is justified by the significant separation between structures over 120 feet, and the reduced building height compared to the adjacent development.

Compatibility is achieved through real separation and design, not simply the buffer width meeting all variations criteria.

Now, variation two is to that east buffer, and that's a 20-foot type B to a 10-foot type B.

Also, additionally to the southern portion there, there's a small portion that's a request for five-foot type A, and that's because it's adjacent to the access to that walgreens to that southeast corner, as well as our internal circulation.

And this variation is limited in scope and necessary to accommodate access and parking while maintaining the compatibility.

Even with the variation, substantial separation and buffer remain, ensuring no adverse impacts to adjacent residential properties.

What I did on this slide, and I didn't show you on the previous one, but I'll do it, is the blue arrow shows you that distance separation that I referenced between the property line and the actual built building on that left-hand side.

And then again over here to that on the east hand side, and that's actually to a garage structure.

So there's a significant distance to the nearest homes.

Both planning commission and county staff find the request consistent and approvable, including the requested variations.

The project is subject to the standard zoning conditions, including buffering and access requirements and compliance with all codes.

Now, in conclusion, this request represents a thoughtful and appropriate redevelopment of the site.

It replaces a previously approved 100 bed residential facility with an office use that is consistent with the SMU 6 feature land use designation and well below the maximum allowable intensity.

The project has been carefully designed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses.

It provides significant setbacks and building separation, ranging from approximately 95 feet to over 140 feet, which exceeds what is typically required under the land development code.

The requested variations are limited, fully justified, and meet all required criteria.

As staff noted in the report, compatibility is achieved through but uh building placement, height, and separation rather than strict adherence to the buffer width alone.

From a transportation standpoint, the project maintains the previously approved access configuration with an approved uh approvable administrative variance and the necessary improvements to be addressed during site plan review.

Finally, both planning commission staff and county staff have reviewed the request and found it consistent and approvable.

And just for the record, we did uh reach or uh a neighbor to the northwest of our or a property owner on our north side on the east uh reached out to us Sunday uh with an email asking about what we were proposing.

We provided the detail that we were doing the major modification to this use, to which I got the response.

Uh thank you so much, and we really appreciate you taking the time respond.

We're very pleased, and I'll turn that email into the record as well.

But with that, I do have my team here with me.

Uh, Chris McNeil with McNeil Engineering.

If there's any technical questions or transportation questions, other than that, I'd be happy to answer any questions should you have any.

No, I'm good.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

Okay, development services staff.

Good evening again.

Uh Tim Lampkin Development Services.

So the application the applicant's proposing a major modification.

Uh currently it's um approved for a community residential home type C with 100 beds.

And uh the applicant does not propose to uh bring that option forward.

Instead, uh they're proposing to uh have a health practitioner's office and professional services.

Uh sites located on the north of uh Bloomingdale Avenue and west of uh Providence Road.

Uh they did request uh provided uh justification for relief of the additional two for one setback, and uh they did request that relief with the previous uh application uh they're requesting a couple variations that they went over.

I I can go over those if you like again.

Uh the variations are to the buffering and the screening.

Uh number one is reduce the 20-foot-wide type buffer and screening required adjacent to the specific folio on the west property boundary to five-foot buffer with type A screening.

Uh they also proposed to reduce to 20-foot wide with type B required along the eastern property boundary to a 10-foot with type B, and then there's a small area that they're proposing a five-foot type A buffer for 19 linear feet.

And the applicant did submit justification uh with their application.

A 20-foot buffer is uh with type B is required on the north side of the property boundary.

Applicants proposing a 95-foot setback and uh proposing that boundary.

Uh the applicant is not requested any other uh variations of the land development code, and based upon the above, a staff finds the request approvable.

Unless you have any questions.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you.

Plan commission staff.

Sorry, Coriol, Plan Commission staff.

The site is designated as suburban mixed use six, which permits a broad range of residential office, commercial, and light industrial uses at suburban intensities.

The proposed office use is consistent with the allowable uses and intensity thresholds of the SMU 6 category with the proposed square footage well below the maximum allowable floor area ratio.

As such, the request is consistent with flu goal two and objective 2.1 regarding permitted uses and development intensity.

Flu ejective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 require new development to be sensitive to the surrounding land uses.

The media area reflects a strong mixed use pattern, including retail office, residential institutional uses, such as major commercial centers, gas stations, and neighborhood serving businesses along Bloomingdo Avenue.

Residential uses exist to the north and east, but already integrated with nearby commercial and institutional development.

Given this established transition between residential and commercial uses, the proposed office development is consistent with the surrounding development pattern.

There's not introduced a use that is out of character for the corridor.

Overall, staff finds that the proposed major modifications consistent with the SMU 6 future lanes category and maintains compatibility with the surrounding development pattern and meets an intent of the branded community plan.

Therefore, the request is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application.

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Brian Manasseh, no, sir.

All right, very good.

With that, that concludes this application.

Heinrich, are ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D11, Major Mod 26-0346.

The applicant is requesting a major modification at PD 15-0079.

Sam Bollywood Services has reviewed this application and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Applicant, please.

Good evening, Isabel Albert with Halfwood Fox and North Ashley Drive.

I'm here with uh Mr.

Malloy, Mr.

Gates.

So here's the site.

It's about 1.73 acres.

It's in the Riverview Community Plan.

It's also located in the urban service area.

It is part of our larger plan development, which I will go and explain with the next slides.

And it is located in the SMU 6, and it is off of uh Gibson Drive and US 301 to the east.

So it's currently approved for 98 town homes and uh towards the rear.

And in the front, there's two parcels uh which are um separated by 125 foot wide TICO easement.

Parcel A is approved for restricted BPO uses, including 2,000 square foot restaurant and a minor vehicle repair.

Right now it's uh developed with a tire kingdom, and the parcel B is approved for 12,000 square foot of BPO BPO uses, including a bank that are limited for three drive-through lanes.

So we're here tonight to discuss the parcel B, which is um we're requesting to add a 4,000 square foot restaurant and the eating establishment with a sorry um eating establishment with one drive-thru lane.

And we're also limited the hours of operation.

And the reason why we went this way is just to address the compatibility concerns that we that was raised by some of the staff with the uh dress uh the the restaurant with the drive-thru.

And uh what we're doing is that this restaurant drive-thru is very different than what you would typically find, like a McDonald's or uh Burger King or anything like that, and the one best way to do that is the address the hours of operation.

Um we are also requesting as far as this request uh uh a waiver to the 150 foot to the 200 foot minimum requirement distance from a residential zone property for a call box.

Uh we are providing a 150 foot from our property line, a hundred and in, but if you account for the retention pond to the north and the closest residential, it's more like 185 feet.

But we've also increased our our um our wall.

This is a six-foot fall.

We are increasing it to eight-foot wall, as well as adding vegetation there, but we also for the restaurant increase the setback from 20 to 50 feet, and again, we have those hours of operation.

Uh this is currently the intersection.

Um very rarely that I say that we didn't have to require or request any DE or anything like that.

And it's uh it's a lighted intersection.

And the development services as well as the planning commission staff found it consistent and approvable with the uh proposed conditions of uh approval in the staff report, and there is no objections from reviewing agencies.

And I'm here if you have any questions.

Is the intent to um utilize the area below the TICO easement for any part of the development?

So yeah, so the building obviously is not permitted uh in the TICO easement, and this is part of the third deed, uh, but we're allowed to have some parking uh within that area and drive aisles, and prior to filing this application, obviously there was a lot of discussions with staff of TICO and they're and they were in support, so this is why we are coming here today to request this.

Does the easement spell out the ability to uh use that area below their power lines for parking?

Spells out that no um structures are permitted in the easement.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Malloy can answer any questions for the Mr.

Malloy, if you don't mind coming forward for just a moment.

Sorry, what was that?

I'd like to ask Mr.

Malloy a question.

William Malloy, sir.

I don't know if you've met with Tico or read the easement.

There are any issues with we we actually started this exercise, sir, with TICO, um to their land use committee, I believe it's called, just to make sure that they had an appetite for the project.

Uh we've been before that board twice now.

They do have an appetite for it.

We're working towards, I think what's going to be actually more of like a public partner agreement than an easement.

But they are going to, if everything goes correctly, let us use everything under the power lines for parking pavement, no activity, just parking and pavement.

Okay.

Thank you.

That conclude your team's rep.

Presentation.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All right, development services staff.

Uh uh good evening.

Uh Sam Ball of Hillsborough County Development Services.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 15079 to include an option that would allow parcel B to be developed for a sit-down restaurant.

The properties current is approved for site development to allow up to 12,000 square feet of BPO bank or credit union, but um drive-throughs are only allowed for the bank or credit union.

The property covers 1.73 acres, is located at the northeast corner of Gibson Drive and Alphaya Trace Boulevard.

The surrounding zoning development pattern consists of residential office and commercial PD zonings, uh which are developed for retail single family residential medical office, office, and minor vehicle repair uses.

Uh through facility use to mitigate the impacts of the proposed restaurant use on the residential properties to the north.

The applicant is proposing limited hours of operation from 10 30 a.m.

to 9 30 p.m.

Uh the drive-thru facilities would be limited to one lane.

The 50-foot setback from the north property line with a 20-foot enhanced buffer.

Uh the enhancements would include an eight-foot uh high precast masonry wall with a row of evergreen shade trees, which are at least 10 feet tall the time of planning and space no more than 15 feet apart to allow for the eight-foot tall masonry wall.

The applicant requested a uh PD variation to exceed the six foot height limit.

Uh the applicant is also requesting a waiver to LDC section 61135 B1 to reduce the order box separation from the residentially zone property to the north from 200 feet to 150 feet.

Um based on the surrounding zoning development pattern and proposed development standards.

Uh staff finds the request approvable, subject to conditions that concludes my presentation.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, planning commission staff.

Thank you.

The site is designated suburban mix use six, which permits a range of residential office and neighborhood serving commercial uses, including restaurants at suburban intensities.

The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the liable use.

It does not exceed the development intensity per minute under the SMU 6 category.

The proposed 4,000 square foot building is well below the maximum allowable floor area based on the site acreage and applicable floor area ratio.

Therefore, the request is consistent with flu goal two and objective 2.1 regarding use, density, and intensity.

Fluid director 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 require new development to be sensitive to surrounding conditions rather than identical in use.

There's pattern demonstration transition from residential uses to increasingly commercial uses along the corridor, making the neighborhood serving restaurant an appropriate continuation of existing development trend.

Flu objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 require development to be compatible with adjacent residential areas through appropriate buffering and design.

In this case, the applicant is incorporated multiple enhanced compatibility measures, including eight-foot solid wall along the northern property line, enhance evergreen landscaping, increase setbacks to 50 feet, and the separation of the drive-thru order point, approximately 185 feet from the nearest residential light line due to an intervening HOA owned drainage feature.

Help reduce potential late uh night noise and activity impacts.

Collectively, these design and operation commitments provide adequate mitigation measures to ensure compatibility with the nearby residential uses.

Overall fact staff finds that the request is consistent with the goals, objections, and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

Mr.

Chair, we have four virtual online.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Lopez, you can go first.

Thank you very much.

Uh my name is David Lopez.

I'm the attorney for the landings at Alafaya Trace Homeowners Association, which is located directly to uh the north of this uh parcel B where the uh proposed um the application is directed.

Um we also have present other members of the homeowners association here today who I'm sure are gonna want to speak uh and share their opinions.

Um on behalf of the association, the one thing I wanted to really highlight here, and it wasn't mentioned in anybody's presentation thus far, was that the only access point to this parcel is off of Alifaya Trace Boulevard, which is uh uh perpendicular to uh Gibson Drive.

Sorry, 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Okay, you can proceed.

And okay, thank you.

And and to add there are no access points off of Gibson into this parcel, only off Alafaya Trace Boulevard.

And that property is in fact owned by the homeowners association, that's privately held property.

Um, and while there is an easement there, uh what we're talking about here is adding a use to this property, which would permit uh much more heavy vehicular traffic across it than what is purposely I mean currently uh uh calculated or currently um predicted.

So what the result would be is this is a stretch of uh road that the association is mandated by its governing documents, its declaration of covenants to maintain uh approximately uh 100 units or 100 parcels are located in that HOA just north of this parcel, which means that all those people there will bear the brunt of added um road maintenance expenses that will necessarily come about um with increased traffic, increased vehicular traffic.

So, what this does if this is eventually approved, is it guarantees that those hundred parcels will because of the increased traffic wind up paying more in homeowners association assessments uh in order to maintain this road, which they are bound to do so by the covenants.

They don't have an option to not pay the assessments, they have to do that according to law, which as I'm sure everybody knows.

If it doesn't uh if it's not paid by the homeowners, it's subject to lien and foreclosure.

So what we're doing here is uh if it's approved, uh, is guaranteeing an increase in assessment rates for those owners because of the increased traffic, which will trigger increased road maintenance, which will cost more money.

So the homeowners association is opposing this um this application to which will result in uh a use that yields uh much higher vehicular traffic than is currently contemplated.

Um so that that's the one of the main basis for the HOA's um objection, sure.

Not to mention the um if I could ask you is there anything in the HOA docs that talks about cost sharing for maintenance of the road?

There is there is uh there is a use and uh easement and uh fee sharing agreement between uh the association that was uh entered into on behalf of the association by the developer many years ago, um, and it covers the relationship between the HOA and the owners of parcel B, and then there's another parcel which was mentioned earlier in the presentation that is across Allafa parcel A, which currently has a tire kingdom sitting on it right now.

So there is a fee sharing agreement um present that requires the owners of those two parcels to pay a certain percentage of the road maintenance uh for the association, but again, even with that um the increase in vehicular traffic will undoubtedly and unavoidably still cause an increase in homeowners association assessments to those uh nearly 100 uh lot owners that make their home just to the north of that.

So even though there is a percentage, which those parcel owners are required to contribute to the road maintenance, um ultimately the the cost of it will the line share of the cost will be borne by those hundred or so unit owners in the HOA.

Is there any avenue process that can be pursued to uh meet with this member of the HOA, this applicant, to restructure the language and the HOA docs?

Well, this well, sir, the this the owner of this property is not a member of the HOA.

This this these two parcels and parcel B sit outside the uh the legal description of the HOA.

It is a an easement and a fee sharing agreement that exists that's on record in the public record between whoever owns the property, parcel B and the HOA.

So that exists independent of the the covenants.

Gotcha.

So is there any way there any avenue in that separate uh access easement agreement uh to go back and restructure the cost sharing?

Well, I can't I can't speculate as to as to that uh sir.

Um that would be that would have to involve the two parties uh speaking together to see if there was a way to do it.

Um as of right now, that has not been done, there's has not been approached by the owner to make what I would call a more equitable uh uh agreement.

Um I can't speculate as to what the future might hold there.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for your comments, sir.

All right, thank you.

And I we have some other members of the association and board members who are present.

Okay, very good.

Next next speaker, please.

Next one I my name is Shamia Francis, and my address is 9501 Tokobaga Place, River View, Florida 33578.

I am here as a homeowner and the president of the landings at Alafaya Trace POA, which is represented as parcel C, which is between 96 to 100 units.

And we strongly oppose this major modification.

And before I go there, a question that you asked our attorney in reference to the cost sharing.

This application presented by parcel B was or is also the same owner, which is the developer of our community who gave us an unconscionable cost sharing agreement, which is substantially low, which has burdened us as the 96 to 98 owners of the community.

But to get back to just get making sure I don't get out of time, we strongly do oppose the major modification because it fundamentally changes what was originally approved and placed significantly more intense commercial use directly next to our established community.

This is not just a minor adjustment.

The plan development limit this parcel basically to office use and our bank or credit union and specifically prohibit other drive-through lanes, it's specifically only for the bank drive-through.

What is being proposed now is a sit-down restaurant with a drive-thru.

This is a material difference and more intrusive use, one that brings continuous traffic, idle vehicle, speaker noise, um, longer dwelling or idle time and extended hours, including evenings and the weekend.

The change alone undermined the basis of the PD.

What makes this more concerning is that the request relies on multiple waivers to make the higher intrusive use fit.

This application acknowledged that the site does not meet the commercial location, locational criteria.

Yet it is asking the board to override that requirement, specifically the setback of 150, and then trying to use the boundaries within our borders for an additional to make it up to 185, and then also with the setback being at 50, which is closer to our walls.

Um this clearly indicates that the site was not intended for this level of commercial intensity.

In addition, they are requesting to reduce um basically kind of separate, you know, they want one drive-thru, but it's still too close to the the our fence, as we stated, is gonna have low up loud noises, um, a speaker system, uh, we're gonna have idle cars, you know.

Um here the application is asking to reduce the protection while while simultaneously increasing the intense use.

That is the opposite of what good planning requires.

Um we all start talking about the justification offer to these deviation with the TCO easements and maybe possible changes.

Um, but this is not a hardship, it's simply a characteristic of the property.

If the site cannot accommodate this use while complying with established standards, then the appropriate conclusion is that this use does not belong on this site.

The comparison of the bank with a drive-thru lane is also misleading.

A bank is a fundamental difference, it is shorter visits, lower traffic turnover, lower outside speaker system, and does not generate smoke food, food odors, or additional trash on excess foot traffic or car traffic.

A restaurant, a drive-thru operate continuously, especially during peak hours, peak meal times, even in the evening, while stacking vehicles, noise, emission, and other concerns.

The impacts are not comparable.

We have already seen real life effects of this development that is immediate to our area because we also nearby we have the entire kingdom, which is represented as parcel A, and then we have parcel B, which is what we're referring to.

At the opposite side of the Starbucks, there was a at the opposite side of the land, um Power Kingdom, a Starbucks was built, and they use our privately owned roads and are not paying any cost sharing at this point in time.

We have excess traffic, um, it's congested circulation issue, our quality of life.

It's hard to enter and exit our community in the morning.

In the morning, most of the time it's so backed up that we it take us five to ten minutes to get out of the community because it's our only way in and out of our community since the back gate is only for emergency purposes.

This proposal will intensify the same impacts and bring them closer to our home.

And critically, this development will rely on our private road once again.

Um, that is already experienced in congestion from the existing commercial use like Starbucks entire kingdom.

The road is the only point of ingress and egress for our residents.

Today, it's already caused delays and frustration for our residents trying to enter and exit our community, adding high turnover restaurants, or even the low sit-down restaurant will further burning the same access point, increasing congestion, increase in accidents, and raising legitimate safety concerns.

Additionally, by approving any changes, as our attorney stated, uh we will have more wear and tear on our roads, and in turn, we will have more cost for the hundred homeowners versus all the businesses attached right in front of us that are utilizing our more our roads more than us.

Okay.

At its core, the request at its core, basically the board where they're requesting you uh this request asked the board to allow a more intense use of the original approved area to relax multiple standards designed to protect our residents and shift the resulting impacts onto an existing residential community, a land in the Alifia Trace, which creates an undue burden.

For these reasons, this made a major modification, it's inconsistent with the intent of the planned development and should be denied.

Okay.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, anyone else wish to speak?

Next one is uh Mr.

Edwin.

Yes, how are you doing?

My name is Edwin Gaines Jr., 9517 Tokobaga Place, Riverview, Florida.

Um, just like to make a statement.

Our community is strongly opposed to the proposal application because of the significant gridlock it anticipates to create the increased traffic congestion would negatively impact daily life for residents and strain and existing infrastructure currently.

Our communities are surrounded by businesses that do not contribute to their fair share toward the maintenance of our roadways.

This lack of equitable financial support places an undue burden on the residents who must cover the expenses associated with the roadway upkeep and landscaping.

Safety is also a concern.

Safety is also a major concern for our community.

The presence of unfamiliar vehicles accessing multiple businesses through our roads increased risk for residents, particularly with the unpredictable nature of this traffic.

And we're basically we're hoping that our private road isn't turned into a full-time drive-through.

And this is why we're so opposed to it.

That's why.

Thank you, sir.

Alright, anyone else wish to speak?

I believe the last one's Dr.

Laura.

Yes.

Good evening.

My name is Dr.

Laura Hauser.

I live at 9515 Tokobaga Place in Riverview.

And I'm one of the original owners and landing at Allify A Trace.

And we've already you've heard discussions that this is a much more intense use.

We only have that one usable exit.

And I think the delay is closer to 10 to 20 minutes during peak traffic hours.

It can take 30 minutes to go the less than a mile from our light to the freeway in the morning.

But I'm especially concerned about the potential for vehicles to queue and block access to the road and the surrounding area.

The county's own transportation review states there's not enough site-specific information to ensure compliance with code requirements that public rights of way and common vehicular use areas will not be blocked by vehicle stacking.

And when you only have one access point, that's blocking our only way in and out.

The county also report shows that the traffic would increase almost 30%, an additional 402 trips per day.

Others have mentioned the fact that we bear the cost of maintaining that road, but we also bear the cost of maintaining and repairing the damage.

Starbucks coming out, they try to cut through our property to get bypass all the traffic at the light, only to find they can't get out, and then they have to drive over our landscaping and damage that to turn around and get back out.

Trees have been knocked down per car accidents because it's on a private road.

It's left to us to take care of that.

But I'm also really concerned about this drive-thru being closer to the residential property.

The developer made it sound like we had that a huge retention pond right there, and we don't.

The retention pond is in the back of our property, not in the front.

There's a very small area up front, and this drive-thru would be very close to several homes there on the end.

So if you reduce that, these standards exist to protect protect the residents from noise, speaker activity, headlights, idling vehicles, panhandling, and other disturbances.

And again, we talked about the burden that that places directly on our homes.

So approval of this opens the door for them to come back later and turn this into more of a real fast food, potentially 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

And for your office to argue, well, that's not a big leap from what it is.

So this request is not about one business.

Expect.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask this request be denied.

Okay, thank you, ma'am.

All right, I believe that concludes all those that are online that wanted to speak to this item tonight.

Is there anyone else in opposition?

I see no one responding.

With that, um development services.

Comments.

Um I do not have any comments.

I don't know if transportation does because I know some access issues came up and and possibly some easement issues.

Okay.

I'm sorry, could you repeat your name again?

Jessica Cowell with transportation review.

As the one lady stated, the transportation staff report does mention a concern with the queuing, but it was not queuing in general.

The applicant had initially proposed a maximum queuing length of 150 feet, which staff had concerns about because of the lack of detail on the PD zoning plan.

Had we had more information, or there's was a strict site-controlled site plan, we would have been able to assess these impacts and been able to make a clear decision.

That statement in the transportation staff report was put there to acknowledge the fact that the applicant did propose something that staff did not agree to at this time with the amount of detail.

Regarding the other transportation issues, the proposal for the 4,000 square foot restaurant, our ITE does not have a land use code that is applicable for a sit-down restaurant with a drive-thru.

Therefore, we did assess it as the maximum impact as a 4,000 square foot restaurant, which is fast food in ITE's view, with a drive-thru.

The applicant also did propose restaurant with drive-thru.

They did not restrict it to sit-down only.

Therefore, that's why we ran the numbers the way we did.

Just to clarify, the applicant is retaining the option on this parcel with this as an additional option.

And it does show a little increase in the daily trips and the AM peak hour, but no change, actually a reduction in trips in the PM peak hour.

So there will be a comparable uh application of the fast food restaurant, although we do understand that the queuing is a concern, not only for staff but for the citizens and the people located there.

Um I did check the plat, and it does appear as though that that road is a property owner's association, not specifically homeowners association.

However, which is ours?

Yes, however, that is something that I would assume was uh thought of when this property was subdivided for the commercial uses up front and then the residential in the rear.

Any other questions?

No.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Applicant as an opportunity for your bottle.

Good evening again.

William Malloy, 325 South Bullard.

I'm gonna be quick so Mr.

Yeats can speak to our transportation stuff.

I just want to be very clear on this.

Um, we were not at we were not aware we had opposition.

That was a new discovery this evening.

We would have addressed it a little more appropriately if we had time.

This project did come in as one PD.

The townhomes, the two commercial out parcels with the Tico easement crossing it.

Um the drive-thru is not a new use.

It's approved right now for a bank with three drive-throughs.

So that squawk box was going to exist in some form or another, anyway, about it.

That was an improved use.

Um I spoke earlier, Mr.

Lutz, I mentioned that we started with Tico.

The very second point we started with was that squawk box.

Where do we put it?

How do we articulate it?

How do we protect that neighborhood the best way we can from it?

And I think the program that we came up with is pretty it's careful and considerate.

Uh the eight-foot wall we've added, the water barrier, and as much trees as we can put in between the restaurant and the community.

Um that being said, I think Mr.

Yates needs to speak to the traffic, and then Isabel wants to clarify what we're doing with the queuing because there's some misinformation right now.

Okay.

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

I want to show something on the overhead.

Uh I I think this may help in giving a little clarity.

Uh, this was contained in the appendix of the traffic study, but it is a conceptual layout for the site.

And as you can see, this is the general plan that we're working with.

And you can see the Tico easement uh will run along here.

So you can see the building is outside the TICO easement.

The lower section is for parking, and so the conversations we have had uh with transportation services and the county engineer is to when we come in to fully evaluate this at site, we can run the queuing through the parking lot as an alternative backup scenario if the queues do tend to get longer.

So we are working with staff in developing a queue evaluation procedure, and that is one of the discussions we have had to ensure that the queue does not leave the site, and so that there is a plan in place to address the queue and to ensure that it does not leave the site.

When you go through site development and you work with transportation staff, yes, right?

Do they weigh in on the queue?

I a hundred percent and very specific.

It is a very detailed review and very careful to ensure that that queue does not leave the site.

And if you come in with a layout that doesn't work, we will be told that you will be told it won't work, and they could deny your application.

Correct.

Your commercial site plan.

Correct.

We will absolutely have to make sure that staff is comfortable with the queue layout, and we will have to commit to that during site review that ensures that that site does not block any of the access or the operations of the adjacent facility, Alify Trap.

Yeah.

So that was it.

I know Jessica covered the transportation where the AM and PM trips, as they're shown in the staff report, is a wash on trips from the current approved uses.

And so from a transportation perspective, I I it should be a very similar use from what is approved today.

And I'll let Isabel finish up.

Thank you.

Thank you for the record, Isabel Albert.

Um so just to clarify a little bit, I was just talking with Ms.

Jessica.

Um, that they did not object to the use.

Their only concern was the queuing.

And the reason why we have that queuing in there is because as you can see, um, a sit-down restaurant like Sunny's, it's they're they're they're a sit-down restaurant.

They have that fast, they have the um the uh drive-thru lane just limited to one, but it's also not a a highly used, it's not part of their main business.

Their main business is a sit-down restaurant, and then you'll have that one lane.

I mean you you use Sunny's as an example, but but could it be McDonald's?

Could it be Burger King?

No, if you look at McDonald's and Burger King, their queuing lanes uh usually accommodate more than eight to ten cars.

This is like five, six cars.

It's really is half.

And the hours of operation, which are part of the condition, so it's not going to be a 24-hour, but it's part of a condition that starts at 10 30 till nine o'clock at night.

This is not a business model for typical fast food restaurants that you see.

And so um so again, you know, we we were thinking about the residents, and you know, we were trying to to accommodate by increasing the buffers and increasing the the wall height, but again, we're not waiving anything from the plan except that a hundred and fifty-foot uh call box, but is mitigated with the additional screening and buffering that we've done.

Okay.

If I could ask staff real quick.

Yes, absolutely.

The question I asked is about their example showed Sunny's, but would the conditions that you recommend for approval, would it allow for a McDonald's or a Burger King or Taco Bill?

It would not.

Okay.

All right.

Anything else?

No.

Mr.

Malloy?

Mr.

Luz, we're calm, sir.

If you are you're you're good?

Yep.

Yes, sir.

All right.

With that, uh thank you for everyone who participated with this application.

Um that concludes this case, and that concludes tonight's zoning hearing master hearing.

We are adjourned.