Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CAPTIONINGOCTOBER 21, 2013
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.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THIS
EVENING'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
MY NAME IS STEVE LUCE, AND I'LL BE CONDUCTING THIS
EVENING'S HEARINGS.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF YOU'D ALL PLEASE RISE FOR THE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
THANK YOU ALL.
YOU MAY BE SEATED.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF TO INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SEATED AT THE DAIS, THEN TELL US IF
THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THIS EVENING'S AGENDA.
>>BRIAN GRADY: GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
BRIAN GRADY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION.
JOINING US AT THE DAIS TONIGHT ARE, TO MY LEFT, MR. LOUIS
WHITEHEAD WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND TO HIS
LEFT, MARCIE STENMARK WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY-
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE HAVE NO CHANGES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, SO I'LL GO THROUGH
1
THE PUBLISHED WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES, BEGINNING ON
PAGE 5 OF THE AGENDA.
THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM A-2, REZONING APPLICATION 13-0896.
THIS APPLICATION IS BEING WITHDRAWN FROM THE ZONING HEARING
MASTER PROCESS.
ITEM A-3, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0344, THIS APPLICATION
IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
ITEM A-4, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 13-0700, THIS APPLICATION
IS BEING CONTINUED BY STAFF TO THE NOVEMBER 18th, 2013,
ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
ITEM A-5, REZONING APPLICATION 13-0856, THIS APPLICATION IS
OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
ITEM A-6, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0877, THIS APPLICATION
IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
ITEM A-7, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0878, THIS APPLICATION
IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
AND ITEM A-8, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0895, THIS
APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING
CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 18th, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER
HEARING.
THAT CONCLUDES ALL WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. GRADY.
I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO THE RECORD, THE
2
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ
INTO THE RECORD, AND THEN WE'LL GET STARTED FOR THE FIRST
ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
FIRST, STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THE ITEM.
THEN THE APPLICANT AND ANY WITNESSES OF THE APPLICANT WILL
HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR REQUEST.
NEXT, THE STAFF OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND,
IF APPLICABLE, THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL
PRESENT THEIR REPORTS AND FINDINGS, AND THEY HAVE FIVE
MINUTES APIECE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THEN THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE PROPONENTS, WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BUT ARE NOT CONNECTED DIRECTLY WITH
THE PETITION, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR
STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT.
FOLLOWING THAT, THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE OPPONENTS, WHO ARE
AGAINST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15
MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION.
PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT IS A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES FOR ALL
OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO MAY WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION, SO IF THERE'S A LARGE GROUP, YOU MAY WANT TO
ORGANIZE YOUR STATEMENTS SO THAT ALL THE TIME DOES NOT GET
USED UP BEFORE EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
THEN IF EITHER STAFF HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
REVISIONS TO THEIR REPORTS TO BE MADE FOLLOWING THE
TESTIMONY, THEY'LL BE MADE NEXT.
AND BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE LAST PERSON TO SPEAK
3
WILL BE THE APPLICANT, WHO WILL HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES OF
TIME TO REBUT ANY STATEMENTS MADE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
REQUEST AND TO SUMMARIZE THEIR APPLICATION.
THERE'S A CHIME AT THE PODIUM THAT WILL SOUND ONCE WHEN
THERE ARE 30 SECONDS REMAINING AND WILL SOUND THREE TIMES
WHEN THE TIME HAS EXPIRED FOR A SPEAKER.
IF IT APPEARS THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR ANY OF THE
PARTIES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE
GRANTED BY THE HEARING MASTER.
WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND
ADDRESS CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD.
AFTER YOU PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY, PLEASE SIGN IN WITH THE
CLERK -- THERE'S A PAD DOWN AT THE END OF THE PODIUM --
GIVING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
THESE ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE
DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BASED ON FACT-BASED
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND AS PRESENTED IN THE HEARING
TONIGHT.
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL, THESE HEARINGS WILL BE
INFORMAL.
ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE REQUEST
BEING MADE BY THE APPLICANT, AND BECAUSE THERE ARE TIME
LIMITS, I ASK THAT YOU TRY NOT TO REPEAT TESTIMONY THAT HAS
ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.
IT'S REQUIRED THAT ALL TESTIMONY GIVEN REGARDING ANY
APPLICATION BE GIVEN UNDER OATH, SO AT THIS TIME, TO
EXPEDITE MATTERS, I'LL GIVE THE OATH TO ALL PARTIES WHO
THINK THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.
4
THOSE OF YOU WHO BELIEVE YOU'RE PROVIDING TESTIMONY
TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[PARTICIPANTS SWORN IN]
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THE FIRST GROUP OF APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD TONIGHT ARE THE
SPECIAL USES.
FOR THE SPECIAL USES, TONIGHT'S HEARING IS THE ONLY HEARING
ON THESE PETITIONS, AND AS THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER, I
WILL RENDER A DECISION ON THESE APPLICATIONS.
MY DECISIONS WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN
15 WORKING DAYS OF TONIGHT'S HEARING.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL
NOW PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.
LOUIS WHITEHEAD, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.
GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON SPECIAL USES HEARD
TONIGHT WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ON NOVEMBER THE 12th.
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 DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
5
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 REPRESENTED OR REPRESENTED AT TONIGHT'S
HEARINGS AND PRESENTS EITHER TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE; OR "B," SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THEMSELVES
OR THROUGH ANOTHER PRIOR TO OR DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING;
AND "C," IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE
HEARING OFFICER.
THE EVIDENCE THAT THE APPEALS BOARD CAN CONSIDER IS LIMITED
TO THE EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED TONIGHT.
THIS MEANS THAT AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING ON EACH
SPECIAL USE, THE CASE RECORD CLOSES, AND NO EVIDENCE -- 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 OR 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.
6
THEREFORE, PLEASE BE SURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU MAY
DESIRE THE APPEALS BOARD TO CONSIDER IS PLACED INTO THE
RECORD TONIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. WHITEHEAD.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE
THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
>>BRIAN GRADY: FIRST ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-1 ON PAGE 9 OF
THE AGENDA.
IT'S SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0794.
THE APPLICANT IS JOVYIA COMFORT HOME.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR A COMMUNITY
RESIDENTIAL HOME, INCLUDING A VARIANCE TO THE PROHIBITION
OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS BEING PERMITTED ON SEPTIC TANK.
ISABELLE ALBERT WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, MR. LUCE -- EXCUSE ME -- GOOD EVENING, MR.
LUCE.
LONG DAY.
FOR THE RECORD, MICHAEL HORNER, 14502 NORTH DALE MABRY
HIGHWAY, SUITE 200, TAMPA 33618.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNER AND OPERATORS, MR. AND
MRS. EMMANUEL JOSEPH.
THIS SITE, MR. LUCE, IS IN THE PLANT CITY PLANNING AREA,
7
UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, SOUTH OF STATE ROAD 60,
5.8 ACRES, 1709 WEST STATE ROAD 60, WHICH IS JUST WEST OF
CASSELS ROAD.
IT'S IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA.
IT'S ZONED AR.
IT'S IN THE AR OF THE COMP PLAN.
OUR CLIENTS ARE SEEKING A SPECIAL USE APPROVAL FOR A ALF,
OTHERWISE KNOWN BY THE LDC AS A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME,
TYPE "C."
THIS SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR AND CURRENTLY
EXISTS AS A TYPE "A" ALF FACILITY, MR. LUCE.
THAT CURRENTLY HAS THE APPROVAL OF FIVE BEDS.
WE'RE SEEKING THE EXPANSION TO 29.
THAT 29-BED COUNT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CALCULATIONS
PROVIDED UNDER 6.11.28 AND ALSO ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
LDC THAT ALLOW FIVE BEDS PER THE ONE DWELLING UNIT PER ASC-
1 ZONING, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE AR ZONING.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FOR APPROVAL.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THEIR CONDITIONS.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THIS CONSISTENT WITH ALL RULES,
REQUIREMENTS, AND FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES AND
PROVISIONS.
I MIGHT NOTE THAT THE EXPANSION IS GOING TO BE SIMILAR TO
THE EXISTING FACILITY, SAME ROOF LINES, RESIDENTIAL.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTING A MULTISTORY, THIS WILL
BE A ONE-STORY ADDITION.
THIS ADDITION WILL BE IN THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING
FACILITY, SO NOT ANY CLOSER TO THE SURROUNDING PERIMETER
8
LOT LINES.
THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY MY CLIENTS IN JULY OF 2009,
AND THEIR ALF LICENSE WAS ISSUED IN 2011.
I'M GOING TO FILE IN THE RECORD, MR. LUCE, SOME DOCUMENTS
FROM THEIR WEB SITE WHICH SHOWS INTERNAL PHOTOGRAPHS THAT
YOU MAY NOT SEE IF YOU'RE OUT THERE DOING YOUR FIELD
REVIEWS.
SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED BY ALL FACTS.
WE HAVE HAD ALL GOOD COMMENTS, ALL APPROPRIATE RESPONSES,
NO OBJECTIONS FROM REVIEW AGENCIES, WE HAVE NO WETLAND
ISSUES.
THERE'S A FLOOD ZONE TO THE EAST THAT WE'RE STAYING OUT OF.
OBVIOUSLY IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, WE HAVE TO SERVE BY
SEPTIC TANK AND WELL, AND WE HAVE THOSE PERMITS PENDING FOR
THE EXPANSION OF THE SEPTIC TANK AND DRAINFIELD.
FDOT, MR. LUCE, DID COMMENT ABOUT A MONTH AGO, FIVE WEEKS,
ABOUT RELOCATING THE DRIVEWAY TO THE EAST.
WE HAD IT FURTHER TO THE WEST.
THERE IS AN ALIGNMENT ISSUE CONCERN THEY EXPRESSED.
WE HAVE NOW FILED THE REVISED PLAN, WHICH YOU HAVE A COPY
OF TONIGHT, THAT SHOWS THAT RELOCATION TO THE EAST.
YOU KNOW THESE FACILITIES.
THEY'RE BENIGN, LOW-INTENSITY, LOW TRAFFIC, LOW ADT,
CERTAINLY LOW PEAK-HOUR.
WE DID HAVE TO FILE A VARIANCE REQUEST, MR. LUCE, BECAUSE
THE LDC CONSIDERS ALF USES, COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME, AS
MULTIFAMILY, AND, THEREFORE, THE OTHER PROVISION OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMP PLAN, I MIGHT ADD,
9
REQUIRES PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER TO BE EXTENDED TO
MULTIFAMILY USES.
OF COURSE, WE'RE MILES FROM ANY URBAN SERVICE AREA, MILES
FROM PUBLIC SEWER.
SO WE DID FILE THOSE VARIANCE PROCEDURES AND RESPONSES.
I THINK THEY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM IN DETAIL.
YOU HAVE THEM IN THE RECORD, AT LEAST YOU SHOULD BEFORE YOU
THIS EVENING.
SETBACKS, AS YOU KNOW, IN AR DISTRICT ARE 50 FEET FRONT AND
REAR AND 25 FEET SIDE.
THIS STRUCTURE -- THE CLOSEST STRUCTURE, NOT EVEN THE
PROPOSED EXPANSION, WHICH IS A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY, IS
ABOUT 150 FEET FROM THE NORTH, ABOUT 116 FEET TO THE WEST,
AND APPROXIMATELY 80 FEET FROM THE SOUTH.
I THINK MS. ALBERT SHOWED ME A REVISED CONDITION SHEET THAT
WAS JUST CLEANUP LANGUAGE.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS OR OBJECTIONS TO IT.
SHE'LL READ THAT IN THE RECORD AND PROBABLY FILE A COPY.
I DID RECEIVE A PHONE CALL THIS AFTERNOON FROM AN ATTORNEY
WHO INDICATED HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE REPRESENTING SOME
PROPERTY OWNERS.
I WAS SURPRISED BY THE LATE NOTICE.
I SENT HIM ALL THE REPORTS AT 4:00.
HE DID INDICATE TO ME THAT ONE OF HIS CLIENTS DID HAVE AN
AIR STRIP TO THE SOUTH, SO I'M NOT SURE A COMPATIBILITY
ISSUE EXISTS IN AN INVERSE APPLICATION OF CONCERNS, BUT IF
HE'S HERE, WE'LL ADDRESS THOSE IN REBUTTAL.
10
IF NOT, THAT COMPLETES OUR PRESENTATION.
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING.
ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AS MR. HORNER STATED, THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW COMMUNITY
RESIDENTIAL HOME TYPE "C" WITH A MAXIMUM OF 29 BEDS.
THEY DO CURRENTLY HAVE ONE OPERATING AS A TYPE "A," AND
THEN BY INCREASING THIS -- THE NUMBER OF BEDS TO A
TYPE "C" CHANGES THE CATEGORY OF A SINGLE-FAMILY TO A
MULTIFAMILY USE, AND BY DOING SO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY
WITH ALL THE BUFFERING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CODE, AND THEY HAVE SHOWN THAT ON THEIR PLAN, SO THERE'S NO
OBJECTIONS THERE.
AND ALSO, THEY DID FILE FOR THE VARIANCE, AS HE STATED, AND
THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE BACKUP FOR YOUR REVIEW.
AND THEY ALSO COMPLY WITH FDOT REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT'S
ALSO BEEN INTRODUCED AS A CONDITION AS WELL.
AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANY REVIEWING
AGENCY.
WE DO FIND THIS SUPPORTABLE WITH THE CONDITIONS, WITH THE
AMENDMENTS, AS MR. HORNER STATED.
I'M JUST GOING TO READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.
IT WOULD BE CONDITION NUMBER 1, THE PROJECT SHALL BE
PERMITTED A MAXIMUM OF 13,639 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA
11
FOR A TYPE "C" COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME WITH A MAXIMUM OF
29 BEDS AND SHALL BE DEVELOPED PER THE AGRICULTURAL RURAL,
AR, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
6.11.28.
THAT IS JUST TO CLARIFY EXACTLY -- MORE TO CONDITION NUMBER
1.
AND CONDITION 6, AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE IS, SHALL BE
PROVIDED ALONG THE EASTERN, SOUTHERN, AND WESTERN PROPERTY
LINES.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: GOOD EVENING.
MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL RURAL ONE
TO FIVE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IN THE RURAL AREA.
THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE IN THIS RURAL
LOCATION.
A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME USE IS DEFINED AS A CONGREGATE
LIVING FACILITY BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS ALLOWABLE
WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.
OVERALL, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED
CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR A USE THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE
12
SURROUNDING AREA, AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE
PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF
HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
GOOD EVENING.
>> I'M DAVID GALLOWAY, 506 NORTH ALEXANDER STREET, PLANT
CITY.
I'M THE SOME LAWYER THAT CALLED THIS AFTERNOON TO SPEAK TO
MR. HORNER, HAVING JUST RECEIVED THIS.
PRESENTLY, THERE IS A ALF THERE ON HIGHWAY 60, WHICH HAS NO
SIGNAGE, NO -- NOTHING TO CALL ATTENTION TO IT.
IT APPEARS TO BE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, AND A NICE HOME,
CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S OUT THERE IN THE
AREA, WHICH IS BASICALLY AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL.
TO GO FROM FIVE BEDS TO 29 BEDS IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE,
AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE DRAWING, THE -- THE NEW
BUILDING IS SOME ALMOST 11,000 SQUARE FEET.
THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT OF A POND, A PARKING LOT, AND
MOVING A DRIVEWAY TO THE EAST CLOSER TO THE ENTRANCE TO MY
CLIENT'S PROPERTY, THE COOPERS.
13
THEY OWN 17 ACRES, WHICH IS BASICALLY TO THE EAST AND SOUTH
OF THIS PROPERTY SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CURRENT
ALF, YOU CAN SEE MR. COOPER'S 2.5-STORY HOME BACK BEHIND
IT.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CONCERNED AND HAVE MET WITH AN
APPRAISER, WHO'S INDICATED THAT HAVING A 29-BED ALF WILL
CERTAINLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY VALUE.
>>STEVE LUCE: DID YOU GET ANYTHING IN WRITING FROM THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER THAT YOU CONTACTED?
>> I DID NOT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> I DID A DRIVE-BY WITH HIM.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> JUST AS I SAID, I RECENTLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS, AND WE
JUST WENT OVER THERE THROUGH THE WEEKEND.
BUT THAT'S -- THAT'S A PRINCIPAL CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS
NOT THE TYPE FACILITY SOMEONE WANTS IN THEIR FRONT YARD,
AND IF IT IMPACTS FINANCIALLY, THEN THAT'S CERTAINLY A VERY
NEGATIVE THING.
THE -- I GUESS THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU, SIR.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
14
>> THANK YOU, MR. LUCE.
MICHAEL HORNER, AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD.
WELL, WE'VE MET MR. GALLOWAY.
I'M GLAD HE SHOWED.
I AM SOMEWHAT SURPRISED THAT WE HADN'T HAD THE PLEASURE OF
DISCUSSING THESE ITEMS PRIOR.
THIS HAS BEEN A CASE THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR OVER SIX
MONTHS, WE'VE HAD A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, SEVERAL
NOTICES, SIGNS POSTED, BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, I THINK YOU
ASKED THE QUESTION ON THE DIMINUTION OF VALUE ASSERTION.
CERTAINLY NO DOCUMENTS FILED FOR COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
WE CERTAINLY DISAGREE WITH THAT ASSERTION.
AGAIN, MR. LUCE, I WOULD REMIND YOU THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL
SUPPORT USE.
IT WILL BE DESIGNED AS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
I WOULD FURTHER POINT OUT THAT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF THIS
STRUCTURE AFTER IMPROVEMENT, WHICH WILL BE ONE STORY -- I
THINK HE MENTIONED HIS HOUSE -- CLIENT'S HOUSE WAS TWO
STORIES -- IS ABOUT .05 ON THIS 5.8 ACRES, SO THIS HAS MORE
THAN SUFFICIENT LAND AREA, SETBACK, BUFFER, SCREENING.
WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL SECTION 6.06 REQUIREMENTS AND
6.11.28.
WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND TALK
ABOUT SPECIFICS, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING SCREENINGWISE, A
TYPE OF FENCING, BUT WE HAVE TO MEET TYPE "A" SCREENING.
IT'S IN PLACE.
WE'LL MAKE SURE WE EXTEND THAT FOR THE PERIMETER, AND,
15
AGAIN, THE ONLY USES ON THE SOUTH SIDE WOULD BE THE
RETENTION POND, ON THE NORTH SIDE WOULD BE THE SEPTIC TANK
DRAINFIELD, AND THEN A SMALL LITTLE PARKING AREA, WHICH HAS
VERY LITTLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS GIVEN THE MINIMAL PEAK-
HOUR AND DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS FOR 29 BEDS.
MR. GALLOWAY DID ASK ME IF THIS WAS GOING TO BE A STEPPING
STONE TO A LARGER FACILITY, DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A
CERTIFICATE OF NEED WITH THE STATE, AND AS YOU KNOW, THAT'S
NOT TRUE.
THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL SERVICE, IT'S NOT A HOSPITAL, AND WE
CERTAINLY CANNOT EXTEND THESE ENTITLEMENTS BEYOND 29 BEDS
UNDER THE CURRENT COMP PLAN AND THE ZONING SPECIAL USE
REQUIREMENTS.
SO WITH THAT, I THINK I'VE ADDRESSED THOSE ISSUES.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND
MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-2, SPECIAL
USE APPLICATION 13-0850.
THE APPLICANT'S CARROLLWOOD BRASS TOP, LLC.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION
WAIVERS FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE 4-COP DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
COLLEEN MARSHALL WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
FOR THE RECORD, CHAD HOPE, 5660 WEST CYPRESS STREET,
16
SUITE A, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33607.
I'M A MANAGING MEMBER AND REPRESENT THE CARROLLWOOD BRASS
TAP.
WE'RE CURRENTLY OPEN AND OPERATING A BRASS TAP CRAFT BEER
AND WINE BAR AT THE SPECIFIED LOCATION.
WE'VE SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED THAT PUTTING IN LIQUOR, HARD
SPIRITS, IS A PROPER BUSINESS DECISION, AND WE'RE
REQUESTING TWO SEPARATE WAIVERS, ONE FROM THE 1,000-FOOT
REQUIREMENT OF ALCOHOL AND BEVERAGE LICENSES FOR SPECIAL
USE AND THE SECOND BEING A DISTANCE FROM A PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WAIVER.
AS TO THE FIRST WAIVER, THERE ARE FOUR APPROVED LICENSES,
AND TWO OF THE APPROVED LICENSES ARE NO LONGER IN USE,
REMAINING TWO EXISTING LICENSES.
AS TO THE DISTANCE WAIVER FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PROPERTY, THERE IS A 250-FOOT REQUIREMENT.
WE'RE ACTUALLY 230 FEET TO A PARKING LOT.
THE 250 FOOT EXCEEDS PAST THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
THERE'S ALSO A PERMANENT FENCE THAT ACTS AS A BARRIER
BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND ALSO A SERVICE ROAD
BETWEEN -- WE FACE A PARKING LOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND THE
WEST SIDE TO DALE MABRY DIRECTLY.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
17
>>STEVE LUCE: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>COLLEEN MARSHALL: GOOD EVENING.
COLLEEN MARSHALL, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR A DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER FOR
A 4-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR BEER, WINE,
AND LIQUOR FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF THE
PERMANENT PREMISES.
THE APPLICANT'S SEEKING TO ADD LIQUOR SALES TO THE EXISTING
BRASS TAP CRAFT BEER AND WINE, LOCATED AT 10019 NORTH DALE
MABRY HIGHWAY.
THE WET ZONE AREA WILL COMPRISE OF 3,761 SQUARE FEET, 413
OF WHICH IS OUTSIDE AREA.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TWO WAIVERS, A WAIVER TO THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE NO MORE THAN THREE APPROVED
SPECIFIC ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSES LISTED IN THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL
USE AND A WAIVER TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DISTANCE FROM
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY
SHALL BE 250 FEET.
PER THE WET ZONE SURVEY RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 19th, 2013,
THERE ARE FOUR SUCH APPROVED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMITS,
AND THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY IS 230 FEET.
STAFF CONCURS WITH THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION TO THE
WAIVERS.
NO AGENCY OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED BY STAFF.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE APPROVABLE, AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
18
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL?
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND STAFF,
WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT APPLICATION IS AGENDA ITEM I-3.
IT'S SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0873.
I'LL NOTE ON THE -- ON THE RECORD THAT THE AGENDA
INCORRECTLY LISTED THIS AS AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SPECIAL
USE PERMIT.
IT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A SCHOOL.
THE APPLICANT'S PETITT, WORRELL, CRAINE, WOLFE, LLC, AND
AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A
SCHOOL.
ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
19
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
MY NAME IS BIFF CRAINE, 4830 WEST KENNEDY, SUITE 475, WITH
THE LAW FIRM OF PETITT, WORRELL, CRAINE & WOLFE.
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE ALSO JEFF DeBOSIER, WHO IS OUR
PROJECT ENGINEER, AND MR. TIM HAYES, WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND MR. RYAN KELLY, WHO'S THE HEAD
OF THE SCHOOL.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE ALL IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT WITH US AND
WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SUPPORTERS HERE ALSO.
I DON'T THINK THAT INDIVIDUAL TESTIMONY IS NECESSARY.
WOULD LIKE ALL THE SUPPORTERS TO STAND AND INDICATE THEIR
PRESENCE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
>> THANK YOU.
THE SITE LOCATION IS ON 38 ACRES NORTH OF BEARSS, WHICH IS
WEST OF NORTH BOULEVARD.
THE -- IT'S CURRENTLY THE HOME TO THE CARROLLWOOD DAY
SCHOOL AND 769 STUDENTS IN FIRST THROUGH 12th GRADES.
LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RES-4, AND THE USE HAS PREVIOUSLY
BEEN FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT
THE LAST SPECIAL USE HEARING WE HAD IN 2007.
I PRESENT AS EVIDENCE OF OUR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF'S REPORT, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU HAVE IN YOUR -- REPORT
20
IN YOUR INFORMATION.
OUR REQUEST HAS BEEN DEEMED CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, AND WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY
THREE REQUESTS IN OUR -- IN OUR PETITION TONIGHT.
WE WANT TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
TO 24,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THAT WOULD BE FROM 230,000
SQUARE FEET TO 254,000 SQUARE FEET, WELL UNDER THE F.A.R.
FOR THE PROPERTY.
WE ALSO WANT A MODIFICATION OF THE LIGHTING STANDARDS THAT
WERE IMPOSED IN 2007, AND ALSO, WE HAVE AN ISSUE ON THE
ORIENTATION OF THE PLAYFIELDS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY.
AS YOU REALIZE, UNDER THE REGULATION OF THIS SPECIAL USE,
THE TWO THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT ARE THE ORIENTATION
OF THE PLAYFIELDS AND THE CONNECTION TO THE ROAD SYSTEM.
THE ROAD SYSTEM CONNECTION IS TO BEARSS.
THAT HAS NOT CHANGED.
THERE ARE TWO CONNECTIONS TO THAT ROADWAY SYSTEM, AN EAST
AND WEST ENTRANCE.
AS TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHEN WE CAME BEFORE MR. SCAROLA
IN 2007 FOR THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE -- TO ALLOW THE USE OF
MODULAR BUILDINGS FOR UP TO 37-500 -- 37,500 SQUARE FEET,
AS THESE MODULAR BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN RETIRED AND APPROVED
WITH REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES, SCHOOL PLANNERS HAVE DIVIDED
UP THE NEEDS FOR THE COMING ENROLLMENT TO INCLUDE AN
ADDITIONAL 24,000 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL SCHOOL FACILITIES.
WITH THAT IDENTIFICATION, WE HAD ASKED FOR AND WOULD LIKE
TO RECEIVE APPROVAL FOR THAT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN
OUR APPROVAL TONIGHT.
21
WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE PROJECTED ENROLLMENT, BUT WE ARE
PROJECTING A HIGHER NEED FOR SCHOOL SPACE.
AS FOR THE -- THE LIGHTING MODIFICATIONS, WHEN WE CAME
BEFORE MR. SCAROLA IN 2007, BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE
APPLICANT WERE KIND OF IN THE DARK REGARDING LIGHTING
STANDARDS.
THE COUNTY HAD NOT DEVELOPED LIGHTING STANDARDS AS OF YET
FOR RECREATIONAL FIELDS.
THAT HAS BEEN DONE NOW IN THE COUNTY CODE AT 6. -- I
BELIEVE IT'S 6.11 -- I DON'T HAVE THE CITATION HERE.
I'LL FIND IT IN JUST A SECOND, BUT IT -- THERE IS A -- IT'S
IN THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AS TO WHAT WE APPLY TO.
AND THE -- THE LIGHTING STANDARDS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PUT
IN PLACE WERE NOT BASED ON ANY PHOTOMETRIC PLANS.
WE DO HAVE NOW PHOTOMETRIC PLANS THAT I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT
FOR THE RECORD.
THESE PHOTOMETRIC PLANS SHOW HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE THE VERY,
VERY POSITIVE RESULTS AT THE BORDERS ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF
THE SITE WITH THE LIGHTING STRUCTURES ONCE THE POLES ARE
RAISED TO A HEIGHT THAT WILL ALLOW THE FOCUS OF THE
LIGHTING BEAMS DOWN ON THE PLAYFIELD AREA.
THE PREVIOUS RESTRICTION LIMITED THE HEIGHT OF THE POLES TO
30 FEET, WHICH WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THAT LIGHT TO BE
FOCUSED, CREATING A GREATER AMOUNT OF SPILLAGE TO THE -- TO
THE PROPERTIES TO THE SIDE.
NOW, OUR -- IN OUR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN, OUR ENGINEER TOLD ME
THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THE STANDARDS THAT WERE
CURRENTLY ENUNCIATED IN THE -- IN THE EXISTING APPROVAL BUT
22
WE COULD EASILY MEET THE STANDARDS THAT ARE UNDER THE CODE,
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S 6.03.I I BELIEVE IT IS, SO WE -- WE
CAN MEET THOSE STANDARDS.
THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SHOWS TWO THINGS.
IT SHOWS THAT THE STANDARDS ENUNCIATED IN THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS THE IESNA RP-6-01 STANDARD,
WHICH IS THE STANDARD APPLIED TO LIGHTING OF RECREATION
FIELDS, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, CAN BE MET WITH THIS
LIGHTING -- LIGHTING PLAN, AND IT SHOWS FURTHER INTO THE
PLAN THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT THAT WOULD BE MEASURABLE IN FOOT
CANDLES AT THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE ADJACENT TO THE
PLAYFIELDS.
SO THE CHANGES IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL ALLOW US TO MEET
OR EXCEED THE CURRENT COUNTY STANDARDS AS ENUNCIATED IN THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT 6.03.11.I WHILE MAINTAINING THE
SPILLOVER LIGHTING AT A VERY LOW RATE TO THE ADJACENT
PROPERTIES.
AS FOR THE ORIENTATION OF THE WESTERN PLAYFIELDS, ALONG THE
WESTERN BORDER, GREATER ORIENT -- GREATER SEPARATION OF
ACTUAL PLAY SURFACES IS SOUGHT BY ROTATING THE LARGE
PLAYFIELDS AS SHOWN ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN.
ON YOUR INSPECTION OF THE SITE, YOU WILL NOTICE A LARGE
VEGETATIVE BUFFER CURRENTLY EXISTS BETWEEN THE HOMES THAT
HAVE NOW BEEN CONSTRUCTED SINCE THE 2007 PLAN WAS APPROVED
AND THE -- THE SCHOOL PROPERTY.
THAT -- THAT BUFFER WILL MAINTAIN INTACT AS GREAT AS WE CAN
MAINTAIN IT.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALONG WHICH BOUNDARY IS THE HEDGE?
23
>> IT'S NOT A HEDGE, IT'S JUST -- IT'S TREES AND OTHER
VEGETATION.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> IT'S ON OUR WESTERN BORDER.
THERE ARE -- THERE'S A SUBDIVISION CALLED HAVEN BEND, AND
IN 2007 THE HOMES IN HAVEN BEND WEREN'T CONSTRUCTED ALONG
THE FENCE LINE THERE.
THEY ARE THERE NOW, AND YOU CAN -- IN YOUR INSPECTION, IF
YOU WOULD NOT ONLY LOOK FROM THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ON
THE CAMPUS SIDE BUT ALSO GO INTO THE HAVEN BEND SUBDIVISION
AND NOTICE BETWEEN THE HOMES THE AMOUNT OF VEGETATION THAT
THERE IS EXISTING THERE CURRENTLY.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY JUST MODULARS THERE.
THEY'LL BE TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE AS THE PLAYFIELDS DEVELOP.
IN SUMMARY, AT OUR 2007 APPROVAL THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION,
AND THE CARROLLWOOD DAY SCHOOL HAS WORKED TO BE A GOOD
NEIGHBOR, AND HOMES WERE NOW DEVELOPED ALONG THE WESTERN
BORDER OF THE CAMPUS.
THE CHANGES SOUGHT TODAY CONTINUE IN THAT SPIRIT.
WE HAVE REVISED -- WE HAVE REVIEWED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION
AND CONCUR WITH THOSE CONDITIONS.
WE ARE ASKING YOU TO FIND OUR REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROVE OUR REQUEST WITH THE
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR OUR PROJECT TEAM.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
24
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING.
ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AS MR. CRAINE STATED, THIS REQUEST IS FOR A CONTINUANCE OF
A SCHOOL, AND THERE'S THREE MAJOR REQUESTS.
ONE OF THEM IS TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 24,000
SQUARE FEET.
THAT IS FOR THE -- INTENDED FOR THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE
SCHOOL AND -- BUT BY NOT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF STUDENTS.
THAT WILL REMAIN AS IS.
THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES THE REORIENTATION OF THE
PLAYFIELDS.
WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY HAD A SOCCER FIELD AND A BASEBALL
FIELD.
THEY COMBINED THOSE, REORIENTED THOSE, AND BY DOING
THAT -- HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WESTERN ONE -- IT KIND OF
SHIFTED THE PLAYFIELDS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE OTHER REQUEST WAS ALSO TO AMEND THE LIGHTING CONDITION,
AND AS HE STATED, THE HISTORY OF IT, WE HAD OUR STAFF
REVIEW THE EXISTING CONDITION WITH THE PROPOSED LIGHTING
PLAN, AND THEY DO CONCUR WITH THE APPLICANT THAT IT IS MUCH
MORE -- IT'S ACTUALLY SAFER TO HAVE WHAT'S -- WHAT THE CODE
IS REQUESTING, SO THEY'RE GOING TO MEET CODE REQUIREMENT.
AND ALSO -- THERE WAS FOUR POINTS.
THE LAST ONE WAS TO CLARIFY THE MODULAR BUILDING.
ONE OF THEM WAS IN CONDITION 3 THAT WAS RESTRICTING THE
TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE ALONG THE WESTERN
PROPERTY LINE, AND AT THAT TIME, WHEN I READ THE
25
TRANSCRIPT, IT DID STATE THAT THEY WANTED TO PROBABLY
REMOVE THAT AND PUT THE EXPANSION THERE, AND SO --
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: -- THAT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT THEIR PLANS
WERE.
AND AS YOU SEE THE PLAN, THERE WAS ALSO SOME REMOVAL OF
WETLANDS, AND I CONTACTED EPC, AND THEY INDICATED THAT THEY
DID MEET WITH THEM PRIOR TO APPLYING, THEY HAD NO
OBJECTIONS, AND SO, THEREFORE, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE
REQUESTING, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.
THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE --
THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THE BUILDING SQUARE
FOOTAGE WOULD INCREASE, AND THIS INCREASE WOULD BE WELL
BELOW THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO WITHIN THE
RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.
IN ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED BY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL IDEAS
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN OUR STAFF REPORT.
26
WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE INCREASED POLE
HEIGHT AND THE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO THE
WEST, AND IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT A GREATER AMOUNT OF
SCREENING IN THE FORM OF TALLER TREES, PERHAPS EVERGREENS,
BE PROVIDED ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY TO MITIGATE THAT
IMPACT.
IN ADDITION, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WAS CONCERNED THAT
THE PLAYING FIELDS COULD POSSIBLY BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC,
INCREASING THE FREQUENCY OF EVENTS AND IMPACTS ON ADJACENT
PROPERTIES, AND WE RECOMMEND A CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITION
THAT WOULD LIMIT THE PLAYING FIELD USE TO SCHOOL USE ONLY.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>> NOTHING FURTHER, MR. LUCE, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
27
>>STEVE LUCE: NO.
>> THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU, SIR.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,
WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-4, SPECIAL USE
APPLICATION 13-0882.
THE APPLICANT'S HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A SURVEILLANCE
AND COMMUNICATION TOWER.
ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>> GOOD EVENING.
MAJOR INITIALS J.R. BURTON, B-U-R-T-O-N, HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
I COME TO YOU TONIGHT REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MONOPOLE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWER IN THE -- IN THE
NUCCIO COMMUNITY AREA.
I HAD A -- OR I HAVE A FAIRLY LENGTHY PRESENTATION PREPARED
HERE TO SORT OF GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, AND I
FOUND THAT I ONLY HAVE 15 MINUTES TO TALK, SO I'M GOING TO
SKIP THROUGH THIS PRETTY QUICKLY --
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
>> -- AND GET TO THE -- GET TO THE MATTER AT HAND.
WE ARE QUITE PROUD OF OUR EYE ON CRIME CLOSED CIRCUIT
CAMERA SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE, AND I WANTED TO TOUT THAT TO
YOU A LITTLE BIT THIS EVENING, BUT IT JUST WON'T BE
28
POSSIBLE.
I'LL GLADLY LEAVE YOU A COPY OF OUR PRESENTATION --
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
>> -- FOR YOU TO REVIEW.
WE CURRENTLY ARE UTILIZING A CLOSED CIRCUIT CAMERA SYSTEM
UP IN THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY AREA, 29 CAMERAS, AS -- AS
OF THIS DATE, AND WE HAVE BEEN UTILIZING IT SINCE ABOUT
2009, PROBABLY INVESTED ABOUT $1.8 MILLION IN THE PROJECT.
THE NEXT PHASE OF THE PROJECT, PHASE 3, IS IN THE NUCCIO
COMMUNITY AREA, WHERE WE HOPE TO -- TO USE SOME INNOVATIVE
CRIME REDUCTION TECHNIQUES IN THAT AREA.
ONE OF THEM IS THE CLOSED CIRCUIT CAMERA SYSTEM.
DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY IN THE AREA, WE'RE HAVING TO ERECT
THIS 122-FOOT RADIO TOWER TO GET OUR SIGNAL OUT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> AND -- BUT LET ME ZIP THROUGH JUST A FEW SLIDES HERE AND
GET TO THE NUCCIO AREA.
I, AGAIN, HAD AN OVERVIEW OF SOME THINGS GOING ON IN THE --
IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS STAFF HAD EARLY ON, I THINK WE'VE
SATISFIED THAT, IS OUR CAMERAS ARE WHAT WE REFER TO AS AN
OVERT CAMERA SYSTEM, SO WE WANT EVERYBODY TO SEE THEM.
WE WANT THEM TO KNOW THEY'RE THERE.
THEY HAVE A BLUE FLASHING LIGHT ON THEM TO IDENTIFY THEM
AS -- AS SHERIFF'S CAMERAS, AND THERE WAS -- THERE WAS SOME
WORRY THAT IT MAY BOTHER THE NEIGHBORS WITH THE BLUE
FLASHING LIGHT.
29
AGAIN, CURRENTLY, USING 29 CAMERAS, NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM.
WE HAVE ACTIVATED SEVEN CAMERAS UP -- I'M SORRY -- FIVE
CAMERAS UP IN THE AREA RECENTLY IN THE NUCCIO COMMUNITY
WITH THE SAME BLUE FLASHING LIGHT.
NO ISSUE FROM THE COMMUNITY ON THAT.
WE CONTINUE TO HAVE SUCCESSES WHERE WE SOLVE CRIME AS A
RESULT OF THIS PROGRAM THAT WE USE.
IN -- IN UNVEILING THIS PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY, WE HAD A
PUBLIC MEETING ON AUGUST 28th OF THIS YEAR SEPARATE AND
APART FROM THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT GOES OUT FOR THIS
PROCEEDING, AND WE WERE LOOKING TO GARNER PUBLIC SUPPORT
AND TO UNVEIL A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE DOING IN THE
AREA.
THE PARK ACTUALLY HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, AND WE HAVE PARTNERED WITH THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHILDREN IN
THAT AREA, AND WE'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS BY -- BY
ERECTING OUR -- OUR -- ONE OF OUR CAMERAS ON THE TOWER --
TWO OF OUR CAMERAS ON THE TOWER IN THE -- AT THE NUCCIO
PARK THERE.
SO WE HAD THE PUBLIC MEETINGS, OVERALL GOOD SUPPORT.
I HAVE A MAP HERE OF THE CAMERA LOCATIONS, AGAIN, NOT
RELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL REQUEST, SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST,
BUT PART AND PARCEL OF THE OVERALL PROJECT.
WE'VE HAD OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY IN
INSTALLING THIS SYSTEM.
I INCLUDED THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT I'LL JUST ZIP
THROUGH HERE QUICKLY THAT WILL BE IN MY PRESENTATION, THREE
30
LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO IT TONIGHT.
AS A RESULT, WE ARE ASKING FOR SEVERAL VARIANCES AND/OR
EXEMPTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT DUE TO THE
LOCATION THAT WE NEED TO PLACE THE TOWER TO GET THE RADIO
SIGNAL AND TO BE ABLE TO MOUNT FUTURE CAMERAS FOR THE --
FOR THE PARK AND OTHER AREAS, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SETBACK
TO BE -- TO BE AMENDED.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS A STIPULATION FOR THIRD-PARTY
ENGINEERING ON THE TOWER TO BE ABLE TO MOUNT OUR RADIO
EQUIPMENT ON AN EXISTING TOWER NEARBY.
WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE OF CERTAIN FCIC AND FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRES US
TO SECURE OUR INFORMATION.
THIS TOWER WILL ALSO PROVIDE A BACKUP FOR OUR DATA CENTER,
AND SOME SENSITIVE INFORMATION WILL BE GOING ON IT THAT WE
JUST WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PLACE OUR ANTENNAS IN THE PUBLIC
VENUE --
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> -- SO WE ASK FOR THAT.
THERE WAS A -- A STIPULATION FOR A CAMOUFLAGE REQUIREMENT,
AND, AGAIN, WE ASK A VARIANCE ON THAT BECAUSE WE WANT
EVERYONE TO SEE OUR EQUIPMENT, WE WANT THEM TO KNOW IT'S
THERE.
AND FINALLY, THE 20-FOOT BUFFERING, BY NATURE OF THE DESIGN
AND LOCATION OF THE TOWER, IT -- I THINK IT WORKS OUT TO
ABOUT TEN FEET THERE.
31
WE'LL BE GLAD TO INSTALL ANY SORT OF HEDGING AROUND THE
TOWER AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
A PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT THE RADIO EQUIPMENT WILL LOOK LIKE ON
THE TOP OF THE TOWER.
AND THAT'S THE TOWER THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AT OUR STATION
UP IN NEW TAMPA.
THE TOWER THAT WE'LL BE USING IS REPURPOSED FROM THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, SO WE'VE SAVED THE CITIZENS A
LOT OF MONEY BY DOING THAT, AND I WILL CERTAINLY ENTERTAIN
ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
HAVE YOU SEEN THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAS
PROPOSED?
HAVE THEY DISCUSSED THOSE WITH YOU?
THEY'RE ON PAGE 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE ZONING STAFF
REPORT.
>> LET ME GO THROUGH THOSE REAL QUICK.
I JUST GOT THAT THIS EVENING.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> YES, SIR, THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
32
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING.
ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
WELL, THE APPLICANT FOR THIS SPECIAL USE REQUEST IS THE
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND THE PROPOSED
TOWER IS AN EXPANSION OF A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE EYES ON
CRIME FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE, AND THE APPLICANT
WENT IN GREAT DETAILS OF WHAT THE PROJECT ENTAILS, AND
THE -- PART OF THIS PROGRAM STARTED BACK IN OCTOBER IN THE
UNIVERSITY AREA, AND THIS, AS STATED, WAS AN EXPANSION OF
THAT, AND SO, THEREFORE, THEY NEEDED CERTAIN HEIGHT FOR IT
TO BE FUNCTIONABLE, AND SO PART OF THAT HEIGHT, THEY WERE
NOT ABLE TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND, THEREFORE,
THEY REQUESTED WAIVERS TO THAT, AND STAFF CONCURRED WITH
THEIR REASONING FOR THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
THEY ALSO REQUESTED WAIVERS FOR THE CAMOUFLAGE REQUIREMENT,
AND AS THEY STATED, STAFF HAD NO OBJECTIONS FOR THAT, AND
NEITHER DID WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE BUFFERING AND
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AND, AGAIN, WENT INTO THAT AND
EXPLAINED THAT.
THE APPLICANT ALSO FURTHER EXPLAINED THE COLOCATION
REQUIREMENT, THAT THAT CANNOT BE FEASIBLE IN THIS CASE, AND
WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONDITIONS, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS.
WE FIND THIS APPROVABLE.
>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
33
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THE
EAST LAKE-ORIENT PARK COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.
THE PROPOSED MONOPOLE IS INTENDED AS A SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
FOR CRIME AND A SIGNAL TOWER FOR A NETWORK OF SURVEILLANCE
CAMERAS.
APPLICATION OF TYPICAL SETBACK AND CAMOUFLAGING
REQUIREMENTS TO THIS MONOPOLE WOULD ACTUALLY IMPEDE THE
INTENTION OF THE PROGRAM, WHICH IS CRIME SURVEILLANCE.
WE FOUND THIS WAS A UNIQUE PUBLIC SAFETY FUNCTION AND AS
THIS SPECIAL USE IS DISTINCT FROM A TYPICAL COMMUNICATION
CELL TOWER, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED
SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.
AT THIS TIME IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
AND APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>> NO -- NO REBUTTAL, JUST A WORD OF THANKS TO YOUR STAFF.
34
WE'RE POLICEMEN --
>>STEVE LUCE: YES.
>> -- AND NOT BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS, AND PARTICULARLY
MS. ALBERT HAS BEEN EXTREMELY PATIENT WITH ME WITH A LITANY
OF QUESTIONS AND VERY HELPFUL, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU, SIR.
ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,
WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER I-5,
SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 13-0889.
THE APPLICANT'S FARMLAND RESERVE, INCORPORATED.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR LAND
EXCAVATION.
THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PERMIT THAT EXISTS ON
THE SITE.
CHARLES ANDREWS WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
FOR THE RECORD, EVERETT MORROW, LANDMARK ENGINEERING, 8515
PALM RIVER ROAD, TAMPA 33619.
I'M HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING FARMLAND RESERVE, AND WITH ME
IS MR. WILL REDD OF FARMLAND RESERVE.
FARMLAND RESERVE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN MAY 10th OF
THIS YEAR.
35
THERE'S CURRENTLY A LAND EXCAVATION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY
APPROVED UNDER SU 05-0708-RU, AND THE OPERATION PERMIT 05-
5-LE.
THE OPERATION PERMIT WAS JUST TRANSFERRED OVER TO FARMLAND
RESERVE, AND AN EXTENSION WAS GRANTED TO THAT, AND THAT
EXTENSION IS GRANTED UNTIL OCTOBER THE 10th OF 2015.
THE PROJECT ALSO HAS CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL, WHICH IS
VALID THROUGH JULY -- I'M SORRY -- YEAH, JULY 8th, 2014.
THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE PROVIDED TO YOU, MR. LUCE, IS A
COPY OF THE PERMIT TRANSFER AS WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION
PLAN APPROVAL EXTENSION LETTER AND THEN TWO COLORED
DRAWINGS, ONE WHICH IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE LAND EXCAVATION
PLANS AND THEN THE OTHER THAT IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE
CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
AND THE FIRST ITEM I'D LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS
THE -- ON PAGE 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT, IT MADE
RECOMMENDATION OR MADE REFERENCE TO SEPARATION
REQUIREMENTS, AND IF YOU NOTICE ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN,
THERE'S A SMALL AREA THAT'S SHADED IN PINK.
THAT AREA WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SPECIAL USE PLAN
BECAUSE IT HAD TO MEET THE 1,000-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE
SCHOOL, BUT IT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN
APPROVAL PROCESS, SO THAT'S WHY IT SHOWS AS BEING INCLUDED.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT THIS POINT IS FARMLAND RESERVE,
IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, HAS MADE THE DECISION NOT TO GO
THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF EXCAVATING THE
AREA ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CREEK, AND IT'S -- IF YOU LOOK
ON THE LAND EXCAVATION PLAN, THE AREA ON THE EAST SIDE,
36
KIND OF A BROWN, THAT'S AREA "C," SO THE YELLOW AREA IS THE
ONLY AREA THAT'S TO BE EXCAVATED.
AT THIS POINT, THE PERIMETER OF THE BORROW PIT HAS BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED, AND, REALLY, WHAT THIS SPECIAL USE
IS TO ADDRESS TWO ITEMS, NUMBER ONE, ADDITIONAL TIME TO
COMPLETE THE EXCAVATION AND, NUMBER TWO, AN ADDITIONAL 11
FEET OF DEPTH FOR THE EXCAVATION.
THE TOTAL VOLUME OF EXCAVATION HAS NOT CHANGED.
THE PIT HAS BEEN IN OPERATION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND IS
ACTIVELY PROVIDING DIRT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ROAD PROJECTS
PARTICULARLY IN THE AREA.
THE ONE THING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY OR DO A LITTLE
BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING, ON PAGE 5 OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS,
UNDER ITEM NUMBER 1, IT CURRENTLY SAYS, SHALL EXPIRE ON
AUGUST 30th, 2015.
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUR YEARS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE
OPERATION PERMIT.
THE AUGUST 30th DATE WAS PULLED UP FROM -- WAS PICKED UP
FROM THE EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT PERMIT.
AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION ON ITEMS 6 AND 7, IT WAS
MISLABELED IN THE APPLICATION.
IT IS WILDCAT CREEK, NOT BULLFROG CREEK.
AND WITH THAT, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, THAT
CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU.
37
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: HI.
GOOD EVENING.
CHARLES ANDREWS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND AN EXISTING LAND EXCAVATION SPECIAL
USE PERMIT.
AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT, THERE WAS SOME HOUSECLEANING
ITEMS -- CLEANUP ITEMS ON THIS REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF
THE PERMIT JUST TO EXPIRE FOUR YEARS FROM THE APPROVAL DATE
OF THE OPERATION PERMIT FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPERATION
PERMIT AND A CLEANUP HERE ON THE BULLFROG CREEK TO BE
WILDCAT CREEK.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
DO YOU HAVE STRIKE-THROUGH AND UNDERLINE NOW OR YOU'LL
PROVIDE IT --
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: I CAN PROVIDE THAT LATER.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- AFTER THE HEARING?
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: YES, SIR.
I'LL PROVIDE THAT LATER.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
38
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL RURAL ONE
TO FIVE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE RURAL AREA.
THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, IF APPROVED, WOULD
MINIMALLY EXTEND AND EXPAND AN EXISTING EXCAVATION PERMIT.
AS YOU ARE AWARE, PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT MAKE A
CONSISTENCY FINDING ON EXCAVATION, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY
CONCERNS FROM A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERSPECTIVE.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>> NO, MR. HEARING OFFICER, JUST THANK STAFF FOR THEIR
WORKING WITH US.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU, SIR.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,
WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-6, SPECIAL USE
APPLICATION 13-0894.
THIS IS A SPECIAL USE FOR A SCHOOL.
39
THE APPLICANT'S CHARTER SCHOOL ASSOCIATES.
TOM HIZNAY WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>> GOOD EVENING.
AGAIN, MR. LUCE, FOR THE RECORD, MICHAEL HORNER, 14502
NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, SUITE 200, TAMPA 33618,
REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT BEFORE YOU, CHARTER SCHOOL
ASSOCIATES.
WITH ME THIS EVENING ARE A COUPLE SPEAKERS AND ALSO
RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PTA IN
THE AUDIENCE THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE RECOGNIZED.
MR. CALKINS IS WITH US, WHO WILL BE SPEAKING SHORTLY ON
OPERATIONAL ISSUES ON-SITE, ALSO AN EMPLOYEE OF CHARTER
SCHOOL ASSOCIATES.
MIKE STRADER IS ALSO HERE THIS EVENING FOR ANY QUESTIONS ON
THE SCHOOL OPERATION THEMSELVES.
I DO NOT ANTICIPATE HAVING HIM SPEAK IN CASE IN CHIEF.
WE HAVE MR. STEVE HENRY FROM LINCKS & ASSOCIATES ON
TRAFFIC.
WE HAVE JEFF SOMERVILLE FROM McNEAL ENGINEERING IF YOU HAVE
ANY ENGINEERING QUESTIONS OR WETLAND QUESTIONS.
IF I COULD, MR. LUCE, JUST TO ASK FOR A SHOW OF SUPPORT
FROM MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO CAME IN SUPPORT OF THIS
PETITION JUST TO STAND UP AND BE RECOGNIZED.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
>> THANK YOU.
DID THAT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF THEM COMING UP AND
40
FORMING A LINE TO SPEAK.
UNDER SUPPORT, WE'LL ONLY HAVE ONE REPRESENTATIVE,
MR. LUCE, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THIS SCHOOL.
MS. JONES, IF I'LL BE ABLE TO GET SIX MINUTES A LITTLE
CHIME, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
FIRST, MR. LUCE, THANKS TO TOM HIZNAY OF STAFF; MARCIE
STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION; ENGINEERING, ROY MAZUR; MIKE
WILLIAMS, DOWN THE LINE, CHARLES WHITE.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THIS REVIEW.
IT'S BEEN UNDER REVIEW FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS, AND WE
APPRECIATE THEIR REVIEW TIME AND THEIR SUPPORT.
THIS STANDS -- WE STAND BEFORE YOU WITH FULL
RECOMMENDATIONS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN.
THIS IS A K-8 CHARTER SCHOOL PROPOSAL.
IT IS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF McINTOSH ROAD AND
U.S. 92.
THIS IS APPROXIMATELY A 13.8-ACRE TRACT, MR. LUCE; HOWEVER,
ONLY ONE PARCEL -- ALLOW ME TO ZOOM THAT DOWN, PLEASE.
SO THE PARENT TRACT OF BOTH PARCELS IN CUMULATIVE IS ABOUT
13.8 ACRES.
THERE ARE TWO PARCELS THAT WE'VE AGREED TO COME UNDER
UNIFIED SITE PLAN REVIEW.
ONE OF THOSE, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS BEFORE YOU THIS
EVENING LEGALLY UNDER THE SPECIAL USE, THAT'S THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTION WE FILED FOR THE SPECIAL USE, AND THAT
PROPERTY'S ZONED AI; THEREFORE, THAT REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE
TO BE FILED AND THE REASON WE'RE HERE.
THE SITE PLAN REFLECTS BOTH PARCELS, AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE
41
EASTERN TRACT AN ADDITIONAL PARCEL TO THE EAST THAT
PRIMARILY WILL ALLOW FOR FLOODPLAIN COMPENSATIONS AND
WETLAND AREAS, ALSO THE EASTERN DRIVE AISLE TO U.S. 92, AND
SOME BALL FIELD -- PARTIAL BALL FIELDS.
THAT IS, AS I SAID, ZONED CG, DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
IT'S PERMITTED BY A RIGHT FOR A CHARTER SCHOOL, BUT WE'RE
BINDING BOTH PARCELS.
THIS IS A K-8 SCHOOL.
THIS IS IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, MR. LUCE.
YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS GENERAL AREA, MANY CASES
OUT HERE.
I'VE REPRESENTED A NUMBER IN THE PAST.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE SMU-6 IN
THE COMP PLAN, AND A RURAL SERVICE AREA UNDER THE UTILITY
OPERATIONAL PROVISIONS.
WE THOUGHT AT ONE TIME WE WOULD EXTEND PUBLIC SEWER DUE TO
THE PROXIMITY.
WE THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE.
MY CLIENT WOULD HAVE EXPECTED AND PAID FOR THOSE COSTS, BUT
WE RAN INTO SOME ISSUES ON THOSE RURAL SERVICE AREA
POLICIES, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA EXTENSION OF LINES, AND
UNDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, WE CANNOT EXTEND THAT AND
COMMIT TO THAT, SO, THEREFORE, WHILE WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
PUBLIC SEWER, WE ARE GOING TO BE SERVED BY SEPTIC TANK AND
WELL, AND OUR APPLICATION IS CONDITIONED ACCORDINGLY.
WE DO HAVE SEPTIC TANK AND WELLS ON-SITE.
WE'VE ALSO NOTED ALL THE LOCATIONAL PROVISIONS FOR OFF-SITE
42
WELLS AND TO MAKE SURE WE MEET THOSE SEPARATION STANDARDS
AS WELL FROM RETENTION PONDS AND WETLAND AREAS.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT OUR DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH INDICATES THAT WE HAVE
APPROXIMATELY, UNDER THE FLOW CHARTS, ABOUT A 910, PLUS OR
MINUS, STUDENT CAPACITY UNDER EXISTING FLOW REQUIREMENTS,
SO WE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY THAT WE
WILL DO A FLOW ANALYSIS AFTER THE FIRST YEAR OR TWO OF THE
SCHOOL, AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND ADJUST ONCE WE KNOW
THE ACTUAL FLOW RATE PER STUDENT, AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT
WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THE 950.
THIS IS --
>>STEVE LUCE: HAVE YOU TALKED -- YOU HAVE A TEAM, AND
THERE'S A CIVIL ENGINEER THAT'S WORKING WITH YOU OR --
>> YES.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- THAT'S WORKING WITH THE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT?
>> YES.
>>STEVE LUCE: AND WHO IS THAT?
>> TONIGHT IT'S JEFF SOMERVILLE FROM McNEAL ENGINEERING.
>>STEVE LUCE: AND HE IS A PE?
>> HE IS A PE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> CHRIS McNEAL IS OUT OF TOWN, SO JEFF IS STANDING IN IN
HIS STEAD.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
43
SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE ADJUSTING THOSE FLOW
REQUIREMENTS AS WE GET INTO THE PROCESS IN A COUPLE YEARS.
I WILL ALSO MENTION, MR. LUCE, THAT WE HAVE A VERY TIGHT
TIME CONSTRAINT.
WE'RE HOPING TO OPEN IN FALL OF NEXT YEAR.
NOT TO APPEAR PRESUMPTION, BUT -- PRESUMPTUOUS, IN ORDER
FOR US TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALMOST A
SIMULTANEOUS PERMIT PROCESS, SO WE HAVE FILED FOR ALL
WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL LINES, WE HAVE FILED FOR DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH CAPACITY REVIEWS, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
U.S. -- FEDERAL -- OR FLORIDA D.O.T. ON THE ACCESS
MANAGEMENT OPERATION, SO WE HAVE BEEN UNDER REVIEW FOR A
NUMBER OF MONTHS ON THESE ISSUES.
WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT YOUR SPECIAL USE APPROVAL, BUT
I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE JUMPSTARTED THIS SO THAT WE
CAN HAVE AT LEAST A CHANCE TO MAKE THE FALL OPENING FOR
NEXT YEAR OF THIS SCHOOL.
THIS AREA, MR. LUCE, AS YOU KNOW, IS A MIXED-USE AREA.
WE HAVE AN AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION PLANT TO THE WEST,
CONVENIENCE STORES, U.S. 92 AS THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, HAS
LOTS OF THROUGH TRAFFIC VOLUME, McINTOSH, OF COURSE,
CONNECTIVITY TO I-4.
WE FEEL THAT THIS IS AN IDEAL OPPORTUNITY, IDEAL LOCATION
FOR A SCHOOL.
THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT THE FIRST SCHOOL IN THIS AREA.
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH STRAWBERRY CREST HIGH SCHOOL A LITTLE
FURTHER TO THE EAST AND THERE'S SOME OTHER SCHOOLS AS WELL
IN THE FOUR- OR FIVE-MILE RADIUS.
44
A PHYSICAL PLAN ITSELF OF THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO BE TWO
PHASES, PHASE ONE 700 STUDENTS, PHASE TWO 250 STUDENTS.
PHASE ONE IS ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THAT GRAPHIC THAT WE
PUT ON THE SCREEN.
IT'S A LARGER FOOTPRINT.
CUMULATIVELY, OVERALL, BOTH STRUCTURES, ABOUT 63,600 SQUARE
FEET, AND THAT EQUATES TO A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .11.
SO WELL UNDERUTILIZED IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL PROPERTY OF
THE 13.8 ACRES.
WE'RE ASKING FOR A TWO-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH,
BECAUSE OF SOME ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, WE'VE ASKED FOR AN
ALLOWANCE UP TO 50 FEET, AND THAT'S THE SAME HEIGHT MAXIMUM
THAT'S IN AI AS WELL AS CG, SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR
ANYTHING MORE.
WE HAVE REVIEWED SEVERAL ITERATIONS, MR. LUCE, ON THE
ACCESS.
I'M GOING TO LET MR. CALKINS DESCRIBE SOME OF THOSE
ITERATIONS FOR OPERATIONAL MOVEMENT CONCERNS ON-SITE.
THIS IS A SPLIT DISMISSAL AND ARRIVAL.
WE ARE LOOKING AT 8:15 TO 3:15 AND 8:45 TO 3:45 OUTSIDE OF
THE MORNING AND EVENING PEAK HOURS, AND MR. HENRY FROM
LINCKS & ASSOCIATES WILL BE ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES AS
WELL.
THIS COMES TO YOU WITH FULL SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, FULL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM PLANNING AND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I WASN'T AWARE OF ANY OBJECTIONS.
I HAD ONE CALL FROM A PROPERTY OWNER IN SUPPORT.
45
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE CONDITIONS.
I BELIEVE MR. HIZNAY IS GOING TO FILE AN AMENDED CONDITION
LISTED IN THE RECORD.
WE BELIEVE SIX INITIALLY IS A LITTLE TOO RESTRICTIVE ON
BACKING DOWN THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WE'RE SEEKING, BUT WE
UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S THERE, AND WE'RE NOT SPECIFICALLY
ASKING FOR THE REMOVAL.
AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO TURN THE PRESENTATION OVER TO
JEREMY CALKINS FROM CSA.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING.
I WASN'T SWORN IN.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
IF YOU COULD, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[PARTICIPANT SWORN IN]
OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
>> JEREMY CALKINS, 101 SOUTH COLLINS STREET, PLANT CITY.
MR. LUCE, OVER THE PAST FOUR AND A HALF YEARS, IT'S BEEN MY
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HANDLING OUR ON-SITE
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY.
I ACCOMPLISH THIS BY WORKING WITH OUR TEAM OF ENGINEERS AND
COUNTY STAFF TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL MITIGATE
IMPACTS TO OUR NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING
COMMUNITY.
46
CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE STILL RELATIVELY NEW TO OUR COMMUNITY,
AND WE'VE ALL LEARNED A LITTLE ALONG THE WAY, ESPECIALLY
WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC.
WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE OUR SYSTEMS
OF OPERATION, SPECIFICALLY OUR METHODOLOGIES TO THE
CIRCULATION PLAN AS WELL AS THE OVERALL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
PLAN.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL AT ALL SCHOOLS,
NOT JUST CHARTER SCHOOLS, ARE EVENTS, AND JUST LIKE ANY
OTHER EVENT, PROPER PLANNING WILL HELP ALLEVIATE POTENTIAL
CONCERNS.
WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE PLANNED PROPERLY FOR THE McINTOSH
ACADEMY, AND WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT OUR PROCEDURES FOR
ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL WILL BE HANDLED ON-SITE WITH
NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND HERE'S
WHY.
NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE SELF-REGULATED BY ADDING MORE QUEUE AND
MORE PARKING SPACES THAN IS REQUIRED BY CODE.
WE HAVE ASKED OUR ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE US WITH 62 MORE
SPACES THAN IS REQUIRED, AND WE BELIEVE THIS IS
SIGNIFICANT.
NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE ADDED A FREE-FLOW DESIGN FEATURE, THE
ROUNDABOUT, WHICH WILL ALLOW US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEND
VEHICLES THAT ARRIVE EARLY TO THE BACK OF QUEUE WITHOUT
FORCING THEM TO EXIT AND REENTER THE PROPERTY.
WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE ADDED OPTIONS THE ROUNDABOUT
CREATES FOR THE DAYTIME EVENTS, AS WE CAN ESSENTIALLY MOVE
CARS TO DIFFERENT SPOTS ON OUR PARKING LOT WITHOUT HAVING
47
ANY IMPACT ON U.S. 92 AND McINTOSH ROAD.
WE ARE VERY CONFIDENT IN THIS PLAN.
IT OFFERS MORE QUEUE, MORE PARKING, AND ON-SITE
MANEUVERABILITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND IF THERE'S NOT ANY QUESTIONS
FOR ME, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER,
MR. STEVE HENRY.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
>> GOOD EVENING.
STEVE HENRY, LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, 5023 WEST LAUREL.
WE CONDUCTED A DETAILED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THE PROJECT,
AND PART OF WHAT WE HAD DONE IS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS
WAS LOOKED AT THE EXISTING VOLUMES THAT WERE ON THE ROAD TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL TIMES, SO
WHAT WE'VE DONE IS TRIED TO MANIPULATE THE ARRIVAL AND
DISMISSAL TIMES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE PEAKS BASED ON THE
OTHER SCHOOLS THAT ARE IN THE AREA.
IT'S -- THAT'S WHY WE'VE COME UP WITH THE ARRIVAL AND
DISMISSAL TIMES THAT WE HAVE IN THE ANALYSIS, AND THEN
ALSO, WE'VE STAGGERED THE HOURS, SO INSTEAD OF HAVING 950
STUDENTS ALL ARRIVING AT ONE TIME, THEY'LL ACTUALLY BE
STAGGERED IN TWO DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS TO HELP SPREAD THAT
OUT OVER THE HOUR.
WE'VE ALSO MET WITH D.O.T. REGARDING THE ACCESS TO U.S. 92,
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM DURING THE
PERMITTING PROCESS TO DETERMINE GEOMETRY, WHAT'S NEEDED,
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE PERMIT FOR THAT.
48
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, UNLESS YOU'VE GOT ANY
QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: JUST -- JUST ONE QUESTION.
IF -- IF THERE'S A NEED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING ON OPEN HOUSES
OR SPECIAL EVENTS, IS THERE ANY WAY THEY'D BE ABLE TO PARK
IN THEIR BALL FIELDS?
IS THAT --
>> I'LL LET MR. -- YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT ONE?
>> THAT WILL BE MR. SOMERVILLE, MR. LUCE, WHO IS NOT A PE.
I STAND CORRECTED.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
JEFF SOMERVILLE WITH McNEAL ENGINEERING, 15957 NORTH
FLORIDA AVE., LUTZ, FLORIDA.
THERE IS --
>>STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, ARE YOU A CIVIL
ENGINEER?
>> I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.
I'M NOT A PE.
I'M A DESIGN DRAFTER FOR McNEAL ENGINEERING.
CHRIS McNEAL IS THE ENGINEER.
HE'S OUT OF TOWN.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
>> THERE IS OPTION ON THE PLAN FOR PARKING OF A PORTION OF
THAT SOCCER FIELD THAT --
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
49
>> -- SEPTIC -- SEPTIC SYSTEM WOULD BE BENEATH ANOTHER
PORTION, SO THAT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OVERFLOW
PARKING.
>>STEVE LUCE: SO YOU HAVE LOOKED AT WHERE YOU COULD PUT
OVERFLOW PARKING IN THE EVENT OF AN OPEN HOUSE FOR THE
SCHOOL?
>> WE HAVEN'T LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT IT, BUT WE'VE -- WE'VE
DONE THAT IN THE PAST ON OTHERS, BUT I KNOW --
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.
>> -- THAT THIS SITE THAT THE FULL FIELD WILL NOT BE
AVAILABLE BUT PORTIONS WOULD BE, YES.
>>STEVE LUCE: HOW BIG WOULD THE SEPTIC TANK DRAINFIELD
NEED TO BE, DO YOU KNOW?
>> THE SIZE WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE ABOUT A THIRD OF THE
FIELD RUNNING RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD.
I DON'T KNOW EXACT NUMBERS.
IT'S 65 FEET IN LENGTH, WHICH WOULD BE ORIENTED NORTH TO
SOUTH, AND THEN IT WOULD RUN FROM THE WESTERN END LINE TO
APPROXIMATELY THE -- THE EASTERN GOALIE BOX OR SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN THE GOALIE BOX AND THAT NEXT PLAY LINE.
>>STEVE LUCE: COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR, COULD YOU PULL A
GRAPHIC OF THE SITE PLAN UP.
I THINK THERE'S ONE ON THE ELMO.
CAN YOU JUST GENERALLY POINT TO THE LOCATION OF THOSE
SEPTIC TANK DRAINFIELDS ON THE GRAPHIC?
>> THE SEPTIC -- THANK YOU.
THE FIELD WOULD RUN APPROXIMATELY FROM THIS END LINE.
IT WOULD -- THE SOUTHERN LIMITS WOULD BE ROUGHLY HERE, THE
50
NORTHERN LIMIT'S ROUGHLY HERE, AND THEY WOULD EXTEND TO
APPROXIMATELY THIS LINE -- OOPS -- EXCUSE ME -- IT'S
STICKING DOWN -- APPROXIMATELY THIS LINE HERE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
SO IT WOULD RUN ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE FIELD?
>> ALMOST -- ALMOST THE LENGTH OF THE FIELD, YES, SIR.
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.
OKAY.
I GET THE IDEA.
ALL RIGHT.
MR. HORNER, ANYTHING ELSE?
>> MR. LUCE, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT GRAPH IF I COULD A
LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE HAVE A PLAN.
TYPICALLY WE STAGGER OUR EVENTS, AND IF YOU NOTICE ON THE
GRAPH, HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ARE THE EXTRA SPACES THAT I
REFERRED TO DURING MY PRESENTATION.
ALSO, DURING EVENTS, IF YOU NOTICE, THOSE ARE DRIVE AISLES,
SO WE WOULD STACK THE CARS THERE FOR EVENTS AS WELL.
SO WE HAVE 62 EXTRA SPACES THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED, AND THEN
WE CAN ALSO USE THOSE DRIVE AISLES THERE FOR EVENT PARKING.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> AND THEN WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL I BELIEVE IT'S CLOSE TO
900 LINEAR FEET OF QUEUE THAT WE COULD USE AS WELL.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT?
>> YES, SIR.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
51
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. LUCE.
NOT ONLY HAVE WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, WE HAVE PREPARED ABOUT
17 ITERATIONS, SO I THINK THE CONCERN STAFF WAS HAVING IS
THAT WE HAD PRODUCED SO MUCH DETAIL, IT BECAME
OVERWHELMING.
WE BACKED OUT.
WE AGREED TO LET THAT GO ON TO THE CIRCULATION PERMITTING.
I'M GOING TO FILE A FEW OF THOSE ITERATIONS IN THE RECORD
SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT HAS BEEN THOUGHT OUT AND
CONTEMPLATED.
WE ARE MORE THAN CONFIDENT THAT ADEQUATE QUEUE IS GOING TO
BE AVAILABLE, AND WE HAVE PARKING FOR OVERFLOW AS WELL, SO
IMMENSE THOUGHT AND PREPARATION HAS GONE INTO THIS -- GONE
INTO THIS, MR. LUCE.
A NUMBER OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH EFFORTS ON THE PRIOR SCHOOL
CSA OPERATES, VIDEOTAPING, ON-SITE MANEUVERING, THEY HAVE
EMPLOYEES, TWO-WAY WALKIE-TALKIES ON-SITE, SO THIS IS DOWN
TO ALMOST A SCIENCE.
AND HAD TO I PULL MR. CALKINS BACK BECAUSE HE WANTED TO
SPEAK FOR AT LEAST A HALF HOUR ON THOSE SPECIFIC OPERATION
GOALS, BUT WE ARE HERE FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW THE DESIGN PERMITTING SIDE, WE HAVE A
NUMBER OF ITERATIONS UNDER REVIEW THAT HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED
BY STAFF.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
>> THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION, MR. LUCE.
52
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>TOM HIZNAY: GOOD MORNING -- EXCUSE ME -- GOOD EVENING,
MR. HEARING MASTER.
TOM HIZNAY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
AS MENTIONED BY MR. HORNER, I HAVE SOME REVISED CONDITIONS.
THE MAIN REVISION IS IN CONDITION 6.
I'LL EXPLAIN THAT CHANGE IN A MINUTE.
THERE'S ALSO A COUPLE OF CHANGES FOR SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL
ERRORS.
MR. HORNER DID A GOOD JOB DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF THE
PROJECT AND WHY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ONLY COVERS HALF OF
THE SITE.
I'M JUST -- AND THE STAFF REPORT IS SELF-EXPLANATORY, SO
I'M JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES.
ONE YOU'VE KIND OF ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IS WASTEWATER
FOR THE SITE.
IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, IT'S
ANTICIPATED THAT THIS SITE WILL USE OR REQUIRE THE LARGEST
SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT CAN BE PERMITTED BY THE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS A 10,000-GALLON SYSTEM, THAT
POTENTIALLY IS ADEQUATE FOR THE FULL ENROLLMENT OF 950
STUDENTS, BUT IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
THAT DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE SCHOOL OPERATION,
SUCH AS IF IT INCLUDES FOOD SERVICE, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT
IT WOULD AFFECT THE NUMBER; THEREFORE, YOU'LL SEE IN OUR
53
CONDITIONS THAT WHILE THE SCHOOL'S CAPPED AT 950 STUDENTS,
WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS THAT WILL BE
PERMITTED THERE ARE GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON TWO THINGS,
AND ONE OF THEM IS ADEQUATE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE,
SO THEY'RE NOT GUARANTEED 950, AND AS -- DURING THE SPECIAL
USE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HEALTH
DEPARTMENT STAFF, BUT THEY SAID THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE
FOR THEM TO MAKE ANY KIND OF FIRM DECISION ON THE NUMBER
THAT COULD BE ACCOMMODATED ON THE SITE UNTIL SUCH TIME THEY
ACTUALLY FILE FOR A SEPTIC TANK PERMIT, BECAUSE I IMAGINE
THERE'S A LOT OF ENGINEERING AND THINGS LIKE THAT INVOLVED.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU KNOW, THEY THOUGHT THAT THE
SITE WOULD, INDEED, HAVE ADEQUATE -- ADEQUATE AREA FOR THE
SEPTIC DRAINAGE FIELD AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO -- BUT
AGAIN, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE CONDITIONS SPECIFICALLY STATE
THAT THEY'RE NOT GUARANTEED TO ACHIEVE 950.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>>TOM HIZNAY: THE SECOND BIG ISSUE THAT WAS REVIEWED HERE
AND EMERGED REALLY AS A PRIMARY ISSUE WAS TRANSPORTATION,
PARTICULARLY DEALING WITH ON-SITE QUEUING AND CIRCULATION
PATTERN.
AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE RECORD
IS OF THE ON-SITE QUEUE LANES FOR THE SITE IS NOT ANYWHERE
NEAR ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT 950 STUDENTS ARRIVING AT THE SAME
TIME, SO IT WAS QUICKLY IDENTIFIED THAT A -- WHAT'S CALLED
A SPLIT START AND DISMISSAL PLAN WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS
SCHOOL, AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE REVIEW, A NUMBER OF
ON-SITE CIRCULATION PATTERNS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE
54
APPLICANT.
ORIGINALLY THOSE WERE FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE BY OUR
TRANSPORTATION STAFF, BUT AS THE PROCESS EVOLVED, THEY THEN
DID COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND SHOWN ON THE
OCTOBER 10th SITE PLAN, WHICH IS THE SPECIAL USE PLAN
THAT'S REFERENCED IN THESE CONDITIONS.
AND IN CONDITION 6 -- AND THIS IS THE MAIN CHANGE, BUT IT'S
NOT REALLY SIGNIFICANT -- IT ACTUALLY REFERENCES THE ON-
SITE CIRCULATION PLAN DATED 10/11/2013, AND -- I GUESS THAT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN 10/10, I'M SORRY, BUT SUBSEQUENT TO THAT,
THEY ACTUALLY SUBMITTED ANOTHER CIRCULATION PLAN, AND SO WE
DECIDED LET'S NOT REFERENCE ANY DATE --
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>>TOM HIZNAY: -- LET'S JUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT A
CIRCULATION PLAN AND SPLIT ARRIVAL/DISMISSAL PLAN
ACCEPTABLE TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MUST BE SUBMITTED AND
THAT THE ACTUAL ENROLLMENT, AGAIN, MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE 950
STUDENTS, DEPENDING ON THAT PLAN.
THE IMPORTANT THING IS IS THAT BY THE TIME OF THE
CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIAL USE REVIEW, THE APPLICANT HAD
SUCCESSFULLY SUBMITTED A CIRCULATION PLAN THAT
TRANSPORTATION STAFF FELT THEN VERY COMFORTABLE IN
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
THAT YOU FIND.
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.
>>TOM HIZNAY: OKAY.
WHEREAS EARLIER IN THE PROCESS, THE CIRCULATION PLANS THEY
HAD SUBMITTED, TRANSPORTATION STAFF WAS NOT COMFORTABLE
55
WITH THEM AT ALL.
SO TRANSPORTATION STAFF, AGAIN, DOES NOT OBJECT, SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS YOU SEE, AND, AGAIN, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO
HAVE THE CIRCULATION PLAN.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
>>TOM HIZNAY: WITH GENERAL COMPATIBILITY -- YOU'VE BEEN IN
THE AREA -- AS MR. HORNER STATED, IT'S SURROUNDED BY
AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL USES FOR THE MOST PART, SO WE
HAVE NO GENERAL COMPATIBILITY ISSUES.
WE FIND THAT THE APPLICATION ALSO MEETS THE COUPLE CRITERIA
THAT'S IN THE CODE FOR ELEMENTARY -- I MEAN, I'M SORRY, FOR
CHARTER SCHOOLS, WHICH ARE CONSIDERED PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND
ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE CRITERIA DOESN'T EVEN APPLY, AND THEN
THE OTHER ONE DEALS WITH THE LOCATION OF THE PLAYGROUND,
AND WE FIND THAT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA IN THE CODE, SO WE
FIND THIS APPROVABLE, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M
AVAILABLE.
>>STEVE LUCE: NO.
THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN A SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6
FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE RURAL AREA.
THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE, ALLOWING A CHARTER SCHOOL, WOULD
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES.
IT IS UNIQUELY LOCATED IN THE RURAL AREA AND SMU-6 FUTURE
56
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, AND THE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO
IS WELL BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED WITHIN THE SMU-6 FUTURE
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.
CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE DEFINED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS
RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USES AND CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE
SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.
DUE TO THE ISOLATED NATURE OF THE SITE, THE PROPOSED USE
WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
GOOD EVENING.
>> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME'S IAN WEITZ, 3014 VIA SIENA STREET, PLANT CITY,
FLORIDA 33566.
I AM CURRENTLY THE BOARD CHAIRMAN FOR THE SCHOOL, AND I
JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> WE HAVE UNDERGONE OR ARE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A VERY
STRICT TIMELINE FOR OUR SCHOOL TO BE BUILT.
WE WERE GIVEN A YEAR TIME TO BE OPEN IN AUGUST.
LIKE THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE ARE
57
GOING IN PARALLEL WITH PERMITTING AND SUCH.
WE KNOW AND HAVE -- THE BOARD ITSELF HAS DISCUSSED THE
TRAFFIC ISSUE, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN AMONGST THE
COMMUNITY AND WITH THE SCHOOL, THE FACULTY, AND THE BOARD
MEMBERS AS WELL.
WE HAVE BOARD MEMBERS WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA ALSO.
AS DISCUSSED, BECAUSE WE ARE A CHARTER SCHOOL, WE ARE RUN A
LITTLE BIT MORE INDEPENDENTLY THAN A STANDARD PUBLIC
SYSTEM, MEANING THAT WE CAN OFFSET OUR HOURS, WHICH, AS YOU
SEE, WE ARE WITH A SPLIT ARRIVAL AND SPLIT DISMISSAL.
THOSE TIMES ARE AFTER YOUR NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS,
ESPECIALLY WITH A STRAWBERRY CREST HIGH SCHOOL BEING THERE
THAT WILL START AT 7:30, THE BAILEY ELEMENTARY WHICH STARTS
AT 8:00, SO WE ARE OFFSETTING OUR HOURS ENOUGH TO WHERE WE
WILL NOT INTERRUPT WITH THOSE TRAFFIC DENSITIES FOR THOSE
SCHOOLS, AS WELL AS HAVING THE TWO ENTRY AND EXIT POINTS
FROM McINTOSH AND FROM 92.
THE QUEUING SHOULD HELP.
WE HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM OUR SCHOOL.
YOU KNOW, WE ARE MOVING TO A -- TO A NEW LOCATION, AND WE
FEEL THAT THE -- THE SCHOOL AND THE STUDENTS' WELFARE AND
EDUCATION CAN OUTWEIGH SOME OF THE TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT, YOU
KNOW, MAY BE BROUGHT UP TO YOUR ATTENTION, AND WITH
EVERYTHING THAT THE CSA IN THE JOURNEY HAS DONE FOR US, WE
ARE NOT CONCERNED.
WE ARE VERY -- WE THINK THAT THE TRAFFIC ISSUE AND THE FLOW
WILL BE FINE, AND AS YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, SEEN ON THE PLANS, I
THINK WE SHOULD BE OKAY.
58
AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PARENTS FROM THE PTA.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANT TO SPEAK, IF YOU WANT TO HEAR
FROM THEM.
THEY ARE PARENTS, NOT MEMBERS OR FACULTY AND NOT THE SCHOOL
BOARD, BUT TO SHOW OUR SUPPORT AS WELL.
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.
THEY STOOD UP EARLIER AND WERE RECOGNIZED --
>> THEY DID.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- BUT I'LL ASK IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO
SPEAK.
>> SO WITH THAT SAID, I -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE
THE SCHOOL MOVED, HAVE A PERMANENT BUILDING.
OUR SCHOOL'S IN PORTABLES, LEASED PROPERTY.
WE ARE BEING REQUIRED TO MOVE, AND ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE UNDER
A VERY STRICT TIMELINE.
IF THAT IS TO HAPPEN, THEN I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE'RE GOING
TO BE AT FROM THERE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, SIR.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
>> LET ME JUST CLARIFY.
I DIDN'T WANT TO RUN UP HERE.
59
IT'S TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.
WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT AT ALL, BUT
I DO AGREE WITH THE CONCERNS SAID ABOUT THE PARKING, AND I
JUST WANT TO PLACE IT ON RECORD THAT WE DO HAVE SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING AND QUEUING AND ALL OF THAT.
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.
>> WE HAVE EIGHT SCHOOLS WITHIN A THREE-MILE STRETCH OF
ROAD, AND SINCE CHARTER SCHOOLS CAN OPEN JUST ABOUT
ANYWHERE ANY MORE NOW, ANY SCHOOL REALLY, IF WE KEEP ADDING
AND ADDING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REAL BACKLOG.
WE'VE HAD SOME HORRENDOUS EXPERIENCES WITH THE SCHOOLS.
IT'S NOT JUST CHARTER SCHOOLS, IT'S ALL SCHOOLS, SO I JUST
WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> I GUESS THERE -- ONE CLARITY I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, AND I
CAN ASK MIKE ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE
ISN'T AN APPLICATION IN AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THIS
SCHOOL YET, SO THAT WOULD PRECLUDE, IN MY MIND, OPENING FOR
-- I THINK THE DEADLINE WAS AUGUST FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS, BUT
THERE COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON THAT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT.
THANKS.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
>>BRIAN GRADY: MS. FLOTT, YOU NEED TO -- MS. FLOTT, YOU
NEED TO SIGN IN.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
60
SORRY.
>>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING.
>> GOOD EVENING.
ELIZABETH BELCHER, POST OFFICE BOX 739, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.
MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE SEWER LINES.
WHEN STRAWBERRY -- THE STRAWBERRY HILL CREST -- STRAWBERRY
COMPLEX, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GRADE SCHOOL, MIDDLE
SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL, WAS BUILT, THE DED -- THE LINES WERE
SUPPOSED TO BE STRICTLY DEDICATED FOR THAT.
NO ONE ELSE WAS SUPPOSED TO TAP INTO THAT.
AND NOW I'M -- I DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE
SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO TAP -- TAP INTO
THAT BECAUSE -- I MEAN, I REALIZE THAT THIS IS A VERY GOOD
IDEA, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE GOOD IDEA, IT'S JUST THE
IDEA OF BEING -- GIVING THEM AUTHORIZATION TO DO SOMETHING
THAT WE AGREED WHEN STRAWBERRY CREST WAS FIRST BUILT THAT
IT WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, AND I'M AFRAID --
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, STAFF'S PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THIS
PROPOSED CHARTER SCHOOL WILL NOT BE ON PUBLIC WATER OR
PUBLIC SEWER.
>> OH, WELL, AT SOME POINT OR OTHER IN TIME, THEY MAY COME
BACK AND ASK FOR A REQUEST TO TAP INTO THE STRAWBERRY HILL
CREST LINE, AND I WISH TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR THAT IT
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT ONCE WE
START ONE PROJECT, WE'RE GOING TO START GOING DOWN TO A
SLIPPERY SLOPE.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
61
FAIR ENOUGH.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
NO.
AND THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. LUCE.
MICHAEL HORNER, AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD.
WE APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF MS. FLOTT AND MS. BELCHER AS
WELL.
I'M GOING TO HAVE MIKE STRADER FROM CSA ADDRESS MS. FLOTT'S
SPECIFIC CONCERN IN A MOMENT.
YOU ALREADY ADDRESSED MS. BELCHER'S CONCERN REGARDING WE
ARE NOT AND HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT REQUEST THAT PUBLIC SEWER
CONNECTION.
WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE AT ONE TIME, BUT WE
PRECLUDED THAT OPTION AND REMOVED IT FROM OUR PLANS.
MR. LUCE, I'M GOING TO FILE INTO THE RECORD, AGAIN, AS I
NOTED BEFORE, SEVERAL ITERATIONS, ALSO THE ITERATION NOTING
THE OVERFLOW PARKING THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT MR. SOMERVILLE
MADE REFERENCE TO, AND ALSO AN E-MAIL TRAIL BETWEEN TOM
LaFOUNTAIN OF EPC AND OUR STAFF -- ACTUALLY
MR. McNEAL'S STAFF, ADDRESSING THE WETLAND PERMIT APPROVAL
HAD ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED AND NO OBJECTIONS FROM THEM.
I KNOW THE REPORT SAYS, SUBJECT TO, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW
THAT WE HAVE GONE ALREADY DOWN THAT LINE, AND AS OF THE END
OF LAST WEEK, THEY HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR HELP, WE APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE
62
ON THIS.
I WOULD ONLY EMPHASIZE THAT BEHIND THE SCENES WE HAVE DONE
MUCH AND WE HAVE NARROWED THIS PRESENTATION ONLY DOWN TO
THE 14.5 MINUTES TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA THAT WE HAVE WORKED
THROUGH ALL THOSE ISSUES, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU, AS
MR. HIZNAY INDICATED, RIGHT UP TO THE WIRE WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH ALL THE ENGINEERING STAFF, ALL THE PERMITTING
STAFF, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, FDOT, ENGINEERING, AND EPC AS
WELL, SO WE HAVE THE SOLUTIONS.
WE KNOW IT CAN BE PERMITABLE.
I'M GOING TO HAVE MR. STRADER JUST BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE
SCHOOL BOARD CLASSIFICATION OF THIS SCHOOL.
THANK YOU, MR. LUCE, FOR YOUR TIME.
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
GOOD EVENING.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
MY NAME IS MIKE STRADER.
I'M PRESIDENT OF CHARTER SCHOOL ASSOCIATES WITH AN ADDRESS
AT 12524 WEST ATLANTIC BOULEVARD, CORAL SPRINGS, FLORIDA
33071.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK WITH US AS
APPLICANTS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'VE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND
HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH US, AND THAT'S BEEN MUCH
APPRECIATED.
MS. FLOTT MENTIONED THAT SHE WASN'T AWARE OF A CHARTER
63
SCHOOL APPLICATION BEING FILED WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD OF
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT WOULD GO AT THIS LOCATION, AND
THAT'S BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXISTING SCHOOL THAT WOULD BE
MOVED TO THE NORTH -- NORTHEAST CORNER OF 92 AND McINTOSH,
AND THAT SCHOOL'S A KINDERGARTEN THROUGH AN 8th-GRADE
SCHOOL, SO WE WOULD BE MOVING ONE -- THAT SCHOOL, AND
THAT'S WHY THE BOARD CHAIR TALKED SO MUCH ABOUT THE
TIMELINE AND THERE BEING NO BACKUP PLAN SHOULD THIS NOT GO
THROUGH.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU, SIR.
ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,
WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT PORTION OF THE AGENDA ARE THE
REZONING ITEMS, SO WE'LL NEED TO HEAR FROM THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING THE PROCEDURES THAT GOVERN THE
REZONING ITEMS.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
>>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
64
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 CLOSE 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 FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH
PETITION HEARD TONIGHT ON NOVEMBER THE 12th.
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 NOVEMBER THE 22nd.
TONIGHT'S PETITIONS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD
AT THE BOARD'S DECEMBER THE 10th LAND USE MEETING.
THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER ONLY THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S
HEARING AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING MASTER IN
RENDERING ITS DECISION.
PLEASE NOTE THAT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS MUST BE RESPONSIVE
TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION.
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.
65
A PARTY OF RECORD IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FITS INTO AT LEAST
ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR CATEGORIES: FIRST, AN INDIVIDUAL
WHO IS PRESENT TONIGHT AND PRESENTS ORAL TESTIMONY OR
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; SECOND, AN INDIVIDUAL CERTIFIED BY
THE U.S. 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 THAT THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT,
PARTIES OF RECORD WHO HAVE FILED RESPONSIVE, TIMELY
REQUESTS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD CLEARLY INDICATE WHY ORAL
ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS AT LEAST ONE OF THE
FOLLOWING FOUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES: NUMBER ONE, TO RESOLVE
AMBIGUITIES IN THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; NUMBER TWO,
TO UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST TO ENTER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INTO
THE RECORD; NUMBER THREE, A MISTAKE IN THE HEARING MASTER'S
RECOMMENDATION; OR FOUR, TO ADDRESS A MATTER THAT WAS
INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT BUT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN
THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION.
THE SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE CONTENT
OF THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED VERBALLY OR
IN WRITING TO THE HEARING MASTER TONIGHT.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S ROLE IS TO ENSURE THAT ONLY
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MET THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO
SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD AND THAT NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY
66
IS NOT INTRODUCED OR ALLOWED AT THE PUBLIC MEETING.
FOR THESE REASONS, PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT
YOU DESIRE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AT THE PUBLIC MEETING IS
PLACED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. WHITEHEAD.
AND MR. GRADY, INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM, THEN, IS AGENDA ITEM I-7,
REZONING APPLICATION 13-0695.
THE APPLICANT'S TODD PRESSMAN.
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL RDC-6, WHICH IS A
DUPLEX CONVENTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT, TO RMC-9 WITH
RESTRICTIONS.
THIS IS A MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.
MICHELLE HEINRICH, WITH COUNTY STAFF, WILL PROVIDE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
APPLICANT, PLEASE.
>> MR. HEARING OFFICER, MY NAME IS TODD PRESSMAN, 334 EAST
LAKE ROAD, SUITE -- OR ITEM -- SUITE NUMBER 102 IN PALM
HARBOR, FLORIDA.
THIS IS A REQUEST THAT ACTUALLY STARTED AT A COMMERCIAL
LEVEL TO MATCH THE SELF-STORAGE, WHICH IS ABUTTING ON THE
SOUTH, SO AFTER HEARING A LOT FROM THE STAFF AND HEARING
FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DID A SIGNIFICANT ABOUT FACE, AND
WE'RE HERE FOR A REQUEST THIS EVENING FROM RDC-6 TO RMC-9
WITH SOME PRETTY HARD-HITTING, SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS.
67
THE FIRST ONE, RESTRICT THE SITE TO A TOTAL OF 36
MULTIFAMILY UNITS; SECONDLY, WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL SCREENING ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE --
PROPERTY LINE; PROVIDE BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPING ALONG
TAYLOR ROAD; AND PROHIBIT ANY FENCES OR WALLS WITH THE
BUFFER ALONG TAYLOR ROAD.
DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THIS VERY POSITIVELY.
TRANSPORTATION REVIEWED IT AND HAS NO OBJECTION.
THEY REPORT TO YOU THAT THE INCREASED TRIPS IS ABOUT 17
COMPARED TO WHAT'S PERMITTED THERE TODAY.
ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL RESOURCES INDICATES NO WETLANDS OR
OTHER SURFACE WATERS.
NATURAL RESOURCES HAS ALSO PROVIDED A POSITIVE REPORT.
YOUR ZONING STAFF WILL TELL YOU IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY
THAT THE SITE IS COMPATIBLE, AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS
SWITCH OVER TO THE OVERVIEW HERE FOR A MOMENT, IF I MAY.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> SO THE SITE -- THE SITE IS IN YELLOW, AS YOU CAN SEE
HERE, AND TO THE SOUTH IS A SELF-STORAGE.
THIS IS ANOTHER COMMERCIAL USE.
ADJOINING OR ABUTTING ON THE EAST IS A SHOPPING CENTER --
SUPER MARKET AND SHOPPING CENTER.
ALSO TO THE EAST IS RDC-12.
SO AS YOUR STAFFS HAVE POINTED OUT TO YOU, IT CLEARLY IS A
GOOD TRANSITIONAL SITE TO THE LESSER ZONING FURTHER IN.
IT'S A SITE THAT WOULD PROVIDE BUFFERING TO THESE MORE
INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES AND ADJOINS MUCH HIGHER DENSITY,
AND CLEARLY, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RESTRICTIONS, WHAT'S
68
PROPOSED IS VIRTUALLY, IN TERMS OF DENSITY, THE SAME THAT
WOULD BE PERMITTED TODAY.
>>STEVE LUCE: MR. PRESSMAN, HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU THINK
THEY COULD BUILD TODAY UNDER EXISTING ZONING, JUST A
BALLPARK?
>> IN TERMS OF PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER OF THE SITE
PLAN, I REALLY DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT FOR YOU.
WE LOOKED AT THIS STRICTLY AS EUCLIDEAN, SO I DON'T HAVE AN
ANSWER FOR YOU.
WE'VE RESTRICTED IT TO THE NUMBER AS PER IN THE STAFF
REPORTS TO YOU.
AND THEN I WOULD JUST BRIEFLY SAY THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, THEY REFER TO THE COMPATIBILITY
FACTORS IN MOST OF THE MANNER THAT I INDICATED AND THEIR
OPINIONS IN THAT RESPECT, AND THEY LIST A NUMBER OF THE
DIFFERENT POLICIES THAT WE MEET, WHICH WE AGREE WITH, ALSO,
AS WELL AS THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THEY REPORT TO
YOU THAT, AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS VERY SIMILAR TO
WHAT COULD OCCUR THERE.
THE ONLY, REALLY, DIFFERENCE IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER
BUILDING.
IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER THEM FOR YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING.
>>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING.
69
>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES.
AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THIS A STANDARD REZONING WITH
RESTRICTIONS.
THE PROPERTY'S CURRENTLY ZONED RDC-6, THAT'S RESIDENTIAL
DUPLEX CONVENTIONAL, AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO GO TO
RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY CONVENTIONAL, RMC-9, WITH THE FOUR
RESTRICTIONS THAT MR. PRESSMAN OUTLINED.
THE SITE IS 5.54 ACRES IN SIZE, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
TAYLOR ROAD, ABOUT 500 FEET NORTH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
BOULEVARD, AND CURRENTLY, THE SITE IS VACANT, BUT THERE IS
A HOME ON IT THAT ISN'T USED.
AND AS I STATED, THERE ARE FOUR RESTRICTIONS BEING
PROPOSED, A MAXIMUM OF 36 UNITS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
SCREENING ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, TO PROVIDE
BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPING ALONG TAYLOR ROAD, AND TO
PROHIBIT ANY FENCES OR WALLS WITHIN THAT BUFFER ALONG
TAYLOR ROAD.
TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, AND THEY
DO NOT OBJECT TO THE REZONING.
AS MR. PRESSMAN STATED, WHEN THEY COMPARED THE CURRENT
ENTITLEMENTS UNDER RDC-6 COMPARED TO ALLOWING A MAXIMUM OF
36 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WHAT THEY FOUND IS A DIFFERENCE WAS
17 TRIPS WITH A MAXIMUM A.M. AND P.M. OF TWO TRIPS, AND
THAT'S OUTLINED IN OUR REPORT.
THEY DO NOTE THAT THAT MAY BE LOWER BECAUSE THAT IS JUST
BASED ON 36, AND AS YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO IN THROUGH SITE
DEVELOPMENT, ROADS, STORMWATER PONDS, OTHER FEATURES LIKE
70
BUFFERING MAY TAKE UP SOME OF THAT AREA, SO THEY DO
RECOGNIZE THAT IT COULD BE LOWER THAN THAT, AND THEY WILL
ASSESS THAT AT SITE DEVELOPMENT STAGE.
EPC, TAMPA BAY WATER, AND NATURAL RESOURCES HAVE REVIEWED
THIS AND OFFER NO OBJECTIONS.
STORMWATER HAS ALSO REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, AND THEY ARE
HERE TONIGHT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN
APPROACHED BY SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE STORMWATER
CONCERNS.
STORMWATER'S AWARE OF THOSE, AND THEY'VE EXPLAINED TO STAFF
AND THE CITIZENS THAT THAT IS EVALUATED DURING SITE
DEVELOPMENT, AND MR. CABRERA IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TOO MUCH FOR HIS STUFF BECAUSE I'M
NOT VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THAT AND DON'T WANT TO GO OFF
BASE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE RES-9, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE
LOOKING AT THE RMC-9.
PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FOUND THIS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE RESTRICTIONS WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND I DID WANT TO GO OVER SOME INFORMATION ON
COMPATIBILITY, AND I WANTED TO PUT UP A COPY OF THE ZONING
MAP ON THE ELMO.
THE SUBJECT AREA IS IN BLUE, AND THEN THAT SHOWS YOU SOME
OF THE DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY THAT YOU SEE GOING ON AS WELL
AS THE ZONING DISTRICTS AROUND THE SITE.
AS YOU'LL SEE, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF USES FOUND AROUND THE
71
SITE, WHICH MR. PRESSMAN DISCUSSED.
THERE IS A COMMERCIAL ALONG THE SOUTH, AND THAT IS A MINI
WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND A BANK.
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND WEST
ACROSS TAYLOR ROAD.
TO THE EAST OF THE SITE IT IS ABUTTING COMMERCIAL AND TWO-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, THE
SHOPPING CENTER THAT MR. PRESSMAN SHOWED YOU, AND THEN TO
THE NORTH OF THAT IS A DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S A TWO-STORY DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE GENERAL AREA TO THE NORTH IS ZONED
RDC-6, AND THAT ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY
AND TWO-FAMILY.
IN LOOKING AT THE HISTORY OF THE AREA, BECAUSE SOME
RESIDENTS DID EXPRESS HOW THINGS HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME,
WHAT WE FOUND IS WHEN LOOKING AT THE '73 AND '66 ZONING
MAPS, IT WAS ZONED R-2, SO AS FAR BACK AS THE '60s IT IS
THE SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY TYPE OF USES THAT HAVE
BEEN DEVELOPED AND APPROVED IN THAT AREA.
PROPERTY TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH AND NORTHWEST -- YOU SEE
THOSE LONG RECTANGULAR LOTS IMMEDIATELY NORTH AND WEST OF
THAT, THOSE WERE -- THOSE ARE LARGER LOT SIZES.
THEY'RE ABOUT 2.4 ACRES IN SIZE, AND THEY WERE DEVELOPED
WITH SINGLE-FAMILY, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE AN RDC-6, AND THAT
DEVELOPED -- MOST OF THOSE WERE DEVELOPED IN THE 1970s.
FURTHER NORTH, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD, IS A
SUBDIVISION, I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED OAK VALLEY, WHICH HAS
7,000-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS, IN THAT AREA.
72
AND THEN FURTHER UP ON THE ZONING MAP, YOU'LL SEE SIX LOTS
THAT WERE ZONED RMC-6, AND THAT ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY, BUT
CURRENTLY THEY ARE USED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY.
AND FROM WHAT WE SAW, THE AREA FURTHER TO THE NORTH, AUBURN
LANE, WHICH IS AT THE VERY TOP FURTHER NORTHWARD TO OLD
HILLSBOROUGH AVENUE WEST, IS WHERE WE FOUND MORE OF THE
LOWER-INTENSITY ZONING, RSC-2, 3, AND THE AG ZONINGS.
AS YOU SAW, THERE ARE THE MOST INTENSE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOP -- OR THE MOST INTENSE USES ARE FOUND ALONG THE
SOUTH WITH THE COMMERCIAL, AND TO THE SOUTHWEST, THAT AREA
IS USED FOR DUPLEX AND SINGLE-FAMILY.
IT TOO HAS THE RDC-6.
IT'S A VERY OLD PLATTED SUBDIVISION, 50-FOOT-WIDE LOTS.
SOME HAVE DEVELOPED AS SINGLE-FAMILY AND SOME HAVE
DEVELOPED WITH DUPLEX.
AND AS MR. PRESSMAN STATED, RIGHT NOW THE PROPERTY CAN BE
DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE-FAMILY OR TWO-FAMILY UP TO SIX UNITS
PER ACRE, AND WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY,
WHICH THE CODE SPECIFIES AS THREE OR MORE UNITS.
SO THAT COULD BE TOWNHOMES, IT COULD BE APARTMENTS, YOU
KNOW, ANY OF THOSE QUADRUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR EVEN -- IT COULD
STILL BE DEVELOPED AS A DUPLEX BECAUSE IT DOES ALLOW THE
LOWER INTENSITIES.
AND WITH THE REZONING, THE RMC-9 STANDARDS WOULD BE
APPLICABLE, AND THOSE ARE ACTUALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN
THE RDC-6 OR THEY'RE THE SAME.
UNDER RMC-9, THE SETBACKS ARE THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE SIDE
YARD, WHICH INCREASES FROM 7.5 TO 10; HOWEVER, WHEN IT IS
73
DEVELOPED WITH MULTIFAMILY, BUFFERING AND SCREENING COMES
INTO PLAY AND ALSO AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK WHEN THEY GO OVER
20 FEET IN HEIGHT.
THE RDC-6 ALSO ALLOWS THE -- THEY HAVE THE SAME MAXIMUM
HEIGHT AT 35, BUT ONCE YOU GET TO THE MULTIFAMILY, THEY
HAVE THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK THAT COMES INTO PLAY, AND THE
APPLICANT HAS NOT REQUESTED A WAIVER FROM THAT.
BASED UPON ALL OF THIS, THE PROPOSED REZONING WILL HAVE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT MEET OR EXCEED THE CURRENT
ZONING'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
FURTHERMORE, ADDITIONAL COMPATIBILITY RESTRICTIONS ARE
PROPOSED FOR SCREENING, BUFFERING, AND LANDSCAPING.
ALONG THE NORTH, ALL THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE MULTIFAMILY
WOULD BE A FIVE-FOOT BUFFER WITH TYPE "A" FENCING, WHICH,
AS YOU KNOW, COULD BE A WOODEN FENCE OR A WALL.
WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED, WHICH IS FOUND IN THE
SECOND RESTRICTION, IS A PVC FENCE, AND THEY'VE ALSO ADDED
HEDGES AND OAK TREES.
THEY DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO PRESERVE THE ONES
THERE, YOU KNOW, WITH CONSULTATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES OR
DO SOME PLANTINGS.
AND ALONG THE WEST, THE RESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSED TO US
THEY -- THEY ENJOY THE VIEW OF THAT ROADWAY, THE TREES, AND
SUCH, SO WHAT WE PROPOSED WAS A 20-FOOT BUFFER, AND THERE
ARE OVERHEAD POWER LINES, SO WE COULD NOT ASK THE APPLICANT
TO PLANT OAK TREES TO MATCH WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE, SO
NATURAL RESOURCES DID PROVIDE US WITH WHAT THEY RECOMMEND
UNDER POWER LINES, WHICH THEY SAID SHOULD GIVE A VERY
74
PLEASING LOOK TO THE PROPERTY.
AND THE APPLICANT ALSO AGREED TO NOT HAVE ANY WALLS OR
FENCES WITHIN THAT 20-FOOT BUFFER, SO THAT WOULD LEAVE A
20-FOOT AREA OF OPEN SPACE.
YOU COULDN'T HAVE PARKING LOTS, NO LARGE WALLS LIKE YOU SEE
ON THE MINI WAREHOUSE TO THE SOUTH, IT WOULD REMAIN OPEN
EXCEPT FOR THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING THAT HAS THE ORNAMENTAL
TREES.
AND PRETTY MUCH, IN LOOKING AT THIS, WE FOUND THAT THIS
DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROVIDE A GOOD TRANSITION ON TAYLOR ROAD
FROM THE COMMERCIAL USES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH ON MLK AND TO
THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND EVENTUALLY TO THE LOWER
RESIDENTIAL -- OR LOWER INTENSITY AND AGRICULTURAL, AND WE
FIND THIS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND
APPROVABLE WITH THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-9 FUTURE
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THE
SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.
THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE
WITH THE SURROUNDING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND IT
WOULD MINIMALLY CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT ON THE
75
SITE.
SEVERAL PARCELS IN THIS VICINITY HAVE ZONING
CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ALLOW DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT, AS NOTED BY
MS. HEINRICH.
ALTHOUGH THE PARCELS TO THE NORTH AND WEST ARE WITHIN THE
RDC-6 ZONING CLASSIFICATION, THEY ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED
WITH LARGER RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AS EXPRESSED BY MS. HEINRICH,
AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED
RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE A TRANSITION BETWEEN
WHAT'S PROPOSED AND WHAT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED TO THE NORTH
AND THE WEST.
WE FEEL THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
>> YES.
>>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING.
>> MY NAME IS KRYSTLE BOOTH, AND I AM THE HOMEOWNER AT 1304
SOUTH TAYLOR ROAD, WHICH IS TWO HOUSES NORTH OF THE
PROPERTY THAT'S UP FOR REZONING.
FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO --
76
>>BRIAN GRADY: MA'AM, COULD YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE A
LITTLE BIT CLOSER SO --
>> SORRY.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THANK YOU.
>> IS THAT BETTER?
>>STEVE LUCE: YES.
>> FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE
SEVERAL HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING THAT
COULD NOT MAKE IT THIS EVENING DUE TO PRIOR SCHEDULED
VACATIONS AND COMMITMENTS.
THIS WAS CREATED BY A CONTINUANCE DUE TO THE APPLICANT'S
INDECISIVENESS FROM THE BEGINNING ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH
THIS PROPERTY'S REZONING.
THE PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING HAVE
GIVEN ME PERMISSION TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE NOTE THAT BECKY HALCOM, WHO IS AN
OWNER DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPERTY, AND I RECEIVED
SIGNATURES FROM HOMEOWNERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE OPPOSED
TO THIS PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST.
100% OF THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WE SPOKE TO ARE IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS REQUEST.
WE HAVE OVER 50 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT ARE IN THE
BINDER THAT I JUST TURNED IN TO YOU.
THAT IS IN SECTION 2.
LET ME START OFF BY GIVING YOU A PICTURE OF THE COMMUNITY
THAT WE ARE IN, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN SECTION 1, WHICH IS IN
A PICTURE REPRESENTATION.
BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THIS ROAD IS STILL A RURAL STREET.
77
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE POST OFFICE STILL HAS US LISTED AS
A RURAL ROUTE.
WE HAVE NO SIDEWALKS, WE HAVE NO CURBS, WE HAVE NO
STREETLIGHTS.
WE STILL HAVE OVERHEAD POWER.
HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE ON THIS STREET HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 20,
30, SOME EVEN LONGER THAN THAT.
THEY DEVELOPED THIS ROAD BACK WHENEVER IT WAS ORANGE
GROVES.
IT IS MADE UP PRIMARILY OF RELATIVES, PARENTS, BROTHERS,
SISTERS, AUNTS, AND UNCLES, WHO ARE ALL DOWN THE ROAD FROM
EACH OTHER.
HIGHWAY 92 AND MLK ARE BOTH STATE HIGHWAYS THAT ARE AT THE
END OF THE STREET.
THERE ARE NO RED LIGHTS AT EITHER END.
WE ONLY HAVE STOP SIGNS.
TRYING TO GET OUT OF HERE IS A NIGHTMARE AS IT IS, MUCH
LESS IF YOU WERE TO INCREASE THE POPULATION ON THIS ROAD,
AND CURRENTLY THERE IS NO INTENTION OF PUTTING A RED LIGHT
AT EITHER END OF THIS ROAD.
PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY BEEN KILLED ON THIS STREET BECAUSE IT
IS SO DARK, PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS ALIKE.
THIS WOULD ONLY ADD TO IT.
THE SPEED LIMIT IS CURRENTLY 40 MILES AN HOUR, BUT PEOPLE
DO WELL IN EXCESS OF THAT, USING OUR STREET AS A DETOUR FOR
THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION THAT IS CURRENTLY ON MLK AND BECAUSE
OF THE ROAD CLOSURES THAT ARE ON PARSONS.
SINCE THESE ARE STATE HIGHWAYS, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IT
78
IS NOT THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT IN RED LIGHTS AT
EITHER ONE OF THOSE INTERSECTIONS, WHICH IS FINE, BUT THAT
DOES NOT SOLVE OUR CURRENT TRAFFIC SITUATION OR THE ONE
THAT WOULD BRING ABOUT BEING -- CAUSING INCREASED TRAFFIC
VOLUME WOULD BRING TO US.
MOST OF THE OTHER TRACTS ON THIS ROAD ARE RDC-6, BUT NONE
OF THEM ARE BUILT TO THAT.
THERE IS NOT A PRECEDENT FOR THAT, SO NOW WHY WOULD WE
INCREASE THE USAGE TO 9?
THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THERE ARE DUPLEXES HERE --
THERE'S A DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT DUPLEXES ON THE ENTIRE ROAD ALL THE
WAY FROM MLK TO 92.
THERE ISN'T EVEN A MARKET FOR DUPLEXES ON THIS STREET, MUCH
LESS ANY TYPE OF OTHER BUILT-OUT STRUCTURE.
THERE HAVE BEEN THREE SIMILAR REZONING REQUESTS ON THIS
STREET IN THE PAST FIVE TO SIX YEARS, AND ALL OF THEM HAVE
BEEN DENIED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THESE CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 1 OF THE BINDER BEHIND THE
PICTURE REPRESENTATION.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
SINCE THIS -- SINCE THESE REQUESTS WERE DENIED.
PROPERTY HAS BEEN BOUGHT, SOLD, OR INHERITED; HOWEVER, THE
CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NOT CHANGED.
CURRENT PROPERTY IS ZONED, AND PEOPLE ARE WELL WITHIN THEIR
RIGHTS TO DEVELOP IT; HOWEVER, THEY HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO.
THIS TYPE OF ACTION TO EXPAND TO RMC-9 IS PREMATURE
79
WHENEVER NOTHING IS STILL BUILT OUT TO A 6.
THE STAFF REPORT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION NEIGHBORING
STREETS, FUTURE LAND USE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND CERTAIN
PROTECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLINED JUST A COUPLE OF
MINUTES AGO; HOWEVER, WHAT IS ON PAPER SOMETIMES IS NOT AN
ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE.
ONE EXAMPLE IS ON ROBSON STREET, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THIS
PROPERTY AND WAS JUST LISTED AS BEING A DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT;
HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT EVEN MEET THE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE EVEN FOR DUPLEXES.
THIS CAN BE FOUND IN YOUR BINDER IN SECTION 3 BEHIND THE
STAFF REPORT, AND IT IS IN A COLOR-CODED GRAPH.
MANY OF THESE LOTS ARE JUST AROUND 5,000 SQUARE FEET, SO
THEY DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR EVEN BUILDING DUPLEXES.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO COMBINE THE LOTS IN ORDER FOR IT TO MEET
A DEVELOPMENTAL CRITERIA.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE
STAFF REPORT TAKES INTO -- TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION PARSONS
AVENUE.
PARSONS IS A BUSIER STREET WITH MORE THOROUGHFARE AND IS A
HIGHER DENSITY THAN TAYLOR ROAD.
EVEN THESE DEVELOPMENTS ON PARSONS, WHICH ARE ZONED FOR
NINE UNITS, ARE ONLY BUILT OUT TO AN AVERAGE OF SIX, NOT
WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE BUILT OUT TO, THE HIGHEST
WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN BUILT OUT TO APPROXIMATELY SEVEN.
WE FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE ARE ALREADY
BUILT OUT BUT DO NOT REFLECT THE ZONING CATEGORIES ON THE
STAFFING REPORT AND ON THE ZONING STAFFING MAP.
80
ONCE AGAIN, THESE CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 3 OF THE BINDER
BEHIND THE STAFFING REPORT.
IF THIS WERE APPROVED, IT WOULD SET THE PRECEDENT FOR
GETTING A FOOTHOLD IN FOR HIGHER INTENSITY INTO THIS AREA.
IT WOULD LEAD TO INCREASED TRAFFIC, AND OUR ROAD CANNOT
SUPPORT IT.
WE HAVE TWO HISTORIC CEMETERIES ON THIS ROAD, AND WE ARE
ALREADY LIMITED TO FUTURE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
IN SECTION 1, BEHIND THE PICTURE REPRESENTATION, I HAVE
INCLUDED AN EXCERPT FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE BELIEVE IT IS A
VALID QUESTION REGARDING THE APPLICANT AND WHO'S CONSIDERED
THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE APPLICATION CITES THAT CARLINA MERCER IS THE PROPERTY
OWNER; HOWEVER, PRIOR COUNTY DOCUMENTS SITE JOE HERNDON AS
THE MERCER TRUSTEE AND OWNER, WHILE OTHER DOCUMENTS LIST
LEROY GONZALEZ AND ANOTHER MORTGAGE ON THE PROPERTY.
DEPENDING ON WHEN YOU LOOK AT COUNTY RECORDS, A DIFFERENT
PERSON IS LISTED.
WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY AND ITS
OWNERS HAVE DONE NOTHING BY WAY OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
COMMUNITY.
IF ANYTHING, IT HAS BEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD NUISANCE THROUGH
NUMEROUS CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS AND PROPERTY ISSUES
THROUGH AT LEAST THE LAST TEN YEARS.
THERE HAVE BEEN CITATIONS FOR DUMPING, OVERGROWN TRASH,
DEBRIS, INOPERABLE VEHICLES, JUST TO NAME A FEW.
81
IN ADDITION TO DRAINAGE ISSUES, THIS PROPERTY CAUSES THE
REST OF THE HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE ADJACENT TO IT DUE TO A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT IS LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE
PROPERTY, WHICH -- IN THE PICTURE REPRESENTATION, YOU CAN
SEE PICTURES OF FLOODING ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY ON
PAGE 9.
THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON AT LEAST FIVE HOMEOWNERS'
PROPERTY AFTER IT RAINS.
THERE'S ALSO A HISTORY OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES IN SECTION 4
THAT GO BACK TO THE EARLY 2000s THAT WE HAVE BEEN DEALING
WITH.
THIS DISPLACES STORMWATER ONTO AT LEAST FOUR OTHER
HOMEOWNERS FROM THE NORTHGROVE SHOPPING CENTER.
FURTHER DOCUMENTATION HAS ALSO BEEN CITED AND CAN BE FOUND
IN THE STAFF REPORT UNDER AGENCY COMMENTS BY STORMWATER
DIVISION.
IT SPECIFICALLY POINTS OUT THAT THE RETENTION AREA MUST
CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF WATER DISPLACED FROM THE SHOPPING
CENTER ONTO NEIGHBORS NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY.
THIS MEANS THAT THERE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL -- SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENTAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY THAT WILL BE LOST DUE TO
STORMWATER RETENTION.
BECAUSE OF THESE ISSUES ALONE, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS HAVE
NO EXPECTATION THAT ONCE A REZONING HAS BEEN APPROVED THAT
ANYTHING WILL CHANGE OR THAT CONDITIONS WILL APPROVE --
IMPROVE.
THE PROPERTY AND BUILDINGS COULD LOOK THE SAME AS WHAT THEY
DO NOW, WHICH YOU CAN ALSO FIND IN SECTION 1 ON
82
PAGE 7 OF THE PICTURES ON THE FLIP SIDE THAT ARE LABELED AS
APPLICANT PROPERTY ISSUES.
THE APPLICANT WOULD ALSO PRESENT THAT THEY HAVE WORKED WITH
THE COMMUNITY ON THIS REZONING.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE EITHER.
THE REASON SO MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT IS
DUE TO THEIR INDECISIVENESS ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH THIS.
FIRST IT WAS COMMERCIAL GENERAL, THEN IT WAS COMMERCIAL
RESTRICTED, NOW IT'S MULTIFAMILY, THEN IT'S MULTIFAMILY
WITH RESTRICTIONS.
THERE WAS NO CLEAR PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING ON HOW THEY
WANTED TO PROCEED.
THEY ONLY WANT TO MAKE IT MORE APPEALING TO POTENTIAL
BUYERS AND DEVELOPERS WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR OUR
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY.
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION IS TO REZONE THIS
PROPERTY TO RMC-9 TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE THE
BUILDING STANDARDS SUCH AS BUILDING TYPE, BULK, AND HEIGHT,
WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR APARTMENTS, QUADRUPLEXES, AND INCREASE
THE NUMBER OF TOTAL UNITS CONNECTED.
TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE, PAGE 13 IN SECTION 1, WHERE YOU CAN
SEE THE VAST DIFFERENCE IN THE BUILDING TYPE THAT WOULD --
THIS WOULD CREATE ON OUR STREET AND ON THE ADJOINING
NEIGHBORS AND THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS NOT THAT WE ARE ANTIGROWTH, WE JUST DO NOT HAVE THE
MEANS TO SUPPORT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND TO SUPPORT WHAT IS
CURRENTLY ON OUR STREET NOW, AND A VIABLE SOLUTION TO US IS
NOT BUILD IT NOW AND WE WILL ADDRESS IT LATER.
83
IT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION NOW BEFORE IT
CONTINUES TO PASS AND WE KEEP GETTING THE IT'S NOT MY
DEPARTMENT, IT'S THEIRS.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE LIVE HERE, AND THE TRAFFIC, NOISE,
SPEEDING, AND LACK OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, NO SIDEWALK, NO
CURBS, OVERHEAD POWER, AND NO STREETLIGHTS, AND DRAINAGE
THAT WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH FOR THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES
WILL ONLY CONTINUE TO GET WORSE IF THIS IS BROUGHT IN.
BY APPROVING THIS APPLICATION FOR REZONING, IT SENDS A
MESSAGE TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL OF THE 50-PLUS
SIGNATURES THAT WE HAVE IN THAT BINDER THAT OPPOSE THIS
THAT THIS ONE PROPERTY OWNER OR THIS ONE DEVELOPER MATTER
MORE THAN EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN
THIS COMMUNITY.
AND TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, WHERE DOES THIS ONE
PERSON OR THIS ONE DEVELOPER'S RIGHTS BEGIN AND ALL OF OURS
END?
FUTURE LAND USE IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN
NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THE PRIOR DENIALS.
IT IS STILL INCONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD AND
LAND USE, AND IT DOES NOT PROVIDE A GOOD ENOUGH TRANSITION
INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE SUBMITTED PHOTOS, A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE LOTS,
AND EXISTING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT, IN ADDITION TO PRIOR
CASES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL, REMANDED, AND THEN
DENIED AGAIN.
THIS IS AND CAN BE CONSIDERED BY LAW SUBSTANTIAL AND
COMPETENT EVIDENCE, AND WE BELIEVE THERE'S ENOUGH TO
84
WARRANT A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
MA'AM, THERE'S A NUMBER OF COURT CASES THAT YOU'VE
SUBMITTED IN YOUR BINDER.
>> MM-HMM.
>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU COULD, JUST BRIEFLY POINT OUT, IF YOU
KNOW, WHAT THE SUBSTANCE IS OF THESE COURT CASES.
THERE'S ONE HERE, SHEILA A. ALFONSO VS. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND SOUTHEAST PARTNERS.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT?
>> THAT IS FOR THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT IS ON THAT --
>>BRIAN GRADY: MA'AM, YOU NEED TO BE ON THE --
>> SORRY.
THAT IS FOR THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT IS ON THAT PROPERTY
--
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> -- BECAUSE WHAT THE HOMEOWNER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER DID
WAS THEY ACTUALLY HAULED IN FILL DIRT AT THE BACK END OF
THAT PROPERTY IN ORDER FOR THE WATER FROM THE NORTHGROVE
SHOPPING CENTER TO OVERFLOW INTO OUR PROPERTY, SO THAT'S --
THAT'S WHAT THAT IS REGARDING.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
SO THE SHOPPING CENTER BROUGHT IN THE DIRT?
>> NO, THE HOMEOWNER BROUGHT IN THAT DIRT BECAUSE --
>>STEVE LUCE: BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BLOCK THE DRAINAGE?
>> WANTED TO DIVERT THE SHOPPING CENTER'S OVERFLOW --
85
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.
>> -- ONTO OUR PROPERTY.
>>STEVE LUCE: ONTO YOUR PROPERTY?
>> CORRECT.
ONTO THOSE FOUR OR FIVE PARCELS NORTH OF IT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> AND SO, THEN, WHAT THEY WORKED OUT IS THAT THE
NORTHGROVE SHOPPING CENTER PAID THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO PUT
IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT THE BACK END OF HIS PROPERTY,
WHICH STILL DIVERTS THAT WATER ONTO ALL OF OUR PROPERTY, SO
THEY GOT PAID TO PUT IN AN EASEMENT THAT STILL DIVERTS
WATER ONTO OUR PROPERTY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE BY THE PHOTOS
THAT WE STILL FLOOD.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
I JUST BRIEFLY LOOKED AT YOUR BINDER, BUT WAS THAT THE ONLY
LAWSUIT OR LEGAL CASE THAT'S IN THIS BINDER?
>> AND THERE'S ALSO LETTERS THAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN TO THE
BOARD --
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT, BUT --
>> -- IN ADDITION TO THAT AS WELL.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, SORT OF LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS, THAT'S THE ONLY CASE THAT YOU'VE ATTACHED IN
THE BINDER?
>> CORRECT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
86
>> MM-HMM.
>> TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, AND I'M GOING
TO MODIFY WHAT I'M SAYING SO I DON'T REPEAT, SO IF YOU'LL
JUST BEAR WITH ME REAL QUICKLY.
I THINK EVERYTHING RELATING TO THE INTENSITY AND DENSITY OF
THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE OPPOSED TO IT.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SECTION 5, NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNS,
GOAL 12 CLEARLY STATES, DESIGNS NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH ARE
RELATED TO THE PROMINENT CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDINGS.
SINCE THERE IS NO PLAN, WE RELY TOTALLY ON WHATEVER THE
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA IS AT THE TIME THEY DEVELOP, SO IT'S
REALLY AN UNKNOWN ENTITY AT THIS POINT OTHER THAN WE KNOW
THAT THE BULK OF THIS PROJECT, MEANING THE BULK -- BUILDING
BULK, CAN BE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER
RDC-6.
I MEAN, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT'S MISREPRESENTATIVE, THE
ZONING OF THE AREAS IS MISREPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT IS THERE.
THAT AREA HAS NOT BEEN BUILT OUT TO WHAT THE ZONING MAP
IDENTIFIES.
I THINK THAT WAS SAID.
PUTTING IN A FEW SIX-FOOT TREES WITH A TWO-INCH CALIPER
ALONG THE SOUTHERN -- EXCUSE ME -- NORTHERN BOUNDARY ISN'T
GOING TO PROTECT THOSE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE ABUTTING IT,
PARTICULARLY IF THEY WIND UP BEING TWO-STORY APARTMENTS,
TWO-STORY TOWNHOMES.
IT'S JUST -- YOU KNOW, AN EXTRA FIVE FOOT ISN'T GOING TO
MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU CAN
HAVE EIGHT OR MORE OF THESE TOWNHOMES OR APARTMENTS IN A
87
ROW.
IT'S THE BULK ISSUE THAT IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM, AND IT'S
NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE COMMUNITY.
SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE SUPPORTS INFILL, BUT IT ALSO
NEEDS TO BE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
THAT WAS CLEAR IN OUR PLAN.
MAKING SOME TREES -- PUTTING TREES IN, THINGS LIKE THAT ARE
IMPORTANT.
WE HAD HOPED THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE GREATER TREES TO
PROTECT THE COMMUNITY SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO SUPPORT THIS.
AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -- AND HERE'S SOME KEY ISSUES
THAT I REALLY WANT TO SAY.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ONLY ESTABLISHED A LONG-RANGE
MAXIMUM LIMIT ON THE POSSIBLE INTENSITY OF THE LAND USE AND
DOES NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY ESTABLISH AN IMMEDIATE MINIMUM
LIMIT; THUS, THE PRESENT USE OF LAND MAY BY ZONING
ORDINANCE CONTINUE TO BE MORE LIMITED -- MORE LIMITED THAN
THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY -- THE FUTURE LAND USE MAY
ALLOW.
BY LAW -- AND CASE -- THERE HAS BEEN CASE LAW ON THIS THAT
IT CAN BE LESS.
IT CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
CHARACTER IS A VITAL AND IMPORTANT PIECE TO THIS -- THIS
CASE.
IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE APPLICANT TO RELY SOLELY ON THE
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS AN ARGUMENT.
THE MERE FACT THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT IN ITSELF
88
GIVE THE LANDOWNER A RIGHT.
IT'S NOT A RIGHT, IT'S JUST THE LANDOWNER DESIRES IT.
FURTHERMORE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE LANDOWNER TO
SUBSTANTIATE WHY THE STATUS QUO, WHICH IS RDC-6, IS NOT
SUFFICIENT.
WE HAVEN'T HEARD THAT TONIGHT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
TO THIS POINT, WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANY SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT
EVIDENCE TO THAT FACT.
IT'S FOR ALL THESE REASONS AND MORE, EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE
HEARD, EVERYTHING THAT YOU'LL REVIEW IN THAT MANUAL, WHY
WE -- WE ARE OPPOSING THIS PROJECT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
DOES ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION?
>> YES.
>>BRIAN GRADY: MS. FLOTT.
>> I DID IT AGAIN.
I NEED A BELL OR SOMETHING, COW BELL.
>> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS ELIZABETH BELCHER, POST OFFICE BOX 739, SEFFNER,
FLORIDA.
I JUST HAVE A QUESTION HERE.
IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR SOMEBODY WHO -- WHO IS A
REPRESENTATIVE OR -- A REPRESENTATIVE OR THE -- THE -- AN
ENTITY THAT IS NONEXISTENT TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS AND HAVE
STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS OFFICIAL RECORD AND BE CONSIDERED
89
BECAUSE BASED ON THE -- I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT VERY GOOD.
BASED ON THE STATE OF CORPORATION, FLORIDA STATE
CORPORATIONS, THE -- TODD PRESSMAN -- PRESSMAN & ASSOCIATES
HAS BEEN DISSOLVED IN 2010.
>>STEVE LUCE: MR. WHITEHEAD, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE
QUESTION?
I THINK -- I'M NOT QUITE SURE MYSELF, SO THAT'S WHY I'M
ASKING YOU IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
>> WHAT I'M --
>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: YEAH.
I THINK SHE'S SAYING MR. PRESSMAN'S CORPORATION WAS
DISSOLVED.
>> YES, IT WAS.
>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: BUT HE'S A REPRESENTATIVE INDIVIDUALLY.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> OKAY.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
IT SAYS THAT HIS CORPORATION WAS DISSOLVED IN 2010.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> OKAY.
WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN --
>>STEVE LUCE: MR. WHITEHEAD, CAN HE --
>> -- WHY IS THE STATE --
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
LET ME JUST ASK A QUESTION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
MR. WHITEHEAD, CAN MR. PRESSMAN REPRESENT THIS APPLICANT
HERE TONIGHT?
IS HE IN ORDER REPRESENTING THIS APPLICATION?
90
>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: MR. PRESSMAN, ARE YOU REPRESENTING HER
INDIVIDUALLY?
>> I -- AS ON THE RECORD, I'M REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY.
I BELIEVE I'D HAVE TO REVIEW THE EXACT PAPER.
TYPICALLY I DO LIST IT AS PRESIDENT OF PRESSMAN &
ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, OF WHICH I PAID CORPORATE TAXES
THIS YEAR.
I ASSURE YOU THAT I'M -- I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS WOMAN SEES
THAT MY CORPORATION IS DISSOLVED BECAUSE IT IS NOT.
>>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE,
MR. HEARING MASTER.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
YOU MAY PROCEED.
>> [INAUDIBLE] STATES THAT IT IS.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE?
>> NO, THAT'S IT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
DOES ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION?
>> HI.
MY NAME IS JOY INGRAM.
I'M AT 12349 JESS WALDEN ROAD, DOVER, FLORIDA.
I DON'T LIVE ON THE STREET.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE CHARACTER-OF-THE-NEIGHBORHOOD
ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
ONE FURTHER POINT THAT HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED THAT I WANTED
91
TO JUST BRING UP IS THAT I BELIEVE IN SOME WAYS THE
ALLOWANCE OF PUTTING AS MANY PEOPLE IN THAT SPACE AS
POSSIBLE IS -- IS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO THE GOAL OF THE
COUNTY OF LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION THAT IS SO HOT RIGHT
NOW.
EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AT HOW CAN WE -- HOW CAN WE GET LIGHT
RAIL, HOW CAN WE INCREASE OUR BUS SERVICE, AND THE WAY TO
DO THAT IS NOT TO CONCENTRATE THE POPULATION IN THE OUTER
EDGES BUT TO LOOK AT REDEVELOPING THE INNER CITY, AND IF WE
WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, WE WOULD BE MUCH MORE SUCCESSFUL IN
GETTING SOME OF THESE OTHER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES SOLVED.
THE MORE WE PUT PEOPLE OUT, THE MORE PEOPLE WE HAVE TO
MOVE, AND I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP BECAUSE THAT'S
OFTEN FORGOTTEN.
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE THINK THAT WE'RE
OPPOSING -- WE'RE OPPOSING GROWTH, AND WE'RE NOT, WE'RE
JUST LOOKING TO CONCENTRATE PEOPLE IN THE AREAS WHERE WE
CAN DEAL WITH THEM BEST, PROVIDE THE BEST SERVICES, AND WE
DON'T BELIEVE THAT PUTTING MORE PEOPLE -- POSSIBLY PUTTING
APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO
FURTHER THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY
BE SOMEWHAT RECOMMENDED OR AT LEAST PART OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
DOES ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?
92
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
LET ME JUST ASK ABOUT STORMWATER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT ARE PRESENT HERE WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
I MEAN THE NORMAL WAY WE WOULD DEAL WITH SUCH STORMWATER
ISSUES IS THAT THEY WILL BE LOOKED AT DURING SITE
DEVELOPMENT, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE IF THE STORMWATER
REPRESENTATIVE HAS ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR TO SAY ABOUT THIS
APPLICATION THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHER
APPLICATIONS?
>>RICK CABRERA: GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
RICK CABRERA, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
NOTHING UNUSUAL IN THIS CASE.
ONCE WE DO HAVE THE PLANS PRESENTED TO US, WE'LL BE ABLE TO
EVALUATE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR STANDARDS.
THE AREA IN QUESTION IS DEEMED VOLUME SENSITIVE BY THE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, MEANING THERE WILL BE MORE
STRINGENT DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON THIS PROPERTY.
>>STEVE LUCE: AND IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE
COMMERCIAL USES TO THE SOUTH AND PERHAPS THEY DIDN'T
ADDRESS, WHENEVER THEY WERE DEVELOPED, ALL THEIR STORMWATER
ISSUES AND PERHAPS THAT STORMWATER HEADS NORTH, DO YOU
ADDRESS THAT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR
SITE?
>>RICK CABRERA: WE WOULD.
THERE WOULD BE -- THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
WHAT'S ENTERING THE PROPERTY AND WHAT'S LEAVING IT AND ALSO
93
BECAUSE OF THE MORE STRINGENT CRITERIA IMPOSED IN THIS
AREA, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
BUT IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IS THERE A EXTRAORDINARY
STORMWATER ISSUE THAT'S PRESENT AT THIS LOCATION THAT WOULD
PRECLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY?
>>RICK CABRERA: NO, SIR.
WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE DESIGN WOULD BE FIRST IN
ORDER TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL EVALUATION OF IT.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
FAIR ENOUGH.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
AND STAFF, ANYTHING ELSE?
NO.
ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
REBUTTAL.
>> YES, MR. HEARING OFFICER.
TODD PRESSMAN, 334 EAST LAKE ROAD, NUMBER 102, IN PALM
HARBOR, FLORIDA.
I RESPECT THE LADIES WHO SPOKE HERE THIS EVENING AND
PARTICULARLY MS. BOOTH, WHO PRESENTED A LOT OF MATERIAL TO
YOU, BUT TO BE COMPLETELY FRANK, MY OPINION OF THE
INFORMATION THEY GAVE TO YOU IS NOT ONLY PARTIALLY
MISLEADING, SOME OF IT'S FALSE, SO LET ME REVIEW THAT WITH
YOU.
I MADE -- WHEN WE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT THIS APPLICATION IN,
94
IT WAS FOR COMMERCIAL.
THAT WAS A PLAN PROPERLY FILED WITH THE STAFF.
IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHAT IT WAS PROPOSED TO BE.
WHEN WE STARTED TO GET RESISTANCE WITH THE STAFF, WE LOOKED
AT THOSE ISSUES, DECIDED TO CHANGE THEM.
I PERSONALLY MADE A ROUND OF CALLS TO NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING
TO A NUMBER OF THE BOOTHS.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS KRYSTLE BOOTH OR NOT, BUT THERE WERE
A NUMBER OF BOOTHS WHICH I CALLED.
I ONLY GOT ONE OR TWO CALLS BACK.
I DIDN'T GET ANY ABILITY FOR COMMUNICATION WITH THE
NEIGHBORS, EVEN THOUGH I REACHED OUT TO DO SO, SO TO SAY
THAT THE APPLICANT WAS CONFUSED OR THE NEIGHBORS WERE
CONFUSED OR AN ATTEMPT WAS NOT MADE IS FALSE.
ADDITIONALLY, AT THE HEARING, WHEN WE CAME TO CONTINUE THE
CASE, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS HERE, WHICH I
INTRODUCED MYSELF.
I DON'T KNOW IF MS. BOOTH WAS HERE OR NOT.
I PERSONALLY INTRODUCED MYSELF TO A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS.
I WAS TOLD, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK WITH YOU, TALK TO
TERRY.
TERRY AND I ACTUALLY GET ALONG PRETTY WELL.
TERRY AND I HAVE COMMUNICATED AND E-MAILED.
IN FACT, WE E-MAILED JUST A FEW NIGHTS AGO.
SO TO SAY THAT THERE WAS MISDIRECTION -- EXCUSE ME, THAT
WORD WAS NOT USED -- TO SAY THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION AND
CONTINUANCES OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED HERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT
CORRECT.
95
NEXT POINT THAT WAS RAISED WAS THIS WOULD BE A BAD TRAFFIC
SITUATION, IT WOULD BE A BURDEN ON THE ROADS.
THAT, TO ME, APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT AS WELL.
YOUR OWN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TOLD YOU THE DIFFERENCE
WOULD BE 17 TRIPS TO WHAT COULD BE ALLOWED TODAY, SO TO
MAKE ANY KIND OF CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL IMPACT OR BURDEN TO
THE ROADS I BELIEVE IS AN UNINTENTIONAL MISDIRECTION.
YOU WERE TOLD THAT THERE WERE THREE OR FOUR ZONING CASES OF
SIMILAR NATURE AT A PARTICULAR TAB.
I WENT THROUGH THE BOOK.
I ONLY FOUND ONE PARTICULAR CASE THAT FROM MY PULLING UP MY
GPS IS NOWHERE NEAR THIS SITE, IT IS WAY UP BY 92.
IN FACT, IT'S NOTED AS 1100 FEET SOUTH OF 92.
IN MY OPINION, THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NOT GERMANE TO THIS
CASE WHATSOEVER.
IF THERE ARE OTHER CASES IN THE BOOK, I COULDN'T FIND THEM.
>>STEVE LUCE: I BRIEF CURSORY LOOKED AT IT.
I WILL OBVIOUSLY LOOK THROUGH EVERY PAGE, BUT I SAW TWO
CASES, BUT I DIDN'T GET INTO THE DEPTH OF THEM TO SEE --
>> YES.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- WHERE THEY WERE LOCATED AT --
>> YES, IT'S DIFFICULT TO.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- BUT I WILL.
>> THERE WERE A LOT OF PAGES THERE.
>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.
>> I COULD NOT DISTINGUISH A SECOND LOCATION.
IT LOOKED LIKE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A SECOND RECOMMENDATION.
I COULD NOT DETERMINE A LOCATION IN THE RECORD AS I WAS
96
FLIPPING THROUGH VERY QUICKLY.
WHEN MS. BOOTH TALKS ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD NUISANCE OR
FLOODING, YOU'VE HEARD FROM YOUR STAFF ALREADY, AS YOU WELL
KNOW, IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH
SITE PLANNING.
IF THERE'S PROBLEMS NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FIXED AND
ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE.
WE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT RESPONSE -- WELL, I REPRESENT THE
PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THE GENTLEMAN COMING TO DEVELOP THE
PROPERTY, OF COURSE, IS GOING TO HAVE TO BRING THIS UP TO
SPEED.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CORRECT PROBLEMS.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THIS MEET COUNTY STANDARDS.
SO IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS OUT THERE, IF THERE'S A NUISANCE IN
TERMS OF STORMWATER, THE SITUATION WILL BE GREATLY RELIEVED
ONCE THIS IS -- OR IF THIS IS APPROVED AND MOVES FORWARD.
MS. BOOTH INDICATED THAT THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT WAS TO
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS -- TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
UNITS AND THE ABILITY TO PUT AS MANY UNITS THERE AS
POSSIBLE.
THE LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEVEL HERE IS RES-9.
THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY'S DIRECTION IS.
WE'RE NOT REACHING THAT.
AS YOU KNOW, WE RESTRICT IT BELOW THAT, SO TO SAY THAT
WE'RE CRAMMING SOME -- NOT WORDS USED THERE, BUT AN INTENT
THERE IS TO INCREASE THE UNITS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IS
SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.
AND I HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT A BUFFER.
97
WELL, AGAIN, I WILL JUST -- I WON'T BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT
THESE UNITS COULD GO IN AT VIRTUALLY THE SAME NUMBER
WITHOUT AS MUCH A BUFFER AS PROPOSED HERE TODAY.
YOUR -- WE WORKED CLOSELY -- WE DID WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH
YOUR STAFF.
MICHELLE AND I WENT BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH, AND
THEY WERE HITTING US HARD, BUT WE WANTED TO WORK WITH THEM,
AND WE REACHED AN AGREEMENT.
NOW, I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT I QUICKLY WENT THROUGH THE
BOOK, AND THERE WAS TALK ABOUT 50 SIGNATURES.
I SAW QUITE A NUMBER OF SIGNATURES ON MELROSE, WHICH IS WAY
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 579.
I MEAN, THAT'S QUITE FAR AWAY.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED IN TERMS OF STATUS QUO HERE, THAT
DOES NOT HAVE AN EFFECT OR GERMANE TO THIS CASE.
I SAW A NUMBER OF SIGNATURES ON AUBURN.
THAT IS ALSO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 579.
IN FACT, MELROSE IS CONSIDERABLY SOUTH.
I WAS NOT ABLE TO PULL UP VINEWOOD.
VINEWOOD, I ASSUME, PROBABLY WOULD HAVE THE SAME ISSUE.
>>STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHEREVER THE ADDRESSES
ARE, I HAVE THE ABILITY TO --
>> YES.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE LOCATION OF
THOSE ADDRESSES.
>> SO I WOULD JUST RAISE TO YOU THERE ARE -- CERTAINLY,
THERE ARE SIGNATURES OF FOLKS ON TAYLOR ROAD, AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT, WE ACCEPT THAT, BUT THERE APPEARS AS THAT
98
THERE'S QUITE A NUMBER OF SIGNATURES OF OTHER ROADWAYS MUCH
FARTHER AWAY THAT DO NOT HAVE AN EFFECT HERE.
I THINK YOUR STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB HERE.
I THINK IT'S VERY APPARENT THAT WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD
WITH THE RESIDENTS AND THE COUNTY TO STAY WITHIN THE
PARAMETERS AND TO PRODUCE A SITE THAT DOES ABUT A
COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, DOES ABUT A COMMERCIAL STORAGE
CENTER, AND DOES ABUT A I BELIEVE IT'S RDC- OR RMC-12 ON
THE OTHER SIDE, SO THOSE USES AS ABUTTING USES CLEARLY ARE
MUCH MORE INTENSIVE THAN THIS SITE AND WOULD BE A GOOD,
AGAIN, BUFFER OR TRANSITION ZONE.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
AND IF YOU COULD RETURN THE EXHIBITS.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND
MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE A
SHORT BREAK FOR THE -- FOR THE REPORTERS.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
RIGHT NOW, WHAT TIME IS IT?
IT'S QUARTER AFTER 8:00.
WE WILL RECONVENE AT 8:30.
[RECESS TAKEN]
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
99
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL RECONVENE TONIGHT'S ZONING
HEARING MASTER HEARING.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE
THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-8.
IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 13-0764.
THE APPLICANTS ARE MARCO AND DEBRA RAFFAELE.
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
CONVENTIONAL-3 WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY TO A BUSINESS
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT WITH RESTRICTIONS.
CHARLES ANDREWS WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
FOR THE RECORD, MARCO RAFFAELE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> I, ALONG WITH MY WIFE, DEBRA RAFFAELE, OWN THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 11016 U.S. HIGHWAY 301 SOUTH, RIVERVIEW 33569.
WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY SOME TEN YEARS AGO, AND IT HAD
PLANS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE; HOWEVER, WITH THE RECENT
EXPANSION OF HIGHWAY 301, THAT'S CHANGED OUR PLANS AND MAKE
EVERYTHING DIFFICULT TO MARKET; THEREFORE, WE'RE REQUESTING
TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RSC-3 MOBILE HOME TO BPO.
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS TIME POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
100
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: GOOD EVENING.
GOOD EVENING, CHARLES ANDREWS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE TO THE
BPO-R, WITH RESTRICTIONS, ZONING DISTRICT.
WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
WE HAVE SEVERAL RESTRICTIONS HERE THAT KIND OF FALL IN LINE
WITH SEVERAL OTHER PDs THAT ARE ALONG U.S. 301, KIND OF
PLAYING TO THE CHARACTER OF THE EXPANSION OF 301 AND
IDENTIFYING SOME OF THOSE CONSTRAINTS ON THE SITE.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAD THEM.
>>STEVE LUCE: JUST BRIEFLY, FROM THE ZONING MAP, YOUR
STAFF REPORT REFERS TO A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT ACROSS THE
STREET.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: YES, SIR.
THE PD-H, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET --
>> YES.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: -- ACROSS 301, THERE'S A PORTION ON
THAT THAT WAS APPROVED -- I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE -- PER A
MAJOR MOD BACK IN 2009 FOR 14,000 SQUARE FEET OF BPO USES
FRONTING 301.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
SO IT'S JUST -- PD-H IS -- JUST SORT OF HIDES THE FACT THAT
THERE IS SOME OFFICE INCLUDED.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: YES, SIR.
THERE'S MOBILE HOMES IN THE BACK, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE --
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: -- AND THEN ON THE FRONT THERE, THAT'S
WHERE THE BPO WOULD BE.
101
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY SORT OF KITTY-CORNER TO THE NORTHWEST
FROM THE SITE?
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: YES, SIR.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: YOU'RE WELCOME.
>>STEVE LUCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.
THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW USES COMPARABLE AND
COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND ALLOWABLE WITHIN
THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.
THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS WILL ENSURE THAT THE SCALE AND
INTENSITY OF THIS NONRESIDENTIAL USE IS COMPARABLE TO AND
SUITABLE ADJACENT TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PATTERN.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOT LOCATED AT AN IDENTIFIED
INTERSECTION MEETING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.6 ALLOWS EXCEPTIONS FOR
OFFICE USES, INCLUDING SITES UNSUITABLE OR UNDEVELOPABLE
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND AS NOTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THIS SITE
MEETS THAT EXCEPTION.
THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN, RIVERVIEW DISTRICT CONCEPT
MAP IDENTIFIES THIS AREA AS 301 CORRIDOR, WHICH IS A MIXED-
102
USE AREA WITH HIGHER DENSITIES AND A VARIETY OF BUSINESSES,
AND WE FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING SUPPORTS THIS
CONCEPT.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
AND APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>STEVE LUCE: NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL.
WITH THAT, WE'LL CONCLUDE THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,
WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-9, REZONING
APPLICATION 13-0879.
THE APPLICANT'S HASHIM SULLAIMAN.
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY
CONVENTIONAL-1 TO RMC-12, WHICH IS A MULTIFAMILY ZONING
DISTRICT.
CHARLES ANDREWS WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
103
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.
GOOD EVENING.
>> MY NAME IS ROY BOWEN.
I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.
MY ADDRESS IS 12818 HAWK HILL DRIVE IN THONOTOSASSA 33592.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
LET ME JUST -- MR. GRADY, JUST CONFIRM THAT HE REPRESENTS
THE APPLICANT.
SIR, WERE YOU THE ONE WHO FILED THE PAPERWORK?
>> YOU WANT TO SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT?
HE'S HERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
IF I COULD JUST GET HIM TO COME FORWARD.
PUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE RECORD AND STATE WHETHER
OR NOT THE GENTLEMAN STANDING TO YOU RIGHT IS REPRESENTING
YOU ON THIS APPLICATION.
>> FOR THE RECORD, I HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[PARTICIPANT SWORN IN]
OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
>> YES, HE REPRESENTS ME.
>>STEVE LUCE: I'M SORRY?
>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
104
>> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> HASHIM SULLAIMAN, 14927 LAKE FOREST DRIVE, LUTZ,
FLORIDA.
>>STEVE LUCE: AND -- AND WHO IS REPRESENTING YOU ON THIS
APPLICATION?
>> MR. ROY.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
YOU MAY PROCEED.
>> YES.
THIS IS JUST A STRAIGHT STANDARD REZONING, OKAY, AND --
>>STEVE LUCE: SIR, IF I CAN GET YOU TO MOVE A LITTLE
CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
>> SORRY.
THIS IS A STRAIGHT STANDARD REZONING THAT HE'S SEEKING TO
THE RMC-12 FROM THE ASC-1.
THE AREA SURROUNDING IT IS ALREADY ZONED MULTIFAMILY TO THE
SOUTH AND ALSO TO THE WEST.
THERE'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST.
STAFF HAS DONE A VERY THOROUGH EVALUATION OF IT, AND
THEY'VE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU, SIR.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: GOOD EVENING.
105
CHARLES ANDREWS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I'D LIKE TO KIND OF ADD TO WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING.
IT'S A STRAIGHT -- IT'S A STANDARD REZONING, AND THE
PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED RMC-12.
ACROSS THE STREET IT'S ALSO ZONED RMC-16.
TO THE EAST THERE ARE -- THERE'S SOME DEVELOPMENT THERE
THAT'S BUILT TO, I BELIEVE, RSC-9 STANDARDS, SO YOU HAVE
DENSITIES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THIS REQUEST, AND I'D BE
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-12 FUTURE
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.
THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT COMPARABLE TO
THE ESTABLISHED MIX OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA
AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE MINIMUM DENSITY POLICY.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING PATTERN IN THE
VICINITY.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
106
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
>> GOOD EVENING.
>>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
MY NAME IS MARIELA HURST, AND I RESIDE AT 15821 LIVINGSTON
AVENUE IN LUTZ.
I AM SUBMITTING THIS LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO REZONING
REQUEST RZ 13-0879 TO REZONE A 5.4 PARCEL OF LAND FROM ASC-
1 TO RMC-12.
WE OWN AND RESIDE IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON TWO ACRES OF
LAND IMMEDIATELY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY OF
THIS PARCEL.
OUR PROPERTY ABUTS THE 5.4-ACRE FOR A DISTANCE OF 440 FEET,
WHICH INCLUDES THE LAND EXTENDING INTO THE POND THAT
STRADDLES THE THREE PROPERTIES, THE SUBJECT PARCEL, OUR
PARCEL, AND ONE OWNED BY MY MOTHER, MRS. VIRGINIA DEZAYAS.
WE'VE RESIDED IN OUR HOME SINCE 1985 AND HAVE OWNED THE
LAND SINCE 1982.
MRS. DEZAYAS HAS OWNED AND RESIDED ON HER LAND SINCE 1969.
HER PROPERTY ABUTS THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY FOR A DISTANCE OF 600 FEET, AND TWO ADDITIONAL
PARCELS ABUT THE REMAINING 285 FEET OF THE NORTHERN
BOUNDARY AND ARE OWNED BY DEBORAH AND MARC TURMEL.
THEY ALSO HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS AT THIS LOCATION FOR IN
EXCESS OF 40 YEARS.
107
TOGETHER WE COMPRISE A GROUP OF RESIDENT LANDOWNERS WITH
SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE INEVITABLE ADVERSE IMPACT THIS
REZONING WOULD BRING TO OUR LAND USE, LIFESTYLE, AND HAVE
CHOSEN -- AND HAVE CHOSEN TO THE FRAGILE -- AND THE FRAGILE
ENVIRONMENT AROUND US.
WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT OUR OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING
REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, THERE'S FIVE POINTS THAT
WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES
THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER RMC-12 ARE NOT COMPATIBLE IN
HEIGHT, SCALE, AND BULK WITH OUR DETACHED ONE-STORY FAMILY
HOMES.
POLICY 1.4 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, ACHIEVING A
DENSITY OF 12 UNITS PER ACRE WOULD REQUIRE LARGE BUILDINGS
THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT DUE TO THE SITE'S DIMENSIONS AND
THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES.
12 UNITS PER ACRE ON A 5.4 ACRES WOULD YIELD APPROXIMATELY
65 DWELLINGS, 130 VEHICLES, AND MORE THAN 200 RESIDENTS OR
MORE.
THESE NUMBERS DO NOT SUPPORT THE REQUIREMENTS OF POLICY 1.4
AS IT RELATES TO THE ADJACENT USES EXISTING IN HARMONY NOR
DOES IT PROMOTE MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT AS IT RELATES TO OUR USE AND TO THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT JUST TO THE NORTH AND DIRECTLY EAST OF THE
SITE.
THE AFOREMENTIONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPOSED OF
EXCLUSIVELY DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH OVERALL
DENSITY OF 2.75 UNITS PER ACRE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAS
108
APPROVED ON A 40-ACRE PARCEL THAT WAS DESIGNATED RES-12 AND
RES-4 ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND I'VE INCLUDED A COPY
OF THAT PLAN.
ORIGINALLY, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAS PROPOSED WITH A
MIXED-USE OF 114 HOMES AND 94 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN
REZONING HEARING RZ 02-0063.
THE HEARING MASTER RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE REQUEST,
FINDING THAT THE OVERALL DENSITY AND HOUSING TYPES ARE NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
HE ALSO FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY -- THE PROJECT DENSITY AS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY
DEALING WITH TRANSITIONING DENSITIES AND DID NOT ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.
THE RESULT OF THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS A REMAND HEARING,
WHICH EVENTUALLY PRODUCED A PD WITH 111 SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED HOMES.
THAT SAME REASONING SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THIS PROPOSED
REZONING, AS THE REQUEST DOES NOT PASS THE TEST OF
COMPATIBILITY AND TRANSITIONING CRITERIA.
ON POINT NUMBER TWO, A DENSITY OF 12 UNITS PER ACRE ON THIS
PARCEL WOULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE POND ENVIRONMENT
AND WETLAND ON THE SITE, AND THAT WETLAND IS A RUNOFF FROM
OUR POND THAT RUNS OFF INTO THAT WETLAND AS WELL.
AS STATED ABOVE, THE POND EXTENDS INTO OUR PARCELS, AND,
THEREFORE, THAT HIGHER DENSITY WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR
USE AS WELL.
POLICY 1.3 STATES THAT NEW REZONING APPROVALS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF LESS THAN 75% OF THE ALLOWABLE
109
DENSITY WILL BE PERMITTED IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR INCOMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT
LAND USES.
BASED UPON THIS POLICY, WE STRONGLY FEEL THAT ANY
DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE SHOULD SEEK MUCH LESS DENSITY, ONE
THAT ADDRESSES OUR CONCERNS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
COMPATIBILITY.
AND POINT NUMBER THREE, GRADUAL TRANSITIONING OF
INTENSITIES BETWEEN OUR LAND USE AND THE PROPOSED RMC-12,
POLICY 16.2 CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED DUE TO THE LONG, NARROW,
AND IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.
THERE'S A BOUNDARY MAP INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE THAT I GAVE
YOU.
THE PARCEL IS ONLY 107 FEET WIDE FOR ABOUT 285 FEET AT ITS
WESTERN END AND 198 FEET WIDE FOR THE REMAINING 1,020 FEET
TO THE EAST.
THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PARCEL CONTAINS THE POND AND
WETLANDS.
THIS ALSO RELATES TO POLICY 14.5, REQUIRING THAT 25% OF THE
NEW DEVELOPMENT BE SET ASIDE AS OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION.
COMPLIANCE TO POLICY 14.5 WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE LARGE MULTI-
STORY STRUCTURES CLUSTERED INTO A DENSE CONFIGURATION.
IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT ANY SITE DESIGN SENSITIVE TO THESE
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES COULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE BUFFERING,
SCREENING, FROM TWO- OR THREE-STORY STRUCTURES AND FROM THE
PARKING FACILITIES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
ON POINT NUMBER FOUR, WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT HOW
POLICY 14.5 MIGHT BE APPLIED TO THE SITE, POTENTIALLY
110
AFFECTING THE POND AND WETLAND.
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THESE FEATURES WILL BE PRESERVED
IN THEIR PRESENT STATE.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED
FOR MODIFYING THE WETLAND OR FILLING IN A PORTION OF THE
POND TO CREATE BUILDABLE SPACE, ADVERSELY AFFECTING US.
ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC GENERATED BY HIGHER DENSITIES WOULD
WORSEN THE ALREADY PROBLEMATIC CONDITIONS ON LIVINGSTON
AVENUE.
LIVINGSTON IS A LONE COLLECTOR OF TRAFFIC FOR MUCH OF THE
DEVELOPING AREA AND CONTINUES TO BACK UP SEVERELY DURING
PEAK HOURS.
INGRESS AND EGRESS TO OUR PROPERTY IS ALREADY VERY
DIFFICULT AND DANGEROUS DUE TO THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ON
LIVINGSTON.
THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED FOR A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT.
IT IS OUR SINCERE BELIEF THAT THE UNIQUE QUALITIES OF THIS
PARCEL MANDATE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AT THE VERY
LEAST.
WITHOUT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY A
GENERAL SITE PLAN, WE HAVE NO CLUE AS TO HOW THIS REZONING
WILL ULTIMATELY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY.
WE SINCERELY REQUEST THAT THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICE AND
COMMISSION LOOK CLOSELY AT THESE ISSUES WE HAVE RAISED AND
CONSIDER THAT WETLANDS, THE TREES, DRAINAGE IMPACTS, AND
THE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC AT THIS LOCATION MAKES INTENSE
MULTIFAMILY ILL-ADVISED AND NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
111
IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION -- IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR
APPROVAL, WE ASK THAT STRINGENT CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO
BUFFERING, SCREENING, AND PROTECTION FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
FEATURES BE REQUIRED.
THOSE CONDITIONS SHOULD INCLUDE A MASONRY WALL ALONG THE
ENTIRE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE, PRESERVING TREES
ALONG THE BOUNDARY, LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES,
ENHANCED VEGETATIVE SCREENING, AND PRESERVING THE PONDS AND
WETLANDS IN THEIR PRESENT STATE.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION?
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>STEVE LUCE: CAREFUL.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
GOOD EVENING, SIR.
MY NAME IS ANNA LANPHEAR.
I LIVE AT 15801 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, AND THE PROPERTY IS
OWNED BY MY MOTHER, ANA DEZAYAS, AND MY HUSBAND, MAYNARD
LANPHEAR, ALSO LIVES THERE.
THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN OUR FAMILY SINCE 1969, AND AS YOU
WERE JUST TOLD, WE LIVE NEXT DOOR TO MY SISTER, SO IT'S
KIND OF A CLOSE ENVIRONMENT.
112
WE SHARE A PORTION OF THE POND, WHICH HAS PROVEN TO BE
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE, PARTICULARLY WITH SOME OF THE
DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OCCURRED TO THE NORTH OF US AT DEER
PARK PRESERVE.
IT IS -- IT HAS BEEN A PART OF THE MAJOR RUNOFF FOR LUTZ
FOR DECADES AND GOING RIGHT THROUGH THE POND AND OUT
THROUGH THE NORTHERN DRAINAGE, WHICH GOES OUT TO THE
CYPRESS CREEK SWAMP, WHICH DUMPS INTO CYPRESS CREEK, WHICH
DUMPS INTO HILLSBOROUGH RIVER.
OUR PROPERTY IS ALSO AND HAS BEEN THE HOME FOR HORSES FOR
OVER 40 YEARS.
WE HAVE LIVESTOCK ON THE PROPERTY, AND FOR DECADES, THE
PROPERTY THAT IS IN QUESTION, 15515, HAS ALSO HAD SOME SORT
OF LIVESTOCK ON IT, AND WE REALLY ARE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT
THAT THIS ZONING WILL CHANGE OUR LIFESTYLE SIGNIFICANTLY.
DESPITE PRIVACY SIGNS AND FENCES AND ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT
OUR LIFESTYLE, WE'RE ALREADY HAVING DIFFICULTIES WITH
PARTICULARLY APARTMENT DWELLERS IN THE AREA WHO SEEM TO
FEEL THAT OPEN PROPERTY LIKE OURS IS FREE FOR ANYONE TO
COME ON.
WE'VE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF THIEVERY ON OUR PROPERTY.
OUR ANIMALS HAVE BEEN PUT UNDER DURESS.
WE'VE HAD PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO INJURE THEM.
THEY WILL BREAK INTO OUR VEHICLES.
THEY GO THROUGH OUR BUILDINGS.
THEY TAKE WHAT THEY WANT.
THEY WENT JOYRIDING IN OUR GOLF CART.
IT'S BEEN A LOVELY SITUATION.
113
AND IN THE INSTANCES WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO TRACK DOWN THE
PEOPLE THAT WERE CAUSING THESE PROBLEMS, WE ALWAYS ENDED UP
BACK AT THE LOCAL APARTMENTS.
AND HAVING THEM WITHIN TEN FEET -- THE PROPERTY LINE IS
LITERALLY WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE SOUTHERN END OF OUR HOUSE,
AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, AT TEN FEET IS
THE PROPERTY, AND A TEN-FOOT BUFFER WILL GIVE US 20 FEET,
WHICH ISN'T VERY MUCH WHEN YOU'RE USED TO HAVING A LITTLE
BIT MORE THAN THAT.
SORRY, I'M NERVOUS.
>>STEVE LUCE: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
TAKE YOUR TIME.
>> I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO TO PROTECT OUR
PRIVACY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN LOST.
OUR ANIMALS HAVE BEEN IN JEOPARDY.
MY 85-YEAR-OLD MOTHER HAS BEEN IN JEOPARDY BECAUSE OF
PEOPLE INVADING OUR PRIVACY.
AND WE HAVE LITERALLY HAD PEOPLE GET ANGRY WITH US WHEN
WE'VE ASKED THEM TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE
WE'RE BEING SELFISH FOR OWNING LAND AND THEY DON'T HAVE
ANY.
THE DEER PARK PRESERVE, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY TO OUR NORTH,
THEY'VE SHOWN MORE RESPECT, AND WHEN WE'VE ASKED THEM TO
LEAVE, THEY'VE BEEN RESPECTFUL AND -- EXCEPT FOR SOME
TEENAGERS CLIMBING THE FENCE AND WANTING TO SWIM IN THE
POND OR GO FISHING.
I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT,
THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY.
114
WE'VE HAD RELATIVELY LITTLE PROBLEMS WITH THEM, BUT IT'S --
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A TRANSIENT NATURE OF THE APARTMENT
DWELLERS OR WHAT IT IS, BUT WE'VE HAD AN AWFUL LOT OF
TROUBLE WITH IT, AND IT'S JUST TWO DIFFERENT LIFESTYLES
THAT JUST ARE NOT MINGLING AT ALL WELL.
THE NARROWNESS OF THE PROPERTIES IS -- IS GOING TO MAKE IT
VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANY PRESERVATION OF OUR PRESENT
LIFESTYLE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY THERE IS VERY, VERY NARROW,
AND WITH TRYING TO PROTECT THE POND THAT'S IN THE BACK AND
THE WETLANDS IN THE BACK, THAT'LL MEAN THEY'LL HAVE TO HAVE
MUCH MORE OF A CONCENTRATION TOWARDS THE FRONT, WHICH IS
WHERE WE ARE, WHICH IS, AGAIN, GOING TO BE VERY
ENCROACHING.
AND I THINK THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH AS I CAN TALK ABOUT.
MY HEARTS GOING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?
>>STEVE LUCE: NO.
THAT'S VERY CLEAR.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION VERY WELL.
>> I'M SORRY.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE
THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
SIR -- SIR, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>STEVE LUCE: OH, OKAY.
115
VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
AND THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>> I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT UP TO THE COUNTY
STAFF, OKAY, AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES, AND THEY WILL
GOVERN WHAT CAN BE DONE HERE AND WHAT CANNOT BE DONE.
THERE WILL NOT BE ANY WETLAND IMPACTS, OKAY, SO THAT
EXISTING POND OUT THERE WILL HAVE A BUFFER AROUND IT
ESTABLISHED BY EPC.
NO DEVELOPMENT WILL BE ALLOWED WITHIN IT.
ALL THE OTHER CONCERNS WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF
PLANNING.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ONE MORE TO SAY.
WE HAD THE LAND SINCE 2005.
>>STEVE LUCE: CAN YOU PICK HIM UP?
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>STEVE LUCE: NO.
COULD YOU START OVER.
>> WE OWN THIS PROPERTY NOW SINCE --
>>STEVE LUCE: FIRST, BECAUSE HE WAS SPEAKING, STATE YOUR
NAME.
>> HASHIM SULLAIMAN.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
>> WE OWN THE PROPERTY SINCE 2005.
THE LADY BEFORE, I GUESS SHE HAD SOME PROBLEMS, AND I WAS
116
SURPRISED, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS, AND IF YOU CHECK THE
POLICE RECORDS, YOU WOULDN'T FIND ANY THAT WE HAVE.
THERE'S NO PROBLEM -- CRIME RECORDS THERE WITH THE
APARTMENT COMPLEX ALL SURROUNDING US.
I WAS SURPRISED THAT SHE HAD THESE KIND OF PROBLEMS.
WE HAVE ANIMAL STOCKS TOO, WE HAVE SHEEPS, AND WE NEVER HAD
ANY INCIDENTS IN THIS PROPERTY.
THE LAKE THAT'S OVER THERE, IT'S A SMALL POND, THE -- THE
RUNOFF, IT'S ALMOST GETTING DRY, THERE'S NO RUNOFF INTO
OTHER PROPERTIES RIGHT NOW.
IT'S COMING TO THE POINT THAT IT'S SHRINKING.
THERE'S NO OTHER RUNOFF COMING FROM -- COMING FROM THE
PROPERTY.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE WATER FROM THE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN
DIVERTED.
THAT'S ALL.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,
IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-10.
IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 13-0886.
THE APPLICANTS ARE LAWRENCE AND SUSAN M. MILLER.
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO ASC-1,
AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL-1.
117
COLLEEN MARSHALL WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>> GOOD EVENING.
I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.
I REPRESENT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY DOES LIE WITHIN THE RES-1 CATEGORY OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE'S NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF ASC-1 AND AS-1 ZONING
SURROUNDING IT.
TO THE NORTH IT'S ALL ASC-1 AND AS-1.
TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST IT'S ASC-1.
TO THE WEST THERE IS AN AR PROPERTY.
MY CLIENTS DO HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THAT PROPERTY
OWNER THAT IF THE ZONING'S APPROVED TONIGHT, THAT THE
DRIVEWAY WILL BE A MAX -- A MINIMUM OF 130 FEET FROM HIS
PROPERTY, SO, BASICALLY, WE WILL PUT THE DRIVEWAY IN THE
MIDDLE OF OUR PROPERTY, AND IF YOU GO OUT TO THE SIDE, IT
WOULD GO DOWN BETWEEN THE BARN AND THE HOUSE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> SO WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>COLLEEN MARSHALL: COLLEEN MARSHALL, DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES.
THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
136 -- 13261 LEWIS GALLAGHER ROAD FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL,
118
AR, TO AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL, ASC-1.
THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO LOTS.
NO REVIEWING AGENCIES OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-1 FUTURE
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE RURAL AREA.
THE STAFF FOUND THAT THE REQUESTED REZONING WOULD PROVIDE A
COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOUND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING
AREA.
WE FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE
OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
119
>> I DID WANT TO CLARIFY.
STAFF SAID THAT WE WANTED TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO LOTS.
THAT WAS NOT OUR APPLICATION.
WE SAID WE WANTED THE ABILITY TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY.
WE COULD DO TWO, THREE, OR UP TO FOUR LOTS.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,
IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-11.
IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 13-0897.
THE APPLICANT IS MIKE LAWRENCE AND STAR PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO THE
"M," MANUFACTURING, ZONING DISTRICT.
CHARLES ANDREWS WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
APPLICANT, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
GOOD EVENING.
I'M KEVIN MINEER OF THE GENESIS GROUP, AND I AM ASSISTING
MIKE LAWRENCE, START PROPERTIES, AND PLATINUM BANK IN THEIR
REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY TEN ACRES OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE
GREATER PALM RIVER COMMUNITY AREA OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO
"M" TO ALLOW INDUSTRIAL USES.
120
THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
THE CURRENT APPROVED ZONING ON THE SITE IS AN OLD 25-YEAR-
OLD PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 88-37, THAT WAS NEVER BUILT,
HAS VERY LOW F.A.R., AND WITH ACCESS ONLY ON ADJACENT 66th
STREET.
ADJACENT USES HAVE NOW CHANGED SURROUNDING THE PARCEL, A
AND WE FEEL IT ELIMINATES THE NEED OF THIS PD.
THESE SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE ACTIVE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
AND IDENTICAL TO THE "M" ZONING TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH,
AND TO THE WEST.
CASE IN POINT, MADISON PARK OF COMMERCE IS TO THE SOUTH AND
TO THE WEST OF US WITH TWO -- OVER TWO MILLION SQUARE FEET
OF INDUSTRIAL USES, AND IT INCLUDES JOANNE KEARNEY
BOULEVARD, AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD, WHICH TERMINATES VERY
CLOSE TO OUR PARCEL, AND THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY IN
THE FUTURE TO GET ANOTHER TIE-IN THROUGH KEARNEY BOULEVARD
BESIDES 66th STREET.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT LIES WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.
THIS PERMITS A FULL RANGE OF INTENSIVE USES SUCH AS THE
PROPOSED "M" ZONING, AND IT IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE GREATER
PALM RIVER COMMUNITY PLAN.
KEY GOAL STRATEGY OF THAT PLAN IS GOAL 5-B, WHICH IS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHICH PROVIDES -- WHICH IS, AND I
QUOTE, TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS GROWTH AND
JOBS IN THE PALM RIVER AREA, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF
121
DIFFERENT STRATEGIES, ONE WHICH PROPOSES TO UPGRADE
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING WATER/WASTEWATER, TO
SUPPORT THE CHARACTER OF PALM RIVER, ALSO TO RECOGNIZE AND
SUPPORT THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL AND PORT AREAS THAT
CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMIC -- ECONOMY IN CHARACTER OF PALM
RIVER, AND WE BELIEVE THAT OUR PROJECT NICELY DOVETAILS
INTO THESE STRATEGIES AND POLICIES.
AND BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE PLANNING
COMMISSION STAFF AGREED WITH US, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER
REVIEWING STAFFS ALL AGREE WITH US, AND EVERYONE'S
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AND WITH THAT, I CAN ANSWER
QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU COULD, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WILL
HAVE TO GO THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT
THAT TAKES PLACE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THE GRAPHIC THAT WAS
SUBMITTED AND IS A PART OF THE STAFF REPORT IS A PLAT OF
THE SUBJECT SITE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IT SHOWS THE EASEMENT FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END OF
JOANNE KEARNEY SHOWING IT -- THE OPPORTUNITY IS THERE TO
TIE IN.
NOW, OF COURSE, WE'LL HAVE TO DO A MINOR MOD, BECAUSE IT IS
A PD, TO MADISON PARK COMMERCE TO TIE IN, BUT WE THOUGHT
THAT WAS A NICE LITTLE ALTERNATIVE OPPORTUNITY TO GET
ANOTHER ACCESS FOR THIS INDUSTRIAL SITE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> WE FEEL THAT IT WAS APPROVED DECADES AGO AND THINGS HAVE
RADICALLY CHANGED AROUND IT, AND IT'S A VERY CUMBERSOME
122
EXISTING PD WITH LOTS OF CONDITIONS THAT YOU CAN FIND IN
THE ZONING CODE TODAY.
A VERY LARGE EASEMENT, TECO EASEMENT RUNS THROUGH THE
MIDDLE, SO IT'S A CHALLENGING SITE TO BEGIN WITH, BUT WE
FEEL IT'S A NICE PARCEL THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED,
PERHAPS, INTO MADISON PARK OF COMMERCE.
THERE'S SOME CONNECTION BETWEEN SOME OF THE DIFFERENT
OWNERS, AND SO, YEAH, WE THOUGHT BY MAKING IT INTO AN
"M" ZONING DISTRICT, IT WOULD REFLECT WHAT'S GOING ON
AROUND IT.
>>STEVE LUCE: I GUESS MY POINT IS YOU DO HAVE LEGAL RIGHT
TO EXTEND THE EXISTING CUL-DE-SAC INTO YOUR CLIENT'S
PROPERTY?
>> ONCE WE APPLY FOR AND GET -- ASSUMING WE CAN GET
APPROVED A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PD WITHIN THAT, BUT,
YES, WE DO.
IT'S -- WE HAVE CONNECTIONS WITH BOTH.
AND THEN, TO BE BLUNT, IF -- IF, FOR SOME REASON, IT FALLS
THROUGH, WELL, THEN, WE STILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS ON
66th --
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> -- BUT WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO USE THAT ACCESS ALSO.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
>>STEVE LUCE: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>CHARLES ANDREWS: GOOD EVENING.
CHARLES ANDREWS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
123
AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THERE IS INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO THE
NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD THE PD-I ZONING DISTRICT ON IT FOR
QUITE A WHILE, SINCE 1988, AND IT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE
REZONE REQUEST, SO I'M HERE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FUTURE
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THE
GREATER PALM RIVER COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY.
THE PROPOSED REZONING IS ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION AND WOULD ALLOW USES COMPATIBLE
WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
MR. GRADY OR MR. ANDREWS, IF I COULD JUST GET A
CLARIFICATION, AND MR. MINEER.
I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO ALL THREE OF YOU.
THE PLAT THAT YOU SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE BACKUP SHOWS
LOTS 1, 4, 5, AND 6, AND THE SUBJECT REZONING IS NOT ALL OF
THOSE LOTS, IS IT?
124
>> IT'S NOT ANY OF THOSE LOTS.
THAT PLAT IS THE PD TO THE SOUTH OF US.
THE REASON THAT I SUBMITTED THAT PLAT WAS TO SHOW JOANNE
KEARNEY BOULEVARD AND SHOW THAT IT HAS A LITTLE
EASEMENT --
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> -- ACCESS AS WELL AS UTILITIES, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT,
AND THAT'S THE THING THAT I'D LIKE TO STRESS.
PALM RIVER HAS A CHRONIC PROBLEM WITH GETTING AVAILABLE
WATER AND SEWER AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THROUGH JOANNE
KEARNEY TO -- THIS SITE WILL BE ON PUBLIC WATER AND PUBLIC
SEWER.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
SO SHEET 4 OF 4 IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S LABELED AS
SHEET 4 OF 4 ON THE GRAPHIC --
>> I'M GETTING THERE.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
>> YES, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THAT SHOWS THE EASEMENT THAT GETS TO THE SUBJECT REZONING
SITE --
>> YEP.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- THAT YOU'RE HERE FOR TONIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
OUR SITE IS THE PIECE TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST OF THAT.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
>> YEAH.
I CAN POINT IT OUT ON THE ELMO.
125
>>STEVE LUCE: NO, THAT'S FINE.
>> YEAH, YOU'LL NOTICE IT SHOWS BOTH A ACCESS
INGRESS/EGRESS AS WELL AS UTILITY EASEMENT --
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.
RIGHT.
>> -- SO IT'S A GREAT WAY TO GET SEWER AND WATER TO THE
SITE.
>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SEEK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>> STAFF WAS GREAT TO WORK WITH.
I APPRECIATE IT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,
IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-12, REZONING
APPLICATION 13-0899.
THE APPLICANT IS AGI ACQUISITIONS II, LLC.
126
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING.
COLLEEN MARSHALL WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
APPLICANT.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
I'M CATHLEEN O'DOWD WITH THE LAW FIRM OF SHUMAKER, LOOP &
KENDRICK, 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, SUITE 2800, AND I'M
HERE THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF AGI ACQUISITION II, LLC.
THE PURPOSE OF THE PETITION IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3816 WEST LINEBAUGH AVENUE FROM BUSINESS
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN ORDER TO
ALLOW FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL FOR A USE THAT WE
BELIEVE IS COMPATIBLE WITH AND COMPLEMENTARY TO THE
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
IF I MAY TAKE A MOMENT TO PRESENT SOME PICTURES THAT SHOW
THE SURROUNDING AREA.
>>STEVE LUCE: YES, THAT'S FINE.
>> THIS IS THE AERIAL THAT STAFF INCLUDED IN THE STAFF
REPORT, AND I JUST WANTED TO SHOW IT FOR PURPOSES OF
ORIENTATION.
THIS IS THE SITE THAT MY CLIENT IS SEEKING TO REZONE TO CN,
AND SURROUNDING IT IS THE CORPORATE PARK THAT WAS ZONED PD-
MU BACK IN 1986 WITH A MODIFICATION IN 1998, AND IT ALLOWS
FOR ONE-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, AND THEN WE'VE GOT PROPERTY
FRONTING LINEBAUGH TO THE EAST THAT IS ZONED CN, WHICH IS
THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT WE ARE SEEKING.
127
THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE PARCEL WE'RE SEEKING TO REZONE AND
SHOWS THE FOUR-STORY BUILDING THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE
SITE.
IT IS A FOUR-STORY 46,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING FOR OFFICE
USE.
JUST ANOTHER PICTURE FROM INTERNAL OF THE SITE.
AND A LITTLE FURTHER BACK.
THIS IS THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST, WHICH IS PART
OF THE PD-MU PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN FROM 1986.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S SHOWING A ONE-STORY BUILDING,
SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER IN SCALE THAN MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH.
THIS IS THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH, AGAIN, STILL PART OF THE
PD-MU ZONING.
AND THEN THE BUILDING TO THE EAST STILL PART OF THE PD-MU
ZONING.
AND I'LL ENTER THESE INTO THE RECORD WHEN I'M DONE.
AND THEN THIS IS THE PICTURE -- THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT
IS ZONED CN, COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S JUST A VIEW FROM WITHIN THE SITE PLAN OR THE SITE.
A CLOSER PICTURE OF IT.
AND THIS IS A -- THIS SHOWS THE SAME CN ZONING.
IT'S A PICTURE FROM LINEBAUGH, AND THEN THE SIGN SHOWS THE
TYPE OF USES THAT ARE WITHIN THAT -- THAT BUILDING.
AS STAFF NOTED IN THEIR REPORT, THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN
ZONING WILL ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH
THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA AND WILL OFFER A
128
RETAIL BUSINESS USE THAT IS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEFINES COMPATIBILITY AS
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT USES OR ACTIVITIES OR
DESIGN WHICH ALLOW THEM TO BE LOCATED NEAR OR ADJACENT TO
EACH OTHER IN HARMONY.
ELEMENTS AFFECTING COMPATIBILITY INCLUDE HEIGHT, SCALE,
MASS, AND BULK OF STRUCTURES, PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS IN PARKING.
THE PICTURES THAT I PRESENTED SHOW A FOUR-STORY 46,000-
SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING THAT IS HIGHER AND LARGER IN
SCALE THAN THE SURROUNDING ONE-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS.
MY CLIENT INTENDS TO REDEVELOP THE PARCEL FOR USE AS A
RETAIL BANK BRANCH OR SIMILAR RETAIL USES PERMITTED WITHIN
THE CN ZONING DISTRICT.
IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE CHANGE IN USE WILL BE OF A
HEIGHT AND SCALE IN KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING PATTERN OF
DEVELOPMENT.
THE SHARED ACCESS, PARKING, AND PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR
CIRCULATION WITHIN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT WILL REMAIN
UNCHANGED.
FOR THESE REASONS, I SUBMIT THAT THE -- THAT THE PROPOSED
CHANGE IN ZONING WILL ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS
COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND WILL ALLOW
FOR SIMILAR USES FOUND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
ON BEHALF OF AGI, I ASK FOR YOUR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION
TO THE COMMISSION AND AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE.
129
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
JUST ONE QUESTION IS -- IF YOU GO TO A CN ZONING DISTRICT,
YOU'RE SUBJECT TO THE EUCLIDEAN ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>STEVE LUCE: AND IT'S AN EXISTING FOUR-STORY OFFICE
BUILDING, WHICH HAS A HEIGHT OF 40-PLUS FEET, ROUGHLY?
>> YEAH.
>>STEVE LUCE: AND MR. GRADY, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT
RESTRICTION ON CN ZONING?
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS -- YOU PROBABLY GO FOR ONE FOR ONE
OVER A CERTAIN HEIGHT, PROBABLY.
>> IF IT WILL HELP --
>>STEVE LUCE: BUT ANYWAYS, I'M GETTING AT --
>> YEAH.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- THE POINT THAT IT'S -- I DON'T KNOW HOW
CHANGING IT TO CN ZONING AFFECTS STAFF IN TERMS OF ANY KIND
OF --
>>BRIAN GRADY: IT'S 35 FEET.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- ANY KIND OF FUTURE CHANGES YOU DO TO THIS
SITE.
>> MY CLIENT INTENDS TO DEMOLISH THAT BUILDING.
THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF MOVING THE TENANTS INTO THE
SURROUNDING OFFICE BUILDINGS, SO THE INTENT IS TO DEMOLISH
IT AND START FROM SCRATCH.
>>STEVE LUCE: THERE YOU GO.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
130
>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>COLLEEN MARSHALL: COLLEEN MARSHALL, DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES.
AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO REZONE
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE,
BPO, TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, CN.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND USES IN THE
SURROUNDING AREA, AS THE APPLICANT HAS DESCRIBED.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S WITHIN THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20
FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA
AND THE CARROLLWOOD-NORTHDALE COMMUNITIES PLAN BOUNDARY.
THE PROPOSED REZONING TO THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING
DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
SURROUNDING AREA AND SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING ZONING
PATTERN.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
131
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION?
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>STEVE LUCE: NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND
MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.
>>BRIAN GRADY: THE FINAL ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS
AGENDA ITEM I-13.
IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 13-0758.
THE APPLICANT IS SCHWENK PROPERTIES, LLC.
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AR TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
>> GOOD EVENING.
I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 70 ACRES TO A PD.
IT'S IN THE SMU-6 DESIGNATION LAND USE ELEMENT, SO WE HAD
TO GO TO A SITE PLAN DISTRICT.
IT'S OWNED BY B&P TREE FARM AND THE ANDERSONS.
132
IT'LL BE DEVELOPED IN ONE OF THE LAST UNDEVELOPED PARCELS
WITHIN RUSKIN, AND TOTAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE ABOUT 360
UNITS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN ON THE ELMO BEFORE YOU, TO THE
NORTH OF US IS A PD THAT'S ZONED FOR APPROXIMATELY 110 LOTS
ON 55,000 SQUARE FOOT.
ON THIS PORTION, IT'S PART OF THE SOUTHSHORE DRI.
IT'S ZONED -- IT'S -- CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE FOR
TOWNHOMES.
ALONG OUR EASTERN BOUNDARY HERE WE HAVE SOME RESIDENTIAL
UNDER THE SOUTHSHORE DRI, A COUNTY PARK, AND A NEW
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT'S SUPPOSED TO OPEN IN 2014.
THEN AROUND THE AREA WE HAVE WELLINGTON NORTH -- EXCUSE
ME -- BLACKSTONE, AND WELLINGTON SOUTH SUBDIVISIONS WHICH
ARE ALL PLATTED.
THEY WERE IN THE BACKUP PROVIDED TO COUNTY STAFF, AND I CAN
GIVE YOU THE PLAT BOOKS AND PAGES IF YOU NEED THEM.
THEY'RE ALL AT THE MINIMUM 5500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS SUCH AS
WE'RE PROPOSING.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM OUR SITE PLAN, WE ARE PROPOSING SOME
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN THE NETWORK.
OUR ACCESS WILL PRIMARILY BE OFF THE EXTENSION OF --
BRINGING -- IMPROVING 18th STREET SOUTH TO ITS -- FROM ITS
PERMANENT TERMINUS, TAKE IT THROUGH OUR PROPERTY.
AS IT COMES THROUGH THE PROPERTY, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO
HAVE LOTS FRONTING 18th.
IT WOULD NO LONGER REALLY BE FUNCTIONING AS A COLLECTOR
POINT AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE IF YOU COME HERE TO THEIR
133
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY AND GO SOUTH, 18th WAS NEVER BUILT.
IT'S AN OLD 40-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WAS JUST PLATTED BUT
NOT BUILT.
>>STEVE LUCE: DOES IT CONNECT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT TO THE
SOUTH?
>> WE HAVE A ZONING CONDITION STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT
WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THE ROAD TO THE EDGE OF OUR PROPERTY
LINE, BUT IT WON'T CONNECT TO A ROAD, IT WILL CONNECT TO AN
OLD UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THEN ON 11th -- WE WOULD TAKE 11th OVER TO 24th AVENUE.
WE'VE WORKED WITH STAFF IN TERMS OF THAT.
WE WOULD BE -- WE WOULD BE AGREEING TO PROVIDE FOR A 20 --
25 FOOT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THIS PORTION AND UP TO 50 FEET
OF RIGHT-OF-WAY THROUGH HERE.
IF WARRANTED, WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO IMPROVE THIS SECTION OF
THE ROAD, PRIMARILY LOOKING AT THE AREA RIGHT IN HERE,
ALTHOUGH OUR SITE PLAN DOESN'T SHOW US USING 11th AVENUE.
THERE WAS A STAFF CONDITION, AND WE ORIGINALLY AGREED TO
IT, THAT WE WOULD DO A CONNECTION AT DELAMO -- DELANO,
EXCUSE ME, AND CARSON WHITE; HOWEVER, AS I MET WITH THE
CITIZENS BEFORE THE HEARING -- HERE'S THE PLAT OF
WELLINGTON NORTH, AND WHAT HAPPENS IS -- HERE'S DELANO
TRENT STREET.
DELANO TRENT STREET WAS BUILT TO THE EDGE OF -- NOT TO THE
EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S AN EXISTING WETLAND DITCH THAT WAS PLATTED AS A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND A WETLAND CONSERVATION AREA, BUT IT
IS NOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO WE CAN'T CROSS THAT DRAINAGE DITCH
134
TO CONNECT TO DELANO STREET, SO WE'RE JUST -- ASK THAT
CONDITION 3.2 BE DELETED.
THAT WOULD BE APPLY TO DELANO STREET AND ALSO TO CARSON
LANE.
IT'S THAT SAME TRACT THAT'S OWNED BY THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION.
LET ME SEE.
THERE WAS A -- THERE'S A CONDITION IN THE SITE PLAN THAT WE
WOULD PROVIDE FOR OPEN SPACE EITHER UNDER THE CURRENT RULES
OR UNDER FUTURE RULES, WHICHEVER'S IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF
DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT WE PLAN TO APPLY FOR.
WE DO HAVE A CLUBHOUSE ON THE SITE PLAN AS LABELED
CLUBHOUSE, CIVIC USE, OR DAY CARE.
IT'LL MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TWO USES WITHIN SMU-6.
AND AS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD COMMENT REGARDING THE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL, BECAUSE OF THE NEW SCHOOL BEING BUILT IN THE AREA,
THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE CAPACITY BY 2014 WHEN THE SCHOOL
OPENS.
WITH THAT, I BELIEVE THE HOMEOWNERS FROM WELLINGTON NORTH
HERE -- ARE HERE TONIGHT.
WE TALKED TO THEM ORIGINALLY ABOUT DELANO STREET AND CARMEN
WHITE, AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO SAVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL AND ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING.
135
ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
SO AS MS. JAMES STATED, THIS IS A 70.53-ACRE PARCEL ZONED
AR, AND THE REQUEST IS TO BE REZONED TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW 5,500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS.
THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF DID DISCUSS WITH MS. JAMES
REGARDING THE CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS THAT SHE PROPOSED,
AND I WANTED TO READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.
I'M SORRY.
CONDITION NUMBER 5, AFTER THE SENTENCE, 11th AVENUE
NORTHEAST TO ADD, EAST OF 18th STREET NORTHEAST AND
ADJACENT TO FOLIOS 55390.0 AND 55370.0100 AS SHOWN ON THE
SITE PLAN, AND PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION, THE APPLICANT WILL
NEED TO SHOW THAT DEDICATION ON THE PLAN.
AND THEN FOR CONDITION NUMBER 6, THERE'S GOING TO BE, IF
WARRANTED, THE DEVELOPER MAY BE REQUIRED TO BRING A PORTION
OF 11th AVENUE NORTHEAST EAST OF 18th STREET NORTHEAST AND
ADJACENT TO FOLIOS 55390.0 AND 55370.0100.
I'LL LET RONNIE DISCUSS THE 3.2.
I WILL LET HIM DISCUSS THAT IF HE AGREES --
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: -- IF HE AGREES WITH --
>>STEVE LUCE: MS. ALBERT, I THINK THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE
REFERRING TO ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE NUMBERS I HAVE.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: WHICH NUMBERS?
>>STEVE LUCE: THE ZONING CONDITIONS THAT YOU JUST REFERRED
TO?
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: CONDITION 5 AND 6?
>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.
136
THEY'RE DIFFERENT IN MY STAFF REPORT.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: LET ME JUST TAKE A LOOK.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>>STEVE LUCE: THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: CONDITION 5, PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL?
>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.
THAT ONE STARTS OUT THE SAME WAY.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: I CAN BRING IT OVER TO THE ELMO.
>>STEVE LUCE: DO YOU HAVE IT HANDWRITTEN ON YOUR -- LET ME
JUST DOUBLE-CHECK WHAT YOU'RE --
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: MM-HMM.
>>STEVE LUCE: I'LL HAND IT RIGHT BACK TO YOU.
I JUST WANT TO CHECK.
OKAY.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 5?
I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CONDITIONS IN
CONDITION 4.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: 3.2.
3.2 IS NOT ON MY WRITTEN CONDITIONS.
MY WRITTEN CONDITIONS ARE FOR CONDITION NUMBER 5 AND
CONDITION NUMBER 6.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: AND CONDITION NUMBER 3.2, ONE MOMENT,
PLEASE.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
SO CONDITION -- THE INTENT OF CONDITION NUMBER 5 IS TO
SIMPLY CLARIFY WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO
137
DEDICATION OF 25 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY?
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: CORRECT.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
AND WHAT'S THE INTENT OF NUMBER 6?
>>ISABELLE ALBERT: THE INTENT?
I WILL LET MR. RONNIE DESCRIBE -- EXPLAIN ALL OF THAT, AND
HE CAN ALSO REFER TO THE NUMBER 3.2.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: GOOD EVENING.
RONNIE BLACKSHEAR, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.
AS FAR AS CONDITION 6, MR. HEARING OFFICER, IT WILL STATE,
IF WARRANTED, THE DEVELOPER MAY BE REQUIRED TO BRING
PORTIONS OF 11th AVENUE NORTHEAST OF 18th STREET -- 18th
STREET NORTHEAST AND ADJACENT TO FOLIOS 55390.000 AND
55370.0100 UP TO COUNTY STANDARDS.
THAT IS THE PORTION THAT REFERS TO A PORTION OF 11th AVENUE
NORTHEAST.
THAT'S PORTIONS OF IT THAT LIES EAST AND WEST OF 18th
AVENUE.
>>STEVE LUCE: AND DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT, HOW DOES ONE
DETERMINE IF IT'S WARRANTED?
>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: IT WILL BE DETERMINED IF IT'S
WARRANTED BASED ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT'S GOING TO BE
CONDUCTED AND WHATEVER THE APPLICANT SHOWS WITH REGARDS TO
THE INFORMATION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING TO US,
AND WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TO DETERMINE IF, IN
FACT -- IF THE TRAFFIC FLOW SHOWS WHETHER THAT ROAD -- OR
138
SECTIONS OR PORTIONS OF THAT ROADWAY WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE
IMPROVED.
>>STEVE LUCE: WELL, DOES THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAVE
THRESHOLDS THAT SAYS IF YOU HAVE A SUBDIVISION WITH ONE
DRIVEWAY CONNECTION, YOU CAN HAVE SO MANY UNITS AND OVER --
OVER THAT NUMBER OF UNITS, YOU NEED TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE
DRIVEWAY CONNECTION?
>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: WELL, IN THIS CASE, WE'RE NOT
SPEAKING OF DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE ACTUAL ROAD ITSELF.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A DRIVEWAY CONNECTION OFF OF 18th
STREET.
I MEAN, IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD.
IT'S BASICALLY IF, IN FACT, THE NUMBERS THAT ACTUALLY
SHOW -- AND I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME TO
EXACTLY TELL YOU -- TO TELL YOU EXACTLY THOSE NUMBERS, WHAT
THEY WILL BE, BUT BASED ON THE CRITERIA OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, IF, IN FACT, IT DOES MEET THOSE
CRITERIAS, THEN PORTIONS OF THAT ROAD WILL BE -- WE'LL MAKE
THOSE DETERMINATIONS THAT THEY BE -- SECTIONS OF 11th
AVENUE WILL BE IMPROVED UPON, IMPROVED TO COUNTY STANDARDS.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: AND WITH REGARDS TO -- UNDER
CONDITION NUMBER 4, SUBSECTION 3.2, MS. JAMES HAD INDICATED
THAT THE WESTERN CROSS-ACCESS CONNECTIONS TO DELANO --
DELANO TRENT STREET AND ALSO CARSON WHITE LANE, THERE WAS
AN EASEMENT THERE.
INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT WE WILL DELETE THAT CONDITION, WE
139
WILL -- WANTED TO PUT THE LANGUAGE IN THERE, IF FEASIBLE.
IF, IN FACT, IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO MAKE THOSE CONNECTIONS,
THEN THEY WILL NOT BE MADE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD.
>>BRIAN GRADY: AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE'LL ALSO CORRECT
THE NUMBERING IN CONDITION 4 SO THAT IT'S 4.1, JUST ON --
>>RONNIE BLACKSHEAR: [INAUDIBLE]
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE?
ALL RIGHT.
AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6
FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND
IS ALSO WITHIN THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN AND SOUTHSHORE
AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN BOUNDARIES.
THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN COMPARABLE TO THE APPROVED AND EXISTING USES IN THE
SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PROPOSED DENSITY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE MINIMUM
DENSITY POLICY -- FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 1.3.
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 19.1 REQUIRES SITES GREATER
THAN 40 ACRES AND WITHIN THE SMU-6 CLASSIFICATION TO
INCLUDE TWO LAND USES.
THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL USES
140
AND A CLUBHOUSE/CIVIC/DAY CARE USE AND MEETS THE INTENT OF
THIS POLICY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN AREA 2 ON THE RUSKIN AREA
NEIGHBOR MAP, AND THE PROPOSED LOT SIZES SUPPORT THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOOD GUIDELINES, AND THE
PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES MULTIPLE POINTS OF
ACCESS AND INGRESS AND EGRESS AND ROADWAY CONNECTIONS THAT
ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE GROUP HOME THAT'S CALLED FOR OR
SUPPORTED IN THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: COULD YOU JUST REPEAT YOUR FINDING AT THE
END.
I DIDN'T QUITE --
>>MARCIE STENMARK: OH, OKAY.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- HEAR THAT CORRECTLY.
DID YOU FIND IT CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT?
>>MARCIE STENMARK: YES, WE FOUND THIS REZONING -- I'M
SORRY, DID I SAY INCONSISTENT?
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I MUST BE TIRED.
IT IS CONSISTENT --
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: -- WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I APOLOGIZE.
141
>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.
>>MARCIE STENMARK: THANKS FOR ASKING.
>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE IN SUPPORT --
>>STEVE LUCE: SIR, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD,
YOU HAVE TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.
>> MR. ZONING OFFICER, I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE IN SUPPORT OR
IN OPPOSITION OF THIS.
>>BRIAN GRADY: SIR, COULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> MY NAME IS CRAIG MARGELOWSKY.
I'M PRESIDENT OF WELLINGTON NORTH AT BAY PARK.
MY ADDRESS IS 909 CRISTELLE JEAN DRIVE IN RUSKIN, FLORIDA.
>>STEVE LUCE: WELL, WHY DON'T YOU PROVIDE TESTIMONY, AND
WE'LL KIND OF FIGURE IT OUT AS WE GO.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
CAN I ACTUALLY SCOOT OVER HERE AND SHOW YOU THIS?
>>STEVE LUCE: YES.
>> I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE AND IT'S ON YOUR
[INAUDIBLE]
ONE THING THAT WE JUST LEARNED ABOUT IS -- YOU'RE SAYING --
YOU'RE ADDING LANGUAGE SAYING THAT IF FEASIBLE, TO CONNECT
CARSON WHITE, WHICH IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, AND DELANO
TRENT STREET, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY DEAD-ENDS THAT -- THE HOA
142
ACTUALLY HAS AN EASEMENT OF -- IT'S CALLED AN ESP EASEMENT?
IT'S A WETLANDS EASEMENT THAT ACTUALLY EXTENDS AN
ADDITIONAL 15 FEET TO THE END OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT NOW
TOWARDS WHAT THEY WANT TO CONNECT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
NEEDED IF THERE'S -- IF POSSIBLE.
>>STEVE LUCE: WELL, THERE'S PRETTY STRONG LANGUAGE IN BOTH
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WHEN
SUBDIVISIONS ARE DEVELOPED THAT THEIR INTERNAL LOCAL
RESIDENTIAL STREETS SHALL CONNECT, NOT -- NOT THAT THEY MAY
CONNECT, THAT THEY SHALL.
NOW, THERE'S EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT AND SORT
OF VERIFIED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT TONIGHT BY STAFF THAT --
AND YOURSELF THAT THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL EASEMENTS AT THE
END OF THOSE STUB-OUTS --
>> CORRECT.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THOSE ROADS ARE MEANT TO CONNECT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY,
SO STAFF IS A LITTLE RELUCTANT TO JUST WAIVE THE CONDITIONS
AND SAY THOSE STUB-OUT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE DELETED BY THE
APPLICANT.
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT
IT WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHEN THE
DEVELOPER AND THE ENGINEERS PLATTED THIS DEVELOPMENT AND
WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STAFF, THERE
WERE ENVIRONMENTAL EASEMENTS PLACED IN THE PATHWAY OF THOSE
STREETS, SO IT'S KIND OF A CONUNDRUM, SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE
SAYING, IF FEASIBLE, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE TO YOU.
143
>> IT DOES, ACTUALLY.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> THE MAIN ISSUE THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE ACTUALLY IS MORE
WITH THE -- RIGHT HERE, THIS IS 11th AVENUE, AND CURRENTLY
THIS IS AN UNIMPROVED ROAD.
IF YOU WANT TO SEE A PICTURE OF IT, I HAVE MY LAPTOP WITH
PICTURES OF IT; HOWEVER, IT IS BASICALLY A ONE -- ONE-LANE
ROAD THAT -- WE HAVE ACTUAL BUSES THAT GO DOWN THIS.
YOU HAVE 20 TRIPS BY SCHOOL BUSES GOING TO CYPRESS CREEK
ELEMENTARY, WHICH WOULD BE OFF TO THE EAST OF HERE, AND WE
HAVE -- WE'VE HAD ACTUALLY TWO NEAR FATAL ACCIDENTS AT THE
CORNER OF 15th AND 11th RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THIS TURN IS
HORRIBLE.
YOU CAN'T SEE AROUND IT GOING EAST, AND WHEN YOU'RE COMING
WEST, YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH THE RIGHT-HAND LANE TO
GET TO THE LEFT-HAND LANE OF 15th, SO MY -- MY ISSUE WITH
THE WHOLE THING IS IF THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEIR PRIMARY
INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE GOING TO BE THROUGH 18th AND THROUGH
11th STREET GOING EAST, NO ONE THAT LIVES IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE AREA THAT WE LIVE IN
RIGHT NOW -- BECAUSE WE ARE WELLINGTON NORTH, AND I ALSO
HAVE TALKED TO BLACKSTONE AND TO WELLINGTON SOUTH'S
PRESIDENTS TODAY, THAT IF THEY FIND OUT -- AND, I MEAN,
GRANTED, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME -- THAT THEY HAVE A
STRAIGHT SHOT RIGHT HERE FROM 15th GOING DOWN -- HERE'S
SHELL POINT DOWN SOMEWHERE AROUND HERE, AND THEN DOWN HERE
THERE'S COLLEGE AVENUE.
IF THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THERE, THAT IS THE FASTEST WAY TO
144
THE INTERSTATE FOR THEM, EVEN ONCE THEY IMPROVE 24th
STREET, BECAUSE 24th STREET CURRENTLY IS BEING IMPROVED
FROM SHELL POINT ROAD TO COLLEGE AVENUE.
WHEN THAT GETS IMPROVED, IT'S NOT GOING TO MATTER MUCH FOR
THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WHEN
YOU GO THROUGH THERE, YOU HAVE HCC SOUTHSHORE, YOU HAVE
LENNARD HIGH SCHOOL, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WHICH IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE RIGHT
ABOUT HERE, AND, I MEAN, NO ONE'S GOING TO GO DOWN THROUGH
ALL THE SCHOOLS TO TRY TO GO TO WORK.
I MEAN, IF I GO TO WORK AND I'M GOING TO -- GOING THROUGH
THERE, I AVOID SHELL POINT AND 24th LIKE THE PLAGUE.
NO ONE WANTS TO GO THROUGH THERE.
ONCE THESE PEOPLE FIGURE OUT THAT, HEY, THEY CAN GO THROUGH
15th, YOU'RE GOING TO PROBABLY DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC
THAT GOES THROUGH 11th AND 15th STREET RIGHT THERE, AND IF
THAT'S UNIMPROVED -- IT IS ONE OF THE WORST INTERSECTIONS
IN RUSKIN.
I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY MORE PEOPLE GET RUN OVER.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE -- WE HAD A DUMP TRUCK HIT A FORD -- OR
A TOYOTA PRIUS, ALMOST KILLED THE PRIUS DRIVER, BECAUSE
THERE ARE GARBAGE TRUCKS THAT GO THROUGH THERE, THERE ARE
DUMP TRUCKS THAT GO THROUGH THERE, AND IT IS THE WORST
INTERSECTION IN RUSKIN, REALLY.
SO I'D LIKE -- AS A HOMEOWNER IN THE AREA AND AS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, I WOULD LIKE LANGUAGE IN WHATEVER
APPLICATION THEY'RE DOING THAT THEY HAVE TO IMPROVE BETWEEN
HERE AND HERE.
145
>>STEVE LUCE: AND BETWEEN HERE AND HERE IS --
>> I'M SORRY.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- 11th AVENUE NORTHEAST; CORRECT?
>> IT'S ON 11th AVENUE NORTHEAST --
>>STEVE LUCE: FROM --
>> -- WEST -- FROM 18th AVENUE WEST TO 15th.
>>STEVE LUCE: YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT SEGMENT OF
ROADWAY IMPROVED TO COUNTY STANDARDS.
>> TO COUNTY STANDARDS.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
>> BECAUSE, I MEAN -- I HATE TO SAY IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
BE ABLE TO AVOID THE TRAFFIC, WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THE ROAD
IMPROVED BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE IS GOING TO BE SERIOUS
TRAFFIC ISSUES.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS.
>>STEVE LUCE: NO, IT'S CLEAR.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.
ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION?
I DON'T KNOW IF I GOT TO EVERYBODY WHO WAS IN SUPPORT, BUT
I'LL SWITCH OVER TO OPPOSITION AT THIS POINT.
146
I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.
STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT REGARDING THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE
HERE IN OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT, WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE YET,
ABOUT THE STREET THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, 11th AVENUE
NORTHEAST?
>>BRIAN GRADY: WELL, I THINK IN OUR STAFF PRESENTATION,
TRANSPORTATION STAFF ADDRESSED THAT.
I MEAN, I THINK IT -- I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS
THAT HE'S RAISED, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION'S
ALSO AWARE OF THAT, SO I THINK CLEARLY THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT CLOSELY DURING SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ASSUMING THIS GETS APPROVED TO SEE WHAT
NEEDS TO OCCUR WITH RESPECT TO 11th AVENUE.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>> I JUST WANT TO STATE AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, WHEN YOU LOOK
AT DELANO TRENT AND CARMEN WHITE, THERE'S ACTUALLY A GAP IN
OWNERSHIP.
WE CAN'T CONNECT TO THE EXISTING DEAD-END OF THE ROAD
BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OWNS THAT LAND -- THAT
STRIP IN BETWEEN, SO, I MEAN, IF THE COUNTY STAFF WANTS TO
ADD THE LANGUAGE, IF FEASIBLE, THAT'S FINE, BUT THERE'S A
GAP IN OWNERSHIP.
>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT IT LOOKS INFEASIBLE --
>> RIGHT.
147
>>STEVE LUCE: -- BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH --
>> I LIKE THAT.
>>STEVE LUCE: -- THE -- YOU KNOW, THE GOAL OF TRYING TO
MAKE THE CONNECTION, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES, BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED, LOOK LIKE IT'S --
>> AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE 11th AVENUE, JUST TO STATE FOR
THE RECORD THAT THE PORTION OF 11th THAT IS ADJOINING THE
BLACKSTONE SUB -- WELLINGTON NORTH SUBDIVISION, THAT'S ONLY
A 40-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THERE'S INSUFFICIENT RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THAT A
COUNTY-STANDARD ROAD.
>>STEVE LUCE: HMM.
>> THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 11th AVENUE.
>>STEVE LUCE: DO WE KNOW WHEN THAT SUBDIVISION WAS
PLATTED?
>> 2005.
>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
OKAY.
ANYTHING ELSE?
>> THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT --
>> [INAUDIBLE]
148
>>STEVE LUCE: I'M SORRY?
SOMEBODY LEFT THEIR IPAD HERE.
THAT CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.
149