1

CAPTIONINGJULY 21, 2014

ZONING HEARING MASTER

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

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE.

>>I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD

INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.

WELCOME TO THE JULY 21ST, 2014 MEETING OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

LAND USE HEARING OFFICER.

THIS EVENING I'LL BE YOUR HEARING OFFICER.

MY NAME IS JAMES SCAROLA.

WHAT WE'LL DO TO GET THINGS UP AND RUNNING, FIRST I'LL GO THROUGH

THE AGENDA WITH OUR STAFF AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES.

SO LISTEN CAREFULLY IN CASE YOUR PETITION IS INVOLVED. AT THAT

2

POINT I'LL GO THROUGH A SET OF PROCEDURES ON HOW WE'LL CONDUCT

OUR HEARINGS, THEN MOVE ON TO THE FIRST CASES.

WITH THAT IN MIND I'LL INTRODUCE YOU TO BRIAN GRADY WITH

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>>BRIAN GRADY: AGAIN BRIAN GRADY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

BEFORE I GO THROUGH THE CHANGES TO THE AGENDA, JOINING US TO MY

LEFT IS LOUIS WHITEHEAD WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND TO

HIS LEFT MR. RANDY KRANJEC WITH THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

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

PUBLISHED WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES.

A.1.

MAJOR MODIFICATION 14-0387.

THIS APPLICATION IS OUT-OF-ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING

CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 18TH, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

SECOND ITEM IS REZONING APPLICATION 14-0727.

THIS APPLICATION IS OUT-OF-ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING

CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 18TH, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

AND THE THIRD ITEM IS SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 14-0744.

THIS APPLICATION IS BEING CONTINUED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE

3

AUGUST 18TH, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

THAT CONCLUDES ALL WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU, BRIAN.

SO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOUR AGENDA IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT IS

KIND OF DIVIDED INTO TWO COMPONENTS. WELL, ACTUALLY MORE THAN

THAT BUT TWO MAJOR SECTIONS. THE FIRST PART, THE FIRST THREE

ITEMS TONIGHT, ARE SPECIAL USES.

YOU CAN SEE THEY START WITH AN SU.

AND THE REST OF THE ITEMS ARE REZONINGS AND MODIFICATIONS TO

ZONINGS.

THE SPECIAL USES ARE HANDLED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE

REZONING.

YOU'LL NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE HEARINGS.

I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT IN THE CASE OF THE SPECIAL USES, I'LL

CONDUCT THE HEARING THIS EVENING AND THEN I'LL RENDER A DECISION

WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS.

SO THE FIRST THREE CASES I'LL CONDUCT THE HEARINGS AND RENDER A

DECISION IN 15 WORKING DAYS.

IN THE CASE OF THE ZONINGS AND MODIFICATIONS TO ZONINGS, THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CONDUCTED BY A

4

LAND USE HEARING OFFICER PRIOR TO THE FINAL DECISION BY THE BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER DOESN'T MAKE THE FINAL DECISION BUT

INSTEAD RENDERS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD WHO MAKES THE FINAL

DECISION AT THEIR PUBLIC MEETING.

SO IN GENERAL THIS HEARING TONIGHT IS GOING TO BE INFORMAL.

QUESTIONING WILL BE CONFINED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE SCOPE

OF DIRECT TESTIMONY.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS WHEN YOU COME UP TO THE FRONT HERE, YOU'LL BE

SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO ME.

AS THE HEARING OFFICER I'LL CALL AND QUESTION WITNESSES AS

NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE.

AND I'LL BE DECIDING ALL QUESTIONS ON PROCEDURE.

IRRELEVANT IMMATERIAL AND UNDULY REPETITIOUS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO

BE EXCLUDED.

ANY PART OF YOUR EVIDENCE MAY BE RECEIVED IN WRITTEN FORM.

ALL OF YOUR TESTIMONY TONIGHT IS GOING TO BE UNDER OATH.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE MAY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENTING OR

EXPLAINING OTHER EVIDENCE BUT IT WON'T BE SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO

SUPPORT A FINDING BY ME UNLESS IT'S ADMISSIBLE OVER OBJECTIONS IN

5

A CIVIL ACTION.

HAVING SAID THOSE THINGS, THE BASIC ORDER OF PRESENTATION WILL BE

AS FOLLOWS: OUR STAFF WILL -- BRIAN GRADY FROM DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES WILL INTRODUCE THE PETITION BRIEFLY AND THE APPLICANT

AND ANY OTHER WITNESSES MAY COME FORWARD AND YOU CAN HAVE UP TO

15 MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR PETITION AND ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

OF THE TESTIMONY.

AT THAT POINT I'LL TURN TO THE STAFF AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHO

WILL GIVE A SUMMARY OF THEIR REPORT AS WELL AS THE PLANNING

COMMISSION WHO WILL GIVE A STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OR NON-

COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THEY WILL HAVE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO DO THAT FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL

REPORTS.

AT THAT POINT I'LL LOOK FOR ANY PROPONENTS.

PROPONENTS ARE NOT THE APPLICANT AGAIN.

THEY ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE IN SUPPORT OF A PETITION AND

THEY WILL BE GIVEN AN EQUAL TIME SEGMENT OF 15 MINUTES THEN.

I'LL TURN AT THAT POINT AND ASK FOR ANY OPPOSITION.

IF YOU'RE OPPOSING THE PETITION, YOU'LL HAVE EQUAL TIME UP TO 15

MINUTES OF A TOTAL 15 MINUTE TIME SEGMENT TO PRESENT OPPOSING

6

TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE.

WHEN THAT'S ALL OVER WITH, I'LL TURN BACK TO STAFF, ASK FOR ANY

CLARIFICATIONS TO THE STAFF REPORT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY THAT WE

HEARD, AND LASTLY THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FINAL

REBUTTAL AND THAT'S FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE MINUTES.

HAVING LAID OUT THOSE TIMEFRAMES FOR YOU, YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A

LOT OF PETITIONS ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.

I'M OUT HERE TO MAKE IT AS EFFICIENT AS I POSSIBLY CAN AND I HOPE

YOU'LL WORK WITH ME TO DO THAT.

DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO FILL YOUR 15 MINUTES.

OF COURSE IT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY.

IT IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY.

A COUPLE OF TIPS FOR YOU.

YOU COME UP TO THE FRONT, TAKE THE MICROPHONE, PULL IT DOWN CLOSE

TO YOUR MOUTH.

WE'RE ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC RECORD THIS EVENING, A VERBATIM

TRANSCRIPT.

WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE GET YOU, SO MICROPHONE DOWN TO YOUR

MOUTH.

WHEN YOU GO TO SPEAK THE FIRST TIME, NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

7

NAME AND ADDRESS.

IF YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PODIUM FOR ANY REASON, IT'S FINE

JUST TO SAY YOUR NAME AT THAT POINT.

BUT AGAIN IT'S ALL ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPT SO WE HAVE TO KNOW WHO IS

SPEAKING SO YOU'RE IN THE RECORD.

SO YOUR NAME.

WHEN YOU'RE ALL DONE TESTIFYING AND PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE YOU

HAVE, STEP TO THE END OF THE LECTERN.

YOU'LL FIND A SIGN-IN SHEET.

JUST SIGN IN AND THAT WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HERE

TESTIFYING AND PROVIDING EVIDENCE.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES, OUR SPECIAL USES AND

ZONINGS AND MODIFICATIONS TO ZONINGS, OUR ASSISTANT COUNTY

ATTORNEY IS GOING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU FIRST WITH RESPECT TO THE

SPECIAL USES YOUR RIGHTS TO APPEAL DECISIONS MADE AS A RESULT OF

TONIGHT'S HEARING.

WITH THAT I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOU TO MR. LOUIS WHITEHEAD OF

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

GOOD EVENING.

>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU MR. SCAROLA AND GOOD

8

EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER

ON THE SPECIAL USES HEARD TONIGHT WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON AUGUST THE 11TH.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVIDES THAT ANYONE WHO DESIRES TO

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

FURNISH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD WITH THEIR NAME ADDRESS THE CASE

NUMBER AND A STAMPED SELF ADDRESSED ENVELOPE.

DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON SPECIAL USES MAY BE APPEALED

TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD AN APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE

DATE THAT THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION IS FILED WITH THE CLERK

OF THE BOARD.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS OR ENTITIES SHALL HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL A

DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OR TO INTERVENE IN AN APPEAL.

FIRST THE APPLICANT AND SECOND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY THAT A, IS

PRESENT OR REPRESENTED AT TONIGHT'S HEARINGS AND PRESENTS EITHER

TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR B, SUBMITS DOCUMENTARY

EVIDENCE THEMSELVES OR THROUGH ANOTHER PRIOR TO OR DURING

TONIGHT'S HEARINGS AND C IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE HEARING

OFFICER'S DECISION.

9

THE EVIDENCE THAT THE APPEALS BOARD CAN CONSIDER IS LIMITED TO

THE EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED HERE TONIGHT.

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

USE, THE CASE RECORD CLOSES AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED.

IN ADDITION TO THE CASE RECORD THE APPEALS BOARD SHALL CONSIDER

THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND ORAL ARGUMENT BY THE

ADMINISTRATOR, THE PARTY APPEALING THE DECISION, AND ANY PERSON

OR ENTITY WHO HAS STANDING TO APPEAL TO INTERVENE IN AN APPEAL

EACH OF WHOM MAY BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL.

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

OR TESTIMONY IS ALLOWED BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD IN CONNECTION

WITH THIS DECISION.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL ADVISE THE APPEALS BOARD TO DISREGARD

EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT IS NOT IN THE RECORD.

THEREFORE PLEASE BE SURE THAT ALL INFORMATION YOU MAY DESIRE THE

APPEALS BOARD TO CONSIDER IS PLACED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT THANK

YOU VERY MUCH.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU LOUIS SO LADIES AND

GENTLEMEN IF YOU PLAN ON TESTIFYING TONIGHT OR PRESENTING ANY

EVIDENCE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RISE WITH ME NOW AND RAISE YOUR

10

RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE

TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD?

[UNANIMOUS I DO]

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: BRIAN WITH THOSE FORM ATMOSPHERE OUT

OF THE WAY WE'RE READY.

>>BRIAN GRADY: ON PAGE 5 OF THE AGENDA B.1 SPECIAL USE

APPLICATION 14-0664 THE APPLICANT IS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF

BRANDON.

THE REQUEST IS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A SCHOOL.

MICHELLE HEINRICH WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING.

>>GOOD EVENING I'M JUDY JAMES 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.

THIS IS A SPECIAL USE REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL GRADES K

THROUGH 8.

THIS SPECIAL USE WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED FOR A CHURCH AND A DAY

CARE IN 1999 AND 2008.

AND SINCE THAT TIME THE CHURCH OPERATED AS IF THEY ALSO HAD A

SPECIAL USE FOR A SCHOOL SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE

11

RECORD.

IT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF LDC SECTION 611.88 THE SCHOOL IS

LOCATED ON THE MAIN PARCEL IT'S CURRENT ENROLLMENT IS 135 IT MAY

GO UP TO 270 AND IT MEETS THE CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITH

THE 135 STUDENTS.

THERE IS A SPECIFIC CONDITION BY STAFF THAT IF WE NEED ADDITIONAL

PARKING WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A STAFF REVIEW SITE PLAN REVIEW THE

ISSUE UNTIL NOW HAS BEEN THE DROP OFF AND IF YOU LET ME GO TO THE

ELMO WE SG FILE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR THE NEWLY ADOPTED

QUEUEING REQUIREMENTS AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SITE PLAN THE

CHURCH IS LOCATED ON MULTIPLE PARCELS ON PARSONS AND MOON STREET.

THE MAIN SCHOOL IS WITHIN THE BUILDING RIGHT HERE ON MOON STREET.

THE PARKING AREA WHERE THE PARENTS DROP OFF IS ACROSS THE STREET.

IT IS A GRASS LOT USED BY THE CHURCH NOW.

IT HAS PAVED SIDEWALKS ALONG THE PERIMETER AND THREE ROWS OF

SIDEWALKS INTERNAL THEY USE THOSE TO BUTT THE CARS UP AGAINST

EACH OTHER A CROSSWALK WITH PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNS PAVEMENT

SIGNS AND THEY HAVE SAFETY PATROLS AND A CROSSWALK GUARD DURING

THE DAY.

STAFF OFFERED A SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD HAVE -- THE

12

PARKING LOT LAYOUT IS ON THE SITE PLAN AND WE ALSO AGREED TO THE

CERTAIN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.

THE DRIVE AISLES WOULD BE PAVED NOT THE PARKING SPACES PER SE BUT

THE ACTUAL DRIVE AISLES WOULD BE PAVED.

THE PARKING LOT WILL BE MARKED ON THE SADIE STREET SIDE SO IT'S

EXIT ONLY AND WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE CROSSING GUARDS.

WE'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SITE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL IF THIS

SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION IS GRANTED.

WITH THAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I DO HAVE THE PASTOR,

PARENTS, FAMILY, TEACHERS HERE AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYBODY

TIP THEIR HANDS BUT IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION THEY DON'T FEEL THEY

NEED TO SPEAK SO I'LL LET --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I DO HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.

MS. JAMES DO YOU SEE THIS AS A REQUEST FOR CHILD CARE CENTER AND

CHURCH AS WELL OR --

>>THE CHILD CARE CENTER WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY GRANTED AS PART OF

THE CHURCH SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN 2008 IT WAS PERMITTED FOR 200 --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I GOT YOU THERE IT'S THE PROCEDURAL

ISSUE OF WHETHER -- IT LOOKS LIKE THE CONDITIONS ARE ALL NEW

CONDITIONS SO ESSENTIALLY IS THAT GOING TO BE RESCINDED PREVIOUS.

13

>>BRIAN GRADY: NO IT WOULD JUST BE A NEW SPECIAL USE PERMIT

SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SCHOOL SO IT DOESN'T RESCIND THE PRIOR

APPROVALS FOR THE CHURCH AND DAY CARE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: DO YOU SEE THE REQUEST AS REQUESTING

THOSE ITEMS?

THAT THEY ARE CARRIED OVER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: I THINK WE CREATED IT AS WE RECOGNIZE THEY

EXISTED AND SO WE ARE DEALING IN THIS PERMIT TO DEAL WITH THE

ISSUE OF THE SCHOOL I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT I THINK

PROCEDURALLY WE JUST DEALT WITH THE SCHOOL SO I THINK AT THIS

POINT YOU SHOULD JUST ADDRESS THAT SCHOOL ISSUE.

>>THE PROBLEM IS THERE'S NO PROVISION WITHIN THE CODE RIGHT NOW

TO JUST AMEND ANY EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT I HAD TO FILE A NEW

ONE BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO HAVING ALL CONDITIONS IN

ONE DOCUMENT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THE QUESTION REALLY IS WHAT ABOUT

FINDINGS.

>>BRIAN GRADY: MR. SCAROLA I NEED TO CORRECT WHAT I STATED I

TALKED TO MICHELLE SHE SAID SHE DID THIS -- THE CONDITIONS WERE

WORDED AS REPLACEMENT FOR THE OTHER SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH

14

UNDERLYING STRIKE-THROUGH SO WE ARE TREATING IT THIS IS BASICALLY

DEALING WITH ALL RE-- USES THROUGH THE CONDITIONS.

SO IT'S EXTENSIVELY DEALING WITH THE SCHOOL RECOGNIZING AGAIN THE

SCHOOL AND DAY CARE THE CONDITIONS RECOGNIZE THOSE AND SORT OF

CARRY OVER THOSE CONDITIONS AND SHOWN AS UNDERLINE STRIKE-THROUGH

JUST TO SHOW YOU WHERE THE CHANGES ARE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

THAT'S IT.

ANYTHING ELSE MS. JAMES.

>>WITH THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO BRING MY PROPONENTS TO SPEAK

UNLESS --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I CANNOT DIRECT YOU.

IT'S YOUR CHOICE.

>>CAN YOU ASK IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I'M ABOUT TO GO THROUGH THE USUALLY

SET OF THINGS IF YOU WANT TO DO -- THE USUAL SET OF THINGS IF YOU

WANT TO DO THAT.

MICHELLE HEINRICH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I

APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION.

15

AS YOU HEARD MS. JAMES STATE THERE WERE PREVIOUS SPECIAL USES

WHEN I EXAMINED THOSE, THEY WOULD ALWAYS CARRY OVER THE OLD

CONDITIONS RESCIND THE OLD ONE AND APPLY THE NEW ONE SO I HANDLED

THE THIRD ONE THE SAME WAY AND JUST SO YOU KNOW ANYTHING

UNDERLINED IS WHAT'S NEW.

ANYTHING THAT'S JUST THERE WITHOUT UNDERLINES IS PER THE MOST

RECENT SPECIAL USE THEY HAD.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

AS SHE STATED THIS IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING K

THROUGH 8 SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BRANDON

AND ALSO AN OFFSITE PARKING LOT TO THE WEST THE CURRENT

ENROLLMENT IS 135 THEY DO ANTICIPATE TO POSSIBLY GO UP TO A

MAXIMUM OF 270 STUDENTS SO THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE CONDITIONS THE

SITE USES VARIOUS PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE AREA WITH MULTIPLE

ZONINGS THERE'S RSC-6 BPO, OR AND RMC-12.

ONLY IN THE RSC-6 AND RMC-12 ZONINGS DO YOU REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE

AND THE OFFSITE LOT IS SPLIT ZONE OR AND RSC-6.

THAT ALSO IS INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST.

AS MS. JAMES STATED THERE'S NO WAIVERS NEEDED TO 611.88 WHICH IS

THE SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE SPECIAL USE PERMITS BUT THE APPLICANT

16

IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO LDC SECTION 603.13 WHICH WAS RECENTLY

ADOPTED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR FOR THE SCHOOL QUEUEING

REQUIREMENTS.

ALSO AS WE STATED, THERE WERE TWO PREVIOUSLY PROVED SPECIAL USES

ONE IN '9 FOR THE DAY CARE FACILITY THAT'S AT A MAXIMUM OF 200

CHILDREN AND IN 2008 THE APPLICANTS CAME IN TO INCREASE THE

SANCTUARY SQUARE FOOTAGE NUMBER OF SEATS AND TO RECOGNIZE A

BUILDING HEIGHT VARIATION AND TO RETAIN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

DAY CARE USE.

AS STATED, THE SITE DOES MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR

CHURCH, DAY CARE AND PRIVATE SCHOOL.

HOWEVER, IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING PARKING, SITES ARE TO PROVIDE

OFFSITE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE VEHICLE

QUEUEING THAT OCCURRING DURING STUDENT DROPOFF AND PICKUP TIMES.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIATION TO THIS TO BE PROVIDED ON

THE LOT SHE SHOWED YOU ON THE ELMO TO THE WEST WHICH IS A PARKING

LOT SO THAT PARENTS ACTUALLY PARK AND WALK THEIR KIDS TO AND FROM

SCHOOL RATHER THAN HAVING AN ONLINE QUEUE ON THE MAIN SITE.

THE OFFSITE AREA IS 8.15 AREAS IT HAS PARSONS AVENUE MOON AVENUE

AND SADIE STREET TRANSFORMATION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS

17

ESPECIALLY THE VARIANCE REQUEST THEY ARE FINDING IT -- THEY ARE

NOT HAVING ANY OBJECTIONS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT

MS. JAMES OUTLINED AND THOSE ARE CONDITIONS 7 THROUGH 11 WHICH

REQUIRE THE SITE TO GO THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT HAVE THE HARD

SURFACE ALSO FOR SADIE STREET TO BE EXIT ONLY AND TO UTILIZE A

CROSSING GUARD WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY AGENCY OBJECTIONS AND FIND

THIS APPROVABLE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: MICHELLE ONE MINOR QUESTION THE PARCEL

751 THAT'S THE OFFSITE PARKING, THAT PARCEL IS INCLUDED IN THE

SPECIAL USE REQUEST RIGHT.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: YES IT IS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: SO IF APPROVED, THE ZONING OF OR AND

RSC-6 --

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: WILL STAY THAT ZONING IT WILL JUST HAVE THE

SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: GOT YOU THANKS MICHELLE.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: WE DESIGNATED IN OUR CONDITIONS THAT'S ONLY

FOR THE OFFSITE PARKING.

I DON'T BELIEVE THEY ANTICIPATE TO USE IT FOR ANY OF THE CHURCH

PARKING OR ANY OF THE OTHER ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES GOING ON.

18

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

YOUR MIC.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH

-- UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE POLICY 17.1

RECOGNIZES CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, DAY CARE CENTERS ET CETERA FOR

RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USES PROVIDED THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDING LAND USES IN ZONING AND BASED UPON OUR REVIEW OF THE

SITE THE REQUEST STAFF HAS DETERMINED THE USE IS COMPARABLE AND

COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA WHICH IS A MIXTURE OF USES

AND BASED UPON THAT FIND THE SPECIAL USE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS BY DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

>>IF I COULD JUST ASK THEM TO STAND.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

19

SEEING NONE, ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF?

MS. JAMES, ANYTHING?

>>I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE PARKING LOT WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT IS USED BY CHURCH WHEN THE SCHOOL IS NOT IN SESSION.

WHEN I READ THE CONDITION I READ IT AS THAT WAS THE ONLY AREA WE

COULD USE AS DROPOFF FOR THE STUDENT PARKING BUT IT COULD BE USED

AT OTHER TIMES BY THE CHURCH.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ARE YOU SUGGESTING ANY CHANGE OR

WORDING TO THE CONDITION.

>>I WAS JUST RESPONDING TO WHAT MICHELLE SAID.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

MS. JAMES IS CORRECT THAT'S THE AREA THAT'S DESIGNATED IN THIS

PERMIT TO BE USED FOR DROPOFF NOT THE OTHER LOTS WHICH HAVEN'T

BEEN REVIEWED AND HAVE THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT TRANSPORTATION

IS LOOKING FOR LIKE SIDEWALKS AND CROSSWALKS.

THANK YOU.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE SPECIAL USE 14-664.

BRIAN?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM B.2.

20

IT'S SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 14-0667.

THE APPLICANT IS DKS HOLDINGS LLC THE REQUEST IS FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT FOR LAND EXCAVATION PERMIT TOM HIZNAY WITH COUNTY STAFF

WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE

APPLICANT.

>>MICHAEL HORNER 14502 DALE MABRY HIGHWAY TAMPA 33618

REPRESENTING DKS HOLDINGS WITH ME TONIGHT IS MARK FERRELL FROM

WRA SPEAKING ON ENGINEERING ISSUES BRIEFLY AT THE CLOSING OF MY

PRESENTATION.

THIS IS A SPECIAL USE FOR LAND EXCAVATION.

WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF DILIGENTLY OVER THE LAST THREE MONTHS

WE REPRESENT THE EFFORT FROM MR. HIZNAY IN CRAFTING SOME SPECIFIC

RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS ON THE OPERATING ELEMENTS OF THIS PLAN

SPECIFICALLY THE LAND EXCAVATION CONDITIONS THE PLAN THAT YOU

HAVE BEFORE YOU OF RECORD IS GOING TO BE REVISED HAS BEEN REVISED

I'LL FILE THAT REVISED PLAN INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT THAT PLAN HAS

BEEN FILED WITH MR. MAY AND MR. HIZNAY AND FILE THE REVISED

REPORT IN THE RECORD AS WELL.

THIS IS A 345 ACRE SITE WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 39 THE KEYSVILLE

AREA.

21

OUR CLIENT HOLDINGS ACTUALLY EXTEND FAR BEYOND THAT 345 ACRES.

THEY OWN APPROXIMATELY 730 ACRES.

WE HAVE LEFT OUT ALL OF THE AREA OF THE REMAINDER OF THIS

PROPERTY THAT IS SOUTH PART OF THE PARENT TRACT THAT LIES IN ZONE

2 OF THE WELLFIELD PROTECTION AREA.

AS YOU KNOW WE ARE PROHIBITED FROM ZONE 2 OF THE WELLFIELD WHAT'S

BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS ONLY THAT AREA IN ZONE 1 THAT'S 345 AND

CHANGE ACRES FOR THE SPECIAL USE.

HISTORICALLY THIS PARCEL HAS BEEN MINED FOR PHOSPHATE BEEN

DISTURBED I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE UNDERSTATEMENT MR. MIKE

STEPHENSON OF THE COUNTY WOULD CERTAINLY ECHO THAT HE'S TONIGHT

AS WELL FOR ANY PARTICULAR RESPONSES ON HIS PERSPECTIVE OF THIS

PROPERTY.

BUT WE'RE HERE TO FILE FOR THE LAND EXCAVATION THERE ARE SOME

REMAINING DIRT AREAS IT'S RATHER UNDULATING IT'S BEEN IMPACTED

BUT THERE ARE SOME CELLS THAT WE BELIEVE WILL BE GOOD SOURCES FOR

GOOD CLEAN EXCAVATION FILL IN THE NEXT SEVEN TO TEN YEARS.

WE FILED AT SEVEN YEARS MR. SCAROLA BUT AMENDED TO TEN FOR THE

FLEXIBILITY THAT THE ORDINARY PROVIDES FOR.

OVERALL THE CUBIC YARD IS ANTICIPATED TO BE 4 MILLION FOR THE

22

TOTAL EXCAVATION.

SEVEN TO TEN YEARS WE THINK IT WILL BE AROUND SEVEN BUT MOST

LIKELY POSSIBLY TO EXTEND TO THE TEN YEAR ELEMENT THERE ARE TEN

CELLS ON APPROXIMATELY 142 ACRES THE PLAN ON THE OVERHEAD

DEMONSTRATES NO SHADED AREAS THOSE TEN CELLS WE'RE PROVIDING FOR

EXCAVATION.

COUNTY ROAD 39 TO THE EAST YOU'LL SEE ACCESS BEING EXTENDED TO

COUNTY ROAD 39 MY CLIENT HAS 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE IT WIDENS OUT TO

200 FEET AND EXTENDS INTO THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE THAT

WILL BE THE SOLE ACCESS AND HAUL ROUTE FOR THIS PROPERTY.

WE MEET ALL LDC REQUIREMENTS, BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE AREA I'LL DRAW YOUR ATTENTION AT THE

NORTHWEST NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL LOTS THESE LOTS ARE ZONED FOR I

BELIEVE 1 ACRE HOWEVER THEY ARE ACTUALLY DEVELOPED AS HALF ACRE,

9 LOTS, 7 ARE DEVELOPED, 2 ARE VACANT.

AND TYPICALLY THE CODE REQUIRES A 500 FOOT BUFFER SEPARATION AS

YOU'RE AWARE FROM THESE RESIDENTIAL USES.

WE HAVE FILED FOR A BUFFER REDUCTION FROM 500 FEET TO 200 FEET

FOR 300 FOOT REDUCTION.

WE SAT DOWN WITH STAFF MR.  HIZNAY MR. STEPHENSON A NUMBER OF

23

REPRESENT -- NUMBER OF STAFF REPRESENTATIVES AND WORKED OUT A

NEGOTIATED SCREENING AND BUFFER PLAN WE THINK IS RATHER

RESTRICTIVE IF I CAN DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO CONDITIONS 3.2 A

THROUGH F WE HAVE AGREED TO PLANTING OF TREES ON THE WESTERN

SIDE.

10 TO 12 FEET, 2 INCH CALIBER, 22 ON CENTER FOR 60606 IN ADDITION

TO THAT WE'RE PROPOSING A 6 FOOT BERM TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND A 6

FOOT FENCE ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE THERE ARE EXISTING TREES

ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE LOTS.

OUR WESTERN PROPERTY LINE THAT WE WILL CERTAINLY NOT IMPACT AND

AUGMENT THAT EXISTING OPACITY WITH OUR PROPOSED TREE PLANTING.

IN ADDITION MR. SCAROLA WE HAVE AGREED NOT TO HAVE ANY

CONSTRUCTION IN CELLS 2 AND 3 FOR THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS TO

ALLOW THOSE TREES TO GROW AND THAT PLANTING TO MATURE.

AND WE THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE TRADEOFF FOR THE REDUCTION OF

BUFFER FROM 500 TO 200 FEET.

IN ADDITION TO THAT WE HAVE AGREED TO NOT HAVE ANY SATURDAY

ACTIVITIES.

AS YOU KNOW PLANNING ACTIVITIES LAND ACTIVITIES ARE PRECLUDED ON

SUNDAYS BUT WE EXTENDED IT TO SATURDAYS SO THOSE RESIDENTS AS

24

LIMITED AS THEY ARE THEY CERTAINLY HAVE A RIGHT TO ENJOY THE

WEEKEND WE AGREED TO PROHIBIT OUR ACTIVITIES DURING THE WEEKENDS.

WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO THOSE RESIDENTS ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS

OBVIOUSLY THE LEGAL MODUS WENT OUT CONTACTED BY ONE

REPRESENTATIVE INDICATING SHE WAS REPRESENTING ONE OR MORE I SENT

THEM ALL OF THE PLANS ALL OF THE BUFFER SCREENINGS, PROPOSALS

JUST LAST WEEK RECEIVED CONFIRMATION THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY

OBJECTION.

I DON'T KNOW THE EXTEND OF THOSE OWNERS THAT SHE TECHNICALLY

REPRESENTS.

BUT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION CALLS.

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY E-MAILS.

I HAVE CHECKED WITH MR. HIZNAY AND STAFF THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED

OBJECTIONS AS WELL WE'LL FIND OUT SHORTLY IF THAT BEARS TRUE

TONIGHT THE REASON FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE BUFFER TO THE WEST

CELLS 2 AND 3 THEY HAVE THE BEST QUALITY OF FILL AND GREATEST

DEPTH OPPORTUNITIES OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T FILE FOR THE BUFFER

WAIVER AND ANY OTHER PERIMETER MIGHT BE ABLE TO AGREE TO IT BUT

ON CELLS 2 AND 3 IT'S IMPERATIVE WE HAVE AS MUCH FILL OPPORTUNITY

AS POSSIBLE WE APPROACHED OUR CLIENT AND PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE A

25

STEP FORWARD AND AGREED TO THE ELEMENTS AND CONDITIONS.

WE HAVE A PENDING EPC WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL LINE YOU CAN IMAGINE

IT'S A LITTLE SCATTERED AND FRAGMENTED OUT THERE WITH ALL OF THE

IMPACTS OF THE MINING SO -- HOWEVER WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH OUR

PRELIMINARY LINES WE HAVE ALL AGREED ALL TAMPA BAY WATER

CONDITIONS AND AGREED TO ALL NATURAL RESOURCE CONDITIONS THAT ARE

INCLUDED AND INCORPORATED AND TOM'S CONDITIONS FOR STAFF TONIGHT.

I'LL FILE THE REVISED PLANS INTO THE RECORD AT THIS TIME I'LL

HAVE MR. FERRELL SPEAK BRIEFLY ON ENGINEERING ISSUES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION WITH THE

COUNTY ON ACCEL OR DECEL.

>>WE HAVEN'T HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS BUT IT MAY WELL BE ON THE

TABLE FOR DISCUSSION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANKS.

>>GOOD EVENING MR. SCAROLA.

MARK FERRELL WITH THE FIRM WRA VERY BRIEFLY AS MIKE SAID THIS IS

SORT OF AN UNUSUAL SITUATION HERE.

PREVIOUSLY A MINE SITE PHOSPHATE MINE BACK IN THE 1930S.

WIND ROWS WERE CREATED SOIL CAST OVER THE SIDE.

26

WE HAVE DONE ABOUT 26 BORINGS ON THE SITE.

AND THE SOIL RUNS FROM AN AVERAGE OF 5 FEET IN DEPTH TO 20 FEET

IN DEPTH AND IT'S NOT HOMOGENOUS IT'S KIND OF A HUNT AND PECK ALL

OVER THE PLACE SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS PROPOSED 4 MILLION YARDS

BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF 10 TO 12 FEET OF EXCAVATION ACROSS THE

SITE THE SITE IS INTERNALLY DRAINED SO THERE WON'T BE OFFSITE

DRAINAGE ON THE SITE EVEN AS WE DEWATER THE CELLS IT WILL REMAIN

ONSITE FOR THE PURPOSE OF WELLFIELD PROTECTION.

WE DO HAVE WETLANDS ON THE SITE AND HAVE PRELIMINARY

JURISDICTIONAL LINE WE WILL GET A FORMAL LINE WITH EPC AS WE GET

THE OPERATING PERMITS AND WORK ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES INCLUDING

ROAD ACCESS RECLAMATION PLAN THINGS LIKE THAT HAVE TO BE WORKED

OUT.

FINALLY I THINK THAT AGAIN THE PERMITS WE HAVE TO GET ARE THE

OPERATING PERMIT WITH EPC AND SWFWMD PERMIT WE DON'T BELIEVE THE

CORPS WILL BE INVOLVED AT THIS TIME PRETTY MUCH STRAIGHTFORWARD

WITH THIS PARTICULAR SITE WE ARE GOING TO FILE A RECLAMATION PLAN

HOWEVER WE HAVE BEEN VERY CANDID WITH THE STAFF THAT ULTIMATELY

THE OWNER WOULD POSSIBLY LIKE TO PUT PART OF THIS INTO A

RESIDENTIAL PLAN RANCHETTE TYPE OF SITUATION THAT WOULD BE AN

27

AMENDMENT TO THE OPERATING PERMIT GOING INTO A SITE APPROVAL MANY

YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

THANK YOU.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

>>WITH THAT I WOULD ONLY ADD WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH COMP PLAN

POLICIES BASED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND

AS MARK REFERENCED, WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE IN THE SHORT FUTURE --

NEAR FUTURE A PD FILING FOR GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WILL

REFLECT THE DENSITIES WE DID FILE A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ON THE

ENTIRE PROPERTY TOOK IT FROM AM TO AR WILL DOVETAIL WITH THE

RECLAMATION PLAN LAKE CREATION PLAN WE'RE DOING AS PART OF THIS

EXCAVATION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THAT'S IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

>>WE HAVE HAD PRE-OP MEETINGS NOT FORMALLY FILED BUT IN PROCESS.

>>GOOD EVENING MR. SCAROLA TOM HIZNAY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF

I WOULD LIKE TO START OFF BY HANDING OUT A REVISED COPY OF THE

STAFF REPORT.

AS MR. HORNER STATED, THIS LAND EXCAVATION IS SOUGHT FOR THE

NORTHERN PORTION OF A 730 ACRE TRACT.

THAT IS LOCATED WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 39.

28

AND NORTH AND EAST OF KEYSVILLE ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE EDWARD

MEDARD REGIONAL PARK.

THE EXCAVATION WILL BE LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE

TRACT.

AND BE SPREAD ACROSS A 346 ACRE SITE MUCH OF WHICH HAS BEEN

PREVIOUSLY MINED.

THE EXCAVATION WILL BE SERVED BY AN UNPAVED ONE MILE LONG PRIVATE

ACCESS ROAD CONNECTING COUNTY ROAD 39 AT A POINT APPROXIMATELY 1

AND A HALF MILES NORTH OF KEYSVILLE ROAD.

COUNTY ROAD 39 IN THIS VICINITY IS A DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTE.

THEREFORE STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED EXCAVATION MEETS THE

ACCESS AND LOCATION REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT

CODE FOR LAND EXCAVATION.

APPROXIMATELY 4 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL MAXIMUM ARE

PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED OVER A 5 TO 10 YEAR PERIOD.

NO DELIVERY DESTINATIONS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED FOR THE -- FOR THE

MATERIAL BUT SINCE COUNTY ROAD 39 IS A TRUCK ROUTE IN THIS AREA,

THE HAUL TRUCKS WILL BE FREE TO HEAD EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH FROM

THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN ONTO WHATEVER DELIVERY DESTINATIONS THEY

MAY HAVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRUCK ROUTE PLAN.

29

IT'S ALL TOTAL BASED ON AN 18 CUBIC YARD TRUCK THERE WOULD BE

APPROXIMATELY 445,000 TRUCK TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT

THAT'S TOTAL EMPTY TRUCKS IN FULL TRUCKS OUT SPREAD OUT OVER A

TEN-YEAR PERIOD IF AVERAGED AT A CONSTANT RATE OF EXCAVATION

THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 107, 8 TRIPS A DAY HOWEVER WE WOULD EXPECT

THE TRIPS IN ACTUALITY WILL VARY CONSIDERABLY DEPENDING ON DEMAND

FOR MATERIAL.

TO HELP PREVENT QUEUEING OR PARKING OF HAUL TRUCKS ALONG COUNTY

ROAD 39 ALONG THE DRIVEWAY OUR CONDITIONS REQUIRE THAT THE ACCESS

GATE BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 200 FEET FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO

PROVIDE FOR QUEUEING OF TRUCKS ON THE DRIVEWAY RATHER THAN ON THE

SIDE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE FREQUENTLY TRUCKS LIKE TO GET THERE

BEFORE THE EXCAVATION OPENS UP AND THEN THIS WAY THEY WILL BE ON

THE DRIVEWAY INSTEAD OF ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.

IF YOU HAVE BEEN THE TO THE SITE YOU'LL SEE THAT THE AREA AROUND

WHERE THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTS TO COUNTY ROAD 39 IS COMPLETELY

UNDEVELOPED.

IT'S EITHER VACANT OR AN AGRICULTURAL USE SO IT'S A GOOD LOCATION

FOR THE DRIVEWAY TO CONNECT IN THE SENSE THERE ARE NO IMMEDIATE

ADJOINING USES EVEN IN THE AREA THAT COULD BE ADVERSELY MACED BY

30

THE TRUCK TRAFFIC.

ONE OF THE MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS APPLICATION WAS THE

REQUEST FOR A SEPARATION WAIVER IN THE NORTHWEST AREA OF THE

PROJECT.

THERE ARE SOME HOMES ALONG AUTO AND DURANT ROAD ON THE PROPERTY

TO THE WEST.

YOU'LL SEE IN THE FILE THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION REQUESTED A

400 FOOT WAIVER TO PROVIDE A 100 FOOT SEPARATION WITH SOME VERY

MINIMAL MEASURES FOR MITIGATION.

STAFF BOTH US AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF

THAT.

THE APPLICANT THEN TOOK OUR COMMENTS TO HEART, CAME BACK WITH A

PROPOSAL FOR A 200 FOOT SEPARATION AND A NUMBER OF MEASURES THAT

WE FEEL WILL EFFECTIVELY -- SHOULD EFFECTIVELY MITIGATE ANY KIND

OF IMPACT FROM THE REDUCED SEPARATION ON THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES

BECAUSE AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT A 500 FOOT SEPARATION IS WHAT'S

TYPICALLY REQUIRED.

THOSE MEASURES INCLUDE THAT THE 200 FOOT SEPARATION AREA WILL BE

MAINTAINED AS A PASSIVE BUFFER FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXCAVATION

ACTIVITIES ANYWHERE ON THE SITE AND THE ONLY THINGS THAT CAN

31

OCCUR AS FAR AS VEHICLES, MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT WOULD BE TO

INSTALL OR MAINTAIN REQUIRED SCREENING AND BUFFERING AND A

PERIMETER AND RESURGE DITCHES SO OTHERWISE IT WILL BE A DEAD

ZONE.

SECONDLY THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PLANT A ROW OF EVERGREEN TREES

ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY AT THE REAR OF

THE NEIGHBORING HOMES THESE TREES WILL BE IMPLANTED WITHIN 1 --

PLANTED WITHIN 120 DAYS OF OPERATING APPROVAL AND THE TREES WILL

BE BROAD CANOPY EVERGREENS PLACED ON 20 FOOT CENTERS WITH A

MINIMUM OF 5 FEET AT THE TIME OF PLANTING.

EXCAVATION WORK WITHIN THE 300 FOOT WAIVER ZONE WILL BE DELAYED

FOR FIVE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF OPERATING PERMIT.

THIS WILL PROVIDE A FIVE YEAR GROWING TREE FOR THOSE SHADE TREES

SO THEY WILL PROVIDE A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE SCREEN BY THE TIME

EXCAVATION WORK STARTS IF THE 300 FOOT WAIVER ZONE.

ALSO PRIOR TO THE START OF EXCAVATION WORK WITHIN THE 300 FOOT

WAIVER ZONE THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL A 6 FOOT

HIGH BERM ALONG THE ENTIRE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE 200 FOOT

SETBACK.

AND THEN ALSO DEWATERING PUMPS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE

32

INSTALLED OR OPERATED WESTWARD OF THE BERM.

THEN LASTLY WITHIN THAT 300 FOOT WAIVER ZONE ANY KIND OF

EXCAVATION WORK INCLUDING THE LOADING OF HAUL TRUCKS WILL BE

PROHIBITED ON SATURDAYS WHICH IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL

PROHIBITION ON SUNDAY HOURS WILL SERVE TO PROHIBIT ANY KIND OF

ACTIVITY WITHIN THE ENTIRE 500 FOOT BUFFER ZONE ON WEEKENDS OR

REGULAR 500 FOOT SEPARATION ZONE ON THE WEEKENDS.

WE FIND THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD SERVE TO EFFECTIVELY

MITIGATE IMPACTS ON THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEREFORE WE FIND

THAT WE COULD SUPPORT THE WAIVERS.

AS MR. HORNER MENTIONED, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY INQUIRIES OR

OBJECTIONS FROM THE AFFECTED NEIGHBORS REGARDING THE PROPOSED

SEPARATION WAIVER.

REAL QUICKLY THE SITE IS -- THE EXCAVATION PORTION OF THE SITE OR

OF THE PARENT TRACT IS IN THE WELLHEAD RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONING

AREA 1 EXCAVATIONS ARE A RESTRICTED ACTIVITY IN THIS AREA THE

APPLICANT WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A DETAILED HYDRAULIC STUDY

DEMONSTRATING THE PROJECT WON'T ADVERSELY IMPACT GROUNDWATER

RESOURCES THEY DID SO OUR LAND EXCAVATION TEAM REVIEWED THE STUDY

SAYING IT WAS WITH THE PROPOSED STEPS OF 20 TO 30 FEET.

33

THE PROJECT IS ALSO -- OR COUPLED WITH CELLS 1 AND 2 ARE

ADJACENT TO EDWARD MEDARD REGIONAL PARK NATURAL RESOURCES IN

TAMPA BAY AND CONSERVATION STAFF AND ALSO TAMPA BAY WATER STAFF

HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND DON'T OBJECT SUBJECT TO THE

CONDITIONS THAT YOU FIND IN THE RECOMMENDED CONDITION.

FINALLY THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE HOST TRACT IS LOCATED IN THE

ZONE 2 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA AND IN THAT AREA EXCAVATIONS ARE

PROHIBITED SO THE CONDITIONS SAID THAT -- STATE AND THE SITE PLAN

SHOWS NO ENCROACHMENTS INTO ZONE 2 AND ALSO THE CONDITIONS

REQUIRE THAT PRIOR TO EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES THEY ARE GOING TO

HAVE TO DELINEATE THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ZONE 1 AND ZONE 2 IN THE

FIELD WITH STAKES OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO OUR REVIEW STAFF

OUR LAND EXCAVATION REVIEW STAFF FOR THE DURATION OF ANY

EXCAVATION ACTIVITY ON THE SITE I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS

OH ONE TYPO I JUST DISCOVERED IN THE CONDITIONS --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IN THE REVISED REPORT TOM.

>>YES.

WELL YOU KNOW LIKE THE AUTO NUMBERING OF THE PARAGRAPHS RIGHT

LIKE ONCE THE AUTO -- AUTO NUMBERED THE PARAGRAPHS WHEN YOU GET

INTO SUBPARAGRAPHS ANYWAY 3.2 YOU'LL SEE A, B, C AND E I WANT TO

34

POINT OUT THAT IT'S NOT E, IT'S D SO THERE'S NOT A MISSING

PARAGRAPH IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A, B, C AND D AND YES I HATE AUTO

NUMBERING.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE SIR.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WERE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS FOR YOU

WITH THE TRANSPORTATION SECTION ABOUT ACCEL, DECEL.

>>THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF REVIEWED IT THEIR REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT

ACCELERATION LANES HOWEVER MIKE FROM TRANSPORTATION STAFF IS HERE

TONIGHT IF YOU CARE TO ASK HIM ABOUT THAT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I WOULD, THANK YOU.

>>GOOD EVENING MICHAEL DOORWEATHER (PHONETIC) WITH PUBLIC WORKS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: DID YOU HEAR THE QUESTION.

>>YES I DID.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: DID YOU LOOK AT THE DECELERATION AND

ACCELERATION.

>>WE TALKED ABOUT IT TOM AND I DID ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE

NOTING ON THE FUTURE PLAN IS THAT COUNTY ROAD 39 IS SHOWN AS

ENHANCED ROADWAY SO THERE'S AN ABILITY TO PROVIDE TURN LANES IN

THE FUTURE SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IS WHETHER

35

THERE WOULD BE ANY NEED FOR TURN LANES AND THEN WE NOTED THERE

COULD BE A -- ACCOMMODATED BASED ON THE TYPICAL SECTION OUTLINED

FOR FUTURE ROADWAY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE

PLACE IS THERE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BE A FOUR FOOT RESERVATION

BASICALLY FROM THE CENTERLINE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT TURN LANE BUT

IT COULD BE DONE IT COULD BE PUT IN AS A CONDITION IF IT'S

SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED WE WERE KIND OF UNCERTAIN

ABOUT IT ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IS TO MAKE SURE WE HAD

ENOUGH STORAGE ONSITE OUTSIDE THE GATE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE

WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE THE TRUCKS TURNING IN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: COUNTY ROAD 39 IS A TWO LANE UNDIVIDED

ROAD SO AN ACCELERATING TRUCK IS GOING TO BE NECESSARILY MOVING

INTO TRAFFIC WITH A VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM ONLY ONE LANE THE

SAME LANE IS THAT RIGHT?

>>THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION.

THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IS THIS A CONSIDERATION YOU GUYS WOULD

GIVE DURING THE OPERATING PERMIT REVIEW PHASE?

>>I'LL LET SOMEBODY ELSE TALK TO THAT.

36

>>MIKE STEPHENSON AVAILABLE FROM LAND EXCAVATION STAFF TO ANSWER

THAT QUESTION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

>>GOOD EVENING, MIKE STEPHENSON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, YES,

DURING THE OPERATING PERMIT PROCESS, THE TRANSPORTATION WILL HAVE

AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND SUBMIT COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL IF THEY SO DESIRE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU, MIKE.

ALL RIGHT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT AND

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AS WELL REGARDING THE BUFFERING ISSUE.

WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE BUFFERING ISSUE AS PROPOSED AND

SCREENING AND WHATNOT.

AND FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY THANK YOU FOR THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

SEEING NONE.

37

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

YES, SIR.

I SHOULD ASK BEFORE THIS GENTLEMAN SPEAKS IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE

IN OPPOSITION HERE TONIGHT?

OKAY.

ALL YOURS, SIR.

>>MIKE BUTE.

7002 AUTO ROAD.

PLANT CITY FLORIDA 33567.

AUTO ROAD IS A VERY QUIET PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAVE A LOT OF WILDLIFE IN THE AREA AND NONE OF THESE GENTLEMEN

ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE.

WE SEE DEER IN THE AREA.

WE HEAR THE COYOTES AT NIGHT WE HAVE FOXES THAT SCAMPER THROUGH

THE YARD.

WE HAVE A COMMUNITY IN THE AREA AND WE ALSO ENJOY OUR SKUNKS FROM

A DISTANCE.

THE PARK IS A HUGE ATTRACTION OF ALL KIND OF WILDLIFE.

WE HAVE SEEN BALD EAGLES, OSPREY THERE ARE MANY, MANY BIRDS, SAND

HILL CRANES ENJOY THE AREA AND I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT WILL REALLY

38

HAVE A DIVERSE EFFECT ON THEIR -- EFFECT ON THEIR HABITAT.

GETTING BACK TO THE ROAD ISSUE AS WELL, 39 IS A TWO LANE ROAD.

IT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF MONEY TO FOUR LANE IT FROM 60 TO KEYSVILLE

ROAD AND IT WOULD STILL BE A BOTTLENECK.

KEYSVILLE ROAD AND TURKEY CREEK ROAD IN THE AREA THAT ARE ON THE

PERIMETERS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AREA ARE BARELY TWO LANE ROADS.

AND THESE TWO LANE ROADS DEAD END INTO EACH OTHER.

AND THEN YOU HAVE DURANT HIGH SCHOOL RIGHT THERE AND YOU HAVE

ADMINISTRATORS COMING IN TEACHERS COMING IN STAFF COMING IN AND

SCHOOL BUSES COMING IN YOU HAVE PARENTS COMING IN.

AND STUDENTS COMING IN.

AND KEYSVILLE ROAD AND TURKEY CREEK ROAD BECOME A PARKING LOT

THERE ARE TRAIN TRACKS IN THE AREA SO IF YOU ADD A FREIGHT TRAIN

INTO THE AREA, IT BECOMES A NIGHTMARE OF A PARKING LOT.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA CANNOT SUPPORT THIS KIND OF

ACTIVITY.

AGAIN LIKE I SAY THE DANGERS TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT SLOWING

DOWN AND ACCELERATING AND WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT'S -- IT WILL ALL

BE A NUISANCE.

ALSO THE WATER, THE AREAS ARE VERY, VERY WATER SENSITIVE THERE

39

ARE TWO MONITORING WELLS ABOUT 50 FEET FROM MY PROPERTY.

WHENEVER THESE WELLS WAS DRILLED I BELIEVE BY -- THIS WAS BEFORE

I LIVED THERE BUT I DO HAVE DOCUMENTATION BEFORE THESE WELLS THEY

WERE DRILLED, AS -- AGAIN THEY ARE MONITORING WELLS.

THEY ARE NOT PUMPING WATER OUT OF THESE WELLS AT ALL BUT WHENEVER

THEY WERE DRILLED, IT CAUSED AN UNDERGROUND EVENT AND SWFWMD HAD

TO COME IN AND DRILL EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEW WELLS 300

FEET PLUS DEEP AND THEN ANOTHER WELL WAS DRILLED AND THEN SWFWMD

HAD TO COME IN AND PUT WATER SOFTENING DEVICES ON ALL OF THE

WELLS THAT THEY HAD DRILLED.

IT IS A VERY SENSITIVE AREA.

AGAIN LIKE I SAY FOR THE WILDLIFE, FOR THE WAY OF LIFE THAT WE

HAVE THERE NOW IT'S VERY PEACEFUL.

WE ENJOY IT THERE.

THE PARK THERE IS JUST BEAUTIFUL.

THE HOUSES THAT ARE GOING TO EVENTUALLY BE HERE IN THIS

DEVELOPMENT I BELIEVE ARE GOING TO BE KIND OF UPSCALE HOUSES.

THEY ARE GOING TO BE VERY HUGE HOUSES.

VERY WELL MAINTAINED YARDS.

AND LANDSCAPING.

40

AND OF COURSE WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE FERTILIZER WHENEVER

THESE YARDS ARE FERTILIZED.

THE RUNOFF GOES INTO THE PARK AREA AND THEN IT RUINS OUR PARKS,

THE MEDARD PARK --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I'M GIVING YOU LATITUDE BUT THIS ISN'T

ABOUT A RESIDENTIAL REZONING.

I PREFER YOU SPEAK TO THE LAND EXCAVATION.

>>AGAIN LIKE I SAY JUST THE -- DISTURBING THE LANDS IS GOING TO

AFFECT THE WILDLIFE AND AFFECT OUR WAY OF LIFE THAT WE HAVE

ENJOYED THERE FOR MANY YEARS.

I OPPOSE IT AND I HOPE THAT YOU -- AND THE BUFFER ZONE I MEAN --

REDUCING IT IS A SLAP IN THE FACE REDUCING IT FROM 500 TO 200

FEET IF THEY DO GO FORWARD WITH THIS THE REDUCTION OF THE BUFFER

ZONE IS A SLAP IN THE FACE.

IT SHOULD REMAIN AT LEAST 500 FEET.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: YOUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE 500 FEET AND

NO SPECIFIC SCREENING INSTEAD OF 300 WITH THE SCREENING PROPOSED.

>>RIGHT, YES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ANYTHING ELSE, SIR?

>>I THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME AND I HOPE YOU TAKE THIS IN

41

CONSIDERATION.

THEY HAVE PUT A LOT OF SAFEGUARDS IN THE PROPOSAL BUT AGAIN

PLEASE REMEMBER THE MOST POWERFUL GREATEST LAW THAT HAS EVER BEEN

WRITTEN BY MAN AND THAT'S MURPHY'S LAW IF I CAN -- IF IT CAN GO

WRONG, IT WILL GO WRONG.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR.

ANYBODY ELSE IN OPPOSITION?

OKAY MR. HIZNAY I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.

TOM DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW IF THERE'S ANY MAPPED UPLAND

SIGNIFICANT HABITAT.

>>TOM HIZNAY: THERE ARE TWO COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY

NATURAL RESOURCES.

YOU WILL SEE THEY ARE REFLECTED IN CONDITIONS 19 AND 20.

AND 19 STATES THAT AN EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SUPPORTS A

PRESUMPTION THAT LISTED ANIMAL SPECIES MAY OCCUR OR HAVE

RESTRICTED ACTIVITY ZONES THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.

THEREFORE THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PERFORM A WILDLIFE SURVEY OF

ENDANGERED SPECIES THREATENED SPECIES OR SPECIES OF SPECIAL

CONCERN PRIOR TO OPERATING PERMIT APPROVAL SO THERE'S A

RECOGNITION BY AGAIN OUR NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF THAT THERE IS A

42

POTENTIAL WILDLIFE ISSUE ON THE SITE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THAT DOES IT.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF?

PLANNING COMMISSION?

MR. HORNER?

>>MICHAEL HORNER AGAIN I'LL BE BRIEF I WAS GOING TO ECHO TOM'S

POINT ON THE RECORD WE STATE WE WILL BE ABIDING BY ALL CONDITIONS

OF RECORD FROM TAMPA BAY WATER NATURAL RESOURCES AND CERTAINLY

THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO AGREE TO THAT

WILDLIFE UP ON HABITAT SPECIES STUDY WE WILL DO SO THE TRAFFIC

ISSUE MR. SCAROLA WE CERTAINLY HAVE THAT BURDEN ON US AT THE

OPERATING PERMIT STAGE WHERE WE WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL DATA

FOLLOWED BY TRIP ORIGIN DESTINATION STUDIES PEAK HOUR IMPACTS AND

THAT'S THE TIMELINE AND I THINK APPROPRIATE TIME FOR US TO

ADDRESS THE IMPACT ISSUES.

SO GOOD QUESTION WE JUST THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE APPROPRIATE AT

THE OPERATING PERMIT STAGE.

IN TERMS OF THE GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS YOU KNOW WE APPRECIATE THAT.

43

WE AGREED TO THE FIVE YEAR HIATUS SOLELY AS A COURTESY SO THEY

HAVE THAT PROTECTION ABOVE AND BEYOND ANY FENCING AND WE THINK

THE BERMING, THE SCREENING, THE PLANTING, THE WEEKEND PROHIBITION

AS WELL AS THE FIVE YEAR HIATUS AND SUNDAY PROHIBITION MORE THAN

MAKES UP FOR THAT HORIZONTAL DIFFERENCE WITH THAT I'LL HAVE MARK

FERRELL ADDRESS BRIEFLY THE WATER QUALITY ISSUE.

>>THANK YOU.

THE GENTLEMAN MENTIONED APPARENTLY THE DISTRICT -- PUTTING WELLS

IN AND CAUSE FAILURE OF THE WELL SYSTEM OUT THERE.

THERE IS A REQUIREMENT BY THE COUNTY THAT WE CAN'T EXCAVATE ANY

CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO THE LIMESTONE THE GEO TECH IN THIS AREA

SHOWS THE AREA ABOVE THE LIMESTONE 10 TO 15 FEET IS ALL CLAY, WAS

NEVER DISTURBED EVEN IN THE PHOSPHATE MINING DAYS MY CLIENT HAS

NO INTEREST IN MINING CLAY SO WE HAVE A PROHIBITION AND WE DO NOT

ANTICIPATE GOING ANY CLOSER THAN 15 FEET TO BREACH THE AQUIFER SO

WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT SITUATION WE CAN'T ANTICIPATE WILL HAPPEN

HERE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE SPECIAL USE 14-667.

>>BRIAN GRADY: AGENDA ITEM B.3 SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 14-0748

44

THE APPLICANT IS FRESH MARKET INCORPORATED THE REQUEST IS FOR

DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR SPECIAL USE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE 2

COP.

CHOLINE WILL PROVIDE STAFF PRESENTATION AFTER PRESENTATION BEFORE

THE APPLICANT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING.

>>GOOD EVENING MR. SCAROLA I'M GRACE YANG I'M WITH THE GRAY

ROBINSON LAW FIRM 401 EAST JACKSON STREET SUITE 2700 TAMPA,

FLORIDA 33602 HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

THE FRESH MARKET GROCERY STORE IS AN OPEN AND OPERATING STORE

IT'S LOCATED AT 3468 LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD.

IT HAD RECEIVED COUNTY APPROVAL EARLIER THIS YEAR FOR 2 APS

PACKAGE BEER AND WINE SPECIAL USE UNDER PETITION 140537.

THE PENDING APPLICATION BEFORE YOU IS TO EXPAND USE TO 2 COP USE

TO ALLOW BEER AND WINE AS AN OVERALL PART OF THE GROCERY STORE AT

THE FRESH MARKET WE ARE REQUESTING TWO WAIVERS WITH THIS PETITION

THE FIRST WAIVER IS BECAUSE THERE'S RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY

WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE FRESH MARKET SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE SECOND WAIVER THAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS TO ALLOW MORE THAN 3

APPROVED ALCOHOL USES WITHIN 1,000 FOOT RADIUS THERE ARE

45

CURRENTLY FIVE APPROVED USES OF SIMILAR ALCOHOL SPECIAL USE

APPROVALS AND THIS WOULD BE THE SIXTH ONE.

OUR JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE WAIVER ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE PROPERTY

AND THE FRESH MARKET, IT IS LOCATED IN A COMMERCIAL AREA IN AN

EXISTING OPERATING SHOPPING CENTER.

LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD AND THE SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT PROVIDE

BUFFER TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN QUESTION THE EXTRA DISTANCE TO

TRAVEL FROM THE FRESH MARKET AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARE NEGATED

AND BUFFERED BY THE PARKING LOT AS WELL AS WITH THE LITHIA-

PINECREST ROAD.

THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARE SURROUNDING -- ARE ZONED IT'S A PD

MIXED USE AREA WE FEEL IT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MIXED USE

PD USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY APPROVED IN THAT AREA AND AGAIN IT

WOULD -- THE ALCOHOL SALES WOULD SUPPORT AS AN INCIDENTAL USE TO

THE GROCERY STORE.

WITH ME TONIGHT IS DARREN DRENNER THE STORE MANAGER FOR THE FRESH

MARKET AND WE'RE BOTH AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY

HAVE.

THANK YOU.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

46

MS. MARSHALL.

>>COLLEEN MARSHALL: COLLEEN MARSHALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THE

APPLICANT STATED THE REQUEST IS FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER

FOR 2 COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT TO ALLOW BEER AND WINE FOR

SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF PREMISES FOR FRESH MARKET STORE

THE LOCATION CURRENTLY HAS 2 APS-IS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT

APPROVED FOR THE FRESH MARKET STORE UNDER PETITION 14-0537.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE

DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED

PROPERTY SHOULD BE 250 FEET PROPOSED LOCATION IS LOCATED 57 FEET

FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT

THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN THREE APPROVED SIMILAR ALCOHOL

BEVERAGE LICENSES WITHIN 1,000 FEET THERE ARE FIVE CURRENTLY

SIMILAR APPROVED LICENSES WITHIN 1,000 FEET STAFF CONCURS WITH

APPLICANT'S WAIVERS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN SUPPORT OF

THE REQUEST TONIGHT?

SEEING NONE.

ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

47

NOPE.

ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE APPLICANT?

ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE SPECIAL USE 14-748.

>>BRIAN GRADY: MR. SCAROLA THAT CONCLUDES SPECIAL USES WE ARE

NOW IN THE REZONING PORTION IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HEAR FROM

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

FOR REMAINING ITEMS.

>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: LOUIS WHITEHEAD ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.

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

COUNTY'S REZONING PROCESS.

TONIGHT'S HEARING IS THE TIME FOR APPLICANTS AND INTERESTED

CITIZENS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE.

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL

RECORD OF EACH CASE.

THE RECORD OF EACH CASE WILL BE CLOSED AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S

HEARINGS AND NO EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED THEREAFTER.

THE SECOND STEP OF THE REZONING PROCESS IS A PUBLIC MEETING

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD

WILL MAKE A DECISION ON EACH PETITION. THE HEARING MASTER WILL

48

FILE RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH PETITION HEARD TONIGHT ON AUGUST THE

11TH.

AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO

DESIRES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MUST FILE AN

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON

AUGUST 21ST.

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

BOARD'S SEPTEMBER 9TH LAND USE MEETING.

THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER ONLY THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING AND

THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING MASTER IN RENDERING ITS

DECISION.

PLEASE NOTE THAT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS MUST BE RESPONSIVE TO THE

HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

ACCORDINGLY ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE FILED UNTIL THE

HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE

COUNTY.

THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE PUBLIC

MEETING.

HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BOARD CAN ELECT TO HEAR

ORAL ARGUMENT FROM A PARTY OF RECORD.

49

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

THE FOLLOWING FOUR CATEGORIES.

FIRST, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS PRESENT TONIGHT AND PRESENTS ORAL

TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

SECOND AN INDIVIDUAL CERTIFIED BY THE POSTAL SERVICE AS HAVING

BEEN MAILED NOTICE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING.

THIRD, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE

MASTER FILE AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S

HEARING.

OR FOURTH, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

THROUGH ANOTHER DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING.

IN THE EVENT THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT PARTIES OF

RECORD WILL FILE RESPONSIVE TIMELY REQUESTS WILL BE CONSIDERED

FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD CLEARLY ADDRESS WHY ORAL ARGUMENT

IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR

OUTSTANDING ISSUES.

ONE TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITIES IN THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING TWO

TO UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST RENDERING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE

RECORD, THREE A MISTAKE IN THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

50

OR FOUR TO ADDRESS A MATTER THAT WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD

TONIGHT BUT IT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN THE HEARING MASTER'S

RECOMMENDATION THE SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE

CONTENT OF TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED VERBALLY OR IN

OTHER WRITING TO THE HEARING MASTER TONIGHT.

THE ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO

SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD AND NEW EVIDENCE OR -- EVIDENCE OR

TESTIMONY ISN'T INTRODUCED OR ALLOWED IN THE PUBLIC MEETING FOR

THESE REASONS PLEASE MAKE SURE ALL OF THE INFORMATION YOU DESIRE

THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AT THE PUBLIC MEETING IS PLACED INTO THE

RECORD TONIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>BRIAN GRADY: AGENDA ITEM B.4 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0421 THE

APPLICANT IS TURAN PROPERTIES LLC THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM

BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO A COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING

DISTRICT WITH RESTRICTIONS.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING.

51

>>GOOD EVENING.

KRISTIN MORA ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 301 WEST KENNEDY

BOULEVARD.

THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IT WAS

REZONED IN 2008 TO THAT DESIGNATION.

TONIGHT WE ARE HERE JUST FOR A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY THAT'S

LOCATED CLOSEST TO THE CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WILLIAMS

BOULEVARD AND LITHIA-PINECREST TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED.

THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED.

I'LL GO INTO THOSE IN JUST ONE MOMENT.

THE BPO THEN WOULD SERVE THE REMAINING BPO WOULD THEN SERVE AS

TRANSITION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL RESTRICTED TO THE LESS INTENSE LAND

USES.

SINCE THE 2008 ZONING THIS INTERSECTION HAS BECOME A LIGHTED

INTERSECTION.

IT HAS COMMERCIAL ON TWO SIDES OF IT IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE SITE

WILL BE, ONE SITE HAS APPROXIMATELY 40,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL

STRIP CENTER.

THAT'S DEVELOPED AND IN USE TODAY.

AND THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT'S ALSO DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THIS SITE

52

HAS ABOUT 11,000 SQUARE FEET PART OF WHICH IS A GAS STATION THE

OTHER PART OF WHICH IS ALSO A COMMERCIAL STRIP CENTER.

THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS FOR ONLY ABOUT 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF

THE COMMERCIAL USES.

ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES COULD BE DEVELOPED ONSITE.

WITH RESPECT TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, THIS SITE IS SOMEWHAT

UNUSUAL WITH THIS CONFIGURATION.

I'LL GO OVER TO THE OVERHEAD AND SHOW YOU THE AERIAL.

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY.

THIS IS WHERE THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED.

THIS IS ABOUT 40,000 SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL STRIP CENTER HERE.

ABOUT 11,000 SQUARE FOOT GAS STATION STRIP CENTER LOCATED THERE.

THIS IS A RATHER LARGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT IS DEVELOPED.

AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE

DEVELOPED THROUGHOUT THIS AREA.

THE ROAD THAT YOU SEE EXTENDING UP THIS WAY IS RIVER HILLS IT

GOES INTO THE RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION WHICH IS APPROVED FOR 1375

RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

THE EXACT NUMBER THAT'S BUILT WE DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF US BUT

THAT'S THE NUMBER OF ZONING ALLOWED.

53

THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S POSITION IS THAT SINCE THIS IS LITHIA-

PINECREST IT IS LOCATED ON THE MAPS THAT WOULD MAKE IT AN

ELIGIBLE FOR LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.

THE OTHER ROAD WOULD NEED TO BE MAJOR LOCAL AS NONE OF THESE ARE

LOCATED ON THE MAP THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEELS THAT RIVER HILLS

PARKWAY WOULD BE THE MAJOR LOCAL ROADWAY FOR THE RIVER HILLS

SUBDIVISION WHICH WOULD MAKE THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA HERE.

OUR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN THAT THIS SITE IN ADDITION IS LOCATED

WITHIN THE SAME PLAN DEVELOPMENT AS RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION IT'S

OUR POSITION THAT ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION

HAS DONE IS MOVED LOCATIONAL CRITERIA TO HERE SO THIS BECOMES THE

COMMERCIAL NODE AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT

PATTERN THAT'S DEVELOPED THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISAGREES THAT'S

WHERE THE MAJOR LOCAL ROAD IS LOCATED HOWEVER THEY FEEL THAT THIS

IS A UNIQUE SITUATION AND THEREFORE WOULD SUPPORT WAIVER OF

CRITERIA IN EITHER EVENT WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE ALL PARTIES

AGREE THAT THIS SITE IS APPROPRIATE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

AND FURTHER AS CONDITIONED IT'S CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH

WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE AREA.

AS I MENTIONED WE PROPOSED CONDITIONS THAT INCLUDE ORIENTING THE

54

SITE TOWARDS LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD AND AWAY FROM THE

NEIGHBORHOOD.

IN ADDITION THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE ADDITIONAL BUFFERING

SCREENING ABOVE WHAT THE WHAT IS REQUIRED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE

AS AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WE ALSO INCLUDED A

CAP ON THE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT

BUSINESSES ON THE TWO EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE DOING

AND IT WOULD CAP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET AS I

MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT OUR

ENGINEERING WHO HAS REVIEWED THE SITE CURRENTLY IN CONFIGURATION

WITH LITHIA-PINECREST LEADS AC -- BELIEVES ACCESS TO LITHIA-

PINECREST IS THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR THIS SITE AND THAT'S

WHERE WE INTEND TO PLACE IT.

HOWEVER THAT BEING SAID, THERE ARE SOME PLANS OUT THERE TO FOUR

LANE LITHIA-PINECREST.

WE'RE NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WILL ACTUALLY GO FORWARD

THERE IS SOME OPPOSITION TO FOUR LANING IF THAT WENT FORWARD IT

MIGHT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THIS ACCESS WE WOULD JUST NOTE FOR THE

RECORD WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY STAFF.

IF FOR SOME REASON ACTS TO LITHIA DIDN'T BECOME POSSIBLE BECAUSE

55

OF CHANGES IN CONFIGURATION WE WOULD COME BACK IN FOR MINOR

CHANGE AND SEEK A CONDITION FOR ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: MINOR CHANGE SPECIFICALLY

ADMINISTRATIVE.

>>IT WOULD BE A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL I BELIEVE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: MINOR CHANGE IS ADMINISTRATIVE, MINOR

MOD?

>>MINOR MODIFICATION.

EXCUSE ME; THANK YOU.

WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCES AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST

YOUR APPROVAL WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY OPPOSITION TONIGHT BUT I'LL

JUST RESERVE ANY ADDITIONAL TIME FOR REBUTTAL IF NECESSARY.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING ISABELLE ALBERT DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.3 ACRE PARCEL FROM

BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH SOME

RESTRICTIONS.

THE APPLICANT AND STAFF HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY TO HAVE SOME

56

CONDITIONS THAT WE FOUND THAT WE CAN ALL SUPPORT.

AND THESE CONDITIONS ARE FOUND IN MY REPORT.

THE SURROUNDING AREA AS MS. MORA EXPLAINED IT IS COMMERCIAL IT'S

BECOMING MORE INTENSIVE OVER THE YEARS. THERE'S BEEN

INTRODUCTION OF THE LIGHT THEY HAVE MAINTAINED A PORTION OF THE

SITE TO BE BPO SO THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE TRANSITION.

I WANTED TO CONFIRM WITH THE APPLICANT THAT WE DID INCLUDE SOME

CONDITIONS, SOME RESTRICTIONS TO THE USES, TO HOURS OF OPERATION,

INCREASED BUFFERING AND SCREENING.

SO MORE SPECIFICALLY IT WAS THAT LIMIT OF 5,000 SQUARE FOOT OF

COMMERCIAL USES AND THE APPLICANT JUST SAID THAT PERHAPS IF THEY

DID BPO THEY COULD ALLOWED -- THEY COULD BE ALLOWED MORE AM I

UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY YOU WANT THAT?

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE MY CONDITION LIMITS IT TO

5,000 SQUARE FOOT OF COMMERCIAL USES HOWEVER IF THEY WANT TO

DEVELOP WITH A BPO I WOULD HAVE TO AMEND MY CONDITION TO MAKE

SURE THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO BPO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HOWEVER

IF THEY DEVELOP COMMERCIAL USES THESE WOULD BE THE RESTRICTIONS.

I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF

57

THIS NOW?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: PLEASE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: FIRST DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

>>YES.

YEAH, WHAT WE WERE SEEKING AND OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONDITION

IS IT WOULD BE 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES SINCE THAT'S

WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION.

THE CURRENT BPO ZONING WOULD ALLOW POTENTIALLY I BELIEVE IT COMES

UP TO LIKE 9,000 SQUARE FEET ASSUMING THAT ALL FIT ONSITE WE

WOULD WANT THE ABILITY TO DO 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL

POTENTIALLY 4,000 SQUARE FEET OF BPO JUST AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THE

5,000 SQUARE FOOT CAP WE WOULD SEEK FOR THAT TO APPLY ONLY TO I

GUESS IT WOULD BE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMERCIAL GENERAL

USES SO MAYBE I WOULD PROPOSE THAT TO THE CONDITIONAL LANGUAGE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I TAKE IT THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF

THE CONDITION?

>>I WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS.

JUST GIVE ME A MINUTE.

DISCUSS IT WITH HER.

I KNOW IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES WE LIMITED

58

CERTAIN USES.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: YOU DON'T NEED TO THINK IT OUT HERE

WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A SECOND.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: RIGHT THAT'S WHAT I MEAN WE CAN WEIGH A

COUPLE OF CASES KEEP THIS OPEN HAVE ME DISCUSS IT WITH HER.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

LET'S DO THAT.

WE'LL -- LET ME GO AHEAD AND SEE WHO WE HAVE IN THE AUDIENCE.

IS ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

IN SUPPORT?

I SEE NONE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST TONIGHT?

OKAY.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND GRANT A CONTINUANCE FOR ONE OR TWO CASES WE'LL

SEE HOW YOU'RE DOING IN DISCUSSIONS AND HAVE YOU BACK.

WITH THAT WE'LL CONTINUE RZ 14-421.

BRIAN.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM B.5 REZONING

APPLICATION 14-0722 THE APPLICANT IS JOSEPH AND DEBORAH TAYLOR

59

THE REQUEST IS FROM AGRICULTURE SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTIONAL 1 WITH

RESTRICTIONS TO AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY 1 I'LL PROVIDE STAFF

RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>GOOD EVENING I'M JOSEPH TAYLOR.

CURRENT ADDRESS IS 6418 SHADOW BROOK DRIVE LAKELAND, FLORIDA

33813.

I DON'T HAVE A BIG PRESENTATION.

IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

I WOULD LIKE TO JUST RECOGNIZE AND APPRECIATE THE COUNTY AND

STAFF FOR DOING EVERYTHING THEY HAVE TO HELP US AND WORK THROUGH

THIS.

WE'RE WANTING TO REZONE TO BE ABLE TO PUT A MANUFACTURED HOME

THERE.

THAT'S IT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT I APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY.

AND BRIAN ARE YOU DOING LORI'S.

>>BRIAN GRADY: YEAH FOR THE RECORD BRIAN GRADY HILLSBOROUGH

COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATELY 8.82 ACRE PARCEL

LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PRTICHER ROAD 100 FEET NORTH OF

60

HARTLEY LANE FROM AGRICULTURAL RESTRICTED TO AGRICULTURAL SINGLE

FAMILY THE CHANGE WOULD EXTENSIVELY AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT

ALLOW MOBILE HOMES TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY THE CURRENT

ZONING WOULDN'T ALLOW MOBILE HOMES.

THE PROPERTY IS A LEGAL CONFORMING LOT.

THE CHANGE FROM ASC-1 TO AS-1 DOESN'T CHANGE DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS.

THEY ONLY CHANGE EXTENSIVELY BETWEEN THE TWO DISTRICTS IS TO

ALLOW THE MOBILE HOME.

AS I NOTED IT IS A LEGAL CONFORMING LOT THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED

IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGULATION TO CREATE FOUR

LOTS WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN DEVELOP ON THE PROPERTY I'LL

NOTE A VARIANCE WAS GRANTED FOR EASEMENT IN 2007 THAT WAS 07-

0909.

THE AREA HAS A MIXTURE OF AGRICULTURAL USE CONSISTING MUCH SINGLE

FAMILY ASC-1 ZONING ASC ZONING AS 0.4 WHICH PERMITS MOBILE HOMES

AND AR WHICH ALSO PERMITS MOBILE HOMES PROPERTIES TO THE EAST,

NORTH AND SOUTH ARE ZONED AR AND PROPERTIES WEST ZONED AS-1

THEREFORE THERE'S A PRESENCE OF ZONING THAT ALLOWS MOBILE HOME

USES THEREFORE STAFF HAVE FOUND THE REQUEST APPROVAL.

61

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: POLICY 1.4 IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT

SPEAKS TO COMPATIBILITY STATING IT DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS BUT

RATHER SIMILAR TO AND MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE

SURROUNDING AREA.

POLICY 20.3 IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT RECOGNIZES

MANUFACTURED HOUSING AS A VIABLE MEANS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

REITERATING WHAT BRIAN SAID THERE'S A MIXTURE OF ZONINGS OUT

THERE WHICH ALLOW BOTH SITE BUILT AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING AS

WELL AS THE TYPES OF USES OUT THERE CURRENTLY BEING BOTH.

SO WITH THAT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED

REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST?

SEEING NONE.

OH, OKAY.

THERE YOU GO.

THEY COUNT.

IS THERE ANYBODY TONIGHT IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF?

62

SIR, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE IT?

ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE IT.

THAT WILL CLOSE RZ 14-722.

>>BRIAN GRADY: AGENDA ITEM B.6 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0734 THE

APPLICANT IS KATHLEEN BROWNELL TEMPLE TERRACE ET AL. THE REQUEST

IS TO REZONE FROM BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO COMMERCIAL

NEIGHBORHOOD WITH RESTRICTIONS COLLEEN MARSHALL WILL PROVIDE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>JUDY JAMES 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CNR

RESTRICTED TO ALLOW BPO AND PRIOR SALON ON THE PROPERTY.

THEY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN LITHIA-PINECREST IN 1988 AND

PROCEEDED TO PERMIT IT AS A BEAUTY SALON I INCLUDED IN MY

ORIGINAL APPLICATION HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE IT AVAILABLE TO YOU THE

BUILDING PERMITS CERTIFICATES OF OAK PANSY STATING THEY WERE FOR

-- OCCUPANCY STATING THEY WERE FOR A BEAUTY SALON THE PROPERTY

WAS LEASED AS A BEAUTY SALON SINCE 1998.

KATHLEEN BROWNELL IS CURRENTLY TRYING TO NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF

THE PROPERTY IT WAS DISCOVERED IT'S ZONED BPO WHICH WOULD ALLOW

THE BEAUTY SALON AS AN ACCESSORY USE NOT PRIMARY USE SO WE FILED

THIS APPLICATION.

63

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TIME PERIOD THAT SURROUNDED THE ISSUANCE OF

THE ORIGINAL BUILDING PERMIT STEVEN BROWNELL WAS PERMITTED IN THE

SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH OF THE SITE IF I'M LOOKING AT THE FILE I

CAN ASSUME THAT MAYBE IT WAS PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE

SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH OF THE SITE NOTWITHSTANDING THE USE IT WAS

PERMITTED BY THE COUNTY IT'S BEEN IN EXISTING AND -- EXISTENCE

AND WE BELIEVE IT'S SHOWN TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING

AREA THE SETBACKS FAR AND LOT COVERAGE ARE THE SAME FOR BPO AND

CN EXCEPT A BPO WOULD PERMIT A HEIGHT OF 50 FEET.

THERE IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING AREA TO THE NORTH THE

RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE 130 FEET IN DEPTH WITH 20 FOOT ACCESS

EASEMENT INCORPORATED INTO THOSE LOTS SEPARATING THEM FROM THE

BEAUTY SALON TO THE SOUTH THE -- THERE WAS RECENTLY APPROVED PRS

THAT MOVED THE ENTRANCE FOR THAT SUBDIVISION ADJACENT TO THE

BEAUTY SALON IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH WIDENING PLANS TO LITHIA-

PINECREST.

AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WE DID INCLUDE A

CONDITION THAT STATES THAT TREES IN EXCESS OF 5 INCH DBH SHALL BE

PRESERVED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY ROUTINE

MAINTENANCE IS PERMITTED AND WITH THAT IT WAS REQUIRED WE SUBMIT

64

FOR WAIVER LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WE BELIEVE WE MEET UNIQUE

CIRCUMSTANCES AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I DON'T HAVE ANY THANK YOU MS. JAMES?

MS. MARSHALL?

>>COLLEEN MARSHALL: COLLEEN MARSHALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THE

APPLICANT STATED THE REQUEST IS FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BPO TO

COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESTRICTED CNR THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED

THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS PERMITTED USES SHALL BE LIMITED TO BPO

USES IN A HAIR SALON AS A PRINCIPLE USE.

THE SECOND CONDITION TREES IN EXCESS OF 5 INCH DBH SHALL BE

PRESERVED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY ROUTINE

MAINTENANCE AND PRUNING IS PERMITTED SURROUNDING AREAS AND

MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES STAFF FINDS THE

PROPOSED REZONING COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA WITH

PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

I THINK THE BIG ISSUE HERE THE MAIN ISSUE IS JUST THE REQUEST IS

MINIMALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE APPROVED FOR CURRENTLY

WITH THE RESTRICTION FOR JUST THE HAIR SALON.

65

SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST STAFF

THEN RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD WOULD APPROVE THEIR WAIVER

REQUESTS TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AS WELL BECAUSE THEY FALL JUST

OUTSIDE THE DISTANCE AREA AND BASED ON WHAT'S THERE TODAY AND THE

BUSINESS DISTRICT AND WHATNOT WE FEEL THAT A WAIVER IS

APPROPRIATE.

AND BASED UPON THAT WE FIND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT THANK YOU FOR THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST?

NO.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

MS. JAMES?

ALL RIGHT WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE REZONING 14-734.

>>BRIAN GRADY: WE CAN MOVE BACK TO ITEM B.4 NOW.

IF YOU WANT TO REOPEN THAT UP.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WE'LL REOPEN ITEM B.4, 14-421.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THAT TIME SO WE WERE ABLE TO JUST FIX

THAT ONE CONDITION TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY TO THE APPLICANT.

SO WE ARE GOING TO ADD A SENTENCE IN THE FIRST CONDITION WE'LL

66

GIVE YOU A REVISED REPORT AND A SENTENCE WILL STATE THE SITE

SHALL BE DEVELOPED FOR BPO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXCEPT IF

DEVELOPED WITH CG USES THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS SHALL APPLY AND

THEN WE'LL FALL INTO CONDITION NO. 1 LIMITING WITH THAT WE FIND

IT SUPPORTABLE AND COMPATIBLE SUBJECT TO REVISED CONDITIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM

THE APPLICANT IF THAT'S GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE.

>>YES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AS TO THE WAIVER

REQUEST.

BOTTOM LINE IS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE

BOARD APPROVE A WAIVER REQUEST IN THIS INSTANCE BASED UPON

EXISTING LAND USES IN THE AREA.

COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA AS WELL SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO FIND THIS

REQUEST APPROVABLE.

WE DO FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANKS FOR THAT.

JUST CHECKING ANYBODY TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST?

SEEING NONE.

67

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

NOPE.

ANYTHING FROM THE APPLICANT?

>>NOTHING FURTHER JUST THANK YOU AND WE SEEK YOUR APPROVAL.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE

REZONING 14-421.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM B.7 REZONING

APPLICATION. APPLICATION 14-0745 THE APPLICANT IS PULTE HOME

CORP.

THE REQUEST IS FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE

FAMILY CONVENTIONAL 9. COLLEEN MARSHALL WILL PROVIDE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>MORRIS MASSY.

101 EAST KOZZO BOULEVARD TAMPA 33602 ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT I

HAVE A BOOKLET OF MATERIALS FOR YOU AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE MOSTLY

SOME OF THE STUFF THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE I BELIEVE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>>I'M GOING TO GO OVER TO THE ELMO TO DISCUSS THE REQUEST WITH

AERIALS.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SHOWN IN YELLOW ON THE AERIAL THIS IS

68

PART OF THE STAFF REVIEW PACKAGE.

IT IS APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES, A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN 10 ACRES IN

SIZE CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL RURAL.

PULTE HOME CORP. IS SEEKING TO HAVE IT REZONED TO RESIDENTIAL

SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTIONAL 9 WE BELIEVE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE

SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU HAVE RIVERVIEW

HIGH SCHOOL IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST.

YOU HAVE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS IMMEDIATELY

TO THE NORTH EVERWOOD AND CHRISTINA ONE BOTH OF WHICH HAVE BEEN

DEVELOPED WITH LOT SIZES SIMILAR TO RSC LOT SIZES AND IN SOME

CASES EVEN SMALLER TO THE WEST ARE TWO LARGE MOBILE HOME PARKS

NONE OF THEM IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.

AND ACTUALLY THIS PARCEL IS PART OF THE RICE CREEK UTILITY WHICH

SERVES ONE OF THE MOBILE HOME PARKS.

PULTE HOMES HAS A CONTRACT OPTION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY

IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH IT WAS RECENTLY REZONED TO PD WITH

STANDARDS FOR LOT DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO RSC-9.

THE REASON WE DID THE PD IS YOU DO HAVE LARGER MORE RURAL TYPE

LOTS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY.

SO WE AGREED THROUGH THE PD TO A GREATER BUFFER AND SETBACK ALONG

69

THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY SO WE BELIEVE THIS REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE

WITH THE AREA AND WOULD REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

MS. MARSHALL.

>>COLLEEN MARSHALL: COLLEEN MARSHALL. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AS THE APPLICANT STATED THE REQUEST IS TO REVISE APPROXIMATELY

AGRICULTURAL RURAL AR TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTIONAL

RSC-9 TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS PART OF A SINGLE FAMILY

SUBDIVISION NO REQUESTS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES THE PROPOSED

REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PATTERN OF THE

SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY

TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

THIS REQUEST FURTHERS POLICY 1.3, 1.4 AND 16.3 AND THE FUTURE

LAND USE ELEMENT STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST IS

COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AND FINDS THE REQUESTED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

70

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANKS ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT

IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST?

SEEING NONE?

ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

OKAY.

MR. MASSY, ANYTHING ELSE?

WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE REZONING 14-745.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS B.8 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0157 THE

APPLICANT IS FLORIDA CROSSROADS LTD REQUEST FROM M MANUFACTURING

TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED USE COMMERCIAL OFFICE INDUSTRY

HOTELS AND MULTI-FAMILY TOMORROW HIZNAY WILL PROVIDE REK AFTER

PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT.

>>VIN MARCHETTI, 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD. TAMPA 33601

REPRESENTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER.

WITH ME TONIGHT IS TY MASSY HE'S THE PLANNER FOR THE PROJECT.

TY HAS ON THE OVERHEAD JUST AN ILLUSTRATIVE TO SUPPORT THE

SUBJECT PARCEL.

LOCATED NORTH OF THE CROWSSTOWN AND FRONTS EAST OF FALKENBURG

ROAD.

IT SHOULD BE COMING UP IN A SECOND.

71

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I BELIEVE IT'S A FOCUS ISSUE.

>>SO MUCH FOR THE OVERHEAD.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IS IT NOT FOCUSING?

IS THAT THE ELECTRIC FOCUSER.

TIME OUT FOR A SECOND.

>>OKAY THAT'S BETTER.

AGAIN SUBJECT 60 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED NORTH OF THE CROWSSTOWN IN

FRONT OF THE EAST OF FALKENBURG ROAD.

THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN BEHALF YOU ILLUSTRATES IT'S KIND OF HARD TO

SEE THERE WITH THE WORDING BUT ILLUSTRATES THE PROPERTY IS

ESSENTIALLY -- TY WHY DON'T YOU POINT THAT OUT.

THE PROPERTY IS 60 ACRES THERE.

IT ABUTS THE I-75 PROPERTY WHICH IS SUBJECT OF THE BASS PRO SHOP

STORE AND ALSO WHAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED CURRENTLY ON THE

PROPERTY.

THE PARCELS CONCERNED THIS EVENING ZONING LABELED FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT ON THE FLORIDA CROSSROAD PROPERTY.

THE NORTHERN PARCEL AND SOUTHERN PARCEL APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES OF

UPLANDS ON THE NORTH ABOUT 14 ACRES OF UPLAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

THE FLORIDA CROSSROADS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED M WITH FUTURE

72

LAND USE CATEGORY OF REGIONAL MIXED USE 35 WE ARE PROPOSING

VARIOUS MIXTURE OF USES DEPENDING ON THE MARKET CONDITIONS

INCLUDING COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK HOTEL AND

MULTI-FAMILY.

THE MULTI-FAMILY COMPONENT CAN ONLY BE CONSTRUCTED ON PARCEL A

WHICH IS ON THE NORTH SIDE.

WHY DON'T YOU PUT THE SITE PLAN UP NOW AND WE CAN ILLUSTRATE THE

PARCELS PARCEL A IS THE NORTH PARCEL.

THERE WE GO PARCEL B IS THE SOUTH.

MULTI-FAMILY CAN ONLY GO ON THE NORTH PARCEL WHICH IS THE

ISOLATED PARCEL ABOUT 10 ACRES IN SIZE ISOLATED BY WETLANDS AND

CONSERVATION AREAS.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING EXTENSIVELY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE

ZONING STAFF AS WELL ON THE CORRECT MIXTURE OF USES WE HAVE

AGREED TO CONDITIONS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE MIXTURE WILL OCCUR AT

BUILDOUT.

AND WE ALSO AGREE WITH ALL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS WHICH WE

HAVE WORKED PRETTY HARD ON WITH STAFF AS PREPARED ARE THE STAFF

REPORT AND FILED JULY 11TH BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.

ONE ISSUE THAT CAME UP LATE LAST WEEK FDOT HAD EXPRESSED A

73

CONCERN ABOUT OUR SOUTHERLY ACCESS POINT OR CONNECTION FROM

FALKENBURG ROAD AND INDICATED SOME ACCESS RIGHTS-OF-WAY THAT THEY

HAVE ALONG FALKENBURG ROAD FROM THE CROWSSTOWN.

WE HAVE WORKED THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

TOM HAS A CONDITION WHICH WE HAVE AGREED TO WHICH ESSENTIALLY

RECOGNIZES THE FDOT LIMITED ACCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY WE'RE GOING TO

RELOCATE THAT POINT OF CONNECTION FURTHER TO THE NORTH PROBABLY

TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LIMITED ACCESS AREA AND OF COURSE STILL

SUBJECT TO ALL COUNTY REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THOSE OF EPC AND

OTHER JURISDICTION AGENCIES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IS THERE AN ACCESS OUT OF PARCEL B TO

THE COLLECTOR ROADWAY?

>>THERE IS THE PALMER ROAD EXTENSION THAT IS RIGHT THERE CONNECTS

RIGHT THERE AT A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION THERE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: DOES PARCEL B HAVE AN INTERNAL

CONNECTION FROM THAT?

>>YES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IT DOES.

>>YES BUT DEPENDING ON THE USER AGAIN WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE USER

IS AT THIS POINT THE POTENTIAL RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT ON THE

74

SOUTH SIDE OF FALKENBURG MAY BE IMPORTANT TO THEM SO WE WANT TO

RESERVE THAT RIGHT WHILE WE'RE AT THIS PROCESS.

THAT'S MY PRESENTATION.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: NO.

THANK YOU FOR THE TESTIMONY.

MR. HIZNAY.

>>TOM HIZNAY: TOM HIZNAY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF

THE APPLICANT HAS PRETTY ADEQUATELY SUMMARIZED THE APPLICATION.

AS HE NOTED, LATE LAST WEEK WE RECEIVED SOME COMMENTS FROM FDOT.

AND THEN THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS OF E-MAILS

AND TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS.

THAT'S ULTIMATELY LED TO A REVISION IN THE CONDITIONS AND I'M

GOING TO HAND OUT CONDITION NO. 4.

EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REVISED LANGUAGE.

I'M ALSO GOING TO INCLUDE IN THE HANDOUT THE FINAL COMMENT THAT

WAS SUBMITTED BY DOT TODAY.

BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT SINCE IT CAME IN TODAY TO GET INTO THE

RECORD WE HAD TO BRING IT TO THE MEETING.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT.

75

>>I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE THAT STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REZONING IS

COMPATIBLE WITH DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF SURROUNDING AREA WHICH

INCLUDES OFFICE MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL USES INCLUDING AS

NOTED BY THE APPLICANT A REGIONAL RETAILER AND A REGIONAL

RECREATIONAL SERVICE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE ADJACENT

PROPERTIES TO THE EAST I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I'M GOOD, TOM.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

CONDITIONS WRITTEN BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WILL REQUIRE MINIMUM

OF TWO USES ON THE SITE UNDER THIS PROPOSAL.

OUR REPORT IS -- I FEEL IS THOROUGH.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

WITH THAT WE DO FIND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

I SEE NONE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

76

MR. MARCHETTI.

GOOD?

ALL RIGHT WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE REZONING 14-157.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT IS B.9 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0268 THE

APPLICANT IS SCHWENK PROPERTIES THE REQUEST IS REZONE FROM AR AND

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PERMIT 76 SINGLE

FAMILY HOMES.

TOM HIZNAY WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION

BY THE APPLICANT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING.

>>GOOD EVENING JUDY JAMES 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD THIS IS AN

APPLICANT TO REZONE 35.6 ACRES FOR 76 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 5,000

SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

THE PROPERTY LIES IN BOTH THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE RURAL

SERVICE AREA.

THE DENSITY IS CALCULATED ON THE URBAN SERVICE AREA LANDS ONLY

AND THERE'S NO BLENDING BETWEEN THE URBAN AND RURAL SERVICE AREAS

THE HOMES WILL BE MINIMUM 5,000 SQUARE FEET WILL BE SERVED BY

PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER.

THERE WILL BE ONE ACCESS ONTO SUMNER ROAD AND FUTURE CROSS ACCESS

77

TO THE WEST WILL BE PROVIDED.

THE AREA THAT'S IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE USED PRIMARILY

FOR RETENTION AND PROVIDE BUFFERING FOR THE LARGER LOTS TO THE

EAST OF THE PROPERTY.

PORTIONS OF THIS PROJECT WERE SUBJECT TO PD 04-1011 IT WAS WHEN

WE FILED A PRS LAST WEEK THAT WILL BE HELD SIMULTANEOUSLY AT THE

BOARD HEARING OUR PORTIONS OF THE 04 PD WILL BE TAKEN OUT OF THAT

PD.

IT WILL LEAVE ONE REMAINING PARCEL WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO HOMES

ACCESSING ONTO SUMNER ROAD.

THOSE OWNERS DID RECEIVE NOTICES OF THIS REZONING APPLICATION.

THEY WILL OBVIOUSLY RECEIVE NOTICE FOR THE PRS.

THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY TONIGHT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OWNERS

OF AIRS WORTH GLENN THE LARGE PD TO THE NORTH WHICH IS CURRENTLY

UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND I WOULD ALSO

POINT OUT SINCE 2004, HIDDEN CREEK WHICH IS JUST TO THE SOUTH OF

THIS PROPERTY ON BILL TUCKER ROAD WAS APPROVED FOR 5,000 SQUARE

FOOT LOTS WITH THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND

WE HAVE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF SUPPORT.

THANK YOU.

78

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU, MS. JAMES.

MR. HIZNAY.

>>TOM HIZNAY: TOM HIZNAY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

AS EXPLAINED BY THE APPLICANT THIS IS A REZONING FOR A SITE

THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES IN SIZE.

THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY BASICALLY DIVIDES THIS SITE AND RUNS

NORTH AND SOUTH THROUGH THE SITE.

ALL OF THE HOMES THAT ARE PROPOSED UNDER THIS REZONING WILL BE

DEVELOPED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROJECT IN THE URBAN SERVICE

AREA.

AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO UTILIZE PUBLIC WATER AND WASTEWATER

SERVICES WITH CONNECTION AT THE COST OF THE APPLICANT.

THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE RURAL AREA WILL BE USED

PRIMARILY FOR STORMWATER RETENTION.

ABOUT 19 ACRES OF THE AREA THAT IS PROPOSED FOR REZONING IS

CURRENTLY COMPRISED OF A PD NO. 041011.

THIS IS AN L SHAPED TRACT AND IN YOUR BACKUP YOU HAVE A MAP OF

THE CURRENT PD 041011 AND YOU'LL SEE IT'S AN L SHAPED TRACT THAT

ABUTS SUMNER ROAD BOTH ON THE NORTH AND EAST ENDS OF IT IT'S

PERMITTED A MAXIMUM 67 HOMES ON LOTS THAT ARE 10,000 SQUARE FEET

79

IN SIZE.

IN ADDITION, IT IS PERMITTED TWO OUTPARCELS AT THE EAST END OF

THE SITE EACH APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE IN SIZE AND THESE ARE

PERMITTED DIRECT ACCESS FROM SUMNER ROAD.

OBVIOUSLY THIS REZONING IF APPROVED WILL DRASTICALLY ALTER THE

STATE OF THE CURRENT PD.

LEAVING BEHIND JUST THE TWO OUTPARCELS THAT FRONT SUMNER ROAD ON

THE EAST END WITHIN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA AS EXPLAINED THE

APPLICANT HAS APPLIED FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PD TO REFLECT

THE REMNANT STATE OF THAT PD AND IT WOULD BE SCHEDULED FOR

CONCURRENT HEARING BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH THIS

REZONING ON SEPTEMBER 9TH.

THE PORTION AS STATED EARLIER ALL OF THE HOMES WOULD BE LOCATED

IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WHICH HAS A RES-4 DESIGNATION UNDER THE

COMP PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM DENSITY THRESHOLDS WITHIN THE

URBAN SERVICE AREA THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACHIEVE A DENSITY OF THREE

UNITS AN ACRE OR THE ZONING WOULD HAVE TO ALLOW THE DENSITY OF AT

LEAST THREE UNITS AN ACRE THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY COMING OUT AT

NEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 3.98 UNITS PER ACRE SO IT'S CONSISTENT

WITH THE COMPACT GROWTH STRATEGY OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

80

WE FIND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REZONING IS

COMPATIBLE WITH THE PLAN AND EMERGING SUBURBAN DEVELOPING PATTERN

OF THE SURROUND CAN AREA IT INCLUDES PTC 80-0067 TO THE NORTH OF

THIS PROJECT ACROSS SUMNER ROAD WHICH ALLOWS 4,000 SQUARE FOOT

RE-- REAR ORIENTED SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ALONG SUMNER ROAD WE

FURTHER FIND THAT THE LARGE STORMWATER PONDS ON THE EAST SIDE OF

THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM THE URBAN

SERVICE AREA TO THE RURAL AREA EASTWARD OF THE SITE AND I'M

AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU MR. HIZNAY AND THE PLANNING

COMMISSION.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

THE PORTION OF THE SITE IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA IS THE PART OF

THE SITE THAT DETERMINES THE DENSITY FOR THIS SITE.

IT DOES MEET MINIMUM DENSITY.

WE FIND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT FOR THIS REQUEST?

SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

81

OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE FROM MS. JAMES?

MS. JAMES?

SORRY, I COULDN'T SEE YOU.

>>NOTHING FURTHER, THANK YOU.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE REZONING 14-268.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT B.10 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0422 THE

APPLICANT IS TRINITY BUILDERS & CONSULTING LLC THE REQUEST IS

BASICALLY TO REZONE TWO PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT INTO SINGLE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR 380 SINGLE FAMILY

LOTS MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>GOOD EVENING I'M JUDY JAMES 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.

THIS APPLICATION IS ACTUALLY A PD THAT WILL MELD TWO EXISTING PDS

ONE APPROVED FOR 93 TOWNHOMES WHICH GOES DIRECTLY ONTO 301 THE

SECOND APPLICATION WAS APPROVED FOR 250 TOWNHOMES.

WE ARE CURRENTLY ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF A TOTAL OF 380 SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENTS.

WHEN I DID THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR THE TOWNHOMES THERE WAS A

82

FLEX INVOLVED WE DON'T NEED THAT ANYMORE SO THE FLEX IS NOT PART

OF THIS APPLICATION.

THE REZONING FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAD ACCESS TO SHADY

CREEK RESERVE TO THE SOUTH THROUGH TO TECO EASEMENT AND SHOWED

POSSIBLE SECONDARY ACCESS TO TOWNHOME PROJECT HOWEVER THE

TOWNHOME PROJECT DIDN'T SHOW A SECONDARY CROSS ACCESS TO SINGLE

FAMILY ONE SO THIS APPLICATION MELDS THOSE TWO SHOWS THERE WILL

BE AN ACCESS TO 301 AND ALSO SOUTH TO SHADY CREEK RESERVE THE LOT

SIZE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA WITH SINGLE FAMILY

HOMES AND THE STAFF REPORT REALLY OUTLINES THOSE I'M NOT GOING TO

GO THROUGH THEM AGAIN AT THIS POINT THERE HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTION

PLANS APPROVED FOR 220 UNITS THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS

INCLUDE THE PROPOSED CROSS ACTS OVER THE TECO EASEMENT MY OWNERS

OWN THAT LAND IT'S NO LONGER AN EASEMENT ACCESS THE POTENTIAL

BUYER OF THE PROPERTY REQUESTED CLEANUP OF THE CONDITION

BASICALLY THEY WOULD LIKE THE CONDITION REGARDING NO.

5 REGARDING TECO ACCESS DELETED SINCE THAT'S BEEN SATISFIED THE

PLANS HAVE BEEN APPROVED MY CLIENT ACTUALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY AND

THEN --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WAS THAT ALREADY DEMONSTRATED TO

83

STAFF?

DOES STAFF HAVE THE FINAL DOCUMENTATION ON THAT?

>>YES, THEY DO.

AND CONDITION 4 STATES THAT GIVEN THE REVISED PROJECT IS EXPECTED

TO GENERATE 50 ADDITIONAL PEAK HOUR TRIPS A DETAILED TRAFFIC

STUDY WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS

I STATED EARLIER WE ALREADY HAVE APPROVAL FOR 220 UNITS WHEN WE

DID OUR TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE 380 UNITS WE ACTUALLY TRIGGERED 52

PEAK HOUR TRIPS WE REALLY NEED TO DO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC STUDY IF

WE EXCEED MORE THAN 50 PEAK HOUR TRIPS AND IT MAY OR MAY NOT

HAPPEN IF WE DON'T GO UP TO 380 UNITS SO BASICALLY ALL WE'RE

DOING IS REQUESTING WE ADD TO CONDITION 4 A SENTENCE THAT SAYS AT

THE VERY END JUST COMMA IF MORE THAN 50 ADDITIONAL PEAK HOUR

TRIPS ARE SUBMITTED FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL WE DON'T WANT

HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND DO A TRAFFIC STUDY WHEN WE HAVE

CONSTRUCTION PLANS APPROVED FOR THE 220 AND WE HAD APPROVAL FOR

UP TO 370 UNITS WITHOUT TRIGGERING IT WITH THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY

TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

STAFF HAS A COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL AND THE PLAN

ITSELF FOR THE RECORD.

84

AND WE HAVE SUBMITTED A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT JUST TO MAKE

EVERYTHING MORE MESSY THAT WOULD DO SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS TO THE

APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS BUT THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL SITE PLAN YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU

TONIGHT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: MORE THAN 50 ADDITIONAL TRIPS?

IS IT MORE THAN 50 ADDITIONAL PEAK HOUR TRIPS?

>>NO.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY THE OBVIOUS FIRST STEP.

>>THANK YOU.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING MICHELLE HEINRICH DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES AS STATED THIS IS A REZONING FOR TWO SIDE BY SIDE PDS

INTO ONE PD WHICH TOTALS 147 ACRES.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 301, 300 FEET

SOUTH OF SIMMONS LOOP AND LOCATED WITH THE -- WITHIN THE URBAN

SERVICE AREA THE WESTERN PD WAS APPROVED IN '04 AND THAT PD IS

040284 FOR 93 TOWNHOME UNITS WITH ACCESS ONLY TO U.S. 301.

THE EASTERN PD WAS APPROVED UNDER PD 041590 FOR 250 SINGLE FAMILY

LOTS WITH ACCESS TO 301 THROUGH THE PD TO THE SOUTH.

85

THIS UNIFIED PD WILL ALLOW 380 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH INTERNAL

ACCESS BETWEEN THE TWO PREVIOUS STAND-ALONE PDS ACCESS TO 301 AND

ACCESS TO THE PD TO THE SOUTH VIA SHADY BRANCH DRIVE ON THE

APPLICANT SITE PLAN IT STATES THE INTERNAL ROADWAYS MAY BE PRICED

AND THEY MAY BE GATED.

THIS APPLICATION DOESN'T HAVE ANY VARIATION REQUESTS ASSOCIATED

WITH IT.

THE -- ASSOCIATED WITH IT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PREVIOUSLY

PROPOSED UNDER THE EASTERN PD WHICH WAS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY

LOTS ARE PRETTY MUCH MIRRORED BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH A FEW MINOR

CHANGES.

THE REAR YARD SETBACK IS REDUCED FROM 20 TO 15 FEET.

THE CORNER LOT FRONT YARD WHICH FUNCTIONS AS A SIDE YARD IS BEING

REDUCED FROM 15 TO 10 FEET.

AND THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS BEING REDUCED FROM 70 TO 50 FEET.

THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REMAINS THE SAME WHICH IS AT 5500 SQUARE

FEET.

TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS AND HAS NO OBJECTIONS.

THEY ARE ALSO AWARE OF THE REVISION MS. JAMES SPOKE OF WE TALKED

ABOUT THAT EARLIER TODAY THEY HAVE NO OBJECTIONS SO WE'LL MAKE

86

THAT REVISION AFTER THIS HEARING FOR REVISED CONDITIONS.

AND THE SITE IS LOCATED BETWEEN TWO DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY

DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF 301, SHADY CREEK RESERVE IS

LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED WITH 200 SINGLE

FAMILY LOTS WITH SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THERE'S ALSO SOUTH FORK LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND THAT'S COMPRISED

OF NUMEROUS INDIVIDUAL PDS THE CLOSEST ONE LOCATED TO THEM ALSO

HAS SIMILAR LOT STANDARDS.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITH AN AREA OF SIMILAR USES AND

THE OTHER ON THE WEST AND EAST SIDE ARE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY AND

SOME OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ALONG 301 WE FIND THIS TO BE COMPATIBLE

WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AND ALSO JUST TO WRAP UP WE'RE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH MS. JAMES'

SUGGESTION TO REMOVE CONDITION NO. 5 ABOUT THE TECO EASEMENT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: NO. 4.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: NO. 5.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I'M SORRY.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: BECAUSE THAT IS OWNED PROPERTY OF THE

PROPERTY OWNERS SO THEY ARE NOT CROSSING IT.

THEY ARE UTILIZING THEIR OWN PROPERTY TO GET TO THE SOUTHERN END

87

OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: PLANNING COMMISSION.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THEY HAVE SHOWN CROSS ACCESS TO THE SOUTH ON THEIR SITE PLAN AND

AGAIN PLANNING COMMISSION SITE FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING

CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ANYBODY HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THIS

REQUEST?

SEEING NONE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE PD 14-422.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT IS AGENDA ITEM B.11 MAJOR MODIFICATION 14-

0456 REQUEST FOR MAJOR MODIFICATION EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

TO ADD TOWNHOMES TO PORTION OF A PROJECT CURRENTLY APPROVED FOR

CHURCH RELATED USES.

TOM HIZNAY WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

88

>>MICHAEL HORNER 14502 NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY TAMPA, FLORIDA

REPRESENTING KNANAYA ENHANCEMENT ENTERPRISE WITH ME TONIGHT

MR. SCAROLA I BELIEVE ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE THREE OWNERSHIP

INTERESTS ON THIS PD FILING THIS HAS BEEN A MOST PD TO WORK ON.

I PASS OFF TO TOM HIZNAY AND STAFF IT'S LIKE PUTTING HUMPTY

DUMPTY BACK TOGETHER AGAIN ON THIS TRACT BUT WE HAVE WORKED

DILIGENTLY TOGETHER OVER THE LAST FIVE MONTHS SUFFICE TO SAY WE

ENCOUNTERED A SHORTAGE OF THREE ACRES ON THE PD PLAN FROM THE

1996 APPROVAL OF THE PD MU WE HAVE SOMETIMES SEEN ADJUSTMENTS

OF POINT TENTH OF AN ACRE TWO-TENTHS OF AN ACRE BUT THREE ACRES

THREE US INTO A LOOP THIS IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION FOR A PORTION

OF THIS PD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 1996.

IT WAS INITIALLY APPROVED FOR A CHURCH A DAY SCHOOL CENTER AND

ALSO ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY THE LDC CONSIDERS RESIDENTIAL HOME

TYPE C THE NORTHERN PROPERTY THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THIS MAJOR MOD

IS MY CLIENT'S INTERESTED PROPERTY FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT

ENTITLEMENT 7.3 -- 17.3 ACRES CURRENTLY SEEKING APPROVAL FOR 63

TOWNHOMES ON THE 17.3 ACRES WE DIDN'T HAVE AN AS BUILD SURVEY FOR

THE BALANCE OF THE PD WE SURVEYED OUR SPECIFIC PARCEL AND BACKED

INTO THE OTHER SPECIFIC ACREAGES AND REAL EYED WE HAD A

89

DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVE SITE DATA TABLE AND

ENTITLEMENTS AND WE DECIDED TO BUMP THE CASE FOR A MONTH OR TWO

GO BACK REVIEW THE SITE DATA ELEMENTS PULL THE PARTIES TOGETHER

AND I THINK WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE REPORT FOR YOU THIS EVENING.

THIS TRACT IS WEST OF KINGS AVENUE.

IN THE RES-4 COMP PLAN TOTAL ACRE IS 27 ACRES NOT 30.86 I BELIEVE

WHICH WAS OF RECORD ON THE 96 PDMU PLAN.

THE '96 PLAN INCORPORATED APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF A

SANCTUARY MULTIPURPOSE BUILDING ON THE 17.3 ACRE PARCEL IN THE

NORTH AS WELL AS SOME BASEBALL FIELDS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS.

WE HAVE FILED AN AMENDED PD PLAN THAT REMOVED THOSE ENTITLEMENTS

ON THE NORTH SIDE THAT SURVEYS OUT OBVIOUSLY THAT 17.3 ACRES FROM

THE PARENT TRACT AND ALLOWS FOR THOSE 63 TOWNHOMES THAT MEETS THE

RES-4 DENSITY CALCULATION REQUIREMENTS.

WHEN WE REVIEWED THAT 17.3 WITH EXISTING WETLAND ONSITE THAT HAS

BEEN SURVEYED, WE ARE SLIGHTLY BEYOND THE 25% THRESHOLD FOR THE

FULL TRANSFER OF DENSITY RIGHTS.

THEREFORE OUR 63 UNITS EQUATES TO ABOUT 3.97 AND NOT A FULL 4.0.

SO FRACTIONALLY WE ARE AT THE TOP OF THE ENTITLEMENT BUT NOT FULL

100% DENSITY TRANSFER.

90

SUBSEQUENT TO THE PD 1996 APPROVAL PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS CHANGED

AND PARCELS WERE CREATED AND THAT CREATED SOME OF THE ISSUES IN

TRYING TO GO BACK AND REPLICATE WHAT DOES REPRESENTATIVE

ENTITLEMENTS AND INTENSITIES WERE NOT TO BOG YOU DOWN IN DETAILS

BUT THE CHURCH SITE DAY CARE SITE WE BELIEVE IS ABOUT 5.5 ACRES.

AND THAT HAS APPROXIMATELY 60,000 SQUARE FEET.

A LITTLE BIT UNDER 60,000 SQUARE FEET BETWEEN THE DAY CARE

CENTER, CHILD CARE CENTER AND THEIR SCHOOL OPERATIONS -- EXCUSE

ME THE CHURCH OPERATIONS THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY THE ALAFAI

VILLAGE ALF A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME TYPE C IS ON ABOUT 4.1

ACRES TO THE BEST OF OUR RECOMMENDATION FROM -- TO THE BEST OF

OUR RECOLLECTION AND CURRENTLY THE '96 ENTITLEMENTS WHICH

INCLUDES 82 ALF AND ALSO 60 LIFE CARE RESIDENTS.

THEY ARE CURRENTLY LICENSED ACCOMMODATE I BELIEVE ABOUT 71

RESIDENTS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TONIGHT MR. FUCHSIA AND HE

HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THEY ARE WAIVING THEIR RIGHTS TO THE EXISTING 60

LIFE CARE BEDS AND WILL ONLY MAX OUT AT 82 AND PROBABLY WILL

NEVER REACH THEIR 82.

SO WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE ARITHMETICAL CONGRATULATIONS AND THE

SITE DATA TABLE THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH RESPECTED ACREAGE AND

91

TRANSFER RIGHTS FOR BEDS RATIO 5 BEDS PER UNIT AND THE CHURCH

UNDER THE .25 FAR ALLOWED UNDER THE RES-4 COMP PLAN CRITERIA ALSO

COMES JUST UNDER THEIR ENTITLEMENTS FOR EXISTING OPERATIONS.

IT DOES REQUIRE THEM TO WAIVE SINCE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE 96

PD THE ADDITIONAL 30,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THEIR MULTIPURPOSE

BUILDING.

SANCTUARY AND FUTURE EXPANSION ON OUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY AND THEY

HAVE DONE SO AND YOU'LL PROBABLY HEAR FROM THEM TONIGHT.

AS WELL WE STAND HERE BEFORE YOU WITH A PLAN THAT WE THINK

ACHIEVES AND RESPECTS ALL THOSE ENTITLEMENTS THAT THE THREE

PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE DEVELOPED OVER TIME.

OBVIOUSLY OUR CLIENTS PROPERTY IS VACANT.

WE INITIALLY FILED FOR A NUMBER OF ITERATIONS INCLUDING VARIOUS

ITERATIONS FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AS WELL.

THAT REQUIRED US TO FILE WAIVERS FOR THE DISTANCE SEPARATION

CRITERIA UNDER THE LDC.

FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OPERATOR OF THE ALAFAI VILLAGE

LIVING FACILITY MY CLIENTS RESULTED IN AGREEMENT WE PULLED AND

WITHDREW THAT APPLICATION.

SO BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS ONLY THE MODIFICATION FOR THE 63

92

TOWNHOMES WITH CLUBHOUSE, POOL, ET CETERA.

THE ACCESS REMAINS UNCHANGED.

WE ARE PROPOSING ONLY ONE ACCESS TO KINGS AVENUE ON THE NORTHERN

PORTION OF THE 17.3 ACRE.

THAT PD PLAN IN '96 DID INCORPORATE A CROSS ACCESS CONNECTION

BETWEEN THE CHURCH DAY CARE AND OUR CLIENTS 17 ACRE PARCEL TO THE

NORTH I'LL SHOW THAT PLAN TO YOU SHORTLY ON THE OVERHEAD.

WE THINK STRIKE THAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN

CONNECTIVITY WITH THE DRIVEWAY VEHICULAR CONNECTION HOWEVER THE

PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH, THE CHURCH AND DAY CARE CENTER HAVE

SOME CONCERNS AND WE HAVE NOW RESTRICTED THAT DRIVEWAY CONNECTION

TO ONLY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE

CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEIR

GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES AND AT LEAST WE STILL HAVE THE

OPPORTUNITY SINCE WE'RE TRULY A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT RESIDENCE

CHURCH DAY CARE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITHIN THAT 27 ACRE

MASTER TRACTS.

MR. HIZNAY HAS SENT REVISED CONDITIONS TO ALL PARTIES.

I BELIEVE ALTHOUGH WE WERE NOT PARTICIPANTS IN THOSE DIRECT

MEETINGS THE CONSENSUS WAS ACHIEVED BASED ON HIS RECOLLECTION OF

93

THOSE MEETINGS TO ME.

THIS IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

PUBLIC WATER, PUBLIC SEWER WILL BE UTILIZED.

WE WILL MEET ALL 606 REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE A TYPE 2 BUFFER.

ON THE TYPE B BUFFER ON THE NORTHERN SIDE.

THERE'S SOME EXISTING LARGE OAK TREES BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS

TO THE NORTH AND OUR PROPOSED TOWNHOMES WHICH WILL ALSO BE TWO

STORY.

WE ALSO HAVE BUFFERING AND SCREENING ALONG KINGS AVENUE WE AGREE

TO TYPE A BUFFER ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AS WELL.

WE HAVE NO IMPACT PROPOSED TO THE WETLANDS.

WE HAVE FURTHER AGREED TO THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION ONLY AND NO

VEHICULAR CONNECTION.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION.

A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE CONTACTED MY OFFICE RELATIVE TO THE

INQUIRY SINCE WE RECEIVED SEVERAL NOTICES BUT WE DID WITHDRAW THE

ALF AND THE ACCESS LOCATION ON KINGS WILL BE OFFSET BY SOUTH VIEW

DRIVE WHICH WAS A COMMENT RECEIVED FROM ONE OF THE PROPERTY

OWNERS.

IF I CAN JUST CLOSE AT THE OVERHEAD WITH A FEW GRAPHICS.

94

THIS IS ZONING MAP.

THIS IS THE SHADED AREA THE 17.3.

THIS IS THE PARENT TRACT LESSENING OUT THIS CORNER PARCEL

CURRENTLY ZONED ASC-1 IT'S ACTUALLY A MOBILE HOME PARK SO IT'S A

LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE THIS IS KINGS AVENUE CHURCH DAY CARE

EXISTING PARCEL THIS IS THE ALAFAI VILLAGE AND THIS IS THE LIVING

FACILITY.

BRIEFLY THIS IS THE '96 APPROVED PLAN OF RECORD ON THE PDMU.

DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS TO KINGS AVENUE.

THIS IS ROUGHLY THE 17.3 ACRES THAT WE'RE MODIFYING TONIGHT.

YOU CAN SEE THE ATHLETIC FIELDS HERE, THE BALL FIELDS AND ALSO

THE PHASE 2 SANCTUARY MULTIPURPOSE BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY

30,000 SQUARE FEET THIS BEING THE CHURCH AND DAY CARE CENTER

OPERATION AND THE EXISTING LIVING FACILITY WITH EXPANSION WINGS

WHICH ARE NO LONGER GOING TO BE PROPOSED.

WE WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITERATIONS I WON'T SPEND TIME ON

THESE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED WE ALSO LOOKED AT TOWNHOMES FOR

40 UNITS ON THE SOUTH SIDE, A 70 BED ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY TO

THE NORTH.

WE THEN MODIFIED THAT RECENTLY TO STAFF FOR APPROXIMATELY 44

95

TOWNHOMES.

AND A 60 BET ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WE NOW STAND BEFORE YOU

TONIGHT OUR FINAL ITERATION APPROVED BY STAFF WE JUST BUBBLED OUT

WE SAID 63 TOWNHOMES NO ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS ONLY AND AN ACCESS TO KINGS JUST SOUTH OF SOUTH VIEW

DRIVE.

THIS IS THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY.

THIS IS THE CHURCH DAY CARE CENTER I BELIEVE THOSE

REPRESENTATIVES ARE HERE THIS EVENING AND AGREE TO THEIR RESPECT

TO REDUCTION IN ENTITLEMENTS UNDER '96 PDMU SITE PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: VERY MINOR QUESTION THE OUTPARCEL ON

THE SOUTHEAST IS NOT INCLUDED.

>>NOT INCLUDED.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: HOW BIG IS THAT?

>>GOOD QUESTION.

LET ME JUST PULL THE ZONING MAP OUT HERE.

I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY A COUPLE ACRES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ABOUT THREE.

>>LOOKING AT THE CORNER IT MIGHT BE EXACTLY 3 WE NEEDED YOU IN

'96 GOOD POINT I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT.

96

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU MR. HORNER.

MR. HIZNAY.

>>TOM HIZNAY: TOM HIZNAY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF.

AS EXPLAINED BY THE APPLICANT THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING OF A

COMPLICATED CASE.

ORIGINALLY THE PROPERTY WAS IDENTIFIED AS BEING A LITTLE OVER 30

ACRES IN SIZE.

IT ENDS UP BY TODAY'S MEASUREMENTS TO BE ABOUT 27 ACRES.

YOU MAY HAVE STUMBLED UPON WHERE THE AREA CAME FROM.

-- WHERE THE ERROR CAME FROM UNFORTUNATELY THE COUNTY ZONING

RECORDS FOR '96 PD ARE QUITE MEAGER AND SHARE NO LIGHT ON WHERE

THE DISCREPANCY CAME FROM HOWEVER THE APPLICANT WENT TO CONFIRM

ALL EXISTING PROPERTIES THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT 27 ACRES IN SIZE.

NOW WHEN THIS PD WAS FIRST APPROVED IN '96 YOU HAD AN EXISTING

CHURCH IN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE SITE.

AND THEY ALSO HAD EXPANSION PLANS.

AND ON THE NORTH PORTION OF THE SITE THEY WANTED A MULTIPURPOSE

BUILDING WITH 30,000 SQUARE FEET AND SOME BALL FIELDS RECREATION

FIELDS AND THE PLAN ALSO PROVIDED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN ASSISTED

LIVING FACILITY AND/OR LIFE CARE FACILITY ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF

97

THE SITE.

AND THAT PROJECT WAS PERMITTED 142 PLACED RESIDENTS IF THEY WERE

ALL IN A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME.

AT THE TIME THAT THE PD WAS APPROVED, PD PLAN DIDN'T SHOW ANY

POCKETS OR PARCELS.

IT WAS JUST ALL ONE PLAN AND THE NUMBERS FOR IT WORKED BECAUSE

THE ENTIRE ACREAGE OF THE SITE WAS GONE INTO THE CALCULATIONS AND

SUPPORTED THE DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS THAT WERE PERMITTED.

SINCE THAT TIME, HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY HAS SPLIT INTO THREE

OWNERSHIPS.

YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT WHO OWNS THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE.

YOU ALSO HAVE THE CHURCH WHICH CONTINUES TO OCCUPY THE CENTRAL

PORTION OF THE SITE ON APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRES.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WHICH WAS

DEVELOPED PARTLY DEVELOPED ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE SITE ON

ABOUT 4.4 ACRES ACCORDING TO THE OWNER OF THAT FACILITY HIS HOME

IS LICENSED FOR A CAPACITY OF 71 RESIDENTS.

SO THEY ONLY DEVELOPED THE PHASE 1 IF YOU SEE IN THE OLD

CONDITIONS, THEY DID NOT DEVELOP PHASE 2 OR 3 THEY NEVER

DEVELOPED TO THEIR MAXIMUM POTENTIAL.

98

SO WHEN THIS APPLICATION COMES IN, AND WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR,

THE NUMBER OF TOWNHOMES THAT THEY ARE NOW ASKING FOR ORIGINALLY

START OFF BEING PART COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME PART TOWNHOMES

THEY AMENDED THEIR REQUEST DURING THE DISCUSSIONS TO MAKE IT ALL

TOWNHOMES AND THEY ARE REQUESTING 63 TOWNHOMES.

BASED ON THE SIZE OF THEIR PROPERTY WITH CALCULATED FOR WETLANDS

AND ALL THAT'S THE MAXIMUM ENTITLEMENT ALLOWED ON THEIR PORTION

OF THE SITE, 63 ACRES.

HOWEVER IF WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT THE PD

ORIGINALLY GRANTED TO THE CHURCH AND TO THE ASSISTED LIVING

FACILITY, THE PD AS A WHOLE WOULD EXCEED THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT

COULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE ENTIRE SITE IS RES-4.

SO WHAT WE DID IS WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE CURRENT ACREAGE IS FOR

THE CHURCH AND THE CURRENT ACREAGE FOR THE ALF AND WHAT THEY

WOULD SUPPORT.

I'M SORRY?

EXCUSE ME.

SO THE CHURCH WE CALCULATED OUT THEIR MAXIMUM FAR THE 5.5 ACRES

WOULD SUPPORT IT COMES OUT TO 59,895 SQUARE FEET.

99

BECAUSE RES-4 ALLOWS A .25 FAR.

NOW, IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS FROM THE OLD ZONING IT

IDENTIFIED THREE THINGS FOR THE CHURCH.

IT IDENTIFIED A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION FOR A MULTIPURPOSE

BUILDING THAT'S THE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE PART OF THE SITE NOW

OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.

AND IT ALSO IDENTIFIED THAT THAT BUILDING PLUS EXISTING CHURCH

BUILDINGS FOR A TOTAL OF 72,500 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE IT

ALSO ALLOWS FOR A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT OF CHILD CARE CENTER THAT

CHILD CARE CENTER HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEPICTED ON THE CENTRAL PORTION

OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S STILL CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE CHURCH AND

THAT ALSO PROVIDED FOR A VARIETY OF STORAGE BUILDINGS AND OTHER

CHURCH SCHOOL SUPPORT USES NO MORE THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET IN

SIZE.

SO IF YOU ADD THOSE NUMBERS TOGETHER YOU COME TO 88,500.

IF YOU SUBTRACT THE 30,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WHICH IS NOW

LOCATED ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE NO DESIRE TO

DEVELOP, THAT WOULD COME OUT TO 58,500.

SO BY PROVIDING THEM 59,895 WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY THE

COMP PLAN THEY ARE ACTUALLY GETTING A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE AM

100

OF FLOOR SPACE.

-- IN THE AMOUNT OF FLOOR SPACE.

IMPORTANT HERE IS THE DIMINISHMENT OF THEIR ENTITLEMENTS IS BASED

ON LOSING THE 30,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND THAT OTHERWISE THIS

ACTION IS NOT HARMING THEM OR DIMINISHING THEIR ENTITLEMENTS THEY

WOULD OTHERWISE BE ENTITLED TO.

NOW WHEN IT COMES TO ALF BASED ON ITS SIZE OF 4.4 ACRES THAT DOES

NOT SUPPORT 142 BEDS.

THE CODE HAS ALWAYS SAID THAT FOR COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOMES

FIVE RESIDENTS EQUAL ONE DWELLING UNIT.

MAY I CONTINUE SIR.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ABSOLUTELY.

IS THIS A NEW BUZZER?

IS THAT THE NEW TIME?

A DIFFERENT TIME?

>>IT ALSO HAS A DENSITY CONVERSION CALCULATION FOR LIFE CARE

WHICH IS LIKE TWO AND A HALF RESIDENTS EQUALS ONE DWELLING UNIT.

SO BASED ON THEIR 4.4 ACRES WHICH IS ALL THAT THEY OWN, MAXIMUM

NUMBER OF BEDS THEY COULD HAVE IS 82 RESIDENTS IF THEY WERE ALL

COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME BEDS.

101

SO THEIR SIZE NO LONGER SUPPORTS 142 BEDS.

IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNER OF THE ALF, THIS WAS EXPLAINED TO

THEM.

AND HE HAS PROVIDED WRITTEN CONSENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BEDS

THAT ARE PERMITTED IN HIS FACILITY.

HE SAYS HE HAS NO DESIRE OR PLANS TO EVER DEVELOP ABOVE 82 BEDS

ALSO WE ORIGINALLY DRAFTED THE CONDITIONS TO PROVIDE THE OPTION

OF LIFE CARE BEDS SINCE THE OPTION IS CURRENTLY PROVIDED.

THE NUMBER OF BEDS HE WOULD HAVE WOULD BE REDUCED BECAUSE AGAIN

THE DENSITY CONVERSION IS DIFFERENT.

HOWEVER HE MADE IT CLEAR TO US THAT HE HAD NO INTEREST IN EVEN

MAINTAINING AS AN OPTION HIS LIFE CARE USE THAT IS CURRENTLY

ALLOWED.

SO THE CONDITION SIMPLY NOW SAYS A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME

WITH 82 PLACED RESIDENTS.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WHAT THE PD PROPOSES IS 63 TOWNHOMES

ON THE APPLICANTS PROPERTY.

53,890 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE FOR CHURCH AND ASSOCIATED

CHURCH USES PLUS A CHILD CARE FACILITY WITH A MAXIMUM OF 6,000

SQUARE FEET.

102

THE CONDITIONS THAT ALWAYS BROKE OUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE

CHILD CARE.

SO TOGETHER THE 53895 FOR THE CHURCH AND ASSOCIATED USES AND THE

6,000 SQUARE FEET FOR CHILD CARE CENTER COMES TO 59,895 AND AGAIN

THE CONDITIONS ALWAYS BROKE IT OUT AS A SEPARATE 6,000 SQUARE

FEET.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: TOM, ONE QUICK QUESTION.

YOU SAID YOU GOT IN WRITING THAT THE BED REDUCTION WAS ACCEPTABLE

TO THE OWNER.

DID YOU ALSO GET USE CHANGE FROM LIFE CARE REMOVED AS PART OF

THAT WRITTEN CONFIRMATION.

>>TOM HIZNAY: YEAH THERE'S A STATEMENT IN THE LETTER IF YOU READ

THE LETTER CAREFULLY IT MENTIONED THAT HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT

MAINTAINING THE LIFE CARE.

WE HAVE ALSO HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CHURCH TRUSTEES AND

EXPLAINED YOU KNOW WHERE THE REDUCTION IN THE FLOOR SPACE ALLOWED

ON THEIR SITE COMES FROM.

THEY UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT IT AND IN VERBAL DISCUSSIONS THEY HAVE

EXPRESSED NO OBJECTIONS.

WE HAVE PROVIDED BOTH PARTIES WITH COPIES OF THE STAFF REPORT THE

103

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND HAVE ENCOURAGED THEM TO

ATTEND THIS PUBLIC HEARING IN CASE THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

SO FROM WHAT I CAN TELL IN DISCUSSIONS AND DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE

BEEN SUBMITTED ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THIS PD ARE IN

AGREEMENT WITH THIS MODIFICATION.

WITH REGARDS TO VERY BRIEFLY JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON THE

COMPATIBILITY ISSUES OF THE TOWNHOMES I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT

THAT TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE A ROW OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WE

BELIEVE THIS PROJECT DISPLAYS SENSITIVITY TO THOSE HOMES THROUGH

A COUPLE OF MEASURES.

ONE THERE'S GOING TO BE A REQUIRED 30 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE

NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SITE WITHIN SETBACK THERE WILL BE A 20 FOOT

BUFFER AREA WITH TYPE B SCREENING WITH ALSO THE REQUIREMENT THAT

ALL EXISTING NATIVE TREES IN THE BUFFER AREA BE MAINTAINED.

YOU WILL SEE FROM YOUR SITE VISIT THAT THERE ARE SOME SUBSTANTIAL

TREES IN THAT AREA.

WE WANT TO KEEP THOSE THERE. AND THE CONDITION WILL REQUIRE

THAT.

AND ALSO THERE'S A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35 FEET FOR THE TOWNHOMES

AND FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SITE

104

EACH CAN HAVE NO MORE THAN 8 DWELLING UNITS I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY

QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I THINK THAT SAYS A LOT THANK YOU TOM

AND PLANNING COMMISSION.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

UNDERSTANDING ALL OF THE ENTITLEMENT QUESTIONS AND WHATNOT AS A

RESULT OF THE MODIFICATION OF THIS PD, AND UNDERSTANDING THAT

THEY ALL COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LOOKING AT THE

PROPOSED 63 TOWNHOMES WHICH MEETS MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF

THE PLAN AND IS VIEWED AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA,

WE FIND THE MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANKS FOR THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

ANYBODY IN SUPPORT?

YES, SIR.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME UP IF YOU DON'T NEED TO.

YOU CAN'T SPEAK FROM BACK THERE.

IT'S EITHER UP HERE OR -- THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

DO YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE REST WILL COME EASY.

>>MY NAME IS EDWARD FUCHSIA I LIVE AT 1615 WEATHERFORD DRIVE SO

105

I'M A PERSON THAT CAN SPEAK WELL FOR THE ELDERLY BEING ONE.

BUT ANYWAY I OWN -- I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT.

I'M AN OWNER OF THE ALAFAI VILLAGE AND HAVE BEEN SINCE 2005 AND

FRANKLY I'M DELIGHTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND I'M VERY

ANXIOUS TO HAVE IT DONE.

BECAUSE IF YOU WOULD SEE THE PROPERTY AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, ANY OF

YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO COME NEAR IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY -- THE

KIDS HAVE THEIR TOYS THAT THEY PLAY ON AND SO ON AND SO FORTH AND

IT'S KIND OF A MENACE AND IN THE COMMUNITY AND FRANKLY THIS IS

GOING TO BE A GREAT DEVELOPMENT AND WE'RE ANXIOUS TO SEE IT COME

ALONG.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH YOUR

NEIGHBORS.

ANYBODY ELSE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

SEEING NONE.

ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST?

ANY OPPOSITION?

YES, SIR.

>>I'M ALBERT ROBERTO I RESIDE AT 3819 RIVER CLOSE BOULEVARD IN

VALRICO.

106

I'M HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE SACRED HEART CATHOLIC MISSION

OF TAMPA IMC THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THE APPLICANT.

THE ONLY OBJECTION THE BOARD HAS ASKED ME TO EXPRESS TONIGHT IS

THE OBJECTION TO ANY CROSS -- PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN THE TWO

PROPERTIES.

THEY DON'T SEE A NEED FOR IT.

THEY ARE LOOKING NOT AT THE PRESENT INTENDED USE BUT WHAT MAY

HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THEIR OBJECTION WE JUST WANT TO NOTE IT FOR

THE RECORD.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY THANK YOU SIR.

ANYBODY ELSE IN OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST?

SEEING NONE.

ANY COMMENTS FROM STAFF?

OH THERE IS SOMEBODY.

>>GOOD EVENING I'M LISA SPITLARRY 805 SCENIC HEIGHTS DRIVE

BRANDON FLORIDA 33511 I LIVE DIRECTLY BEHIND ONE OF THE HOUSES

THAT WILL BE BORDERING THIS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES JUST A BUNCH

OF OUR NEIGHBORS WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE WILDLIFE THAT'S IN

THAT AREA.

107

THERE'S 17 ACRES WHICH PART OF IT IS WETLANDS AND I'M NOT SURE IF

THEY DID A WILDLIFE STUDY.

I DIDN'T HEAR THAT MENTIONED.

IT'S STATED THAT THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDIES DONE ON THE

PAPERWORK BUT I DIDN'T HEAR THAT MENTIONED THIS EVENING SO I'M

NOT SURE HOW THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THE BUILDING.

BECAUSE I'M JUST CONCERNED WITH 63 TOWNHOMES POSSIBLY TWO MORE

CARS PER TOWNHOME, THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE ON KINGS AVENUE WILL

AFFECT US ESPECIALLY IN THE MORNING WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO GET OUT

TO GO TO WORK.

THEY DID MENTION THE BUFFER.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS 20 FEET.

YOU SAID 30 FEET IS THAT 30 PLUS THE 20 FEET TO EQUAL 50 FEET

BETWEEN US AND THE TOWNHOMES?

I KNOW PEOPLE AT THE END OF THE ROAD WERE CONCERNED WITH THE

RUNOFF.

THEY HAVE FLOODING CURRENTLY WHEN IT RAINS NOW.

SO I KNOW THEY ARE -- THERE IS A RETENTION POND THAT IS BUILT

INTO THE PLANS BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SUFFICIENT ENOUGH FOR

THOSE PEOPLE DOWN THERE WHO ARE ALREADY EXPERIENCING FLOODING

108

EVERY TIME IT RAINS.

WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED WITH HIGHER CRIME RATE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THESE TOWNHOMES WILL BE PRICED

AT.

WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE ONE, TWO, OR THREE BEDROOM. WILL THEY

BE USED IF THEY ARE NOT SOLD RIGHT AWAY.

ARE THEY GOING TO BE USED FOR SUBSIDIZED OR SECTION 8 HOUSING.

BECAUSE THAT WILL AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

IN THE AREA.

I KNOW IN THE PAST AT THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, IN

EMERGENCIES THEY HAVE HAD HELICOPTERS, BAY LIGHTS LAND IN THAT

EMPTY FIELD.

AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT WAS A SITUATION, WHAT'S GOING TO

HAPPEN TO THOSE PEOPLE IF THEY DO NEED ASSISTANCE.

AND I KNOW AT THIS TIME THERE HAS BEEN LESS LIKE VAGRANTS ORCHIDS

I KNOW HE WAS DISCUSSING -- OR KIDS -- I KNOW HE WAS DISCUSSING

KIDS RIDING THEIR MOTORCYCLES AND SUCH ON THAT THEY PUT A FENCE

UP SO IT'S CUT DOWN ON THAT INCIDENCE A LOT SO WE ARE NOT

CONCERNED WITH THE LOOK OF THE EMPTY FIELDS I'M SURE AS OPPOSED

TO HAVING 63 TOWNHOMES I WOULD RATHER BE LOOKING AT TREES,

109

WILDLIFE AND GRASS AS OPPOSED TO THAT SO THAT'S BASICALLY MY

CONCERNS AND WHY I'M OPPOSED TO THIS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

>>YOU'RE WELCOME.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ANYBODY ELSE?

OKAY.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, TOM, ANY COMMENTS FROM STAFF?

>>TOM HIZNAY: VERY QUICKLY TO ADDRESS VARIOUS ISSUES WITH

REGARDS TO CROSS ACCESS WITH THE CHURCH RIGHT NOW THE SITE SHOWS

VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CROSS ACCESS SINCE IT WAS GOING TO BE AN

EXPANSION OF THE CHURCH THEY OBJECTED TO THE VEHICULAR CROSS

ACCESS THE APPLICANT AMENDED THE REQUEST TO PEDESTRIAN CROSS

ACCESS WE HAVE HAD SOME CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS ON THAT POINT

STAFF FEELS THAT PEDESTRIAN CROSS ACCESS IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS

CASE.

HOWEVER IF YOU WERE TO FIND THAT YOU WOULD DESIRE NOT TO HAVE

PEDESTRIAN CROSS ACCESS IT CERTAINLY WOULD THE NOT AFFECT OUR

FUNDAMENTAL SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION.

NOW WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD,

110

TRAFFIC, OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF DID PREPARE A REPORT.

AND THIS PROJECT IS EXPECTED TO GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 366

VEHICLE TRIPS A DAY, 20 TRIPS IN THE A.M. PEAK OFF AND 33 TRIPS

IN THE P.M. PEAK HOUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF BELIEVES THIS PROJECT

WILL HAVE QUOTE MINIMAL IMPACT ON ROADWAYS IN THE VICINITY AND

WON'T CHANGE POTENTIAL ROADWAYS LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH REGARDS TO

WILDLIFE OUR NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION

AND IDENTIFIED NO ISSUES CONCERNING WILDLIFE.

HER REQUEST ABOUT THE -- HER QUESTION ABOUT THE BUFFER VERSUS THE

SETBACK NO IT WOULDN'T BE ACCUMULATIVE.

YOU'LL HAVE A 20 FOOT BUFFER AND YOU'LL ALSO HAVE A 30 FOOT

BUILDING SETBACK BOTH MEASURED FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE SO 20

FEET OF THE 30 FOOT SETBACK WILL BE A BUFFER AREA I WOULD LIKE TO

POINT OUT AS A BUFFER AREA IT BY CONDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE

OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WHICH MEANS

THAT THAT 20 FOOT AREA WILL NOT SERVE AS THE BACKYARD FOR ANY OF

THE TOWNHOMES.

IF THERE'S EACH TOWNHOME GETS PLATTED WITH A SMALL LITTLE REAR

YARD FOR INSTANCE THAT LITTLE REAR YARD WON'T EXTEND INTO THE

BUFFER ZONE.

111

THEN THE LAST ONE IS WITH DRAINAGE --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: BUT THERE'S ALSO A SCREEN.

>>TOM HIZNAY: OF COURSE THERE'S TYPE B SCREENING.

THIS IS COMPRISED OF A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE WALL OR HEDGE ALONG

WITH A ROW OF TREES THAT AT TIME OF PLANTING ARE TEN FEET TALL

AND PLACED ON 20 FOOT CENTERS AND THEN THE CONDITIONS

SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE ALSO THAT ALL EXISTING TREES IN THE BUFFER

AREA BE MAINTAINED.

UNLESS THE COUNTY APPROVES REMOVAL DUE TO DISEASE OR STORM

DAMAGE.

FINALLY WITH REGARDS TO DRAINAGE THIS PROJECT AS WITH ALL

PROJECTS IN THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO COME PLY WITH DRAINAGE

REQUIREMENTS WHICH DON'T ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE IN OFFSITE

DRAINAGE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE PLANNING

COMMISSION?

RANDY?

OKAY.

THANKS FOR THAT.

MR. HORNER.

112

>>RARELY DOES STAFF DO MY REBUTTAL FOR ME BUT I THINK TOM

EFFECTIVELY COMPLETED THAT I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE THOUGHT THE

VEHICULAR PEDESTRIAN -- AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION WAS AN

IMPORTANT ISSUE.

MR. FUCHSIA HAD STRONG FEELINGS ON THAT, AS WELL THIS IS A

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE THE ORIGINAL '96 PLAN CALLED FOR

THAT SHOWED FOR THAT REFLECTED THAT AS PART OF OUR COMPROMISE

WITH THE TRUSTEES WITH THE CHURCH WE AGREED TO ONLY THE

PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION BUT WE THINK THAT'S REASONABLE, APPLICABLE,

IT FULFILLS THE INTENT OF THE POLICIES FOR CONNECTIVITY WITH THE

PLANNING COMMISSION SO WE WOULD ASK YOU TO ENCOURAGE AND FIND

WITH STAFF THAT CONNECTION IS WARRANTED AND HAS MERIT.

I THINK ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE BUFFER, SETBACK,

DRAINAGE WILDLIFE HABITAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN ENTIRE SITE

REVIEW PROCESS I CAN'T ANSWER ABOUT LIFE CARE HEALTH AIR LIFT

OPPORTUNITY THERE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE WETLANDS WE WON'T BE

DEVELOPING THAT CAN BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT I HAVE A REVISE THE

REPORT SINCE THE FIRST REPORT AS PART OF THIS MODIFICATION WAS

ONLY FOR THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY STRIKE THAT INCLUSIVE OF

THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND TOWNHOMES THIS IS ONLY FOR THE

113

TOWNHOMES.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE MAJOR

MODIFICATION 14-456.

>>BRIAN GRADY: I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE A SHORT

BREAK.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

FIVE MINUTES AND WE'LL BE BACK SHORTLY.

[BREAK]

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE'LL

BRING OUR HEARING BACK TO ORDER.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM B.12. REZONING

APPLICATION 14-0608.

THE APPLICANT IS JIM STUTZMAN.

THIS IS A REZONING APPLICATION FROM AR/AS-1 TO PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT.

TOM HIZNAY WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION

BY THE APPLICANT.

>>GOOD EVENING I'M JIM STUTZMAN.

MAILING ADDRESS IS PO BOX 320323 IN TAMPA 33679.

114

AS BRIAN MENTIONED THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

AR/AS-1 TO PD. THE SITE INCLUDES ABOUT 8 AND A QUARTER ACRES

ALONG 82ND STREET THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALM RIVER ROAD IN THE PALM

RIVER AREA IT'S -- IT ACTUALLY INCLUDES FIVE SEPARATE PARCELS

WITH FIVE SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED IN THIS REZONING.

THE INTENT IS TO PERMIT A MULTI-USE PROJECT WITH THE CONTRACTORS

OFFICE WAREHOUSE OPEN STORAGE AND THOSE TYPE OF USES.

THE USES HAVE BEEN LIMITED DUE TO -- FOR THOSE THAT WILL PROVIDE

LOW IMPACT TO 82ND STREET AND ALSO TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SOME OF THE USES THAT WERE ELIMINATED

LIKE MEDICAL OFFICE, RETAIL THAT WOULD BE HIGH GENERAL -- HIGH

TRAFFIC GENERATORS I WOULD LIKE TO USE THE ELMO TO SHOW

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE.

THIS IS THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THE BACKUP THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES

ARE HIGHLIGHTED THIS IS PALM RIVER ROAD AND 82ND STREET IS A

DEADEND STREET THAT ENDS IN THIS LOCATION BUT IT DOES BISECT THE

PROPERTIES.

YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ZONING SHOWN ON THE AERIAL SHOWS THAT

THERE'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE SITE. AND THEN

NORTH OF PALM RIVER IT'S PRETTY MUCH DEVELOPED WITH INDUSTRIAL

115

USES AND THERE'S INDUSTRIAL ZONING EAST OF THE SITE WE DO HAVE M

ZONING AND INDUSTRIAL USES.

THERE IS A MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE WEST AND I'LL

DESCRIBE LATER BUT WE HAVE INCLUDED A 50 FOOT BUFFER IN THIS

LOCATION AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING VEGETATION THAT'S LOCATED IN

THAT BUFFER.

IT'S FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL ABOUT 50 FOOT HIGH TREES.

YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE APARTMENTS FROM THE SITE THERE'S A VACANT

PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OWNED BY THE CHURCH.

THERE IS ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL PROJECT AT THE END OF 82ND STREET.

A COUPLE OF HOUSES AND A CHURCH SOUTH OF THE SITE ON THE EAST

SIDE OF 82ND STREET SO THIS AREA REALLY HAS BEEN TRANSITIONING

INTO MORE OF AN INDUSTRIAL HEAVY COMMERCIAL AREA FOR THE LAST FEW

YEARS.

THIS IS A GRAPHIC OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT.

AND THIS AREA DOES FALL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE 12 WHICH

AGAIN IS MORE INTENSE CATEGORIES OF THE PLAN IT'S IN THE URBAN

SERVICE AREA.

WHICH THE -- WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED IN THE COMP PLAN.

NORTH OF PALM RIVER ROAD IT'S DESIGNATED AS PLANNED INDUSTRIAL.

116

THE SITE ALSO DOES FALL WITHIN THE PALM RIVER COMMUNITY PLAN AND

THAT PLAN DOES HAVE A PRIMARY GOAL OF STRIVING TO PROMOTE

OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS GROWTH AND JOBS SO WE FEEL WE COMPLY

WITH THAT COMMUNITY PLAN, ALSO.

THIS IS A COPY OF THE PLAN -- THE MOST CURRENT THAT'S BEEN

SUBMITTED.

THIS IS PALM RIVER ROAD AND 82ND STREET.

THERE ARE THREE PARCELS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 82ND STREET.

AND WE DESIGNATED THEM AS PARCEL A, B, C EAST OF 82ND STREET WE

HAVE PARCEL D WHICH IS THE LARGEST PARCEL ABOUT 4 AND A HALF

ACRES, 4.6 ACRES AND THEN ANOTHER SMALLER PARCEL, THIS IS PARCEL

E ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'LL BE MAKING TO

THE SITE PLAN AS WE GO THROUGH CERTIFICATION BEFORE THE BOARD

HEARING.

IN THIS LOCATION WE INITIALLY HAD SUGGESTED A 30 FOOT B TYPE

BUFFER AND AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, WE HAVE AGREED TO A 50

FOOT BUFFER HERE TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE APARTMENTS THAT

ARE LOCATED WEST OF THE PROPERTY.

OUR INITIALLY APPLICATION WE HAD REQUESTED WAIVERS AND VARIANCES

117

TO THE BUFFER LOCATION HERE AND THE BUFFER LOCATION HERE.

AFTER DISCUSSING IT WITH STAFF, WE HAVE SAID THAT WE WOULD GO

AHEAD AND AGREE WITH THE 20 FOOT B TYPE BUFFER IN HERE AS LONG AS

THE EXISTING BUILDINGS CAN INTRUDE INTO THAT BUFFER AND TOM MAY

EXPLAIN WHETHER THAT STILL NEEDS A -- NEEDS A VARIATION OR NOT.

I WOULD ASSUME IT WOULD.

AND THIS AREA WE REQUESTED A TEN FOOT B TYPE TOUGHER RATHER THAN

20 FOOT B TYPE BUFFER AND WE DID GET A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE

PROPERTY OWNER DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO US IN THAT LOCATION AND AGAIN

THERE'S SOME EXISTING STRUCTURES AND DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE

THAT NECESSITATED US TO REQUEST THAT BUFFER WAIVER.

ANOTHER MINOR CHANGE WE WANT TO MAKE IN THE CERTIFIED PLAN IS TO

REMOVE THIS NOTE.

THIS WAS AN INITIAL NOTE WHEN WE HAD REQUESTED M TYPE USES FOR

THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE AGREED TO CI USES

ON THE WEST SIDE OF 82ND AND MAINTAIN THE M TYPE USES EAST OF

82ND STREET.

WE ALSO WANT TO CHANGE THIS LITTLE NOTE THAT TALKS ABOUT ACCESS

ON 82ND STREET.

IT NOW SAYS EXISTING AND PROPOSED ACCESS.

118

WE WANT IT TO JUST SAY EXISTING/POTENTIAL ACCESS WE'RE NOT SURE

IF WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT AS ACCESS ONTO 82ND STREET OR NOT.

WE DO HAVE ACCESS ONTO PALM RIVER ROAD FOR THAT LARGE PARCEL.

THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS REQUESTED THAT WE REWORD THIS NOTE.

IT'S REGARDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY PRESERVATION.

THEY FEEL WE NEED TO SHOW 25 FOOT PRESERVATION ALONG PALM RIVER

ROAD.

AND THEN SET BACK THE 30 FOOT SETBACK FROM THAT LINE SO THOSE ARE

CHANGES WE WOULD BE MAKING TO THAT PLAN AND JUST ONE OR TWO

OTHERS.

NOW THAT WE HAVE CIS ON THE WEST SIDE OF 82ND STREET WE WANT TO

CHANGE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.

WE INITIALLY HAD M DISTRICT STANDARDS WHICH IS 110 FEET SO THAT

WILL NOW SPECIFY THAT FOR PARCELS A, B AND C ON THE WEST OF 82ND

IT WILL BE 50 FEET AND THEN EAST OF 82ND IT WILL BE THE M

STANDARD OF 110 FEET.

NOT THAT ANY OF THESE STRUCTURES WILL EVER GET TO THAT LIMIT.

AND THEN FINALLY WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD A NOTE 35 THAT SAYS THAT

THE PARCELS WILL BE DEVELOPED INDEPENDENTLY.

BECAUSE THERE ARE FIVE SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNERS.

119

SO WITH THAT WE FEEL THAT THE PROJECT AS CONDITIONED AND DESIGNED

THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING AND

IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN AND THE PALM RIVER COMMUNITY

PLAN.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ONE QUESTION.

WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF THE BUILDINGS ENCROACHING INTO THE

EXISTING BUILDINGS ENCROACHING INTO THE B BUFFER, DID YOU FILE

VARIATION RESPONSES?

>>WE HAVE FILED A VARIATION FOR A REDUCTION IN THE SETBACK AND

BUFFER TO 7 FEET WHICH WOULD KEEP US OUT OF THAT -- WHICH WOULD

KEEP US AWAY FROM THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.

SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE STILL NEED THAT VARIATION.

IT'S JUST NOW IT WON'T BE FOR THE ENTIRE BUFFER.

IT WILL JUST ALLOW FOR THE INTRUSION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IN

THAT BUFFER.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: SO SPECIFICALLY YOU DIDN'T FILE

VARIATION REQUESTS ON THAT?

OR RESPONSES ON THAT?

>>NO.

120

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

JUST NEEDED TO KNOW THAT MR. HIZNAY.

>>TOM HIZNAY: TOM HIZNAY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF.

THE APPLICANT HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF REVIEWING THE APPLICATION.

SO I'LL JUST FOCUS ON SOME CENTRAL ISSUES.

ONE IS A KEY ELEMENT OF OUR REVIEW WAS COMPATIBILITY OF THIS

PROJECT PARTICULARLY WITH THE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT TO

THE WEST OF PARCEL A WHICH IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF 82ND STREET.

AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT THEY HAVE AGREED TO PROVIDE A 50 FOOT

WIDE BUFFER WITH TYPE B SCREENING WITHIN THIS AREA.

AND ALSO TO PRESERVE EXISTING TREES IN THIS BUFFER AREA.

AND THIS BUFFER -- THIS EXTENT OF 50 FEET GREATLY EXCEEDS WHAT'S

REQUIRED BY THE CODE.

ADDITIONALLY IF OPEN STORAGE OCCURS IN PARCEL A -- AND IF YOU GO

TO THE SITE YOU'LL SEE IT DOES.

PARCEL A IS CURRENTLY BEING UTILIZED BY A CONTRACTOR FOR HIGHWAY

SIGNS.

AND THEY USE A STORAGE YARD TO HOLD THEIR SIGNS AND THINGS THAT

ARE LIKE ON TRAILERS.

121

SO WE HAVE PUT SOME CONDITIONS THAT IF OPEN STORAGE OF ANY SORT

OCCURS IN PARCEL A WHICH IS THE PARCEL THAT'S IMMEDIATELY

ADJACENT TO THE MULTI-FAMILY THAT IT BE LIMITED TO SIGNS,

VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT IN WORKING CONDITION.

AND THAT WHATEVER IS BEING STORED AS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 20 FEET

WHILE BEING STORED THAT WAY IF YOU HAVE A BOOM TRUCK OR SOMETHING

LIKE THAT THE BOOM HAS TO BE DOWN.

AND LASTLY THAT ACTIVE OPERATIONS WITHIN THE STORAGE YARD ARE

LIMITED TO THE HOURS BETWEEN 7 A.M. TO 6 P.M.

THEREFORE YOU COULDN'T HAVE LET'S SAY A TOW TRUCK COMPANY

OPERATING OUT OF PARCEL A AND BRINGING VEHICLES IN IN THE MIDDLE

OF THE NIGHT.

THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WE THINK THAT THESE CONDITIONS AND ALSO ANY KIND OF ACTIVITY,

ACTIVE ACTIVITY IN THAT STORAGE YARD IS PROHIBITED ON SUNDAYS, AS

WELL.

SO WE THINK THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY BUFFER REQUIREMENT COUPLED

WITH THE CONDITIONS RESTRICTING OPEN STORAGE ACTIVITIES ON THE

SITE CERTAINLY MORE THAN ADDRESSES ANY KIND OF COMPATIBILITY

ISSUES WITH THE APARTMENTS TO THE WEST.

122

NOW WITH REGARDS TO THE TWO VARIATIONS REQUESTS, ON THE WEST SIDE

OF THE PROPERTY ON PARCEL C, THEY HAD REQUESTED TO HAVE A 7 FOOT

WIDE BUFFER WITH TYPE B SCREENING INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT

WIDE BUFFER WITH TYPE B SCREENING.

THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE.

THAT'S WHY THEY NEEDED 20 FOOT BUFFER WITH TYPE B SCREENING.

WE DIDN'T REQUEST THIS VARIATION BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF THAT

SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEXT DOOR.

HOWEVER AS FOUND IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, WE DO SUPPORT ALLOWING

-- REQUIRING THE 20 FOOT BUFFER WITH TYPE B SCREENING AS NORMALLY

REQUIRED BUT ALLOWING ENCROACHMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE

SITE INTO THAT BUFFER AREA. AND THE CONDITION SPECIFICALLY

ADDRESSES THAT.

SO YES A VARIATION IS STILL REQUIRED.

BUT IT'S NOT -- THE EXTENT OF THE VARIATION IS NOT NEARLY TO THE

DEGREE OF WHAT THEY ASKED FOR.

OUR VARIATION IS TO ALLOW EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN IN THE

BUFFER AREA OTHERWISE THE BUFFER IS AS REQUIRED.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I WAS MORE LOOKING PROCEDURALLY JUST

THE ISSUE OF ADDRESSING THOSE BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED BY THE LDC.

123

I MEAN AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED THE APPLICANT CAN TRY TO ADDRESS

IT ON THE RECORD.

>>BRIAN GRADY: HE CERTAINLY CAN AGAIN I DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS

IN FRONT OF ME REGARDING WHAT HE OUTLINED IN HIS VARIATION

REQUEST FOR 7 FEET BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT ADDRESSES THE FACT

THAT PART OF THE REASON THE EXISTING BUILDINGS I THINK THE

ARGUMENT YOU MADE IT'S STILL APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE IS JUST

ACTUALLY A REDUCTION IN THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER HE ASKED FOR,

VARIATION I SHOULD SAY, AS PART OF HIS APPLICATION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WELL SAID.

SO FOR THE APPLICANT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER THAT EXISTING

VARIATION SUBMITTAL COULD BE UTILIZED I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT

IN THE RECORD OR A MODIFICATION THERETO WHEN WE GET BACK TO YOU.

>>TOM HIZNAY: THEN WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER VARIATION TO

PROVIDE A 10 FOOT WIDE BUFFER WITH TYPE B SCREENING ON THE EAST

SIDE OF 82ND STREET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT WIDE BUFFER

WITH TYPE C SCREENING, WE DO NOT OBJECT TO THAT ON THE BASIS THAT

THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER

THAT HE DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE REQUESTED VARIATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE HEARING MASTER --

124

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THAT HAS A VARIATION SUBMITTAL.

>>TOM HIZNAY: YES THERE'S A VARIATION SUBMITTAL FOR BOTH OF

THESE VARIATIONS AS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED IN THE FILE.

THEN THROUGH THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS THE ONE WE SAID WE DIDN'T

SUPPORT IT AND OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE, HE DID NOT REVISE HIS

VARIATION REQUESTS AT THAT POINT.

I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE HEARING MASTER, HOWEVER, THAT AS PART

OF YOUR FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION ON THIS CASE, YOU ARE REQUIRED

TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE VARIATION REQUESTS THEMSELVES.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOW THE LAST THING HERE IS I WOULD LIKE TO HAND

OUT SOME REVISED CONDITIONS GO FIGURE.

THERE WAS SOME LAST MINUTE DISCUSSIONS OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF ON

CONDITION NO. 9 THAT ARE REFLECTED IN THESE REVISIONS. AND THEN

MANY OF THE CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN THAT WERE DISCUSSED BY

MR. STUTZMAN YOU WILL SEE ARE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR CERTIFICATION FOUND.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>>TOM HIZNAY: SUMMARY STAFF FINDS THIS REZONING IS COMPATIBLE

WITH THE PREDOMINANT COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CHARACTER OF THE

SURROUNDING AREA PARTICULARLY ALONG PALM RIVER ROAD WHICH IS

125

HEAVILY INDUSTRIALIZED AND COMMERCIALIZED.

WE FURTHER FIND THAT USE RESTRICTION OPEN STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE SHOULD ADEQUATELY MITIGATE

IMPACTS ON ADJACENT MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY USES AND WE

RECOMMEND YOU FIND THIS SUPPORTABLE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU MR. HIZNAY AND THE PLANNING

COMMISSION.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR FIRST OFF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT AGREEING TO

THE 50 FOOT BUFFER ON ITS WESTERN BOUNDARY.

THIS AREA IS PRIMARILY HEAVY COMMERCIAL.

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

AND CONTINUING TO DEVELOP MORE SO TO THOSE USES.

BASED UPON THE 50 FOOT BUFFER ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND

THE CONDITIONS BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING

COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE

COMP PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANKS FOR THAT.

ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

YES, SIR.

126

SUPPORT.

OKAY.

ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST TONIGHT?

YES, SIR DO YOU NEED TO SPEAK, SIR?

>>YES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

COME FORWARD.

>>GOOD EVENING LARRY STYWALL 1108 SOUTH 82ND STREET.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WHERE IS THAT IN LOCATION TO THE

PROPERTY.

>>RIGHT BEHIND IT.

THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BACK UP TO MY PROPERTY.

I HAVE A PICTURE OF MY BACKYARD WHERE THE --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: DO YOU WANT TO SET THAT UP ON THE ELMO

OVER HERE?

THERE'S A MICROPHONE NEXT TO IT AND THERE'S A SWITCH ON THE

MICROPHONE.

>>OKAY.

MY PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY RIGHT HERE IN THIS AREA HERE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THAT LOOKS LIKE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THE

127

CORNER PIECE THERE?

>>UH-HUH.

OKAY.

AND I'M OKAY WITH IT.

BUT JUST THE BUFFER, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT A LOT BIGGER BECAUSE

I HAVE CHILDREN AND THEY LIKE TO PLAY THERE IN THE BACKYARD.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: SURE, ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

>>YEAH AND JUST THE LAND BEHIND THERE IS -- IT'S A LOT OF WELLS

TEST WELLS THE LAND WAS CONTAMINATED YEARS AGO BY WET WING AND

JUST DEVELOPING THE AREA I'M ON WELL WATER, A COUPLE OF MY

NEIGHBORS ARE ON WELL WATER.

WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THIS SITUATION.

SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

THIS AREA.

BECAUSE THERE'S STILL SOME RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE IN THE AREA.

BUT -- AND IT'S OVER-- THERE'S OVER 11 CHILDREN THAT PLAY IN THE

AREA, TOO.

SO I'M OKAY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE

INFORMATION ON HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT TRAFFIC, HOW IT'S GOING

TO AFFECT MY WELL WATER WHEN THEY START DOING CONSTRUCTION,

128

THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I JUST DISAGREE ON THAT POINT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD NO

INFORMATION.

IT'S JUST, OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION

THERE'S STAFF AVAILABLE TO YOU AND YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO

THEM.

SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO YOUR BUFFER QUESTION, LET ME MAKE

SURE THAT WE BOTH ARE ON THE SAME PAGE?

THAT'S THE VERY BUFFER I WAS ADDRESSING A FEW MINUTES AGO IN THE

QUESTIONING.

AND YOU HEARD THE WORD VARIATION.

THAT VARIATION APPLIED TO BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE IN

TERMS OF WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED NOT FOR OTHER NEW BUILDINGS I

WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNEW THAT.

>>OKAY.

I DIDN'T CATCH THAT PART.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR PERSPECTIVE A

LITTLE BIT?

>>YES, IT DOES.

129

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THAT POINT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE

WE UNDERSTOOD.

SIR THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

ANYBODY ELSE TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

SEEING NONE, MR. HIZNAY ANYTHING ELSE, PLANNING COMMISSION,

RANDY, NO?

MR. STUTZMAN.

>>MR. SCAROLA, REGARDING THE WAIVER REQUEST ADJACENT TO HIS

PROPERTY, I THINK THAT THE CRITERIA AND THE RATIONALE THAT WE

SUBMITTED FOR THE ORIGINAL 7 FOOT VARIATION WOULD APPLY JUST TO

THAT BUILDING LOCATION.

AND IT WOULD BE THE SAME TYPE OF RATIONALE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE MEETING THE

BUFFER REQUIREMENT BUT FOR THOSE BUILDINGS.

>>YES CORRECT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ANYTHING ELSE.

>>THAT'S IT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE REZONING 14-

0608.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT B 13 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0623.

130

THE APPLICANT IS RHETT PENNINGTON OF URBAN INVEST INCORPORATED

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM REHABILITATION 4 AND ASC-1 TO

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR -- RSC 4 ASC-1 TO 44 DUPLEX OR TOWNHOME

UNITS ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IS THE APPLICANT HERE.

>>YES DAVID FUKESON 1508 MARINE COVE LANE ODESSA, FLORIDA I'M

HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT THE SITE CURRENTLY IS A FISH FARM

TO BE CONVERTED TO A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 44 UNITS.

THE TYPE OF UNITS HASN'T BEEN DECIDED YET SO THERE'S SOME

FLEXIBILITY THAT THE APPLICANT CAN UTILIZE.

WE HAVE TALKED TO STAFF AND ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONDITIONS.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ONE CONDITION THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST

TO THE RESIDENTS.

BY THE WAY WE DID MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS ABOUT A MONTH AGO.

HAD A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION.

AND THEY WERE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT THE PERIMETER BUFFERING.

AND WE SAID THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD AGREE TO EITHER A WALL OR

PVC FENCE NOT WOOD FENCE AROUND THE PERIMETER AND THAT IS

CONDITION NO. 3 STAFF HAS A FEW CHANGES OR CLARIFICATIONS WHICH

131

WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH AND THEY WILL BE BRINGING THOSE UP LATER

IN THIS TESTIMONY BUT THAT ENDS OUR PRESENTATION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

MS. ALBERT.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING ISABELLE ALBERT DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

THE APPLICANT STATED HE'S REQUESTING A REZONING OF A 9.87 PARCEL

FROM ASC-1 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS TO ALLOW 44 SINGLE

FAMILY TOWNHOMES OR VILLAS. IT'S RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RANGING

FROM 1 ACRE TO THE NORTH AND ACROSS THE STREET THERE'S AN

APPROVED TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT THEN THERE'S WETLANDS TO THE EAST

AND TO THE PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT DID MEET WITH SOME NEIGHBORS WHERE THEY WERE

TALKING ABOUT AND AGREED ON A CONDITION TO HAVE A 6 FOOT WALL OR

PVC FENCE WE HAVE INCLUDED THAT CONDITION INTO OUR RECOMMENDED

CONDITION.

THE APPLICANT ALSO STATED THAT IN CONDITION 1 IN THE TOWNHOME

SECTION OF IT THE SIDE YARD SETBACK I HAVE 7.55.

IT'S A TYPO IT REALLY IS 7.5 FEET.

AND WE ALSO WANTED TO CLARIFY CONDITION NO. 11.1 WHICH IS

132

ACTUALLY IT SHOULD BE 12.1.

THE LAST CONDITION.

THE MEASUREMENT OF THE 24 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY PRESERVATION SHOULD

BE MEASURED FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE NOT THE CENTERLINE I

DISCUSSED IT WITH STAFF TONIGHT JUST TO CONFIRM AND THEY AGREE

THAT SHOULD BE FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND WITH THESE REVISED

CONDITIONS WE FIND THAT SUPPORTABLE AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

THIS SITE AND PROPOSED REZONING IS IN THE RESIDENTIAL 6 PLANNED

CATEGORY ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IT IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE

AREA THERE'S A VARIETY OF HOUSING STYLES OR AT LEAST THE

FLEXIBILITY TO DO A VARIETY OF HOUSING STYLES.

AS MS. ALBERT EXPLAINED THERE'S A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT APPROVED

JUST TO THE WEST OF THIS SITE.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FEELS THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING IS

COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AND BASED UPON THAT FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH

133

THE COMP PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

SEEING NONE, ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST?

YES.

IS THERE A PRIMARY SPEAKER BY THE WAY?

I SEE A NUMBER OF HANDS.

WELL THERE'S A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO ORGANIZE

SOMEHOW.

BUT IT'S UP TO YOU.

15 MINUTES.

IF NOT I'M GOING TO ASSIGN ROUGHLY THREE MINUTES OR SO PER

PERSON.

DOES ANYBODY NEED LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES?

OKAY.

>>GOOD EVENING CAROLYN ROSE CHANCEY 1105 -- EXCUSE ME 11045 SCOTT

LOOP RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA 33569.

I KIND OF DISAGREE ABOUT THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE HOUSING FOR

TOWN HOUSING.

134

WE'RE ALL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

ONE ACRE OR LESS.

IN THE AREA.

THESE TOWNHOMES WOULD BE BUILT IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THE

SURROUNDINGS JUST WITH THE FRONTAGE THAT WOULD BE FACING BALM-

RIVERVIEW ROAD WHICH WOULD BE FACING THE OTHER TOWNHOMES.

EXCUSE ME.

AND THE TRAFFIC OUT THERE ON BALM-RIVERVIEW ROAD IS HORRIBLE AT

THIS TIME.

THEY ARE WORKING ON IT.

BUT WHEN THE HIGH SCHOOL IS IN SESSION, WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO

SCHOOL AND COMING FROM SCHOOL, TRAFFIC YOU CAN'T GET OUT THERE ON

TO BALM-RIVERVIEW ROAD.

FROM SCOTT LOOP.

WE ALSO IN AGREEMENT ON SOME OF THE BUFFER.

THERE ARE PROPERTY -- OUR PROPERTY ACTUALLY IS WHERE THEY ARE

PROPOSING THE -- THE RETAINING POND AND AT THIS TIME THERE'S A

DITCH THERE THAT'S NEVER BEEN MAINTAINED AND IS WASHING AWAY

PROPERTY AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A RETENTION POND AND WE

REALLY WANT MORE THAN JUST A SIX FOOT FENCE UP THERE TO PROTECT

135

OUR PROPERTY.

ALSO WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING ASC-1 WHERE WE ARE A-- ARE -- WE

ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE ANIMALS AT THIS TIME IF WE ARE REZONED

BLANKETED BECAUSE OF THE REZONING FOR THEIR TOWNHOME THEN WE HAVE

A PROBLEM.

WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT WHERE THEY WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE A

BUFFER OF MAYBE TEN YEARS BEFORE THAT WOULD GO IN EFFECT.

WE ALSO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

AND ALSO ABOUT WATER AND SEWAGE CONNECTION WE AT THIS TIME HAVE

WELL AND SEPTIC TANKS.

WE DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED INTO HOOKING UP TO COUNTY FACILITIES.

IF WE ARE, THEN WE BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD PAY FOR THAT

WHEN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.

ALSO IF THEY PUT THE RETENTION POND IN, THERE'S A CHAIN-LINK

FENCE UP THERE AT THIS TIME THAT'S THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE

PROPERTY.

IT'S DOWN IN THE DITCH.

WHO IS GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT DITCH?

ARE THEY GOING TO REMOVE IT AND FILL IT IN AND TAKE THAT FENCING

DOWN?

136

I BELIEVE THAT'S ABOUT ALL THAT I HAD AT THIS TIME.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY

MA'AM.

YES, SIR.

>>GOOD EVENING DENNIS FURBY 9650 BALM-RIVERVIEW ROAD RIVERVIEW,

FLORIDA.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WHICH DIRECTION ON BALM RIVER ARE YOU

FROM THE PROJECT.

>>I'M ON THE SOUTH BORDER.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

>>THAT'S -- WE'VE MET WITH THEM AND TALKED.

AND MY ISSUES ARE MAINLY I HAD QUESTIONS.

THERE ARE SOME DESIGNATED WETLAND AREAS THERE.

WHAT CAN THEY DO WITH THE WETLANDS?

CAN THEY USE THEM FOR ANYTHING?

CAN THEY TOUCH THEM?

ALSO THE BUFFER ISSUE, MY SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, I GOT 243 FEET

THAT BORDERS HIS PROPERTY AND I CAN WIND UP WITH AN AWFUL LOT OF

HOUSES WHERE I'VE GOT NOTHING RIGHT NOW BUT A FISH FARM I COULD

WIND UP WITH AN AWFUL LOT OF HOUSES BORDERING MY PROPERTY HOUSES

137

OR TOWNHOMES OR VILLAS.

SO I WOULD LIKE SOMETHING SET UP OR I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I NEED

TO TALK TO THEM MORE, WHETHER YOU GUYS HANDLE THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO WIND UP WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF HOUSES THERE OR

TOWNHOUSES LOOKING OVER AT ME AND A BUFFER, A FIVE OR SIX FOOT

BUFFER FENCE.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO COVER GIVING ME SEPARATION

FROM LIKE I SAY ANYWHERE FROM 10, 12 HOUSES AND PEOPLE AND I WANT

SOME SORT OF A BUFFER IF THEY DO PUT A FENCE, I WANT SOMETHING

THAT GOES DOWN TO THE GROUND OR IN THE GROUND.

I DON'T WANT PEOPLES DOGS ORCHIDS CRAWLING UNDER OR OVER A FENCE

AND THEN I HAVE LEGAL PROBLEMS OR ISSUES.

SO MY MAIN ISSUES ARE JUST MY PROPERTY AND SAFETY THAT I'VE HAD

FOR 35 YEARS OUT THERE.

AND THEY SAY IT'S COMPATIBLE.

I GUESS IT IS IF THAT TOWNHOUSE THING COMES ACROSS THE STREET

EVENTUALLY.

BUT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES OUT THERE.

SO THOSE ARE MY MAIN ISSUES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU SIR FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

138

ANYBODY ELSE NEED TO SPEAK?

>>HI MY NAME IS CHRISTINE VEIL.

11019 SCOTT LOOP RIVERVIEW.

MY PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 1.4 ACRES.

AND THE RETENTION POND WOULD BORDERLINE MY PROPERTY, BEHIND IT.

AND MY CONCERN IS THE SAME AS MY NEIGHBORS.

I HAVE LIVESTOCK.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP LIVESTOCK ON MY PROPERTY.

THE FENCING, AGREE WITH MY NEIGHBORS -- I AGREE WITH MY

NEIGHBORS.

I DON'T WANT KIDS TO BE ABLE TO COME OVER AND MESS WITH MY OR

WHATEVER HAVE YOU -- MY HORSE OR WHATEVER HAVE YOU AND I HAVE A

LOT OF TREES ON THE PROPERTY THAT WILL BORDER THE FENCE LINE AND

I WANT TO KNOW ARE THEY GOING TO TAKE AWAY ANY OF MY TREES?

AND I'M CURRENTLY ON A SEPTIC TANK BUT I DO HAVE CITY WATER.

BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT ME AS FAR AS

PROPERTY VALUES.

AND I DO WANT THE FENCING.

IT IS AN ISSUE WITH ME, TOO.

I JUST AGREE WITH MY NEIGHBORS.

139

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY

MA'AM.

ANYBODY ELSE THAT NEEDS TO SPEAK?

ALL RIGHT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OPPOSITION TESTIMONY.

ANYTHING FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES?

>>JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

A COUPLE OF OPPOSITIONS HAVE MENTIONED CONCERN ABOUT THE ZONINGS

IMPACT ON THEIR ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO USE THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE

THEY ARE AGRICULTURALLY ZONED THIS ZONING HAS NO IMPACT OR

WOULDN'T CHANGE THEIR ZONING ALLOWANCE TO THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE

ANIMALS THEY CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY IF THE

ZONING WERE APPROVED.

THE ONE GENTLEMAN MENTIONED CONCERNS REGARDING HE I GUESS IS

SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY AND CONCERNS ABOUT WETLAND IMPACTS.

THE PROPOSED PLAN DOES SHOW WETLAND CONSERVATION AREAS.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR FROM REVIEWING THE PLAN THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING

ANY IMPACTS TO THOSE WETLAND CONSERVATION AREAS IN THAT PORTION

ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY.

I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: BRIAN I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE

140

COMFORTABLE WITH ANSWERING THIS.

DON'T IF YOU CAN'T OBVIOUSLY.

BUT THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST THAT WOULD

CAUSE AN EXTERNAL PROPERTY TO HAVE TO CONNECT TO WATER AND SEWER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NO, NOT -- ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE REALLY

THE RELATIONSHIP TO WHERE THEY WOULD ACCESS WATER AND SEWER

THERE'S REALLY NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THOSE PROPERTIES AND THE

ACCESS ONTO BALM ROAD SO ANY CONNECTION TO WATER AND SEWER WOULD

OCCUR THERE SO IF THE LINES ARE EXISTING ALONG THAT ROADWAY THEY

WOULD CONNECT TO THAT OR WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT DOWN THAT ROADWAY

TO PROVIDE FOR THAT BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD

CAUSE THEM TO HAVE TO CONNECT TO THAT LINE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

BRIAN, WHAT IS THE STANDARD MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR A SIDE YARD FENCE

OR YEAR YARD FENCE IN A RESIDENTIAL.

>>BRIAN GRADY: SIX FEET.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE

-- THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THIS ACTION THAT OWE -- IF OCCURRED

TODAY THAT WOULD CAUSE TREES TO BE TAKEN DOWN ON EXTERNAL

PROPERTIES.

141

>>BRIAN GRADY: THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD CAUSE OR

REQUIRE THAT.

WE HAVE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS SO IF THIS WERE APPROVED AND

THEY CAME IN THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT, THEY WOULD BE WORKING WITH

OUR NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF REGARDING PRESERVATION OF TREES ON

THEIR SITE AND IF THEY WERE REMOVING TREES MITIGATION OF THOSE

TREES THAT WOULD REQUIRE MITIGATION BUT NOTHING WOULD AFFECT

TREES OFFSITE AND I DO KNOW THAT NATURAL RESOURCES WHEN THEY ARE

REVIEWING SITE DEVELOPMENT IF THERE'S TREES IN PROXIMITY TO THE

BOUNDARIES THAT COULD BE AFFECTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT THEY

CERTAINLY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN REVIEWING TO MINIMIZE

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THOSE TREES, ALSO.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT APPRECIATE THE ANSWERS THANK

YOU ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

ALL RIGHT.

AND THE APPLICANT?

>>THANK YOU SIR I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THE RESIDENTS.

MOST OF THEM HAVE LIVED IN THIS PROPERTY FOR 30 OR 40 YEARS OR

THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY WE TRIED TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS WHEN

142

WE MET WITH THEM BUT JUST TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THESE I'M

GLAD I MET WITH THEM BECAUSE I BECAME AWARE OF SOME THINGS I NEED

TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHEN I GO TO FINAL DESIGN ONE BEING DRAINAGE

ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE I'LL TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE DRAINAGE

THAT COMES OFF THE EAST PROPERTY LINE THAT GOES INTO THE WETLAND.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WHERE IS THE DISCHARGE FROM THE SITE.

>>THE DISCHARGE GOES INTO THE WETLAND WHICH IS ACTUALLY A CREEK

IT DRAINS NORTHEASTERLY.

THERE'S QUITE A DEEP CREEK ABOUT 10 FOOT DEEP THROUGH THAT

WETLAND.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IS THE DISCHARGE GOING TO BE IN THE

NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE SITE.

>>NO NOT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE DOWN THE EAST PROPERTY LINE ABOUT A THIRD OF THE

WAY THEN IT GOES DUE NORTHEAST.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I SEE IT.

>>BUT THERE'S DRAINAGE COMING FROM THE NORTH DOWN THE EAST

PROPERTY LINE THAT DRAINS OFFSITE PROPERTIES INTO THE FISH POND

OF THE CREEK THAT'S CAUSING SOME EROSION APPARENTLY I APPRECIATE

THEM BRINGING IT TO MY ATTENTION I WOULDN'T HAVE NOTICED IT RIGHT

143

AWAY.

AS FAR AS WETLANDS WE HAVE NO INTENTION FOR ANY IMPACTS MAYBE A

TEMPORARY IMPACT FOR OUTFALL STRUCTURE BUT NOTHING PERMANENT THE

BUFFER AGAIN WE HAVE A 6 FOOT TYPE BUFFER WE WON'T BUILD A WOODEN

FENCE THE GENTLEMAN EXPRESSED THE CONCERN ABOUT ANIMALS ORCHIDS.

THE PVC FENCE WILL BE A COUPLE OF INCHES INTO THE SOIL OR A BLOCK

WALL THAT WOULD BE ON A FOOTER SO THAT WOULD PRECLUDE MOST

ANIMALS FROM DIGGING UNDER IT AND MOST KIDS.

THAT ENDS MY TESTIMONY UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE

REZONING 14-623.

JO.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT B 14 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0633.

THE APPLICANT IS LLATS LLC THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM ASC-1 TO

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 15 LOT SINGLE SUBDIVISION MICHELLE HEINRICH

WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE

APPLICANT.

>>THANK YOU, BRIAN.

I'M CLINT CUFFEL, I'M WITH WRA, TAMPA, FLORIDA.

144

33624.

AGAIN, THANKS, BRIAN.

THIS APPLICATION IS A EXTENSION OF AVILA THE EXISTING UNIT 14 IS

CURRENTLY DEVELOPED.

THIS IS A 12 ACRE EXTENSION ONTO AVILA.

ALL OF THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE PLANNER WE AGREE TO A LOT

OF THEM ARE JUST CARRYOVERS FROM THE EXISTING AVILA NEIGHBORHOOD

THERE ARE TWO CONDITIONS WE PROPOSE WITH THIS THAT THEY HAVE

APPROVED ONE BEING THE EIGHT FOOT WALL.

THERE'S A CONDITION IN THE ZONING ORDER THAT WE PROPOSE AN 8 FOOT

WALL ON ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES UNLESS THERE'S A WETLAND OR LAKE

WHICH WE DO HAVE WETLANDS ON THE SOUTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES

WE'LL HAVE WALLS AT THE LAKE WHERE WE WOULD BUFFER THE 30 FOOT

WETLAND CONSERVATION AREA WITH A WALL SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS

COMPLETELY SURROUNDED LIKE IT IS NOW WITH EITHER A GATE, WALL OR

SOME KIND OF SECURITY.

ANOTHER ONE THING IS THERE'S NO ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ACCESS IS THROUGH AVILA ITSELF SO BEHIND THE GUARD GATES OF AVILA

ITSELF THERE IS AN EXISTING ACCESS PRIVATE ACCESS, A LANE WE ARE

KEEPING IT LIKE IT IS WE ARE NOT ACCESSING THE PROPERTY OFF OF

145

THAT FOR THIS PD.

AGAIN THIS IS A COMPATIBLE LARGE LOTS EXTREMELY LARGE LOTS IN

THIS AREA TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING AVILA NEIGHBORHOOD

I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF ANYTHING COMES UP.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING MICHELLE HEINRICH DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES AS THE APPLICANT STATED THIS IS A REZONING OF

APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES FROM ASC-1 TO A PD TO ALLOW A 15 LOT

SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION AS STATED THIS IS AN EXTENSION TO THE

SOUTH AND WEST OF THE EXISTING AVILA NEIGHBORHOOD CLOSEST TO LAKE

MAGDALENE BOULEVARD AND THERE ARE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND

WEST ARE ZONED ASC-1 AND THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE URBAN SERVICE

AREA AS THE APPLICANT STATED THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED SOMEWHAT

ALONG LAKE MAGDALENE BOULEVARD THERE'S NO ACCESS TO LAKE

MAGDALENE PROPOSED ALL OF THE ACCESS POINTS WILL BE INTERNAL THEY

WILL BE AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING PRIVATE ROADWAY WITHIN AVILA

THAT WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE SITE THERE WON'T BE ACCESS TO

NORTH AND WEST OF THE EXISTING ASC-1 PROPERTIES.

THERE IS ONE VARIATION THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT'S FOR THE 8

FOOT HIGH WALL THAT'S TO CONTINUE ON THE EXISTING WALL THAT'S AT

146

THE PERIMETER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THE APPLICANT HAS INCLUDED THAT IN THIS REQUEST HE HAS

PROVIDED RESPONSES TO THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA THEY ARE IN THE FILE

FOR YOUR REVIEW STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL PRETTY MUCH COMPLEMENT --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: SORRY IT'S A GOOD TIME TO STOP YOU

SORRY YOU SAID 8 FOOT BUT IT'S A 10 FOOT VARIATION.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: AN 8 FOOT HIGH WALL IS WHAT THEY ARE

REQUESTING THE HIGHEST THEY CAN HAVE IS 6 FEET SO IT'S A 2 FOOT

VARIATION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: DID THE VARIATION CHANGE BECAUSE THE

ONE I'M LOOKING AT SAYS A VARIATION TO ALLOW UP TO A 10 FOOT

PERIMETER WALL.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I HAD THAT QUESTION BEFORE.

MR. CUFFEL INDICATED IT WAS AN 8 FOOT.

THAT WAS A TYPO.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU GO AHEAD.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: SURE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE

PRETTY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH THE EXISTING AVILA NEIGHBORHOOD AS

FAR AS LOT SIZE AND SETBACK.

147

THE LOTS WILL BE 15,000 SQUARE FEET WITH FRONT YARDS OF 25, 20

FOOT REAR YARDS, 2.5 ON EACH SIDE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT

PROPOSED IS 55 WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE EXISTING AVILA

NEIGHBORHOOD AND TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS AND HAS

NO OBJECTIONS.

AND STAFF FINDS THIS REZONING TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT WHICH EXISTS ALL OF SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANKS FOR THAT.

PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: STAFF LOOKED AT THE VARIANCE REQUESTS AND FIND

THOSE JUST TO BE -- THEY WOULD ALLOW CONTINUITY WITH THE EXISTING

AVILA DEVELOPMENT.

IT REQUEST FURTHER POLICY 1.4 IN ITS DEFINITION OF COMPATIBILITY.

AGAIN NOT THE SAME AS BUT SIMILAR TO AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDING AREA.

BASED UPON THAT, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED

REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS BY

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANKS.

148

ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST?

SEEING NONE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE APPLICANT?

SO WITH THAT WE WILL CLOSE PD 14-633.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS B 15 MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 14-0635.

THE APPLICANT IS CIRCLE K STORES INCORPORATED THE REQUEST IS FOR

MAJOR MODIFICATION EXTENSIVE PD TO ADD USES TO THE PD UNDER PRIOR

APPROVALS WERE PROHIBITED INCLUDING CONVENIENCE STORES, DRIVE-

THROUGHS AND FREE STANDING RESTAURANTS MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL

PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>GOOD EVENING I'M JOHN GRANDOFF MY ADDRESS IS SUITE 3700 BANK OF

AMERICA PLAZA AND I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING CIRCLE K

STORES I'M JOINED THIS EVENING BY THE FLORIDA REAL ESTATE

DIRECTOR MR. EDWARD JUNTA THE PROJECT MANAGER MR. RYAN PLATE AND

THE PROJECT ASSISTANT MS. DESTINY DRAYTON WITH ME IN THE AUDIENCE

TODAY.

IN SUMMARY THIS IS SIMPLY A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO ADD A

CONVENIENCE STORE AS A PERMITTED TO AN ALREADY APPROVED PD WHICH

IS APPROVED IN EARLY 2007.

149

HAVE YOU VISITED THIS AREA, MR. SCAROLA.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: YES.

>>YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT.

I'LL STEP OVER TO THE ELMO FOR A MOMENT AND INDICATE WHERE WE

ARE.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST OFF OF I-75.

YOU TAKE A RIGHT.

YOU COME TO THE PROPERTY.

PREVATT DRIVE IS LOCATED HERE IF YOU CONTINUE ON GIBSONTON DRIVE

ALL THE WAY TO HIGHWAY 41 YOU WOULD SEE THE CITGO STORE AT THE

RAILROAD TRACKS.

YOU LOOK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET YOU'LL SEE WALMART WITH THE

MURPHY OIL FILLING STATION IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET.

THERE ARE NO TRANSPORTATION OR TRAFFIC OBJECTIONS.

THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND OUR CONSULTANT HAS FOUND THAT

THERE'S CAPACITY ON THE ROADWAYS.

THERE ARE NO TRAFFIC CONFLICTS.

IN FACT THERE'S A DECREASE IN TRAFFIC WITH THIS USE.

WHICH I'LL REMIND YOU -- I'LL REMIND YOU WAS APPROVED FOR 20,000

SQUARE FEET OUR CLIENT IS MERELY DEVELOPING 4400 SQUARE FEET AS

150

AN EFFECTIVE FAR OF .11.

THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE CROSS HATCHING WHICH IS

INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN.

AND IT WILL BE A PROTOTYPICAL CIRCLE K STORE COMPETING WITH

WALMART RECOGNIZING A CERTAIN DEMAND IN THIS AREA.

AND I'LL ALSO EXPLAIN THAT AS YOU'RE HEADING SOUTHBOUND ON

INTERSTATE 75, THIS IS A CONVENIENT EXIT, REFUEL, PICK UP A FEW

THINGS IN THE STORE.

AND RECONVENE YOUR TRAFFIC AND TRAVEL SOUTHBOUND CONTINUE ON THE

INTERSTATE SIMILAR TO CUSTOMERS OF WALMART.

IN FACT WE HAVE PROBABLY AN EASIER OFF AND ON THAN WALMART.

IN FEBRUARY MR. PLATE ORGANIZED A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND HE

SENT A COURTESY LETTER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOLKS, INCLUDING

ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROTOTYPICAL STORE.

AND A SITE PLAN FOR A STORE WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON DALE

MABRY HIGHWAY AND YUKEL AVENUE THAT STORE IS COMPLETE I'LL SHOW

YOU PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT.

MR. MIKE RAZOR DID THE TRAFFIC STUDY WHICH FOUND THAT A LEVEL OF

SERVICE C IS FOR THIS SEGMENT OF GIBSONTON DRIVE AND THAT IT WILL

NOT CAUSE A CONCURRENCY PROBLEM.

151

BUFFERING AND SCREENING YOU JUST HEARD ABOUT IT IN MR. STUTZMAN'S

PRESENTATION.

WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT 6.06.06 AND WE HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES TONIGHT

ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER STANDARD B.

WHICH IS STANDARD A PLUS FURTHER REQUIREMENTS IN STANDARD B.

FOR INSTANCE, EVERGREEN PLANTS, MASONRY WALL, PVC FENCE, OR

WOODEN FENCE.

LOW AND LOW GROWING EVERGREEN PLANTS.

PLUS REQUIREMENTS OF A ROW OF EVERGREEN SAGE TREES WHICH ARE NOT

LESS THAN TEN FEET HIGH AT THE TIME OF PLANTING MINIMUM OF TWO

INCH CALIPER NOT MORE THAN 20 FEET APART WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE

PROPERTY LINE.

I URGE YOU TO REVIEW 6.06.06 BUFFER REQUIREMENT STANDARD B AS

PART OF YOUR DELIBERATION.

EXCUSE ME ONE MOMENT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: MR. GRANDOFF COULD YOU GRAB THAT

MICROPHONE.

>>YES.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE HERE ARE THE PROTOTYPICAL STORE ELEVATIONS,

INTERIOR LAYOUT.

152

MR. RAZOR'S REPORT WHICH I WILL FILE WITH YOU.

THE BUFFERING AND SCREENING.

WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THE AREA IS STAFF HAS CALLED UPON US TO

BE SUBJECT TO THE GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN.

NOW THE GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN WAS NOT ADOPTED UNTIL FEBRUARY

OF '07.

WE HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AS A PD.

WE ARE NOT COMING IN WITH A WHOLESALE CHANGE OF THE PD.

WE ARE MERELY COMING IN WHAT I WOULD CALL A SURGICAL CHANGE.

WE ARE CHANGING THE USE TO ALLOW CONVENIENCE STORES SUBJECT TO

THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENT, SUBJECT TO CONCURRENCY SUBJECT TO ALL

OTHER COUNTY STANDARDS.

SO WE CAN COMPETE ABOUT OUR FRIEND ACROSS THE STREET, THE

WALMART.

THIS IS THE WALMART STORE.

THIS IS GIBSONTON DRIVE LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET AT THE WALMART.

ANOTHER VIEWPOINT.

AND THIS IS THE SIDE ROAD FROM WALMART.

OH THAT DOESN'T LOOK VERY GOOD.

THAT'S BETTER.

153

[CHUCKLES]

SHOWING A BETTER PERSPECTIVE OF THE WALMART.

NOW WHAT'S INTERESTING GOING DOWN GIBSONTON DRIVE HEADING WEST

AND TURN AROUND AND LOOKING BACK YOU CAN SEE THE WALMART TO THE

RIGHT AND YOU CAN SEE USED CAR LOT.

YOU CAN SEE FURTHER DOWN GIBSONTON DRIVE.

STORAGE.

AND EVEN MORE STORAGE IF YOU LIKE UNTIL YOU READER THE TERMINUS

AT HIGHWAY 41 WITH THE CITGO.

AND THIS IS WHAT WE PLAN TO DO.

NOW LET ME STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE GIBSONTON PLAN.

THE GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO IT BUT THE

GIBSONTON PLAN CALLS FOR -- PARDON ME ONE SECOND.

WRONG REPORT.

ARCHITECTURAL CONDITIONS TO BE APPLIED DURING THE SITE PLAN

PROCESS.

YOU SAW THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHAT THIS GENTLEMAN, THEY ARE GOING TO

BUILD.

NO. 2 INCLUDE DESIGN RELATED ISSUES AS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD

154

PLANNING PROCESS.

WE SENT THE LETTER IN FEBRUARY.

INVITING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO COMMENT.

WE HAVE DONE THIS NEW PROTOTYPICAL STORE WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE

THE BUFFERING AS REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE.

NO. 3 AVOID SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS FOR COMMERCIAL USES.

THAT IS NOT SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT IT'S A PERFECT PARCEL CAPTURE

TRAFFIC LEAVING THE INTERSTATE AND LEAVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD

QUICKLY SHOP FOR CONVENIENCE AND DEPART THE PROPERTY EFFICIENTLY.

EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE PLAN WE ARE SENSITIVE TO

THE PLAN.

I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THIS IS A VERY TYPICAL REQUEST FOR THIS

LOCATION AS YOU HAVE ALREADY TOURED THE AREA.

WE SIMPLY WANT TO COMPETE ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH OTHER

COMPETITORS IN THE MARKET AND I ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

I REQUEST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL TO PROVIDE MORE COMMENTS TO

YOU AND I'LL SUBMIT ALL OF MY ITEMS AFTER REBUTTAL.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU MR. GRANDOFF AND THE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING MICHELLE HEINRICH DEVELOPMENT

155

SERVICES.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO MODIFIED PD 060855 AS MOST RECENTLY MODIFIED

BY PRS 071113.

THERE ARE FOUR POINTS TO THE MODIFICATION.

THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE PREVIOUSLY EXCLUDED USES OF A

GAS STATION.

CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS STATIONS.

ANY DRIVE-THROUGHS EXCEPT A BANK AND FREE STANDING RESTAURANTS OF

3,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS WITHIN POCKETS A1, A2 AND A3 SECONDLY

TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HOURS OF OPERATION WITHIN

POCKET A3, THIRDLY TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ONE STORY 25

FOOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION TO ALLOW TWO STORIES AND 35 FEET IN

PARCEL -- POCKET A3 AND LASTLY TO MODIFY THE ACCESS POINT AT THE

EAST OF THE PD ALONG OLD GIBSONTON DRIVE FROM RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT

TO A FULL ACCESS.

THE SITE IS 4.36 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST

CORNER OF PREVATT STREET AND GIBSONTON DRIVE AND IT IS LOCATED

WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

AS YOU HEARD ME DESCRIBE AND AS YOU SAW ON THE SITE PLAN THERE

ARE THREE DISTINCT DEVELOPMENT POCKETS, A1, A2 AND A3.

156

OVERALL THE PD WAS APPROVED FOR 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF CN

COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD USES WITH THE RESTRICTIONS THAT I

DISCUSSED AT THE BEGINNING, THE FOUR RESTRICTIONS PLUS A FEW

OTHER ONES.

PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT.

AS MR. GRANDOFF STATED TRANSPORTATION DID REVIEW THIS REQUEST AND

DIDN'T OFFER ANY OBJECTIONS.

AS HE STATED WHEN COMPARING IT TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE,

WHICH THEY SELECTED AS SHOPPING CENTER VERSUS THE CIRCLE K

CONVENIENCE STORE THEY DID FIND A DECREASE IN THE NET NEW

EXTERNAL TRIPS.

HOWEVER, THERE WAS A SLIGHT INCREASE IN A.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: HOW SLIGHT?

DO YOU REMEMBER?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I CAN PULL THAT REPORT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

I CAN DO IT.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: OR I CAN LOOK WHEN YOU'RE TAKING SOME

TESTIMONY.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANKS.

157

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I JUST WANTED TO PUT A COPY OF THE ZONING

GIS SHEET ON THE ELMO.

YOU'LL SEE FROM THE ZONINGS ON THE GIS ZONING MAP UP THERE THAT

PROPERTIES TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH, WEST AND EAST ARE ZONED FOR

RESIDENTIAL USE THOSE ARE THE ASC-6, AS-1 AND RSB ZONING

DISTRICTS PROPERTY TO THE EAST ACROSS ALL GIBSONTON DRIVE IS

ZONED PD AND PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GIBSONTON

DRIVE IS ZONED PDC AS YOU HEARD IS DEVELOPED WITH A WALMART THAT

DOES HAVE GAS SALES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: MICHELLE I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF

BUT I DON'T WANT YOU TO MISS IT.

BUT THE RSB.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: RESIDENTIAL SHOW BUSINESS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY OVER THIS AREA.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: NO IT'S ZONED RSB.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: HOW ABOUT SURROUNDING?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: IN THIS PARTICULAR IMMEDIATE AREA I DID NOT

SEE ANY RSB OVERLAYS BUT THAT PARTICULAR SITE IS ZONED RSB.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY.

BASED ON THE MAP UP THERE YOU WILL SEE THE AREA LOCATED BETWEEN

158

GIBSONTON DRIVE AND THE ALAFAI RIVER TO THE NORTH IS

PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL WITH VARYING LOT SIZES FEW RESIDENCES

ARE FOUND IN GIBSONTON DRIVE IN THIS VICINITY THERE IS PROPERTY

LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 310 FEET TO THE WEST THAT'S THE AREA

HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE AND THAT CONTAIN A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE

THAT WAS REZONED TO PD IN '04 TO ALLOW FOR MINI WAREHOUSE, OFFICE

RETAIL USES AND IT EXCLUDES FAST FOOD WITH DRIVE-THROUGHS, GAS

STATIONS, ADULT USES AND LIQUOR STORES.

THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE WHICH CONSISTS OF AUTO REPAIR

SERVICES, PAINT AND BODY WORK TOWING VEHICLE AND SALES IS ALLOWED

TO REMAIN WITH PERMITTED PD USES ON THE EAST SIDE OF OLD

GIBSONTON DRIVE IS PD 071310 THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AND

THAT'S SITUATED BETWEEN OLD GIBSONTON DRIVE TO THE NORTHWEST AND

I-75 OFFRAMP TO THE EAST.

THAT IS APPROVED FOR A ONE STORY BANK OR RETAIL USE.

A FOUR STORY HOTEL AND TEN OFFICE BUILDINGS.

THE AREA SHOWN IN PINK THAT'S THE WALMART SUPERCENTER THAT WAS

REZONED IN 1988 THERE ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL USES PRESENT TO THE

IMMEDIATE WEST OR EAST OF THE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES FOUND TO THE SOUTH BUT THEY ARE

159

SEPARATED BY NUNDY AVENUE AND ALSO WALMART STORE MORTAR PINE

WHICH RUNS THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THAT PARCEL.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WHAT WAS THE YEAR OF THE ZONING IF YOU

KNOW FOR THE QUADRANT BETWEEN OLD GIBSONTON DRIVE AND THE OFFRAMP

WHERE THE BANK AND --

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: THAT WAS REZONED IN '07 AND THAT'S PD

071310 AND THE MOST RECENT MODIFICATION WAS IN '08 FOR A PRS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE COMMUNITY

PLAN?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE OF THE

COMMUNITY PLAN.

WHEN I READ THE TRANSCRIPT I BELIEVE IN '06 WHEN THIS PARTICULAR

SITE RECEIVED ITS ZONING THAT THAT GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN WAS

IN EFFECT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WAS IN EFFECT.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I WOULD HAVE TO PROBABLY CONFIRM --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WE'LL WAIT TO GET TO RANDY THERE I WAS

JUST CURIOUS IF YOU KNOW FOR THAT ZONING.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE IT'S -- IT SEEMS

LIKE MANY OF THE ZONINGS IN THIS VICINITY HAVE SIMILAR

160

RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE MAINLY DUE IN PART BECAUSE OF THE

GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN AND THOSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND ALSO

YOU CAN SEE THE PREDOMINANT USE OF RESIDENTIAL IN SOME OF THOSE

AREAS WHICH IMMEDIATELY ABUT SOME OF THESE SITES TO BE USED FOR

COMMERCIAL.

ONCE AGAIN THE AREA THAT WAS SHOWN IN PINK IS DEVELOPED FOR THE

WALMART SUPERCENTER.

TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN IS PD

060703.

THAT ALSO IS APPROVED FOR CN USES BUT MUCH LIKE THIS ONE EXCLUDES

GAS STATIONS.

CONVENIENCE STORES, AUTO REPAIR AND DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS AND

TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN IN ORANGE IS PD

070825.

THIS IS APPROVED FOR 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL

USES.

AND A HOTEL-MOTEL.

SO I PUT THAT ON THERE TO SHOW THE SURROUNDING PDS THAT HAVE BEEN

APPROVED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES LOCATED ON GIBSONTON DRIVE

MAINLY ARE FOR COMMERCIAL USES THAT SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE

161

GENERAL AREA HOWEVER DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL

USES AS SHOWN CERTAIN USES HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED BECAUSE IT'S FELT

THEY WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTY

OWNERS AND NOT BE COMPATIBLE.

THE PARCELS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE I-75 OFFRAMP ARE MORE

ISOLATED FROM THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND IMMEDIATELY ABUT I-75

SO THEREFORE FINDING SUCH COMMERCIAL USES IS TYPICAL TO SERVE THE

TRAVELERS THAT GO UP AND DOWN I-75.

AFTER EVALUATING THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND THE APPLICANT'S

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED

BUFFERING AND SCREENING WHICH AS MR. GRANDOFF STATED IS THE

REQUIRED 20 FOOT BUFFER WITH TYPE B SCREENING, THE BUILDING

LOCATION, ORIENTATION AND DESIGN AND THE OPERATIONAL

CHARACTERISTICS DO NOT EFFECTIVELY MITIGATE FOR THE POTENTIAL

IMPACTS ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND THEY DON'T

WARRANT RECONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTING USE RESTRICTIONS.

STAFF ALSO IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF REMOVAL OF THE RESTRICTED HOURS

OF OPERATION.

CURRENTLY THE RESTRICTION IS THAT BUSINESSES ON THAT PARCEL CAN

OPERATE FROM 7 A.M. TO 11 P.M.

162

REMOVAL OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS COULD RESULT IN A 24 HOUR BUSINESS

THAT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

IN ADDITION, NO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE PROPOSED TO

MITIGATE FOR THAT IMPACT OCCURRING 24 HOURS A DAY.

AND THE APPLICANT HASN'T PROPOSED ANY ALTERNATE HOURS OF

OPERATION.

ALSO STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE HEIGHT MODIFICATION WITHIN POCKET

A3 WHICH I STATED IS GOING FROM ONE STORY 25 FEET TO TWO STORIES

AT 35 FEET.

AGAIN AS I'VE STATED THERE IS IMMEDIATE RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST

AND EAST.

TO THE WEST IT IS DEVELOPED WITH ONE STORY HOMES.

TO THE EAST THAT'S NOT DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME.

BUT IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED RSB WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL

USE.

PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FOUND THE PROPOSAL TO BE INCONSISTENT

WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND I DO

BELIEVE THEY INTEND TO SPEAK TO THE VESTING CONCERNS AGAINST THE

GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN.

AND BASED UPON ALL OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, STAFF DOES NOT

163

SUPPORT THE MODIFICATION REQUEST.

AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: MICHELLE DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW IF

THERE'S A DEFINITION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIALTY

RETAIL.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: THERE IS NOT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WOULD YOU SAY THIS IS NOT SPECIALTY

RETAIL.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I WOULDN'T CONSIDER THE CONVENIENCE STORE

SPECIALTY RETAIL.

I THINK OF THOSE TYPICALLY AS NOT A FRANCHISE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT

THAT WOULD SERVE EVERY AGE GROUP, GENDER, POPULATION THAT HAS A

WIDE MARKET.

I WOULD CONSIDER IT MORE TARGETED OR SMALLER BUSINESS MAYBE

INDEPENDENTLY OWNED TYPE OF BUSINESSES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT THANK YOU MICHELLE.

AND PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION RELATIVE TO GIBSONTON PLAN THAT WAS

APPROVED IN ANTIBIOTIC OF '07.

164

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THE 175,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WAS

APPROVED JUST SOUTHEASTERLY OF THIS PROJECT.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: 1988.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IS THAT WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE

COMMUNITY PLAN, THE ONE THAT -- GRANTED, IT WAS APPROVED

BEFOREHAND.

BUT IS IT WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE COMMUNITY

PLAN?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: I THINK IN THIS AREA, IT WOULD BE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT CALLS FOR THIS AREA MORE OF A SIGNATURE

AREA FOR GIBSONTON.

NO STRIP COMMERCIAL.

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT SERVE MORE OF THE RESIDENTIAL IN THIS

AREA, ESPECIALLY -- ON THE NORTH -- THE NORTH SIDE OF GIBSONTON.

SO HEY, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT -- YEAH.

WE WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON ITS MERITS TODAY.

BUT YEAH.

I THINK IMPORTANT THING HERE IS -- WELL THERE'S TWO.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A ZONING APPROVED PRIOR

TO THE GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THAT

165

ZONING IN TODAY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW OF THE -- UNDER THE

CRITERIA OF THE GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IS THERE A VESTING PROVISION IN THE

GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IS THERE ANY VESTING PROVISIONS IN THE

COMMUNITY PLAN IN GENERAL.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, AS WE REVIEWED THIS REQUEST, NOTHING HAS

CHANGED SINCE IT WAS APPROVED IN 2006 RELATIVE TO WHY USES THAT

WERE APPROVED AS PART OF THAT PD ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SMALL

RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, SMALL BUT NEVERTHELESS VIABLE AND

EXISTING, THAT'S THE MAIN REASON THOSE CONDITIONS WERE PUT IN

THERE.

TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THAT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GIBSONTON OBVIOUSLY IS SOMEWHAT

DIFFERENT THAN THE SOUTH SIDE BASED ON THE 1988 REZONING.

THE LAND USES ON THE SOUTH SIDE ARE DIFFERENT.

THERE'S A LOT LESS RESIDENTIAL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GIBSONTON.

SO WE DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT HAS CHANGED SINCE 2006 TO ALTER THE

166

ZONING THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2006.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: DOES THAT EXISTING RSB ZONING ALLOW

OPEN STORAGE.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: I BELIEVE RSB ZONING DOES FOR OBVIOUSLY

RESIDENTIAL SHOW BUSINESS USES.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WAS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST REQUESTING

OPEN STORAGE AT ALL?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: RANDY IS THERE A DEFINITION FOR

SPECIALTY RETAIL IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: NO.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: HOW DOES ONE JUDGE SPECIALTY RETAIL

WHEN DETERMINING IF IT'S THE CONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIALTY

CORRIDOR?

SIGNATURE CORRIDOR OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: MICHELLE HEINRICH GAVE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT

WOULD BE CONSIDERED SPECIALTY RETAIL.

AND WE WOULD FEEL THE SAME WAY FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

LEVEL.

SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T SEE EVERYWHERE, SOMETHING THAT MIGHT

167

CATER TO A CERTAIN TARGET AUDIENCE.

WHICH CERTAINLY SCREENS STORES IN OUR OPINION CATER TO EVERYBODY

BASICALLY THAT THEY CAN.

AND WHETHER -- AND YOU KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO THAT ALLOWING

RESTAURANTS, FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

WHEREAS YOU KNOW A SPECIALTY RETAIL RELATIVE TO A RESTAURANT

MIGHT BE A LITTLE MOM AND POP RESTAURANT.

EVERYTHING IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION TO SOME DEGREE.

BUT CERTAINLY WE WOULD NOT VIEW THE LARGE CHAINS AS SPECIALTY

RETAIL.

ESPECIALLY RELATIVE TO SAY A CONVENIENCE STORE TYPE OF OPERATION

OR A FAST FOOD TYPE OF OPERATION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION BELIEVE

THAT THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CONVENIENCE

STORES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: RELATIVE TO?

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I ASSUME WHEN YOU SAID CHANGE YOU'RE

SORT OF GENERALIZING AMONGST CONVENIENCE STORES.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: I NEED SOME MORE ELABORATION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: YEAH.

168

HISTORICALLY THE CONVENIENCE STORES WERE CERTAIN SIZES AND HAD

CERTAIN USES.

AND AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE IT APPEARS THAT THEY HAVE CHANGED A

LOT IN TERMS OF THEIR SIZES AND THEIR USES.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: WELL, I THINK IN GENERAL, I THINK THEY HAVE

GOTTEN LARGER.

THEY OPERATE -- THEY LIKE TO OPERATE LONGER.

24/7, IF THEY CAN.

AND THEY DO -- THEY HAVE -- IF YOU LOOK AT THE THORNTON'S THE

WAWA'S THE RACETRACKS THAT ARE BEING RENOVATED, I THINK CIRCLE K

IS TRYING TO FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN KEEP UP WITH THOSE OPERATIONS

GOING LARGER.

MORE GAS PUMPS.

MANY MORE GAS PUMPS THAN WE SAW TEN YEARS AGO.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: HOW ABOUT ARCHITECTURALLY?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTURALLY I THINK SOME HAVE

DONE A BETTER JOB THAN OTHERS.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT CONSIDERATION FROM A RELATIVE TO JUST ITS

EXTERIOR DESIGN MITIGATES ANY ISSUES OF IMPACT ON AN ADJACENT

NEIGHBORHOOD.

169

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I CERTAINLY WASN'T GOING THERE.

THE ISSUE WAS DID YOU SEE DIFFERENCES -- DOES THE PLANNING

COMMISSION PERCEIVE DIFFERENCES IN CONVENIENCE STORES FROM WHAT

THEY WERE TO WHAT THEY ARE NOW?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: THEY ARE LARGER.

THEY SERVE MORE OF A CLIENTELE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THEY DON'T LOOK BETTER

ARCHITECTURALLY?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: SOME OF THEM DO.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT.

RANDY DID YOU HAVE MORE I DIDN'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF MORE?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: NO.

FOR THOSE REASONS WE FIND THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION INCONSISTENT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

OKAY IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

SEEING NONE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST?

ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE A PRIMARY SPEAKER?

TWO.

170

OKAY.

SO HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE THAN THE TWO PRIMARY SPEAKERS NEED TO

SPEAK?

SO I SEE ONE HAND OVER HERE AND I SEE ONE IN THE BACK.

I SEE THREE THAT NEED TO SPEAK BACK HERE.

SO THAT WOULD BE -- FOR THE THREE IN THE BACK, WOULD THREE

MINUTES A PIECE BE ENOUGH FOR YOU?

SO THAT'S NINE MINUTES.

SO GENTLEMEN YOU'RE ROUGHLY FIVE MINUTES A PIECE.

>>THANK YOU I'M MARK MARZUKO 9915 ALAFAI RIVER LANE GIBSONTON

FLORIDA.

>>TODD HATFIELD 9915 ALAFAI RIVER LANE GIBSONTON FLORIDA.

>>I'M HERE TO TRY TO PRESENT TO YOU TO THE ZONING MASTER -- I

DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET THIS TO DISPLAY.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THERE YOU GO.

YOU'RE UP NOW.

>>OKAY.

THIS IS OUR COMMUNITY.

THIS IS THE FRONT -- DEMONSTRATION OF THE FRONT OF OUR COMMUNITY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE WALLED IN THE FRONT AND WE ARE GATED

171

ENTRANCE.

BECAUSE OUR FRONT OF THE COMMUNITY SITS ON OLD GIBSONTON ROAD AND

AT THE BACK AT THE END OF OUR COMMUNITY WE'RE JUST ONE STREET, 17

HOMES AT THE END OF OUR COMMUNITY IS THE ALAFAI RIVER WITH A RAMP

AND A DOCK THAT WE HAVE HAD PUT IN THERE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: CAN YOU POINT IT OUT ON THE MAP?

>>I DON'T HAVE A MAP WITH ME.

I'M SORRY.

BUT I HAVE A DEMONSTRATED PICTURE OF IT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: FOR THE RECORD TELL US WHERE IT IS IN

PROXIMITY TO THE SITE THAT'S BEING REFERRED TO.

>>IT'S NORTH.

THE STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 300 METERS LONG.

TODD WILL PUT IT ON THE OVERHEAD FOR US.

YOU GOT THE MICROPHONE OVER THERE TODD.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO DUAL TESTIMONY

GO AHEAD.

>>IT'S AT THE END OF THE STREET.

THE STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 200 -- MAYBE 150, 200 METERS LONG.

IT'S A STRAIGHT STREET OFF GIBSONTON ROAD OLD GIBSONTON ROAD AND

172

IT GOES STRAIGHT AND ENDS AT THE ALAFAI RIVER AND WE HAVE A RAMP

WE HAVE A LOT OF VESTED INTEREST IN IT IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND MY

MISGIVINGS YEAH.

OKAY.

HOW CAN I SWITCH FROM THAT ONE TO THIS ONE?

OKAY.

AND THERE'S DEVIATIONS TO THE SAID ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN WAS NOT -- DOES NOT INCLUDE CONVENIENCE

STORES OR GAS STATIONS AS YOU REITERATED EARLIER OR PRIOR.

WHAT I WANT TO DO IS I'LL SHOW YOU IT WOULD AFFECT US WITH

INCREASED TRAFFIC.

AS YOU RELAYED TO US EARLIER AND INCREASED CRIME BECAUSE WE HAVE

WALMART ACROSS THE STREET FROM US THEY HAVE A GAS STATION ALSO

THERE AND IN THE PROXIMITY OF FIVE MILES THERE'S -- IT'S A

QUARTER --

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: IT'S THE GOING TO BE ONE AT A TIME.

>>IT'S A CORRIDOR.

WE HAVE LIKE UP TO FIVE GAS STATIONS, NINE GAS STATIONS WITHIN

THAT CORRIDOR.

SO IT'S NOT HURTING FOR GAS FACILITIES.

173

RIGHT OFF THE INTERSTATE.

WITH THE INCREASE -- WITH THE CIRCLE K UP ON THE CORNER, IT WILL

REDUCE OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

AND IT WILL CAUSE BLIGHT.

IT WILL CAUSE WE FEEL UNACCEPTABLE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PEOPLE TO

COMMUTE THERE OR COMBINE THERE.

AND PROVIDE US WITH INSECURITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE

SURROUND ING AREAS THE THERE'S A PICTURE OF OUR DOCK ON THE

ALAFAI RIVER.

AND ALSO I'M GOING TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, THERE'S AN

UNDERGROUND WATER SOURCE.

ESTUARY.

THAT'S POSSIBLY FEEDING THE ALAFAI RIVER.

AND WE WANT TO JUST BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION ALSO AND WE ALSO

HAVE A DOCK THERE THAT WE HAVE VERY HIGH VESTED INTEREST INTO IT.

AND THE CIRCLE K LIKE ANY OTHER KIND OF COMMERCIAL WOULD HAVE A

NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON US.

IT WOULD HAVE FUEL TANKS THAT HAVE TO BE BURIED INTO THE GROUND.

AND YOU'RE VERY CLOSE RIVER PROXIMITY RIGHT THERE WHICH WOULD

PROVIDE AN ACCESS TO THE WATER.

174

AND A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT AREA HAVE WELLS DRILLED FOR THEIR

DRINKING WATER.

THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

AND BASICALLY THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO PRESENT TO YOU AND BOARD I

DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP A WHOLE LOT OF YOUR TIME.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>>TODD HATFIELD 9915 ALAFAI RIVER LANE GIBSONTON FLORIDA.

THE COMMUNITY PLAN ORIGINALLY IN GIBSONTON SAYS THINGS LIKE

ENCOURAGE SMALL SCALE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND BEAUTIFICATION

ALLOW SMALL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND SPECIALTY

NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL OFFICES YOU GUYS ARE HAVING A HARD TIME OF

THINKING ABOUT THINKING NAILS AN EYE STORE A JUDO PLACE FOR KIDS

SOMETHING LIKE THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL GO FOR THE HOUSES THAT

WILL EVENTUALLY BE BUILT BACK THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF

REALLY NICE REAL ESTATE BACK THERE IT'S REALLY WOODED THEY CAN

BUILD COMMUNITIES LIKE OURS BACK IN THERE BUT -- I JUST MOVED

HERE ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO AND IF I WOULD HAVE SEEN A

CIRCLE K IN FRONT OF THAT ROAD I WOULD HAVE SAY00 -- I WOULD HAVE

SAID HONEY LET'S LOOK AT APOLLO BEACH BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT

THAT WE ALL KNOW THE CRIME AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FACE OF

175

GIBSONTON I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD FACE FOR GIBSONTON WHEN YOU

COME IN WE ALREADY TOOK WALMART AND NOW YOU WANT A CIRCLE K

WHAT'S NEXT A LIQUOR STORE AND THEN BOOM BOOM BOOM.

SO WE HAVE GREAT CONCERNS OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS MOVING IN THERE.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS SIR.

WE HAD THREE OTHERS.

YES, MA'AM.

>>CHRISTINE HOP 991 ALAFAI RIVER LANE GIBSONTON.

I ALSO TOO LIVER AT THE ALAFAI RIVER ESTATES SUBDIVISION. THE

HUGE CONCERN AND THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OF ALL WE ALL ARE GOING TO

SHARE THE SAME INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THE CIRCLE K AND WE'RE

ALREADY A DEADEND STREET.

NOT A VERY NICE STREET.

YOU KNOW THE -- WITH THAT TYPE OF TRAFFIC IT WOULD BE A HUGE,

HUGE PROBLEM FOR ALL OF US CONCERNED.

NOT ONLY THAT THE I-75 CORRIDOR THE EXIT OFF OF I-75 IS RIGHT

NEXT DOOR TO US.

THE TRAFFIC IT TAKES US A LONG TIME TO FIGHT THE TRAFFIC IN THE

MORNING AND IN THE AFTERNOONS IT'S REALLY A HUGE CONCERN BECAUSE

OF THOSE REASONS ALONE.

176

THANK YOU ALL.

HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>>GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS CAROL PHILLIPS.

I'M SPEAKING FOR THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF GIBSONTON AREA.

THAT ADDRESS IS PO BOX 1304 GIBSONTON FLORIDA 33534.

COULD I ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE SPECIALTY RETAIL FOR A

MINUTE?

I SERVED WITH THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HELPED DRAW OUT THE

GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN.

AND WHEN WE SPOKE OF SPECIALTY RETAIL, WE WERE REFERRING TO

SOMETHING THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY INDIVIDUALLY OWNED AND WHO WANTED

TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC FOR INSTANCE A FLORIST SHOP WHICH WE HAD

THERE ON GIBSONTON DRIVE FOR A WHILE MAYBE A PET GROOMING STORE

LIKE THE ONE MAN SAID NAILS.

SOMETHING EVEN IF THEY DID SOMETHING CRAFTS.

BUT ESSENTIALLY A SMALL OPERATION.

SOME QUOTES FROM THE GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN.

GIBSONTON DRIVE PROMOTES HOME BASED AND SPECIALTY RETAIL

177

BUSINESSES.

GIBSONTON DRIVE HAS ADDITIONAL TREATMENT AS GIBSONTON SIGNATURE

CORRIDOR TO IDENTIFY IT AS OUR MAIN STREET.

GIBSONTON DRIVE THE SIGNATURE CORRIDOR PROMOTES HOME BASED AND

SPECIALTY RETAIL BUSINESSES AND OFFICES WITHIN MAIN STREET DESIGN

GUIDELINES.

GIBSONTON WILL ENJOY APPROPRIATELY SCALED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

AND DESIGNING DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES DRIVE AS A SIGNATURE

CORRIDOR TO ENCOURAGE SMALL SCALE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND

BEAUTIFICATION TO PREPARE AND CARRY OUT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HAVING FRONTAGE ALONG GIBSONTON DRIVE TO

ALLOW SMALL BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND SPECIALTY

NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL USES.

A RIVER FRONT MIXED USE AREA ALONG ALAFAI RIVER NORTH OF THE

LARGE RETAIL COMMERCIAL SITE SOUTH OF GIBSONTON DRIVE AND EAST

BAY ROAD.

I THINK WE WERE SO REPETITIOUS WHEN WE WERE DRAWING UP THE PLAN

BECAUSE ABOUT ALL OF THIS SMALL RETAIL AND INDIVIDUALLY OWNED

BUSINESSES BECAUSE WE HAD JUST LEARNED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT WE

WERE HAVING A BIG BOX STORE BUILT ON OUR EASTERN BOUNDARY AT

178

GIBSONTON AND WE DID NOT WANT THIS TO BECOME A TREND FOR

GIBSONTON DRIVE.

WE WANTED GIBSONTON DRIVE TO REMAIN A MIX OF RESIDENCES AND SMALL

PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES.

WE ESPECIALLY DID NOT WANT TO DESTROY THE RECREATIONAL AND NATURE

ATMOSPHERE OF THE ALAFAI RIVER SO NEAR THIS SITE OR TO HAVE

BUSINESSES THAT MIGHT PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS TO THE

RIVER.

THE ALAFAI RIVER FROM GIBSONTON DRIVE FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF

GIBSONTON DRIVE IS ABOUT 1500 FEET.

THAT'S LESS THAN HALF A MILE, LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE I

THINK.

IT WAS HOPED THAT THIS AREA WOULD BE AN ATTRACTIVE GATEWAY ON THE

EAST BOUNDARY OF GIBSONTON WE WOULD WELCOME THIS BUSINESS ON

HIGHWAY 41 IN FACT THERE'S BEEN A CIRCLE K ON THE SOUTH BORDER OF

GIBSONTON FOR DECADES AND WE HAVE FOUND IT TO BE AN IMPORTANT

ASSET TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE DOUBT THAT CIRCLE K WOULD MAINTAIN TWO LOCATIONS IN GIBSONTON

AND WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THAT PART OF OUR COMMUNITY THERE ON

HIGHWAY 41 WHERE IT IS NOW.

179

WE FEEL THAT IN THEIR RELOCATING TO GIBSONTON DRIVE THEY WILL

ONLY BE SERVING COMMUTERS WHO PASS THROUGH GIBSONTON.

THANK YOU.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MA'AM.

YES, MA'AM.

>>MY NAME IS GAIL KEEL I LIVE AT 10018 PREVATT STREET THE

PROPOSED LOCATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE WOULD ABUT MY PROPERTY

170 FEET TO THE SOUTH AND 170 FEET TOWARDS THE EAST.

SO I WOULD BE LITERALLY SURROUNDED BY THIS.

AND SO OBVIOUSLY FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS

SPOKE, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO STICK TOWARD WHAT WAS APPROVED OF

IN THE BEGINNING.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ANYBODY ELSE THAT NEEDS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

ALL RIGHT I'M GOING TO CLOSE OPPOSITION COMMENTS.

ANYTHING FROM STAFF?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: PLANNING COMMISSION?

AND MR. GRANDOFF?

>>ONE MOMENT.

180

EXCUSE ME FOR A MOMENT MR. HEARING OFFICER.

I NEED TO PROVIDE THE SITE PLAN TO MY CLIENT AND I CANNOT LOCATE

IT.

HERE IT IS.

MR. HEARING OFFICER, IN SUMMARY THE TESTIMONY YOU HAVE HEARD

FROM THE OPPOSITION IS NEITHER COMPETENT NOR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION.

A LOT OF IT IS HYPERBOLE.

SPECULATION.

MUCH OF IT NOT RELEVANT TO THE MATTER AT HAND.

I CAN SHOW YOU PICTURES FOR EVERY PROPERTY FROM THIS LOCATION

WESTWARD TO THE CITGO AT 41 AND CANNOT DO JUSTICE TO WHAT EXACTLY

IS BEING DEVELOPED ON GIBSONTON DRIVE REGARDLESS OF THE INTENTION

OF THE PLAN.

SO I URGE YOU TO ONCE AGAIN DRIVE THAT STRETCH AND UNDERSTAND

EXACTLY WHAT MY CLIENT IS ATTEMPTING TO DO.

MUCH OF WHAT YOU'RE HEARING IN OPPOSITION IS A WISH LIST FOR

MARKET FORCES TO BRING SOMETHING -- I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT.

I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT SPECIALTY RETAIL IS.

BUT I KNOW I'LL LIKE IT WHEN I SEE IT.

181

THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD.

WE CAN'T GUESS AND HOPE THAT SOMEONE WILL RISK CAPITAL AND CROSS

OUR FINGERS THAT THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE SPECIALTY

RETAIL.

WE LIKE THAT ONE.

MR. RAZOR'S TRAFFIC REPORT WHO DID THE TRAFFIC CONSULTING HE

PROVIDES THE DATA TO YOU ON THE REDUCTION AND THE INCREASE, THE

NET INCREASE OF 39 A.M. PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL TRIPS I'LL PROVIDE

THAT IN THE RECORD TO YOU. YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

WALMART, 24 HOURS A DAY.

THIS IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE INTERSECTION.

INTERSTATE 75.

THERE'S A DEMAND FOR THIS CONVENIENCE STORE.

AND OUR CLIENT IS MEETING THAT DEMAND WITH A TASTEFULLY DESIGNED

STORE WHICH THOUGH NOT SUBJECT TO THE PLAN THE GIBSONTON PLAN,

CERTAINLY IS SENSITIVE TO THE NEIGHBOR'S REQUIREMENTS AND THE

PLANS GOALS.

THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 17TH.

EXCUSE ME FEBRUARY 19TH, 2007 THIS PD WAS APPROVED BEFORE THAT ON

JANUARY 10, 2007.

182

URBAN SERVICE AREA.

NO WELL, NO SEPTIC. WE'RE HOOKING UP TO THE URBAN SERVICE

FACILITIES.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE SUB FAR .11 FAR WITH AN ALLOWED FAR

WITH .25.

35 FEET OF HEIGHT.

35 FEET OF HEIGHT IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

MY HOME IS 35 FEET HIGH.

NOT A TOWERING BUILDING DON'T FORGET SECTION 6.06.06 THE

BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WILL MEET.

EXCUSE ME ONE MOMENT.

PARCEL A3 WHICH IS IN THE SITE PLAN WILL BE LIMITED AND DEVELOPED

BY THE CROSS HATCH.

ED WILL POINT THAT OUT TO YOU ON THE ELMO WHEN HE SPEAKS TO YOU.

THAT BUFFERS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE CN DISTRICT AS OF RIGHT ALLOWS CONVENIENCE STORES FUEL

STATIONS.

WE'RE ASKING TO PUT IT BACK IN THE DISTRICT.

NOT AN INTENSE USE.

WE'RE PROVIDING A SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.

183

I VENTURE TO SAY TO YOU IF THIS 4400 SQUARE FOOT STORE WAS

FEATURING SPECIALTY RETAIL, WHATEVER THAT IS, AND IT WAS OPERATED

BY TWO OTHER FOLKS, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROVABLE.

THIS IS AN OWNER OPERATED STORE.

IT'S EXCELLENT REPUTATION IN THE BUSINESS.

THESE MARK IN THE COMMUNITY -- THE MARK IN THE COMMUNITY STORE

BUSINESS IS CIRCLE K.

I WILL CLOSE WITH SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATION BEFORE MR. JUNTA HAS

SOME COMMENTS TO PROVIDE TO YOU.

I LIVE ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF FROM A CIRCLE K WHICH IS LOCATED

ON BAY TO BAY BOULEVARD IN MANHATTAN IN THE HEART OF SUNSET PARK.

EXCELLENT NEIGHBOR.

EXCELLENT NEIGHBOR.

I FUEL THERE FREQUENTLY.

NEVER A PROBLEM.

24 HOURS.

RIGHT AGAINST THE TOWNHOUSE.

NOT A 20 FOOT BUFFER.

NOT A TYPE B BUFFER.

RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

184

I URGE YOU TO DRIVE BY AND SEE OTHER CIRCLE K STORES AND HOW THEY

HAVE TREATED NEIGHBORHOODS FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IT'S AN

EXCELLENT USE OF THE PROPERTY.

IT IS A PERFECT LOCATION.

WHO WOULD NOT WANT TO BE ACROSS THE STREET TO COMPETE AGAINST A

WALMART.

I URGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS SO FOLKS CAN USE A NEEDED CONVENIENCE

STORE PERHAPS SOME TYPE OF RETAIL NOT SPECIALTY RETAIL OR

SPECIALTY RETAIL.

>>I'M MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD.

>>I UNDERSTAND MR. JUNTA WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

>>GOOD EVENING EDWARD JUNTA 12911 TELECOM PARKWAY TAMPA I JUST

WANTED TO COVER A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS.

I SERVED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN THIS GIBSONTON COMMUNITY

PLAN WAS DONE.

ONE THING I CAN ASSURE YOU, THAT IT WAS NEVER, EVER INTENDED TO

DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CORPORATELY OWNED BUSINESSES WHEN REFERRING

TO SPECIALTY RETAIL.

CIRCLE K STORES IS A CORPORATELY OWNED AND OPERATED FACILITY.

WHICH I THINK PROVIDES MANY, MANY BENEFITS TO THE SURROUNDING

185

NEIGHBORS.

WE HAVE THE RESOURCES AND WE HAVE THE PROCESSES IN PLACE TO

OPERATE SAFE WELL MAINTAINED FACILITIES WE HAVE IN EXCESS OF 18

CAMERAS AT OUR STORES WE HAVE TOPNOTCH TRAINING PRACTICES WHEN IT

COMES TO RESTRICTED SALES WE HIRE PRACTICES TO COME IN AND TEST

OUR ASSOCIATES WE HAVE A ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY WHEN IT COMES TO

THOSE KIND OF INFRACTIONS.

AND TO GET TO SITE SPECIFIC LET ME GO OVER TO THE ELMO.

IS THAT ON?

OKAY.

I JUST THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS FOR STAFF'S

PART.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CROSS HATCH AREA, IT IS ENCOMPASSING A1, A2

AND BARELY GETTING INTO THE A3 AREA.

THAT IS THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.

NO BUILDINGS, NO PART OF ANY BUILDINGS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED

OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA.

THERE WILL BE NO BUILDINGS CONTIGUOUS TO ANY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

THIS WILL ALL BE NATURAL RETENTION STORMWATER AND ALL JUST

BUFFER.

186

THERE'S CURRENTLY BIG VEGETATION ALREADY IN PLACE AND WE WILL BE

ADDING TO THAT BUFFER.

SO TO SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE BUILDING BACK INTO THE A3 AREA,

WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT THE BUILDING ENVELOPE THAT WE

WOULD NOT BE GOING INTO THAT AREA.

TALKING TO WHAT'S APPROVED IN THE OTHER TO BES AT THE OFFRAMP.

HOTELS, OFFICE, GUESTS STAYING AT HOTELS THEY NEED TO REFUEL AND

NEED CONVENIENCE ITEMS THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE IN AN

APPROPRIATE LOCATION THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: OKAY THANK YOU MR. JUNTA WITH THAT

WE'LL CLOSE MAJOR MOD 14-635.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE FINAL ITEM B 16 MAJOR MODIFICATION

APPLICATION 14-0636 THE REQUEST IS FOR MAJOR MODIFICATION TO

EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ADD ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT THE

OPTION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS WITHIN THE PD,

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>GOOD EVENING I'M JUDY JAMES 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD I'M FIRST AND

LAST ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: WELCOME BACK.

187

>>THIS LAST APPLICATION IS REALLY JUST TO ADD A THIRD OPTION I'LL

WALK YOU THROUGH IT REAL QUICK.

OPTION A WAS 267 TRIPLEXES AND 1.5 ACRES OF RECREATION CULTURAL

AND INSTITUTIONAL USES.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH OPTION A IS HAVE THE REFERENCE TO

TRIPLEXES SO TESTIMONY BE 267 MULTI-FAMILY STILL STAYING WITH 1.5

ACRES OF RECREATIONAL CULTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES OPTION B IS

CURRENTLY 230 TOWNHOMES WITH 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE WHAT WE

HAVE DONE TO THAT ONE IS BUMPED IT UP TO 245 UNITS AND SAID IT

COULD BE TOWNHOMES OR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IF IT'S SINGLE FAMILY

LOTS IT'S LIMITED TO 120 LOTS THEY COULD BE DOWN TO 4400 SQUARE

FEET WE KEPT THE 30,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WAS THE IDEA BEHIND

OPTION B WAS THE THREE ACRES OF OFFICE USES.

WHAT HAPPENED SINCE THEN, THOUGH, IS THEY WERE GOING TO USE THAT

30,000 SQUARE FEET TO BE THEIR CORPORATE OFFICES.

THEY FOUND OTHER SPACE.

THEY DON'T NEED IT ANYMORE.

SO NOW WE'RE IN FOR OPTION C.

AND OPTION C IS GOING TO BE 275 UNITS WE WENT AHEAD AND INCREASED

THE OVERALL MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS AND 15,246 SQUARE FEET OF

188

OFFICE WHICH WILL BE -- IT WILL BASICALLY SIT ON ONE ACRE OF

OFFICE SO WE'LL STILL HAVE THE MIXED USE IT WILL BE ONE ACRE OF

OFFICE 15,246 FEET, 275 UNITS AND CAN BE A COMBINATION OF

TOWNHOME OR UP TO 130 SINGLE FAMILY AGAIN GOING DOWN TO THE 4400

SQUARE FEET.

IN REALITY ON THE 4400 SQUARE FEET, WE DID FOLLOW RECENT

APPROVALS FROM 130491 AND 130240 THE CONDITIONS ARE IN THE BACKUP

FROM THE STAFF.

REGARDING OFFSTREET PARKING FOR ONE CAR GARAGES BUT NOT NEEDING

IT FOR TWO CAR GARAGES AND IF WE DO HAVE A ONE CAR GARAGE IT'S

REQUIRED TO BE A TWO STORY TOWNHOME.

THERE WERE ALSO SOME PARKING WAIVERS GRANTED FOR THE PARKING LOT

AND THOSE DETAILS ARE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN ALONG WITH THE

STREETSCAPE.

WE KEPT ALL OF OUR EXISTING BUFFERS AND SETBACKS THAT WERE IN

OPTION A AND B EXCEPT WE DELETED IN OPTION B A 25 FOOT SETBACK ON

THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE WHICH WAS ADJACENT TO THE COUNTY

PARKLAND.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: I'M GOOD.

189

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

MS. ALBERT.

ISABELLE ALBERT: ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

MS. JAMES DID AN EXCELLENT JOB AT RECAPPING WHAT THE REQUEST WAS.

AND I HAVE NOTHING REALLY FURTHER TO ADD EXCEPT JUST

CLARIFICATION IN MY REPORT WHERE I SAID OPTION C IS TO ADD 298

UNITS BUT IT'S REALLY 275 MY CONDITION DOES REFLECT THE 275 SO

THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY CHANGE OR ADDITION THAT I NEED TO MAKE

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION FROM MY

REVIEWING AGENCY THANK YOU.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: THIS SITE FALLS WITHIN THE SUBURBAN MIXED USE

CATEGORY ON FUTURE LAND USE MAP IT FALLS WITHIN THE I-75

CORRIDOR.

ENCOURAGES -- THE COMP PLAN ENCOURAGES AND SUPPORTS EMPLOYMENT

CENTERS AND A MIXTURE OF USES.

ALONG THE CORRIDOR AND WITHIN SMU-6 DEVELOPMENTS AND PLANNING

COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT

WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>>HEARING MASTER SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

190

ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST?

I SEE NONE.

ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST?

MS. JAMES, ANYTHING ELSE?

WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE MAJOR MOD 14-636 AND I BELIEVE THAT'S IT

FOR THE EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S HELP.