Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this evening's Zoning Hearing Master Hearing.

My name is Steve Lewis, and I'll be tonight's zoning hearing master.

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

Sure.

Um, we also have um a few continuances to let the public know about.

Okay.

Um, in case anybody's here tonight, um, we certainly don't want you waiting um too long.

But I do have a list of cases that have been continued to the June twenty second hearing.

And those include Standard Rezoning Twenty Five Ten Twenty Six, which is at Forty Five Twelfth South Sixty Sixth Street, Major Mod 25, Twelve Sixty One, which is at twenty seven fifteen West Sly.

Major mod twenty-six dash zero zero six two, which is in the vicinity of Apollo Beach Boulevard and Golf and Sea Boulevard.

PD twenty six dash oh four two two, which is in the vicinity of Dorman Road.

PD 26-0433, which is in the vicinity of Hillsborough Avenue and George Road, PD 26-0437, which is at 13030, Highway 92 East.

PD 26-0445, which is at 4020 West Waters Avenue.

Major Mod 26-0553, which is in the vicinity of High Hideaway Lane in Loma Vista Drive.

Major Mod 26-0556, which is located at 6605 East Hillsborough Avenue, PD 26-0558, which is located at 1102 North Highway 301 and 11404 on Walker Road.

And then we do have two cases which are continued to the July 20th hearing.

And those include uh PD 26-0206, which is located at 5707 West Sly Avenue, and PD 26-0363, which is in the vicinity of Lakewood Drive and Truman Drive.

And all of those are reflected on the agenda.

If anyone needs to um take a look, we do have agendas available outside, and we have a few up here if you need them.

And to introduce everyone up here with the county attorney's office, we have Mary Dorman, and next to her, we have Jared Dolphino, and with the Planning Commission, we have Tyreek Royal, and with Development Services over on the other side joining me is James Ratliff.

Okay, very good.

I have a few instructions to read um sir.

Let's see.

Uh in regard to item A10, 26045.

We should that should be continued to July.

Um I did mention the staff.

I don't know if we need to state that or not, but I want to be sure that was on the record.

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

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

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

Thank you, Ms.

Yep.

Thank you.

Mr.

Pressman, can you come sign in, please?

Okay.

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

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

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

Our hearing will be informal.

I will ask questions related to scope of direct testimony.

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

I will take evidence, but we'll exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or duly on repetitious.

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

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

Now I'll read the order of uh presentation for each application tonight.

First, Ms.

Heinrich will introduce the item.

Then the applicant and their wetnesses, witnesses will have 15 minutes for their case.

Then development services presents their staff reports and they have five minutes for that purpose.

Then the planning commission staff has five minutes to go through their staff report and their findings.

Next, those people in support of the application will have 15 minutes to speak in support.

The next, those people who wish to speak in opposition will speak, and they have 15 minutes for that purpose.

Then development services will have an additional five minutes to address any comments that were made at the hearing.

And finally, the applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal, and that would conclude each case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's a pad down at the end of the counter.

If you clerk to raise your hand, sign in with her, and she has a pad in front of her.

This point in time, the county attorney's office will now provide the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Okay.

Mary Dorman from the County Attorney's Office.

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

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

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

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

Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the board at its July 21st, 2026 land use meeting, unless a different date is stated by staff.

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

The land use hearing officer will file a recommendation for each application heard tonight on June 16th, 2016.

I'm sorry, 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The content of all argument before the board shall be limited to the content of 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.

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.

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

So help you God.

Ms.

Heinrich, I believe there's also an overflow room on the first floor where people can sit.

And I think there's monitors that can watch the hearing.

Correct.

We do have one application that does have a large group of um citizens who are participating tonight, so we do have the overflow room available.

And of course, as room opens up in here, being as their last they're more than welcome to come up, but we'll make sure they're aware of the progress.

And like you said, it is being televised downstairs.

All right.

Very good.

All right, that concludes the instructions for tonight's hearing.

At this point in time, Ms.

Heinrich, if you could introduce the first item.

Our first item is standard rezoning 26-07 to 8.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from ASC 1 to CIR.

Sierra James with uh development services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Jose Garcia.

I'm here for case RZD 2607 28.

My address and excuse me, sir.

Your address?

Sorry.

3118 Summer Cruise Drive, Ball Rico, Florida, 33594.

We are here requesting rezoning from ASC 1 to CIR commercial intensive restricted.

The property has a light industrial future land use designation and is pre and this request is consistent with that designation.

The proposed future use is an enclosed mini warehouse or self-storage type use.

We have accepted the transportation condition requiring future access to be designed as a hard access facility with a neighboring parcel as requested by county staff.

Final site design access buffering drainage and permitting will be reviewed later during site development review.

The staff report finds rezoning request approvable, and the planning commission found the request consistent with that future land use designation.

Based on that consistency with the future land use designation compatibility compatibility with the surrounding development pattern and staff's recommendation we respectfully request approval.

Okay.

Thank you.

And sir, could you specify either property owner or the rep.

I am the representative applicant.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Uh no questions at this point in time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And please sign in.

All right.

Um development services staff.

Good evening, CR James with Development Services.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel from ASC 1 to CIR with the following applicant proposed restrictions.

The developer shall provide a cross-access stub out along the western property boundary in the location which meets the applicable requirements and considers the volume of total traffic anticipated to such facility in the future.

Such project access and all internal driveways between this access and the access to Hartford Street shall be considered shared access facilities with folio 47174.0200.

The site is located along Hartford Street within the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan Area.

Properties to the south and west of the site are used for open storage, while sites to the north and east are used for residential and agricultural uses.

The development standards in the CI zoning district would be applicable, including buffering and screening and building setbacks.

Based on these considerations, staff find the proposed rezoning approvable.

Okay, thank you.

And planning commission staff.

The surrounding area is characterized by mix of single family residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, and institutional uses with heavier industrial and commercial development located to the south, east, and west of the site.

Reflecting the area's diverse development pattern.

The request aligns with flu objective 1.1, directing growth to the urban service service area with flu policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with the surrounding land use.

The proposal is also consistent with flu goal two and flu directive 2.2.

That's the request that uh commercial intensive zoning supports uses permitted within the light industrial future land use designation, including warehouse and storage facilities.

The request complies with flu directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by integrating development that complements adjacent land uses and maintains compatibility through appropriate transition and intensity.

Although the site is located within the coastal high hazard area, the proposal is limited to non-residential uses and is not expected to adversely impact evacuation routes or shelter capacity, which is consistent with flujective 4.3 and related policies.

The request also supports the goals of the Palm River Progress Remouch uh Village Community Plan by promoting and coordinating uh compatible development with overall community overall style finance the proposed rezoning is compatible with the CERN area and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

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

See no one responding.

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

See no one responding.

Um just one question for staff.

The restriction is that they provide cross access to the west, I think.

And it's to a PD.

I believe it's to let the east here.

It's to the east.

I'm my my apologies.

Did you check that PD and does it have a corresponding cross access requirement?

If it is property to the east, that's shown as ASC 1 to the west is um PD 890138.

Okay.

Um the restriction is to the east, correct?

Correct.

And you're saying the zoning to the east is ASC one.

ASC one, okay.

All right.

Actually, it says and looking here, it says stub out along the western property boundary in a location that meets applicable requirements.

So if it is to the west, that is to a PD rather than east.

All right, so strike that.

It's to the west, and then there's a PD there.

Do you know if there's a corresponding cross access requirement for that PD?

Um, I don't know if that's required for instances of shared access.

Um I don't know if transportation has any updates on that or if it would require an actual access point on the PD.

Um for the record, James Rattle of Transportation Review.

Um, and Sarah Rose is here who can answer specific questions if needed, but generally speaking, I would say what even if it didn't, what we're trying to do is set it up so that in the future if they came in and intensified or anything changed or they needed a variance and couldn't get one, that there's a provision in place for for them.

Not necessarily that it has to be used, but that it okay.

Fair enough.

All right, thank you.

Um staff anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

And the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.

Any final comments from the applicant?

I don't I don't think see them coming forward, so I think we're good.

All right, with that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, are ready for the next item.

Our next application is item C2, standard rezoning 26-0740.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning from ASC one to RSC six.

This has been reviewed by Logan McCain, and I'll present him findings tonight after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Justin Wilkerson, 3118 Buttercup Street.

Yeah.

We are um wanting to rezone from ASC one to RSC six.

Um to be able to subdivide to add an additional house for my wife and son and I on my parents' property.

Okay.

Um as of currently the land is zoned for ASC one with a future land use of R6.

We are wanting to rezone to RC six so that we can subdivide to the parcel into two plots and build one house on the subdivided parcel.

Our proposed utility connections are through county water and sewer being the placement of the property in-house already verified through county utilities.

There are no wetlands on this property or upland habitats.

I think that the future land use with the amount of density surrounding us makes this applicable.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, development services staff.

I'm Michelle Heinrich, development services.

Staff reviewed the rezoning request for a 1.21 acre parcel from ASC 1 to RSC 6 for the purposes of allowing a smaller lot size for a future subdivision of the property.

The site is located in the res six future land use category in the urban service area.

Staff found the request to be compatible with the surrounding development, and no objections from reviewing agencies were received.

If approved, the applicant will need to subdivide the parcel through the county subdivision process.

Additionally, the subdivision of the subject lot into more than two lots may be limited due to access requirements.

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

Yes.

The reviewer is Sarah Rose, and I believe that she spoke with Mr.

Wilkinson last week regarding some of the restraints if you wanted to do more than two lots.

Okay.

All right.

Good evening again.

Uh surrounding areas predominantly characterized by established single family residential development with additional multifamily residential and public quasi public uses located nearby, including Sephemir Elementary School along South Kingsway Road.

The 1.21 acre site is designated residential six where it permits low density residential development for that maximum density of six dual units per gross acre.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning from ASC1 to RSC 6, which will to allow one additional dwelling unit on the property.

The request aligns with flu objective 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area and with uh flu policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with the surrounding residential development pattern.

The proposal is also consistent with flu objective 2.2 as a requested density remains well below the maximum allowable density under the RESI future land use category with approximately 1.21 acres.

The site could accommodate up to seven dwelling units while the proposal includes only two total dueling units.

The request complies with flu objective 4.4 and flu policy 4.4.1 by maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential properties and preserving established residential character of the area.

Additionally, the proposal supports the intent of the Breading Community Plants, suburban character district, which encourages primarily single family residential development with compatible housing types and traditional suburban development patterns.

Overall, staff finds the proposed rezoning is compatible with their surrounding area consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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.

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

Applicant opportunity for final comment, rebuttal.

Sir, you're good.

Good.

All right, very good.

With that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Hymer, we're ready for the next item.

Our next item is item D1, Major Mod 26-0045.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 85-0215.

This has been reviewed by Chris Greenlinard, who will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, applicant, please.

Yes, good evening, Mr.

Hearing Master.

My name is Matt Newton of the law firm shoemaker Lupin Kendrick, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, suite 2800 here in Tampa.

On behalf of the applicant United Rentals.

This is a made a major modification to a 1985 PD to allow open storage and rental of uh commercial equipment and machinery.

Just uh quickly orient you.

Um, and no pun intended because it's on Orient Road.

Uh you can see here is uh Hillsborough Avenue, Orient is here.

Um, and then off of Orion, East Hannah Avenue, heading west.

Here we are indicated in red.

Uh this is part of a uh industrial park that was platted at the same time.

This is rezoned called Park East.

Um contains an assortment of uh industrial and commercial uses.

Um a little bit of background.

This site was originally uh operated by High Reach 2, another equipment rental company.

Um this is uh from a press uh press release in January of 2025.

Um United Rentals acquired high reach two.

It's part of the due diligence.

Noted that the existing PD did not permit this existing land use.

So this is the result of uh due diligence as opposed to any kind of code enforcement issue.

Uh to the north is U.S.

Foods Distribution Center.

Uh, just to the east is uh a land use that was recently approved by the BOCC for 13,000 square feet of a truck maintenance facility to be operated by U.S.

Foods.

Uh this also includes the overnight parking of trucks.

Uh you'll see that in the uh uh conditions.

Uh south of us is another distribution center, and then west is an existing asphalt plant.

Um, and as uh planning commission will go into more detail, we are requesting a flex um to allow the open storage use, uh which the planning commission supports.

Uh just quickly gonna go through a few kind of quirks and features of the site plan as you go through and prepare your report.

Um, here uh was uh really one of the most bizarre things I've seen in my career, and I think Mr.

Ratleff would agree.

Um you'll see a note here about uh uh a previously vacated right away that we're preserving.

Um kind of going back and forth in here.

Um this was platted right away.

Here you can see to the the north of our site, Hannah to connect to to the west.

Um this was approved for vacating in 2012.

Um but as you can see, it's also on the corridor preservation of the map.

So was it vacated in air?

Um you know, kind of weird, but ultimately um the landowner agrees.

And you can look at proposed uh proposed uh condition 15.1 through 3, uh, which we agree to, and that's essentially the summation of that.

Um, another quirk and feature.

You'll notice that there's two accesses to the site.

Normally there would be one.

Uh, we did apply for a administrative variance to approve uh these dual accesses, um, which is found approvable by the county engineer as opposed to having to shut one down and deal with that hardship.

Um, that's in condition 16.

Um, and finally, we are asking for relief for the screening for this land use, considering the consistency of the area.

Um essentially kind of keeping this existing screening paradigm, but adding evergreen shrubs.

You can see the existing trees, you can see an existing fence.

Um staff does support this, um, and we support adding the additional landscaping.

So, just kind of a brief summation.

Uh actually, no, before I get there, uh planning commission will go into more detail.

Just I want to touch on that uh they have found that it's consistent and compatible with the existing community, satisfies the criteria for flex, um, and supports the economic development goal of the East Lake Orient Park community plan, which of course is essential.

Um, and here's just a kind of an indication that we are within well within the 500 feet for a flex.

It's about 350 feet.

Uh so finally, I want to thank development services and the planning commission for uh their coordination with us.

Uh both find it supportable.

Uh, and we had received some feedback from the community, just more of agnostic curiosity.

Uh, didn't receive any opposition or concern.

So, thank you for your time.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right, and development services staff good evening.

Chris Gramlinar, Development Services.

I'm ready to present uh major modification 26 das 0045, which is a major modification to PD 85 dash 0215 for a 300 uh 3.89 acre site at 6350 Pine Grove Road.

Uh the requests uh seeks to add sales and rental of commercial vehicles and equipment with associated open storage as a permitted use.

It also includes uh future land use flex to extend the light industrial designation uh to fully support the open storage component.

Uh the surrounding area consists of established industrial and service oriented uses, including warehouse manufacturing and similar open storage operations.

Staff finds the proposed use consistent and compatible with this development pattern.

As a part of the request, the applicant seeks a variation to the open storage screening requirements instead of the standard six-foot solid barrier and a hundred foot interior screening.

The variation would allow a four-foot evergreen shrubs at 75% opacity, uh transparent gates, and a screening limited to the frontage.

Uh staff supports this because the frontage already can contains mature vegetation, providing substantial natural screening, and the industrial context reduces visual impacts.

The alternative method continues to meet the intent of the buffering standards.

Development services finds the request compatible and approvable, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Uh that's lose my report.

I'll be able to answer any questions you might have.

No questions, thank you.

Planning commission staff.

The surrounding area is predominantly characterized by industrial and commercial development, including distribution centers, warehouses, and open storage area areas.

Nearby uses include U.S.

foods distribution facility to the north, approved fleet vehicle storage to the east and asphalt plant to the west, and additional warehouse and industrial operations to the south.

The 3.89 acre site is designated as research corporate park, which permits research offices, rousing light industrial and related commercial uses.

The applicants are requesting a major modification to allow for open storage of um and rental of heavy equipment.

This aligns with flu objective 1.1 by directing growth to the US A urban service area with flu policy uh 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with the surrounding industrial development pattern.

The proposal is also consistent with fluid directive 2.2 and association policies governing land uh use categories.

Map clan requested a flex the adjacent light industrial future land use category to allow the proposed open storage area use and staff determined the request satisfies the criteria of flu policy 2.2.3 and 2.2.4, including proximity to the existing light industrial boundary compatibility of the surrounding uses and consistency with the comprehensive plan goals.

The proposed use is similar in nature to surrounding industrial activities and represents a reduction reduction in maximum non-residential intensity from a 1.0 FAR in the RCP category to 0.75 FAR in the under the light industrial category.

The request also complies with fluid objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by maintaining compatibility with adjacent industrial uses and minimizing impacts to nearby properties.

Additionally, the proposal supports fluid directive 7.1 in the East Lake Community Park by preserving industrial land, supporting employment opportunities and promoting continued business growth within the area.

Overall, staff finds the proposed major modification compatible with the surrounding development pattern and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Okay, and just some bookkeeping is the original report.

I don't think addressed the flex, but you do you have a revised report?

Um the report I'm seeing here it addresses the flex um and outlines all the criteria of the reach policy.

Yes, very good.

Thank you.

No problem.

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 wishes to speak in opposition to the application.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

The applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

With that, no need for rebuttal.

With that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, are ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D2, PD 26-0217.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property that's currently AR and AS1 to find development.

Caroline Peddle with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

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

This is very high tonight.

I have not been sworn.

Okay.

Raise your right hand.

I do.

So the subject property is located south of Big Bend Road, just east of the interstate.

This is one of the remaining vacant parcels in this Simmons Loop area, which is nearly developed out.

It's either in most of the parcels are already entitled for something, they're either being built or entitled for other uses.

The zoning is AR and AS1.

You can see it's kind of an unusual parcel, uh, but it's uh something that when combined works together for this mixed use development.

You see, we have UMU 20 to the north, and then we have CMU 12 to the west.

Um we had actually considered a plan amendment to CMU 12, but realized that we really ultimately did not need that and withdrew that amendment.

So we're proposing a mixed use village with uh several different villages, three actually, and the staff report reflects that we had modified this to three, there are originally four.

Um in each village will have unique uses, and I'll go through those.

Village A is a typical townhome duplex structure or single family structures, and we have the difference in the number of units for each type of structure based on the transportation analysis.

Uh in these units can either be platted or unplatted.

In village B, we have traditional multifamily.

Uh and note that we have an 80-foot minimum 80-foot building setback line from the eastern and southern property boundary lines.

You can see it's real small in the site plan, but you see the site plan in the staff report, and you can see that we are providing that minimum 80-foot uh distance separation to have concern to be make sure we're compatible with the single family residential.

And then village C contains some of the natural areas, and we're proposing both agricultural uses but also low-intensity commercial uses of 20 recreational vehicles, uh, pleasure crafts or utility trailer vehicles in this village.

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

Yes.

Right?

And where would the parking of the vehicles be?

Uh we that will be determined at site.

We didn't uh locate a specific area.

We need to work on the access, and that's something we've deferred to site.

EPC has no objection to us moving forward.

Right, well, that's what I'm leading to.

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

It's not I suppose it's not the use per se, it's it's uh the crossing of the creek and the floodplain and wetlands and we may not need to cross the creek, and so that's why the uh proposed conditions that are in the staff report address that that also will be addressed at site and development services and EPC and all the reviewing agencies will have to address that at the time of site development.

Okay, all right.

And just this is a buffering and screening slide uh showing that we are providing the 20-foot type B buffer uh where we abut the multifamily to the single family.

Um we are asking for some variations with uh respect to the buffers that would be required in village C.

Essentially, they're abutting the multifamily, so we're asking just to um no have no buffer in those areas.

We're buffering to ourselves.

Um we have a buffer on the east side uh between the single family and the uh medical office type use that was approved to the east on the north side of Simmons Loop, they're providing that buffer as part of that development.

It's a medical uh rehab use that was rezoned sometime last year.

And this is just a typical um what each of the buffers look like.

This is the type A buffer, the type B buffer, and the uh elevation of the right-of-way buffer to give you an idea of what will be seen from the roadway and from internal and external to the development.

Lastly, uh staff has found uh planning commission staff has found this consistent and approvable, and development services is also founded approvable, subject to the conditions.

There were some revised conditions or some optics issues over the weekend, but there were also the staff report that is that you have now is the correct staff report, and we're here to answer any questions.

Steve Henry is our traffic expert, he's here.

Uh Tampa Civil and their team are here if you have any questions.

Okay.

If you can you go back to the site plan.

Which picture?

Show me um how the access works.

Show you how the access works.

You mean how does Mary Lou?

Yeah, how do you get off the main highway to get into the project?

Through Maryloo Drive, which is the yellow highlighted, it's a local roadway.

Okay.

So you come off Simmons Loop.

We do actually have typical section.

Okay.

If that helps.

Yeah, and um, what about that strip of land that's south of Mary Lou?

Is that being used for access?

No, it is not being used for access.

It doesn't have any proposed development, it's just open space.

We just left that as open space.

It is part of the folio that we're re rezoning, but we're not proposing any use or access there.

Okay.

Um the access point that's in the south west corner of the site.

Um what kind of access is that?

In terms of how would you categorize it gated?

It is not gated.

Oh, it is gated.

Yes, it is gated.

Okay.

Sorry.

And when you say it's not emergency access, but it is gated.

It's gated, but it's not an emergency access.

Because there's more than one way in and out.

Yeah, it was really more a function of that access point, was driven primarily by the PD to the south that showed a cross-access arrow and showed the roadway continuing.

And so without having a local roadway continuing through the middle of village B, this was the alternative that was arrived at with staff in terms of what how we could address having providing access but allowing the local the driveways in the apartment complex to serve as sort of internal only.

So it was largely driven by I guess access to the south, but it was more driven by the fact that there's a north an arrow on the PD to the south.

Okay.

And what did what kind of comments did you get from EPC about village A?

And I see that today, parts of it is a fish farm or used to be a fish farm.

Did EPC have any comments?

I don't recall any specific comments related to village A.

There was some discussion about uh village B, and we got pretty far down the reasonable use path with village B impacts, but not really anything with village A.

Okay.

Um there are conditions that talk about compatibility with preservation areas?

Yes.

Um again, this picture is probably the the best one.

So that's the Belmont CDD conservation easement to the south of village C directly adjacent?

Uh directly adjacent.

Okay.

Um so it's it's just a standard conservation easement.

It's not ELAP, it's owned by the Belmont CDD, but that's what the conditions to are to address it.

If at site development that's determined to be a natural preservation area, then we have to do the compatibility plan.

Okay.

Yeah, so questions ahead.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, development services staff.

Good evening, Caroline Petal Development Services.

Again, this is rezoning PD 260217.

Uh, due to optics or issues with optics at the time of filing and requested changes, you'll have that um revised report that I provided before the hearing.

Again, the applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 124 acres of land from AR and ASC1 to allow three village pockets with designated uses with a total of 460 dwelling units.

Village A would permit a total of 80 single family attached units or 35 single family detached units.

Village B would allow for 380 multifamily dwelling units, while village C will allow for agriculture with accessory equipment storage, beekeeping, passive recreational uses, and storage for up to 20 recreational, private pleasure craft and utility trailer vehicles.

The overall PD is within two future land use categories.

Village A and B are within the SMU 6 category, and village C is within both the SMU 6 and UMU 20 future land use categories.

The proposed plan development is located south of Big Bend Road and bordered on the east by Interstate 75 North, where the two railways meet.

The area is prominently developed with single family dwelling units at various lot sizes to the south and east of the subject parcels.

The abutting PD 240512 to the south was designed to allow access to continue north through the future development into the proposed PD.

Though there are properties zone PD approved for commercial and office uses to the north, the design of the existing PD would provide adequate buffer and screening to villages or village A uses.

Although the multifamily uses in village A and B will not be required to increase the building setback by two feet for every one foot for building greater than 20 feet tall.

The design setback and buffering and screening provided should be adequate separation for the single family residential units to the north, south, and east.

Staff finds the request approvable subject to the proposed conditions.

That concludes my report.

I'm available for any questions if you have them.

Just help me with the conditions.

If you could, you said between optics and what was filed and today.

Tell me what's changed.

So there were a few things changed to the prior to certification conditions.

Mostly in regards to some of the transportation requirements.

And then there was a change to condition nine and eleven and twelve in regards to transportation conditions as well.

And then to conditions 23, 24, and 25, which were for the compliance with section 4011 for the conservation easement to the south of village C.

Okay.

I'm not sure.

Condition number three.

Condition number three.

Let me know when you get there.

Okay.

The first line talks about for non-platted residential development, multifamily.

That's in within village A.

Yes.

Okay.

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

Yes, so village A can either be platted or unplatted.

So we broke up the conditions for village A to reflect the development standards for platted units and then development standards for unplatted, which would be multifamily.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening, Tark Royal.

Planning Commission staff.

This surrounding area is characterized by a mix of vacant land, agricultural uses, single family residential development, and public quasi public uses.

The 124 acre site is designated suburban mix use six and urban mix use 20, which allow for a range of uh residential, agricultural, commercial offices and mixed use development.

The request aligns with flujective 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area and flu policy 3.1.3 by assuring compatibility with the surrounding development pattern and maintaining character of the area.

The proposal is also consistent with flu goal two and flu objective 2.2 as a proposed 460 residential units remain below the maximum allowable density permitted under the site's featuring any use examinations.

Applying the environmental sensitive land calculations required under flu policy 2.3.9 for properties containing significant wetlands, the site is permitted up to 528 dwelling units.

The request complies with flu objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by integrating a mix of housing types and mineral uses while maintaining compatibility surrounding residential and agricultural development.

Environmental considerations has also been addressed through the preservation of approximately 59 acres of on-site wetlands consistent with flu objective 6.1 and 6.2 and related environmental protection policies.

The request further supports the goals of the Palo Beach Community Plan, Riverview Community Plan, and South Shore Area Wide Systems Community Plans by promoting diverse housing opportunities, preserving agricultural uses, and encouraging sustainable land and cluster development patterns and supporting coordinated community growth.

Overall, staff finds the proposed plan development compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See no one responding.

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

See no one responding.

Staff anything further.

Um nothing for zoning.

We uh transportation is available as well if you have any questions about the transportation condition changes.

No, I'm good.

Thank you.

All right, the applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Just to clarify your question with respect to the condition three, the nomenclature has changed a couple of times, so I see where you're pointing out some inconsistency on how they are described.

The intent is for the 85 units that they can be either townhomes, which can be platted or unhat platted, but they can also be like duplex or villas that are single family style or single family structures, but that are attached and are multifamily.

And so that's I think why you see different words being used for that.

So the intent, I think everyone's in agreement on what the intent is.

Yeah, let's put that on the record.

The intent is you're not proposing an apartment complex within Village A.

No, it's townhomes, duplex, villas, okay, attached, you know.

All right.

Low rise.

All right, very good.

All right.

Anything else?

Not if you don't have any questions.

I do not.

And we'd respectfully request your recommendation for approval.

Okay, thank you.

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

Our next application is item D3, PD rezoning 26-0303.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from CG to Plean Development.

Chris Greenliner with development services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening, Mr.

Hearing Officer and staff.

My name is Todd Pressman.

2002nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

You can see uh this is Mr.

Bill Rice, who's the uh property owner.

He'll speak in just a moment.

Uh as this comes forward, planning commission is consistent.

Development services approves.

There's no agency objections, uh, no opposition on the record when I check out checked a couple days ago.

Um, and I could not pull up optics uh this afternoon, and there is a code citation pending.

So the issue is rezoning from CG to PD for road services.

Uh it's a smaller parcel, point four six acres.

Uh basically, uh Mr.

Rice is has been running a towing and repossession uh firm, a towing yard, open storage of passenger and commercial vehicles, RVs, equipment, and operating office.

So we're located in the Thanona SAS area shown here on Harney Road, uh running a little bit uh south of Highway 301.

Looking closer here, it accesses on Harney Road.

It does not access to Main Street, and looking at the aerial, uh, what you'll see uh running on the south is a mini storage approval on the abundant parcel, then Main Street, and as I indicated it accesses on Harney Road.

Uh this is as per the property appraiser.

National wetlands, there's wetlands across the street under U.S.

Fish and Wildlife.

So the PD plan is the site will basically remain as it is.

There'll be some light changes, which is basically the one-story building will remain.

There'll be an area of open storage, which is for obvious purposes of storing the vehicles.

There's an access driveway on Harney as shown here.

Zoning, as I've shown you, 45,000 square foot mini storage is abutting on the south, and you have CG that wraps around the site on the other three sides.

A little bit further to the east is an interim outdoor storage of equipment of trucks, and then which will turn the CG.

Future land use categories SMU 6.

As Planning Commission notes, uh, that allows light industrial uses are expressly contemplated when permitted within the SMU 6 uh designation.

So this is the site in Harney.

You can see there's a pretty nice tree canopy there now.

You can see that there's a solid fence, which is one of the variations that's before you.

And this is the site again looking the other direction from Harney.

You can see the site as well uh blocked visibly and is not in disrepair.

This is the abutting neighbor to the east, which is very intensive.

You can see trucks, you can see a large 18-wheeler truck.

You can see a lot of activity occurring on the site here, and this is the neighbor to the west.

You can see again very intensive activity, large mounds of dirt and a uh uh piece of um uh escavating equipment on the right.

Development services note the site is bordered by CG zone parcels with commercial operational uses.

Uh the plan reflects separation between the proposed storage areas and nearby properties through fencing, buffering, and the placement of storage areas towards the interior.

Uh we do have one transportation issue, which is a cross access.

Uh, and there is a request for administrative variance uh for no cross access to the southwest, which would be this small thin parcel, which uh was not approved by the county engineer.

However, as we look closer with it, what becomes a critical concern is security, but tow yards demand high security by state and local laws and rules and regulations.

These are two very small tight parcels.

This parcel alone is 0.46 acres, very unique shape.

It doesn't support a cross access between either for any purpose.

And the purpose, one of the main purposes for cross-access is to reduce traffic on the main road.

And this has been a very safe roadway on Harney.

Per our traffic engineer for our traffic consultant, there's been zero crashes over five years.

So, in terms of the need or requirement, it didn't seem that it met that standard, let alone that these two small tight sites cannot provide it.

But under state under state statutes, um, these types of businesses take legal care and custody of the vehicles and the uh items inside the vehicles.

So uh under state statutes, that becomes a critical concern and part of the industry, and insurance as well requires them in turn requires them to maintain physical storage yard that meet secure and strict security benchmarks and triggers uh which could trigger the revocation of a state operating operating license.

So across access would be uh in the face of the legal or the state statute requirements, Florida Administrative Code carries the same thing uh under this code item, notes that these facilities must be fenced and locked for the protection of vehicles and property.

All fencing shall be chain link or solid wall type, which we're asking for here, at least six feet high, and as well, trespass towing or mobilization rates carries through in section 50.178 under local ordinances.

So there's very compelling reasons the cross access should not be approved.

Mr.

President, could go back to that prior slide, if you don't mind.

Is that Florida statute?

This is local section.

Well, what do you mean by local Hillsburg County's county?

Yeah.

Got it.

All right, thank you.

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

All right.

Um looking at transportation on the tire site in terms of trips, the county transportation report tells you that there's a reduction of 24-hour two-way volume of 2,217 trips and tremendous reductions AM and the PMs.

Obviously, this is a very infrequently located site in terms of customers or people coming there.

It's very quiet.

So Planning Commission notes light industrial uses already exist within the immediate vicinity, and that the presence of the existing use demonstrates the involvement as a transitional mixed-use corridor where there's a variety of land uses that coexist in close proximity.

They note uh that the waiver for a commercial location criteria is based upon the existing light commercial uses, planning staff commission planning commission staff recommends the board approve the waiver request, and they note overall that it is consistent.

The moment services note that the building height, which is low, 14 feet, building coverage, overall intensity remain low, storage areas and circulation routes are limited to designated portions of the property and contributes to additional screening.

So with that, we have very good element of support.

Um Mr.

Rice is here if you would allow him to say a few words in regard to his business.

Thank you.

The property owner would like to come forward, please.

State your name and address for the record.

How are you doing this morning?

Or even my name is William Rice.

I have 10423 Harney Road.

My name is Bill Rice.

I am a small family business owner that has been business for 21 years.

All my family, plus my daughter and some of my employees' kids and their grandkids have worked for me for throughout the years.

I've been located on Harney Road for the past four years since 2021.

Following Hurricane Helene and Melton, we worked with Hillsborough County as well as our neighbors in our community cleaning the roads in yards from fallen debris, trees.

We run a good clean, responsible business as a road towing service and store and stored tow cars.

We are we work with Tampa PD and Tampa F DOT, Hillsborough County Shares and Local Banks in repossession of vehicles, so you can imagine how critical security is for me.

We have multiple cameras in our yard.

When you look at the business opportunities on either side of us, they are similar industrial type businesses.

We are very quiet.

We are very few people coming and going.

And come sorry about that in coming here at night.

On behalf of my family employees, we would like you to consider our application.

I'm sorry.

No, you did fine.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Pressman, that conclude your presentation.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay.

At this point in time, staff.

Good evening.

Chris Gramminardi.

Uh here to present uh PD 26-0303.

Uh it's uh the request is to rezone 0.46 acres at 10423 Harney Road from CG to PD to allow a tow yard, especially uh a road services operation for uh with accessory open storage for towing uh vehicles and equipment, uh repossession.

Uh the existing 1997 square foot building will remain as the site's office.

Uh the site lies within a suburban mixed use six future land use category.

The surrounding area includes uh single family residential and commercial uses with CG zone parcels to the east and west and PD entitled commercial to the south, uh reflecting a corridor where small-scale commercial operations are established.

To ensure compatibility, the plan places storage areas in the center of the site, maintains low building intensity, and uses a six-foot opaque metal fence around the perimeter along with a 15-foot landscape buffer along Harney Road.

Uh existing vegetation on the south, east, and west are uh contribute to screening.

Two variation uh zoning variations are requested, uh retaining the existing metal fence as the required fence uh screening, uh reducing the 100-foot screening setback for open storage and replacing it with the enhanced 15-foot buffer.

Uh staff supports uh both of those due to the parcel small size, the existing screening, and the adequate visual separation.

Uh the combined buffering provides uh staff recommends approval uh uh because uh the the application we feel that the application provides sufficient buffering and uh uh to protect adjacent residential commercial uses, uh maintains low intensity uh with no new enclosed buildings and fits within the SMU future land use category uh regarding commercial character.

Um that concludes my staff report.

I'm glad to answer any questions you might have.

Uh no questions, thank you.

I do have a question for the transportation staff.

Yes.

Uh given testimony of the applicant, and I will review his PowerPoint presentation and look over his comments about cross access.

And he's he's referencing I think state law and local laws that somehow the tow truck business has to have some kind of security.

One, we aware of that.

Did they present that information to the county engineer?

Um, did you take that into consideration?

I just wanted to see if you had any thoughts on the matter.

So uh for the record, James Ratliff.

I think it's important to start out by saying that this is a separate administrative review process that is uh carved out in 6.04.02B of the land development code, which is um an administrative review process that um is sort of reserved to the county engineer, uh, and there's a separate appeals process in there.

So I'm not exactly sure what the applicant was, you know, by putting that into the record, it it's uh you know, I'm not sure what the intent was.

Whether your position is that that the zoning hearing master doesn't have any jurisdiction correct over that issue, correct?

If you don't mind, uh let me turn to the county attorney's office and see if they have any thoughts on on that comment.

Let me look up the land development and now I can provide that reference.

It's 60402B, which states that the conclusion of the administrator with respect to approval or denial of the variance request may be appealed to the land use hearing officer.

And so again, that's not typically a de novo review.

There's a it's uh whether or not the you know that that the rendered denial was you know met the burden of law, and and and so again, if if the idea was for that to be ripe and appealed before this move forward, that would be one way to handle it.

Obviously, the the I don't believe that the issue is you know yeah, in which case, Mr.

Hearing Officer, it will be appealed before you or the other hearing officer that the county has as a consultant.

So let me rephrase reframe that.

Can I make it am I precluded from making a recommendation on whether or not cross access should be provided or not?

Um I would agree with Mr.

Ratliff on that point.

Gotcha.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

All right, planning commission staff.

Good evening, Tarek Royal, planning commission staff.

The surrounding area is characterized by a mix of single family residential, commercial, institutional public, quasi public uses, and light industrial uses located along Main Street, East Fowler Avenue, and U US Highway 301 corridors.

The point four six acre site is designated suburban mix U6, was uh supports a broad range of residential commercial offices, mixed use and light industrial development.

The applicant is requesting a plan development to allow open storage of passenger commercial and recreational vehicles, equipment storage, and operating offices associated with the towing and repossession yard.

The request aligns with fluid directive 1.2, flu policy 3.1.3 by demonstrating compatibility with the surrounding mixed use development pattern and integrating with nearby light industrial and commercial uses without disturbing established character of the area.

The proposal is also consistent with fluid directive 2.2 and table 2.2 as light industrial uses are permitted within the suburban mix use 6 future land use category.

The proposed development intensities remain well below the maximum allowable floor area ratio with the proposed FAR of 0.19 compared to the maximum per minute of 0.50 for light industrial uses.

The request complies with fluid directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by maintaining compatibility with adjacent uses through an intensity and operational character similar to surrounding commercial and industrial development.

Although the site does not meet commercial locational criteria under flu objective 4.7, staff supports applicants' waiver requests due to the existing pattern of nearby commercial and light industrial uses and the site's compatibility with the surrounding corridor.

Additionally, the proposed uh proposal supports fluid directive 7.1 by promoting employment oriented development and contributing to the local comedy.

Overall staff finds the proposed plan development compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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.

Okay.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

We're good.

All right, thank you.

With that, that concludes this application.

And Ms.

Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D4, uh PD rezoning 26-0329.

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

Tim Limkin will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation, and he is attending virtually.

Okay, applicant, please.

Good evening, Mr.

Hearing Officer and Staff.

Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg, Florida.

This is PD 260329.

Issue is a professional residential facility.

Zoning is CG to PD in the Ceftner Mango area, seeking a maximum of 40 beds, 55 beds is the maximum allowed on.99 acres with no agency objections.

Planning commission is consistent, development services supports, no agency objections, and as I last checked, there are no public objections in the record.

So is indicated this is in the Ceft or Mango area.

It's located near the intersection of 75 and I-4.

You see the parcel here for the property appraiser.

Parcel shape is long and not very wide.

Now, interestingly enough, prior approved 24-155 for a professional residential facility was approved by the same owners and same operators, directly abutting next door.

And also noting that you'll see Anna Drive separates the use to the north.

Do I want the service of note that subject site is predominantly surrounded by properties with the CMU 12 future land use category, which has potential to prevent light industrial commercial office multi-purpose uses?

The site is adjacent to commercial industrial type use properties as well as residential.

PD plan is pretty simple.

As shown the future land use category of C Mu 12, primarily in the vicinity.

Under zoning, you'll see that there's intensive uses, manufacturing CICG, outdoor boats, and repossessed motor vehicle CI uses under the PD.

There are a few mobile homes to the north, which I've shown you is separated by ANDA Drive.

Under transportation, under the county transportation report notes a tremendous reduction of trips, 5,952, tremendous reduction of AM at peak and hours with this use.

Planning commission notes as it is allowable and compatible in the CMU 12 category.

Development is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies of Hillsborough County Comp plan.

Development services notes relief from the additional compatibility setback requirement of two feet for every foot of building height above 20 feet is is approvable.

Staff concurs that the site's exceptional narrowness limits development potential.

Providing a 10-foot type B buffer along the South property line.

The proposed facility is adjacent to the existing approved facility, which is found to be compatible with the surrounding development pattern.

It would just be an extension of sorts from what's approved already.

So that we appreciate your attention and consideration.

On this application, we noticed 18 persons two times, uh, and there's no HOA.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh development services staff.

Good evening, Tim Lampkin, development services.

Uh the applicant uh seeks to develop a property.

It's located approximately 625 feet north of East U.S.

Highway 92 and approximately 700 feet south of the intersection of I-75 and I-4 interchange.

And as the applicant stated, the request is for rezoning from commercial general to plan development to allow for a professional residential facility with a maximum of 48 residents.

The applicant proposes an building height of 30 consistent with the height permitted for the adjacent 100 resident professional facility approved under uh PD 24-1155.

And the applicant request relief.

And as the applicant stated, uh staff concurs that the site's exceptional narrowness limits development potential if the additional compatibility setbacks were strictly applied.

The proposal is in compliance with buffering and screening requirements of LDC section 6.06.06.

Additionally, the applicant proposes to provide a 10-foot wide buffer with type D screening along the southern perimeter furthering compatibility for the uh residents of the professional residential facility.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of the 1200 foot separation provision, which is to address compatibility with the surrounding development pattern.

The proposed, as the applicant noted, the proposed professional residential facility that they're requesting the waiver from is currently under the uh same ownership.

Staff notes that the surrounding properties to the north and east across Anna Drive, which is an enclave of about seven lots bounded by I75, I four interchange to the north and west.

And a mobile home park to the south are commercial uses.

Uh therefore the proposed facility adjacent to the existing vote approved facility is found to be compatible with the surrounding development pattern uh based upon the above consideration.

Staff finds the request.

Approvable.

Okay, thank you.

And that concludes stuff.

Thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening, Tarek Royal, pointing commission staff.

The surrounding area is characterized by mix of single family residential, light commercial, every commercial and vacant properties.

The point nine nine acre site is designated community mixed use 12.

Uh residential commercial office and mixed use development.

The applicants requesting a plan development to allow for a 40-bed professional residential facility.

The request aligns with flu objective 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area and flu policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility surrounding mixed use development.

The proposed facility is residential and neighbor nature and approximately appropriate you scale to complement nearby residential and commercial uses.

The proposal is also consistent with fluid directive 2.2 and associate policies governing allowable density and land uses within the community of mixed use 12 future land use category based on the size acreage up to approximately 59 beds can be permitted under a maximum allowable density.

Well, the applicant is only proposing 40 beds.

The requests complies with fluid directive 4.6 and policy 4.6.1, which supports residential support uses such as adult care facilities with um within designed to be compatible with the surrounding development.

The proposal also meets the intent of fluid directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by integrating with the surrounding neighborhood pattern and maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses.

Overall, staff finds the proposed plan development to be compatible with the surrounding uses area and consistent with the uh comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Supply time.

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

Snow on responding.

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

No one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Applicant's good.

With that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Uh before we go to the next item, um, I needed to advise you that in regards to item C1, standard rezoning 26-0728.

Um, there is somebody in the audience who wants to speak to that item, but that item has closed, and there's no uh change in that.

Are they still here?

I believe so, yes.

But is is the applicant still here?

I don't believe so.

So we're not able to take any testimony.

Right.

And uh the point of bringing it up at this point.

I I didn't know if there was any uh other way that he could be heard.

Um I did check with the county attorney's office and the record's been closed.

I don't know if the gentleman that's a little tough or you know the applicant didn't have an opportunity to hear what the gentleman had to say and um that's tough.

I'm I'm sorry that he I don't know if he was here, they didn't hear the case.

I'm I don't know what circumstances were, but uh can you meet with him?

Can the county attorney's office have do you have anything else to add to that comment?

Um I would just state that you know once a case is closed, I believe that it's closed.

Yes.

Um and it's my understanding that that's how like the county has always held these proceedings.

Understood.

But if you get his name and number and at least get his comments, and maybe there's some way to informally at least hear his concerns, and maybe there's something to be done outside the context.

Sure.

Of this hearing.

Okay.

Thanks.

All right.

Um sign reconfigure, then let's move forward in the next case.

The next application is item D5, PD 26-0338.

The applicant is requesting to rezone from ASC 1R and RSC6 to plan development.

Caroline Pedal with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening.

Cammy Corbett with a law firm of Hill Warden Henderson.

I'm representing the applying applicant Richmond American homes, and I do have Campus Civil and traffic Steve Henry from Traffic Mobility here with me as well.

Subject property is an infill site.

It's only 11.43 acres east of Williams Road and south of Broadway.

It's within the urban service boundary and in the branding community plan.

It's currently zoned ASC 1R and RSC 6.

The future land use is res 6, allowing up to six units uh to the acre.

We have CMU 12 to the west, UMU 20 to the north and west, and then res 9 further north.

What we are proposing is 49 single family homes, which is a density of 4.3 units per acre.

And the main access is from Williams Road with no connection to Jillian Road proposed.

That's the access point to the east.

And that's important to point out because some of the letters in the record uh were very concerned about access to Jillian Road.

And if you look at the site plan, that dashed line running north-south on the east side of the property.

That's actually a drainage ditch.

And that was part of the justification for not providing uh that interconnection there.

So we are only doing 49 single family homes at 4.3 units per acre, and we are not proposing a connection to Jillian Road.

Is that drainage ditch owned by the Hillsborough County?

Yes.

Okay.

And then this is a conceptual layout.

You'll be able to see this.

Obviously, the this is not shown on the site plan because we don't show where the stormwater ponds are necessarily exactly located.

But the way the site lays out, there will be stormwater ponds to the east as well, providing additional buffering and screening to the east.

And we actually are providing a type 10-foot type A buffer where none is required.

So we are being sensitive to the north and south boundaries to provide that 10-foot type A buffer, and then you can see the renderings on the to the right of the slide.

We are providing a sidewalk extension along Williams Road, and this is just a graphic that shows that.

And ultimately, staff has found the request consistent and compatible with a comprehensive plan and the land development code, and our team is here to answer any questions should you have any.

Good evening, development services, Carol Ann Peddle.

Again, this is rezoning PD 26038.

The applicant is requesting or the applicant is proposing rezoning the 11.43 acre site from ASC 1R and RSC 6 to plan development to allow for a maximum number of 43 single family detached units at a rate of 4.3 units per acre.

The site is located on the east side of Williams Road and south of East Broadway Avenue in an area which is comprised of single family detached and townhome residential uses at various lot sizes.

The adjacent properties to the north, south, and west are zoned RC six, which allows for a density of six units per acre, which is greater than what is proposed in the planned development.

While the adjacent properties to the east are zoned IPD1, develop for single family attached dwelling units or townhome dwelling units.

Therefore, the proposed would allow for an overall density less than what is permitted in the surrounding area.

There are no PD variations or waivers requested with this application.

Staff finds the request approvable subject to proposed conditions.

That concludes my presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening, Target Royal Planning Commissioner Staff.

Surround area is predominantly characterized by single family residential development with HOA common areas to the south and west.

Public quasi public uses to the north and limited nearby light industrial activities, include Ashley Furniture Store to the northwest of the site across Broadway Center Boulevard.

11.43 acre site is designated residential six, which permits residential and limited neighborhood commercial and mixed use development at a maximum density of six to one units per acre.

The applicant is requesting a plan of development to allow 49 single family detached homes and a density of approximately 4.31 dOI units per gross acre.

The request aligns with flu policy 3.1.2 and policy 3.1.3 by providing compatible residential development pattern and a gradual transition and density between higher density townhomes to the west and lower density single family development to the east.

The proposal is also consistent with objective 2.2 and flu policy 2.2.1.

So correspond requested density remains below the maximum allowable density on the Ru S 6 future land use category.

Based on the size acreage up to 68 don't units can be considered while only 49 units are proposed.

The co request complies with flu directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 while integrating compatible residential uses, incorporating buffering and screening through a uh 10-foot type A buffer and a six-foot fence and maintaining connectivity to the nearby transportation corridors and complementary land uses.

Overall staff finds the proposed point of development compatible with the Sarani area consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Okay, thank you.

So anyone in the audience wish to speak in support of the application.

No one responding.

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

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Teresa Bauer.

I reside at 1805 Brandy Way.

I've been a resident of Brandon for approximately 40 years, and I've been in my home for 28 years.

The development that is proposed, if we can ensure that it's single single family, that's what I would like single family homes, not town homes.

There are town homes on the west or the east side of Williams Road.

There's only one set of town homes.

The surrounding area are single family homes, so if they can be consistent with single family homes, that is great.

I have safety concerns and traffic concerns as well as it is now on the west side of Williams Road.

There are two townhome developments and off of Columbus Drive, there are apartments and there are also town homes there.

They use Duffield Place as a cut through to get to Lakewood.

On Duffield Place to Sunny Hill Drive, Sunny Hills Drive, there are speed humps.

With this proposed development, they're gonna have one entrance and one exit off of May Street in order to get to Lakewood.

They're either going to go south and cut across Duffield Place to get to Lakewood, or they're having to have to go north to Broadway and then the next east-west route is MLK.

Is there any possibility that they would consider putting in speed humps from Sunny Hills Drive to Lakewood?

Yeah, what of Duffield Traffic from if you if you don't mind, let me turn to the transportation staff real quick.

Yes.

And Ratley, if you heard a comments about cut-through traffic and speed humps and just my initial comment is some of that kind of concerns are sort of town hall meeting kind of thing where it's kind of outside the scope of the this hearing.

But with that, let's see if you have any comments about our comments.

Sure.

Um for the record, James Ratliff uh with transportation review.

Uh it sounds like there's an existing issue potentially out there, and so what I would recommend is submitting uh through the Hillsburg County at your service request.

At your service, um it's a website that will allow you to put in a ticket and have it get routed to the right um place.

There's a program that the county has called the residential traffic calming program, where um uh it's you know possible that they we can't just put speed humps in anywhere.

There's a process for reviewing it.

Part of that's looking at fire rescue and things like that.

So um, but putting in that ticket would allow you to make contact with that appropriate um staff department who can look at you know, look at that issue and um talk to you about moving that process forward regardless of whatever happens with this particular project.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

And I do have some concerns with the entire development and the neighborhood that I'm in.

We had flooding as such a number of people did a year and a half ago when Hurricane Milton came through, the ditch embankment that runs along the cul de sac on Brandy Way, and then also Jillian.

That almost crested.

So we have standing water.

They're proposing to put in two, is it one or two ponds, retention ponds?

Well, they have a conceptual site plan, but what happens that should this application be approved?

There's there's a whole separate next step involved.

Okay.

Well, they have to design the site to meet current state and local regulations regarding stormwater treatment and discharge off site.

Okay.

And will they come in and I'm probably ahead of the ball game and asking these questions, will they come in totally plow the area from the trees and the wildlife and the that's there?

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

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

If there are specific issues that go beyond the regulations, then I'm afraid that staff probably doesn't have any power to absolutely acquire an applicant to do that.

Um but there's always room for people to chat with each other, right?

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you for hearing me out.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Uh is there anyone else in the audience?

Uh I do believe we have someone signed up online that was uh in support.

Okay.

Um let me first finish up with those in opposition.

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

I see no one responding.

All right, at this point in time, we'll go back.

Um is there someone online that wants to speak in support of the application?

Uh yes, you're honored.

So I would like to actually talk about it a little bit.

So I'm I'm very happy to actually see the development is going on over there that will add the beautification to that location.

Excuse me, we need the speaker of state his full name and uh address for the record.

Could you my name is uh Chris and I'm I'm looking at U011, William Sword, Randon Ferrita?

Mr.

One word, one word saying that.

I'm so sorry to interrupt.

He also needs his video on.

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

Uh yes, uh, my computer does not work for the camera.

That is a problem.

So I'm fine with that.

Sir, hold on a second.

Um he said is his camera, doesn't work.

Yeah, I don't believe that we're allowing people to testify unless they can also um share their video.

That's been something that we both okay.

No problem, thank you so much.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

All right.

Um at this point in time, staff anything further?

No.

Okay.

Applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.

Cammy Corbett again for the record.

I think you address the issue with the stormwater that that's something that we have to deal with at site development, and that the regulations we have to comply with don't allow us to flood anyone else's property.

As far as the traffic concerns, I did want to point out in the stop report that we are because of the existing zoning being RSC six and ASC1, we are only increasing the average daily trips by 29 trips, and the AM peak hour trips are three additional trips and seven additional in the PM.

So, in terms of the traffic analysis, and that's in your staff's report that that shows that that the development, this particular development is not going to be generating significant traffic.

And I will note that although we're calling it cut-through traffic, those roads are all county roads and they're all public roads.

So I just wanted to make that point that it's not like we're trying to go through someone's neighborhood, people would be traveling on county public roadways.

And same thing with the trees and the species, we have to comply with all regulations, and we will do that at that time.

And with that, I conclude my presentation and respectfully ask for your recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

With that, that concludes this application.

Our next item is D6, PD 26-0339.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from CG to play development.

This has been reviewed by James Baker, and I'll present his find his findings tonight after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

The applicant, please.

Good evening.

You two.

Mark Bentley, 400 North Ashley Drive, Tampa 33.

What the heck?

602.

Um represent the applicant and the it's a veterinary clinic, a long-standing clinic.

It's a minor addition to allow about 1800 square feet for CT imaging services.

And actually, it's an improvement from a transportation standpoint.

Is uh not only they get a DE for ingress and egress, but uh they limited the uses on the property to solely a clinic.

Yeah, present zoning CG.

So that being said, I'll turn it over to our planning director, Ryan Manassey.

You know, go over the site plan, some of the planning issues.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Ryan Manasseh, Director of Planning with Johnson Pope for under North Ashley Drive, Suite 3100 Tampa.

So kind of going on with Mark.

Um, this request uh involves a very modest expansion to an existing veterinary clinic located within Brandon.

The request seeks approval of the plan development to recognize existing site conditions and permit a roughly 1700 square foot uh addition, which consists of a CT scan building to provide specialized veterinary services to the community.

And that's showing you on screen generally that area.

This is not a request to intensify the property with a new commercial use.

The veterinic already exists and has operated in this location for some time.

The request simply allows for a modest building expansion to accommodate upgraded medical imaging and veterinary care services.

The property is located within an intensely developed commercial area of Brandon and is surrounded on all sides by established commercial and non-residential uses.

The surrounding development pattern is characterized by professional services and related commercial activity, and the subject site functions as an integrated part of the established non-residential area.

This is an infilled redevelopment style request involving the already developed site, the existing structures, predate portions of the current code framework, which resulted in existing legal non-conforming characteristics related to FAR, ISR, and building coverage.

The PD provides a mechanism for the county to formally recognize those conditions while allowing a reasonable expansion.

The future land use.

Oops, went ahead of myself.

The future land use category permits up to a 0.75 FAR.

The proposed project remains well below the threshold at approximately 0.41 FAR.

The proposal is entirely consistent with the office commercial 20 category and represents a low intensity professional service use appropriate for this corridor.

Compatibility is straightforward in this case.

The surrounding properties are all commercially zoned and developed with office or commercial uses.

There are no residential adjacencies requiring enhanced buffering or transitions.

Importantly, the building addition is placed internally toward the rear of the site, minimizing visibility and impacts or potential impacts.

The project retains the existing directional access pattern currently serving the site.

Transportation staff and the county engineer reviewed the existing conditions and found the requested administrative variance is approvable.

And one of the most important findings in the staff report is the proposed PD substantially reduces potential traffic impacts compared to what could otherwise occur under the CG zoning.

Under generalized worst-case CG entitlements, the site could generate nearly 5,900 daily trips.

The proposed veterinary clinic clinic generates only 272 daily trips, which is a dramatic reduction.

The planning commission found the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and locational criteria.

The proposal represents reinvestment into an existing commercial corridor within the urban service area and preserves the established development pattern of the surrounding area.

All reviewing agencies either found the request approvable or consistent.

There are no environmental concerns, no code enforcement issues, and utilities are readily available within the urban service area.

Development services ultimately concluded that the request is approvable, subject to the conditions of the of approval.

The conditions appropriately memorialize the approved site layout access configuration and use limitation.

In closing, this request represents a modest and compatible reinvestment into an existing veterinic that has long served the Brandon community.

The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with the surrounding commercial uses, substantially reduces potential traffic impacts compared to the existing entitlements, and has been found approvable by both the planning commission staff and development services staff.

With that, we'd respectfully request your recommendation of approval, and I'm available for any questions.

Okay, no questions right now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Development services staff.

Uh Michelle Heinrich development services.

Staff reason reviewed a rezoning request from CG to PD for a 0.71 acre parcel located on Robertson Road.

The site contains an existing animal hospital facility, which requires a higher FAR than permitted in the CG zoning district to accommodate an expansion.

The site is located in the um OC future 20 future land use category and within the urban service area.

The area area is characterized as commercial, consisting primarily of medical and medical related uses.

It should be noted that the building was constructed in the late 1970s slash early 80s when the site was under previous zoning, which was CC community commercial.

Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable subject to proposed conditions.

Have they come in for a commercial site plan review yet at a preliminary meeting?

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

Because it was developed a long time ago, right?

So they're adding roughly 1,800 square feet, but there's you know all impervious surfaces.

So it doesn't look like there's a stormwater pond.

Doesn't look like the parking is exactly per code today.

Um so I don't know how your staff is going to treat that and whether or not the zoning addresses sort of the grandfathering and status of of what's been built already and existed for the last 20, 30 years.

Well, one thing through the PD process is that it would memorialize what's there now.

So there are some things that are currently over um CG and many other standard zoning district standards.

So those are in the conditions of approval, and then the site plan um does provide a conceptual layout.

Um for one thing, the access issues that that um the applicant noted having the in and out driveway.

So that would be what would rule for zoning.

Um I I don't know if the applicant has investigated other requirements.

Well at this point, I'll turn to the planning commission staff.

Good evening, tire coral, planning commission staff.

The surrounding area is characterized primarily by light and heavy commercial uses, including a bank directly to the east, credit union to the south, initial commercial and residential uses in the broader vicinity.

The point seven one acre site is designated office commercials 20, which supports office commercial, mixed use, and compatible residential development.

The applicant is requesting a plan development to allow approximately 1,700 square feet of uh CT scan building addition to existing veterinary clinic.

The request aligns with fluid directive 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area and flu policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with the surrounding commercial development pattern.

Proposal is also consistent with fluid directive 2.2 as OC20 future line use category allows for office and commercial uses at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75.

The proposed expansion results in a total of development intensity well below the site's maximum allowable square footage, demonstrating compliance with intensity limits in the future lane use policies.

The request further compliments with flu objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by maintaining compatibility with the surrounding commercial character and integrating the addition into an existing established veterinary clinic without altering the use or increasing impacts to the adjacent properties.

Overall staff finds the proposed plan development compatible with their signing area and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

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.

Applicant and opportunity for rebuttal and given comment I had for staff about how do you deal with an old site that's coming in for a minor change and meeting new standards.

I don't know where you would fall in terms of commercial site plan and any issues that may stop you from moving forward.

Right.

Appreciate the question.

Um I think one point to bring up is that that area where they this minimal or this roughly 1700 squared area is going is already impervious.

So when the engineers are doing the impervious calculations, obviously at site plan reviewed there, they'd have to address the stormwater concerns.

So if they're if the remaining of the area is already impervious and this new addition is only 1700 square feet, then if there is a code requirement that we have to retain so much water or it wasn't considered impervious, the engineering team would address that at the site review permitting.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I I suppose it's just a disclaimer for you.

Is it is that right that we're dealing with zoning now, but correct?

We we understand and our team understands.

And they did do a preliminary um review.

That's where these initial concerns came up.

And that's why we went through this process.

All right.

Anything else?

Nothing to add.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

With that, that concludes this application.

The sign record ready for the next item.

Our next item is item D7, Major Mod 26-340.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 98-0667.

This has been reviewed by Tim Lincoln, who will present findings after the applicant's presentation.

And also this is a campaign with a companion comprehensive plan amendment.

So both items will be heard at the July 16th hearing.

Um the Board of County Commissioners.

Okay.

The applicant, please.

Good evening, Nicole McKinnis at Barbara's Kramer Law Firm.

My address is 2002 West Cleveland Street for the record.

Here today with a major modification, uh number 26-0340.

Um I'm gonna turn over to our expert planner, Cynthia Speidel for the presentation.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Cynthia Spidellum with planner with Barbus Kramer at 2002 West Cleveland Street.

I have been sworn.

I'm an AI CP certified planner with over 20 years experience uh in both the public and the private sectors, and our whole team is here from the landowner, uh, our engineering team is here, transportation team is here, and uh obviously Nicole is our land use attorney.

So the property location, it's the lazy days site.

Um you may know it well.

It's uh right off of I-4 interchange on Mango Road, also known as County Road 579.

Uh, and it's also uh it doesn't encompass the entire lazy days uh PD, it's just the northern portion of it that's north of SLI, and it's the area in yellow here on this slide.

Um this just kind of shows the context of the surrounding area for compatibility purposes.

We've got the the solid waste land use facility right across the street, Amazon facility LIP, and I have some aerials uh coming up that will reinforce that.

So just to sort of touch on the concurrent CPAs that are accompanying this zoning action.

Um we have CPA 2535, CPA 2536.

It's to change the res 4 to SMU 6, um, and also to bring it into the urban service area.

And on January 12th, 2026, the County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of both CPAs.

So this just kind of I'm just gonna fly through the USA.

Um, but I wanted to uh give you some context on the the bifurcation of the property by the USA, current existing USA boundary.

So this just kind of shows you where you know part of it's in, part of it's not in.

Um, and this is another uh way of showing it.

This is an aerial photograph, and it just kind of shows the timing of the issue.

So the urban service area was originally adopted in 1993, and the PD boundary was approved in 1988.

There is a condition of approval in the original PD that says everywhere has to connect to water and wastewater, and that the developer is responsible for that.

And then this just kind of shows you that urban service boundary overlaid on the on the PD.

And then here are your current water and wastewater uh diagrams.

So the site kind of already is being serviced, so it I see the USA portion as a as a technicality, and here's the urban expansion boundary, it's in there as well.

Um we are part of the Thonet Tsasa Community Plan, and um this recognition the plan recognizes County Road 579 579 south of Pruitt to I-4 as a commercial corridor.

Having this area as a commercial corridor has been a recurring theme since all the way back to the 90s, where planning commission actually uh considered this corridor and voted to allow non-residential uses along the corridor on a case-by-case basis.

So getting back to the phone at Tissassic Community Plan, it's uh to protect the role character.

It already is res 4, which uh is more considered more of a suburban category.

Um the property is currently zoned to RV Supercenter.

Um so the concurrent PD rezoning just ensures that the current use can continue to exist, and that's the reason why SMU 6 was selected to make sure that the current use could continue to exist, and that's RV resort and storage.

Uh U.S.

Highway 301, aka Mango Road is a designated truck route.

Um, this just kind of shows you the corresponding res 4 to SMU 6.

And you can see on the proposed side that the entire we have some uh anomalies associated with the parcel.

The parcel is larger than the area that's in the PD.

And um we only are amending the what we call the impacted area to SMU 6.

So the other land uses will remain within the folio and within the PD for that portion just west of the dotted line.

So compatibility, just wanted to um show the context of the surrounding area.

We've got the solid waste landfill across the street, we've got lazy days, we've got uh uh auto facilities, cracker barrel, flying J, Cass Creek, and a 304,000 uh square foot Amazon facility directly across the street.

So this modification to the PD is to allow two options, and one is to allow the current RV resort campground and storage to continue to exist, and option two would be up to 750,000 square feet of light industrial warehousing distribution as conditioned in the staff report.

So I just wanted to briefly go over the two variation requests from buffering, and that is to accommodate the anomaly that we have that the folio is actually bigger than the PD boundary, and there's a wetland, and that you can see it in that top left section there.

Um so we basically want to keep that as is, keep the bound uh keep the wetland protected, and then the southern portion, what we call the western boundary south, the the intent of the buffer is met, it's just separated out.

And there's a um, I don't know if you can see it, but there's a whole there's a whole tree line along that southern segment that kind of you know, is it on the neighbors' properties on our property?

It kind of goes back and forth.

So, what we're just doing is we're putting the masonry wall closer to the impacted area so that we don't have to impact the trees.

So we had an open house, um, got a lot of community feedback, it was held on April 16th at the Zephner Inn and Sweets, which is right there close close to the project.

We had about 13 attendees attend.

Um, and the big issues that were raised were um the traffic associated with uh the flying J just south of us, and also buffering.

Uh we had a uh some residents that came out, I believe they're here as well, that live on the north side of Buster Bean, and they were concerned about buffering and uh how the area has transitioned due to the interchange.

So uh what we what we did after the meeting is we work with staff to exceed the minimum requirements associated with adjacent residential activity.

So instead of a six-foot wall, we're gonna do eight feet, and then at time of planting, we'll make sure those trees are 15 feet and uh versus 10 per the code, just to sort of exceed the minimum code standards.

Is that offering screening is that sorry?

Is that memorialized and exactly it is a condition of approval, correct?

Um, our transportation folks and our engineer are here as well to talk about the um the design features that transportation staff has asked us to do on SLI.

Um, this just kind of gives you a brief overview.

So um all three access points will remain, but how they function uh along SLI will will change.

We're going to have restricted turning movements, a raised median, unlimited access at that one eastern most uh it's the first one when you're coming from Mango.

The other one will mean a full access.

So uh just want to get on the record the um Hillsborough County Planning Commission staff report, um, despite our uh unanimous support from that planning commission themselves for both uh comprehensive plan amendments.

Um, we have an inconsistency finding in uh your agenda packet.

Um the staff report talks about the introduction of light and industrial warehouse uses.

So this is really to intended to show you that we're not introducing anything that's not already there.

There's a 304,000 square foot Amazon fulfillment center directly across the street.

Um staff talked about uh Hillsborough County Planning Commission staff talked about um future land use objective 4.4 and specifically policy 4.4.1 but we just want to get on the record compatibility is not the same as, and your code regulates how.

So in if you look at the purpose of the land development code, section 1.02.02 says it is a purpose of the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County to establish standards, regulations, and procedures for review and approval of all proposed development of property in unincorporated Hillsborough County to provide a development review process that will be comprehensive, consistent, and efficient in the implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan.

So your code allows different uses to coexist, and the code tells you how to do that, and we are exceeding that.

So in my opinion, if you're consistent with the code, it's really not accurate to say it's inconsistent with policy 4.4.1.

Our whole team is here to answer any questions on January 12th.

The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of both CPAs.

Uh county staff.

Development services staff recommends approval based on the conditions and the mitigation measures we're providing, and we ask that you recommend approval as well.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

No questions at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Development services staff.

Good evening, Tim Lampkin Development Services.

As the applicant stated, they're proposing to allow a second development option on approximately 37.86 acre area located on the north of the northwest quadrant of the I-4 interchange in County Road 579, also known as Menga Road.

And as the applicant stated, there is a concurrent uh comprehend plan amendment.

And to um two, ones to change the future land use and from Redis 4 to SNU6, and the second one is to expand the urban service boundary.

The subject property is located on the north side of East Sly Road between County Road 579 and Dairy Road.

The site is within the rural service area.

However, again, they're proposing they have an application to expand it and bring it into the urban service area.

The subject property is surrounded by a mix of uses, including commercial to the south and east and residential to the west and north of the subject site, adjacent to the north of the subject site is a single family residential development located on Buster Green Drive, immediately west is location of single family homes on large lots on the southwestern portion.

Whereas the northwest portion that the applicant was uh talking about not being as part of this application is actually a stormwater retention area.

It's on the same folio, but it's not part of the PD.

The applicant is providing as they stated, and it's actually a condition 5.3.1 A.

Uh they're providing a 30-foot-wide buffer with type C screening enhanced.

So 53 5.3.1.a.1 requires a masonry wall eight feet in height and finished on all sides of brick stone or painted pigmented stucco.

And additionally, they're uh providing uh a numerous plantings that's within the same condition.

And that's to uh further mitigate potential impacts to the north.

The applicant's proposing a LDC variation of 6.06.06 performing and screening.

They're requesting a variation, and this is where they were talking about providing the um six-foot masonry wall adjacent to the driveway as shown on the site plan.

Normally it would be within the 30-foot uh buffer, but instead they're uh proposing to keep the vegetation, and so they're putting the buffer on the east side of the existing vegetation.

The applicant did provide uh justification in their variation.

The advocate has not requested any variations from the general site development requirements found in parts found in the remainder of the land development code uh based upon the above consideration staff's lines to the request approvable subject to the conditions.

Okay, and that concludes my presentation unless you had any questions.

Good evening, Royal Planning Commission staff.

The surrounding areas characterized by a mix of single family residential, commercial, institutional, agricultural and light industrial uses with residential neighborhoods primarily located to the north and west, and non-residential uses concentrated along um County Road 579, East Silo Avenue, US Highway 301.

Highway 301.

The 38-acre sites currently designated residential four with the pending future land use amendment to suburban mix use six.

The applicants requesting major modification to either continue the existing recreational vehicle sales and services, which is option one, or allow redevelopment with three 250,000 square foot light industrial warehouse buildings with accessory outdoor storage, which is option two.

The request aligns with flu objective 1.1 by directing growth to the urban service area as proposed under the um pending um land amendment or receivers area expansion amendment and with flu policy 3.1.3 by requiring compatibility for surrounding development patterns.

The proposals also evaluated under flu objective 2.2 and associated policies governing future land use intensity and permitted uses under the pending SMU 6 designation, light industrial warehouse and related employment uses would be generally permissible within the site's development framework.

However, while the proposed uses fall within the range of considered uses by SMU 6, size fines compatibility remains a critical issue under flujective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1.

Option one, which uh maintains the existing recreational vehicle sales and service use is consistent with the established development pattern and maintains compatibility with the surrounding residential commercial uses.

In contrast, option two introduces large-scale industrial building buildings up to 50 feet in height and 250,000 square feet in size, which are not compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses to the north and west due to concerns related to scale, massing lighting noise, truck traffic, and insufficient transitional buffering.

Although the proposed setbikes provide some separation, they didn't know how to adequately mitigate the incompatibility of the industrial development and surrounding residential to contacts.

Additionally, the site does not meet commercial locational criteria under flu objective 4.7 as is located more than 8,800 feet from the nearest qualifying intersection.

And while a waiver was requested, staff finds that option two does not overcome the broader compatibility concerns.

Proposed in option two, whereas option one supports the existing character and housing stability of the area.

Overall, staff finds option one is compatible with the comp plan while option two is not consistent with the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um let me understand how the process works.

You initially, when they file the application, your staff comes up with a recommendation about consistency or consistently with the plan amendment.

Um and then it goes to the planning commission and they voted on it, and the testimony I heard was that they supported the amendment.

Yes.

Does that then factor into any reconsideration of staff?

Yeah, so um with the planning commission, um the comp plan amendment of residential fort is suburban mixed use six.

We have to take in consideration uses allowed under suburban mix use six, which we did um you know, outline that in the staff report, the uses that they're asking for are allowable uses within SMU 6, but we look at the broader compatibility.

Okay, so the site the request is three 250,000 square feet warehouses on a site that doesn't meet locational criteria, adjacent to residential single family home.

So you'll support the plan amendment, but you don't support the rezoning.

Um I believe planning commission um the planning commission supported it, uh the USA expansion and the plan amendment.

Yeah, um, but just because it's an allowable use within that future lane use category in the USA doesn't oversee that ability.

Thank you, sir.

This point in time, is there anyone in the audience so we should speak in support of the application?

Okay.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Please excuse my nervousness.

If you could state your name and address.

My name is Cynthia Godwin Wilson.

My address is 11413 Buster Bean Drive, Sephona, Florida, 33584.

My property faces the proposed development and is only 30 feet from the lazy days slash proposed development property line.

The plan shows 30-foot buffer and 60-foot parking area, equals only 90 feet before this, 250,000 square foot, two to three stories high, active warehouse operation is constructed.

And this is only unit one.

There are two more units proposed.

This is my second time around being notified by a developer in Hillsborough County about development for this property.

The original being the proposed development from Orange Grove to Lazy Days RV Resort.

I went to the Hillsborough County land development meetings, major modifications, and zoning meetings downtown.

I voiced my concerns about lights, noise, and other ways of being affected by this development before construction.

I went to the community meeting and voiced my concerns there.

We were shown a conceptual.

Now this one right here, Cynthia from the existing developing staff was nice enough to give me that picture.

But it's a similar picture that was shown to us when we were at the community meeting for lazy days.

We were told no minimum impact.

Excuse me.

We were told no to minimum impact.

After all that, Buster Bean Drive ends up with a chain link fence and green slats that does no good at all.

You can see through the fence, you can see them, and they can see you.

I would like to share just a few incidents that I've experienced and deal with on a daily basis because a chain-link fence and green slats.

From Lazy Days property line, there is only a 30-foot buffer where the RVs back into.

I'm getting to my point about this development.

Okay.

And I am in approval.

Several guests on vacation, inviting family and friends, grilling food, playing music, partying and dancing, and walking dogs is very loud with no barrier.

They're on vacation.

They have right to enjoy themselves.

And I have no right to say anything to them or complain to the office.

Yesterday, Memorial Day, well, let's just say they had a great time, and I end up inside watching war movies.

Any commotion at the resort makes my dogs run to the fence and gates barking like crazy.

Every time I have to investigate and see what all the commotion is about, mostly RVs backing in and getting set up, guests walking dogs, and as mentioned before, guests on vacation.

But that's what dogs do.

They bark at strangers.

Your dogs bark at strangers.

And I don't think I should have to make my dog stop barking or settle down for doing what dogs do naturally.

The permanent pole lighting, RVs, passenger vehicles, and even the golf carts traveling northbound, their lights shine in our home, which that shouldn't have happened at all.

And it was one of my concerns at the community meeting.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the unforgettable and the unexpected beep beep beep of the RVs when they are backing up.

But the straw that broke the camel's back was when my dog started barking, and I went to investigate, wait for it.

A lazy days guest was urinating behind his RV.

That freaked me out, and I wasn't expecting that.

And frankly, I still see that picture in my head.

But here's my point.

Without that black wall, that block wall and barrier trees, I have been extremely affected by the decision to install chain link fence and slats instead of block wall and barrier trees.

Now with the new proposed development of a three-unit, 250,000 square foot warehouse establishment and daily operations of metal doors rolling up and down, proposed parking spaces in front of my home, permanent pole lighting, vehicles lights facing northbound, people roaming about discussing business, chatting on their cell phones.

This time the vehicles will come and go on a daily basis versus the RVs staying in place for a few days.

Now tell me how I will not be affected this time by the construction and daily operations of the warehouse establishment without the block wall and barrier trees.

The words conceptual and the block wall and barrier trees exceeding code makes me very nervous.

That a second time around with major modifications, that there is still a chance that the block wall and barrier trees will not be approved.

I am not opposed to this proposed development.

Just what issues will affect my family and livelihood.

I have spent thousands of dollars in proving my improving and maintaining my property.

I've made it to retirement.

Hey, I'm a native, I can even handle the heat.

And that's why I have all these concerns to enjoy my life and continue my livelihood that I'm used to.

And with all due respect, I trust the developer and the departments involved with this proposed development to protect its longtime existing residents that live here being affected by proximity, lats, and noise, et cetera.

We live here, and what I've told you are the facts.

And with respect, I would not be looking forward to having to gather evidence and presenting them to the commissioners after the fact, which I know will be an uphill battle.

I might be one person, but I'm a determined person.

Like I said several times, my property faces the proposed development and is in close proximity.

Thank you.

Oh yeah.

See you in July.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

See no one else responding.

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

Yes, sir.

Evening.

Hey, good evening.

Thomas Godwin, 11219, Russell Drive, Sethner, Florida.

Okay.

First of all, I grew up here in that area on Big Cattle Ranch.

It's bad enough seeing one big warehouse.

Now I have to look at these ISORs gonna be bad enough.

But I want to know what they're gonna do with Sly Avenue.

That's our only main entrance to our neighborhood, which we live behind it.

Okay.

I've been told that they're gonna close it off.

We can't use that anymore.

The only other one we have would be Pruitt Road, and it's a one-lane road.

Okay.

Well we'll ask the staff to address that question.

If I could, sir, I'll ask the transportation staff to answer your question about SLI.

Yes, Sly Avenue is going to remain open.

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

What are we gonna do about the traffic on 579 infrastructure is not there for what's there now?

Do any improvements to it?

Sir, there are zoning conditions to address at least turn lanes uh in and out of the development.

Beyond that, I'll let the applicant respond to your comments.

Anything else?

No, that's it.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

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

So no one responding.

Staff, anything further?

Uh Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

I will just note for you and um to the citizen who spoke, there are specific conditions in the PD, specifically condition 5.3.1, which specifically requires along the north property boundary of this parcel, um, the 30-foot-wide buffer, and then uh screening to consist of a masonry wall eight feet in height and finished on all sides with brick stone or painted pigmented stucco.

Secondly, a low-growing evergreen plants or mulch covering the balance of the buffer, and thirdly, a row of evergreen trees which are not less than 15 feet high at the time of planting and two inches in caliber and space no more than 20 feet apart.

So that would be required and at site development, um, both zoning and natural resources would check that that requirement is complied for on their site development plan.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

And uh applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Uh thank you, Cynthia Spidell.

Our I'm gonna ask our transportation uh engineer to come up and speak to that.

Um but I wanted to just reiterate um what Michelle Ms.

Heinrich said with regards to the condition, and I think, and I want to thank Cynthia for coming out and giving her thoughtful comments.

Um I think some of the you know insecurity from her side is the the visual depiction that we showed says conceptual, the color of the wall could change, the condition won't change, right?

But the the visual depiction of it is conceptual, so that's where I think some of you know her concerns may be.

And uh with that I'm going to introduce Joe Goldberg.

Hi.

Uh my name is Joe Goldberg with Langan Engineering.

Um so we did do Excuse me, sir.

Your full address as well.

Oh, yes, uh 1221 Brickle Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33139.

Um, so we did do a comprehensive analysis that included uh an assessment of all turn lanes into uh the proposed driveways, and we did confirm that the project generated traffic does not warrant the need for any additional turn lanes beyond what already exists today.

Could you explain what are those turn lanes?

So there is an existing northbound left turn lane uh on Mango Road to the existing uh driveway connection, and then oh yeah, that might be helpful.

Yeah, this one's good, I think.

Can we zoom in?

Yeah, let's do that.

Okay.

And so then we also looked at um the existing access along Sly Avenue as well as the new proposed westernmost access on Sly Avenue, which is intended to operate for truck access.

Uh and so we we actually looked at this both based on FDOT guidelines and of course Hillsborough County uh guidelines, and we did determine that the volume that is projected to enter all three driveways do not warrant the need for a turn lane.

However, there is an existing turn lane on north uh an existing northbound left turn lane on Mango Road to that existing driveway connection, and we did confirm that the existing storage length can accommodate the expected queues once the project would be developed.

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

Is there that's that's the one to Mango Road?

Yes, and then that's the one I'm referring to.

There is an existing um a northbound left turn lane, okay, which yeah.

Also, is there a left northbound left turn onto SLI?

From Mango Road?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, anything else?

No.

Yeah.

It's closing as a golf cart.

Oh.

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

Okay.

And so just to give a little more context, because I know there was a little bit of concerns about the truck access on Sly Avenue.

What we're projecting in terms of peak hour traffic for truck traffic, um, it's approximately two in the morning peak hour and then two in the afternoon along Sly Avenue, and I believe it's a four on Mango Road.

So the with the warehouse development, what you find is that truck traffic can be distributed throughout the day.

So it's not necessarily through you know, one specific peak hour, and that's why we are not expecting to have this extreme increase in truck traffic.

A lot of the concerns we heard had to deal with the existing truck traffic as a result of the flying J.

This is a different operation.

A lot of trucks going to the flying J.

This is this might be their first time stopping there.

They're on the highway, they're they're using this as a service stopping point.

The truck traffic that would be going to the site.

This is gonna be scheduled traffic.

They will be knowing how to enter and exit this facility.

Okay.

All right.

Um if you don't mind, I think the gentleman has one more question about traffic.

I'll I'll allow that.

Yeah, as far as uh coming in on Sly Avenue, are you gonna have trucks entering on Sly?

So there will be truck truck access through this westernmost driveway point.

Okay, the problem is when the trucks are lined up to get into the flying J, we've got one lane and it goes to our neighborhood.

That's it.

Right.

So now you're gonna have them blocking that too.

So so like I was saying, the amount of truck traffic we're expecting from this facility, it's relatively small compared to what you're seeing at the Flying J.

We understand that the Flying J is producing a lot of truck traffic.

That's a bit beyond what this development can be responsible for.

The best we can do is provide the secondary access.

That way you're distributing truck traffic both between Sly Avenue and then along Mango Road.

I'll say why can't you just use Mango Road?

Because when they get backed up there to turn into the Flying J, they actually have to do that.

I need to just speak in the microphone and not to the gentleman.

But they have it backed up on 579 where cars can't even go through 579.

Because of truck traffic.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

And we understand that.

I think the the logic with having two separate access points is it allows for better and safer distribution of truck traffic to and from the site.

I think it's gonna be a nightmare.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Cynthia, anything more?

Uh I have nothing else to add.

I just think that some of the confusion with the closing was the fact that we had to add to the site plan that the uh golf the existing golf cart crossing would be removed.

Okay.

So um happy to answer any of the questions you may have, but that's all I have to say.

Does your attorney have anything else to say?

Okay, you're good.

Okay, all right.

With that, that concludes this application.

And um Michelle Heinrich, do we want to take a brief stop?

Break.

If you would wish, we could certainly do that.

There's no requirement to stop or go forward, it's purely up to the zombie here in the future.

You have told me in the past that there is a requirement for a break, but right.

But there's not.

There is not.

Okay.

Um prepare to move forward then.

Okay.

Well, let's do it.

Our next application is item D8, PD 26-0426.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning from AS1 in PD 920425 to a new plan development.

This has been reviewed by Jared Folan, and I will present his staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening, Mr.

Luce.

Elise Batzel with Stearns Weaver Miller representing the applicant tonight.

This property is located east of the Veterans Expressway, north of Gunn Highway, and west of Henderson Road.

It is within the urban service area and within the Greater Carrollwood Northdale Community Planning Area.

The current future land use includes a portion that is R4, uh, and it's also adjacent to R20, which will become important in a moment.

The zoning is AS1 and PD currently, and this would be a new PD for the whole property.

It's an interesting mix of surrounding uses.

To the north are wetlands and multifamily residential, to the south, commercial and in office and institutional, to the west, existing multifamily residential and single family detached residentials shown there in yellow.

Is the existing Jewish community center campus out on off of Gun Highway?

There's a two-story senior building, preschool daycare, and various recreational uses.

It does permit currently 187,640 square feet.

The request tonight is to res rezone that property to a PD for 346 multifamily units amenities, and we are requesting a flex from the R20.

Now, if you look, you are actually looking to the west, not to the north.

It's just a very long narrow site.

It was it's really important, I think, for the community that is here tonight to note for the record that all of that floodplain to the north and those wetlands are not included in the application.

So I wanted to emphasize that and put that on the record.

Because they went in and specifically created a gradual transition away from the single family residential.

You can see that the garages, which are along the property boundary, are 20 feet in height.

And then if you continue away from the single family residential, we've placed two-story buildings, those are 35 feet in height, and carriage homes, which are 32 feet in height.

Further away, over a hundred feet away from the property line, um, you have the four-story buildings that are consistent with the development further to the west.

We've also provided an enhanced 20-foot type B landscape buffer along the eastern boundary in the area that's directly adjacent to the single family residential.

And finally, we placed all of the passive recreational and stormwater closer to the single family homes to create additional buffering and screening.

From an access perspective, there is two access points.

There's a primary access point along Gun Highway and also an emergency access.

At this point in time, I want to turn it over to David Smith just from a land development perspective.

May I also submit documentation in the record as well as our resumes from our technical experts.

Yes.

Thank you.

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

The planning commission has found the project consistent with the comprehensive plan and supported by numerous goals, objectives, and policies.

Specifically in the comprehensive plan policy, this project is located along the centers and connections.

Centers and connections is a new concept in the comprehensive plan that encourages higher density development to be placed along these corridors, particularly corridors that are ready for or have transit.

There are transit stops immediately proximate to this location, which supports this policy and also its compliance with it.

Also, with respect to the flex, the flux is a 500-foot flex of the R20 across the property.

This graphic indicates the extent of the flux.

As you can see, it does not go all the way across the property.

The density that provides for us, it's about 16.13 acres.

The rest of it remains R 4.

Under the PD, the overall density is blended across the site into the mix of uses and building sizes indicated by Ms.

Batzall.

The flux criteria is this is also kind of new in the in the comprehensive plan.

But all the criteria are availability and adequacy of public facilities, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and furthers the goals, objectives, and policies.

And partially what we've already talked about supports the compatibility and of furthering the goals.

I think the operative term is the compatibility is really achieved by the transition of densities away from the single family properties.

All the other surrounding properties are either passive properties or multifamily, similar to, if not almost identical to, uh, that proposed.

And we gradually transition from 20-foot tall buildings to 35 and eventually to the 40, again over 100 feet away.

The zoning conditions provide for uh compliance with the two to one additional setbacks in height, and that assures that uh rather than measuring it out on a site plan when it goes to construction, it will have to meet those two to one for those uh properties abutting the single-family homes.

Carrollwood Northdale community plan.

Well, it's not very specific.

That plan is has a lot of global policies.

Um, but we are proposing a compact, contiguous uh development uh that is discouraging urban sprawl.

Um we are assuring that there's adequate density for future transit system to be supported.

Again, there is transit there now.

This further would enhance its use and it and it integrates our project integrates recreation and open space uses uh on the property to provide also an additional transition.

Uh Planning Commission uh said supports the vision of the Greater Carrollwood Northdale Community Plan.

I think overall, uh also there's no access point changes.

Today there's two access points.

Uh the proposed access points are those uh same access points.

So overall, the the planning commission found the immediate vicinity of the subject site includes a mix of single family and multifamily uses, like commercial, heavy commercial, and quasi public and institutional, and finds it compatible with the surrounding uh uses and in particular the single family to the east.

Thank you.

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

Good evening.

Steve Henry Linkson Associates 5023 West Laurel Tampa 33607.

Uh, we did conduct the traffic analysis for the project.

And what's 49 is a comparison.

This is actually in the staff report, but there's also a comparison of the traffic of what the existing zoning would allow versus what we're proposing.

And if you look at this from a daily standpoint, there's about a 1,241 daily trip and reduction over what could be built there today versus what we're proposing, and about a 368 decrease in the AM peak hour and about 175 decrease in the PM peak hour.

So a pretty significant decrease over what could be built there today based on the existing zone.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

That concludes our presentation.

If you have any questions, please let us know.

Thank you for your time.

All right.

Development services staff.

Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

The applicant requests to rezone property from AS1 and PD to a new PD to allow a multifamily development.

A flex of the OC20 future land use category found to the west is requested.

Under the flex request, a total of 346 units are requested.

The project will consist of multiple buildings at varying heights to ensure compatibility with existing single family to the east.

Building height will be limited to 35 feet two stories and provide required buffering and screening.

Additionally, the two to one setback will be provided in compliance with the LDC.

Taller buildings are going to be within the project at uh maximum height of 60 feet for uh four stories, and those are located more in the center and the western portions of the PD.

Property to the west of the PD is developed with a multifamily development with buildings at three and four stories in height, and that PD has a maximum height of 62 feet.

A small area of AS1 zoning is found to the northeast.

This site contains wetlands and retention ponds in no development currently on the property.

Staff has reviewed the object has reviewed uh I'm sorry, staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and does find the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions, and available if you have any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commission staff.

Good evening, Terror Row, Planning Commission staff.

The resign areas characterized by a mix of residential, multifamily, commercial, and public quality public uses with the multifamily development located directly to the west of the site and single-family residential uh uses located to the east across the veterans expressway.

The 22.08 acre site is designated residential four with a proposed flex to residential 20 to support higher density residential development.

The public is requesting a plan development to allow for 346 oil units on the site.

The request aligns with flu directive 1.1 by rejecting directing growth to the urban service area and flu policy 3.1.3 by ensuring compatibility with surrounding land development patterns, which includes a mix of residential intensities and supporting commercial uses along nearby corridors.

The proposal is also consistent with flu goal two and flu directive 2.1 and 2.2 as a request is 200 uh 436 doing units do not exceed the maximum allowable density under the combined RES-4 and REST 20 flex framework.

The site proposed density reflects a calculated blend of higher and lower intensity land use areas and remains within the established intensity thresholds.

The flex request meets the criteria of flu policy 2.2.3 and policy 2.2.4 as applicant demonstrated adequate public facilities, compatibility with surrounding uses and consistency with the comprehensive plan objectives.

The site uh design further supports compatibility through enhanced buffering along the eastern boundary and steep building height, transition from east to west, reducing impacts on adjacent single family residences.

Overall staff finds a proposed plan development compatible with their sounding area consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Excuse me.

Good evening.

My name is Jeffrey Berger.

My address is 2913 West San Nicholas Street, Tampa, Florida, 33629.

And I'm here tonight because I have the honor of serving as co-president of the Tampa Jewish Community Centers and Federation.

The Tampa JCC's in Federation is a nonprofit entity that owns the property, which Floor Nate Development Group seeks to rezone.

Both I and the organization I am speaking for this evening strongly support the application.

We hope that you will recommend approval.

I want to use my time to give you some additional color that might help with your decision.

When we made the very difficult decision to close and sell our campus over nearly after nearly 35 years of operations, we learned that the highest and best use for the property today is multifamily residential.

And we had a significant amount of interest from many companies who wanted the opportunity to redevelop the property for that purpose.

From this group of potential developers, we chose Florinoy in large part because of how they approached this project.

They were thoughtful, deliberate, and considerate with their planning and design for this new use of the property.

We talked to developers who wanted to build many more units on the property, who wanted to effectively pave over the entire site, or wanted to put four-story buildings right near the single family homes located to our east.

But Florinois design team didn't do any of that.

They chose a site plan that carefully balanced the amount of development that would be reasonably workable with the amount of impact that would result from that development as it relates to both the neighboring subdivision and the environment.

You've already heard the design elements that they've talked about.

So I'll just go over that very briefly, but they intentionally reduce both the unit density in the building height in the areas of the property closest to the single family homes to our east.

They place the recreational facilities, the areas that could generate the most noise, closest to Gunn Highway and away from the neighboring residential areas.

They preserved the lakes and some of the green space in the north that provides wildlife habitat, which we know is very important to our neighbors to the east.

I personally had many conversations with our neighbors about that very issue.

These were all deliberate and considerate decisions that Florenoy made to balance the inherent tension between development and impact.

And as members of this Gun Highway community for about three and a half decades, this thoughtful balance was important to us because we knew that it would be important to our neighbors and to you.

I would also submit that Florinoid's redevelopment of this property will reduce the impact to the adjoining property owners from that which they now have to deal with due to our use of the property, and certainly from that which our neighbors would have to deal with if we utilize the property to the full capacity to which we are currently entitled.

Right now, today, our pool and our tennis courts are located very close to the single family residences to our east, and we learned during neighborhood meetings that that has been an irritant to our neighbors.

But when Florinoy removes our pool and tennis courts, when it relocates the recreational facilities far away from the eastern boundary line, the music played from the pool deck, the whistles from the coaches running swim team practices, the screams of children playing outdoors all year round, and the constant pounding and pinging of tennis balls being smacked around, all of that will go away.

Moreover, as you already heard, from the traffic engineer, but the traffic impact resulting from the redevelopment of the property from a community center, preschool, day camp, and assisted living facility to Flornoy's residential development will likely be favorable rather than unfavorable.

I want to give some numbers that we have today.

We've had well over a hundred employees regularly working at our facility, coming and going every day.

Our assisted living facility was licensed for 90 residents.

And we had staff, doctors, nurses, deliveries, and more coming to and from the facility at all times.

We had over a hundred kids, still have uh many kids enrolled in our preschool, had to be dropped off every morning, picked up every afternoon or evening, many at peak times due to our aftercare programs.

That doesn't even account for our the teachers.

And preschool for us isn't seasonal.

We run camps during the summer and during school breaks, so these traffic inflows and outflows occur all year round.

Our JCC members at our peak numbered into thousands, and while not everyone came to campus daily, many came regularly.

Our special events regularly brought hundreds and hundreds of people to our campus for each event, and our affiliated agencies food bank distribution days brought hundreds more people to our campus every month.

Given that the current PD zoning would entitle us to build a significant amount of additional building square footage on the campus, our traffic impact could, under current zoning, be much worse.

So a residential project with 346 units will generate less traffic impact than we did and far less than we could have generated.

Finally, I want to say a little something about the Tampa JCC's and Federation, which I mentioned earlier is a nonprofit organization.

Now I know that the zoning rules don't change based on whether the property seller is nonprofit versus for profit.

But if the decision before you is a close call, and I certainly hope that it is not, then perhaps this will help nudge it in favor of a recommendation for approval.

If you approve Florinois rezoning a request and our sale to Florinoy goes forward, then the proceeds of the sale will not line anyone's pockets.

They will be used for purposes consistent with our mission and our community-driven operations.

That won't just benefit the Jewish community, it will benefit the broader community as well.

Please consider this.

Approximately half of our members of the Tampa Jewish Community Center are not Jewish.

Let me repeat that.

Half the members of the JCC are not Jewish.

Same for the kids we serve in the community.

More than half of the children are preschool in our aftercare programs in our day camps are not Jewish.

And importantly, we offer need-based scholarships and financial aid for our preschool and other programs, and those are blind applications.

So our scholarships and financial aid programs aid Jewish and non-Jewish families alike.

We have an amazing Parkinson's program that you're going to hear more about later.

We collaborate with Tampa General Hospital on programs to help their patients address physical challenges.

We offer and participate in a variety of multicultural events and activities and engage in multicultural outreach.

We have social programs like men's clubs, women's clubs, mahjong classes, and more, all of which are open to everyone, Jewish and not Jewish.

You don't even have to be a JCC member to join our clubs and participate in these programs.

We offer security training and classes that are open to everyone in our community, and we offer security assessments and evaluations for many other institutions, including churches.

We are the largest financial supporter of Tampa Jewish Family Services, an affiliated 501c3 organization that operates a food bank and provides other emergency and critical services to people of all faiths in Hillsborough County.

They do phenomenal work for so many people in need.

I could go on, but the point is the successful completion of this rezoning and our transaction with Florinoite will not only benefit our local Jewish community, it will benefit the broader community at large.

The ripple effect from your recommendation of approval of this rezoning request will extend far beyond our organization in a good way.

Our time to speak is limited, but we have a significant number of people here who support the approval of Florin Ray's rezoning petition.

I'd like to ask everyone here who have come this evening to show their support for this rezoning to now stand and be recognized.

Okay, thank you.

Let the record reflect there's about 15 people that stood in support of the application.

Thank you very much, and thank you all for your willingness to be here this evening to show support.

So on behalf of the Tampa JCC and Federation, on behalf of everyone in the room here supporting us, I urge you to recommend approval of Florinois rezoning plan.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening.

My name is Gary Gould.

I live at 10463 Greendale Drive, which is not too far from the campus that we'd like to sell to Florin.

Our um organization is not generating too much money for the county or for the citizens.

This new initiative will generate tax dollars.

It will also create jobs throughout the building process.

That's not why we're looking to sell, but as a resident in the community, that's important to me personally.

The funds that we will receive from selling this facility will be used in a lot of different ways.

Mr.

Berger did an excellent job laying them out.

I just want to talk about one program.

We have one of the most robust Parkinson's programs in North America operating out of a community center.

We have almost a thousand people participating.

We're opening up a new facility, renting it beginning June 1st to be able to accommodate the folks who participate at Mr.

Berger suggested.

Probably about half of the people who are involved in this program are not Jewish.

People who are suffering with a disease that can affect their lives and their families' lives in a extremely impactful negative way.

So some of this money will be invested in enhancing and increasing the number of people participating in our Parkinson's program.

Just so you have a sense of the credibility of our program.

We're partners with the University of South Florida, partners with the Michael J.

Fox Foundation doing research on Parkinson's partners with the Tampa General Hospital providing the most dynamic services possible.

For these types of reasons, we've made the decision, it's a tough one to sell a facility.

We feel great about the people we're selling it to, and we're going to invest money in serving our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

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

Yes, sir.

Good evening.

Hi, good evening.

Ray Berryman, 6615 Gantt Road, Tampa, Florida, 33609.

My family owns the uh 10 acres east of the development.

Um it goes across Lake Gantt.

And our neighbors to the east of us own 10 acres.

It also goes across Lake Gantt.

So Mr.

Berger worked very closely with us on our interest in uh protecting the habitat because uh everything around the lake is pretty much unimproved.

So we have a lot of native wildlife, you know, a bobcat, uh coyotes, raccoons, eagles, you name it, is out there.

So um those of us east of them are doing our best to preserve that area.

And um he worked very closely with us and our concerns.

So we really definitely appreciate his work and uh the JCC and Floy also did a very nice job with the people they've brought in to work on the development and work with a neighborhood, so we appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

So 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?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I'm online, and my name's Lori Metzger, 11915 Keating Drive, Tampa, Florida, and I appreciate all your time this evening.

I realize it's later in the evening, I've been on the call since six, so I get it.

Um, and I know all of you guys do as well.

So thank you for that and for your attention.

And I want to address right up front before I even get started in um what I compared, as you can imagine.

I'm just a citizen, so I'm a little nervous, although I'm very good at public speaking.

Um I I do appreciate um Jeffrey Berger and Gary Gould and Ray Berriman speaking to some of the concerns that I myself had, but I um I'm not only speaking on my behalf, I'm speaking.

I know you had 15 people stand up in that room.

I have over a hundred that have signed a petition about this as well.

So what I'm speaking to is not just for me, obviously, it's for um much of the community as well, and it's growing.

We just put the survey out this evening, so it's going to continue to raise numbers.

But um I respectfully oppose the proposed rezoning of the former JCC and Weinberg Village property for residential development.

I understand that property has been sold.

I know the nursing home is already closed, and and the remaining operations are scheduled to close soon.

And so when we talk a little bit about traffic, which I've heard you all address, uh the measurements of any traffic since the announcement came out of the closure has significantly diminished.

Members are no longer there.

Weinberg village closed in the middle of the year, or I I lie back in November.

So I don't know that that's a true reflection of what the traffic actually is.

Um this hearing is not about preventing change or ignoring economic realities, it's about truly ensuring that the future use of this land reflects responsible planning and protects the long-term interests of the community.

This property represents far more than a vacant parcel available for maximum development.

It's a unique piece of open land containing lakes, mature trees, natural habitat, recreational space, community infrastructure that's served generations of residents.

And as you mentioned, those residents aren't just Jewish ones that live in the northern area of Tampa, not South Tampa, the northern area of Tampa, but all residents, Jewish, not Jewish.

And this is kind of an abandonment of that property.

You know, yeah, I I thought I heard you saying hearing children outside playing is is disruptive.

I I couldn't believe my ears because I grew up next to a baseball field and I I loved it.

Um, even if the existing operations are ending, the environmental and community value of the land itself does not disappear.

In an incredibly developed area, properties like this become more important, not less.

The lakes, the green space, they support wildlife, tree canopy, stormwater absorption, environmental balance that can't easily be recreated, and once destroyed, and I appreciate that you're working with the developers to preserve as much of that as you can, but the traffic alone is also a disruption.

And every time a large open parcel is converted into dense residential development, habitat becomes more fragmented, flooding risks increase, traffic intensifies, and communities lose another piece of accessible green space.

Conservation is not only about preserving distant parks or isolated preserves.

This was an opportunity.

You have base you have soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, school.

There was a nursing home, a preschool, an after school program.

This was a community environment.

It was closed.

This proposal raises serious concerns about not only the about traffic, congestion, stormwater drainage, increased density and infrastructure strange, loss of green space, um, wildlife life displacement.

And yeah, we're creating jobs for new people, but what about all the other people that have lost their jobs?

Let's not pretend that's not happening.

Yes, I know that there were opportunities presented for people that could be transferred possibly.

There are other people that couldn't and lost their livelihood because of the closure of this property.

Once this property is rezoned and developed, these natural and community features cannot be restored.

I urge the board to carefully consider whether this level of residential development is truly appropriate for the site, and whether alternatives with a lower density, greater conservation or meaningful preservation of open space have been fully explored.

Growth should be thoughtful and balanced.

Not every available parcel should automatically be condensed residential housing simply because it can be.

No, sir.

Any applicant an opportunity for rebuttal thank you, Elise Batsel for the record.

Um I just want to draw your attention back to this graphic.

There is there are acres and acres, even north of what you can see here that are not included in this application.

I think perhaps that the person speaking in opposition doesn't understand that the area of impact is the area that's already impacted by the existing operations on the site.

All of the property to the north.

Can I have the elmo as well?

I think this is a better aerial visual.

So just to draw your attention to the north, you can see the lakes that she's referring to.

Um, and you'll specifically notice that all of those areas of wetlands and lakes in recreational area that are part of the existing Jewish community center, they are being purchased by the applicant, but they are not being incorporated into the developed development, and there's no um proposed impacts to any of those properties to any of that acreage to the north with respect to traffic.

Um, and I do understand that community members don't want the loss of a community center, but again, that's that those issues aren't before the land use hearing officer of the board of county commissioners.

Um, and so with that, we'll answer any additional questions that you have.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you.

Well, with that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, let's take a 10-minute break.

Get back together at how about nine oh five.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we are reconvening the tonight's zoning hearing master hearing.

If you all could take a seat, and we'll proceed with the next item on tonight's agenda.

Miss Heinrich, if you could introduce next item.

Our next item is item D nine, PD twenty-six-05 to eight.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from RMC six to Plan Development.

Caroline Petal with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

The applicant, please.

Good evening.

My name is Margaret Perez with Landis Evans and Partners.

My address is thirty-eight ten, North Dale Boulevard, suite one hundred in Tampa, Florida.

I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant, Florida Home Partnership, and I have beh been sworn.

Florida Home Partnership is a nonprofit organization that provides quality affordable housing.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning to a planned development district.

The subject, 1.98 acre property, is located within Wamama at the northeast corner of Balsa Street and Railroad Street.

Here is an area of the property.

Adjacent uses include an acquired environmental ELAP site to the north, mobile homes to the east and south, and single family detached to the southwest and west.

The property is within the residential six future land use category, as are all the surrounding properties, with the exception of natural preservation, future land use to the north.

The property is currently zoned RMC 6, which allows for a maximum of 11 multiple family dwelling units.

The ELAP land to the north was dedicated through a plan development.

Zoning of the adjacent single family residential properties is RSC 6 with the mobile home overlay.

The rezoning request is for plan development to allow for a maximum of seven single family detached dwelling units.

And to summarize some of the key findings from the staff report, staff has found the request to be compatible with nearby development patterns.

The planning commission has found the proposed development to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and staff has found the request approvable.

With that, I'll conclude my presentation and respectfully request your recommendation for approval.

I am available to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay, thank you, ma'am.

Development services staff.

Good evening, Caroline Peddle Development Services.

Again, this is PD rezoning 260528.

The applicant has requested a resume the 1.98 acre property from RMC6 to plan development to allow for a maximum number of seven single family detached dwelling units at a rate of 3.54 units per acre.

The site is located on the corner of railroad and Bassa Street in an area which is comprised of mobile homes, single family detached, and multifamily residential uses at various lot sizes.

The adjacent properties to the east, south, and west are zoned RSC6 with mobile home.

While the adjacent property to the north is zoned Plan Development, PD 19-0093, with approval for a maximum of 674 single family detached units.

The proposed PD has similar development standards to the northern PD.

The surrounding properties to the south of the PD 19-093 boundary and west of the N Street have a future land use designation of R6.

Well, the properties to the north and east have a designation of WB or WBR2, which is Wamama Village Plan 2.

Although the plan development will not be utilizing the Willamama downtown overlay standards, given that the code does not require single family units to comply with the overlay, the design and development standards of the proposed subdivision are comparable with the overlay lot types, which will still contribute to a walkable downtown with small town character feel.

There are no PD variations or waivers requested as part of this application.

Staff finds the request approvable subject to the proposed conditions.

That concludes my report.

I have available for any questions if you have them.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening, Terracorial Planning Commission staff.

The site is designated residential six, which permits up to six dwelling units per gross acre, allowing for a maximum of approximately 11 units on the subject site.

The proposed seven dwelling units are therefore within allowable density.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential near nature, including single family, multifamily, and mobile home uses to scatter vacant parcels and nearby institutional and limited non-residential uses, supporting compatibility under fluid directive 1.1 and policy 3.1.3.

The proposal is consistent with comprehensive plan policies supporting compatibility infill development, appropriate transition, residential density.

The proposed light lot sizes and internal connectivity aligned with surrounding neighborhood patterns.

And the project supports info development directives and flu directive 4.9.

It's also consistent with the South Shore Area Wide Assistance Plan and the Wyomama Village Community Plan, both of which encourage clustered well plan residential growth and a mix of housing types with the downtown within the downtown center area.

Overall staff finance of the request compatible with the surrounding development pattern and consistent with the goals, objections, and policy of this of the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

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?

No one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

No need for rebuttal.

Okay, with that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Einrick are ready for the next application.

Our next application is item D 10, Major Mod 26-0551.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 06-1564.

Chris Greenlinar, but Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Applicant, please.

Good evening, Mr.

Hearing Officer and Staff, Todd Pressman, 22nd Avenue South No.

451 in St.

Petersburg.

This is Major Mod 260551.

Planning Commission found consistent development services supports, meets locational criteria, no agency objections under code enforcement review.

This case has had a couple of different uh directions that's gone.

First of all, the generation of the issue began seeking to split the original PD and uses.

Some history is that the site came in under 241141 to the ZHM in April 2025.

DSD, PC, ZHM, BOCC all denied it.

So today, what we've done is we have listened very carefully to what all the concerns were, and we've addressed them.

And we significantly reduced uses and what's proposed.

And we even submitted the application earlier rather before one year, which was permissible.

Staff approved it, with the site and use reductions approved for the early submittal.

So location is in Luz Avenue, uh Luce area, point nine zero acres, um, located near 275 and located at the intersection of Sinclair Hills and Livingston Avenue.

Now these are the two parcels under your consideration this evening.

Uh the issue is to remove the dry cleaners and allow 6,000 square foot of restricted CN level commercial professional services, health practitioner uses, and enhanced buffers.

And we've excluded some uses that we didn't think would work or might be more intensive, like wedding chapel banquet, reception hall, public-private charter school.

So specifically the site use reductions and eliminations from the denied application was a removal of two food trucks, which is 1200 square feet, clean the property up, CG and C and uses are all now CN uses or office type, and three buffer screening variations to two.

Removal of the variation which was against residential.

So when we looked at this closely, we looked at the BOC transcript of the dial, which was very clear.

We want to file that explicitly, and the ZHM is stated as the late night, early morning operations of the food trucks trash on site were problem.

Commissioner Walstow, and this is from the transcript.

One of the options essentially placing the commercial business right on top of the homeowners, which was the food trucks, have been removed.

And Commissioner Cohn saying the same thing, he has trouble with the buffers, which we remove one.

Honestly, food truck option, a butting residential waiver is just to me not going to do it.

So those are the specific elements that we addressed in a MU and eliminated.

So the current O6 approval are the two parcels that I showed you, but there's also the continued PD to the south.

This is all under 061564.

And again, driving this home, just this portion along the roadway, uh Sinclair, is under your review, not included, and remains the same as Liban and CN uses.

Now, critically, what I want to point out is that when this was all under one PD, uh originally everything was fine.

And some point after, I don't know what it was, there was a big falling out between the different property owners, which is as indicated what generated this change today and moved this forward.

But critically, what I want to make sure you're aware of is that the adjacent residential, law living I'm showing you here, are the same original P same PD owners.

They're uh I believe they're here this evening because they had concerns before.

Um, and that PD is still written in stone and it'll be the same that they are a part of.

So this is the site looking uh at street level.

On the left is the site, the smoke shop is there now, and then behind that was where all the food trucks were across the street is a mobile gas station.

This is looking from the other perspective, Sinclair Sinclair Hills, looking towards the intersection.

You can see the site is all cleaned up.

I have to say it really was a mess.

It was really bad.

Cleaned it all up as you can see.

Uh it's vacant and everything has been removed.

And here's a closer view.

You can see actually one of the pads is still there when I took the pictures of the food truck.

So this is the prior PD to walk you through what we've done here, which is we had variations, 10 and 15 feet type, which was against residential.

We had the food trucks which were against residential, one story commercial CG uses.

So the reductions and eliminations were to get rid of the variation against the residential, get rid of the food trucks against the adjacent residential, and reduce the uses to the one story CN and office uses, which would be a larger building envelope.

Under today's PD, then what you have is again that elimination of that critical variation, which was against residential, the modified, reduced uses under the proposed uh buildings at the intersection.

And as the planning commission notes, the increased landscaping buffers between the modification area and the southern parcels, which I'm showing you is an enhanced 20-foot B buffer.

We're putting trees at 15 feet on center, which is the enhancement.

Uh that the enhanced type B buffer with trees on the center is proposed, which they support.

And of course, activity would be focused away from any of the residential in the area.

But critically, again, the PD running to the south, which the current owners are part of, remains as retention and parking.

Planning commission notes a significant amount of retention area is proposed, providing a buffer from adjacent residential uses, and the area of the buddy in the same of the PD, same owners remains the same.

Again, the two parcels under your purview today.

So there are there are a few letters, but they all appear to be from two people.

Those two people are the PD owners to the South, who of course own the own the PD and the retention area that's proposed and the uses.

That's not changing.

They also apparently, from what we can see, have an interest in the gas station across the street under a DBA.

Mr.

Sufon, who's which is also Mr.

Sufon list in the letters, appears to be the same and appears to have an interest in the gasoline station.

That's not related in the opposition letters, but we think it's important as we research this deeper to understand who our opposition was and is, which we didn't understand previously.

And that's this is the state of Florida uh Sunbiz reform, and under a DBA for new way food in Delhi is listed at 15202 Livingston Avenue under Mr.

Sufon, uh which is 15202 Livingston is the gas station across the street.

So the Planning Commission notes a significant amount of retention here is proposed, providing a buffer to the adjacent residential.

Development services notes the modification incorporates enhanced buffering and screening intended mitigate impacts on nearby residential properties where adjacent to existing residential.

But again, under the PD where there is opposition, those are PD owners.

They have their PD that shows retention C and uses.

Future land use is R6 across the street is R20, where the gas and C star uh gas and sea store are, and zoning reflects that.

Traffic on Livingston was 13,993 vehicles in 2020.

We do have a limit that no development should be permitted that causes community development to exceed 64 gross AM peak hours or 64 64 gross PM peak hours.

Loose community plan does refer to the desire to retain existing and encouraged new commercial use is geared to serving daily needs of residential of residents in scale and design that complement the community and the character of the community.

Also notes improved design aesthetics to make physical development of the community more attractive and provide for individual expression.

Plan Commission notes that this will complement the existing residential.

The proposed development will complement the surrounding neighborhoods and are compatible with the existing development pattern, and notes that the major modification would allow for development that is consistent with goals, objectives, policies of Hillsburg County.

Development Services notes that the enhanced buffering and screening intended to mitigate potential impacts on residential properties, would be compatible and is less than the standard commercial zoning districts in terms of uh maximum height.

They note that the proposed increased square footage does not exceed the maximum permitted.

The majority of proposed uses are permitted elsewhere in the PD and are limited to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses.

So with that, what I like to say in summary is that we look extremely closely at what was brought before.

We made significant withdrawals or reductions and eliminations.

We look to see how we could enhance the plan, and we're able to bring this back to you with uh agency and the planning staffs in support.

Okay.

Happy answering the questions you might have.

No questions at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Development services staff.

Evening.

Chris Grandinard again.

Uh we're to present uh major modification 260551, which is a major modification to PD 06 1564 for uh 0.86 acres at Livingston Avenue and Sinclair Hill Hills Road.

The request would replace the previously approved dry cleaners on lots one and twenty with up to six thousand square feet of restricted CN level commercial, professional office, and health practitioner uses uh while prohibiting higher intensity uses such as banquet halls, wedding chapels, and schools.

Uh the surrounding area includes single family uh single family, multifamily, and small-scale commercial uses.

Uh and staff finds the proposed use is appropriate for this transitional corridor.

Uh the modification includes enhanced buffering, including a type B screening and fencing along the residential and limits building height to 25 feet to ensure compatibility.

Uh, there are two zoning very variations uh requested, uh reduced south buffer with their existing building limits with or with screening maintained and a reduced right-of-way buffer along Sinclair Hills Road offset with an enhanced hedge and a 10-foot multi-use path.

Staff finds both variations acceptable due to site constraints and added frontage improvements.

Uh staff finds the request compatible with surrounding development and approvable subject to conditions and the staff report.

Uh that concludes my staff report.

I'm glad to answer any questions you might have.

Okay, no questions at this time.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening, entire coral planning commission staff.

Um, the point eight six acre subject site is designated as residential six.

The applicants requesting a major modification, they'll allow to 6,000 square feet, the limited neighborhood commercial, professional services, medical office uses while excluding higher intensity commercial uses such as the drive-through, gas stations, vehicle sales, and entertainment-oriented uses.

The site includes partially developed light commercial parcel and a vacant commercial parcel, and is surrounded by a mix of single-family, multifamily and light commercial uses, including nearby gas station supporting a transnational uh land use uh context.

The proposal is consistent with flu policy 3.1.1, which encourages the restriction of incompatible land use and flu policy 4.4.1, which requires new development to be integrated with surrounding land use through compatibility buffering and appropriate transitions.

The proposed limited commercial uses are consistent with the surrounding residential and light commercial pattern and are further supported by enhanced buffering retention areas and internal circulation improvements.

Overall staff finds the proposed uh compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive point.

Thank you.

So anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application.

See no one responding.

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

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Nashad Sulfan.

My property is one 5118 Livingston Avenue.

Rod Nix this is a property.

The lawyer show you pictures that the properties are clean, but the property is really disgusted.

I mean, I I'm there.

The concrete is still there, the pipe is still there, the old power that they put over the weekend is still there.

Uh there's a tank on the ground where they be able to use to wash your hand on all the stuff, the soap going there is still there.

And we have the smoke shop next to our house, which is supposed to be a laundry mat or used to be like supposed to be uh uh dry cleaner.

And they instead of open, they open at six o'clock and they close two o'clock in the morning.

And all we see is cars in and out all night, cars in and out, people taking uh uh using the bathroom on my fence, which I put the fence there, so it's three-foot fence.

I put it there.

And this land when we bought our property, we bought it for the kids' future.

And the land that they're talking about is that's farm land.

Not to build stores.

We didn't need no stores there.

The first of all, they're saying on the on the on the file that there's sidewalks, there's no sidewalks in the neighborhood.

The other sidewalk just to go to the bus stop.

That's it.

And they say people need the these things when they see and when they say a CNN, C N, whatever the thing this is, they're talking about like a lot of things, not just things.

And just six months ago, the commissioner voted seven to nothing against it.

And one of the commissioners say if this is like three striking out, this be out.

And now they change a few things, and they'll lie on the on the MAMS.

What are they gonna do?

You could open anything when you say uh CN.

You could open uh uh like a barbershop, you could all be in uh restaurant, food, cafes, and this land, this street doesn't handle all this traffic, and nobody from the neighborhood.

We have Walmart, we have uh Wawa, we have Bravo, food dollars, we got like 20, 30 uh convenience stores, we got food trucks, everything like a less than a mile radiant.

And B was not waiting for them to bring the live, they're doing this to fill up their pockets with money, and then don't live, they don't live in the neighborhood, they live in nice million dollar homes, and they could afford to put a lawyer to do the job for them just to get away with it.

And the smoke shop is not supposed to be smoke shop.

I mean, they broke the law.

The last time they did the tended to down, they broke the law.

They build them without permit.

That's why they'll tell them down.

And the smoke shop, even that's not supposed to be smoke shop, it's supposed to be uh uh dry cleaner.

I don't know why they're still open.

Okay, you don't talk about and that's the middle of my next in my house, and always accident there, always accidents.

Excuse me, sir.

Can you please repeat your full name and address for the record?

Oh shot Sophon, N-A-S-H-A-T-S-O-U-F-A-N.

Address?

Address.

It's okay.

15118 Livingston Avenue.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

Debbie Hines, 15123, North 24th Street, Lutes, Florida.

It's zoned agricultural residential.

And it's so nasty over there, it floods.

You can go now and take pictures.

And it's gonna flood our yard, too.

It affects the whole neighborhood, and there is no sidewalks.

Okay.

Anything else?

I just get so upset I'd get in trouble.

Okay.

But I I don't approve of it at all.

All right.

Very good.

Thank you, ma'am.

Russell.

Okay, sir.

Ross Pappers address 1503 D Week Court, Lutz, Florida.

Um, I used to stay in Sean's house at 155-18 Livingston Avenue with the smoke shop.

My nieces and nephews were here to put put it simple to you.

I had to send my nieces back to New York because there was too much traffic open at 2 o'clock in the morning.

The uh flooding, and when they had the food, um, believe it or not, that field is flooded with infested with rats.

The smoke shops infested with rats.

The traffic is not going to be able to turn to there.

I don't care what they do, what barriers they put up.

Um, it's just gonna mess up the whole neighborhood.

It's not, it's not for it.

It's also a flood zone.

I've talked to numerous of the uh I drive the heart bus drivers, they don't want it there.

They can't even make the turn sometimes with the bus because of the flood, the smoke shop with the things going in and out.

That smoke shop was never supposed to be here.

We've had other buildings there.

They were told they had to close at six o'clock.

There was a barber shop, which was a friend of ours.

He literally moved out of the building because he was told he had to close at six o'clock because that's not what it is.

Um it's just not a I I don't approve of it.

It's very dangerous.

All right, thank you, sir.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition Ross Pappas?

And your address?

15803 D Wood Court, Lutz, Florida.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, yes, ma'am.

Hi, I'm Barbara Feight, F-I-T-E 16102, East Lake Burrell Drive.

And this lot has always been a mess.

And it it does flood, it's always been pretty nasty.

And my concern is that if they get this rezoning, they're gonna come back for other higher rezonings.

And so I just think it needs to be something a lot more simpler than what they're proposing.

Okay, all right, thank you.

And they mentioned the traffic in 2020.

This is 2026.

So that's a big difference.

That thing.

That thing is so big.

We can't afford no more traffic.

All right.

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

Oh, yeah, you guys.

See no unresponding staff.

Anything further?

No, sir.

And the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.

Yes, Ms.

Chairing Officer.

Uh for the record, Todd Pressman, 22nd of the South North number 441, St.

Petersburg.

The first gentleman spoke, Mr.

Sufan, I think was his name, complaint about trash and debris and uh remnants, or that the site is still unsightly.

And I've I showed you the pictures which I took, oh I don't know, about a month ago.

Uh the site is just virtually vacant except for uh the smoke shop, which you saw.

He also seemed to complain about the uses and the intensive use of CN when literally less than a stone's throw across Sinclair Hills is a gas station.

That as far as we've been able to understand, it seems pretty clear from what we can see from the record that uh he has an interest in either running it or running under the DBA for the food services.

So this seems a little conflicting.

Um the nice older lady that spoke as I got her address 15123 uh 24th is not adjacent to the site.

Um from what I could see, checking her address, she would not be directly impacted by this.

Uh the other address on D Wood, I wasn't able to run down.

I'd like to take a look at the addresses and see where those come up.

So we're previously last time it came around, we were not understanding where these neighbors and where these concerns came from.

So we're trying to be very diligent in that respect and bring that out.

Um I don't like to get deep into that sort of thing with residents, but in the circumstance, it it became apparent it was necessary.

Um the other comments about sidewalks, of course, would be quite were required.

Uh if there's drainage issues, of course, uh it would there would be retain uh retention effect.

The PD plan shows complete retention.

I'd also add on the other side of the property where the older woman spoke, the nice woman, old nice older woman, there is no activity there.

There's nothing planned there.

When you look at the PD, today's PD, the uses are only at the intersection.

They're not over the North 24th at all.

Uh, in fact, less than half the property would contain any kind of structure.

There's a building envelope and then the one-story existing structure, which is of course why we're here.

I indicated that we are under code enforcement.

The rest of the property is vacant except for retention.

Uh there's a circulation of traffic of cars coming through, but those would be cars coming as you can see from the adjacent PD of the gentleman who spoke this evening and who are in the record.

So again, it's a little um of a disparity that we're hearing complaints about these sort of things from the PD people who know what their uses are and have their uses, and that's dumb out that cross access is part of the PD plan.

Um so with that we appreciate your attention, and um, I'd like to look a little closer at the justice, and just get a copy those so I can refer to those.

All right.

So very good.

With that, that concludes your rebuttal.

Yes.

All right, well, all right, thank you.

That concludes this application.

Ms.

Heimonick are ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D11, PD 26-0555.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PD from property zone CIM, RMC 16, RMC20, and RC six.

Tim Limkin with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings.

Okay.

Good evening for the record, Elise Batsell, Stearns Weaver Miller on behalf of the applicant.

This property is really interestingly located, and I say that because if you look, it is directly in between several major roadways.

3016A, which of course is the Selman Expressway, and I-75.

I we were having commissioner meetings, and one of the commissioners who is not usually in favor of multifamily is like listen, if there is a place that multifamily should go, it is here.

Uh, this is within the urban service area within the Brandon Community Plan, and in the light industrial character district.

There are two future land use categories, UMU 20, that's the majority of the site, and R9, which is has the little bit of yellow that you can see containing 1.82 acres.

The zoning is a combination.

So there's actually M zoning currently approved on a portion of the site, RMC20, RMC 16, CI zoning, and RSC6.

You'll hear more about the potential entitlements that could be built here versus what we are proposing, and you'll see it's a drastic difference.

This should help you as you're reviewing this more carefully after this hearing.

But to the north, there are governmental multifamily uses directly across the Selman.

To the south, there are commercial uses and the single-family neighborhood that you see outlined in yellow.

To the west is commercial and industrial, and to the east is multifamily and commercial.

We are not asking for any variations as part of this application.

And just to be clear about the two areas that we're talking about, the new multifamily development is going to go up against the Selman Expressway.

That's the area in yellow.

Okay.

Just to visually give you a conceptual overview here.

Those 325 multifamily units are located away from the existing single-family homes.

Access will remain exactly like it is today in the PD, and it will go through the church property.

I'll go into more details about that.

But all of the areas that you see in green here are conservation areas in green and retention in blue, and the building envelope areas are grayed out on your diagram.

As I mentioned, the project falls well under the existing future land use limitations.

We could ask for 536 units on this property, but we're asking for 325.

And with respect to the church part parcel, we could ask for 1,139,000 square feet.

And the existing church property is only 91,000 square feet.

So significantly under the future land use limitations.

One full access connection to Causeway Boulevard, that's through Visconti Boulevard.

And finally, one full access connection to Falkenburg Road via Tuscany Ridge Drive.

At this point in time, I'll ask David Smith to quickly go over consistency with a comprehensive plan and compatibility with surrounding land uses.

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

As Elise has pointed out, this property is currently a mix of various zoning categories developed as a church, undeveloped for manufacturing, commercial intensive and regional mixed use.

Excuse me, RMC20, which is a multifamily category.

The planning commission has found the proposal consistent based upon its support of numerous goals and objectives and compatibility criteria.

Looking at the criteria or the objectives, proactively direct 80% of the county's anticipated growth in the urban service area.

We are developing this site as shown in this graphic.

The Boot of Italy that I would call it is off to the left, which is staying as preservation land.

And the core of the development is due north of the church and due south of the Selman.

From a compile middle perspective, we have multifamily to our east and west.

And the church property and uses today serve as a buffer between this multifamily and the single family south and west of the property.

This requires a mixture of uses to uses, church uses, and multifamily uses.

Looking from a compatibility standpoint, the predominant uses south of the Selman are not licensed industrial uses in the community plan.

They have been developed as commercial and multifamily, single family.

There is some light or heavier commercial right at the intersection of 301 in the interstate.

This is an infill opportunity, and given our surrounding property owners, this is the best use and has been determined to be consistent with the brand and community plan and supports the vision of the community plan.

Compatibility, new development must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as I indicated, the surrounding neighborhood immediately adjacent to the proposed new use are multifamily uses not dissimilar to what's being proposed in this project.

We are meeting all the buffering and screening requirements appropriate for the development.

Planning commission found additional multifamily and church uses in the area would complement the existing multifamily and single family residential uses, and accordingly, they found the proposal consistent with the compatibility criteria.

With that, I'll answer any questions.

But give you just a summary from a trip generation standpoint.

This is compares the exist what could be generated by the existing zoning versus what we're proposing.

And as you can see, there would actually be a reduction of over 3,500 trip daily trips based comparison of the existing zoning versus what we're proposing, and then a reduction of 415 during the AM peak hour and about 444 during the PM peak hour.

So a significant decrease in what could be developed on the property based on the existing zoning versus what we're asking for today.

Okay, thank you.

And just finally, uh there have been administrative variances and variations to 6.0, 6.00 with no objections and found that found approvable by county staff.

Okay.

We're available for any questions.

Questions right now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Development services staff.

Good evening, uh, Tim Lampkin Development Services.

As the advocate stated, they're proposing to develop an approximately 53.66 acre development.

It's located approximately 1600 feet east of uh US 301 and 1670 feet east of the uh US Highway 301 causeway boulevard intersection and approximately 500 feet to the off ramp from the Selwyn Expressway to U.S.

Highway 301.

And the request is uh I'm not gonna list out the zoning district.

Well, I guess I will.

There's uh M RC6 or MC16, RMC20, CI, and they're proposing the plan development uh to allow 325 multifamily units, and to recognize the existing church campus in the parcel B.

Uh multifamily developments are located to the east and west of the subject development, adjacent to the multifamily parcel.

And the proposed location of the multifamily is not adjacent to the single family.

They're placing it towards the rear near the uh Selman Expressway, and they have extensive uh retention ponds in the back.

The applicant actually is requesting one, it's an internal variation to uh LDC section 6.06.06 buffering and screening, and they're requesting so the two internal uses normally you'd be required to have a 10-foot-wide buffer with type B screening, and the uh applicants requesting not to provide that because it's internal and they provided justification in part, including that the proposed internal buffer reduction supports the overall developing, allowing for more efficient use of the land, the design sensitivity that's evident on the plan, uh, for example, the um the wetlands and the retention areas.

Staff has reviewed the justification statement submitted by the applicant, and there's no objections.

The applicant has not requested any variations from the general site development requirements, found in part 6.0, 5.00, or 6.07.00 fences and walls of the land development code.

The application shall be required to be in compliance with all the requirements of the Hillsborough County Land Development Code based upon the above consideration.

Staff finds the request approvable.

Okay.

Thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Good evening again, Turkey Royal, Planning Commission staff.

Um, particularly along the US 301 corridor.

The proposal is consistent with fluid directive 1.1 and policy 3.1.3 as the surrounding development pattern reflects a higher intensity mixed use environment where multifamily institutional institutional uses are already present and supported.

The project remains within allowable density intensity for the applicable future line use categories and complies with flu policy 4.2.1 by providing a mix of uses, which is multifamily residential and church facilities within a sequel planned development.

Also satisfies flu objective 4.4 policy 4.4.1 by ensuring compatibility with surrounding residential, commercial, industrial, and intentional uses through appropriate transition and use and intensity.

Additionally, the proposal is consistent with the branding community plan as it provides a transitional development pattern between surrounding character districts while supporting the area's vision for integrated higher intensity development near major transportation corridors.

Overall staff finds the plan developments compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Okay, thank you.

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

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm Pete Cowell.

My address is 3304 West Wyoming Circle, Tampa, Florida, 3361.

I'm here representing Mr.

John Erb who owns the property at 10412 Ventura Avenue.

Okay.

And he's concerned about the flooding along Ventura Avenue and is wondering what is going to be done for the site to try and uh relieve that situation.

Other than that, other than the fact that we need more multifamily housing, I think it's great.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Sir, can you get you to sign in, please?

Oh.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I don't give this opportunity much.

Uh but I want to just say thank you for your service to our community.

Um, y'all put in the hours, obviously.

Yeah.

So I'll say thanks for that.

Uh my name is uh Jonas Alday.

Um, I'm the executive pastor and the treasurer and the vice president of the crossing church, and uh my uh address is 1400 North Gordon Street.

But I came tonight just because I want to I want to let you know that we've been here in the community for over 30 years at our brand and location.

We have three locations, um, but at our brand and location, we've we've been here for for 30 years serving the community, and we believe in continuing to serve our community the best we can.

Um, in this partnership uh with the the sale of part of our property, uh, it's gonna provide much needed funds for improvement to our parking area um that that we've needed for a long time.

Uh currently where where our people park, it's it's grass and you know, dirt and in areas, so when it rains, you have you know, ladies coming through there, and we run golf cars to try to pick them up to keep them from it, but truthfully, it's just it is what it is.

Um, but the the proceeds from this sale and from the rezoning are actually going to help us be able to to build a better parking area for our people and a better experience, and actually address some of the some of the needs in the community too, which you'll hear about in a few minutes.

But um, you know, we have thousands of people we service every weekend, and uh we just want to serve as service them the best we can.

And so we're just we we thank you for hearing our case and uh respectfully you know ask that you would pass us.

All right, thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

Sorry, anyone sir.

If I can get you to sign in, uh oh my bad.

Yes, sir.

Please come forward.

Good evening.

Hi, how are you doing?

I'm Steve Reddy, resident at 1183 Sand Hill Road, the Nota Sassa.

I'm the uh campus development director at the crossing church for the past 20 years.

And um mainly what I want to talk about is uh partially what he was talking about, the flooding issue that's been happening in the residential area, the stop sign area there.

And uh, like Jonas said, the uh financial issue during this project that will help us to resolve that issue.

We're the last developers in the area, so it's you know it's falling for us to get make sure it's taken care of.

So uh we have a lot to do there.

Also on the uh front area where the parking area is.

We had um approximately about 30 homeless people has been gathering there for the last it's been almost 10 years, has been pretty dangerous.

Some of the issues has been out there.

We had fires started, and we had to call the fire department and sheriff's department with issues going on.

So this has helped us to totally resolve that issue also.

And uh so we think you know, traffic wise right now, the way we are because of our parking situation, we have just one ingress and one egress.

So the new development of the parking lot up front on Causeway gives us three ins and three outs, which disperses the traffic much better.

We also hire sheriff department uh off duty officers that work every services, and they they uh you know give us help with cars leaving the park the campus and dispersing, and we always give priority to the neighborhood next to us that we have a stop sign that stops us, they always have the priority with going in and out.

Okay, and uh that's that's what we plan to do is to make this a much better situation.

It's the stormwater situation very expensive for us to fix, but it will help the community around us as much because there's their situation's been bad, and it's just as bad for us too.

So we uh we hope to resolve every bit of that with this project.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else 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.

Yes, yes, please come forward.

State your name and address for the record.

Thank you so much.

It's terrible being short.

Thank you, Commissioners.

I appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you as well as I believe a number of other people in opposition tonight.

Um the area that you saw on the Please state your name and address for the uh Christina Harrison.

It's spelled K-R-I-S-T-I-N-A.

Um the residence is 2705 San Marco Place.

That's S A N Marco Place.

Got it.

Uh I am actually the inheritor of that property.

But I grew up in that property.

We moved in in 1975, and I moved out in 1993.

During that time, our neighborhood has had on and off again flooding issues.

Some of them were originally caused by the surrounding um property, which at one point in time was actually farmland, and the farmer had cattle.

The drainage ditches, unfortunately, were not necessarily cared for until my mom found out that the county had been deeded right away so that they could fix it.

And that was fine.

Depending on how heavy the rain was, unfortunately, we still had flooding problems because the drainage ditches ran into the Allifire River.

Thank you.

Fast forward to when the church was built.

The church, unfortunately, did not do their due diligence with regards to the drainage.

And our drainage got messed up.

As someone who grew up in the area and now who actually has a residence under my name.

Years later.

This flooding has been an something that never should have continued once they made their plans in order to build and have all the drainage go where it needed to go.

So with the expansion that is now being proposed, with the housing development that is now being proposed.

We are actually like Louisiana.

We're in a fishbowl.

We are lower than the street level of Causeway Boulevard and 301.

There have been plenty of times that I've come and I've realized just how low the neighborhood is, which also contributes, unfortunately, to the flooding issue.

Certainly, we cannot stop the Alphaya from cresting when it gets flooded.

But there were a number of days where I watched actually watched from my front window.

The tide roll in.

To my knowledge, the city of Brandon has not annexed any of that land.

So that would also indicate that the church is not within the city limits of Brandon.

If I am wrong, please correct me, because I have not lived in this area for more than 20 years.

Okay.

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

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

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

And I appreciate the clarification.

Sure.

But I do wonder with the development that's going to happen, how much also our development may or may not see increased traffic.

But I can tell you, unfortunately, it still gets used that way.

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

And along with the rainy season coming, this then makes it so that the water is going to pool in those streets and create breeding grounds for mosquitoes.

Now I did contact public works earlier today and expressed my concern to them as well.

Hopefully they will be getting back with me.

But as somebody who grew up in that neighborhood who knows what the entire area was before, seeing what is happening now is concerning that again we're going to be flooding.

And it there's going to be no resolution for another 20 years.

Thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate it.

Ma'am.

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

You could sign in.

Yes, sir.

Just come forward.

My name's Todd Boggus, uh 9918 Courtney Palms Boulevard.

Thank you for your time tonight.

It takes a long night, so I can see that.

Um, we saw those guys talk about the map and the map, they don't even know the where the map is.

When we were at the information meeting, they were pointing here, pointing there.

There was an older lady in the back, she knew the map way better than they did.

So, you know, my problems with the having more units put in there, we from the corridor from 301 to Falkenburg, there's already 800 units in there.

We're gonna add another 300, then on the other side of uh Colbert's over there on the other side of Falkenberg, there's another 450 new units there.

So I mean, we have like we're we're gonna add, we're gonna have 1,500 units in a small area.

Yeah, I mean, it's great for because it's everybody's theirs is multi-family, but it's not really.

I mean, how many are we gonna do?

How many are we gonna keep putting more in there?

Another three, four hundred, another three, four hundred.

I mean, over by Brandon Mall, there's even more.

They're just keep putting them up and putting them up.

I mean, how many condos are we gonna put in the area?

Is one of the main questions.

I mean, with the three with them having so many and the traffic and the leading into the traffic problems on 301, I mean, they keep adding lights, they keep making it worse, it keeps getting worse.

I've lived there 20 years in Courtney Palms, uh, been there the whole my whole time in Florida, and it continuously gets worse.

Uh the 301 and causeway intersections, horrible.

The Falkenberg and causeway intersections, horrible.

There's a I mean, it just they're getting worse and worse and worse.

So um, and then the flooding.

When we had the hurricanes, we had three feet of flood in the back of Courtney Palms.

I mean, all the cars got flooded, but that's not just the hurricanes.

That's you know, we're talking just a regular rainstorm causes seven, eight inches of rain in the back of Courtney Palms and the back of the site where they're talking about putting the putting the new 200 325 units.

It's all going into this area where we're there.

I see it all the time.

I've been back in that those where they're proposing the spots, seen it.

It floods eight to ten inches on the regular.

So I mean, the flooding's definitely a problem over there.

I mean, you talked to Royal about um how many parking spots are you gonna put in?

They at Courtney Palms.

We have 708 Courtney and uh parking spots.

They're talking when he talked to us in the meeting, it was 450 to 500.

Not even gonna be close to enough spots for them.

So I I don't know what they're doing there either, but uh a lot of this, you know, comes down to is there enough room for everything?

Is the water drainage gonna be big enough?

Are they gonna have enough room for these parking spaces?

Is there just are we just putting too much in that corridor?

I mean, you've added that now we're we got 800, now we got we're gonna put 1200 in there, 1500 over with uh with the ones on uh land tower over there in cold co uh by colverds.

I mean, it just seems like more and more and more.

I I mean I I just don't know what what we're gonna do about it.

And where do they plant?

I mean, we we lived across from Coca-Cola.

That's my last thing.

We lived across from Coca-Cola.

We watched them bring in dirt, dirt, dirt, dirt, dirt.

I mean, it went on for months.

I mean, hundreds of trucks a day.

What are they gonna do?

How are they gonna bring the mo the dirt and stuff into uh to this proposed location?

That's gonna be on that far right side.

They're gonna come up in there, uh, Vescanti and and kind of up that I mean up the the way on the far right side of the church parking lot, they're gonna come in there and bring all this dirt in and make this all is great.

The drainage is gonna be great back there.

Okay, but I appreciate your time.

Thanks for letting me speak.

Sure, thank you, sir.

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

See no one else responding.

Staff, anything further?

If you could make a comment about drainage and how drainage is looked at during site development.

Uh sure, Michelle Hiring Development Services.

Um, pretty much at this stage, what we're looking at is rezoning the property, giving it entitlements.

It's not the stage where any um specific site development would occur.

So if it's approved, it would have to go through uh site development review, which involves multiple agencies, one of which is stormwater, and they would have to comply with all county requirements for stormwater, which is to keep it on site, not to exacerbate any existing situations.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Anything else?

Michelle, anything else?

No, sir.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Any applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Good evening for the record, at least Batsell Stern Sweera Miller.

Um, with respect to traffic, again, you have the transportation management plan and transportation analysis, and Steve Henry has testified on the record.

Uh, your staff report concurs that there's a significant reduction in trips for this particular proposed development over what is approved today.

With respect to parking, we will meet the code required by Hillsborough County.

Um, whatever that is, if we build less than 325 units, we'll comply with code.

If we build the maximum of what the project is proposing, we will provide parking as required under the code.

Um, I just want to point out that with respect to both traffic and drainage issues.

The testimony that you heard from the neighborhood relates to existing conditions today.

Those are not conditions related to this development entitlement or what the project that is proposed.

But I do want to have Artie Centrone from Kimley Horn, our engineer, briefly talk about drainage on the site because I think it will be helpful for the community members.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Good evening, Artie Central and Kimley Horn.

Uh 201 North Franklin.

Um I forgot the zip code.

So appreciate everyone's time here.

And as Elise has stated, I want to just quickly just discuss the process.

Michelle had talked about.

We will have to go through regulatory review and permitting with both Hillsborough County and Southwest Florida Water Management District.

This site will be required to retain and manage a stormwater in compliance with both Hillsborough County and Swift requirements, resulting in discharge levels significantly below the pre-development conditions.

As Lisa said, the existing conditions now do cause flooding.

The Hillsborough County has recognized this and has actually placed this area in a volume sensitive basin.

This happened about two years ago.

So being in a volume sensitive basin actually increases regulations in the amount of stormwater that is needed to be retained significantly more.

So now we will have to we are required to hold the hundred year storm, and I'll try to keep high level the hundred year storm event to the 10-year rate.

So development of this area will actually significantly reduce the discharge that's going there.

Just want to state that for the record.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

We have no further comments.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

With that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, we're ready for the last item on tonight's agenda.

Our last item is item D12, PD 26-0560.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property that's uh is currently zone ASC 1, RSC2, and plane development to a new plan development.

Tim Linkin with development services will preside provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Applicant, please.

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

I'm here representing the applicant Meritage Homes.

Subject property is just under 46 acres.

It's directly south of I 275, and it's within the urban service area and the Lutz community plan.

What we were requesting this evening is 86 single family homes, which is a change from the staff reports that were filed.

We originally were requesting 40 foot lots and a maximum of 130 lots.

We did let staff know that we were changing that request in response to we had some conversations with community leaders who had concerns about lot sizes and particularly 40 foot lot sizes.

So we were able to uh talk with Meritage and talk about uh this being a move up uh location for them, and we would be able to accommodate the larger lots, so it'll be a minimum 60 foot lot and a 6,000 square foot lot for minimum lot sizes, so 86 single family homes.

So less than what is seven, did you say minimum 7,000 square foot lots?

6,000.

6,000.

Yeah.

Okay.

Maritish homes, they're one of the largest home builders uh in the country.

They are an industry leader with energy efficient construction, and the target buyers, like I said, for this community are their first uh move up oriented buyers.

So it's not a starter home, it's the next level up.

They are uh contributing members to the community, and again, they are leaders in energy efficiency.

Uh one of the few builders that's is uh still doing that and leading the way in that in that regard.

This is the product type that we are going to be using uh with this development.

This is this is the 50-foot product that would go on the 60-foot lots, and we just wanted to show that for the terms of the quality and care that they put into the design of this development.

This is also a conceptual layout, and you'll see that the site has natural features that buffer the development from the adjacent property owners in the surrounding area.

On the left, you have the previous layout of 130 units, and on the right, you have the revised layout, and you could see that we are able to make the ponds bigger and the what you know, make sure that we're not impacting wetlands, and overall uh we are have very little external impact in terms of visual impact to the surrounding lot owners.

Um, we are providing additional buffering and screening when it's not required by the code uh in the two locations where we are abutting a residential property.

You can see that in the purple.

The five foot vertical uh buffering and screening easement.

We are not asking for any PD variations for this request, and at this time I'd like to ask our planner to come up and make a brief presentation regarding compatibility.

Kayla Watkowski with Clearview Land Design 3010 West Dizial Street.

Um the subject property has a future land use of residential four, which would allow for up to 183 units.

Um this area slowly transitions from res one and res to north of the interstate to res forward, directly south of the interstate with higher density residential closer to Bears.

This request is for the development of up to 86 units, which would result in a density of 1.8 units per acre, which is less than half of what the comp plan would allow for.3.1 of the comprehensive plan encourage development within the urban service area to utilize the allowable density of the land use category in order to maximize utilization of infrastructure and the efficient use of land.

However, um future land use objective 3.1 and policy.

Yeah.

And policy 3.1.3 also emphasize the importance of compatibility with surrounding development.

This request balances both objectives by respecting the existing development pattern while also thoughtfully utilizing the land.

The subject property is within the Lutz community plan area, which includes areas both within and outside of the urban service area.

The distinction between these two areas is very important because each has been developed with a different character and development pattern.

The portion of Lutz within the urban service area is depicted in yellow and is made up of suburban style development with communities such as Chaval, Heritage Harbor, Stonebriar, and the area depicted in blue is within the rural area.

Um is largely developed as semi-rural large lot development.

The interstate serves as a dividing line between the rural area and this suburban area, and this site is directly to the south of that line within the urban service area.

With a semi-rural density of less than two units per acre, in the inclusion of thoughtful buffering.

We believe that this request provides an appropriate transition between the character of the areas to the north and the higher residential higher density residential to the south.

With respect to compatibility, this graphic shows the density of other residential developments within a mile of the site.

Immediately adjacent to the site, there are larger lot residential developments that are of similar density to what we are proposing here.

This development serves as a rational transition between the lower density to the north and the higher density to the south.

And this proposal does just that.

The property is centrally located within an established urbanized area and is well served by existing public services and utilities.

From a school capacity standpoint, the site is located within proximity to several schools, and the school district has confirmed that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed development.

This map also demonstrates the availability of emergency services with two fire stations within approximately two miles, supporting public safety coverage for the area.

And in addition, this site is also like located within close proximity to a public library and other civic resources.

In conclusion, this request aligns with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, is consistent with the land development code with no variations or waivers requested, has been found consistent as found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan by both planning commission and development services staff, and with that we respectfully request a recommendation of approval.

Thank you.

And do you have any additional questions?

No, not right now.

Thanks.

Okay.

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

Thank you.

Talk for about seven and a half minutes.

Okay.

All right.

Development services staff.

Good evening.

Uh Tim Lampkin Development Services.

As the applicant noted, uh, they revised the request, and there was a revised staff report submitted.

They're seeking to develop in order approximately 45.89 acre unified development of 86 single family detached homes.

It's located at approximately 1,350 feet south of the Interstate 275, overpass at Livingston Avenue and directly south of Interstate 275.

And they're proposing to rezone it from ASC 1, ORS C2, and PD 19.0083 to plan development to allow the development of the 86 single detached.

The applicant proposes the maximum height of 35 feet consistent with the height permitted for the adjacent RSC2 development located to the southwest of the subject site and less than the 50-foot max.

It's an allowable height within the ASD one zoning district property located to the east.

The further compatibility is the applicant already uh presented.

They're proposing a condition requiring a five-foot vertical buffer and screening easement adjacent to the homes located to the immediate southwest and southeast.

The applicant has not requested any variations of the land development code based upon the above considerations.

Staff finds the request supportable, subject to conditions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh planning commission staff.

Good evening, Tyler Gurl, Planning Commission staff.

The site is currently designated as residential floor, which permits up to four dwelling units per gross acre, which is approximately 178 dwelling units.

The surrounding area is primarily characterized by single family residential development with some agricultural uses to the north and beyond uh I-275 and public quasi public and institutional uses to the south and east, creating a generally low density resident uh residential transition context.

The proposal is consistent with flu directive 1.1 policy 3.1.3 as it introduces residential development that aligns with the surrounding single family pattern and remains within lobble density of the residential for designation while clustering development and preserving environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands.

Compatibility is further supported under fluid directive 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 through the site design elements such as access management, the primary access directed to Livingston Avenue and emergency access across only from Curry Road, as well as buffered along residential edges.

The proposal is consistent with the Lutz Community Plan as it supports semi-rural residential compar um character through lower density clustering, preservation of natural fusures, and scenic roadway buffering along Livingston Avenue.

Overall staff finds the plan of development is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

See no unresponding.

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

Okay.

Um I see a lot of hands up.

Um let the record reflect that there's probably I don't know your guess is good as mine.

50 people uh stood up in opposition.

I don't know if one online another one online got it.

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

It's helpful.

Hi, I'm Alan Vernick, 2110 Curry Road, Lutes, Florida, 33549.

Um the proposal, as they said, is for 86 homes on 6,000 square foot lots.

Well, the total parcel is about 45 acres, wetland and stormwater requirements along the outside parameter significantly reduce the buildable area.

As a result, the homes are clustered in very tight uh tightly with minimal side yards and compact suburban layout.

The applicant claims that this area is already physically and functionally separate from the rural loots community and preserves the character of the existing develop uh the character of existing development, and that's simply not accurate.

Um I will also say that they're planning an eight-foot cement wall along I-275 that will in fact isolate us from the rest of Lutes.

So this is uh the neighborhoods directly surrounding the site, Curry Cove, Finchwald Country, Livingston Acres, and others, and they represent the actual development pattern along Livingston Avenue.

These are low density communities.

Typical lot sizes are about half an acre to over two acres with custom or semi-custom homes, significant spacing, mature trees, and an open rural character.

This is the existing condition immediately adjacent to the proposed development.

The applicant points to Chival, Calusa Chase, and Heritage Harbor is comparable communities.

But even those neighborhoods have larger lots, generally 7,500 to 10,000 square feet and often much larger.

More importantly, they are miles away and not adjacent to this site.

There is no precedent in this immediate area for 6,000 square foot lots or this level of density, which is four times four to twenty times the density of the surrounding homes.

So this is not compatible and it is not transitional.

It is within the Lutz community plan.

So the Lutz Community Plan should take precedent.

It does not reflect the established Lutz development pattern, and for these reasons, I respectfully ask that this request be denied.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

My name is Valerie Rebecca, and I live at 16103 Darnell Road in Lutz, Florida, 33549.

Um I live in the community that is directly south of this proposed development, and I've been there for 26 years.

I'm very opposed to the planned development.

It is not in line with the Lutz Community Plan.

We may be on the edge of the Lutz community plan, but that does not mean the developer can just ignore it.

In their project narrative in the section on background context, he admits, or she admits that it is in the Lutz community planning area.

Then in the very next sentence states that quote, it is also located within the Tampa service area, which makes it effectively a part of the countywide urban service area, end quote.

Hillsborough County, not City of Tampa, provides our trash service.

All the rest of us have our own well for water, and we have a septic tank for sewage, and we want it to stay that way.

The developer goes on in the next paragraph to describe the surrounding area by stating, quote, to the south there are single-family developments of various lot sizes, student housing, and multifamily housing, as well as some neighborhoods serving commercial.

To the north, the property abuts the interstate, which separates the project from semi-rural large lot residential development, end quote.

He is not completely being honest there.

Most are somewhere in between.

Mine is a little over three-quarters of an acre.

The next neighborhood south of us are houses on about one-third to one-half acres.

Then south of there is out of the Lutz community planning area, which are some mobile homes, then south of those begins the multifamily housing with apartments and duplex, then still further south, well out of the Lutz community planning area are the student housing.

The Violet Curry Preserve and the Cypress Creek Preserve act as a buffer between the Lutz community planning area and the denser urban area.

The property developer is wanting to develop is most certainly not in the urban service area.

The only existing public utility would be electric and telephone internet service.

There is no water nor sewer in that area, as he seems to think can easily be obtained there.

He states that the interstate to the north quote separates the project from semi-rural large lot develop residential development, end quote.

But he is not admitting that directly adjacent to the south of his project are also semi-rural, large lot residential development.

I believe he's trying to fool you into thinking that we are single-family developments of various lot sizes, student housing and multifamily housing.

Please come drive through our neighborhood on Curry Road and Darnow Road, and you will see that what he's saying is not true.

Lastly, I see that the developer has planned for a quote, emergency access on Curry Road, end quote.

I fear that many of the residents in that development would use the access for a shortcut out of their neighborhood into our neighborhood.

That will make traffic, that will make much more traffic in our neighborhood.

Our Curry Road is the one and only access road for our whole neighborhood for all of those who live on Curry Road and Darnow Road.

Also, I am concerned the amount of traffic on Livingston Avenue will significantly increase.

He states that there are future plans to widen Livingston Avenue to four lanes.

However, it provides no proof that it is going to be done.

I have lived here for 26 years now and have not heard of any plans to widen that road.

It's hard enough to make a left-hand turn onto Livingst Avenue from Curry Road.

I cannot imagine what it will be like when that many homes are added just north of us.

And in addition to this application, there are two other applications that are going to affect traffic on Livingston Avenue.

Those are PRS 26-0632 and RZ-PD 26-0281.

I hope you are taking these other plan development applications into consideration when you are deciding whether or not to approve this application.

Please deny it.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I am here in opposition to the zoning request.

While the applicant has reduced the number of homes from 130 to 86, the fundamental fundamental issue has not changed.

This is still a suburban subdivision.

Now it's 60-foot wide lots being introduced into a community that is clearly semi-rural.

The 1.9 units per acre is based on the gross acreage, not the net usable land.

The Lutz Community Plan is very clear in its intent.

It calls for maintaining a low density, semi-rural character with lot sizes typically around one acre.

And even where there is you where clustering is used, it contemplates lot sizes of at least one half an acre.

What is being proposed here, 60-foot lots that are a fraction of that size, does not reflect the vision.

The plan goes even further.

On page two of the Lutz Community Plan, it distinguishes between different parts of the community, describing East Lutz as maintaining a semi-rural character with large lot residential development and natural features.

While more suburban planned subdivisions are concentrated to the west.

So while suburban style development may exist in other parts of Lutz, the plan specifically contemplates that this area remained semi-rural in character.

This proposal does not follow the framework.

And even the applicant acknowledges that the Lutz Community Plan applies here.

In their own revised submittal, titled The Livingston PD rezone project narrative, dated April 22nd, 2026, page four.

They state that this property is located in the Lutz Community Planning Area.

So there is no disagreement that the plan applies here.

The question is whether the proposal actually follows it.

And based on the lot sizes, the developmental pattern and the overall character being proposed, the answer is no.

Staff recommend staff recommendation relies heavily on the idea that compatibility does not mean the same.

But the Lutz Community Plan goes even further.

It defines the character this community is supposed to maintain.

And a subdivision of 60-foot lots is not compatible extension of that character.

It is a fundamentally different development pattern.

Not the Lutz Community Plan.

And we already have acknowledged that this is clearly part of the Lutz Community Plan.

We also hear that the project is under the maximum allowed density.

But the comprehensive plan makes it clear that not every allowable use or density is appropriate in every location.

Being under a maximum density does not make it consistent.

Even with the reduction to 86 homes, the core issue remains unchanged.

The lot sizes, the layout, and the overall character are still suburban in nature.

There is no meaningful transition being proposed.

A buffer or a wall does not create compatibility.

It simply hides the contrast.

True compatibility would require a change in developmental pattern, not just a reduction in unit count.

The traffic and the infrastructure are also serious concerns.

According to the traffic study for this project, the community is expected to add nearly 700 new daily trips to the area with significant increases during peak hours.

And at the same time, Livingston Avenue, the primary access point, is already a substandard two-lane roadway.

It is a failed road.

Now we're being asked to accept not only that additional traffic, but the extension of water and sewer infrastructure along the same corridor and the addition of a 250-foot turn lane into the development.

This means construction disruption, added congestion, and long-term strain on a road that is already failing.

And while the applicant suggests traffic will remain on Livingston, we all know how this works in real life.

When congestion increases, drivers look for alternatives.

Even with the so-called emergency exit access point.

Right now, Curry Road has a single access point to Livingston Avenue.

It functions as a contained residential street.

This proposal changes that.

It introduces a new connection point that has a potential to turn Curry Road into a pass through for cut through traffic, especially as congestion increases on Livingston Avenue.

And once that connection exists, there's no guarantee that it will remain emergency only.

We do not want traffic coming through Curry Road, period.

And finally, this does not stop with this project.

Approving this request will set a precedent.

It signals that high density suburban style development is acceptable on the east side of Lutz, despite what the community plan calls for.

And once that door is opened, it becomes much harder to close.

The community was promised no density higher, as high or higher, than Deer Park Preserve, which was rezoning 02-0063.

We fought hard for that, and we were able to limit that to 60 and 70 foot lots.

Now I don't know if anybody remembers that.

Probably not, but we were promised at that time that it would not be any higher up the road.

What will follow are more applications just like this one, pointing back to this approval as justification.

And over time, this is how the character of the community will change.

One decision at a time.

This proposal, even at 86 homes, does not preserve the semi-rural character of LUTs.

It changes it.

And for that reason, I respectfully ask that this request be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition?

I do.

And I've got somebody who just said something online.

Yes, correct.

All right.

Um we'll let the person online speak, and then you can speak.

And just want the folks that are here in opposition that you in G in total are giving 15 minutes to speak in opposition.

And you've used about 13 minutes so far.

I I mean in certain special circumstances where there's a lot of people here in the audience that want to speak.

I have some latitude to give a little bit more time, but let's try to keep uh recognize how much time we should be allocating, which is 15 minutes.

We'll take it uh speaker by speaker and play it by ear.

All right.

Well, that said, uh all right.

The person who's online, please move, please go ahead.

Okay.

Good evening.

My name is Cedriana Jenner, 8008 Curry Row, Lutz, Florida, 33549.

And I live in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed development in Lutz.

I'm formally objecting to the proposed rezoning as well as the request to reduce the require a hundred and fifty-foot zoning offset between this development and existing low density residential homes.

This proposal represents a significant increase in land use intensity that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan or FOU policy 3.1.3, which requires compatibility based on scale, traffic, buffering, and neighborhood character at the point of adjacency.

The property is currently zoned for low density residential use.

The request are for zoning places, higher intensity development directly adjacent to half acre residential laws without a meaningful transition or buffer.

The applicant sized urban service areas and master plant communities.