CAPTIONING JULY 20, 2010 BOCC LAND USE AFTERNOON SESSION ***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. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME BACK TO THE AFTERNOON SESSION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR LAND USE MEETING. AT THIS TIME, MS. HARVEY, DO WE HAVE ANY AFTERNOON CHANGES? >>PAULA HARVEY: WE DO, COMMISSIONERS. LET ME READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD REGARDING SOME CONTINUANCES. THEY ARE LISTED ON PAGE 1 OF THE PRINTED AGENDA BEGINNING WITH ITEM A-2. PRS APPLICATION 10-683, APPLICATION BY BRANDON SHOPPING CENTER PARTNERS. IN APPLICATION IS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 10th LAND USE MEETING. NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE 09-924, REGARDING DRI NUMBER 263, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CONSOLIDATED MINES, IS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 10th LAND USE MEETING. ASSOCIATED MINING PERMIT NUMBER 709.02P FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MINES CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 10th LAND USE MEETING. AND A SEPARATE OPERATING PERMIT 1208.12P, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MINES LONESOME MINING UNIT, 19A, IS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 10th LAND USE MEETING. AND AS I NOTED ON THE CHANGE SHEET FROM THIS MORNING, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR ITEMS F-4, F-5, AND F-6 HAS REQUESTED THAT THESE ITEMS BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY ITEM -- AFTER ITEM F-1. THERE IS SOME TIMING CONSIDERATIONS ON HIS PART FOR MAKING THAT REQUEST. THOSE ARE OUR CHANGES. >>KEN HAGAN: CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGES. >>KEVIN BECKNER: [INAUDIBLE] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SECOND COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION PASSED 5-0. >>KEN HAGAN: LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO E-1 SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A FULL BOARD. >>PAULA HARVEY: E-1? >>KEN HAGAN: YES. >>PAULA HARVEY: OKAY. MS. HAMRIC IS HERE FROM REAL ESTATE TO PRESENT THESE ITEMS. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, PEGGY. >>PEGGY HAMRIC: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. PEGGY HAMRIC WITH THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT. OUR FIRST ITEM IS ITEM E-1, WHICH IS VACATING PETITION V4, 2/4/2010. THIS IS A PETITION BY RUSSELL AND PATSY AYERS TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN UNIMPROVED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE MAGDALENE BOULEVARD AND BEARSS AVENUE, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE RESOLUTION AND SHOWN ON THE SKETCHES ATTACHED TO YOUR BACKUP. THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED BY FDOT AND SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE COUNTY PER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TRANSFER MAP BOOK 3, PAGE 52. THE AREA IN QUESTION'S ONLY ABOUT TEN SQUARE FEET, AND IT ACTUALLY LIES INSIDE THE AYERS' PRIVACY WALL. THIS AREA WAS DISCOVERED WHEN THE COUNTY WAS DOING SOME ACQUISITION FROM THE AYERS FOR A SIDEWALK PROJECT, AND THE AYERS DID, IN FACT, DONATE SOME ADDITIONAL LAND TO US FOR THAT PROJECT. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PETITION, DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION, AND WE ALSO WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU WAIVE THE VACATING FILING FEES FOR THIS PETITION. AND LASTLY, BECAUSE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS DEEDED, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED IN FAVOR OF THE AYERS. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>PEGGY HAMRIC: NEXT ITEM IS E-2, VACATING PETITION NUMBER V5, 2/19/2010. THIS IS A PETITION BY YULEO AND YANELIS GONZALEZ TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE PLATTED FIVE-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ENCUMBERING THE REAR BOUNDARY OF LOT 38, BLOCK 4, CAMEO VILLAS UNIT NUMBER 1, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE RESOLUTION AND SHOWN ON THE SKETCHES ATTACHED TO YOUR BACKUP. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8616 LEEWARD DRIVE IN TOWN 'N COUNTRY. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PETITION AND DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>PEGGY HAMRIC: OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM E-3, VACATING PETITION NUMBER V7, 3/11/2010. THIS IS A PETITION BY 8751 MAISLIN VENTURE, LLLP, TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 20-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 8034, PAGE 1936, AND ENCUMBERING LOT 1, BLOCK 3 OF U.S. 301 INDUSTRIAL PARK ADDITION SUBDIVISION, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE RESOLUTION AND SHOWN ON THE SKETCHES ATTACHED TO YOUR BACKUP. THE EASEMENT WAS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY IN 1995, AND THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY HAS PROPOSED THE RELOCATION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO ALLOW FOR SOME ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PETITION, DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION AND EXECUTION OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER TO EVIDENCE THIS VACATING ACTION. AND LASTLY, WE WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT YOU ACCEPT THE DONATION OF THE REPLACEMENT PERPETUAL DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM 8751 MAISLIN VENTURE LLLP. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE THE ITEM, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PEGGY HAMRIC: AND OUR LAST ITEM IS ITEM E-4, WHICH IS VACATING PETITION NUMBER V11, 3/31/2010. THIS IS A PETITION BY WATERLEAF, LLC, TO VACATE AND ANNUL THE CONTIGUOUS SUBDIVISION PLATS OF WATERLEAF PHASE I AND WATERLEAF PHASE II IN THEIR ENTIRETIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL OF THE LOTS, THE BLOCKS, THE PUMP STATION, THE WATER MAIN EASEMENT DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY, ANY INTEREST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC OR THE COUNTY IN ANY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND EASEMENTS AND TRACTS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THOSE PLATS, ALL AS ARE MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THAT RESOLUTION AND SHOWN ON THE SKETCHES ATTACHED TO YOUR BACKUP. THESE TWO SUBDIVISIONS WERE CREATED IN 2006, BUT THEY'VE NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED, AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAS DECIDED TO POSTPONE THAT DEVELOPMENT AND HAS REQUESTED THIS VACATING ACTION TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO ACREAGE FOR TAXATION PURPOSES. STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. FERLITA SO MOVED. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, PEGGY. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, PEGGY. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-1 ON YOUR AGENDA, COMMISSIONERS, IS PRS APPLICATION 10-565. THE APPLICANT IS BILLY CREEL. MR. CREEL IS REPRESENTED BY JUDY JAMES THIS AFTERNOON. THIS PERTAINS TO A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S TWO AND A QUARTER ACRES IN SIZE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIVERVIEW DRIVE, WEST OF RIVERLACHEN WAY. THE PETITIONER IS FILING THIS APPLICATION TO REALLY CLEAN UP THE REZONING PETITION THAT AT THE TIME OF ITS APPROVAL ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD BE A CONNECTION TO THE WEST OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, AND AT THAT TIME THE APPLICANT -- THE LAND TO THE WEST WAS PROPOSED FOR INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR WHICH IT WAS VERY COMPATIBLE WITH THE USE THAT WAS APPROVED IN THIS REZONING. SINCE THAT TIME, THE PROPERTY OWNERS, WITH THE BOARD'S CONCURRENCE AND APPROVAL, HAVE MODIFIED THEIR PROPOSAL TO THE WEST TO HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS IN PLACE TODAY. SO IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE ZONING THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY, WE'RE REQUESTING THAT YOU REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE ACCESS FROM THIS PROPERTY THROUGH AND TO THE SINGLE- FAMILY SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST. SECONDLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MODIFICATION REGARDING THE TIMING OF CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS. THEY WANT TO BE REGULATED BY THE NORMAL REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION IN REGARDS TO TIME, AND THIS IS ALSO IN CONSIDERATION OF A DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN ABOUT AN ACCESS TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT WILL BE COMING TO YOU TODAY TO MAKE THIS REQUEST AND ALSO PROVIDE FOR A CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE OPEN STORAGE AREA ON THE SITE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AND WE HAVE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU A MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITION REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE OPEN STORAGE AREA. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, MS. JAMES. >> [MICROPHONE NOT ON] I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD. I REPRESENT BILLY AND CONNIE CREEL, WHO PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN 2003. IF YOU LOOK ON THE AERIAL BEFORE YOU WHICH IS FROM 2003, THEY OWN THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED IPD-1 HERE IN THE YELLOW OUTLINE. YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING IN QUESTION, A DRIVEWAY ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY, A DRIVEWAY ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY, AND THIS AERIAL WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE -- WELL, IT WAS BEFORE 2003. CURRENTLY THERE ARE HOUSES IN THIS AREA DESIGNATED PD-MU. AT THE TIME THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, AS YOU CAN SEE, IN 2003 THE BUILDING WAS IN, THE DRIVEWAY WAS DESIGNATED, THE SEPTIC TANK WAS LOCATED HERE ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING, AND THERE WAS -- WE HAVE THE SURVEY TO SHOW THAT THE OUTSIDE -- ACCESSORY STORAGE AREA WAS FENCED IN. THEY WERE THE FOURTH OWNER SINCE THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1991. GOING BACK TO 1990 WHEN THE ZONING WAS APPROVED BY MR. AND MRS. CULLEN AND BETTY WILLIAMS, THEY OWNED THE WHOLE ENTIRE TRACT, WHICH YOU SEE HERE IN RED. THAT INCLUDED THE LAKE, THE COMPOUND IN THE REAR, THIS BUILDING, AND A LUMBERYARD THAT WAS TO THE EAST. THE REZONING WAS TO AN IPD, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ONLY INTERSTATE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED WITH THE COUNTY -- WITHIN THE COUNTY. THERE WERE NUMEROUS CONDITIONS REGARDING WHAT HAD TO BE DONE BEFORE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY COULD BE ISSUED. THERE HAD TO BE AN INTERNAL CIRCULATION PATTERN, CONDITION NUMBER 14; THEY HAD TO HAVE FIRE MARSHAL APPROVAL, WHICH WAS CONDITION 17; THERE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE EXTERNAL SIDEWALKS ON RIVERVIEW DRIVE, CONDITION 13; AND THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LIGHTING AT THE ENTRANCE ON -- AT RIVERVIEW DRIVE, WHICH WAS CONDITION 18. AS TO THE ACCESS, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRS TODAY, HERE IS A REDUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVED GENERAL SITE PLAN, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE IPD DISTRICT BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A FRONTAGE ROAD ALONG RIVERVIEW DRIVE TYING INTO THE INTERSTATE. THIS FRONTAGE ROAD WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE WEST, TO THE EAST, AND IN TERMS OF -- IT WOULD BE A FUTURE PERMITTED ACCESS ONCE THE APPROVED FRONTAGE ROAD WAS BUILT, ONCE IT WAS -- UNTIL SUCH TIME THEY COULD USE THE ACCESS TO THE EAST, WHICH IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED. PURPOSE OF OUR ZONING APPLICATION TODAY IS TO CLEAN UP THOSE TWO ITEMS AND REMOVE THEM FROM THE SITE PLAN. THERE WAS NO ACCESS SHOWN, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL, AS PART OF THE ZONING FOR THIS DRIVEWAY ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY; HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS THAT. THAT'S PART OF A COURT CASE THAT'S ONGOING. THE FRONTAGE ROAD CONDITION NEVER CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THERE'S AN E-MAIL FROM PAULA STATING THAT SINCE THIS AREA HAS NOW BEEN BUILT AS RESIDENTIAL, NO ADDITIONAL BUFFERING OR SCREENING IS REQUIRED. THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PUT UP A FENCE ALONG THAT BOUNDARY. THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WAS REQUIRED -- EXCUSE ME. LET ME GO BACK. IN 1991, AFTER THE ZONING OCCURRED BY MR. AND MRS. WILLIAMS, THEY FILED FOR A SITE PLAN AND WENT FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY. A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN 1990. ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN OUT THERE SINCE 1991; HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THAT BUILDING WAS NOT ISSUED UNTIL 1997. AT THAT TIME, AS PART OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WE DID FIND FROM THE COUNTY RECORDS THE SIGN-OFF FOR THE SEPTIC TANK AND FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL APPROVAL, WHICH WERE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF ZONING; HOWEVER, YOU CAN FIND NO EVIDENCE A SIDEWALK WAS BUILT BECAUSE IT WASN'T AND THE NO EXTERNAL SIDE -- EXCUSE ME -- LIGHTING WAS PROVIDED. MY CLIENTS, AFTER THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2003, WENT AHEAD AND ADDED A SMALL METAL BUILDING AND RECEIVED CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL TO ADD THE SECOND BUILDING OR THE SECOND PHASE OF THE CONSTRUCTION. THAT APPROVAL IS STILL IN PLACE; HOWEVER, IT'S ON HOLD PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT ORDER. LET ME CATCH UP WITH MYSELF. STARTING LAST YEAR THERE WERE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS AND ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN LODGED AGAINST THE CREELS BY THE CODE -- BY THE WILLIAMS, REPRESENTED BY TODD PRESSMAN. CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF AND PGM HAVE SPENT NUMEROUS HOURS INVESTIGATING AND RESOLVING THE CLAIMS, AND I JUST WANT TO GO OVER THEM WITH YOU. THE ADDITIONAL SMALL BUILDING WAS CHALLENGED. WE HAVE PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS THAT MANUFACTURING WAS OCCURRING ON- SITE. MY CLIENT WAS ORIGINALLY TOLD BY PGM THAT HE COULD WORK WITHIN HIS BUILDING AND DO MODIFICATIONS TO STYROFOAM. HE CARVES COLUMNS AND -- EXCUSE ME -- TRIM WORK, AND HE WAS TOLD HE HAD TO STOP, SO HE DID. IT WAS TAKEN TO CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, AND HE WAS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AT THAT TIME. THE FENCE ITSELF WAS QUESTIONED. WE HAVE A SURVEY FROM 2003 SHOWING THAT THE FENCE WAS WHERE IT IS TODAY AND IT WAS THERE WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2003. I HAVE THE SURVEY WITH ME. EVEN THOUGH THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE WAS THERE SINCE 2003, PAULA ISSUED AN INTERPRETATION AS PART OF ALL THIS INVESTIGATION THAT THE FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT COULDN'T BE CHAIN-LINK, THAT IT HAD TO BE A WOODEN FENCE, SO ALTHOUGH THE FENCE HAD BEEN THERE SINCE 2003 -- WE'RE NOW INTO 2009 -- MY CLIENT WENT AHEAD AND PUT UP A WOODEN FENCE ACROSS THE SOUTHERN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. PAULA ALSO ISSUED AN E-MAIL THAT STATED NEWER ADDITIONAL BUFFERING AND SCREENING IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. DURING THIS SAME TIME WE WERE QUESTIONED ABOUT THE FIRE MARSHAL SIGN-OFF AND ALSO THE ISSUE ABOUT THE SEPTIC TANK. WE PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY SIGN-OFFS ON BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS. AS TO THE TWO ITEMS REQUIRED BY CONDITIONS 13 AND 18, WHICH WERE THE EXTERNAL SIDEWALK AND THE LIGHTING, MY CLIENT WENT AHEAD AND CONSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK ALL THE WAY TO THE EASTERN BOUNDARY BUT NOT WITHIN THE AREA OF THE DISPUTED DRIVEWAY. HE ALSO INSTALLED THE LIGHTING. THESE WERE FOUND TO BE VIOLATIONS BY CODE ENFORCEMENT. HE IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE. THE REMAINING ITEM IS TO CLEAN UP THIS ISSUE BEFORE YOU TODAY ABOUT THE TEMPORARY ACCESS ON THE ZONING PLAN. THE CO -- THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS FOR THOSE TWO -- THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS STATED THEY HAD TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO A CO BEING ISSUED. IF YOU GO BACK, THAT CO WAS ISSUED IN 1997. MY CLIENT OWNED THE PROPERTY FOUR PEOPLE LATER, BUT HE WAS THE ONE CITED; HOWEVER, HE HAS DONE EVERYTHING THEY'VE EVER ASKED HIM. HE'S CLEANED UP, BROUGHT EVERYTHING INTO COMPLIANCE, AND DONE WHAT WAS EVER ASKED OF HIM. IN ADDITION TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS, THERE HAVE BEEN THREE ZONING INTERPRETATIONS FILED ON THIS PROPERTY BY MR. PRESSMAN AND THE WILLIAMS. OF THOSE ZONING INTERPRETATION, WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED OF ANY OF THEM; HOWEVER, THEY ALL WORKED OUT TO MY CLIENT'S FAVOR AND EVERYTHING WAS RESOLVED. ACCORDING TO THE STAFF, THE LATEST ISSUE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE ISSUE OF THE ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. THE SITE PLAN THAT WE FILED -- AND AGAIN, THIS IS RIVERVIEW DRIVE. THE AREA IN ORANGE IS THE HIGHLIGHTED OPEN STORAGE AREA WHICH WAS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY FROM 2003 WHICH IS THE FENCE. I SHOWED YOU THE PICTURE OF THE WOODEN FENCED AREA. THE SEPTIC TANK IS IN THAT AREA. IT'S BEHIND THE FENCE. SO IT'S REALLY NOT OPEN STORAGE, AND PAULA HAS PROPOSED A CONDITION THAT SAYS THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THAT AREA WOULD NOT BE USED FOR OPEN STORAGE. THAT'S FINE WITH US. IT NEVER WAS. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE SEPTIC TANK. WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE, THOUGH, ABOUT THE WHOLE THING WITH THE -- THE FENCING AND EVERYTHING, AND I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT. PART OF THE REASON THAT YOU HAVE ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE AND ITS FENCING IS BECAUSE OF SECURITY. AFTER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, MY CLIENT HAD FIVE TRUCKS WITH THEIR TIRES SLASHED AND THE WINDSHIELDS BROKEN OUT FOR ABOUT $12,000 IN DAMAGES. THIS WAS THE WEEKEND AFTER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING. THE DAY OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING IN JUNE, MR. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS FOLLOWED MY CLIENTS TO THEIR HOME AND VERBALLY ACCOSTED MS. CREEL IN THEIR DRIVEWAY. MY CLIENTS HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO WORK THIS OUT. ALL WE'RE ASKING YOU TODAY IS TO HELP US RESOLVE THE LAST ISSUE AND APPROVE THE PRS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. JAMES. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS AND DIRECTLY FOR SOME RESIDENTS. I'D LIKE TO ASK IF I MAY HAVE FIVE, SIX, SEVEN MINUTES TO PRESENT. I'LL BE THE ONLY ONE TO PRESENT IN THAT REGARD, IF I MAY, SIR. THIS IS A REQUEST BEFORE YOU THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD ALREADY TODAY. THERE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTING ISSUES THAT I INTEND TO PRESENT ONLY THE FACTS TODAY. I WANT YOU ONLY TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND WHAT THE ACTUAL SITUATIONS ARE THAT ARE EXISTING. THIS IS A LONG-TERM PUBLIC ISSUE. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE RECEIVED MANY COMPLAINTS. NEIGHBORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE -- MANY NEIGHBORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT A CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND THERE WERE THREE ORDERS BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF $500 A DAY. THIS IS A SITE THAT HAS HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS. I WANT TO MAKE YOU WELL AWARE THIS INVOLVES NOT -- MUCH MORE THAN MR. WILLIAMS. YOU HAVE PETITIONS ON FILE AS YOU SEE HERE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND CITIZENS WHO HAVE HAD LONG-TERM DIFFICULTY WITH THE IMPACTS OF THE SITE, SO IT'S MUCH MORE THAN MR. WILLIAMS. WHAT'S ALLOWED? EVERYONE IS FAMILIAR WITH THIS. EVERYONE -- THIS IS NOT IN CONTENTION. ON RIVERVIEW BOULEVARD, THE ORIGINAL PD NOTES TWO BUILDINGS, PROPOSED BUILDING, PROPOSED BUILDING, AND A CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE WITH ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. THAT'S A CRITICAL TERM FOR YOU, NOT OPEN STORAGE. THE PRIMARY USE IS AN OFFICE WITH ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. SO PRIMARY USE IS AN OFFICE, ACCESSORY USE IS OPEN STORAGE. WHAT'S EXISTING? WELL, THE PICTURE LOOKS MUCH DIFFERENT, DOESN'T IT? THE PICTURE IS OF ONE BUILDING AND THEN A VERY LARGE OUTSIDE STORAGE AREA, AND YOU CAN SEE IT INVOLVES PARKING OF TRUCKS ANYWHERE THEY MAY BE AND A LOT OF STORAGE EQUIPMENT. BY THE WAY, THIS WAS NOTED ON THE PRESENTATION AS A SEPTIC TANK, AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY BEING USED. ANOTHER AERIAL PHOTO AGAIN. YOU CAN SEE TRUCKS COMING AND GOING, YOU CAN SEE VEHICLES PARKED HERE. THIS IS ALL DIRT. YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF STORAGE EQUIPMENT HERE. THESE ARE JUST SOME PICTURES FROM THE GROUND. YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE STORING VEHICLES, ALL KINDS OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. AGAIN, THIS WOULD APPARENTLY BE WHERE THE SEPTIC TANK WAS NOTED. YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE KEEPING ALL KINDS OF EQUIPMENT. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? WHEN YOU LOOK BACK AT THE ORIENTATION OF THIS SITE, THIS SITE IS LOCATED NEXT TO ALL OF THESE NEIGHBORS OF WHICH YOU HAVE PETITION SIGNATURES. THIS IS MR. WILLIAMS' PROPERTY OF WHICH HE MAINTAINS A LOT OF ANIMALS, SOME EXOTIC ANIMALS THAT HAVE HAD SOME SICKNESSES AND HE'S HAD A COUPLE DEATHS ON THE PROPERTY. ONE MORE PICTURE. AS YOU CAN SEE, WHAT OCCURS ON THE SITE -- AND THIS IS THE CRITICAL IMPACT. THIS IS A 24-HOUR-A-DAY, SEVEN-DAY-A-WEEK CONSTRUCTION ZONE. HE HAS ALL KINDS OF EQUIPMENT, ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE COMING AND GOING. THEY HAVE DELIVERIES FROM CEMEX, 18-WHEELER TRUCKS DELIVERING CEMENT, SO NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE THE NOISE AND THE LIGHT AND THE CONSTANT OR CONSIDERABLE ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMING AND GOING, YOU ALSO HAVE ALL THE DIRT. STAFF'S NOT PROPOSING ANY PERVIOUS SURFACE, ANY PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ANY DRIVING AISLE, JUST TRUCKS COMING AND GOING, THROWING DIRT AND DEBRIS ALL OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU HAVE TRUCKS THAT PARK FOR A HALF HOUR WITH FUMES FLOWING THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS A UNTENABLE SITUATION. MS. JAMES SHOWED YOU ONE NICE SIDE OF A FENCE. THIS IS WHAT MR. WILLIAMS HAS TO LOOK AT AND WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO LOOK AT. IT'S NOT VERY NICE TO LOOK AT. THIS IS ONE TRUCK THAT JUST HAPPENED TO PARK THERE, PARKED THERE FOR 30 MINUTES, FUMES FLOWING OUT, ALL KINDS OF DELIVERIES, CLANKING AROUND. WELL, WHAT IS THE APPLICANT REALLY ASKING FOR? NOW, YOUR AGENDA READS SOMETHING ABOUT CROSS-ACCESS POINTS AND TIMING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THERE'S AN OLD SAYING IN THE LEGISLATURE -- MR. NORMAN, YOU'LL LEARN THIS. THE LAST FEW DAYS WHEN THE LEGISLATURE'S CLOSING DOWN THEY PLOP A BIG BILL DOWN ON YOUR DESK. THE WAY YOU VOTE ON IT AND DECIDE IS YOU SHOVE YOUR HAND IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. IF IT'S STILL HOT AND WARM FROM THE COPY MACHINE, YOU DON'T VOTE ON IT. THAT'S, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHAT I WOULD SUPPOSE -- OR I WOULD PROPOSE TO YOU IS MY OPINION THAT'S HAPPENING TODAY BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS READ REAL NICELY, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE WRITTEN NOTES, THEY NOTE TO YOU VERY SMALL IN FASHION THE SITE PLAN'S BEEN MODIFIED TO REFLECT THIS AND THE APPLICANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT THIS APPLICATION. THE FACT IS WHAT'S PROPOSED TODAY IS CHANGING THIS, WHICH IS NOTED ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN AS A BUILDING, TO ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE, AND THEN THEY WANT TO ADD A WHOLE NEW AREA OF ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. THAT WOULD BE A 200% INCREASE BY MY MATH. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PLAN. YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY READ IT ON YOUR HANDOUTS. YOUR HANDOUTS LOOK LIKE THIS. YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY READ THOSE CONDITIONS, BUT I'M HERE TO TELL YOU AND SHOW YOU WHAT'S ON THAT PLAN. THIS A COPY OF THE ACTUAL PART OF THAT PLAN. THEY ALSO NOTE NOW THEY WANT TO INCREASE IT, THEY WANT TO INCREASE THE INTENSITY. ON THEIR CONDITION NUMBER 2, AND THIS WAS READ TO YOU, IT'S TO BE USED FOR A CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE, SO ACCESSORY'S GONE. NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ALL OUTSIDE STORAGE. IN FACT, I HEARD THE COMMENT OUTSIDE STORAGE A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND THEY WANT TO UP IT AGAIN FOR VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. WELL WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IN HERE? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE CRANES, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE DUMP TRUCKS, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A VEHICLE LOADING AREA HERE FILLED UP WITH TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT? THERE'S NO RESTRICTION OF TIMES, HOURS, DAYS, OR WHAT IS GOING TO GO IN THIS SITE. 24 HOURS A DAY, AS I INDICATED. THERE'S NO VEHICULAR INFRASTRUCTURE OF ANY KIND PROPOSED, NO MAXIMUM LIMITS, NO -- CONSTRUCTION AND TRUCK DELIVERIES ON A CONSTANT BASIS. NOW, THIS IS CRITICAL, COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS YOUR USE TABLE. THIS IS YOUR TABLE OF ALLOWABLE USES IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND UNDER THAT USE TABLE THERE IS A CATEGORY FOR STORAGE YARD FOR EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, AND SUPPLIES FOR BUILDING AND TRADE CONTRACTORS. THAT USE IS PERMISSIBLE AS THE MOST INTENSIVE ZONING DISTRICT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. SO REALIZE WE'RE GOING FROM A SITE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AND APPROVED FOR OFFICE AS A PRIMARY USE AND ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE -- WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY ACROSS YOUR ZONING TABLE TO THE MOST MAXIMUM USE AND INTENSIVE USE, MANUFACTURING. NOW, WHAT DOES ACCESSORY MEAN? THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION, BUT I'M GOING TO THROW A COUPLE THINGS AT YOU REAL QUICK. THIS IS YOUR CODE. THIS IS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CODE. ACCESSORY USES SHALL NOT INDIVIDUALLY OCCUPY MORE THAN 20% OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE TOTAL PERMITTED USE, REFERRING TO ACCESSORY RETAIL. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, 20% OF THE REQUIRED REAR YARD. ACCESSORY USES SHALL NOT INDIVIDUALLY OCCUPY MORE THAN 20% OF THE FLOOR AREA UNDER THE [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] WHEN YOU GO THROUGH A SEARCH OF YOUR CODE, THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE. I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT'S A GUIDELINE OF WHAT ACCESSORY OUTDOOR STORAGE IS. AND BY THE WAY, THERE ARE STILL CONDITIONS ON THE SITE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY -- AND MS. JAMES REFERRED TO IT - - THEY DID ADD THIS STRUCTURE HERE, WHICH SHE INDICATED THEY HAVE A CO FOR, BUT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN APPROVED AS A MINOR OR MAJOR MODIFICATION. YOU CAN GET ALL THE COs YOU WANT, BUT UNTIL YOU APPROVE IT ON A MAJOR OR MINOR MODIFICATION, IT AIN'T APPROVED IN MY OPINION. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS STRUCTURE IS HERE. NOW, MS. JAMES REFERRED TO A MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THIS WAS NOT APPROVED. YOU'LL NOTE THAT THERE'S LARGE VENTILATION WINDOWS. THIS IS WHERE A MANUFACTURING OPERATION WAS ONGOING. AS JUDY INDICATED, THE APPLICANT ADMITTED TO THAT, CONTINUED IT, AND IT'S OUR CONTENTION THAT THAT USE IS STILL CONTINUING AND YOUR STAFF WILL NOT ENFORCE IT. THIS IS A DELIVERY OF STUCCO SUPPLIES, AS YOU CAN SEE. JUST THE OTHER DAY, MORE FOAM MATERIAL BEING DELIVERED, STILL NOT BEING ENFORCED. FROM MARCH, DELIVERIES -- OR THESE ARE STYROFOAM PIECES BEING MOVED AROUND THE SITE, STILL HAS NOT BEEN ENFORCED. WE CONTEND THAT THAT USE IS STILL CONTINUING. AND THIS IS A PIECE OF THE COURT ACTION INDICATING AGREEING OR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT USE WAS CONTINUING. SO WHAT WE REQUEST YOU TO DO TODAY IS PLEASE, ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORS, DENY THIS APPLICATION. IT'S A DRASTIC CHANGE OF USE, IT'S A DRASTIC INCREASE OF INTENSITY REGARDING RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO RESIDENTIAL. WE ASK WITH THE LONG-TERM RECORD OF IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY TO PLEASE DIRECT YOUR STAFF TO PURSUE COMPLETE CONFORMANCE OF THE SITE TO THE PD. THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR. WE'RE EVERY NOT TALKING ABOUT A NEIGHBORHOOD SPAT HERE AND SOMEONE BEING MAD WITH ONE ANOTHER. WE'RE ONLY ASKING YOU TO ENFORCE THE ORIGINAL PD, THAT'S IT. AND THIRD, WE WANT TO DIRECT YOUR STAFF TO PURSUE ALL EFFORTS AND IMMEDIATELY TAKE IT BACK TO THE CODE BOARD BECAUSE THAT HAS NOT OCCURRED. IT'S EASY TO SAY THAT MR. WILLIAMS AND MR. CREEL ARE HAVING A SPAT HERE. THAT MAY BE THE CASE, BUT MR. WILLIAMS HAS NEVER HAD A COMPLAINT ON HIS PROPERTY THAT I'M AWARE OF NOR HAD ANY CODE CITATIONS NOR HAD ANY CALLS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE. IT'S THE APPLICANT THAT'S BEFORE YOU THAT HAS HAD MANY COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUNDED, HAVE BEEN FOUND BY YOUR CODE BOARD AND BACKED UP BY CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS. SO IN SUMMARY, WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE DIRECT THIS CASE TO YOUR STAFF AND BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL PD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. PRESSMAN. AT THIS TIME, MS. JAMES, YOU HAVE REBUTTAL. >> YOU'VE SEEN PICTURES TODAY FROM MR. PRESSMAN. I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES OF MY CLIENT'S SITE. IT'S WELL MAINTAINED, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS JUST TO SHOW YOU SOME HERE. THE SITE -- THERE WERE NO CITATIONS AGAINST MR. WILLIAMS BECAUSE MY CLIENT ABSOLUTELY FORBADE ME TO FILE ANYTHING AGAINST MR. WILLIAMS AND HIS ILLEGAL OPERATIONS ON HIS PROPERTY THAT HAVE BEEN A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE. HE TOLD ME HE WASN'T GOING TO GO THAT ROUTE. IN TERMS OF THE PETITIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY CAME BACK WHEN THEY WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FENCE THAT WAS INSTALLED ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY. THAT'S A PVC FENCE. PAULA RULED THAT SINCE MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY WAS ZONED FIRST AND THE RESIDENTS WERE BUILT AFTER THE FACT, THAT FENCE IS PERMISSIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE. IN TERMS OF THE ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE AND WHAT YOU SAW ABOUT THE 20%, MR. PRESSMAN'S ALREADY FILED A ZONING INTERPRETATION WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT THAT. THAT ZONING INTERPRETATION'S BEEN RULED UPON. THERE'S BEEN A FINAL DECISION ISSUED THAT MY CLIENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE RULES, AND PAULA CAN ELABORATE FURTHER. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE TENT THAT WAS ON THE SEPTIC -- ON THAT AREA, THE SEPTIC TANK FROM THE GOOGLE PICTURE, THERE WAS A TENT PUT UP ONE DAY FOR A PARTY. GOOGLE HAPPENED TO TAKE A PICTURE THAT DAY. ALL THE REST OF THE PICTURES YOU SAW SHOWED THAT AS A DESIGNATED GREEN AREA. WE DO NOT USE THAT FOR STORAGE. IN TERMS OF WHERE MR. WILLIAMS LOOKS AT FROM THE SITE, IF YOU REMEMBER THE AERIAL THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, MR. WILLIAMS LIVES ON THE FAR SIDE OF THE LAKE. THE ONLY TIME HE VIEWS THE BACK OF THAT PROPERTY IS WHEN HE DRIVES HIS VEHICLES IN AND OUT. THE AREA THAT IS FOR THE ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE HASN'T CHANGED SINCE 2003. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE FENCED AREA THAT MY CLIENT BOUGHT, THE SAME FENCE IS THERE, AND HE HAS ADDED A WOODEN FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE USE TABLE, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THIS GOES BACK TO AN IPD FOR 2003 WHEN THE COUNTY WAS GOING TO HAVE HEAVIER USES ALONG I-75. THAT'S WHAT THIS AREA WAS PLANNED FOR. THIS IS ONE OF THE REMAINING PARCELS OUT THERE. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S A LOW-INTENSITY, WELL-MAINTAINED PROPERTY. THE THREE $500 FINES THAT WERE ISSUED, MY CLIENT WAS TOLD THERE WOULD BE A $500 FINE IF HE DIDN'T INSTALL THE EXTERNAL SIDEWALK. HE INSTALLED IT. HE WAS TOLD THERE WOULD BE A $500 FINE IF HE DIDN'T PUT UP THE LIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE. THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE WILLIAMS WHEN THEY ACTUALLY PULLED THE BUILDING PERMIT, BUT HE INSTALLED IT. THE LAST $500 IS BEFORE YOU TODAY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE TEMPORARY ACCESS IS CLEANED UP. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THERE'S NO MANUFACTURING GOING ON THIS SITE. MY CLIENT RECEIVES SHIPMENTS OF STUCCO AND HE SENDS THEM OUT, AND WE ARE IN TOTAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING. WE ASK THAT THIS BE RESOLVED TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. JAMES. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WELL, I'M CERTAINLY GLAD TO SEE THIS IS A CLEAR-CUT CASE. [LAUGHTER] AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S -- TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT WITH NEIGHBORS, AND SOMETIMES, FREQUENTLY I THINK, THAT COMES TO THIS BOARD, AND IT'S PROBABLY MORE CLEARLY -- IT'S PROBABLY MORE CLEARLY VEILED THAN OTHERS. THESE ARE NEIGHBORS OF MINE. THEY'RE IN MY DISTRICT, AND I HAVE TO FACE BOTH THESE PARTIES AND THAT'S NOT EASY WHEN HAVING TO MAKE DECISIONS AND LOOKING AT RULES, AND THIS BOARD HAS ON MANY -- MANY OCCASIONS HAS HAD TO LOOK AT THE RULES AND SAY WE'VE GOT A PLAN, WE HAVE A SET OF RULES THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS AND THEY NEED TO BE COMPLIED WITH, AND AS I'M SEEING THIS NOW, WE'VE GOT THIS PD THAT HAS REQUIREMENTS THAT AREN'T BEING COMPLIED WITH, AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, A CONCERN OF MINE. THEN I SEE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE COUNTY HAS PLACED THAT LEAD MR. CREEL TO THINK, WELL, EVERYTHING'S OKAY BECAUSE WE'RE COMPLYING AND WE'RE DOING WHAT WE NEED TO BE DOING, BUT I STILL LOOK BACK AT THIS PD AND I'M -- I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PD. AND AS I'M READING THROUGH THE BACKUP -- AND I HAD MY STAFF BLOW THIS UP SO I COULD READ IT -- ARE WE, IN FACT, DOUBLING THE SIZE OF AVAILABLE SPACE THAT CAN BE BUILT? IT LOOKS TO ME AS I READ THROUGH THIS THAT WE'RE GOING FROM 5,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDINGS TO TWO BUILDINGS NOW, AND THAT -- ARE WE, IN FACT, ALLOWING UNDER THIS -- AS I'M READING -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE -- PAGE 18 OR 19 OR 20, I THINK IS HOW I'M LOOKING AT THAT, BUT WHEN I BLEW THAT UP IN OUR BACKUP, ARE THEY NOW GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO INCREASE THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE? >>PAULA HARVEY: DO YOU WANT ME TO RESPOND? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YES. YES, MA'AM. I'M SORRY, PAULA. I WAS LOOKING AT YOU FOR A RESPONSE. THANK YOU. >>PAULA HARVEY: NO. ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONERS, WHEN THE IPD WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE SITE PLAN THAT WENT WITH THAT ZONING PROVIDED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR TWO BUILDINGS. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SO THIS IS NOT NEW? >>PAULA HARVEY: NO. I MEAN, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT. THEY'VE ALSO BEEN THROUGH PRELIMINARY REVIEW WITH A SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED THAT ACCOMMODATES THE TWO BUILDINGS. THE ISSUE THAT I NEEDED TO HAVE CLARIFIED WAS EXACTLY WHERE WAS THE OPEN SPACE THAT HAD EXISTED AT THE TIME WHEN THE ZONING WAS INITIALLY APPROVED AND WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHEN THEY APPROVED THE ZONING. I NEEDED TO KNOW THE FINAL LOCATION OF IT, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS REVISED CONDITION NUMBER 1 IS SEEKING TO CLARIFY, EXACTLY WHERE THAT LOCATION IS TO BE. >> COMMISSIONER, I'D LIKE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >>KEN HAGAN: HOLD ON -- HOLD ON, MR. PRESSMAN. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SO THERE'S NO NEW BUILDING. I'M GOING TO -- I'M GOING TO ASK BOTH REPRESENTATIVES, MS. JAMES AND THEN MR. PRESSMAN. >>PAULA HARVEY: IT'S NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONER, BUT THEY DO HAVE PLANS TO DO SO. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. >> THE EXIST -- THE TWO BUILDINGS WERE SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN. MY CLIENT DID ADD A METAL SHED. IT'S STILL WAY WITHIN THE 5,000-SQUARE-FOOT GUIDELINES. IF THE SECOND BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED, IT EITHER HAS TO BE 4500 SQUARE FEET OR IT CAN BE 5,000 AND REMOVE THE METAL SHED, BUT THERE'S AN ALLOWANCE ALREADY OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET ON THIS SITE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. MR. PRESSMAN. >> BOTH OF THOSE ANSWERS UNFORTUNATELY ARE INCORRECT, AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHY. YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH TERMS THAT ARE BEING USED HERE. THE ORIGINAL PD NOTES PROPOSED BUILDING AND PROPOSED BUILDING. THAT'S IT. CONDITION SAYS ACCESSORY OUTDOOR STORAGE, BUT THE PLAN THAT YOU WERE NOT SHOWN, WHICH IS IN YOUR FILES BUT NOT SHOWN HERE TODAY, IS -- AND THIS IS THEIR PLAN, NOTES AS EAST BUILDING. THEN THEY GO OVER HERE AND SAY WEST BUILDING OR ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. THEN THEY GO ON AND SAY ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. THAT'S AN INCREASE. CHANGE NUMBER ONE IS IT'S ALL OUTSIDE RATHER THAN INTERIOR TO THE BUILDING. YOU-ALL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE THAT MAKES TO A RESIDENT RIGHT NEXT DOOR. PLUS THEY ARE ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE HERE. THEY'RE ADDING EVEN MORE ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE, AND IN THE CONDITIONS THEY CALL IT OPEN STORAGE, IN THE CONDITIONS THEY ASK FOR VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT, SO YES, THAT IS AN INCREASE AND IT'S A CHANGE OF THE TYPE OF USE FROM THE ORIGINAL PD. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. MS. JAMES, THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. >> THIS IS NOT AN INCREASE. THE EXISTING OPEN STORAGE AREA HAS BEEN THERE, I HAVE -- THE FENCING IN PLACE SINCE 2003. IT HASN'T CHANGED. WHEN WE LABELED THAT AREA, WE SIMPLY TRIED TO CLARIFY FOR EVERYBODY THAT ONCE THE NEW WESTERN BUILDING WAS BUILT, SOME ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE WOULD STILL REMAIN, WHICH IS PART OF THE EXISTING AREA. IT'S JUST PART OF IT WOULD BE REMOVED AND BECOME A BUILDING, PART OF IT WOULD REMAIN AS THE ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. NOTHING HAS INCREASED. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. MS. HARVEY, I'M NOT SOLD ON THIS AND -- ON EITHER SIDE TO AN EXTENT TODAY. IF WE SEND THIS BACK, HOW CAN WE GET A BETTER CLARIFICATION ON, ONE, THAT CLAIM, BUT STILL I THINK THAT ONLY CAUSES A POORLY VEILED NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBOR DISPUTE, BUT IS THERE A WAY TO GET A BETTER CLARIFICATION IF THIS GOES BACK TODAY RATHER THAN JUST AN OUTRIGHT DENIAL TO GET -- I DON'T KNOW IF I LOST MY -- MY MIKE'S STILL ON. BUT TO GET A BETTER CLARIFICATION SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT BEFORE I VOTE FOR AN APPROVAL? >>PAULA HARVEY: WELL, I WOULD OFFER THIS, THAT THE ONLY OTHER CLARIFICATION THAT I THINK COULD BE PROVIDED IS TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE FOR YOU ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN A CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF EXACTLY WHERE THE OPEN STORAGE IS TODAY AND DOCUMENTING THAT IT WAS OPEN STORAGE THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME THAT THE ZONING WAS APPROVED THE FIRST TIME. THE THING THAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID HERE IS THAT WHEN THAT ZONING WAS INITIALLY APPROVED, THE IPD, THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THAT TIME WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING. THAT'S WHY THEY WENT THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS, AND PART OF THE REASON THAT THE CONDITION NUMBER 1 PROVIDES FOR THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE AND ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE IS BECAUSE THAT WAS THE USE THAT WAS ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING THAT EXISTED AT THAT TIME, AND LIKE MANY APPLICANTS WHEN THEY'RE FOUND IN VIOLATION, THEY COME TO THIS BOARD TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY FOR THAT ALLOWABILITY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT TIME, AND IN CONCERT WITH THAT, THEY ALSO PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AN EXPLANATION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE INTO OFFICE USE, AND THAT'S WHY THE OFFICE USE WAS ADDED IN TO CONDITION NUMBER 1, IN ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. BUT THE CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE WITH THE OPEN STORAGE EXISTED INITIALLY IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING. THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THAT TIME REZONED THE PROPERTY, GOT THE BOARD TO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT USE COULD CONTINUE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE PROPERTY WAS REDEVELOPED, SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED, IT COULD ONLY BE DONE THROUGH A DRAWING THAT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY ABOUT WHAT EXISTED. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. I SEE SOME OTHER LIGHTS ON. I WANT TO HEAR SOME OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS FIRST. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. PRESSMAN AND ALSO GIVE MS. JAMES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD I GUESS ACCUSATIONS FROM BOTH SIDES, AND FIRST, IS THAT MR. CREEL ON THE -- ON THE FRONT? WELL, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I HEARD THAT -- YOU KNOW, THAT ONE OF THE OTHER APPLICANTS, I DON'T KNOW WHO WILLIAMS IS, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWED YOUR WIFE HOME OR WHATEVER AND BARKED REMARKS, BUT YOU LOOK LIKE A NICE ENOUGH GUY, NOT ONLY THAT, YOU'RE BIG ENOUGH. I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY WOULD BE -- THOUGHT YOU MIGHT GO OVER AND RETALIATE, BUT ANYWAY, THE HOURS OF OPERATION, WE TALK ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT ALLEGATIONS. MR. PRESSMAN SAID IT'S 24/7, WHICH IS -- I WANT A CLARIFICATION ON THAT, JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS HERE -- THE DELIVERIES AT ALL TIMES OF NIGHT. WHAT ACTUALLY GOES ON AT THIS FACILITY? I HEAR STUCCO ONE SIDE, STYROFOAM ON THE OTHER, DIFFERENT DELIVERIES IN STORAGE, AND -- AND ALSO, THE OTHER THING THAT IS BOTHERING ME IS YOU SAY YOU HAVE PETITIONS FROM ALL OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS THAT -- THAT LIVE THERE, SO IN MY ESTIMATION, I DON'T THINK THIS COULD BE A -- A ONE- NEIGHBOR-AGAINST-ANOTHER-NEIGHBOR FEUD AS HAS BEEN TRYING TO BE DEPICTED HERE. IT MAY VERY WELL BE, BUT I -- IF -- IF EVERYONE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SIGNED PETITIONS AGAINST THIS, IT MUST BE DOING SOMETHING TO IMPACT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IF YOU COULD, PLEASE JUST ANSWER THOSE FOR ME. I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO GO OVER -- >> WE DID GO OUT AND TALK TO NEIGHBORS, AND NEIGHBORS HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS AND THEY SIGNED A PETITION. I'VE SHOWN THOSE TO YOU. THOSE ARE PART OF THE RECORD. I THINK THERE'S ABOUT 30 -- 25, 30 SIGNATURES, AND THOSE ARE FROM THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IMMEDIATELY NEXT DOOR, AS YOU CAN WELL IMAGINE. I'M NOT OUT AT THE SITE ALL THE TIME, BUT MR. AND MRS WILLIAMS HAVE INDICATED TO ME THAT THERE'S ACTIVITY ON THE WEEKEND, SATURDAY, SUNDAY, THERE ARE ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT THE DAY, THERE ARE THINGS GOING ALONG IN THE EVENING. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. SO THERE'S JUST NO CLEAR-CUT 9:00-TO-5:00 HOURS? >> NO, SIR. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA -- MAYBE THE APPLICANT SHOULD OR MS. JAMES SHOULD ANSWER. I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF -- WHAT ARE THEY DOING ON THE PROPERTY? I MEAN, WE SEE STORAGE, OPEN STORAGE FROM THE -- THE VEHICLES, THE EQUIPMENT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT IF -- WHAT TYPE OF MANUFACTURING IS GOING ON HERE? >> WELL, THERE WAS MANUFACTURING GOING ON, AND THE APPLICANT, AS MS. JAMES HAD INDICATED, HAD INDICATED THAT. WHAT EVIDENTLY HE DOES IS TAKE STYROFOAM PIECES AND MAKE EMBELLISHMENTS ON HOMES FOR COLUMNS AND EMBELLISHMENTS ALONG WINDOWS. SO IT WAS A PROCESS WHERE STYROFOAM WAS BEING CUT AND SPRAYED AND THAT WAS GETTING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT WAS GETTING IN PEOPLE'S FENCES AND PEOPLE'S HOMES, AND OF COURSE, WE ALL KNOW CODE ENFORCEMENT WORKS AND WORKS REAL SLOW, UNFORTUNATELY. IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE BEAST, SO WHEN YOU CLEAN IT ALL UP AND IT'S GONE AND YOU SHOW UP, THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE CLEARED. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. MS. JAMES, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU AGREE THAT OR HAVE ANY REBUTTAL TO THAT. >> BILLY CREEL, OWNER OF 8516 RIVERVIEW DRIVE. I WAS IN CODE ENFORCEMENT. I WASN'T IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN ISSUE ON THE OUTSIDE. WE WERE SPRAYING FOAM, ARCHITECTURAL FOAM. I WAS IN VIOLATION. I WAS CITED FOR IT. I FIXED THE PROBLEM. WE NO LONGER DO IT THERE. WE NO LONGER MANUFACTURE ANYTHING THERE. EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE IS SHIPPED IN AND STORED INSIDE MY WAREHOUSE 9:00 TO 5:00, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. I AM PERSONALLY THERE OCCASIONALLY ON SATURDAYS READING BLUEPRINTS AND TURNING IN BIDS TO OTHER BUILDERS, BUT THAT'S MAINLY WHAT I DO THERE ON SATURDAY IF YOU SEE ME THERE ON SATURDAY, BUT AS FAR AS WORK, NO WORK IS DONE THERE ON SATURDAYS. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. THANK YOU. AND -- OKAY. THAT'S IT FOR NOW. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT A GENERAL STANDARD, AND I'LL REFER YOU-ALL BACK TO ANOTHER CASE THAT WAS BEFORE US ON A CHANGE WHEN THERE WERE SOME VIOLATIONS ON-SITE. YOU-ALL REMEMBER THE MLK SITE WHERE THERE WERE VEHICLES AND THEY WANTED TO HAVE SOME SALES OR SOMETHING. THERE WEREN'T NEIGHBORS OBJECTING. FOR ME TO HAVE A CHANGE OR SUPPORT A CHANGE THAT THERE WERE SOME CODE ISSUES OR CHANGE OF OPERATION ISSUES, I HAVE TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY IN SUPPORT. IN THIS CASE I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IF YOU'VE GOT ALL THESE FOLKS THAT HAVE SIGNED PETITIONS AND WHATEVER. THERE'S -- THE COMMUNITY IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE ACTION THIS BOARD IS GOING TO TAKE, SO PERSONALLY, I'LL JUST TELL YOU I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANY CHANGE AND WOULD SUPPORT COMPLYING WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVALS. THAT'S ALL I WOULD SUPPORT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE NEED A MOTION. PAULA, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT? >>PAULA HARVEY: COMMISSIONERS, I'VE GOT -- I HAVE A REAL ISSUE THAT I'VE GOT TO HAVE THE BOARD ADDRESS AND THIS APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORS NEED TO HAVE THE BOARD ADDRESS, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORIGINAL ZONING THAT REQUIRED ACCESS TO THE WEST, AND AT THAT TIME THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST WAS PLANNED AND ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. IT NO LONGER IS. IT IS NOW A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION. I -- I -- I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD WANTS TO MAKE ME AND THE APPLICANT REQUIRE A DRIVEWAY TO GO THROUGH THAT SINGLE- FAMILY SUBDIVISION FROM THIS PROPERTY, AND YET, THAT'S WHAT -- THAT'S WHY THEY FILED THIS REQUEST. I TOLD MS. JAMES THAT WE HAD TO GET THAT CONDITION OFF OF THE ZONING AS A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE WE WERE NOT AND COULDN'T BY THE CODE REQUIRE THAT DRIVEWAY TO GO THROUGH, SO I'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, AND I CAN'T REMOVE IT. IT REQUIRES THE ACTION OF THE BOARD TO REMOVE THAT CONDITION. >>MARK SHARPE: I HAVE -- I HAVE A QUESTION. AM I NEXT? >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: BECAUSE I'M HEARING THE -- THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE TWO, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, BUT I'M READING THE REQUEST. SO NOW DO I UNDERSTAND, MR. PRESSMAN, THAT YOU OPPOSE THE ELIMINATION OF A CROSS-ACCESS TO THE WEST? >> NO, WE DO NOT. AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA IS NOT WHAT'S REALLY BEFORE YOU. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT CONDITION TO THE WEST. >>MARK SHARPE: I MEAN -- WELL, BUT WE HAVE THESE ISSUES AS WELL. WE'RE VOTING ON VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, AND THERE'S A WHOLE WORLD OF OTHER THINGS GOING ON, AND I'M BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DENIAL BASED ON SOMETHING UNRELATED TO WHAT I'M - - WHAT THE REQUEST IS. >> COULDN'T AGREE MORE. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. SO WE HAVE A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE A CROSS-ACCESS TO THE WEST. BOTH PARTIES ACCEPT THAT? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING -- BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT -- HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT CONDITION 13, WHICH IS THE SIDEWALKS INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TO THE PROJECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE MAJOR ROADWAY BORDERING THE PORTION OF THE PROJECT? ARE YOU IN OPPOSITION TO THAT? >> WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SITE PLANS THAT WERE SLIPPED IN AFTER. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AND THE CONDITIONS THAT -- >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. BUT AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEFORE US, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE, WHICH IS THE CROSS-ACCESS TO THE WEST AND THE -- AND THE CONDITION 13, THERE'S NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT WITH EITHER PARTY? >> WE JUST NEED TO BE CAREFUL, MR. SHARPE, BECAUSE THE SITE PLANS I'VE SHOWN YOU ARE PART OF THIS FILE. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. SO IS THAT -- SO IS THE CONCERN THAT IF WE ACCEPT THESE TWO CONDITIONS, WE'RE THEN BY DE FACTO ACCEPTING THE SITE PLAN, IS THAT THE CONCERN? >> I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW THEY'RE PART OF THIS FILE. WHEN I RESEARCHED THE FILE, IT WAS IN THE FILE, AND I TALKED TO PAULA ABOUT IT, AND SHE INDICATED THAT WAS PART OF THIS FILE, SO WE'RE EXTREMELY CONCERNED IN THOSE CHANGES AS WELL. >>PAULA HARVEY: I BELIEVE THAT, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THE ONLY ISSUE, AS YOU SPOKE TO ME ABOUT IT, MR. PRESSMAN, WAS THE ISSUE ABOUT THE OPEN STORAGE AREA. >>MARK SHARPE: BECAUSE IT SEEMS WE HAVE A REAL ISSUE WITH OPEN STORAGE AND THE FENCING AND THE OTHER ISSUES, WHICH -- WHICH NEED TO BE RESOLVED, BUT AS FAR AS THE SPECIFICS OF ELIMINATING THE CROSS-ACCESS TO THE WEST AND THE TIMING OF THE SIDEWALKS -- >> THAT'S WHAT I ORIGINALLY CAME FOR, AND AS STAFF WAS PUSHING THE ISSUES, I BELIEVE THEY STARTED THROWING THESE OTHER ISSUES IN, AND WHEN YOU SEE A SITE PLAN THAT HAS THOSE INCREASES -- I MEAN, THERE ARE CHANGES IN CONDITIONS PROPOSED ON THAT SITE PLAN ON THAT PAGE I SHOWED YOU THAT YOU CAN'T READ. IT'S EXTREMELY TROUBLESOME. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, MY QUESTION IS IF WE WERE TO ONLY APPROVE THE TWO ITEMS THAT WERE REQUESTED AND NOT THE OTHER ITEM WHICH SEEMS TO BE IN CONTENTION, WHICH IS THE CROSS- ACCESS AND THE SIDEWALKS, WHAT'S THE IMPACT? >> WE AGREE WITH THOSE, AND WE WOULD -- BUT WE WOULD ALSO ASK YOU TO -- OR TO DIRECT YOUR STAFF TO BRING THE SITE -- STILL TO BRING THE SITE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL PD. WE THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TODAY AS WELL. >>KEN HAGAN: PAULA, CAN YOU ADDRESS COMMISSIONER SHARPE'S -- >>PAULA HARVEY: IF I -- DO I UNDERSTAND, MR. PRESSMAN, YOU WANT CODE ENFORCEMENT TO GO OUT THERE AND EXAMINE THE SITE AGAIN, AND WHEREVER THEY BELIEF THERE'S A VIOLATION -- >> NO. >>PAULA HARVEY: -- TO THE PD, THEY'D GET CITED AGAIN? >> NO, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY THE CODE BOARD AND DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN INSUFFICIENT IN DIRECTING THESE ISSUES. THE ISSUES ARE A HUGE INCREASE IN INTENSITY FROM THE ORIGINAL PD. AS I'VE INDICATED, THE STAFF IS SUPPORTING AND TELLING YOU THAT THEY AGREE WITH A SITE THAT IS PRIMARILY A CONSTRUCTION YARD AND STORAGE YARD AND ANCILLARY -- ACCESSORY USE OFFICE. THEY'VE FLIPPED THIS AROUND, AND THAT'S A PART OF THIS FILE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE -- >> THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS THAT WERE DIRECTED BY PAULA, AS COMMISSIONER SHARPE JUST INDICATED, ARE FINE. THAT'S HOW THIS WHOLE THING STARTED. BUT AS IT ROLLED ALONG OVER TIME, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE STARTED FINDING THESE OTHER SITE PLANS AND CHANGE OF CONDITIONS. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CONDITIONS. I SHOWED YOU THEY TOOK OUT ACCESSORY AND JUST MADE IT OPEN STORAGE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>PAULA HARVEY: NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. >> THAT'S ON THE CONDITIONS I HAVE, PAULA, AND I DISCUSSED IT WITH YOU IN THE OFFICE. >>PAULA HARVEY: I'M READING IT. >>MARK SHARPE: WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS A WAY TO ROLL IT ALL BACK SO WE CAN RESOLVE THE TWO ISSUES WHICH ARE BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO THE TWO ITEMS THAT I'VE DISCUSSED, AND THEN HOW -- HOW CAN WE THEN ADDRESS -- BECAUSE I CAN UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DOUBLING OF THE OPEN ACCESSORY, WHICH I GUESS IS -- IF YOU READ -- THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO READ THIS. I CAN SEE HOW MR. PRESSMAN'S INTERPRETING OR IT COULD BE INTERPRETED. I UNDERSTAND WHAT MS. JAMES IS SAYING. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAN BE RESOLVED TODAY, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ISSUE OF CROSS-ACCESS TO THE WEST, THAT'S A NO- BRAINER UNLESS SOMEONE'S GOING TO OBJECT. >>KEN HAGAN: MS. HARVEY, CAN YOU ADDRESS WHAT COMMISSIONER SHARPE'S SAYING AS FAR AS SPECIFICALLY THE ACCESS TO THE WEST AND THEN THE -- THE OTHER ISSUE? I MEAN, THAT -- IT APPEARS THAT WE ALL -- ALL PARTIES AGREE -- >>MARK SHARPE: I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LANGUAGE IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO INTERPRETATION OR DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS, WHICH COULD CREATE -- BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A NEW OWNER, SOMEONE COULD COME IN POTENTIALLY AND THEN TAKE THE READING THAT MR. PRESSMAN HAS OF THIS AND IT COULD -- IT COULD CREATE EVEN MORE DISTURBANCE TO THE NEIGHBORS AND SUCH, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT FOR THE -- FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYBODY, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CLARIFICATION THERE, BUT WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE, IT JUST SEEMS THAT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM -- I MEAN, AND MR. PRESSMAN, YOU'RE -- DOES THE OPPOSITION HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS ISSUE OF THE CROSS-ACCESS? >> NO, SIR. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. SO THE CROSS-ACCESS IN CONDITION 13 ARE NOT A CONCERN. IT'S REALLY THAT IF BY -- BY APPROVING THIS, THE WAY YOU'VE READ IT, YOU THINK THIS WOULD DOUBLE THE -- THE ACTIVITY WITH REGARD TO OPEN ACCESS? >> CERTAINLY THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE PLAN AND START WAVING IT AND SAYING HERE'S WHAT YOU APPROVED, AND THERE ARE CONDITIONS HERE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAY OUTSIDE STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT, SO THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE OF CONDITIONS AND THERE WAS A CHANGE OF THE SITE PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN PUT THROUGH ON THIS SOMEHWERE AT A TIME DURING THE FILE -- WAS SUBMITTED AFTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >>PAULA HARVEY: LET ME OFFER THIS TO THE BOARD. LET ME OFFER THIS TO THE BOARD IF I COULD, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT MR. PRESSMAN IS READING FROM UNLESS IT IS FROM THE SITE PLAN. THE CONDITIONS ARE VERY CLEAR REGARDING THE ISSUE OF ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE EXCEPT AT THE TIME WHEN THIS ZONING WAS APPROVED YEARS AND YEARS AGO, THE -- THERE WAS NOT A PERCENTAGE, THERE WAS NOT A DEFINITE ALLOCATION OF HOW MUCH SPACE ON THE SITE WAS TO BE DESIGNATED AS ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE, AND WHAT I HAVE TOLD THE APPLICANT ALL THIS TIME IS THAT I WOULD AGREE THAT IT COULD BE WHAT IT WAS AT THE TIME THAT THE ZONING WAS APPROVED. THERE'S BEEN AN EFFORT MADE TODAY ON THEIR PART TO TRY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THAT'S ALL THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PROVIDE FOR ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. APPARENTLY MR. PRESSMAN BELIEVES THAT THAT'S EVEN TOO MUCH. I CAN'T -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE. THE APPLICANT APPARENTLY IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE USE OF WHAT THEY HAD IN PLACE AT THE TIME AND WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNTY WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS INITIALLY ZONED, BUT IF YOU WANT IT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE OR SOMETHING LESS, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ON THE SITE PLAN, AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO TRY TO GET THE PARTIES TO AGREE, BUT I'VE GOT TO SAY AT SOME POINT THE ALLEGATIONS OF ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF THINGS THAT MR. PRESSMAN THINKS ARE STILL WRONG WITH THE PD HAVE -- HAVE GOT TO AT SOME POINT DRAW TO AN END BECAUSE IT'S LIKE EVERY TIME I HAVE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT, TO FILE AN APPLICATION LIKE THIS, GET THINGS STRAIGHTENED OUT, THEN SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP, AND SO I REALLY DO NEED TO DRAW TO A CLOSE WHAT ALL THE ISSUES ARE THAT MR. PRESSMAN AND HIS CLIENTS ARE EXPECTING TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THIS MODIFICATION. I CAN ONLY -- BUT I -- I CAN ONLY DEAL WITH WHAT IS KNOWN TO ME. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. MS. JAMES, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT, THEN COMMISSIONER FERLITA, THEN WE NEED TO MOVE ON THIS. >> COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDED ZONING CONDITIONS, THE CHANGES ARE IN CONDITION NUMBER 1, IT DELETED THE REFERENCE TO IF AND WHEN PERMANENT ACCESS CAN BE PROVIDED AND THE TEMPORARY ACCESS IS CLOSED, ON-SITE MAY INCLUDE OFFICE USES, CONTRACTOR'S USES, PUBLISHING, PRINTING, RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION, WAREHOUSING, AND ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. THOSE USES HAVE BEEN DELETED AS ADDITIONAL USES. THE ONLY ZONING -- THE ONLY USE THAT'S GOING TO BE ALLOWED IS IN THAT VERY FIRST SENTENCE, WHICH HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE 1991, WHICH ALLOWED A CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE WITH ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7.13 OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ZONING CODE. WHAT MR. PRESSMAN IS DOING HERE TODAY IS TRYING TO GO AROUND AN OFFICIAL ZONING INTERPRETATION THAT WAS ISSUED THAT SAYS MY CLIENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE RULES AND THAT THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. GOING DOWN IN YOUR CONDITIONS, CONDITION NUMBER 5 DELETED A SENTENCE THAT REFERRED TO ACCESS WITH THE CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY TO THE WEST. CONDITION 11 DELETES -- REFERS TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY TO THE WEST AGAIN, SO THEY DELETED THAT SENTENCE. CONDITION 12, SAME THING. CONDITION 13 WAS THE SIDEWALKS. THE ONLY CHANGES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED TODAY ARE THOSE THAT ARE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT ARE STRUCK THROUGH. WE HAVE NOT REQUESTED ANY CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL 1991 ZONING. I DIDN'T FILE ANYTHING AFTER THE STAFF REPORT WAS ISSUED. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, SINCE THIS IS, AGAIN, SUCH A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE, AND REALLY, I WOULD HOPE -- I WOULD THINK -- I WOULD IMAGINE BOTH SIDES WANT TO, YOU KNOW, RESOLVE THIS WITH CLARITY, I GUESS THE OPTION IS TO REMAND BACK -- I'M NOT SAYING OPTIONS, PLURAL -- TO REMAND BACK WITH A REQUEST THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE CROSS-ACCESS AND THE CONDITION 13 AND THEN CLARIFICATION TO SATISFY THE CONCERNS OF -- OF THE -- THE OPPOSITION OF POTENTIAL NEIGHBORS FOR ISSUES LIKE WHETHER IT'S FENCING, THE OPEN -- THE -- THE OPEN STORAGE -- I MEAN, DO WE -- THE SEPTIC TANK AND -- THE FIRE MARSHAL ISSUE SEEMS TO BE -- WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE THERE, DO WE? >>PAULA HARVEY: [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: NO. RATHER -- RATHER MODEST ISSUES. MR. PRESSMAN, IS THAT -- >>PAULA HARVEY: IT'S NOT A REMAND, COMMISSIONERS. IT WOULD JUST BE CONTINUED. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. WELL, CONTINUED. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: RIGHT. AND WOULD THE APPLICANT -- MS. JAMES, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT IF WE WERE TO HAVE STAFF GO BACK -- BECAUSE I'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED HERE. I'VE GOT CONCERNS WITH ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT SEEMS TO BE OUT THERE. I'D LIKE FOR IT TO BE CLEARER, AND THAT WAY WE ALL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THERE'S NO -- AND THEN WE CAN -- WE KNOW STRAIGHT UP, THE BOARD DOES. >> I DON'T WANT THE COMMISSIONERS MOVING FORWARD IF THEY'RE UNCLEAR ON ISSUES. WE HAVE EXTREME CONCERNS HERE, AND WE BELIEVE THE MORE THE FACTS ARE LOOKED AT AND THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE FACTS AND THAT WE AGREE WITH STAFF, I THINK THAT'S GOOD. NEVER A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I'D HATE TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD -- OR I'D HATE TO GO FOR -- TO CONTINUE IT. I THINK THE FACTS ARE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO PROCEED ANY WAY THE COMMISSIONERS WANT. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, BUT THE ISSUE OF -- BUT WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE -- >> THE TWO PRIMARY -- THE TWO ISSUES ON THE AGENDA, THE CROSS-ACCESS AND THE SIDEWALKS WE'RE FINE WITH BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS SAID WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH ISSUES ELSEWHERE IN THE FILE. >>KEVIN WHITE: WOULD YOU PUT THOSE ON THE RECORD AGAIN SO WE CAN BE CLEAR AND STAFF CAN BE CLEAR? >> WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO WHAT'S TITLED ON TODAY'S AGENDA, WHICH IS THE CROSS-ACCESS TO THE WEST AND THE TIMING OF THE SIDEWALKS. THOSE ARE PRETTY MUCH ANTIQUATED ISSUES. THAT'S NO PROBLEM. WHAT WE HAVE A DIFFICULT, EXTREME CONCERN ABOUT IS WHAT'S BEEN ADDED IN THE FILE SINCE THEN, THE SITE PLAN THAT'S SUBMITTED AND THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE PLAN IN YOUR PACKET. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT AND EXTREME CONCERNS ABOUT. I'M GOING TO STATE ON THE RECORD IN TEN SECONDS THAT WHAT'S OUT THERE NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORIGINAL PD. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO IF WE'RE -- WE ALL SEEM TO BE OKAY WITH THOSE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS, AND I AGREE WITH MR. PRESSMAN THAT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE WITH -- WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON THAT PERHAPS SHOULD NOT AND THINGS THAT ARE IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ABUTTING THIS. WHY CAN'T WE JUST GO FORWARD WITH THOSE TWO CONDITIONS -- I'M SORRY? >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] ORIGINAL PD. >>ROSE FERLITA: RIGHT, AND THE ORIGINAL PD, BUT ALSO NOT TO DISREGARD THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS. I'M JUST -- >> WE WOULD MUCH PREFER THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE OUR MOTION. >>KEN HAGAN: FINALLY. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>MARK SHARPE: SO THE APPROVAL IS THE TWO CONDITIONS WITH THE ORIGINAL PD, WHICH SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE. >>KEN HAGAN: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? >> TO CLARIFY, THE TWO CONDITIONS AND COMPLY WITH THE THE ORIGINAL PD? >>MARK SHARPE: YES. >> THANK YOU. >>ROSE FERLITA: TWO CONDITIONS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL PD. >>PAULA HARVEY: COMMISSIONERS -- >>MARK SHARPE: UH-OH. >>PAULA HARVEY: -- PLEASE, ONE MORE CLARIFICATION I NEED FROM MR. PRESSMAN. HE NEEDS TO DEFINE FOR ALL OF US, ESPECIALLY FOR ME, WHAT OTHER ITEMS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ORIGINAL PD DOES HE THINK THIS APPLICANT IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH? >> NUMBER ONE, THE SITE PLAN THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED THAT SHOWS TWO AREAS OF ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. >>PAULA HARVEY: OKAY. >> AND A CHANGE OF A CONDITION LISTED ON THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL WHICH NOTES, TO BE USED FOR CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. >>PAULA HARVEY: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>MARK SHARPE: CAN WE DO THAT WITH YOUR MOTION? >>KEN HAGAN: PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. MS. JAMES, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE? >> JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND, PLEASE. I NEED TO FIND A DOCUMENT THAT I BROUGHT WITH ME. WE DID NOT CHANGE ANY CONDITION ON THE SITE PLAN. I AM LOOKING AT THE 1991 APPROVAL. THE CONDITION NUMBER -- THE NOTE NUMBER 2 SAYS, TO BE USED FOR CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. THAT'S ON THE APPROVED 1991 PLAN. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN BE MORE CLEAR THAN WHAT WE HAVE DONE. ALL WE DID ON THAT SITE PLAN WAS I SHOWED THE ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE AREA THAT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOREVER. IF YOU WANT ME TO REMOVE THAT, I HAVE NO PROBLEM REMOVING THE ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE. ON MOST SITE PLANS YOU GET YOU DON'T SEE IT. THE CITIZEN -- I MEAN, AN OWNER IS ALLOWED TO DO IT. WE ACTUALLY WERE LIMITING OURSELVES TO WHAT AREA WOULD BE USED. IF YOU WANT ME TO REMOVE THAT, I WILL. >>KEN HAGAN: ADAM. >>ADAM GORMLY: JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE BOARD'S MOTION. IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THIS WOULD BE APPROVAL OF THE CHANGES SHOWN TO THE WRITTEN CONDITIONS 1, 5, 11, 12, AND 13, WHICH DEALT WITH THE SIDEWALKS AND CROSS-ACCESS AND DOES NOT INCLUDE APPROVAL OF THE CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN OR THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION 1.1 THAT WOULD HAVE RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN? >> THE THINK THE RECORD'S BEEN VERY CLEAR. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>PAULA HARVEY: JUST A MOMENT. I NEED TO CONFER WITH THE ATTORNEY FOR A SECOND. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, AT THIS TIME WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM F-4 ON YOUR PRINTED AGENDA. ITEM F-4 IS PRS APPLICATION 10-686. THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO A ZONING APPROVED IN 2005. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT THE WESTERN BUFFER BE REDUCED FROM 35 FEET TO TEN FEET. THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS ON THE -- ON STATE ROAD 60. THEY ARE ASKING ALSO THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE FOR A FENCE ADJACENT TO THE OPEN AREA ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS REQUEST. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATION OF THE BUFFER AREA. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> STAFF'S IN APPROVAL. THERE'S NO OPPOSITION. THIS WOULD BE A STAFF -- REPORT INDICATES IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN STANDARDS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-5 IS PRS APPLICATION 10-687, FOUNTAINS AT FALKENBURG. THIS APPLICANT IS ASKING ON A 9.3-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FALKENBURG ROAD, SOUTH OF CAMDEN -- EXCUSE ME, WEST SIDE OF FALKENBURG ROAD, SOUTH OF CAMDEN FIELD PARKWAY TO ELIMINATE THE CONDITION IN THE ZONING INITIALLY PROVIDED TO -- TO REQUIRE THAT GROUND SIGNS BE LIMITED TO MONUMENT SIGNS, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: MR. PRESSMAN. >> STAFF IS IN APPROVAL. THIS IS FOR AN ANTIQUATED NOTION. IT'S FOR AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-6 IS PRS APPLICATION 10-688, LAKEWOOD POINTE LIMITED. THIS PROPERTY IS 16 ACRES IS SIZE, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD, WEST OF LAKEWOOD DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REMOVAL OF THE CONDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT GROUND SIGNS BE LIMITED TO MONUMENT SIGNS. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >> SAME SITUATION AS THE LAST ONE, SIR. >>KEN HAGAN: ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: WE'LL RETURN BACK, COMMISSIONERS, TO ITEM F-2 ON YOUR AGENDA, PRS APPLICATION 10-574. THIS PERTAINS TO A SEVEN-ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 579 AND SLIGH AVENUE. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY, COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS A TRUCK STOP THAT'S NEAR I-4, ACTUALLY IS BEHIND THE LAZY DAYS RV SALES FACILITY. THIS APPLICANT IS ASKING THAT THE PROVISION FOR A STANDALONE RESTAURANT THAT WAS APPROVED WITH THE ORIGINAL ZONING, THAT THEY REMOVE THAT ALLOWABILITY AND BE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR PLAZA SQUARE FOOTAGE, ALSO ADDING PARKING, A TRUCK WEIGHT SCALE, AND A FUEL PUMP. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS MODIFICATION. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THE APPLICANT HERE? GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. ROBIN KENDALL WITH EMK, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS. BASICALLY WE'RE JUST WANTING TO REMOVE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT OF ALLOWABLE USE FOR A RESTAURANT ON A VACANT -- ON VACANT LAND AND CREATE SOME MORE PARKING FOR TRUCKS AND AUTOS. ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER WHITE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-3, PRS APPLICATION 10-575, KB HOME TAMPA, LLC, IS ASKING FOR A MODIFICATION ON A 52-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SYMMES ROAD, WEST OF NORTH STREET. THE MODIFICATION THAT'S CONTEMPLATED HERE ARE CONDITIONS IN THE SITE PLAN PERTAINING TO THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE CONTEMPLATED FOR THIS REZONING. IT INCLUDES SOME TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS ON SYMMES ROAD, U.S. 41, LOVEGREN LANDSCAPE, AND NORTH STREET. TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS REQUEST, AND THEY ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: DOES THE APPLICANT NEED TO ADD ANYTHING? >> BRIAN CALE WITH HEIDT DESIGN, 5806 BRECKENRIDGE PARKWAY. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: [INAUDIBLE] >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-7, WHICH IS ON PAGE 7 OF THE AGENDA, PRS APPLICATION 10-690, SLV VALTERRA, LLC, IS ASKING TO MODIFY A 19.5-ACRE SITE ON THE EAST SIDE OF VALRICO ROAD, NORTH OF DOCKSIDE DRIVE TO ELIMINATE A CONDITION THAT PROVIDED FOR A LEFT TURN IMPROVEMENT ON VALRICO ROAD. THIS APPLICANT WAS APPROVED INITIALLY FOR 66 UNITS. IT WAS PLATTED TO 53. THEY'RE REDUCING THE NUMBER TO 50, WHICH LOWERS THE COUNT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE THE LEFT TURN IMPROVEMENT, SO THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF CONCURS WITH THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: APPLICANT NEED TO ADD ANYTHING? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD. I DO HAVE A SMILE ON MY FACE, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH YOUR STANDARDS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BY REDUCING IT TO LESS THAN 50 UNITS, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY WAIVER OR EXCEPTION; HOWEVER, WE HAVE AGREED WITH YOUR DRAINAGE STAFF TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON STATE -- ON VALRICO ROAD, WHICH WILL HELP ELIMINATE SOME OF THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN THE AREA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE WITH A SMILE, MS. JAMES. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: ANY OTHER ITEMS THIS AFTERNOON? >>PAULA HARVEY: NO, SIR, WE'VE CONCLUDED OUR AGENDA. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WITH THAT, WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. 1