CAPTIONING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 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. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS LAURA BELFLOWER. I WILL BE CONDUCTING THIS EVENING'S HEARING. IF YOU WOULD ALL RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] I WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS OF THIS TYPE UNDER 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 PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT 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 PEOPLE WHO ARE PROPONENTS, THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BUT ARE NOT CONNECTED WITH THE APPLICANT, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT. FOLLOWING THAT, PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION, WHO ARE AGAINST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION, AND ON -- BOTH THOSE WHO ARE FOR THE APPLICATION AND THOSE THAT ARE AGAINST, IT IS A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES. AS I INDICATED A FEW MINUTES EARLIER, IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE, THAT TIME GOES BY VERY QUICKLY, SO IF YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING AND SUBMIT IT, THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT SO THAT THEY CAN RESPOND TO IT, BUT PLEASE DO THAT, AND DEFINITELY PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT TESTIMONY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN. THEN IF EITHER STAFF HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR REVISIONS TO THEIR REPORT TO BE MADE FOLLOWING THE TESTIMONY, THOSE WILL BE MADE NEXT, AND BY THE CODE, THE LAST PERSON TO SPEAK 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. THERE IS 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. NORMALLY IF THERE WAS A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TIME, IT USUALLY IS FREELY GRANTED. BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH A TIGHT AGENDA AND WE HAVE TO BE THROUGH BY MIDNIGHT, IT IS LIKELY TIME WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE GRANTED, SO PLEASE BE SUCCINCT. WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND AFTER YOU PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY, PLEASE SIGN IN WITH THE CLERK. THERE IS GOING TO BE A PAD DOWN HERE NEXT TO THE CLERK TO MY RIGHT, TO YOUR LEFT. THESE ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHICH MEAN THAT THE DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BASED ON FACT-BASED EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND THAT IS PRESENTED IN THE HEARING TONIGHT. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL, THE HEARINGS WILL BE INFORMAL. ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE REQUEST BEING MADE BY THE APPLICANT. IT IS REQUIRED THAT ALL TESTIMONY GIVEN REGARDING ANY APPLICATION BE GIVEN UNDER OATH, SO AT THIS TIME, TO EXPEDITE MATTERS, I WILL GIVE THE OATH TO ALL PARTIES WHO THINK THAT THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING. IF YOU WOULD ALL STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND TAKE THE OATH. [PARTICIPANTS SWORN IN] OKAY. MR. GRADY, PERFECT TIMING. IT'S WORKING? >>BRIAN GRADY: [INAUDIBLE] >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF YOU WOULD, MR. GRADY, INTRODUCE THE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE, AND GO OVER CHANGES TO THE AGENDA. >>BRIAN GRADY: GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, BRIAN GRADY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. JOINING US AT THE DAIS TONIGHT ARE, MR. DAVID HEY WITH THE CITY-COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO MY LEFT AND, TO HIS LEFT, MS. SHERI MURPHY WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. WE HAVE ONE CHANGE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. IT'S ON PAGE 4 OF THE AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER 10. IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 08-1253. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE JANUARY 20th, 2009, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED CONTINUANCE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AT THIS POINT, LET ME STOP. DID YOU FIND OUT ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? THE PROBLEM, JUST TO LET YOU ALL KNOW, IS THAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS NOT ABLE TO RECORD THE TESTIMONY, AND UNDER THE CODE, THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS THE OFFICIAL RECORDING PARTY. >>BRIAN GRADY: WE HAVE CLOSED CAPTIONING. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YES. >>BRIAN GRADY: WE'RE FINE. WE CAN TAKE IT FROM THE CLOSED CAPTIONING. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: WE HAVE RECORDINGS BEING MADE BY HTV, WHICH ARE THE PEOPLE THAT DO THE CLOSED CAPTIONING AS WELL AS A COURT REPORTER, SO IT IS BEING RECORDED IN TWO WAYS. IT'S JUST NOT THE OFFICIAL RECORDING BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY CONCERNS OR ANY REASONS THAT THEY WISH TO WAIT UNTIL LATER IN THE AGENDA TO BE HEARD WITH HOPES THAT THAT PROBLEM WILL BE FIXED, PLEASE LET ME KNOW THAT WHEN YOUR ITEM COMES UP. OTHERWISE WE WILL GO FORWARD WITH THE RECORDING THAT WE HAVE. SO IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT FOR RZ 08-1253. >> GOOD EVENING, MS. BELFLOWER. JIM SHIMBERG WITH HOLLAND & KNIGHT, 100 NORTH TAMPA STREET. WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF FLOURNOY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS ITEM TO BE CONTINUED UNTIL YOUR JANUARY 20th HEARING. WE WERE UNABLE TO WORK OUT ISSUES WITH STAFF A WEEK OR SO AGO, AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS PAST THE TIME FOR THEM TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA EXCEPT FOR THIS CHANGE FORMAT. THIS ITEM HAS -- IT'S IN THE WESTCHASE AREA, AND THERE'S ALMOST 700 PEOPLE ON THE NOTICE LIST. WE TRIED TO REACH OUT TO AS MANY OF THE ASSOCIATIONS THAT WE COULD AND PEOPLE WE'D BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH, BUT SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T GET THE MESSAGE, AND WE WERE GETTING CALLS AS RECENTLY AS TODAY, SO WE'D ASK FOR THIS ITEM TO BE CONTINUED TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH STAFF. WE'VE PROMISED ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH THAT WE'LL GET BACK TO THEM AS SOON AS WE HAVE FURTHER MEETINGS AND TALK -- HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE CONTINUANCE REQUEST FOR RZ 08-1253? SEEING NO ONE, THAT MATTER WILL BE CONTINUED UNTIL JANUARY 20th, 2009. >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE TO TONIGHT'S AGENDA, SO I'LL NOW GO THROUGH THE PUBLISHED WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES ON PAGE 1 OF THE AGENDA. FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 1-A, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 08-1409. THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. ITEM 1-B, REZONING APPLICATION 08-1431. THIS APPLICATION -- THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 08-1261. THIS APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 15th, 2008, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-D, REZONING APPLICATION 08-1280. STAFF REQUESTS THIS PETITION BE CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 15th, 2008, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-E, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 08-1389. THIS APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 15th, 2008, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-F, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 08-1269. STAFF REQUESTS THIS PETITION BE CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 16th, 2008, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-G, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 08-1296. THIS APPLICATION'S OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 20th, 2009, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. AND ITEM SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 08-1424. THIS APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 20th, 2009, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ACTUALLY, I DO HAVE ONE CORRECTION. ITEM 1-G, WE RECEIVED -- ACTUALLY NO, WE'RE FINE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IT IS OUT OF ORDER AND CONTINUED TO THE 20th OF JANUARY? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. IF THERE ARE ANY -- IS ANYONE HERE THAT IS IN THAT LIST? >>BRIAN GRADY: ACTUALLY, THE APPLICANT FOR 1-G IS HERE. I WASN'T SURE THIS IS THE ONE OCCASION, BUT I THINK THEY'RE WITHDRAWING THIS APPLICATION. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD. WE HAVE WITHDRAWN ITEM 1-G, SPECIAL USE 08-1296. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>BRIAN GRADY: SO ITEM 1-G IS WITHDRAWN INSTEAD OF BEING CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 20th. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE FOR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN READ OFF, THEY WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT. BEFORE WE GET STARTED ON THE FIRST SPECIAL USE, I WOULD ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IF THEY WOULD PROVIDE SOME EXPLANATION ABOUT HOW SPECIAL USES ARE PROCESSED. >>SHERI MURPHY: OKAY. THANK YOU, MRS. HEARING MASTER. GOOD EVENING. SHERI MURPHY, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIAL USES PERMITS, WHICH I WILL SPEAK ABOUT, THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED TODAY WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF EACH CASE. THIS MEANS THAT AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARINGS ON EACH SPECIAL USE PETITION, THE RECORD WILL CLOSE AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE RECORD ON YOUR PETITION. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON SPECIAL USES TO EITHER GRANT OR DENY THE REQUEST MAY BE APPEALED TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S WRITTEN DECISION. IN MAKING A FINAL DECISION, THE APPEALS BOARD SHALL ONLY CONSIDER THE RECORD OF TODAY'S HEARING, THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION, AND ORAL ARGUMENT BY THE COUNTY, THE PARTY APPEALING THE DECISION, AND ANY PERSON WHO INTERVENES, EACH OF WHOM MAY BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL. ONLY THE FOLLOWING PERSONS OR ENTITIES SHALL HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER: FIRST, THE APPLICANT; SECOND, ANY PERSON WHO IS HERE AND PRESENTS EITHER TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; THIRD, ANY PERSON WHO SUBMITTED EVIDENCE BY THEMSELVES OR BY PROXY PRIOR TO OR DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING; AND EACH OF WHOM HAS TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION. IT IS THE ROLE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ENSURE THAT NO NEW EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD. AGAIN, THIS RELATES TO SPECIAL USE APPLICATIONS ONLY. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I'M SORRY. WE'RE STILL TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS QUESTION ABOUT THE CLERK'S OFFICE RECORDING, IF YOU COULD JUST HOLD ON ONE MOMENT. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE ARE READY TO GET STARTED, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS HAPPENING. THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY BEING MOVED UP TO THIS ROOM. MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE FIRST SPECIAL USE. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 08-1374. THE APPLICANT'S BALDWIN STERLING. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL -- IS FOR A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JESUS MERLY. I'M WITH 5M CIVIL, LLC. ADDRESS IS 12315 WYCLIFF PLACE, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33626. AS WE DISCUSSED, THIS IS A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR A DAY CARE. LET ME SEE IF I CAN MAKE THIS -- IS THAT BETTER? >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THAT'S FINE. >> OKAY. THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY OWNS THE SOUTHERN PARCEL DEFINED BY THIS POLYGON. HE RECENTLY PURCHASED THESE TWO PARCELS TO HAVE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THEM, AND HIS INTENT IS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS ALLOWED ON THE SITE FROM 165 TO 249, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY THAT HE HAS PURCHASED AND THE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON-SITE AS WELL. THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE AN OVERALL CAMPUS FOR DAY CARE PURPOSES. THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE ZONED BPO, WHICH BY RIGHT HE HAS THE USE TO USE THAT AS A DAY CARE, AND THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY IS ZONED RSC-6, SO THE SPECIAL USE THAT WAS IN PLACE SINCE 1994 WAS FOR THE RSC-6 PROPERTY, AND THE INTENT OF THIS SPECIAL USE IS TO CONSOLIDATE EVERYTHING INTO A UNIFIED PARCEL TO ALLOW FOR THE CHILD CARE USE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE THREE PARCELS NOW, IF YOU WILL. WE SENT OUT NOTICE. WE'VE HAD JUST ABOUT TWO PHONE CALLS. ONE WAS JUST AN INQUIRY ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY WAS PROPOSED, AND WE INFORMED THE NEIGHBOR, LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PROJECT, AND ANOTHER -- ANOTHER NEIGHBOR WENT AHEAD AND VISITED THE APPLICANT AND JUST HAD DIRECT QUESTIONS WITH HIM. WE'VE HAD NO OTHER CALLS OR INQUIRIES ABOUT THE PROJECT OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROJECT. AS I MENTIONED, THE NORTHERN TWO PROPERTIES ARE ZONED BPO, SO WE HAVE THE USE OF THAT AS A DAY CARE BY RIGHT. SO IN SUMMARY, IT SEEMS TO ME IT'S A REAL STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION, AND WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S REQUIREMENTS, AND STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION -- A COUPLE QUESTIONS. THE STAFF GRAPHIC SHOWS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE PARCELS AND SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS A GAP. IS THERE A NONVACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY OR AN OLD RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT MAYBE HAS BEEN VACATED BETWEEN THE PARCELS? >> I BELIEVE THIS IS THE GRAPHIC YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YES. >> THAT WAS AN OLD PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ONE OF THE DEEDS DOES INDICATE THAT THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED, SO IT WAS A VACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY. I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE DEED. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> BUT IT IS A -- IT IS ALL CONSOLIDATED PARCELS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> WELL, THEY DO ABUT ONE ANOTHER. THERE IS NO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT'S OWNED IN THAT LOCATION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. YOU INDICATED THAT THE NORTHERN PORTION IS ZONED BPO AND THAT THE CHILD CARE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT. WHY -- >> CONDITIONAL USE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OR ALLOWED AS A CONDITIONAL USE. WHY IS THIS SPECIAL USE BEING REQUESTED? >> WE MET WITH STAFF AT A PREAPPLICATION -- PRESUBMITTAL MEETING BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS, THE REASON WHY THAT WAS NECESSARY. WE WANTED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS STAFF WASN'T -- I GUESS WASN'T -- WASN'T WILLING TO LET THAT GO STRAIGHT TO CONSTRUCTION THROUGH PGM BECAUSE OF THOSE 265 STUDENTS WOULD BE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROPERTY, AND THERE MAY BE IN EXCESS OF 165 ON THE SOUTHERN PARCEL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I SEE. >> TO FURTHER TOUCH ON THAT CENTER GAP OR WHAT USED TO BE A RIGHT-OF-WAY, PRIOR TO PURCHASING OF THOSE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, THE APPLICANT, MY CLIENT, DID HAVE A RIGHT TO USE THAT AS ACCESS TO HIS PROPERTY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CHILD CARE CENTER FROM 165 TO 249 STUDENTS -- EXCUSE ME -- AND TO INCREASE THE ACREAGE TO APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRES -- EXCUSE ME -- AND TO INCREASE THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 11,142. THE REASON YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A NEW SPECIAL USE APPLICATION IS THAT ANY TIME YOU MAKE A CHANGE -- AND SINCE THIS PROPERTY'S GOING TO BE INTERCHANGEABLE, IT IS JUST ONE FACILITY -- THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET A NEW SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS IN 1990. STAFF FINDS THE CHILD CARE CENTER COMPARABLE WITH THE BPO USE THAT'S CURRENTLY USED AS A CHURCH AND WITH THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NORTH AND WEST OF THE SITE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE AREA, THEREFORE APPROVABLE. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. DAVID HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-9 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. IT WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED IN AUGUST, THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT FALLS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN. AS YOU ARE AWARE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY RECOGNIZES DAY CARE FACILITIES AS A RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USE AND AS SUCH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL USES. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THREE PARCELS INTO A UNIFIED DAY CARE FACILITY AND TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL STUDENTS ON-SITE. OVERALL, THE SUBJECT SITE IS -- THE PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS A RECOGNIZED RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USE, AND AS SUCH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND YOU INDICATED THAT THIS IS IN THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN? IT'S AWFULLY FAR NORTH FOR RIVERVIEW. >>DAVID HEY: YES, THAT'S IN ERROR. IT'S IN BRANDON, AND THEY DON'T HAVE A COMMUNITY PLAN. THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE REPORT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IT IS -- >>DAVID HEY: IT IS NOT -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THERE IS NO COMMUNITY PLAN FOR THIS PARTICULAR -- >>DAVID HEY: THEY ARE UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW TO FORMULATE ONE IN BRANDON, BUT IT'S NOT ADOPTED YET. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. AND FOR THE RECORD, YOU PROVIDED A NEW REPORT JUST BECAUSE THE MAP WAS MISSING; IS THAT CORRECT? >>DAVID HEY: THE MAP WAS NOT PROVIDED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD, SO WE DID PROVIDE A NEW REPORT WITH THE ATTACHED MAP. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NO ONE, DOES THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SEEING NOTHING FURTHER ON THIS MATTER, THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. WE NOW -- I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO REZONINGS. >>BRIAN GRADY: NO, WE HAVE ONE MORE SPECIAL USE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ONE MORE SPECIAL USE. OKAY. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 3, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 08-1433. THE APPLICANT IS SHELLEY LAKES MINE, INCORPORATED. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR LAND EXCAVATION. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S REGINALD JOYNER, P.O. BOX 306, BALM, FLORIDA 33503. I'M THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SHELLEY LAKES MINE. SHELLEY LAKES MINE WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1998. WE'VE ALWAYS OPERATED AS A DIRT PIT IN THE BALM COMMUNITY. WE HAVE 15 EMPLOYEES. THEY'RE COUNTING ON ME DOING A GOOD JOB TONIGHT BECAUSE IF I DON'T, THEY'LL BE OUT OF A JOB BY SUMMERTIME. I THINK SHELLEY LAKES MINE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS THE LARGEST LANDOWNER IN BALM. WE'VE NEVER -- DURING OUR COURSE OF TEN YEARS OF OPERATION, WE'VE NEVER HAD A VIOLATION FROM SOUTHWEST WATER MANAGEMENT, EPC, DEP, OR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOUR APPROVED OPERATING PERMITS. IF THE COUNTY HAD SUCH A THING, WE WOULD BE COMING TONIGHT FOR A MODIFICATION OF ONE OF THESE PERMITS, BUT SINCE THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THIS IS A BRAND-NEW APPLICATION. WHAT WE HAVE NEGOTIATED WITH THE COUNTY IS WE'D TAKE OUR ENTIRE FOUR OPERATING PERMITS AND INCORPORATE THEM INTO ONE SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE ONE SET OF OPERATING CONDITIONS, ONE LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ONE RECLAMATION BOND, AND AFTER WE HAD NEGOTIATED THIS WITH THE COUNTY, THEY HAVE FILED THEIR -- OR ARE GOING TO FILE TONIGHT, I GUESS, THEIR REPORT IN SUPPORT OF OUR APPLICATION. WE'VE MET WITH SOUTHWEST FLORIDA MANAGEMENT ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT. THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN ACCESS, TRAFFIC, OR RATES OF EXCAVATION. ASSUMING THAT WE ARE SUCCESSFUL TONIGHT, WE DID NOT ASK FOR ANY VARIANCES OR WAIVERS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS. THERE ARE NO WILDLIFE PROBLEMS ON MY SITE, AND THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE DURATION OF THE EXISTENCE -- EXISTING OPERATING PERMITS, AND IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA TO ENCOURAGE AREAS OF SECTION 6.11.54-A-3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY STATE THAT SHELLEY LAKES MINE AGREES WITH ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MA'AM? >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD IS THE ADDITIONAL LAND THAT'S BEING ADDED, I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT TEN ACRES THAT'S BEING ADDED THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY APPROVED UNDER THE OPERATING PLAN? >> YES, MA'AM, IT'S ABOUT TEN ACRES, BUT OF THE TEN THERE'S ONLY ABOUT 3.65 ACRES THAT'S GOING TO BE ACTUALLY MINED. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND THAT IS IN THE NORTHERN AREA? >> YES, MA'AM, IN THE NORTHERN AREA TOWARDS 672. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: DOES IT INCLUDE THE FINGERS THAT REACH UP TO 672, OR HAVE THOSE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PAST? >> THEY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PAST, MA'AM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> BUT BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK ISSUES, THEY ARE NOT BEING MIND. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THEY'RE NOT MINABLE. >> NO, MA'AM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THAT'S IT. >> I'D LIKE TO SURRENDER THE REST OF MY TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE, NICK NICHOLS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS NICK NICHOLS. I RESIDE AT 3802 DANA SHORES DRIVE, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33634. I'VE WORKED WITH REGGIE ON HIS BORROW PITS EXPANSIONS AND THINGS FOR THE PAST TWO OR THREE EXPANSIONS. THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU NOW IS THAT BECAUSE THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE A PROCESS TO MODIFY AN EXISTING OPERATING PERMIT OR APPROVAL, WE WERE -- IT WAS PREFERRED BY STAFF RATHER THAN TO COME IN WITH A SEPARATE OPERATING PERMIT FOR A VERY SMALL AREA OF ONLY TEN ACRES, AGAIN, ONLY ABOUT 3.5 OF WHICH WOULD BE MINED -- AND THIS ALSO OVERLAPPED INTO THE PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED SECTION IN THE NORTH, WHICH WOULD HAVE MODIFIED THAT PERMIT. AT ONE POINT WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING THAT AS A NEW PERMIT INCLUDING A PORTION OF THE PREVIOUS -- THE PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED AREA IN WHICH WE ARE WORKING PLUS THE NEW 3.5 ACRES WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO DIG, AND THE STAFF FROM THE LAND EXCAVATION GROUP AND OTHERS SAID, GEE, IT WOULD REALLY BE NICE IF YOU CONSOLIDATED ALL THESE PERMITS INTO ONE PLACE, SHELLEY LAKES 1-4 IS NOW SHELLEY LAKES MINE CONSOLIDATED PERMIT, WHICH AS REGGIE HAD INDICATED, WOULD HAVE A UNIFORM SET OF OPERATING CONDITIONS, HOURS, EXCAVATION, A UNIFORM SET OF CONDITIONS RATHER THAN CONDITIONS THAT VARY FROM CELL TO CELL OR AREA TO AREA. IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR SOMETHING CALLED A UNIFIED LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN. WE ARE THE FIRST BORROW PIT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO HAVE AN APPROVED LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THIS HOLE IN THE GROUND WITH WATER IN IT WHEN IT'S DONE. THIS INCLUDED LITTORAL AREAS. WE'VE ALREADY BEGUN THE STOCKING WITH FISH, PLANTING, AND OTHER SUCH THINGS, SO IT ALLOWS FOR A MUCH MORE UNIFORM LAND USE ONCE IT'S COMPLETED RATHER THAN PIECEMEAL, AND REALLY ALL WE SAID THAT WE WERE DOING IS TRYING TO WRAP ALL OF THIS UP WITH A BIG BOW OR PUT A STAKE THROUGH ITS HEART, HOWEVER YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT IT, AND THAT'S ALL IT REALLY DID. WE'RE REALLY NOT ASKING FOR ANY SUBSTANTIALLY ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES OF DIRT. THE THREE OR FOUR MILLION CUBIC YARDS IS A HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER THAT IF YOU DUG STRAIGHT DOWN, THAT'S WHAT YOU'D GET, BUT WITH THE NORMAL CONDITIONS OF A PIT, YOU GET MAYBE HALF OF WHAT YOU'RE PERMITTED FOR, AND WE'RE WELL UNDER THAT NUMBER AT THIS POINT. AGAIN, I'D JUST LIKE TO SUMMARIZE THAT WE ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING THE DURATION OF THE CURRENT OPERATION. NOT ONLY DO WE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ENCOURAGED AREA, IT IS NOT IN A PROHIBITED AREA AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 6.1.54.A.5, NOR IS IT IN THE RESTRICTED AREA, 6.11.54.A.6. WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE, WHICH WOULD PERMIT THIS OPERATION UNDER 6.11.54.B.1 THROUGH 3. WE'VE REVIEWED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, STAFF COMMENTS IN THEIR REPORT. WE'VE SENT NUMEROUS E-MAILS BACK AND FORTH THAT ARE IN PUBLIC RECORD OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS, PROVIDING THEM ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ANSWERING ANY AND EVERY QUESTION WE COULD POSSIBLY DO TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED PERMIT. AGAIN, THOSE ARE ALL ON RECORD. THE STAFF HAS BEEN REALLY GOOD WORKING WITH US, AND WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU MIGHT HAVE THEM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I HAVE NONE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS FOR A LAND EXCAVATION SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSOLIDATE THE SHELLEY LAKES LAND EXCAVATION PERMITS UNDER ONE PERMIT AND ONE OPERATING PERMIT, TO EXPAND THE EXISTING LAND AREA BY ABOUT TEN ACRES TO 246 ACRES, TO EXCAVATE A TOTAL OF 20 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL. THE TOTAL EXCAVATION AREA WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 182 ACRES WITHIN FIVE CELLS TO A MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 40 FEET. ACCORDING TO THE LAND EXCAVATION AND PHOSPHATE MINING REVIEW STAFF, THE EXCAVATION WILL CONSOLIDATE FOUR EXISTING PERMITS, AND WE HAVE COPIES OF THOSE TO PROVIDE YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>SUSAN MARINER: THE PROPOSED SETBACKS MEET THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS. THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY WAIVERS TO ANY OF THE REGULATIONS. THE TRUCK ROUTE IS TO 672 AND THEN EAST AND WEST ON APPROVED TRUCK ROUTES. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO COMBINE THE EXISTING PERMITS WITH THE MINOR EXPANSION COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NATURE OF THE EXISTING AND DEVELOPING USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND LAND EXCAVATION STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COPY OF THIS FOR THE CLERK? >> YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>LAURA BELFLOWER: RIGHT OVER HERE, AND I BELIEVE I HEARD IN YOUR TESTIMONY WHEN YOU PAUSED, IT'S 20 MILLION CUBIC -- >>SUSAN MARINER: YOU'RE CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- NOT 20 MILLION MILLION? THAT WOULD BE A LOT. I THINK THAT'S IN ONE OF THE CONDITIONS AS WELL IF YOU WANT TO CORRECT THAT. OKAY. I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>SUSAN MARINER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED-2 AND AGRICULTURAL RURAL LAND USE CATEGORIES. IT WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SITE FALLS WITHIN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, AND IT ALSO FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTHSHORE AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HAS OUTLINED A NUMBER OF FACTS THAT ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN OUR STAFF REPORT TO YOU. WE BASICALLY DON'T PROVIDE A CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR EXCAVATION, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IT IS UNDER THE SOUTHSHORE AREA PLAN. >>DAVID HEY: RIGHT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND DID YOU INDICATE ANOTHER ONE AS WELL OR JUST THE SOUTHSHORE? >>DAVID HEY: NO, JUST THE SOUTHSHORE AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NO, I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? YES, MA'AM. >> GOOD MORNING, MS. -- GOOD EVENING, MS. BELFLOWER. UNTIL ABOUT THREE MINUTES AGO, I WOULD HAVE BEEN SPEAKING UNBELIEVABLY IN SUPPORT OF IT OR NEUTRAL, BUT I JUST FOUND OUT SOMETHING THAT CAUSES ME TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. I'M MARCELLA OSTEEN, 15133 CARLTON LAKE ROAD, PRESIDENT OF BALM CIVIC, AND I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR NOT DELVING INTO THIS MORE CLOSELY, BUT THE APPLICANT ASSURED ME WHEN I CALLED HIM ABOUT IT THAT IT WAS 3.5 ACRES, AND IT WAS FROM THE JUNK YARD PROPERTY, WHICH IS ON THE FRONT PORTION OF HIS PREVIOUS FOUR OR FIVE APPLICATIONS, AND I THOUGHT 3.5 ACRES FROM THE JUNK YARD, I REALLY DON'T CARE. I HAVE A LOT OF OTHER REZONING THINGS THAT I'M WORKING ON. THIS CAN GO BY THE BOARDS. THEN I GOT TO THINKING ABOUT IT. I THOUGHT, OKAY, I'M BEING TOO CASUAL ABOUT THIS, AND I GOT TO THINKING, WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE REPERCUSSIONS OF ROLLING THEM IN. THEN HE TOLD ME THAT THE STAFF WANTED TO ROLL THEM IN TOGETHER TO ONE PERMIT FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE OR WHATEVER, SO I THOUGHT, OKAY, WHAT -- HOW COULD THAT HURT US OUT HERE IN BALM, AND I THOUGHT MAYBE THE RECLAMATION WOULD BE WEAKER, THEY WOULD GO TO THE WEAKER ONE OR SOMETHING, SO I CALLED MIKE STEVENSON. HE SAID NO, THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE. SO THEN I STARTED THINKING, OKAY, WHAT OTHER WAY COULD THERE BE UNKNOWN REPERCUSSIONS THAT WOULD HURT US? COULDN'T THINK OF ANY UNTIL RECENTLY I THOUGHT WHEN YOU -- WHEN PEOPLE APPLY FOR A BORROW PIT SPECIAL USE, THE WAY -- THERE'S VERY LITTLE WAYS THAT YOU CAN FIGHT IT. ONE OF THE WAYS THAT YOU CAN DO IT IS THE NUMBER STAFF IS SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER AND THE LUHO IS SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER, THE NUMBER OF EITHER OPERATING OR CLOSED OUT PITS WITHIN A ONE-MILE AREA, SO I THOUGHT, OKAY, IF THIS HAPPENS, THERE WILL NOT BE FIVE, IT WILL BE ONE, AND WHEN HE NEXT GOES TO GET ANOTHER ONE OR MR. "X" WHO GOES TO GET ANOTHER ONE IN BALM, THEN I CAN SAY THERE'S ONLY ONE, YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING, INSTEAD OF FIVE. SO I THOUGHT OKAY, THAT'S A PROBLEM. BUT -- AND SO I THOUGHT THAT'S A KIND OF A PROBLEM, BUT STILL I DON'T KNOW. SO THEN I COME TONIGHT AND FIND OUT THE OPERATING HOURS. THAT WAS WHAT I SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON ALL ALONG. THE MOST RECENT PIT THAT WE FOUGHT, WHICH IS RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE, WE WERE SUCCESS -- WE LOST, OF COURSE, AND HE GOT THE PERMIT AND EVERYTHING, BUT WE DID GET ONE GOOD CONCESSION, WHICH WAS NO SATURDAY OPERATING HOURS, AND FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ALONG THAT, IT'S LIKE HALLELUJAH TIME. SATURDAYS CAN BE PEACEFUL. NOW I FIND OUT THAT IF IT'S ALL ROLLED INTO ONE, WE LOSE THAT SATURDAY. IT'LL ALL BE ON SIX DAYS A WEEK. CORRECT? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY. SO NOW I KNOW WHY I SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAYING MORE ATTENTION TO THIS FROM THE FIRST, SO MY BAD. I SHOULD HAVE RALLIED THE TROOPS AND DEALT WITH STAFF, AND MAYBE WE COULD HAVE GOT THAT TAKEN OUT AND ERASED THAT OBJECTION BECAUSE THAT INDEED IS A MAJOR OBJECTION. SO I DO STAND HERE BEFORE YOU IN OPPOSITION, AND I SHOULD HAVE REALLY LOOKED INTO IT CLOSER, AND I WOULD HAVE HAD MY DUCKS A LOT MORE IN A ROW THAN I DO RIGHT NOW, BUT I DO STAND IN OPPOSITION. I DO HOPE MAYBE THAT THIS CAN BE IRONED OUT IN SOME FASHION, BUT WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE OUR SATURDAYS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: HELP ME UNDERSTAND. ONE OF THE OPERATING PERMITS FOR A PORTION OF THIS FACILITY -- >> THE MOST RECENT ONE, AND MR. MILLER COULD TELL YOU WHICH ONE. IT'S A MAJOR ONE. IT'S A BIG ONE. IT'S A REAL BIG ONE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BUT IT'S PART OF THIS OVERALL THAT'S NOW GOING TO BE COMBINED? >> YES, YES. IT'S 07 SOMETHING. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. THEY HAVE GIVEN THEM TO ME. I HAVE 00-2, 05-4, 07-5. >> THAT'S PROBABLY IT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND SO YOUR CONCERN IS THE CONDITIONS ON THE HOURS WERE STRICTER -- >> UH-HUH, YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- ON THAT PARTICULAR SECTION. >> YES. UNHEARD OF TO GET A SATURDAY, BUT WE DID. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: DO YOU KNOW WHERE THIS AREA IS IN THE WHOLE MINE RELATIVE -- IS IT NORTH OR SOUTH OR -- >> IT IS TO THE EAST. RIGHT? RIGHT? RIGHT, JIMMY? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> MY NAME'S JAMES MILLER. I'M WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO STEP OVER AND GET ON THE MICROPHONE. I'M SORRY. >> OKAY. MRS. -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN DO THIS REACH. THE PORTIONS WHERE SHE LIVES IS IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. OKAY. MR. JOYNER DOES HAVE ON 07-5 LE RESTRICTED HOURS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. HE HAS COME IN AND ASKED FOR STANDARD OPERATING HOURS TO COINCIDE WITH THE REST OF HIS OPERATING PERMITS, WHICH IS FROM 7:00 TO 6:00 MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, EXCLUDING ANY COUNTY-RECOGNIZED HOLIDAYS. >> 7:00 TO 6:00 OR 7:00 TO 7:00? >> IT IS 7:00 TO 6:00. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THIS -- >> YES, MA'AM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- AND CUT THIS ALL SHORT. >> YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD SATURDAY HOURS BEFORE, AND I'VE ONLY OPERATED FROM 7:00 TO 2:00 ON SATURDAYS. THE LAST PERMIT, MS. OSTEEN WAS CORRECT, THEY TOOK AWAY THE SATURDAY HOURS. IT HAS CAUSED ME SOME MINOR GRIEF, BUT IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW HER OBJECTION TO MY APPLICATION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO STRIKE THAT CONDITION ON THE CONDITION THAT SHE STRIKES HER OPPOSITION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU WILL AGREE TO THE MINING -- >> NO SATURDAY OPERATIONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: NO SATURDAY MINING, AND THE WAY THE CONDITION'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW IT'S 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY IT CURRENTLY SAYS. YOU'RE SAYING MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY? >> YES, MA'AM. IT PUTS ME TO A LITTLE COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER PITS ARE ALLOWED TO OPERATE ON SATURDAY. BUSINESS IS SO BAD, I DON'T CARE NOW. [LAUGHTER] BUT IF SHE WOULD WITHDRAW HER OBJECTION, I WOULD AGREE TO STRIKE THAT CONDITION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> OBJECTION WITHDRAWN, BUT I DO WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS HOPING THAT THE RECLAMATION WILL BE AS STRICT AS ANY OF THE ONE BY ITSELF, NOTHING WILL LOSE ON RECLAMATION. OBJECTION WITHDRAWN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NO ONE FURTHER, IF I COULD ASK THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE COUNTY ON THE -- OUR EXPERT ON THIS ISSUE. >> JAMES MILLER, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS, ARE THEY ALL THE SAME FOR THE DIFFERENT ONES OR IS THE MOST -- MORE RESTRICTIVE ONE BEING APPLIED TO THIS ONE? >> IN ALL ACTUALITY, SOME OF THE OTHER PERMITS THAT HE HAS REQUIRED LESS AS FAR AS RECLAMATION. THIS ONE HAS THE GREATER -- THE GREATEST AMOUNT, BUT NOW THAT HE'S UNDER THIS NEW APPLICATION, HE'LL BE REQUIRED TO DO A 30% LITTORAL SHELF OF THE ENTIRE SITE, WHICH HE WASN'T BEFORE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE OTHER -- WELL, IT PROVIDES GREATER RECLAMATION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS? >> THAT IS CORRECT. CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? >> YES. NICK NICHOLS. I'D LIKE TO JUST CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT JAMES HAD MENTIONED. AS MOST PEOPLE KNOW, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS GENERALLY DON'T GET LESS AS TIME GOES ON, THEY GET TO BE MORE SIGNIFICANT, AND AGAIN, WE'RE THE FIRST AND, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, WE MAY STILL BE THE ONLY BORROW PIT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT HAS AN APPROVED LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN. WE HAVE THAT FOR TWO SECTIONS. TO ROLL THIS INTO ONE CONSOLIDATED PERMIT, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE MOST RESTRICTIVE AND THE MOST RECENT OF THOSE LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS WILL BE IMPOSED OVER THE WHOLE AREA, AND THAT, AGAIN, WAS THE 30% LITTORAL ZONE, PLANTINGS, AND OTHER SUCH THINGS. WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. IT MAKES FOR A MORE UNIFORM LAKE. WE WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN A SQUARE HOLE IN THE GROUND WHEN WE WALK AWAY FROM IT. THIS DOES HAVE SOME OTHER POTENTIAL VALUE, AND IT WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY MORE SO WERE THE LAKE TO BE DONE CORRECTLY. WE HAVE GOTTEN THE SAME SUPPORT FROM THE STAFF OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY EPC WHO REVIEWS OUR LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND HAVE DONE SO WITHOUT OBJECTIONS WHATSOEVER. WE'VE ALREADY INITIATED THE BEGINNING OF THE LAKE -- THE LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOME OF THE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES, INCLUDING SOME OF THE GRADING. THE WATER IS COMING UP IN THE LOWER PORTIONS, AND WE'VE ALSO ALREADY STOCKED THAT AREA OF ABOUT SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS AGO, SO THAT PLAN IS IN PREPARATION, AND WHEN THIS MINING OPERATION CEASES, IT WILL ACTUALLY GRADE SOME OF THOSE AREAS DOWN TO MORE GENTLE SLOPES WHERE WE DO HAVE A LITTORAL OR A VEGETATED ZONE AROUND A GREATER PROPORTION OF THE LAKE THAN OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. IF WE HAD WANTED EVEN TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN OVER THE WHOLE THING, WE'D HAVE LIKELY HAD TO COME BACK IN FOR A MODIFICATION ANYWAY JUST TO SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING BETTER; WELL, YOU AREN'T PERMITTED TO DO SOMETHING BETTER, YOU HAVE TO LEAVE IT, SO WE'D REALLY MUCH RATHER DO IT THIS WAY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM, MONITORING CONDITIONS, ONE SET OF UNIFORM CONDITIONS, MONITORING REPORTS, AND ALL THE REST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. STAFF HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? SEEING NOTHING FURTHER ON THIS MATTER, THIS MATTER IS CLOSED, AND THAT COMPLETES THE SPECIAL USES? >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT'S CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. WE DO HAVE A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE FOR REZONINGS AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS, SO I'D ASK MS. MURPHY IF SHE WOULD GO OVER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE. >>SHERI MURPHY: OKAY. THANK YOU, MRS. HEARING MASTER. AGAIN, SHERI MURPHY, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR REZONING IS THE FIRST OF A TWO-STEP PROCESS. AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF EACH CASE. THIS MEANS THAT AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARINGS ON EACH PETITION, THE RECORD WILL CLOSE AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED HEREAFTER. 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 HEARD TONIGHT. TONIGHT'S PETITIONS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD AT THE BOARD'S JANUARY 13th, 2009, LAND USE MEETING. THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH PETITION HEARD TONIGHT. AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, EACH PERSON WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MUST FILE AND EXECUTE A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON DECEMBER 22nd. THE REQUEST SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HERE AT THE COUNTY CENTER ON THE 12th FLOOR. THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE PUBLIC MEETING; HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BOARD CAN ELECT TO HEAR FROM A PARTY OF RECORD. A PARTY OF RECORD IS A PERSON WHO FITS INTO AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOUR FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: FIRST, A PERSON WHO IS HERE TONIGHT AND PRESENTS EITHER ORAL TESTIMONY OR PRESENTS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; SECOND, A PERSON CERTIFIED BY THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AS HAVING BEEN MAILED NOTICE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; THIRD, A PERSON WHO SUBMITS EVIDENCE TO THE MASTER FILE AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S HEARING; AND LAST, A PERSON WHO SUBMITS EVIDENCE BY PROXY THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING. IF THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, THE CONTENT OF THAT ARGUMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO WHAT IS HEARD TONIGHT AND ALSO PRESENTED. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL ADVISE THAT ONLY THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THANK YOU. MR. GRADY, IF YOU WOULD CALL OUR FIRST REZONING. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 4, REZONING APPLICATION 08-1309. THE APPLICANT'S GAY N. BOWLING. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY-1 TO BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT, BPO ZONING DISTRICT. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. MY NAME'S JOHN DWYER. MY ADDRESS IS POST OFFICE BOX 848, PLANT CITY. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNERS, GAY BOWLING AND BARNIE HERNDON, AND THEIR REQUEST HERE IS FOR A REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS-1 TO A BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, BPO. THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT A 2.5-ACRE SITE LOCATED OFF OF THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 39 AND JIM REDMAN PARK -- WHICH IS JIM REDMAN PARKWAY AND HIGHWAY 60 IN PLANT CITY, RIGHT OUTSIDE OF PLANT CITY. IT CURRENTLY HAS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON IT THAT'S ABOUT 1500 SQUARE FEET, AND IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPOSAL TO TRANSFORM THIS INTO AN OFFICE PRIMARILY MAYBE TO RENT FOR AN INSURANCE OFFICE. AND THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED CG, AND THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE EAST IS ZONED CG, AND THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE WEST IS A FRUIT STAND OR A FARMER'S MARKET, AND THE PROPERTY RIGHT ADJACENT TO THAT, WHICH IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER 300 FEET FROM US, IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, BUT THAT'S LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION. THIS PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USE IN THE AREA, AND THIS IS -- REALLY IS PRIMARILY THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AREA. I THINK IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CASE EXAMINER, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AN AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO A BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE AND DISTRICT. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING USES ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY 60. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. DAVID HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THIS -- THIS REQUEST WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT FALLS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-1 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA. THE PROPOSED REZONING TO A BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MIX OF LAND USES FOUND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THERE'S AN AGRICULTURAL-RELATED USE TO THE WEST AND A COMMERCIAL USE TO THE EAST OF THE SITE. AS THE SITE IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-1 LAND USE CATEGORY, NONRESIDENTIAL USES ARE SUBJECT TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THIS SITE IS OUTSIDE OF THE 660-FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROUTE 60 AND STATE ROAD 39. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET FROM THAT INTERSECTION. HOWEVER, THE SITE DOES QUALIFY FOR THE EXCEPTION TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR OFFICE USES AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. THE SITE IS ADJACENT TO CG ZONING TO THE EAST WHERE A VEHICLE SALES OPERATION IS CURRENTLY LOCATED. THE BPO ZONING WOULD PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE TRANSITION BETWEEN THIS COMMERCIAL USE AND THE SURROUNDING AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL USES. THE BPO ZONING WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY GIVEN IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL NODE, HAS FRONTAGE ON A MAJOR ROADWAY, AND IS LOCATED BETWEEN SEVERAL NONRESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USES. THE PROPOSED BPO ZONING SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AND BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? EXCUSE ME. SEEING NO ONE, DOES THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. EXCUSE ME. NOTHING FURTHER ON THIS MATTER, THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5. IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 08-1328. THE APPLICANT'S HARWELL RENTALS, INCORPORATED. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM CI TO A RESTRICTED CI ZONING. THEY'RE REQUESTING A FLEX OF THE OC-20 OVER THE SUBJECT PARCEL. TYLON McGEE WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S EDWIN HARWELL. I'M WITH HARWELL RENTALS, 9851 U.S. HIGHWAY 41 SOUTH, GIBSONTON. I'M REQUESTING A REZONING FROM A CN TO A CI JUST ON THE NORTHERN 250 FEET OF THE PARCEL I OWN. IT ACTUALLY HAS SPLIT ZONING. THE SOUTHERN PARCEL IS CG, THE NORTHERN IS CN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE DONE? I SAW SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THREE STORAGE CONTAINERS. >> YES, MA'AM. I HAVE THREE STORAGE CONTAINERS THAT WAS BEING USED ON THE -- THERE'S A SMALL SHOPPING CENTER THERE, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT -- I'M IN VIOLATION, SO I'M MOVING THOSE TO THE NORTHERN PARCEL, WHICH CI ALLOWS OPEN STORAGE, AND IN THE FUTURE MAYBE DO A TOTALLY OPEN STORAGE OR BOAT SALES OR JUST ALLOW ME TO USE THE VACANT PROPERTY A LITTLE BIT MORE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CONDITION OR THE RESTRICTION THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, AND DO YOU AGREE WITH IT? >> YEAH. I TALKED TO TYLON EARLIER. I WAS IN DOUBT ON THE RESTRICTIVE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT BEING RESTRICTED ON THE USES, BUT SHE ASSURED ME THAT IT'S JUST RESTRICTIVE ON THE BUFFERING FOR THE THREE CONTAINERS RIGHT NOW. IF I DO ANY FURTHER OPEN STORAGE, THEN I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE OPEN STORAGE CONDITIONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>TYLON McGEE: GOOD EVENING. TYLON McGEE, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE 2.4-ACRE SITE TO A RESTRICTED CI ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FLEX OF THE OC-20. THE AREA IS DEVELOPED WITH A MIX OF USES RANGING FROM OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL, AND COMMERCIAL. TO MITIGATE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO SCREENING RESTRICTIONS ON THE SITE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST APPROVABLE. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I DID HAVE A QUESTION I THINK ALONG THE SAME LINES OF WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS JUST INDICATING. THE CONDITION IS SAYING THAT THEY CAN STORE THE THREE SHIPPING CONTAINERS WITHOUT HAVING TO SCREEN IT OR WOULD THEY STILL HAVE TO SCREEN THOSE? >>TYLON McGEE: WELL, THE SCREENING WOULD BE THE PVC FENCE AROUND THE ACTUAL THREE SHIPPING CONTAINERS, BUT IF HE WAS TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, HE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE OPEN STORAGE REQUIREMENT AROUND THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY AS FAR AS BUFFERING. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO THE FENCE IS THE OPEN STORAGE SCREENING REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY OPEN STORAGE, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF HE ADDS ANYMORE, IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY AND THEN WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS -- >>TYLON McGEE: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- FOR REGULAR OUTDOOR STORAGE AS A PRINCIPAL USE. >>TYLON McGEE: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. THE SUBJECT SITE IS SPLIT WITHIN TWO LAND USE CATEGORIES. IT CONTAINS OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20 AND RESIDENTIAL-6. IT FALLS WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IT WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE'RE SWITCHING BETWEEN 2025 AND 2015, DEPENDING ON WHEN THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THE INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY. AND IT FALLS WITHIN THE GIBSONTON COMMUNITY PLAN. CURRENTLY, AS STATED EARLIER, THE SITE HAS A SPLIT LAND USE DESIGNATION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FLEX OF THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO U.S. 41, MOVE THAT A MAXIMUM OF 500 FEET TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, WHICH WOULD ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING DISTRICT OVER THE ENTIRE SITE. THE INTRODUCTION OF A MORE INTENSIVE ZONING DISTRICT BY THE GRANTING OF THE FLEX SHOULD BE MITIGATED BY INCREASED BUFFERING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, ESPECIALLY IF THE SITE IS GOING TO BE UTILIZED FOR OPEN STORAGE, AS ALLOWED FOR UNDER THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WAS ORIGINALLY CONCERNED THAT THIS WOULD BE THE INTRODUCTION OF COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE USES ALONG A CORRIDOR THAT REALLY HAS NO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING DISTRICTS, IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL GENERAL OR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. WITH SUCH RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THE PROPOSED REZONING TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE RESTRICTED WOULD BE CONSISTENT AND COMPARABLE WITH THE EXISTING AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE RESTRICTED ZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20 LAND USE CATEGORY AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS UTILIZATION OF THE FLEX PROVISION AND FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ON THE GRAPHIC MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH YOUR REPORT, DOES THAT INCLUDE BOTH PARCELS OWNED BY THE APPLICANT? >>DAVID HEY: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>DAVID HEY: THAT IS ANOTHER MAPPING ERROR DUE TO OUR COMPUTER PROBLEMS WE HAD LAST WEEK. THAT WAS BOTH PARCELS ORIGINALLY. THE APPLICANT DID AMEND AND IS ONLY REZONING THE NORTHERN PORTION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO THE 500 FEET -- IT'S HARD TO TELL WHAT THE SCALE IS ON THIS, BUT THE 500 FEET WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO REACH TO THE BACK OF THE PARCEL THEY ARE REZONING? >>DAVID HEY: YES. YES, YES, IT WOULD. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND IS YOUR SUGGESTION FOR ENHANCED BUFFERING FOR ALL CI USES OR JUST THE OPEN STORAGE? >>DAVID HEY: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WAS MOSTLY CONCERNED WITH THE OPEN STORAGE USE SINCE THAT'S CLASSIFIED AS ONE OF THE MOST INTENSIVE AND VISUALLY INTRUSIVE USES, THAT IT -- THE APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BUFFERING AND SCREENING, YOU KNOW, IF -- IF THE SITE DOES COMPLETELY TURN INTO AN OPEN STORAGE USE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. BUT IF THEY -- IF THEY DO OTHER CI USES, THE NORMAL BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE ARE SUFFICIENT? >>DAVID HEY: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NO ONE, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THE APPLICANT HAS NOTHING FURTHER, AND THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 6. IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 08-1339. THE APPLICANT'S ARE DONALD E. AND LaDONNA M. WILLS. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AS-1 TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE- FAMILY-4 WITH RESTRICTIONS. THE AGENDA WAS IN ERROR AND NOTED WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY REQUESTED THAT BUT DID REMOVE THAT FROM THE REQUEST, SO THE REQUEST IS FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE- FAMILY-4 WITH RESTRICTIONS. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> I'M MRS. DONALD WILLS, POST OFFICE BOX 603, VALRICO, FLORIDA. AS YOU CAN SEE THE MAP THERE, OUR HOUSE IS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. THE NEIGHBOR IN THE FRONT BY THAT ROAD, HE WANTS THE FRONT PART TO ADD TO HIS YARD, AND WHERE THE MOBILE HOME IS, SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUY THAT BACK PORTION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE IT TO BE ABLE TO DIVIDE IT UP IN THAT MANNER? OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO. I GUESS SHE CAN -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AN AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY -- RSC-4 RESTRICTED ZONING DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS, ONE FOR THE RESIDENCE, ONE FOR THE MOBILE HOME. THE MOBILE HOME -- PERSON THAT LIVES IN THE MOBILE HOME, THEY'RE WILLING TO REPLACE THE MOBILE HOME WITH A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING ONCE IT WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED, AND ONE FOR THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENCE. THE 2.2-ACRE SITE HAS ONE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, ONE MOBILE HOME, AND MULTIPLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE COUNTY ISSUED A TRAILER PERMIT AND SEPTIC TANK PERMIT IN 1976. IF THE REZONING IS APPROVED, THE MOBILE HOME PERMIT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN UNDER THE -- BY OBTAINING A LEGAL NONCONFORMING DWELLING PERMIT. THE APPLICANT IS AWARE THAT VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBDIVIDE JUST BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, AND THE CONDITION IS THAT THE SITE CAN ONLY BE SUBDIVIDED INTO THREE LOTS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>SUSAN MARINER: THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND I DIDN'T ASK THE APPLICANT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE RESTRICTION THAT THE PROPERTY CAN ONLY BE DIVIDED INTO A MAXIMUM OF THREE LOTS? >> YES. [INAUDIBLE] >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND SHE IS INDICATING SHE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >>SUSAN MARINER: THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. IT FALLS WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND AS SUCH, IT WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSED RSC-4 RESTRICTED ZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR LOT SIZES THAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN SURROUNDING THE SITE AND WOULD NOT BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE -- WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THE INCREASE IN DENSITY ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AS PART OF THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. BASED UPON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? YES, SIR. >> MY NAME IS DENNIS CRALL. I RESIDE AT 4403 MERRICK RUN LANE, VALRICO, IN THE BRISTOL GREEN SUBDIVISION, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS. OUR ORIGINAL CONCERN, WHICH I THINK WAS MITIGATED TODAY, INVOLVED THE DROPPING OF THE MOBILE HOME DESIGNATION; HOWEVER, IN JUST BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH A FEW OF THE OTHER RESIDENTS HERE, IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME THE DISPOSITION OR THE FUTURE OF THE MOBILE HOME THAT'S IN THE BACK PARCEL. I HEARD ORIGINALLY ABOUT REPLACING IT WITH A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING MATERIALS, BUT I ALSO HEARD LANGUAGE THAT SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT PERHAPS THAT MAY BE GRANDFATHERED IN. I WAS JUST ASKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I BELIEVE WHAT STAFF INDICATED IS THAT IT WOULD BE WHAT'S CALLED GRANDFATHERED IN. IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGALLY NONCONFORMING, WHICH MEANS IT CAN REMAIN THERE AS LONG AS IT'S THERE, BUT THEY CAN'T REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER MOBILE HOME. ANY REPLACEMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE WITH A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. >> I HAVE NO OBJECTION OR OPPOSITION TO THAT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? SEEING NO ONE, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? NOTHING FURTHER? OKAY. SEEING NOTHING FURTHER ON THIS MATTER, THIS MATTER IS NOW CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 7. IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 08-1370. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL TO O.R., WHICH IS AN OFFICE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. TYLON McGEE WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> HI. I'M ANNE BELISLE. I LIVE AT 2925 LEWIS ROAD, DOVER, FLORIDA 33527. ON OUR REQUEST, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. WE WISH TO REZONE IT JUST TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPERTY THAT IT'S SURROUNDING. I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO ADD TO RECORD. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: COULD YOU CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT BEING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S AROUND IT. I SEE THAT THERE'S CN ZONING TO THE NORTH, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER BPO ZONING IN THE AREA OR O.R. ZONING, EXCUSE ME. >> AS FAR AS THE ZONING GOES, I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE EACH ZONED, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S -- ON PARSONS THERE IS A HAIR PLACE ACROSS THE STREET, ACTUALLY IN BOTH DIRECTIONS FROM US. AS FAR AS -- I'M -- THE REASON THAT WE'RE DOING IT IS WE ARE TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY, AND EVERYONE THAT HAS TALKED TO US ABOUT BUYING IT HAS WANTED IT REZONED BECAUSE IT SITS ON PARSONS, ON NORTH PARSONS AVENUE, SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REZONE IT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> TO BE ABLE TO SELL IT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>TYLON McGEE: TYLON McGEE, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. BEFORE I GO INTO THE DETAILS IN MY REPORT, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT ASKING FOR A RESTRICTED ZONING DISTRICT AS INDICATED IN MY REPORT BUT JUST A STANDARD O.R. DISTRICT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>TYLON McGEE: AND I WILL BE MAKING THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS TO MY REPORT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>TYLON McGEE: OKAY. THAT SAID, THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE .37-ACRE SITE TO AN O.R. ZONING DISTRICT. THE AREA IS A MIX OF USES RANGING FROM RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE, AND COMMERCIAL. THE USE WILL PROVIDE AS A TRANSITION FROM THE CN NORTH OF THE SITE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST IN KEEPING WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, THEREFORE APPROVABLE. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PD IS TO THE EAST AND THE ONE TO THE SOUTH OF THAT? ARE THOSE COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE PDs? >>TYLON McGEE: SOUTH IS RESIDENTIAL. TO THE -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: TO THE EAST ACROSS PARSONS. >>TYLON McGEE: EAST OF THE -- I DON'T KNOW. IT'S OFFICE -- I THINK IT'S OFFICE AND IT'S RESIDENTIAL BASED ON MY -- OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL. I BELIEVE IT'S OFFICE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: DO YOU HAVE A PD NUMBER -- >>TYLON McGEE: I DO. HOLD ON. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- BY ANY CHANCE? >>TYLON McGEE: 97-154 IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE SITE, AND IF YOU WANT TO GO FURTHER DOWN ON GROVE STREET, IT'S 98-1294. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEPTH OF THE REZONING REQUEST OFF OF PARSONS? I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY OWN THAT FAR BACK, BUT WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT LIMITING THE DEPTH OF IT TO BE THE SAME AS THE CN? >>TYLON McGEE: NO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. THIS REQUEST WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT FALLS UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THE PROPOSED REZONING TO AN OFFICE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MIX OF LAND USES FOUND IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THERE ARE OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST OF THE SITE ALONG PARSONS AVENUE. WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE, IT LOOKED LIKE A DAY CARE AND A HAIR SALON AND A LOT OF OFFICE USES OUT THERE WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: TO THE EAST? >>DAVID HEY: TO THE EAST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PARSONS. THE SCALE AND INTENSITY OF OFFICE USES WOULD BE LIMITED BY THE O.R. ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH CALLS FOR UTILIZATION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND MAINTAINING THE RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY. AS SUCH, THE OFFICE USE WOULD FIT IN WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE WEST ALONG CLEMONS ROAD AS WELL. THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA OUTLINES THAT NONRESIDENTIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS SHOULD BE LOCATED AT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS EXTERNAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. IN THIS CASE, THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED AT A QUALIFYING INTERSECTION UNDER THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA; HOWEVER, THE SITE DOES QUALIFY FOR THE EXCEPTION TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR OFFICE USES AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL USES AS DESCRIBED IN POLICY 22.6. THE O.R. ZONING WOULD PERMIT FOR OFFICE USES WITHIN THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON-SITE, WHICH WILL PROVIDE A LOGICAL LAND USE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE CN ZONING TO THE NORTH AND THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF THE SITE. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE O.R. ZONING DISTRICT OUTLINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WILL ENSURE THAT THE OFFICE USES ARE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT IS COMPATIBLE TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES. BASED UPON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I WOULD ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION. WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE DEPTH OFF OF PARSONS WAS AN ISSUE RELATIVE TO THE DEPTH OF THE CN? >>DAVID HEY: I WAS NOT IN EVERY MEETING REGARDING THIS CASE, BUT IN THE MEETINGS THAT I HAD ATTENDED, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THAT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION? YES, MA'AM. >> MY NAME IS JANET AGEMA, 112 CLEMONS ROAD, BRANDON, FLORIDA 33510. THERE ARE SEVEN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN LESS THAN A QUART OF A MILE NORTH ON PARSONS OF THIS PROPERTY. THEY'RE ALL VACANT, THEY'RE FOR SALE, OR THEY'RE FOR LEASE. IT'S LIKE THE PLACE IS SATURATED WITH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT ISN'T BEING USED. WHAT WE RESIDENTS JUST OFF PARSONS AVENUE DON'T NEED IS ANOTHER MERCURY VAPOR LIGHT SHINING IN OUR BEDROOMS SO THE OFFICE BUILDING CAN KEEP THEIR PARKING LOT AND DUMPSTER LIT UP ALL NIGHT. DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM CLEMONS, YES, IS A PROPERTY THAT HAS A SMALL BUSINESS, AND THAT BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY FOR A SMALL OFFICE. THEY ADDITIONALLY RECENTLY BUILT AN OFFICE AND GARAGE BUILDING JUST BEHIND IT ON LESS THAN MAYBE ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN ACRE IN ATTEMPT TO LEASE OUT TWO BUSINESSES NOW. PARKING FOR ALL OF THESE BUSINESSES WILL HAVE TO ENTER AND EXIT RIGHT ONTO CLEMONS. THE SMALL ROAD JUST ENTERS INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I FEEL THAT IT'S DANGEROUS. IT'S ALSO JUST WAY TO MUCH BUSINESS CONGESTION. IT'S A VERY QUIET, SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD. MOST OF THE HOUSES IN THERE ARE ON THREE-QUARTER-OF-AN-ACRE PROPERTY, AND I FEEL IT'S GOING TO DEVALUE OUR PROPERTY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND WHERE IS YOUR PROPERTY RELATIVE TO THIS? IS IT THE ADJACENT PIECE TO THE WEST OR ARE YOU FURTHER DOWN CLEMONS OR -- >> WE ARE THE SECOND LOT ON THE NORTHWEST -- NORTHWEST -- I'M SORRY -- YEAH, NORTHWEST OF THE LOT. ACTUALLY -- WE ACTUALLY FACE THE PROPERTY THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WOULD -- OF THE DEPTH IF THE DEPTH WOULD BE A PROBLEM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE THE -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE GRAPHIC. IF YOU -- MS. McGEE, IF YOU COULD SHOW HER THE AERIAL AND ASK HER IF SHE COULD POINT OUT WHICH ONE IS HERS. >> WHAT IS THIS? OKAY. THIS IS CLEMONS. WE ARE RIGHT HERE. THIS IS US RIGHT HERE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IT'S THE -- BASICALLY THE NEXT PARCEL OVER FROM THE CN? THERE'S A SMALL STRIP IN BETWEEN? >> YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? SEEING NO ONE, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY? >> YES. CAN I RESPOND TO WHAT -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YES, PLEASE. THAT'S WHAT THIS TIME IS FOR. >> WITH HER BEING WORRIED ABOUT THE BUILDINGS SURROUNDING IT BEING EMPTY, THAT'S HOW COME WE'RE DOING THE REPRESENTATION OFFICE. RIGHT NOW OUR HOUSE IS BEING RENTED OUT ACTUALLY BY MY BROTHER. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LEAVE THAT PROPERTY EMPTY. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. IT IS OCCUPIED RIGHT NOW. AS LONG AS WE OWN IT, IT WILL REMAIN OCCUPIED, AND THE REASON THAT WE ARE DOING THIS IS SO THAT WE CAN RESELL IT, AND THE REASON WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO RESELL IT IS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE OFFICE RESIDENTIAL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> BUT IT WILL NOT BE LEFT EMPTY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SEEING NOTHING FURTHER ON THIS MATTER, THIS HEARING ON THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. MR. GRADY, DO WE HAVE AN ISSUE ON THAT ONE? >>BRIAN GRADY: NO MORE ISSUES, NO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. WOULD YOU CALL THE NEXT ITEM, PLEASE. >>BRIAN GRADY: SORRY. THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 8, REZONING APPLICATION 08- 1400. THE APPLICANT'S GIBBS AND PARNELL. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM CG, CN, AND RSC-9 TO A CG WITH RESTRICTIONS. TYLON McGEE WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> GOOD EVENING. A.G. SPICOLA, JR., 412 MADISON STREET, SUITE 12 -- EXCUSE ME -- SUITE 807, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTS. I'LL KEEP IT AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. IF YOU REVIEW THE ZONING MAP, YOU'LL NOTE THAT THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CLASSIFICATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY. WE WANT TO COMBINE THEM UNDER THE CG CLASSIFICATION. THIS PROPERTY IS RIGHT AT THE ON RAMP TO I-275 FROM FLETCHER. STAFF HAS SAID IN THE EVENT OF REDEVELOPMENT, THEY WANTED NO ACCESS FROM ORANGE AVENUE TO THE NORTH. WE AGREE TO THAT CONDITION. THERE'S PLENTY OF CG ALL OVER THAT AREA, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY IF THERE IS REDEVELOPMENT WOULD THE ACCESS BE RESTRICTED TO ORANGE? >> THAT'S WHAT WAS STATED TO ME. I DON'T BELIEVE THE CONDITION ACTUALLY PROVIDES THAT. I WOULD LIKE THAT LANGUAGE ENTERED INTO IT, BUT THERE'S NO ACCESS ON ORANGE NOW TO SPEAK OF. IT REALLY DOESN'T PRESENT A PROBLEM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THERE ACTUALLY ARE TWO DRIVEWAYS ONTO ORANGE. ONE LOOKS LIKE A LOOP DRIVEWAY, AND THEN ONE COMES FROM THE PARKING LOT, BUT YOU'RE INDICATING THAT IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM TO SHUT THOSE DOWN EVEN WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS? >> WELL, I'M NOT -- EXCUSE ME ONE MINUTE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SKETCH OR A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS -- OH, I FOUND IT. NEVER MIND. >> IN ITS PRESENT CONFIGURATION, WE WOULD LIKE THAT DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN OPEN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> AND AS I SAID, STAFF INDICATED TO ME THAT THIS CONDITION WOULD COME INTO EFFECT IN THE EVENT OF REDEVELOPMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THERE ARE PARKING SPACES FOR THE NORTHERN BUILDING THAT BACKS UP INTO ORANGE. IS IT REQUESTED THAT THOSE ALSO REMAIN TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT? >> RIGHT. WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE WHAT'S THERE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> IN THE EVENT THEY WANT TO DO SOME OVERALL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY, THEN THE CONDITIONS WOULD KICK IN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. WE'LL LET STAFF ADDRESS THAT. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU-ALL HEARD THE DISCUSSION. THE APPLICANT'S ASKING TO KEEP EVERYTHING AS IT IS, SO IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT. MS. McGEE, ARE YOU WAITING FOR HIM AND HE'S WAITING FOR YOU? [LAUGHTER] >>TYLON McGEE: TYLON McGEE, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE TO RESTRICTED CG ZONING DISTRICT. TO MINIMIZE IMPACT, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO NO ACCESS ONTO ORANGE AVENUE, BUT AS FAR AS THE -- I GUESS THE DIALOGUE WE JUST HAD, I'LL LET BRIAN GRADY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >>BRIAN GRADY: WELL, AS YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE CAN'T IMPOSE A CONDITION ON THE APPLICANT UNLESS THEY AGREE TO IT, SO THE CONDITION AS WORDED, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T IMPOSE THAT IN THERE WITHOUT THEM -- YOU KNOW, I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS -- AND I THINK MR. HEY WAS PLANNING ON ADDRESSING THIS. PART OF THE ISSUE -- REASON FOR ADDING THAT CONDITION WAS IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS -- CONSISTENCY CONCERNS, AND I THINK THE ISSUE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD HAD MORE SO TO DO WITH REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE AS OPPOSED TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON THERE, WHICH I THINK OBVIOUSLY THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT -- I'LL LET DAVID RESPOND TO THAT, AND THEN I'LL RESPOND FURTHER, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE OF A REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT FROM THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, YOU WERE RESPONDING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERN, AND SO THE EXACT WORDING OF THE CONDITIONS IS MORE AS A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION THAN PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OR WE'LL SEE WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION SAYS. MR. HEY. >>DAVID HEY: MADAM HEARING OFFICER, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THE REPORT FIRST -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YES, PLEASE. >>DAVID HEY: -- AND THEN ADDRESS -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YES, PLEASE. >>DAVID HEY: OKAY. IT WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SITE FALLS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-12 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. REZONING THE ENTIRE SITE TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MIX OF LAND USES FOUND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 275 AND FRONTS ON FLETCHER, WHICH IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROADWAY. THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE AREA TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES. THE NEIGHBORING BLOCK TO THE EAST FRONTING ON FLETCHER CONSISTS OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES. INTERSTATE 275 OVERPASS BOUNDS THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST. NORTH OF THE SITE THE AREA TRANSITIONS VERY RAPIDLY INTO AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. THERE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THERE WAS A CONCERN WHEN STAFF WAS REVIEWING THIS, A NUMBER OF PLANNERS BROUGHT UP THE CONCERN ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR THE SITE TO REDEVELOP UNDER A -- THE NOW UNIFIED COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT AND THAT IT -- THERE WOULD BE NO RESTRICTION ON THE IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC -- THE NEW TRAFFIC ONTO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY FACING THIS SITE. WE HAD -- WE HAD TALKED ABOUT MAYBE INCREASING BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, AND PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME OUT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS THAT A GOOD -- A GOOD PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO LIMIT THE ACCESS ON -- DIRECTLY ONTO ORANGE SO NO CARS ARE EXITING ON THERE IF THE SITE IS REDEVELOPED. IF IT REMAINS CURRENTLY THE WAY IT IS, I WOULDN'T THINK ANYTHING WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD TRIGGER THEM TO REMOVE IT IF THEY'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING WITH THE SITE. SO THAT WAS PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE IMPACTS TO THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH. OVERALL, ORANGE AVENUE IS A NARROW LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROAD SERVING THREE RESIDENTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AS STATED, THERE WAS THAT CONCERN, AND THERE IS A MIX OF OFFICE AND SMALL RETAIL USES CURRENTLY ON THE SITE FROM WHAT STAFF COULD TELL. AT THE TIME, THE APPLICANT HAD AGREED TO PLACE A RESTRICTION ON THE CG ZONING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ACCESS ONTO ORANGE AVE. IN THE EVENT THE SITE WAS REDEVELOPED, NOT IF ANYTHING DOESN'T CHANGE RIGHT NOW. THE ACCESS WOULD BE FINE. THEREFORE, AT THE TIME OF THE STAFF'S FILING, THE CONCERN WAS MITIGATED BY THE APPLICANT AGREEING TO THAT. BASED ON THAT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS REGARDING ACCESS ONTO ORANGE AVENUE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO YOU'RE INDICATING THAT THE CONDITION THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS SHOULD THE PROPERTY REDEVELOP SUCH THAT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ARE STRUCTURALLY CHANGED -- >>DAVID HEY: CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- THEN ALL ACCESS TO ORANGE AVENUE WOULD HAVE TO BE ELIMINATED? >>DAVID HEY: CORRECT. THAT WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO INTENSIFY THE SITE BUT ALSO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS TO THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND I ASSUME, MR. GRADY, THAT IF THE STRUCTURES ARE CHANGED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN AND PUT IN THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS AND LANDSCAPING THAT THEY DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE? >>BRIAN GRADY: IF THEY COME IN FOR A COMPLETE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THEY'D HAVE TO -- THAT WOULD BE LOOKED AT THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT AS PER SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. IF THEY COME IN WITH A PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO DO? IF THERE'S A CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURES -- >>BRIAN GRADY: YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- LIKE TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THEM OR SOMETHING. >>BRIAN GRADY: YEAH, INCREASE THE SIZE AND TEAR THEM DOWN IF THEY WANT TO REDEVELOP THE ENTIRE SITE WITH LIKE ONE USE AS OPPOSED TO NOW, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. YOU KNOW, EVEN SOME SORT OF PARTIAL CONVERSION, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO COME THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. YOU KNOW, IF THEY KEEP THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CHANGE OUT USES, THAT NECESSARILY WOULDN'T COME THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW DEPENDING ON WHAT THE USES ARE AND IF, YOU KNOW, THE INTERNAL REMODELS ARE UP TO CODE OR NOT, SO -- BUT THAT STILL MAY TRIGGER SOME REDEVELOPMENT DEPENDING ON PARKING NEEDS AND WHATNOT, SO IT'S HARD TO SAY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO IDENTIFY, THEN, IS WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE REDEVELOPMENT? IF IT WOULD BE REDEVELOPMENT AT -- IF THERE ARE CHANGES MADE SUCH THAT IT WOULD TRIGGER A REQUIREMENT FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, IS THAT WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER REDEVELOPMENT THAT THE RESTRICTION WOULD THEN KICK IN? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO PHRASE THAT, YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I THINK WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT. >> WELL, I SIMPLY WANTED TO READ INTO THE RECORD A COMMUNICATION I GOT FROM KRISTA KELLY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'LL TRY -- IN THE EVENT OF REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WITH AN INTENSE CG USE, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED TRAFFIC ACCESSING THE SITE VIA ORANGE STREET. IF WE WERE TO PLACE A RESTRICTION THAT IN THE EVENT THE SITE IS REDEVELOPED, ACCESS WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM ORANGE STREET, OUR CONCERNS WOULD BE MET. WOULD YOU BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS RESTRICTION? WE E-MAILED BACK, THIS WILL CONFIRM OF YOUR E-MAIL SO FORTH AND OUR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE AGREEING TO PROHIBIT ACCESS FROM ORANGE STREET IN THE EVENT THE SITE IS REDEVELOPED, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IF SITE PLAN REVIEW IS A REQUIREMENT, THAT WOULD BE DEEMED A REDEVELOPMENT, IS THAT THE NATURE -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I THINK THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS SAYING AS WELL. >> I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IF THE CONDITION SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, IF THE PROPERTY IS REDEVELOPED SUCH AS TO REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW, THE SITE SHALL NOT HAVE AN ACCESS DRIVE ONTO EAST ORANGE AVENUE? >> THAT'S FINE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND THAT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT -- AS WELL AS THE PARKING SPACES BACKING UP ONTO EAST ORANGE? >> RIGHT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN I THINK WE HAVE AGREEMENT ON THAT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? SEEING NEITHER, MR. SPICOLA, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO, MA'AM. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. NOTHING FURTHER -- STAFF HAVE NOTHING FURTHER ON THIS ONE? THEN THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YES, MR. SPICOLA, IF YOU WOULD SIGN IN, PLEASE. DOES STAFF NEED TO TAKE A BREAK AT THIS POINT? DOES STAFF NEED TO TAKE A BREAK AT THIS POINT? THE NEXT ONE'S GOING TO BE LONG. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >>BRIAN GRADY: ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM, THEN, IS AGENDA ITEM 9. IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 08-0306. THE APPLICANT'S RON MAHAN WITH TURFGRASS AMERICA. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AR TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXTURE OF DIFFERENT -- RESIDENTIAL TYPES, INCLUDING SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, DETACHED, AND MULTIFAMILY PLUS RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USES. TYLON McGEE WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> GOOD EVENING. ANDREA ZELMAN WITH FOWLER WHITE BOGGS, 501 EAST KENNEDY, AND I'M REPRESENTING TONIGHT THE APPLICANT, TURFGRASS AMERICA, WHO'S REPRESENTED BY MR. RON MAHAN, WHO'S WITH US TONIGHT. ALSO WITH US TONIGHT IS OUR CONSULTING TEAM FROM WILSONMILLER JAMES RATLIFF AND JOHN BOWERS, BOTH OF WHOM ARE PLANNERS, AND ELVIN SMITH AND DAVID WINKLE, TRANSPORTATION EXPERTS, AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO ASK IF RON -- I'M SORRY -- JAMES RATLIFF TO COME UP AND WALK YOU THROUGH THE REQUEST. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BEFORE WE GET STARTED ON THAT, MS. MURPHY, I DID NOT REALIZE THAT FOWLER WHITE WAS REPRESENTING IN THIS. WE SHARE A COMMON CLIENT, NOT ON THIS MATTER, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS MATTER OR ANY OTHER ZONING. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE, A CONFLICT ISSUE. >>SHERI MURPHY: I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD BE -- FROM WHAT YOU DESCRIBED, THAT'S NOT AN ACTUAL CONFLICT. I'M PLACING ON THE RECORD, ADVISED THE APPLICANTS AND OPPOSITION OF THE CONFLICT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. WE -- THE FIRM OF FOWLER WHITE REPRESENTS VERIZON WIRELESS, AND I ALSO REPRESENT VERIZON WIRELESS, WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITE, AND I DON'T PERSONALLY BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER IN MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT I DID WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. >>SHERI MURPHY: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. GO FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM HEARING MASTER, STAFF. MY NAME IS JAMES RATLIFF WITH WILSONMILLER, 2205 NORTH 20th STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33605. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 537.1 ACRES, AND IT'S GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF U.S. 301 AND SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 672. AND I DO WANT TO JUST TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT REALLY QUICKLY, WE'RE SHOWING YOU ONE OF OUR AERIALS ON THE SCREEN; HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE COVER OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE MAP THAT IS SHOWN THERE, THE YELLOW LINE SHOULD ACTUALLY INCLUDE THE SOUTHWESTERN PARCEL AS WELL. IT'S ACTUALLY TWO PARCELS. THERE IS ACTUALLY A MAP IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT SHOWS IT CORRECTLY; HOWEVER, THAT COVER MAP JUST HAS THE BOUNDARY WRONG. I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. THAT'S AT -- THE SITE IS CURRENTLY IN USE AS A SOD FARM AND IS ACCESSED PRIMARILY FROM WESTLAKE DRIVE. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER OR AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, RATHER, WESTLAKE HOLDINGS, LLC, HAS AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THIS ROAD AND SOME OTHER PORTIONS OF OUR PROPERTY, AS YOU'LL SEE IN A MINUTE ON OUR SITE PLAN. A PRIMARY SITE ACCESS WILL BE INITIALLY FROM THE NORTH. THAT WILL BE FOR THE FIRST 350 HOMES. AND SOME EVENTUALLY BUILD-OUT WILL OCCUR WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE IMPROVEMENT TO THE WEST OUT TO WESTLAKE ROAD. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: COULD I INTERRUPT YOU A MOMENT? THAT SAME GRAPHIC THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THE COVER PAGE DOES NOT APPEAR TO GO ALL THE WAY UP TO 672, SO YOU'RE INDICATING THAT THE REZONING DOES GO ALL THE WAY TO 672? >> IT DOES NOT. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. THERE IS CURRENTLY -- AND I'M GETTING READY TO EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE IT IS CONFUSING. ON THAT ASPECT THE MAP IS CORRECT ON THE FRONT OF THE STAFF REPORT COVER; HOWEVER, JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR EXPLANATORY PURPOSES, WE'RE SHOWING THE EASEMENT TO THE NORTH AND THEN THE OWNERSHIP -- THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE SOUTH. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> SO AS I WAS SAYING, PROJECT BUILD-OUT WILL REQUIRE IMPROVEMENT TO WESTLAKE DRIVE AS WELL, BUT FOR THAT INTERIM DEVELOPMENT INCREMENT, 350 HOMES, IT WOULD BE TO THE NORTH. IN THE AREA OUT TO WESTLAKE YOU CAN SEE THE RECENT CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENCES WITHIN THE VALENCIA LAKES DRI AND HIDDEN CREEK DEVELOPMENT, REDDICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE VALENCIA LAKES DEVELOPMENT OPENED JUST THIS YEAR, AND TO THE NORTH AND THE EAST IS THE BALM ROAD SCRUB PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY ELAPP IN 1999. TO THE WEST, NORTHWEST, AND SOUTH ARE AGRICULTURAL AND VACANT LANDS, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M STEALING STAFF'S THUNDER HERE FOR A MINUTE. I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT BASICALLY THE -- THE ACCESS ROAD THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO UTILIZE FOR THE NORTH, THE INITIAL INCREMENT, IS 5,473 FEET IN TOTAL, OF WHICH WE OWN THE SOUTHERN APPROXIMATELY 3200 FEET. THE REMAINING INCREMENT TO THE NORTH WE HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER, AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HAS AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THE ENTIRE 5,473 FEET. THEY UTILIZE THAT ACCESS TO ACCESS THE ELAPP LANDS. ALONG THE NORTHERN ACCESS ROADWAY TO THE EAST IS THE ELAPP LAND AND TO THE WEST ALONG A PORTION OF THE NORTHERN ACCESS ROADWAY. ALONG THE NORTHERNMOST SECTION TO THE WEST THERE'S A CLASS THREE LANDFILL ADJACENT, A BORROW PIT AREA, AND THAT'S A C & D LANDFILL. FUTURE LAND USE AROUND THE SITE -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: EXCUSE ME, DID YOU SAY THAT'S A CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS LANDFILL AS WELL AS A BORROW PIT? >> CORRECT. THE C & D LANDFILL IS A LITTLE BIT FARTHER TO THE WEST, AND THE BORROW PIT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERN ACCESS ROADWAY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THREE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. THE NORTHERN ACCESS ROAD IS WITHIN THE R-2P, RESIDENTIAL-2 PLANNED DESIGNATION. THE MAJORITY OF THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-2 DESIGNATION, AND THE WESTERN ACCESS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-4 DESIGNATION. THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S DESIGNATED WVR-2 IS LOCATED WITHIN THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS ARE DESIGNATED NATURAL PRESERVATION TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST IN RECOGNITION OF THE ELAPP LANDS; HOWEVER, IF YOU GO A LITTLE BIT FARTHER TO THE NORTH AND A LITTLE BIT FARTHER TO THE EAST, YOU'LL NOTICE IT'S R- 2P AS WELL AS AT THE INTERSECTION OF OUR NORTHERN ACCESS ROAD, AND CR 672 IS OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20, THAT LITTLE SMALL RED POCKET THERE. TO THE SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ARE ADDITIONAL LANDS DESIGNATED WVR-2 AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL-4, WVR-2, AND R-2P TO THE WEST. THE WVR-2 LAND USE DESIGNATION WAS APPLIED TO THE SITE ALONG WITH A MUCH LARGER AREA TO THE SOUTH AS A PART OF THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN. THE WVR-2 ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES OF UP TO TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE; HOWEVER, THAT IS CONTINGENT, AND IT REQUIRES YOU TO CONNECT TO A PUBLIC CENTRAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM. THAT HAS BEEN A POINT OF CONFUSION, SO I DID WANT TO POINT THAT OUT, THAT ALTHOUGH WE ARE PARTIALLY OUTSIDE OF THE -- THE MAJORITY OF OUR SITE IS OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICES AREA, WE ARE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO THE WATER AND SEWER. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL, AS IS MOST OF THE SURROUNDING AREA TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST. THERE ARE THREE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS TO THE WEST. HIDDEN CREEK IS DEVELOPING 156 UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES. A VACANT PARCEL LIES DIRECTLY SOUTH OF OUR WESTERN ACCESS RIGHT ACROSS THE ROAD THERE, AND THAT'S DEVELOPING APPROXIMATELY 90 UNITS ON 34 ACRES. AND OF COURSE, THE LARGEST DEVELOPMENT, VALENCIA LAKES, IS THE DRI, AND THAT HAS ENTITLEMENTS TO CONSTRUCT 5,390 DWELLING UNITS, A QUARTER OF A MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL USES, APPROXIMATELY 110,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES, AND ANOTHER 109,999 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES. DON'T KNOW WHO CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER. THE APPLICATION FOR THE REZONING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM AR TO PD TO PERMIT UP TO 1,088 DWELLING UNITS AT BUILD-OUT ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT AND RECREATIONAL USES, AND YOU'LL SEE WE'VE TAKEN THE SITE PLAN AND COLORIZED IT JUST TO KIND OF HELP TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENTLY. THE OVERALL BLENDED DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 2.02 DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE, AND THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE R-4 AS WELL AS THE R-2P. THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS REZONING IS EVIDENCED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDING OF CONSISTENCY AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT'S FINDING OF APPROVABILITY SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED BY CLUSTERING THOSE USES IN A RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE WITH LARGE OPEN-SPACE AREAS ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT. THE LOCATION OF LOWER-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNITS TOWARDS THE EXTERIOR OF THE DEVELOPABLE RESIDENTIAL AREA ALONG WITH CLUSTERING INTERNALLY THE HIGHER-DENSITY USES, TOWN HOUSES, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, FURTHER ADDS TO THE COMPATIBILITY. IN FACT, BY CLUSTERING THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN, WE'RE ABLE TO SET ASIDE APPROXIMATELY 224 ACRES OR OVER 41% OF THE SITE AS OPEN SPACE. THESE AREAS WILL BE CONNECTED BY A TRAIL SYSTEM WITH THE POTENTIAL TO BE OVER THREE MILES IN LENGTH, THEREBY PROVIDING AN ALTERNATE MEANS TO CONNECT INTERNALLY. ALSO INTERNALLY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ALONG THE MAIN THOROUGHFARES WILL CONNECT THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE OPEN SPACES AND THE COMMUNITY CENTER. THESE OPEN SPACES NOT ONLY PROVIDE FOR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, BUT THEY REALLY BECOME THE FOCUS FOR THE VILLAGE AND THEY ACT AS A BUFFER AND CONNECTION WITH THE SURROUNDING NATIVE HABITATS. IN ADDITION TO THOSE INTERCONNECTED OPEN SPACES, WE HAVE TRACT "F," WHICH PROVIDES FOR A POTENTIAL PARK SITE, EQUESTRIAN CENTER AND/OR ACTIVE OR PASSIVE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. IN KEEPING WITH THE VISION OF THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN, TRACT "G" WILL SERVE AS A GATHERING AREA FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS AND DAILY ACTIVITIES. THESE COULD INCLUDE A COMMUNITY CENTER, A CHURCH, A DAY CARE, COMMUNITY GARDENS, OR PERHAPS A NEIGHBORHOOD FARMER'S MARKET TO NAME SEVERAL. THE APPLICANT ADDITIONALLY HAS VOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO ACCEPT A CONDITION TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL ACTIVE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE DEVELOPABLE AREA SUCH AS THOSE WOULD BE SOMETHING AKIN TO TOT LOTS OR OF THE LIKE, AND THAT CONDITION HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT HERE TONIGHT. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN CONTINUED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE TONIGHT'S HEARING. SOME OF THOSE WERE REQUESTED IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO STAFF CONCERNS, SOME OF THEM WERE REQUESTED BY STAFF THEMSELVES, AND THE OTHERS TO RESPOND TO CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC. AT TIMES WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WERE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT OUR PLAN. FOR EXAMPLE, MANY PEOPLE THOUGHT WE WERE PUTTING A ROAD THROUGH ELAPP PROPERTY. OTHERS THOUGHT THAT WE WERE PROPOSING A ROAD THROUGH THE BALM-BOYETTE SCRUB PRESERVE THAT IS NORTHEAST OF OUR SITE. IN AN EFFORT TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT AND ALSO HEAR AND DISCUSS OTHER CONCERNS, WE HELD AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON MAY 28th OF 2008. IN RESPONSE TO LETTERS RECEIVED AND ALSO TO COMMENTS MADE THAT NIGHT, WE REVISED THE SITE PLAN TO INCREASE THE SETBACK OF THE NORTHERNMOST PORTIONS OF TRACTS "E" AND "F." THERE'S NOW APPROXIMATELY 760 FEET SEPARATING THE ELAPP LANDS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TRACT "E," SO WE PULLED THAT BACK TO THE SOUTH. WE ALSO INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF PROJECT OPEN SPACE. AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION REGARDING ACCESS. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD AND JUST SET THE RECORD TOTALLY STRAIGHT. WE HAVE NEVER PROPOSED AND DO NOT PROPOSE PUTTING A ROAD THROUGH ELAPP LANDS. WE ALREADY OWN AND HAVE AN EASEMENT OVER -- YOU KNOW, AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, WE OWN THE SOUTHERN PORTION, AND WE HAVE AN EASEMENT OVER THE NORTHERN PORTION. IN JANUARY OF 2008 WE APPLIED FOR A DESIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW US TO CONSTRUCT A TS-4-TYPE COLLECTOR ROADWAY WITHIN THE 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THAT WAS APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS STAFF IN MARCH. I'LL ENTER THEIR APPROVAL LETTER INTO THE RECORD. THIS WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE SITE FOR OUR INITIAL DEVELOPMENT. AFTER EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS AND REANALYSIS WITH COUNTY STAFF, IT WAS AGREED TO LIMIT THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT INCREMENT, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, TO THE 350 DWELLING UNITS. WE ALSO AGREED TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS ON THE CURRENTLY UTILIZED WESTLAKE FARM ROAD TO THE WEST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST DWELLING UNIT. PRIOR TO FULL PROJECT BUILD-OUT, OUR ANALYSIS INDICATES THE NEED TO CONSTRUCT A FULL TWO-LANE COLLECTOR SECTION WITH THE APPROPRIATE TURN LANES. WHERE WE ONLY OWN SUFFICIENT RIGHT-OF-WAY OR WHERE WE OWN SUFFICIENT RIGHT-OF-WAY, RATHER, WE'VE SHOWN ON THE PLAN A SET-ASIDE OF 110 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE ROADWAY CORRIDOR, AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE WIMAUMA TRANSPORTATION STUDY PREPARED BY A CONSULTANT HIRED BY THE COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF THE WIMAUMA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY PROJECT, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY'S JOINT MANAGEMENT TEAM AND IS SCHEDULED TO GET UNDERWAY IN FISCAL YEAR 2009. THIS WORK PLAN WAS INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ANNUAL STATUS REPORT AND WAS APPROVED BY THE BOCC ON JULY 22nd, 2008. WE'VE SUBMITTED OR WE WILL SUBMIT BOTH OF THOSE FOR THE RECORD AS WELL. THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN A COUPLE CONCERNS ABOUT IMPACTS THAT THE ACCESS ROADWAY MAY HAVE TO BULLFROG CREEK. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTOS THAT JOHN'S PUTTING UP ON THE SCREEN, THE EXISTING ROADWAY THERE IS QUITE SUBSTANTIAL. AS AN ALREADY-IMPACTED CROSSING, THIS IS THE LOGICAL LOCATION FOR A FUTURE EXTENSION OF 19th AVENUE, NOT TO MENTION A LOGICAL LOCATION FOR OUR ACCESS ROAD FOR OUR PROJECT. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS ALIGNMENT WAS SHOWN IN THAT WIMAUMA TRANSPORTATION STUDY THAT WE WILL BE SUBMITTING FOR THE RECORD. IF FOR SOME REASON THAT WERE NOT TO HAPPEN, IT WOULD STILL SERVE AS AN ACCESS OF LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE, NOT ONLY FOR OUR PROJECT BUT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH. WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, WESTLAKE HOLDINGS, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH THE ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WE MENTIONED EARLIER. SO FAR WE'VE BEEN UNABLE TO COME TO MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE TERMS, WHICH IS WHY THE REZONING IS CONDITIONED TO ONLY PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF 350 DWELLING UNITS WITHOUT A SECONDARY ACCESS. FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER OR HAVE JOHN SHOW A PHOTOGRAPH FOR THE RECORD, WE'LL ALSO ENTER THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHICH SHOWS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS WHERE THE CREEK FLOWS, THIS IS BULLFROG CREEK, UNDERNEATH THE WESTERN ACCESS ROAD. AS YOU CAN SEE, WHEN THIS WAS TAKEN, IT WAS MORE OF A TRICKLE, AND BASICALLY THERE ARE FOUR PIPES AT THIS LOCATION THAT THE CREEK CAN FLOW THROUGH. AT THE TIME IT WAS TAKEN -- SO, YOU KNOW, WE FULLY EXPECT WHEN WE APPROVE THIS TO A STANDARD ROADWAY THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE FLOW CONDITIONS AT THIS LOCATION. OF COURSE, THE STAFF HAS CONDITIONED WE WILL ALSO HAVE TO ADHERE TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO PORTIONS OF THE ROADWAY BEING WITHIN THE REVISED SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA MAP. STAFF DID REQUIRE A NUMBER OF OTHER CONDITIONS, ALL OF ONE BUT WHICH WE ACCEPT, AND THERE ARE SOME CORRECTIONS THAT STAFF ARE GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD AS WELL, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, SO I CAN TALK ABOUT THE ONE THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE REPORT THAT WE -- THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH; HOWEVER, THERE'S A CORRECTION THAT SHE WILL BE READING INTO THE RECORD, AND THEN I'LL HAVE A CORRECTION TO THE CORRECTION, SO I'M NOT SURE IF WE WANT TO HAVE ME COME BACK UP ONCE TYLON READS THAT INTO THE RECORD FORMALLY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU COULD LET US KNOW WHICH CONDITION IT IS AND BASICALLY WHAT -- IF WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT LANGUAGE AT THIS POINT THAT WE WANT TO PRESENT WHAT THE ISSUE IS THAT YOU'RE SEEKING TO RESOLVE. >> OKAY. WELL, LET ME TALK ABOUT TRANSPORTATION FIRST. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SURE. >> THAT IS GOING TO BE CONDITION NUMBER 15 ON PAGE 3. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> AND BASICALLY, WHAT WE HAVE ISSUE WITH IS THE LAST TWO SENTENCES THERE WHICH STATES THAT A TWO-LANE ROADWAY WILL NOT ACCOMMODATE THE FULL BUILD-OUT OF THE PROJECT. FAILURE TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-LANE FACILITY SHALL LIMIT THE FULL BUILD-OUT OF THE PROJECT. I HAD A PHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHARLES WHITE A WEEK AGO FRIDAY, AND WE WORKED OUT SOME OTHER ISSUES, AND WE DISCUSSED THIS ONE AS WELL. HIS CONCERN IS THAT THAT MAY NOT BE -- TO HIS THINKING, I BELIEVE, THAT MAY NOT BE THE CASE WHEN WE GO IN FOR CONCURRENCY REVIEW. SO I -- I SAID TO HIM -- AND I DID SOME THINKING ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE ORIGINALLY OUR REQUEST WAS TO HAVE IT CHANGED FROM FOUR LANES TO TWO LANES, WHICH IS WHAT OUR CURRENT TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. HE DID HAVE CONCERNS, THOUGH, ABOUT IT AT CONCURRENCY REVIEW SHOWING A NEED FOR GREATER NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES DEPENDING UPON FUTURE CONDITIONS. THEREFORE, I JUST RECOMMENDED THAT WE WOULD STRIKE IT COMPLETELY, THOSE LAST TWO SENTENCES, WOULD BASICALLY DEFAULT IT TO REVIEW AT THE TIME OF CONCURRENCY. IF THAT WERE NOT THE CASE, THEN -- OR IF STAFF, YOU KNOW -- I GUESS THEY CAN SAY HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THAT CHANGE. WE WOULD ALSO PROPOSE, THEN, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT THAT WE COULD JUST ADD AS A COMMA AFTER THE LAST SENTENCE THAT BASICALLY STATES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED AT CONCURRENCY REVIEW, SO THAT COULD BE A POTENTIAL COMPROMISE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> AND THEN THE NEXT CHANGE IS GOING TO RELATE TO CONDITION NUMBER 5, WHICH IS RELATING TO WILDLIFE CROSSINGS. THE WHOLE CONDITION HAS CHANGED, SO IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD. IT'S -- IT'S A RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGE. DO WE -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: STAFF HAS PROVIDED IT TO ME, AND I'LL JUST READ IT IN RIGHT NOW, AND THEN YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO CHANGE. THE CONDITION 5 WOULD BE CHANGED TO READ, MEASURES WILL BE REQUIRED TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS TO SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT AT BULLFROG CREEK IN THE PALM SCRUB PRESERVE -- BALM SCRUB PRESERVE. WILDLIFE CROSSINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR IMPACTS THAT RESULT IN FRAGMENTATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AT BULLFROG CREEK AND AT BALM SCRUB PRESERVE. PRIOR TO OR CONCURRENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL, THE DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE WITH A QUALIFIED COUNTY BIOLOGIST TO IDENTIFY THE NUMBER AND LOCATION AND TYPES, I.E., AQUATIC, SMALL ANIMAL, AND LARGE MAMMAL UNDERCROSSINGS OF ALL REQUIRED CROSSINGS. THE LOCATION OF THESE CROSSINGS SHALL BE DEPICTED ON PRELIMINARY PLANS. DESIGN STANDARDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO APPROPRIATE WIDTH, CLEARANCE, SUBSTRATE, FENCING, FUNNELING FEATURES, AND LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSIONER AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND SHALL BE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON-SITE AND EXPECTED TO UTILIZE THE CROSSINGS. ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE INCLUDE THE USE OF SIGNAGE, SLOW SPEEDS, AND SPEED DETERRENTS, I.E., SPEED BUMPS, WILL BE REQUIRED AS APPROPRIATE FOR SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED. CROSSING DETAILS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY. >> YES. NOW, THAT TAKES THE PLACE COMPLETELY OF CONDITION NUMBER 5. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> AND THE TWO THINGS I WOULD POINT OUT -- AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HEARD OF THIS CONDITION CHANGE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON FRIDAY, AND UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE THE COUNSEL OF OUR BIOLOGIST WHO WORKED ON THE PROJECT, SO I WAS TRYING TO HURRY AND GET THIS FIGURED OUT, SO THE CHANGE THAT WE WOULD REQUEST IS IN THE SECOND SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS, WILDLIFE CROSSINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR IMPACTS THAT RESULT IN FRAGMENTATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT, WE WOULD JUST ADD THE TERM "SIGNIFICANT" WILDLIFE HABITAT, SO JUST ADD THE ONE WORD "SIGNIFICANT." >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SO RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT FRAGMENTATION. >> NO, WOULD RESULT IN FRAGMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> AND THEN THE NEXT SENTENCE, WHICH IF YOU GO ALL THE WAY TILL JUST ABOUT THE END WHERE THE PARENS, AND IT SAYS, I.E., AQUATIC, SMALL ANIMAL, AND LARGE MAMMAL UNDERCROSSINGS, AND WE WOULD JUST CHANGE THE I.E., TO E.G., AND THOSE ARE THE TWO CHANGES WE WOULD REQUEST ON THAT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO ANDREA UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I DO NOT. COULD I ASK THE CLERK, HAVE WE -- TIME IS UP? TIME HAS EXPIRED. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE FOR THIS ONE, AND WE ACTUALLY ARE DOING BETTER ON TIME THAN I EXPECTED. I DON'T WANT TO GO CRAZY WITH THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT SOME ADDITIONAL TIME, AND I WILL ALLOW PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION SOME ADDITIONAL TIME AS WELL, SO MADAM CLERK, IF YOU WILL -- IF YOU WILL KEEP THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TIME, MS. CLERK, AND WE WILL ADD THAT TO THE OPPONENTS' TIME. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THIS SHOULD JUST BE A QUICK SUMMARY, SO IT SHOULDN'T BE -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. FIVE MORE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. >> ANDREA ZELMAN. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. I DO WANT TO REITERATE -- I THINK JAMES WENT OVER IT QUICKLY. ON CONDITION NUMBER 15, THE TRANSPORTATION CONDITION, THE REASON WE OBJECT TO THOSE TWO STATEMENTS ABOUT THE TWO-LANE ROADWAY WON'T ACCOMMODATE, THERE'S NOTHING FACTUALLY IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THAT. IN FACT, OUR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT A TWO-LANE ROADWAY WOULD BE SUFFICIENT, BUT IN ANY EVENT, YOU HAVE OTHER CONDITIONS -- I THINK IT'S CONDITION 18 -- THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO DO A CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS BEFORE WE HAVE TO SUBMIT OUR PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ANYWAY, SO OUR POINT IS THAT THERE'S NO REASON TO MAKE THAT KIND OF STATEMENT IN THE ZONING CONDITIONS NOW. THE CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS WILL ULTIMATELY DETERMINE HOW MANY LANES WE NEED ON THAT SECONDARY ROADWAY, AND IF NECESSARY, WE DO HAVE OUR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS HERE TONIGHT WHO CAN TESTIFY TO THAT IN MORE DETAIL. I JUST WANT TO WRAP UP BY SAYING THAT THIS, TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THE VERY FIRST ZONING TO COME THROUGH UNDER THE NEW WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN, AND WHILE WE'VE HAD SOME ROUGH PATCHES ALONG THE WAY, WE DO NOW HAVE THE SUPPORT OF PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF, OBVIOUSLY WITH CONDITIONS, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THIS PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THEREFORE, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AND EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA AND WILL PROVIDE FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IN A MANNER THAT NOT ONLY MEETS THE LETTER OF THE LAW BUT WILL FURTHER THE GOALS AND VISIONS OF THAT COMMUNITY PLAN. THIS IS A REALLY UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT WITH 41% OF THE SITE BEING PROTECTED AS OPEN SPACE, AND THEREFORE, WE REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS WELL. WE'RE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND WE DO ANTICIPATE COMING BACK FOR REBUTTAL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTION I'M ALSO GOING TO POSE TO STAFF, BUT I'LL PROPOSE IT TO YOU. WELL, THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE IS ARE THE ROADS IN HERE INTENDED TO BE PRIVATE ROADS OR PUBLIC? >> NO, PUBLIC; RIGHT? PUBLIC. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AS TO THE ACCESS ONTO 672, WHICH GOES ACROSS AN EASEMENT, I WOULD ASK IF YOU WOULD SPEAK TO YOUR POSITION ON THE LEGALITY OF USING AN EASEMENT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DEDICATE THE ROADS AS PUBLIC ROADWAYS WHICH YOU DON'T OWN. HOW IS THAT PROPOSED TO BE DONE? >> WE HAVE -- LET ME -- WE OWN THE SOUTHERN PORTION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: UH-HUH. >> WE HAVE AN EASEMENT OVER THE NORTHERN PORTION. AND REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION. THE COUNTY OWNS -- THE COUNTY OWNS THE EASEMENT AS WELL. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHO OWNS IT FEE SIMPLE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YEAH, WHO OWNS THE UNDERLYING LAND -- >> WASTE MANAGEMENT. >> WASTE SERVICES. >> RIGHT. ALL PARTIES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE CAN DO THIS. WE'VE MET WITH WASTE SERVICES AS WELL, AND WE'VE -- WE DON'T SEE WHY THERE IS ANY LEGAL CONCERN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: WELL, MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS GOING TO BE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS MORE THAN TWO, I THINK, RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON AN EASEMENT, EVEN IN THE RURAL PARTS OF THE PLAN OR THERE IS A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER, CERTAINLY NOT 350, BUT ARE YOU INDICATING THAT IT IS YOUR CLIENT'S INTENT THAT THE UNDERLYING LANDOWNER UNDER THE EASEMENT IS IN AGREEMENT TO DEDICATING THAT ROAD SO IT WOULD NOT BE ACCESSED THROUGH AN EASEMENT, IT WOULD BE THROUGH A PUBLIC ROADWAY? >> CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IT'S JUST IT'S 50 FEET WIDE? >> CORRECT. AND WE HAVE A DESIGN EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS US TO BUILD THAT WITHIN THE 50 FEET. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION OF YOU. THANK YOU. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>TYLON McGEE: TYLON McGEE, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD 1,088 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT FULL BUILD-OUT. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE FULL BUILD-OUT, FULL ACCESS TO COUNTY ROAD 672 AND WESTLAKE ROAD WOULD BE REQUIRED. AT THIS TIME THE APPLICANT CAN ONLY PROVIDE FULL ACCESS TO COUNTY ROAD 672. GIVEN THE CURRENT ROADWAY RESTRICTIONS, STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT FULL BUILD-OUT OF THE PROJECT AT THIS TIME. THE PROJECT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO 350 UNITS. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO PLACE INTO THE RECORD REVISED CONDITIONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT YOU GAVE ME EARLIER? >>TYLON McGEE: YES, THE ONES YOU RECEIVED. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >>TYLON McGEE: I SPOKE WITH TRANSPORTATION CONCERNING CONDITION NUMBER 15, AND THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT TO STRIKING OUT THE FOUR AND PUTTING A TWO-LANE FACILITY FOR CONDITION 15, TRANSPORTATION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AS OPPOSED TO STRIKING THE TWO SENTENCES AS THE APPLICANT SUGGESTED, THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT SO THAT -- >>TYLON McGEE: THEY -- TRANSPORTATION -- IT SHOULD READ AT THE END, FAILURE TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-LANE FACILITY SHALL LIMIT FULL BUILD-OUT OF THE PROJECT. AND I CAN HAVE JOHN PATRICK COME UP AND EXPLAIN IN GREATER DETAIL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I WOULD SUGGEST YOU MAY BE BETTER OFF STRIKING THE LAST TWO SENTENCES AND ALLOW IT TO BE ADDRESSED AT CONCURRENCY, AS THE APPLICANT HAD SUGGESTED. THAT WOULD SEEM TO MAKE MORE SENSE, BUT -- >>JOHN PATRICK: JOHN PATRICK, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF. THE REVISED TRANSPORTATION STAFF REPORT DATED 11/7/08 AND THE CONDITION STATING THE CONDITION WAS STRIKED OUT TO READ TWO-LANE COLLECTOR ROAD, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO STRIKING OF THOSE TWO SENTENCES IF -- IF THAT -- THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM, YEAH. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO YOU WOULD -- YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF'S -- WITH THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE THE LAST TWO SENTENCES ON 15? >>JOHN PATRICK: NO, THE LAST SENTENCE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE LAST SENTENCE? >>JOHN PATRICK: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE THAT SAYS, A TWO-LANE ROAD WILL NOT ACCOMMODATE THE FULL BUILD-OUT OF THE PROJECT, YOU WANT TO LEAVE THAT IN? >>JOHN PATRICK: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT WAS THAT THEIR STUDY SHOWS THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT. >>JOHN PATRICK: I DON'T THINK STAFF AGREED WITH THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS THEY HAD SUBMITTED. THIS IS BASED ON THE REPORT THAT WAS REVISED 11/7/08. THIS IS BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THE APPLICANT HAD WITH CHARLES WHITE, TRANSPORTATION REVIEW MANAGER, AND HE HAD AGREED TO CHANGE THAT FROM FOUR LANES TO TWO-LANE COLLECTOR FACILITY. THAT'S THE LAST SENTENCE THAT WOULD READ, FAILURE TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-LANE COLLECTOR FACILITY SHALL LIMIT THE FULL BUILD-OUT OF THE PROJECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BUT THE SENTENCE BEFORE IT SAYS, A TWO- LANE ROADWAY WILL NOT ACCOMMODATE THE FULL BUILD-OUT. >>JOHN PATRICK: TWO-LANE ROAD EXISTS RIGHT NOW. THAT'S THE -- AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, IT'S AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD. THAT'S WHAT THE TWO-LANE ROAD IS. IT'S TEN-FOOT LANES. THAT'S 20-FOOT UNOBSTRUCTED ROADWAY. I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE CONDITION THERE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THAT FURTHER. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. ALL RIGHT. >>TYLON McGEE: THE NEXT CHANGE IS TO CONDITION 1.1, AND IT SHOULD READ, 672 INSTEAD OF 572, AND ALSO, THERE'S CHANGES IN MY STAFF FINDINGS THAT -- THE THIRD BULLET POINT FROM THE BOTTOM SHOULD SAY 672 AND NOT 572, COUNTY ROAD. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>TYLON McGEE: ALSO, AS FAR AS THE CHANGES TO NATURAL RESOURCES CONDITIONS, I HAD SPOKE WITH KEITH WILEY WITH NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF, AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULDN'T BE IN AGREEMENT WITH CHANGING THE CONDITION, AND IF SO, I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE AT THE END OF THE CHANGES IF YOU DO AGREE TO THE CHANGES YOURSELF THAT IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. YOU'RE SAYING HE IS -- >>TYLON McGEE: CONDITION NUMBER 5. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: HE IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH ADDING THE WORD "SIGNIFICANT" TO THE WILDLIFE HABITAT STATEMENT IN THE MIDDLE THERE? >>TYLON McGEE: YES. WHEN I SPOKE TO HIM EARLIER, HE WASN'T IN AGREEMENT TO MAKING ANY CHANGES TO WHAT THE CONDITIONS THAT HE HAD -- THE CONDITION THAT HE HAD PROPOSED. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>TYLON McGEE: AND IF YOU MAKE THE I GUESS CHOICE TO CHANGE IT, THEN I WOULD PUT, SUBJECT TO NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF. IT SHOULD STILL SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THEM BASICALLY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AS TO CHANGING I.E. TO E.G., WHICH -- >>TYLON McGEE: I DON'T -- THAT'S FINE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THAT SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. OKAY. >>TYLON McGEE: THAT AND THE WORD "SIGNIFICANT." >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR -- >>TYLON McGEE: THAT COMPLETES MY TESTIMONY -- MY REPORT. THANKS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I NOTED IN ONE OF THE LETTERS IN OPPOSITION IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THIS WOULD BE A DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC AS OPPOSED TO THE GENERAL. WAS THAT DISCUSSED AT ANY POINT WITH THE APPLICANT? I THINK THAT COMMENT WAS PROBABLY IN APRIL. HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT -- AND -- >>BRIAN GRADY: NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, AND TO CLARIFY, IF THEY HAD FILED FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC, THEY WOULD HAVE -- BASICALLY WOULD HAVE HAD TO SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, SO REALLY, I DON'T THINK, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY -- GIVEN THEIR PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT AT THIS POINT, THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. OKAY. THE 350 UNITS, THE CONDITION THAT LIMITS THAT IS THE 1.1 THAT -- WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WERE JUST REFERENCING; CORRECT? SO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IS AS INDICATED IN ONE OF 1,088 UNITS ULTIMATELY, BUT IF THEY DON'T GET -- >>TYLON McGEE: TWO FULL ACCESSES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: A FULL ACCESS -- TWO FULL ACCESSES. >>TYLON McGEE: THEN THEY'RE RESTRICTED TO 350 UNITS UNTIL SUCH TIME. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. DAVID HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. IT ALSO FALLS WITHIN THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-2 AND THE RESIDENTIAL-2 PLANNED FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. THIS REQUEST WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA. APPROXIMATELY 11.1 ACRES IS LOCATED IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. AND AGAIN, IT FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN. THIS APPROXIMATELY 537-ACRE PROJECT INCORPORATES A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES AS CALLED FOR UNDER THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN. THE PROPERTY HAS LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL-4, WIMAUMA VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-2 AND RESIDENTIAL-2 PLANNED AS STATED PREVIOUSLY. THE DENSITIES OF THESE CATEGORIES HAS BEEN BLENDED ACROSS THE SITE AND CLUSTERED TO MAXIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE. AS A MAJORITY OF THE SITE FALLS WITHIN THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-2 CATEGORY, THE SITE MUST COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THAT NEW LAND USE CATEGORY. THIS CALLS FOR AN INTEGRATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITH EXTENSIVE OPEN SPACES AND COMMUNITY AMENITIES AS A FOCAL POINT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE. THIS SITE COMPLIES WITH WHAT THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN ENVISIONED. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-2 CATEGORY MUST ALSO PROVIDE FOR EMPLOYMENT AND COMMERCIAL USES TO SERVE THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES CREATED. IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY FOR WIMAUMA'S DOWNTOWN TO SERVICE THE EMPLOYMENT AND COMMERCIAL GENERATOR FOR MUCH OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CATEGORY. AT THIS TIME, THERE IS SUFFICIENT NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN WIMAUMA'S DOWNTOWN TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF THE PROPOSED 1,088 UNITS IN THIS PROJECT. AS SUCH, THE PROJECT IS NOT REQUIRED TO INCLUDE NONRESIDENTIAL USES AS PART OF THEIR VILLAGE. THE IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY RURAL RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL, AND NATURAL PRESERVATION LAND. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LARGER-SCALE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO THE WEST ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY 301 AND TO THE SOUTH ALONG STATE ROAD 674. THE PROJECT HAS INCORPORATED MEASURES TO ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY ISSUES WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THESE INCLUDE PROVIDING A LARGE OPEN SPACE BUFFER AREA, LOCATING MULTIFAMILY INTERNAL TO THE SITE, AND CLUSTERING OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO MAXIMIZE OPEN SPACE. WITH THESE MEASURES IN PLACE, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SURROUNDING WIMAUMA COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION, THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED COMPLIES WITH THE -- MANY OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-2 LAND USE CATEGORY. THE PROJECT WILL ALSO COMPLY WITH POLICIES REGARDING THE RURAL AREA WHICH ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITIES GREATER THAN ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES IN AREAS WHERE PLANNED VILLAGES ARE DEVELOPED. THESE VILLAGES ARE TO BE SERVED WITH CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER. TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST SHOULD BE MADE TO CONNECT MAJOR ROADWAYS IN THE AREA. MADAM HEARING OFFICER, I WANT TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION. DURING PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED, WE WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF THE SECTION OF OUR REPORT UNDER THE SITE PLAN ANALYSIS. THE COMMUNITY PLAN ALSO CALLS FOR SPECIFIC CONDITIONS REGARDING INTERNAL ROADWAYS SUCH AS THAT A MINIMUM OF 50% OF ALL INTERNAL ROADWAYS BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ENSURE THAT BOTH ENDS OF THE ROADWAYS TERMINATE WITH ANOTHER ROADWAY AND THAT THROUGH STREETS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED APPROXIMATELY EVERY 1,320 FEET EXCEPT WHERE PROHIBITED BY ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND. THESE POLICIES SHOULD ALSO BE MET IN THE SITE PLAN OR CONDITIONS OF ZONING. STAFF DOES -- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF DOES NOT SEE THAT INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING. OVERALL, THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE TO THE MIX OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THROUGH SITE PLANNING TECHNIQUES CAN BE DEVELOPED AS AN INTEGRATED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WILL BE COMPLEMENTARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PREPARED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: PLUS THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU WERE JUST -- >>DAVID HEY: PLUS THE CONDITIONS FOR THE ROADWAYS, YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO YOUR SUGGESTION IS THAT ON PAGE 3 OF YOUR REPORT THAT THE PROVISION SAYS -- THAT STARTS OUT WITH A MINIMUM OF 50% OF ALL INTERNAL ROADWAYS BE CONSTRUCTED -- SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ENSURE THAT BOTH ENDS OF THE ROADWAY TERMINATE WITH ANOTHER ROADWAY? >>DAVID HEY: CORRECT. THAT'S HOW -- IT'S ACTUALLY TAKEN RIGHT OUT OF THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN. IT'S UNDER SECTION 5 TRANSPORTATION, AND IT -- IT'S JUST A BULLET POINT. IT'S THE FOURTH BULLET POINT DOWN. IT SAYS A MINIMUM OF 50% OF ALL ROADWAYS INTERNAL TO NEW SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ENSURE THAT BOTH ENDS OF A GIVEN ROADWAY TERMINATE WITH ANOTHER ROADWAY, AND THEN UNDER BULLET SEVEN -- ONE, TWO, THREE -- SIX, IF I COULD COUNT RIGHT, OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING PLATTED PORTION OF WIMAUMA, THROUGH STREETS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED APPROXIMATELY EVERY 1,320 FEET EXCEPT WHERE PROHIBITED BY ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS. AND THAT'S DIRECTLY OUT OF THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE COMMUNITY PLAN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SO YOU'RE ASKING THAT THOSE TWO BE ADDED IN WITH PROPER WORD CHANGES TO MAKE THEM ACTUAL CONDITIONS? >>DAVID HEY: CORRECT, YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION. IF YOU WOULD, EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN ABOUT THE USE OF -- THE EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER INTO THE RURAL AREA. I KNOW NORMALLY THAT'S NOT DONE, BUT WHY IS IT -- IS IT BECAUSE OF THE COMP PLAN CATEGORY THAT THEY'RE IN OR IS IT BECAUSE OF THE STYLE OF DEVELOPMENT OR BOTH? >>DAVID HEY: IT'S BOTH. THE -- THE -- THERE'S POLICIES WITHIN THE COMP PLAN THAT DEAL WITH WHEN THERE'S A PLANNED VILLAGE THERE CAN BE CONSIDERATION FOR WATER AND SEWER, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING -- AND LET ME JUST VERIFY -- THAT UNDER THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE THEY ALSO CALL FOR -- AS LONG AS IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS -- THAT WATER AND SEWER CAN BE AVAILABLE IF IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH WITHIN THE -- BUT LET ME JUST VERIFY THAT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>DAVID HEY: UNDER THE GOALS AND STRATEGIES SECTION OF THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN, THERE'S A SECTION UNDER UTILITIES, AND IT SAYS, THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ON CENTRAL PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM, PERIOD. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND -- WITHIN THE WIMAUMA PLAN OR WITHIN THIS PLAN CATEGORY? >>DAVID HEY: WELL, WITHIN THE -- WITHIN THE PLAN, WHICH IS -- IT ENDS UP BEING THE PLAN CATEGORY. THIS IS A UNIQUE ONE. IT'S -- IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS MUST BE ON CENTRAL PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT IT'S IN THE RURAL AREAS? >>DAVID HEY: CORRECT, YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD OF YOU. MR. GRADY, I -- LET ME GO BACK FOR A MINUTE. ON THE QUESTION ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF USING THE EASEMENTS, THE WAY THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED IT, THE INTENT IS THAT IT WILL NOT BE AN EASEMENT ACCESS ANYMORE BUT WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY. IS THAT STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING AS WELL AS HOW THIS IS TO BE ACCESSED? >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, AND IT COULD -- IF THEY CHOSE TO HAVE IT PRIVATE, IT COULD STILL BE PRIVATE AS LONG AS IT'S PROPERLY DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY STANDARDS, SO -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: COULD IT BE OVER AN EASEMENT, THOUGH? >>BRIAN GRADY: I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE TERMINOLOGY -- WOULD WORK, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ONCE IT GETS IMPROVED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE REGULATIONS AND CODE HOW WE TREAT EASEMENTS REGARDING THE IMPROVEMENTS IS THAT IT COULD STILL BE PRIVATE, SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU CONSIDER IT AN EASEMENT OR NOT, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TERMINOLOGY, BUT, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THAT'S DEVELOPED WITH COUNTY STANDARDS, IT COULD STILL BE MAINTAINED IT COULD STILL BE A PRIVATE ROADWAY, SO I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY REQUIRES IT TO BE PUBLIC, BUT -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IF THE UNDERLYING PROPERTY OWNER AGREES TO IT BEING DEVELOPED AS A PRIVATE ROADWAY -- >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- WHICH THEY OWN -- >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- AND WOULD GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THE RIGHT TO USE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT WOULD MEET THE SAME REQUIREMENT? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO THE PROHIBITIONS IN THE CODE OF NOT ALLOWING A DEVELOPMENT ON AN EASEMENT OVER A CERTAIN SIZE WOULD NOT COME INTO PLAY IN THIS CASE IF IT WAS A FULLY DEVELOPED ROAD? >>BRIAN GRADY: YEAH, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS -- WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT, THOSE ARE UNIMPROVED EASEMENTS THAT ARE -- RUN OVER SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY. IT DOESN'T MEET ANY KIND OF COUNTY STANDARDS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF A PROPERLY DESIGNED ROADWAY, SO THE ISSUE IS THAT'S WHY WE LIMIT THE NUMBER OF LOTS ON THAT TYPE OF EASEMENT. IN THIS INSTANCE IT WOULD BE BUILT TO COUNTY STANDARD AS A COUNTY ROADWAY, AND EITHER DEDICATED OR NOT DEDICATED, IT'S PROPERLY DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A SUBDIVISION, SO THAT'S THE CONCERN AND ISSUE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S PROPERLY DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? YES. >> THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING MASTER AND STAFF. MY NAME IS MICHAEL DUGAY. I'M WITH STEINER COMMUNITIES AND A.M. DEVELOPMENT AT 401 SOUTH ALBANY AVENUE IN TAMPA 33606. WE ARE OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN BALM AT 15063 BALM ROAD, 164 ACRES, WITH FRONTAGE ON BALM-WIMAUMA ROAD AS WELL. WE ARE CURRENTLY ENTITLED FOR UP TO 215 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS AND THE NECESSARY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE AS WELL. WE STAND IN SUPPORT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE URBAN EXPANSION AREA AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN. WE FEEL THAT THIS WILL ADD TO THE AREA, IT WILL ADD VALUE TO THE AREA, AND WE STAND IN SUPPORT OF IT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? IF I COULD SEE A RAISE OF HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO INTEND TO SPEAK? OH, MY. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN. ARE YOU GOING TO EXCEED MORE THAN TWO MINUTES EACH SPEAKER OR -- >> MADAM HEARING MASTER, WE ARE ORGANIZED. WE PROMISE NOT TO REPEAT EACH OTHER'S POINTS. WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ORGANIZED, AND NOT EVERYBODY WILL SPEAK. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. >> MY NAME IS MARIELLA SMITH, AND I'M AT 108 JANIE STREET IN RUSKIN, AND I'LL JUST ASK EVERYONE WHO'S OPPOSED TO STAND SO YOU CAN GET A SENSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO DROVE HERE TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THIS REZONING. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> THIS SITE IS THE HOLE IN THE DOUGHNUT SURROUNDED BY ESSENTIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT. THE BALM SCRUB ELAPP PRESERVE TO THE NORTH AND THE WEST, AND THEN BULLFROG CREEK, AS YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN FROM THE AERIAL, RUNS ALONG THE SOUTH AND UP THE WEST SIDE. THE SITE IS RANKED "A" FOR CONSERVATION BY ELAPP BECAUSE OF ITS SENSITIVE LOCATION AND CONNECTIONS TO THESE NATURAL RESOURCES, AND IT'S ALMOST ALL IN THE RURAL AREA. BECAUSE OF ITS SPECIAL FEATURES AND LOCATION, THIS APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A DETAILED SITE PLAN SHOWING PRECISELY WHERE EACH BUILDING WOULD BE IN RELATION TO OUR NATURAL RESOURCES. INSTEAD, THEY HAVE VAGUELY OUTLINED TRACTS IN A BUBBLE PLAN WITH MERE NUMBERS TOTALING 1,088 HOUSES. THE STAFF REPORT SAYS, OKAY, BUT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO PUT ONLY 350 HOUSES HERE, SO YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE MAYBE 1,088 HOUSES OR MAYBE 350 HOUSES OR MAYBE SOME LARGE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS. HOW MANY? WHERE? WE DON'T KNOW. ON THIS EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SITE WE NEED TO GET MUCH MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THIS LAND IS ACTUALLY ZONED FOR. THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT. THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO COME TALK ABOUT THIS PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR TWO TERRIBLY PROBLEMATIC ROADS. THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD WOULD SLICE RIGHT THROUGH OUR BALM SCRUB ELAPP PRESERVE. YES, THE APPLICANT OWNS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT ONLY FOR A NARROW DIRT ROAD ACCESSING HIS SOD FARM. UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, THE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE WILDLIFE HABITAT IS LIMITED TO A FEW FARM VEHICLES PER DAY. IF YOU CHANGE THE ZONING TO ALLOW THOUSANDS OF CARS DRIVING ON THIS ROAD EVERY DAY, MY GOODNESS, A PUBLIC ROAD, THE WILDLIFE AND HABITAT WILL BE DEVASTATED. I'M SUBMITTING LETTERS FROM THE TAMPA BAY CONSERVANCY, TAMPA BAY SIERRA CLUB, AND FROM THE FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, CITING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MANY SPECIES OF WILDLIFE SIMPLY WILL NOT CROSS ROADS EVEN IF THOSE ROADS INCLUDE WILDLIFE CROSSINGS. KEEP IN MIND THIS LONG, LONG ROAD WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY FENCED TO KEEP THE WILDLIFE OFF OF IT, SO EVEN WITH A COUPLE OF CROSSING STRUCTURES, THIS ROAD WOULD FRAGMENT OUR WILDLIFE HABITAT AND ULTIMATELY REDUCE THE POPULATIONS OF LISTED SPECIES LIKE GOPHER TORTOISE AND KESTRELS AND OTHER ANIMALS ALONG WITH BOBCATS, FOXES, OTTER, AND DEER. THIS PROJECT WOULD DEVALUE THE TAXPAYERS' INVESTMENT IN OUR NATURE PRESERVE. THE OTHER PROBLEMATIC ROAD, THE 19th AVENUE EXTENSION, WAS ROUNDLY REJECTED BY THE PUBLIC WHEN IT FIRST APPEARED ON THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR MAP IN CPA 06-28, SO THE COUNTY REMOVED IT FROM THAT COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE BOCC HEARING APRIL 19, 2007. THE ROAD NEXT APPEARED ON THE ILL-FATED SOUTH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN BECAUSE OF MASSIVE PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO SEVERAL NEW ROADS, INCLUDING PARTICULARLY THIS 19th AVENUE EXTENSION. THE PUBLIC HAS OPPOSED THIS ROAD EVERY TIME IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BECAUSE OF ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE BULLFROG CREEK WATERSHED AND BECAUSE ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE SPRAWL OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. AS LONG AS THE 19th AVENUE EXTENSION CONTINUES TO BE REJECTED IN THE PROPER PUBLIC FORUMS OF OUR BIG-PICTURE TRANSPORTATION PLANS, YOU WOULD BE CIRCUMVENTING THAT PUBLIC PROCESS TO APPROVE THIS ROAD THROUGH THE BACK DOOR OF A SINGLE REZONING HEARING WHEN IT HAS BEEN REJECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS. THE PLAN BEFORE YOU IS TO EXTEND 19th AVENUE THROUGH A SWAMP THAT FLOODS FREQUENTLY AND THEN MOVE 3,000 PEOPLE IN AND LET THEM COUNT ON THIS NARROW ROAD THROUGH THE SWAMP FOR EMERGENCIES AND EVACUATION. AND WHEN THIS ROAD INEVITABLY WASHES OUT OR LAYS UNDER WATER IN EVERY SUMMER STORM LIKE IT DOES IN EVERY SUMMER STORM, THEY'D PUT ALL 3,000 PEOPLE ON THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD WHERE THEY NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE THAT ROAD IS ALSO TOO NARROW TO WORK IN AN EMERGENCY OR AN EVACUATION. THESE ROADWAYS ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE A FARM, NOT A SUBURBAN SUBDIVISION. UNTIL THE LANDOWNER ACQUIRES SUFFICIENT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SAFE ROADS AND HAS PLANS FOR BRIDGES OVER THE WETLANDS AND CAN ASSURE THE SAFETY OF 3,000 PEOPLE LIVING HERE, IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLY NEGLIGENT TO ZONE THIS LAND FOR 1,088 HOUSES OR FOR 350 HOUSES OR WHATEVER. THIS IS LUDICROUSLY PREMATURE. THIS IS NOT WHERE SMART GROWTH AND GOOD PLANNING WOULD PUT ALL THESE HOUSES AT THIS TIME. PLEASE TURN IT DOWN AND LET'S WAIT FOR A BETTER TIME AND A BETTER PLAN. I'M GOING TO TURN THESE LETTERS INTO THE CASE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. MARCELLA OSTEEN, 15133 CARLTON LAKE ROAD, BALM. I TRAVEL 672 EVERY DAY, MANY TIMES A DAY. THIS REZONING FROM A SOD FAR AR ZONING TO A 1,000-UNIT SUBDIVISION IS PREMATURE. NO NEED FOR GOING AGAINST THE COMP PLAN'S GOALS, STRATEGIES OF HAVING URBAN, SUBURBAN, AND RURAL AREAS AT THIS TIME. THE REZONING IS IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, AND I WILL SHOW YOU HOPEFULLY THAT THERE'S NO NEED TO UP THE DENSITY WITH THIS REZONING. YES, THE FUTURE LAND USE IS FOR HIGHER DENSITY, BUT FUTURE LAND USE IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT AS SOME MAY SUPPOSE OR HAVE YOU BELIEVE. LEE COUNTY VS. SUNBELT EQUITIES BACKS THIS UP, AND I'D LIKE TO READ WHAT THAT IS ABOUT. HOLDING THAT A MERE FACT -- THAT THE MERE FACT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT GIVE A LANDOWNER A RIGHT TO REZONING IT DESIRES. WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- THIS IS VS. -- BROWARD VS. SNYDER, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU PICTURES NOW TO ILLUSTRATE THE PREMATURITY OF THIS. THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO TRIPLE CREEK SUBDIVISION, A MAJOR, MAJOR SUBDIVISION ON BALM-RIVERVIEW ROAD APPROVED IN, BY THE WAY, THE 1980s. LOOK AT THAT. TOTALLY OVERGROWN. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH GHOST TOWN SUBDIVISIONS, AS THIS ONE WILL NO DOUBT BE ALSO. HERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE OF THAT SAME SUBDIVISION. LOOK AT THE FIRE HYDRANT. HERE IS A PICTURE OF AYERSWORTH SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS JUST TO THE WEST OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. RIGHT HERE IS A BIT OF BALM MOUNTAIN, WHICH WE CALL BALM MOUNTAIN. IT'S REALLY JUST THE CONSTRUCTION LANDFALL, AND THEIR PROPERTY IS RIGHT OVER THIS WAY. AND THAT IS ALSO JUST PRACTICALLY A GHOST TOWN, MAYBE 40 HOUSES OUT OF THOUSANDS. THIS NEXT ONE IS THE ENTRANCE, A VERY FANCY ENTRANCE OF BELMONT, WHICH IS AT THE END OF 672 ON 301, AND HERE IS THE ACTUAL PICTURE OF BELMONT WHEN YOU GET INTO IT A FEW FEET. IT ALSO IS A GHOST TOWN. AND JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT, HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE ENTRANCE -- THE MAIN ENTRANCE OFF 672 INTO THE PROJECT, AND IT'S, AS THEY SAID, 50 FEET RIGHT THROUGH ELAPP OVER HERE AND ELAPP OVER THERE. I WANT TO READ AN EXCERPT FROM THE ST. PETE TIMES NOW THAT JUST CAME OUT THE 16th, WHICH WAS DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY OR YESTERDAY ABOUT -- THE TITLE IS "IN THE BURBS, LIVING NEXT DOOR TO EMPTINESS." TANGLEWOOD IS ONE OF A GREAT NUMBER OF EMPTY SUBDIVISIONS WITH ONLY A HANDFUL OF HOMEOWNERS AND IN SOME CASES NONE AT ALL. ACROSS THE REGION MORE THAN 25,000 VACANT LOTS BEAR WITNESS TO THE REAL ESTATE BUST. MANY OF THE LOTS HAVE SIDEWALKS, WATER HOOKUPS, AND ELECTRICITY, EVERYTHING BUT A HOUSE. AND I'VE ALSO SUBMITTED MORE ARTICLES FOR THE RECORD. THERE ARE 50,000 HOMES ZONED BUT NOT BUILT IN SOUTH COUNTY, AND 15,000 OF THESE ARE IN WIMAUMA. PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THEIR CALL ON THE COMP PLAN, NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TIMING. THE TIME FOR ANY REZONING SUCH AS THIS IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA ON AG LAND IS NOT NOW, OBVIOUSLY. THIS ABYSMAL HOUSING MARKET THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING -- IF A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS IS ACCORDING -- LIKE THE ORLANDO SENTINEL SAID IN A RECENT EDITORIAL, IT'S LIKE WATCHING AN EMPHYSEMA PATIENT SMOKING THROUGH A TRACHEOTOMY TUBE. SO IT SHOULD BE APPARENT THAT THIS -- THIS DEVELOPMENT -- ITS TIME IS NOT NOW, AND IF THERE WERE SUNSETTING, I WOULDN'T BE SO DISTURBED ABOUT IT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT WON'T GET BUILT ANYTIME SOON, BUT THERE'S NOT SUNSETTING, AND ITS TIME IS NOT NOW. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THANK YOU. >> HI. VIVIENNE HANDY, 1080 CHERT ROCK TRAIL IN WIMAUMA. I HAVE -- WIMAUMA. I AM VERY MUCH DISMAYED TO SEE, AS SOMEONE POINTED OUT, THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST PROJECT TO BE -- TO COME UNDER THE REZONING UNDER OUR NEW WIMAUMA COMMUNITY VILLAGE PLAN. ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IS I WAS VERY PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THAT PLAN. I SAT ON THE COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR OVER TWO YEARS DEVELOPING THAT, AND I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT IN SPEAKING FOR THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OR THE LOCAL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND THE RESIDENTS IN THAT THIS DOES NOT SATISFY THE INTENT, CERTAINLY NOT THE CITIZENS' INTENT, OF OUR VILLAGE PLAN, AND I'M JUST GOING TO POINT OUT A FEW OF THE REASONS THAT I AM PRIMARILY CONCERNED. NUMBER ONE IS THE EMPLOYMENT. IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT TO WAIVE THE CONDITION FOR EMPLOYMENT. 1,088 HOMES WITHIN THE VILLAGE WILL END UP A SUBURB FOR COMMUTERS, AND AS A BUSINESS OWNER AND EMPLOYER IN DOWNTOWN WIMAUMA, I CAN SPEAK WITH AUTHORITY THAT THERE ARE NO JOBS THAT WILL BE GENERATED IN WIMAUMA OR THE CLOSE SURROUNDING AREAS THAT WILL SUPPORT THIS COMMUNITY. AS FAR AS THE OPEN-SPACE ISSUE, THE 41% OF OPEN SPACE DOES NOT SATISFY THE INTENT WHICH CALLS FOR CONTIGUOUS OPEN SPACE OF THE -- OF 40% OF THE GROSS THAT IS. THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT. WE'LL END UP WITH DEAD-END ROADS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID POINT THAT OUT; HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK THEY WENT FAR ENOUGH IN REQUESTING THE CONDITIONS. THE -- THE PLAN CALLS FOR OPEN-ENDED NORTH-SOUTH AND EAST- WEST ROADS, AND WHAT WE'LL END UP WITH IS NOT ONLY DEAD-END STREETS BUT STREETS THAT DEAD END INTO THE FLOODPLAIN OF BULLFROG CREEK, WHICH BEGS FOR MORE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN THE FUTURE. LASTLY, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WAS RANKED AS A TOP PRIORITY AMONGST CITIZENS IN WIMAUMA FOR OUR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND THE -- IN FACT, THE SPECIFIC CONDITION WITHIN THE WVR-2 PLAN, THERE'S A BULLET ITEM FOR OPEN SPACE, AND I'LL READ THIS. OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING PARKS, FORESTRY, OUTDOOR RECREATION, ELAPP, PUBLIC USES, PONDS, WETLANDS, CORRIDORS, AND AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE SHALL CONSTITUTE AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL. TO AVOID ENVIRONMENTAL ISOLATION AND FRAGMENTATION, THE PLAN SEEKS CONTIGUITY AND CONNECTION TO OTHER OPEN SPACE OR CONSERVATION AREAS. THIS PROJECT, AS OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT, ISOLATES AND FRAGMENTS BALM SCRUB AD BULLFROG CREEK AS WELL AS OTHER OPEN SPACES, AND IN RELATION TO THAT CONDITION 5, I CONCUR WITH MR. WILEY'S NOT ACCEPTING THE LANGUAGE CHANGE BECAUSE IN OUR PLAN WE DID NOT SAY SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT, WE SAID OPEN SPACE AND HABITAT AND AREAS OF CONCERN THAT WE WANT TO PROTECT FOR ISOLATION AND FRAGMENTATION, AND "SIGNIFICANT" DOES IMPLY A VERY STRICT DEFINITION OF HABITAT THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY TAKE PLACE IF THAT WORD WERE THROWN INTO THAT CONDITION. AND JUST OVERALL, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY IS NOT THE ONLY CONSIDERATION THAT WE EVER HAD IN MIND WITH THE COMPLYING OF OUR VILLAGE PLAN. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: EXCUSE ME. COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT LAST POINT, MA'AM. MA'AM. COULD YOU ELABORATE ON -- COULD YOU ELABORATE ON -- >> I'M SORRY. I'M TRYING TO HURRY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- ON THAT LAST POINT ABOUT THE DENSITY, AND IF WE COULD HOLD THEIR TIME. >> SURE. OBVIOUSLY THE WVR-2 CATEGORY DOES ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY THAT IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE REZONING, SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE NEEDS TO BE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. THAT'S ONLY ONE SMALL PART OF NOT ONLY THE WVR-2 CATEGORY BUT THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN AS A WHOLE, AND I THINK THAT ALL OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS TO THE PLAN, TRANSPORTATION, OPEN SPACE, ELAPP, NATIVE HABITAT PROTECTION, RURAL VILLAGE CHARACTER PROTECTION IS BEING COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED IN MAKING SURE THAT WE FILL UP ALL AVAILABLE SPACE WITH THIS DENSITY THAT IS ALLOWED. THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THE PLAN. I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THAT'S THE WAY THE CITIZENS FEEL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND ALSO, YOU RAISED A POINT ABOUT THE EMPLOYMENT WAIVER, ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS NO WAIVER OR INTENT TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE AN EMPLOYMENT SECTOR, SO ARE YOU INDICATING THAT A PROJECT LIKE THIS OR EVEN SIMILAR TO THIS SHOULD INCLUDE SOME EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL WITHIN THE PROJECT ITSELF RATHER THAN LOOKING OUTSIDE? >> YES. THE PROJECT SHOULD INCLUDE CONSIDERING WHERE THE EMPLOYMENT FOR THESE RESIDENTS -- THESE NEW RESIDENTS WILL COME FROM BECAUSE OTHERWISE ALL WE END UP WITH IS BECOMING ANOTHER SUBURB, AND THAT IS -- THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IT'S NOT JUST A QUESTION, AS I BELIEVE I HEARD FROM MR. HEY, THAT THE SHOPPING WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN WIMAUMA, YOU'RE INDICATING IT'S NOT JUST A CONCERN ABOUT WHERE THEY WILL SHOP BUT A CONCERN AS TO WHERE THE PEOPLE WOULD BE EMPLOYED SO THAT THEY'RE NOT COMMUTING BUT ARE WORKING IN THE COMMUNITY? >> THAT IS CORRECT. THE INTENT WAS TO MAINTAIN THE SMALL-TOWN CHARACTER, AND JUST CREATING A COMMUTER-SUPPORTED SUBDIVISION DOES NOT FULFILL THAT INTENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. >> MY NAME'S DAVID GORDON, 1080 CHERT ROCK TRAIL, WIMAUMA, FLORIDA. I'M A WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST AND WORK REGIONALLY AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT THERE WILL BE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT, SPECIFICALLY FIRE MANAGEMENT ON THE BALM-BOYETTE SCRUB AND THIS COMMUNITY IF IT IS APPROVED, AND MORE THAN LIKELY WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS IS THE HABITAT SUFFERS, SO ONCE AGAIN, I THINK THIS COMMUNITY WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR PUBLIC LANDS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: COULD YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT. ARE YOU INDICATING THAT THE TYPE OF HABITAT IT IS NEEDS TO BE BURNED REGULARLY? >> THE TYPE OF HABITAT -- JUST ABOUT EVERY HABITAT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAS TO BURN ON SOME FREQUENCY. THESE PARTICULAR HABITATS WILL HAVE TO BURN ON A FREQUENCY OF EVERY ONE YEAR TO FIVE YEARS TO TEN YEARS, SO FIRE WILL BE OCCURRING FREQUENTLY OUT THERE, AND THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CONFLICT BETWEEN PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITIES THAT DEVELOP ADJACENT TO THOSE AREAS, AND I'LL ALSO ADD THAT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DID ALLOW A 50-FOOT SETBACK, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THREE -- 750 -- DOF, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, RECOMMENDS 350 -- 300 FEET, BUT THAT 350 FEET IS NOT SITUATED ALL THE WAY AROUND THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, SPECIFICALLY ON THE EASTERN SIDE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> AND BURNING NEAR THE ROADS IS ALSO GOING TO BE A PROBLEM AS WELL WITH TRAFFIC, AND BECAUSE YOU HAVE 672 TO THE NORTH, THAT'LL BE A CONSIDERATION WITH EVERY BURN, SO NOW THAT WE HAVE 672 AS A MAJOR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC AND WE'VE GOT A COMMUNITY THAT'S A MAJOR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF THE OLD PEOPLE, EMPHYSEMA, THAT MIGHT HAVE SICKNESSES, WHATEVER, THAT MIGHT CAUSE THEM SOME PROBLEM, NOW IT'S EVEN MORE PRESSURE OF HOW IS THE COUNTY GOING TO MANAGE THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THEY PURCHASED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE REASONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. AND SIR, YOU NEED TO SIGN IN, PLEASE. NEXT SPEAKER. >> READY? >>LAURA BELFLOWER: UH-HUH. >> MY NAME'S BEV GRIFFITHS. I'M CHAIRPERSON FOR TAMPA BAY SIERRA CLUB. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. I'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED A LETTER INTO THE RECORD DATED APRIL 23rd, 2008. ALL OF OUR OBJECTIONS THAT WERE STATED IN THAT LETTER DO REMAIN. I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE COMMENT. CONSIDERING THE UNIQUENESS AND THE ECOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY OF THIS SITE, THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE WE SHOULD BE WRINGING OUT EVERY LAST DROP OF DENSITY. INSTEAD WE SHOULD BE BACKING OFF THE MAXIMUM TO MAKE SOMETHING COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NATURAL RESOURCES. UP ON THE SCREEN YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A MAP OF THE AREA, AND I JUST WANT TO POINT TO THE AREA THAT'S GOING TO BE BURNED SO YOU CAN SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THAT ROADWAY. RIGHT HERE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE BURNING THOSE AREAS, SO IMAGINE -- I MEAN, ARE THEY GOING TO CLOSE THE ROAD DURING THE BURN? SOMETHING TO BE THINKING ABOUT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. MA'AM, IF YOU COULD SIGN IN, PLEASE. AND IF -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT IF SOMEBODY HAS A MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ELAPP PROPERTY AND THE SCRUB PROPERTY RELATIVE TO THIS ONE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN ANY OF THE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED YET, SO -- AS TO WHICH IS WHICH. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, AND THANK YOU. PAM CLOUSTON. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF R-LAND. THAT'S RURAL LITHIA AREA NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENSE, AND PART OF OUR MISSION IS TO HELP PRESERVE RURAL AREAS, ESPECIALLY IN LITHIA, BUT ANYPLACE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THE DEVELOPER HAS TALKED ABOUT BRINGING IN THE PIPES FOR -- THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BRING IN THE WATER AND SEWER, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THAT WOULD BE GOING INTO THE RURAL SERVICE AREA. WE REALLY STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE BREACH OF THE RURAL SERVICE AREA IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE INCURSION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INTO THE RURAL SERVICE AREA BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE CONDITIONS OF THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN. THERE'S NO JOBS OFFERED IN THE AREA, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT REACH THE CONDITION WHERE WATER AND SEWER CAN BE BROUGHT IN, AND I DO HAVE A LETTER TO SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF R-LAND. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. HAS THAT LETTER BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE RECORD? HAS THE APPLICANT HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE LETTER IN THE PAST? >> NO, NO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE AN EXTRA COPY THAT YOU COULD GIVE TO THE APPLICANT IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT IT? >> I DO NOT, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO E-MAIL IT TO SOMEONE IF THEY NEED IT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: WELL, AFTER TONIGHT -- IF YOU COULD, BEFORE YOU GIVE IT TO THE CLERK, COULD YOU JUST PROVIDE IT TO MS. ZELMAN AND LET HER READ IT FIRST? >> SURE. BE HAPPY TO. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THANK YOU. YES, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM HEARING MASTER. I'M DAVE KULOW, BOYETTE SPRINGS, AND I HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS TO THIS PREVIOUSLY STARTING ON THE 24th OF APRIL. THERE'S A UNIQUE ITEM IN THIS APPLICATION THAT IS CONDITION 1.1 THAT THE ACCESS ROAD GATE CONTROL WILL BE -- HAVE -- WILL HAVE TWO KEYS THAT WILL BE IN POSSESSION OF THE RESIDENTS. SOMEBODY WILL HOLD THOSE TWO KEYS -- SOME PEOPLE WILL HOLD THOSE TWO KEYS TO GIVE THEM ACCESS ON THIS LITTLE SHORT STUB ROAD COMING IN HERE, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HEARD OF ANY SUCH CONDITION. IT SEEMS TO BE UNIQUE, AND THIS LONG LIST OF CONDITIONS IS -- I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS SINCE LAKE HUTTO AND THE DRI. MAY I SAY THAT I COME FROM A SUBDIVISION THAT HAS 1280 -- OR 1080 HOMES. WE HAVE FIVE ENTRANCES, TWO OF WHICH ARE FOUR-LANE, TWO OF WHICH ARE SIGNAL LIGHT CONTROLLED, AND IF YOU HAVE A PRIMARY ACCESS TO THIS SUBDIVISION OF A TWO-LANE ROAD GOING OUT NORTH RIGHT THERE AND YOU HAVE A THOUSAND HOMES, I CAN TELL YOU THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS LET TEN TO 12 CARS OUT AT OUR - - OF OUR SUBDIVISION AT A TIME. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IN EXCESS OF A THOUSAND COMMUTERS AN HOUR BETWEEN 6:00 AND 8:00 A.M. TRYING TO GET OUT TO GO TO SCHOOL, TO TRY TO GO TO WORK, AND IT IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR, MAJOR BOTTLENECK. THIS SUBDIVISION JUST DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT ACCESS. THE OTHER THING IS THAT LIKE A BAD PENNY, THE -- LIKE SAME DIFFERENCE AS THE BRANDON BYPASS ROAD THAT KEEPS CROPPING UP. THIS 19th AVENUE EXTENSION HAS BEEN REJECTED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND IT KEEPS CROPPING UP LIKE IF THEY TALK ABOUT IT ENOUGH, IT'LL BE HERE, AND SO I'M GOING TO ALSO SUBMIT AN ADDITIONAL LETTER OF POINTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO COVER TONIGHT, AND I'LL SUBMIT THAT FOR THE RECORD. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND AGAIN, IF YOU COULD LET THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE SEE IT FIRST JUST SO THAT SHE CAN RESPOND TO IT. OKAY. >> HI. MY NAME IS JOHN HENDERSHOT. I'M A MEMBER OF THE TAMPA BAY SIERRA GROUP, AND I'M REPRESENTING THE CONSERVATION AND THE OUTINGS COMMITTEE ON THIS FROM A CONSERVATION PERSPECTIVE FOR ALL THE VARIOUS REASONS MENTIONED BEFORE. WE ARE -- WE HAVE THE OBJECTIONS TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AS IT STANDS. AS SOMEONE WHO IS -- PARTICIPATES IN THE OUTINGS, THE BALM- BOYETTE SCRUB AREA IS A SIGNIFICANT PLACE OF ENJOYMENT FOR HIKERS AND BIKERS IN THAT AREA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE SIERRA CLUB AND OTHER BIKERS AND HIKERS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE SIERRA CLUB, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL THOROUGHFARE THAT WOULD CUT THROUGH THE ELAPP LANDS WOULD REDUCE THE QUALITY OF THAT EXPERIENCE FOR ANY HIKER AND BIKER WHO HEARS MORE TRAFFIC NOISE AS THEY'RE OUT THERE IN THIS WILDERNESS AREA. IN ADDITION, AS ONE OF THE 80% OF THE VOTERS WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING ELAPP, I DON'T THINK THAT OUR INTENT WAS TO PAY FOR ELAPP LAND, SET IT ASIDE, AND ALLOW A LOT OF THOROUGHFARES TO GO THROUGH IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND I'M PRESENTING THIS LETTER ON -- AS WELL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. HAS THAT BEEN PRESENTED IN THE RECORD? HAVE YOU SENT IT IN BEFORE OR -- >> NO, IT HAS NOT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AGAIN, IF YOU COULD LET MS. ZELMAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I THINK THEY ARE PROVIDING THE LETTERS TO THE CLERK AFTER THEY READ THEM. >> GOOD EVENING. GEORGE NIEMANN, DOVER, FLORIDA AND MEMBER OF U-CAN. I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT. I HAVE SOME ITEMS THAT WERE ALREADY SAID, SO I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT THEM, BUT I WANT TO BRING UP ONE POINT. EMERGENCY EVACUATION IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE IN A FLOOD ZONE, AND THE CURRENT HURRICANE SHELTERS WILL NOT ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITION OF AN ADDITIONAL 2700 RESIDENTS OR EVEN MUCH LESS THAN THAT. THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, AND, YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WITH HURRICANES. WE SAY -- THE COUNTY SAYS WE'VE GOT PLANS, AND THEY HAVE A TARGET TO GET PEOPLE OUT, BUT TYPICALLY THE PEOPLE DON'T GET OUT, AND THEN THEY SCRAMBLE FOR SHELTERS. THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE HURRICANE SHELTERS IN THIS AREA TO SUPPORT GROWTH ANYWHERE NEAR THIS SIZE. AND I'M JUST GOING TO SUBMIT THIS TO -- I DON'T HAVE A LETTER, I'M JUST SUBMITTING THIS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> SO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: JUST THE COMMENTS THAT YOU JUST MADE? >> NO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU JUST INDICATED, IF YOU COULD LET THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE REVIEW IT, JUST SO THAT SHE CAN BE ABLE TO RESPOND. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE CAN BE FILED AT THIS POINT. I DON'T THINK IT CAN LEGALLY BE FILED UNTIL THE -- UNTIL THE RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN FILED, WHICH WILL BE 15 WORKING DAYS, AND THEN WHEN THE RECOMMENDATION COMES OUT, THEN YOU CAN SUBMIT THE FORM AND RESPOND SPECIFICALLY. YOU'RE ASSUMING WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION IS. >> NO. [INAUDIBLE] >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KELLY CORNELIUS. MY ADDRESS IS 18732 DORMAN ROAD IN LITHIA. I ORIGINALLY CAME DOWN TONIGHT JUST TO SUBMIT A LETTER INTO THE RECORD. MY CONCERNS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS, AND I DID SEND THIS E-MAIL ON APRIL THE 23rd, AND MY CONCERNS HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE THEN, SO I'LL RESUBMIT IT. YOU SHOULD HAVE IT. AFTER SITTING HERE WATCHING THIS TRAIN WRECK, I HAVE SOME NEW CONCERNS THAT I'D LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, IT SEEMS LIKE THE ATTORNEYS AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE PLANNING STAFF ARE HORSE TRADING RIGHT NOW, SO HOW CAN THE PUBLIC BE ADEQUATELY INFORMED TO MAKE A COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT IS CHANGING OR APPEARED TO BE CHANGING? THEY WERE SWAPPING OUT CONDITIONS WHILE WE WERE SITTING HERE, AND THEN WHILE I WAS STANDING UP THERE WAITING TO SPEAK, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY GET CERTAINLY A COURTESY OF GETTING OUR LETTERS HAD WE NOT SUBMITTED THEM FOR THEIR REVIEW, BUT WE CERTAINLY DIDN'T GET A LIST OF ANY CHANGE IN CONDITIONS BEFORE THEY WERE UP HERE HORSE TRADING WITH THEM. AND IN ADDITION, YOU KNOW, I TYPICALLY HAVE A LOT OF FAITH IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ZERO IN PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, BUT A LOT OF FAITH IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND TONIGHT THAT'S BEEN SHAKEN A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WHEN I SEE THE STAFF LOOKING UP THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLOWABLE WHEN YOU RAPE THE RURAL AREA, I MEAN, SHOULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN DONE -- SHOULDN'T THOSE CONDITIONS BE KNOWN AND AGREED OR DISAGREED UPON BEFORE TONIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT SCARY GIVING A GREEN LIGHT TO PAVE OVER A RURAL AREA WHEN THINGS AREN'T QUITE SET IN STONE. SO I URGE YOU TO DENY THIS REQUEST. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE REASON THAT I READ THE -- THE STAFF'S CHANGE AT THE APPLICANT'S PORTION WAS SO THAT YOU-ALL WOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR IT RATHER THAN THEM DISCUSSING IT IN REBUTTAL. I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO BRING IT UP IN REBUTTAL FOR THE FIRST TIME SO THAT YOU COULD RESPOND TO THEM, AND AS TO THE -- THE NECESSITY FOR YOU-ALL TO PROVIDE THINGS, IF YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING, THAT'S FINE, THE APPLICANT KNOWS ABOUT IT AND CAN RESPOND TO IT. IF YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING IN WRITING, WHICH I DID ASK PEOPLE TO SUBMIT THINGS IN WRITING TO MOVE THINGS ALONG, IT'S JUST A COURTESY TO ALLOW THEM TO RESPOND AS I TRIED TO ALLOW YOU-ALL TO RESPOND. >> OH, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE, BUT IF I WASN'T GOING TO COME DOWN HERE TONIGHT, THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAILOR MY COMMENTS TO THEIR CHANGES HAD THERE BEEN ANY. THAT'S MY -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THAT'S TRUE, AND THAT'S THE POINT OF PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, I GUESS. YES, MA'AM. >> TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER -- UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK. I HAVE A COUPLE OF HATS THAT I WEAR. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE CLARIFIED. MR. HEY MENTIONED THAT IT WAS A PLANNED VILLAGE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF THE STAFF WANTED TO DO SO, REQUIRE A SPECIFIC PD. THAT'S WHY IT'S AN OPTION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND MS. MARCELLA OSTEEN SUBMITTED IT, BUT BACK TO THE PLANNED VILLAGE. THE INTENT OF THIS CONCEPT IS TO AVOID URBAN SPRAWL THROUGH A MIXED-USE CLUSTERED AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF AT LEAST 160 ACRES. USES WITHIN THE PLANNED VILLAGE SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY SCALED TO MAXIMIZE INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE, SHOPPING, AND JOB CREATION ON-SITE. PROJECTS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE COMPACT PEDESTRIAN- ORIENTED MIXED-USE SHOPPING, OFFICE NODES. I WON'T GO ON. I THINK I CAN GO BACK TO QUITE A FEW MOONS AGO. IF THE GLOVE DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT. THIS APPLICATION HAS GONE THROUGH SO MANY CONTORTIONS AND CHANGES AND THE STAFF WRITING REPORTS SAYING, WELL, YOU CAN GET THE ZONING IF YOU DO THIS AND IF YOU DO THAT, THAT THEY OUGHT -- IT OUGHT TO BELONG IN CIRQUE DU SOLEIL. IF THERE HAS EVER BEEN A CASE THAT EPITOMIZES URBAN SPRAWL, THIS IS IT. THE WATER ISSUE, WE NEED TO GET THAT CLARIFIED. I THINK THAT'S HUGE, ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT. ANYWAY, PART OF -- U-CAN IS A COUNTYWIDE ORGANIZATION. THAT'S WHY I'M STANDING HERE, SO WE CAN'T SAY YOU DON'T LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE IN THE COUNTY. WE ALL LIVE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THAT LANGUAGE THAT YOU WERE READING, IS THAT FROM THE VILLAGE LANGUAGE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR FROM A PROVISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? >> NO, IT'S IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. OKAY. AND YOU SAID A CONCERN ABOUT THE WATER. IS THAT STORMWATER OR PUBLIC WATER? >> NO. I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT MR. HEY SAID, AND I'M A BIG FAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT I TOO TONIGHT AM A LITTLE CONCERNED. BUT HE INDICATED -- I THOUGHT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A WAIVER TO RUN WATER INTO THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, BUT I THINK I HEARD MR. HEY SAY THAT -- OF COURSE, I'M GETTING HARD OF HEARING IN MY OLD AGE, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD HIM SAY THAT IT WASN'T -- A WAIVER WASN'T REQUIRED BECAUSE IT WAS A PLANNED VILLAGE. SO I -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I BELIEVE WHAT HE SAID -- AND WE'LL ASK HIM TO CLARIFY THIS IF I'M NOT CORRECT. I BELIEVE WHAT HE SAID IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION THAT IS ON HERE, THE VILLAGE PROVISION UNDER THE WIMAUMA PLAN, REQUIRES PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER TO BE USED, WHETHER IT'S IN RURAL OR NOT, BUT HE ALSO SAID BECAUSE IT'S A VILLAGE THAT IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RURAL PROHIBITION ON THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER REQUIREMENTS, SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO LET HIM ELABORATE ON THAT POINT IN JUST A MOMENT. >> OKAY. I THINK PERHAPS THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND CLARIFY ON THAT POINT. >>DAVID HEY: LET ME CLARIFY. THERE'S TWO OPTIONS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AN APPLICANT CAN GO FOR A PLANNED VILLAGE, AND THERE'S REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE UNDER -- WITHIN THE COMP PLAN THAT INCLUDE EMPLOYMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. I MIGHT HAVE MISSPOKE AND SAID IT IS A PLANNED VILLAGE. THIS IS GOING UNDER THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN, AND THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS. IT SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT THE UTILITIES. IT -- THERE'S NO QUESTION IN THE WIMAUMA PLAN, THE ADOPTED WIMAUMA PLAN, IT SAYS, THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ON CENTRAL PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM. THERE IS NO -- NO MENTION ABOUT A WAIVER, ANYTHING LIKE THAT UNDER THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE-2 PLAN. THERE WAS A COUPLE REFERENCES TO EMPLOYMENT. UNDER THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE-2 LAND USE CATEGORY -- BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE CATEGORY -- THERE'S A COMMUNITY PLAN, BUT IT LED INTO AN ACTUAL LAND USE CATEGORY. THERE'S A SPECIFIC LAND USE CATEGORY. UNDER EMPLOYMENT AREAS, IT SAYS, TO SATISFY THE EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAN TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE SHALL BE CONTAINED IN THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE DOWNTOWN. OTHER EMPLOYMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE CONTAINED IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OFFICE DISTRICT AND THE WEST-END COMMERCIAL AREA. THIS SITE DOESN'T FALL IN ANY OF THOSE, SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE SHOULD BE CONTAINED IN THE IDENTIFIED DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, NOT IN EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO THE REFERENCE THAT WAS MADE EARLIER TO EMPLOYMENT IS FOR A VILLAGE, A PLANNED VILLAGE? >>DAVID HEY: THERE'S A WHOLE 'NOTHER THING IN THE COMP PLAN DEALING WITH THE PLANNED VILLAGE. IF THEY WENT THAT ROUTE, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO SOME EMPLOYMENT, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING -- THEY'RE NOT USING THAT LOOP, THEY'RE GOING UNDER THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE. BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THAT LAND USE CATEGORY, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CRITERIA UNDER THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE COMP PLAN CATEGORY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND YOUR POINT ABOUT THE EXTENSION, SETTING ASIDE THE WIMAUMA PLAN REQUIREMENT OF THE EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER, THE EXCEPTION UNDER THE RURAL AREA IS BECAUSE IT IS A COMMUNITY OR -- YOU USED THE WORD "VILLAGE," BUT -- >>DAVID HEY: IF IT WASN'T IN THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN AND AN APPLICANT CAME IN AND REQUESTED A PLANNED VILLAGE, THERE IS SOME CONSIDERATION IF THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER A PLANNED VILLAGE TO EXTEND WATER AND SEWER, BUT THIS APPLICANT IS NOT IN THAT PROCESS, THEY'RE NOT DEALING WITH A PLANNED VILLAGE. I'M SORRY IF I MISSPOKE AND SAID PLANNED VILLAGE. THEY ARE NOT IN THAT PROCESS. THEY'RE UNDER THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE COMP PLAN CATEGORY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. HOW MUCH OF WIMAUMA IS IN THE RURAL AREA, OF THE AREA THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE WIMAUMA PLAN? >>DAVID HEY: LET ME PULL IT UP. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM THAT THOSE TWO PROVISIONS ARE INCONSISTENT. >>DAVID HEY: LET ME GET THE MAP. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND I AM NOT SURE I HAVE A COPY OF THAT. IT IS AVAILABLE ON-LINE, THE -- >>DAVID HEY: IT IS AVAILABLE ON-LINE. WELL, WE CAN'T -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF IT'S AVAILABLE ON-LINE, IT'S PART OF THE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION. >>DAVID HEY: I HAVE TOO MANY MAPS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OH, WE'VE GOT A COUNTYWIDE MAP. OKAY. >>DAVID HEY: THIS IS THE MAP, AND THEN THIS IS THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE. >>BRIAN GRADY: DAVID, COULD YOU -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO THE INDICATION IS THAT THE -- THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY RUNS ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF WHAT IS TRADITIONALLY CONSIDERED WIMAUMA WITH THE PLATTED-OUT AREAS. >>DAVID HEY: CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND THEN IT TURNS NORTH JUST WEST OF THIS PROPERTY. >>DAVID HEY: THIS IS 301 HERE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IT'S TURNING -- THE -- >>DAVID HEY: YOU WANT ME TO PUT IT ON THE -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YEAH. AND I GUESS MY MAJOR QUESTION IS IN ADDITION TO WHERE THE URBAN BOUNDARY IS, WHERE ARE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WIMAUMA PLAN AREA, AND HOW DO THE TWO OVERLAP? IT LOOKS LIKE MOST OF WHAT'S TRADITIONALLY CONSIDERED WIMAUMA -- GO AHEAD AND YOU CAN TAKE THAT OVER THERE -- WHAT'S TRADITIONALLY CONSIDERED WIMAUMA IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PLAN BOUNDARIES OF THE WIMAUMA PLAN GO FURTHER THAN THAT TRADITIONAL AREA. >>DAVID HEY: THAT'S -- THIS IS THE AREA THAT IS THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE-2 AREA. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE BLUE AREA? >>DAVID HEY: THE DARK BLUE AREA. THIS IS THE TRADITIONAL AREA FOR DOWNTOWN WIMAUMA, THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SO THE BLUE AREA IS ALL IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA THEN? >>DAVID HEY: CORRECT. YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SO WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY THAT SAYS THERE MUST BE URBAN SERVICES IN AN AREA THAT IS IN THE RURAL PART -- >>DAVID HEY: IF IT MEETS THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA UNDER THAT LAND USE CATEGORY, THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO CONNECT TO CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE LISTED DOWN FOR THAT PARTICULAR LAND USE CATEGORY, IF IT MEETS ALL OF THEM, THAT JUSTIFIES THE EXTENSION? >>DAVID HEY: CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF IT DIDN'T MEET ALL OF THEM, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DEVELOP -- >>DAVID HEY: CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- WITH OR WITHOUT SEWER? >>DAVID HEY: THEY WOULD BE BACK TO, I BELIEVE, ONE UNIT PER FIVE IF THEY DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA OF CLUSTERING AND -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. I -- WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT -- IN OPPOSITION? >> HI. JEFF HILLS, 4610 EISENHOWER BOULEVARD. I REPRESENT THE LANDOWNER TO THE WEST, WHICH THE 19th AVENUE EXTENSION ACTUALLY RUNS THROUGH, AS WELL AS THE LANDOWNER TO THE SOUTH, SPENCER FARMS, AND WE ARE NOT HERE IN OPPOSITION. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE WERE ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE REZONING EFFORT, BUT AS A RESULT OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT OCCURRED TONIGHT, I FIND MYSELF ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH MY FRIENDS OVER HERE. >> OH, MY GOSH. >> THAT -- THAT, YOU KNOW, WE -- WE HAD -- MY CLIENTS HAD AGREED TO SUPPORT THIS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE LATEST STAFF REPORT WERE GOING TO BE MET. FOR THEM NOW TO COME BACK AND CHANGE CONDITION 15, SPECIFICALLY THE LAST TWO SENTENCES IN CONDITION 15, IS SOMETHING WE CANNOT SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE WEREN'T GIVEN PROPER NOTICE, AS THIS ACCESS ACTUALLY -- EXCUSE ME - - SERVICES SOME OF MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, SO THE CHANGE OF THOSE TWO SENTENCES WOULD HAVE A DIRECT NEGATIVE IMPACT TO MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, SO WE CANNOT SUPPORT IT AS A RESULT OF THAT. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD SIGN IN, PLEASE. ANYONE ELSE? YES, MA'AM. >> HI. I'M JOY INGRAM, 12349 JESS WALDEN ROAD, DOVER, FLORIDA 33527. I JUST WANTED TO SUBMIT A LETTER. I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE UP ANYMORE TIME. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT I DID WANT TO SUBMIT MY LETTER. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND AGAIN, IF YOU COULD LET THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE SEE IT. ANYONE ELSE? >> I REALIZE I ALREADY HAD MY TURN, BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT SOMETHING OUT FOR CLARIFICATION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AGAIN, PLEASE. >> I'M SORRY. VIVIENNE HANDY OF WIMAUMA. REGARDING THAT EMPLOYMENT ISSUE, IT DOES SAY RIGHT HERE IN THE PLAN UNDER EMPLOYMENT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, THE VILLAGE SHALL PROVIDE 55% OF THE NEEDED HOUSEHOLD JOBS. NOW, IT DOES GO ON TO SAY WHAT THE GENTLEMAN OVER HERE SAID ABOUT THEY MAY BE CONTAINED IN WIMAUMA VILLAGE DOWNTOWN AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY THAT I THOUGHT THAT THE VILLAGE SHOULD HAVE -- THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAVE JOBS WITHIN IT, BUT CERTAINLY THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE JUST ANOTHER SPRAWLING SUBURBAN COMMUNITY AND THAT WE WANTED TO CONTAIN THE SMALL-TOWN CHARACTER BY HAVING SOME -- BY HAVING THAT - - MEETING THAT 55% CRITERIA SO IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER BEDROOM COMMUNITY, AND THE INTENT OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE WRITERS OF THE PLAN WAS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BECOME ANOTHER BRANDON, FOR EXAMPLE, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFIED. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I HAD ONE -- IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NO ONE, I WANTED TO GO BACK TO STAFF REAL BRIEFLY. I DIDN'T -- MR. GRADY, I DID NOT SEE ANY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT. IT SPEAKS TO THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES AND THE DIFFERENT TRACTS. >>BRIAN GRADY: IT'S IN THE MATRIX REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, MAXIMUM HEIGHTS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AH, IF I HAD JUST LOOKED DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. THERE IT IS. OKAY. SO WE'RE TALKING THREE STORIES MAXIMUM. OKAY. AND THE -- WELL, I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT, WHICH -- I KNOW THEY'RE TRYING TO FINISH REVIEWING THE LETTERS. MS. ZELMAN, IF YOU'RE -- WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. BEFORE YOU GET STARTED -- AND THIS WON'T COUNT IN YOUR TIME -- I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>LAURA BELFLOWER: TYPICALLY IT'S FIVE MINUTES. ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THOSE POINTS IN FIVE MINUTES, OR DO YOU WANT TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL TIME? >> I HOPE SO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. BEFORE THE TIME STARTS, THE GRAPHICS THAT SHOW WHERE THE EASEMENT IS TO THE NORTH, IT APPEARS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVISED MAP THAT ELAPP LAND IS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EASEMENT -- THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE EASEMENT. FURTHER NORTH IT'S ONLY ON THE EAST SIDE, BUT SOME PORTION OF IT IT APPEARS TO CROSS IT. IS THERE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT? YOU HAD INDICATED THAT THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE LAND UNDER THE EASEMENT -- THAT THERE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE LAND UNDER THE EASEMENT. IS THERE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACROSS THAT PROPERTY, OR IS IT JUST A -- AN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT THE COUNTY HAS? >> IT'S AN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT THE COUNTY HAS, WASTE SERVICES HAS -- WELL, WASTE SERVICES OWNS AND HAS AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER OUR -- THE PART THAT WE OWN, AND THE COUNTY HAS AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THE WHOLE THING. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A GAP BETWEEN WHAT IS DEPICTED AS BEING DESIGNATED AS ELAPP LAND -- THERE'S A GAP THAT THE WASTE MANAGEMENT OR THE OTHER COMPANY YOU INDICATED ACTUALLY OWNS THE LAND AS OPPOSED TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY OWNING IT? >> CORRECT. RON MAHAN, 12010 NORTHEAST HIGHWAY 70, ARCADIA, FLORIDA. I'M WITH TURFGRASS AMERICA. JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU CAN SEE UP HERE THE YELLOW PORTION OF THE ROADWAY IS WHAT IS THE PORTION OF THE ROADWAY THAT TURFGRASS AMERICA OWNS FEE SIMPLE. THE BLUE PORTION YOU SEE HERE, THE FEE SIMPLE IS OWNED BY WASTE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, AND WE HAVE -- TURFGRASS AMERICA OWNS AN EASEMENT, AN ACCESS EASEMENT, A GENERAL ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THAT SEGMENT THAT'S OWNED BY WASTE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, AND AS A -- JUST A CLARIFICATION, ELAPP OR THE COUNTY, AS THE OWNER OF THE ELAPP LANDS -- THEY OWN TWO PARCELS. THEY OWN A PARCEL HERE AND A PARCEL HERE. THEY HAVE FOR ACCESS PURPOSES INTO THOSE LANDS AN EASEMENT OVER THE FULL ROADWAY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. BUT -- >> FOR ACCESS PURPOSES, FOR WHEN THEY GET ONTO MANAGEMENT CONTROL BURNS, ET CETERA. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BUT IT'S JUST FOR ACCESS, THERE'S NO CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER ANY OF THE LAND THAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR YOUR ACCESS? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS I HAD IS, IS THERE ANY CONDITION AS TO WHERE THE 350 UNITS THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR IN THE FIRST PHASE, IF YOU WILL -- WHERE THEY WOULD GO AND WHAT TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS THEY WOULD BE? >> NO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SO THAT'S JUST LEFT OPEN? >> CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> I'LL TRY TO GO QUICKLY THROUGH THESE AND GO IN THE ORDER -- I'M SORRY. >> JUST A -- AS A NORMAL COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT, OBVIOUSLY THOSE ARE GOING TO BE IN THE PHASES TOWARDS THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY BUT ARE GOING TO HAVE THE ACCESS ROAD TO 672, JUST FROM A DEVELOPMENTAL STANDPOINT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MS. ZELMAN, BEFORE YOU START, DID STAFF HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER THAT YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS ON THIS? >>BRIAN GRADY: I HAD NOTHING FURTHER. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I'LL TRY TO GO REAL QUICKLY. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE ROAD GOING THROUGH THE ELAPP PROPERTY, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S AN EXISTING ACCESS RIGHT NOW. WE ARE REQUIRED AGAIN TO COORDINATE WITH THE COUNTY STAFF, THE COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION ON WILDLIFE CROSSINGS. THE -- THERE IS -- YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THE DEVELOPMENT IS ALL CONCENTRATED INTERNAL TO THE SITE, AND THERE'S LARGE SWATHS OF OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO ALL THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY. SOMEONE MADE THE COMMENT THAT RIGHT NOW THAT NORTH-SOUTH ROAD IS LIMITED TO ONE OR TWO TRUCKS. THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT CAN TRAVEL ON THAT ROAD RIGHT NOW. THERE WAS REFERENCE TO A ROAD BEING -- THE 19th AVENUE EXTENSION BEING REMOVED FROM A PLAN IN APRIL OF 2007, AND I'M GOING TO LET RON EXPLAIN THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT THAT WAS ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT ROAD IN THIS GENERAL VICINITY, THE SUMNER ROAD. THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THIS BEING, YOU KNOW, PREMATURE AND THESE GHOST-TOWN SUBDIVISIONS. THIS TONIGHT IS JUST A FIRST STEP. NO ONE'S GOING TO RUSH OUT AND DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, CERTAINLY NOT IN THE MARKET THAT WE HAVE TODAY, BUT LIKE ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER, THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND AT THIS TIME GET ENTITLEMENTS APPROVED SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE MARKET THEY CAN BEGIN TO DEVELOP. THEY'RE, AGAIN, NOT GOING TO GO OUT AND BUILD A GHOST TOWN. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY WAIVER OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS. I THINK MR. HEY HAS COVERED THAT. WITH REGARD -- SOMEONE MENTIONED THE DANGER THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED BY THE CONTROLLED BURNS THAT ARE REQUIRED. WE DID ACTUALLY CONSULT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, AND THEY RECOMMENDED A FORESTER WHO REVIEWED THIS SITE AND DETERMINED THAT WE WOULDN'T NEED TO CLOSE THE ROAD FOR THE BURNS AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA WOULD NOT PROPOSE -- CREATE A HAZARD FOR THE BURNS OR A HAZARD TO THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE DEVELOPMENT, AND WE WILL SUBMIT THAT INTO THE RECORD. AS FAR AS THE -- WE DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AGAIN, THAT WE HAVE 750 FEET OF OPEN SPACE BETWEEN OUR DEVELOPMENT AND THE ELAPP PROPERTY. THE EMERGENCY ROAD CAN HANDLE TWO-WAY TRAFFIC. I'M NOT SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. THIS CONDITION ABOUT THE KEYS BEING PROVIDED TO THE EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD IS NOT UNIQUE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE PEOPLE DO REQUIRE WHEN YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD WHERE YOU WANT TO KEEP IT GATED SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T USE IT FOR OTHER THAN EMERGENCY ACCESS, BUT YOU ALSO NEED TO BE ABLE TO LET THE FIRE RESCUE PEOPLE IN. THAT IS -- THAT'S A COMMON THING, AND THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE COUNTY. SOMEONE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A THOUSAND HOMES WITH A SINGLE ACCESS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A THOUSAND HOMES WITH A SINGLE ACCESS. WITH THE SINGLE ACCESS PLUS THE EMERGENCY ACCESS, WE'RE LIMITED, AGAIN, TO 350 UNITS. THE TRAFFIC STUDY DOESN'T SHOW THAT THERE WILL BE A THOUSAND COMMUTERS AN HOUR AS SOMEONE SAID. PEOPLE KEEP BRINGING UP THIS 19th AVENUE EXTENSION. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE 19th AVENUE EXTENSION, WE'RE DEDICATING RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSISTENT WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN, BUT WE DON'T NEED THE 19th AVENUE EXTENSION TO OCCUR ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST FOR OUR PROJECT TO WORK, SO WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY ASKING FOR THAT. WITH REGARD TO HURRICANE SHELTERS, THAT'S ADDRESSED IN CONDITION NUMBER 19. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THAT, BUT WE'RE REQUIRED TO MITIGATE WITH EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER. WITH REGARD TO THINGS BEING HORSE TRADED AT THE LAST MINUTE, YOU KNOW, FRIDAY FOR THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD FROM KEITH WILEY ABOUT THAT -- THE CROSSINGS CONDITIONS, SO WE WERE KIND OF HIT WITH THAT LATE. I THINK MR. HEY ADDED SOME CONDITIONS TONIGHT, SO WE WERE HIT WITH THAT LATE, SO IT CERTAINLY WASN'T OUR INTENT EITHER TO BE NEGOTIATING AT THE LAST MINUTE, BUT THAT HAPPENS, AND IN THE DEFENSE OF STAFF, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE SAID, OH, THE STAFF IS LOOKING AT THESE THINGS FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT. WELL, THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR A YEAR, JUST AS HAVE WE, BUT SOMETIMES WHEN SOMEONE ASKS A QUESTION, IT'S SOMETHING YOU'VE LOOKED AT SO LONG AGO THAT YOU NEED TO PULL OUT THE CODE OR PULL OUT THE PLAN AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN, AND I THINK THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS HAPPENING TONIGHT. IT WASN'T -- IT CERTAINLY WASN'T BEING LOOKED AT FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT. JUST A COUPLE OTHER POINTS. YOU KNOW, THE -- AGAIN, ON THE 19th AVE., IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALL WE'RE SEEKING TO DO IF WE DO HAVE THAT SECONDARY ACCESS THERE IS IMPROVE A ROAD THAT'S ALREADY THERE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE VALENCIA LAKES DRI AND SUBDIVISION, THERE'S ALREADY AN EXTENSION OF 19th AVE. THAT WOULD CONNECT WITH OUR ROAD AT WESTLAKE, SO THAT'S ALREADY PLANNED FOR. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO AGAIN SNEAK SOMETHING IN. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ADVOCATING THE EXTENSION FARTHER TO THE EAST. AND I BELIEVE I'VE COVERED WHAT I WANT TO COVER. I'M GOING TO SUBMIT THE LETTER ABOUT THE CONTROLLED BURNS INTO THE RECORD, AND I'VE GOT A COPY FOR YOU IF YOU'D LIKE, AND I THINK MR. MAHAN WOULD LIKE TO ADD A COUPLE OF POINTS IF THAT'S OKAY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND ON THAT, I KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CONCERN THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS NOT BEING ABLE TO REVIEW THIS LETTER, BUT IT IS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD, AND IT WOULD BE A POINT THAT YOU COULD ADDRESS AND ASKING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> AND I MAY HAVE SOME EXTRA COPIES WITH ME. I'LL LOOK AND GIVE SOME OUT TO A REPRESENTATIVE IF I CAN FIND SOME. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A FEW ISSUES. RON MAHAN, 12010 NORTHEAST HIGHWAY 70 IN ARCADIA, FLORIDA, WITH TURFGRASS AMERICA. THE -- WITH RESPECT TO THE 19th AVENUE EXTENSION, AS ANDREA INDICATED, THAT'S NOT -- WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE ALLOWING FOR THAT SHOULD THAT BECOME A PART OF THE WIMAUMA COMMUNITY PLAN, BUT WHILE THAT WAS -- THERE WAS A REFERENCE THAT THIS WAS SHOT DOWN, I GUESS, ONCE BEFORE BACK IN 2007, CPA 06- 28. THAT ACTUALLY WAS AN EXTENSION OF THE JOE SUMNER ROAD WHICH WAS FURTHER NORTH. IT ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH ELAPP LANDS, AND IN FACT, ACTUALLY IT REQUIRED GOING -- TAKING RIGHT-OF-WAY NEAR SUMNER ROAD, YOU CAN SEE. THAT WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN ELAPP LANDS THROUGH HERE, CROSSED UP HERE, AND GONE UP AND REQUIRED ACTUAL ELAPP LANDS TO BE USED FOR A ROADWAY, AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS SHOT DOWN IN 2007, AND WE HAD CONCURRED WITH THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE CROSSING IN THE CONDITIONS, WE HAD REQUESTED THE WORD "SIGNIFICANT" IN THERE, AND WE AGREE -- WOULD AGREE NOT TO -- WE WOULD WITHDRAW THE REQUEST ON THAT CONDITION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> JAMES RATLIFF WITH WILSONMILLER, AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS. LET ME PUT THIS BACK ON THE ELMO HERE. ANDREA HAD STATED THAT THE BUFFERING WAS 750 FEET, AND THAT -- I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WAS TO THE NORTHERN PART. THAT WAS THE PART OF THE PLAN THAT WE HAD CHANGED IN RESPONSE TO CITIZEN CONCERNS. IT VARIES ON THE PLAN ANYWHERE FROM 2O0 FEET, I BELIEVE, AT A MINIMUM TO 400 ON THE EASTERN PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT, AND IT'S VERY VARIABLE, SO JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AS WELL. THE ROAD THROUGH TO THE NORTH IS -- IT'S NOT UNIQUE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BALM-BOYETTE SCRUB, WHICH I THINK SOMEBODY SAID THAT WE WERE IMPACTING -- WE ARE NOT IMPACTING THE BALM-BOYETTE SCRUB, AND THE ROAD THAT IS GOING BETWEEN THE TWO PARCELS OF THE BALM ROAD SCRUB IS SIMILAR TO BALM WIMAUMA ROAD GOING THROUGH THE BALM-BOYETTE SCRUB PRESERVE. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT. AS FAR AS SPRAWL, AGAIN, THIS ISN'T SPRAWL. THIS WAS -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST PROJECT OUT OF THIS AWARD-WINNING PLAN, AND WE HOPE TO BE DOING IT JUSTICE, BUT I DID WANT TO SPEAK TO THE JOBS REQUIREMENT. THERE IS A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS 2,000 UNITS BASICALLY -- THERE'S A CREDIT, A KITTY AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS -- THERE ARE 2,000 HOMES THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED BEFORE YOU HAVE TO START ACCOUNTING FOR THAT REQUIREMENT, SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT BY NOT PROVIDING THAT MULTIFAMILY -- OR NOT -- I'M SORRY, NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTERNAL TO THE PROJECT. WE ARE USING UP SOME OF THOSE CREDITS, SO TO SPEAK, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE RECORD. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. STAFF HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? SEEING NOTHING FURTHER, THEN THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER IS CLOSED, AND WE WILL TAKE A BREAK UNTIL JUST BEFORE 9:30. [RECESS TAKEN] >>BRIAN GRADY: WE'RE ON AIR. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF YOU'LL CALL THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 11, REZONING APPLICATION 08-1268. THE APPLICANT IS ROTARY'S CAMP FLORIDA, INCORPORATED. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM ASC-1 AND RSC-6 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CAMP ON THE PROJECT. TYLON McGEE WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM HEARING MASTER. MICHAEL HORNER, 14502 NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, SUITE 200, TAMPA 33618, REPRESENTING ROTARY'S CAMP FLORIDA. WITH ME THIS EVENING IS MIKE EDENFIELD, WHO IS A FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE ROTARY BOARD AS WELL AS EXISTING BOARD MEMBER CURRENTLY FOR THE TRUSTEES OF THE ROTARY. MADAM CHAIRPERSON, THIS IS -- MADAM HEARING MASTER, THIS IS A 17.5-ACRE TRACT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMP FLORIDA ROAD WEST OF LAKEWOOD DRIVE. IT'S BEEN A PARENT TRACT FOR QUITE A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW, CURRENTLY HAS SPLIT ZONING DISTRICT, ASC-1 AND RSC-6, ALTHOUGH I NOTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT IT ONLY REFLECTED THE ASC-1 ZONING DISTRICT. IT IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. WE ARE SEEKING A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN- SPECIFIC REZONING TO ALLOW A BETTER UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE SOME UNIQUE LAND USES OUT THERE, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IF YOU'VE COMPLETED YOUR FIELD CHECK. WE HAVE SAT DOWN WITH STAFF ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. THIS IS A UNIQUE LAND USE. THEREFORE, WE FELT THE PD WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE DISTRICT TO PURSUE. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SPECIAL USE AT SOMETIME PRIOR ON THIS. RECORDS REFLECT AN 8.5-BY-11 HAND-DRAWN SITE PLAN. AFTER CONSULTATION WITH STAFF, IT WAS FELT THAT THE SITE PLAN PD EFFORT WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE PURSUIT. WE STAND BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WITH THAT DETAILED PLAN OF RECORD. OF THAT 17.7-ACRE PARENT TRACT, MS. BELFLOWER, WE HAVE 9.6 ACRES OF UPLAND, APPROXIMATELY EIGHT ACRES OF WETLAND. THAT WETLAND IS PRIMARILY WITHIN THE WATERFRONT OF CHAPMAN LAKE AS WELL AS GORNTO LAKE. THIS HAS BEEN AN EXISTING CAMPGROUND FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. OUR CLIENTS CLOSED ON THIS PROPERTY BACK IN 1991; HOWEVER, THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH HAS OWNED AND OPERATED THIS AS A CAMPGROUND -- GOSH, I THINK THE RECORDS REFLECT BACK TO THE 1950s. THERE WAS A SMALL-PERIOD OR A SHORT-PERIOD DURATION WHERE THEY DID NOT OPERATE AS A CAMP, BUT ESSENTIALLY FOR THE LAST 40 TO 45 YEARS THIS HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE A CAMP FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS AND CERTAINLY THOSE THAT HAVE CHALLENGES BOTH MEDICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY. THIS IS A SERVICE THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE ROTARIES CLUB. THIS IS A NONPROFIT 501(C)(3) CORPORATION. THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PARK-LIKE SETTING. IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE KIDS THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE TIME A YEAR, PARTICULARLY DURING THE SUMMERTIME THEY CAN GET OUT, THEY CAN FORGET ABOUT THEIR PROBLEMS, THEY CAN BE WITH THEIR PEERS, AND JUST HAVE FUN, AND THAT'S THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THE -- OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS THE EFFORTS OF THE ROTARIES CAMP. THERE ARE USER GROUPS THAT RENT THESE FACILITIES, AND ESSENTIALLY, MADAM HEARING MASTER, THERE ARE NO FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES. WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, AND I THINK SOME CONFUSION AROSE ABOUT WHERE DO ALL THE EMPLOYEES PARK AND WHERE DO ALL THE CAMP COUNSELORS PARK. ESSENTIALLY THERE ARE NO FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES. THERE'S ONE PARK MANAGER THAT MAKES SURE THE GROUNDS ARE MAINTAINED, THAT MAKES SURE THAT THE POWER IS ON, BUT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, ONCE THOSE PREMISES ARE OCCUPIED, THEY ARE FILLED BY THE CAMPERS, AND THEN YOU HAVE CAMP COUNSELORS THAT COME IN WITH THOSE CAMPERS REGARDING THOSE SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN. MOST OF THEM COME IN ON THE BUSES WITH THE CAMPERS, AND THERE'S VERY FEW FULL-TIME STAFFERS THAT DRIVE EVEN SEPARATE VEHICLES. SO OVERALL THERE'S A SMALL AREA IN THE NORTH PART OF THIS CAMPGROUND THAT ACCOMMODATES THOSE VEHICLES THAT ARE PERMANENT FOR THAT WEEK STAY OR PERHAPS TWO-WEEK STAY, BUT FOR MOST OF THE SUMMER CAMPING ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS, ONLY THE BUSES COME IN, THEY ARRIVE, AND THEN THEY DEPART AFTER THE CHILDREN GET OFF THE BUSES. I WOULD SAY MAXIMUM DURATION OF PERHAPS 30 MINUTES. THERE'S AN INFIRMARY BUILDING AT THE FRONT OF THIS CAMPGROUND THAT ALLOWS THE CHECK-IN OF THE CAMPERS. WE'RE NOW MOVING SOME OF THESE DESIGNATIONS AND FINE-TUNING THE LONG-TERM PLANS OF THE CAMPGROUND, BUT MOSTLY THAT FRONT AREA IS A RECEIVING AREA, AND THEN THOSE BUSES DO NOT PARK, THEY DO NOT STAY OVERNIGHT, THEY DEPART. AT THE END OF THE CAMP PERIOD, BUSES RETURN. ALL THE CAMPERS GET BACK ON THE BUSES AND LEAVE. THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN, MADAM HEARING MASTER, HAVE BEEN TAKING PART IN THE CAMPGROUND ACTIVITIES OVER THE YEARS. THEY COME FROM ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTY AND CERTAINLY ALL PARTS OF THE STATE, EVEN SOME GROUPS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY. THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY REASONS THAT ARE OUR CLIENT IS SEEKING THE PD REZONING, AND THOSE ARE, AS WE INDICATED IN OUR FILING DOCUMENTS, TO ADD FOUR CABINS WITH APPROXIMATELY 20-CABIN CAPACITY -- 20 CAMPERS PER CABIN CAPACITY, EXCUSE ME, FOR A TOTAL OF 80 ADDITIONAL. THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 110 TO 120 EXISTING CAMPERS. THAT WILL TAKE OUR TOTAL CAMPER CAPACITY TO APPROXIMATELY 200. WHETHER IT'S 160, 180, OR 195 OVER THE NEXT FIVE, TEN YEARS, WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE, BUT THE LONG-RANGE PLANS WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE TO TEN YEARS ARE TO CONSTRUCT THE ADDITIONAL FOUR CABINS TO ALLOW THE 80-CAMPER EXPANSION. ADDITIONALLY, THIS CAMPGROUND IS WOEFULLY DEFICIENT IN ITS DINING HALL CAPACITY. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 2500 SQUARE FEET. YOU CAN IMAGINE THE CONGESTION AND THE CONGREGATION OF ALL THE CAMPERS TRYING TO GET FED AT ONE LUNCHTIME HOUR, DINNER HOUR, THEREFORE, THE MOST CRITICAL STAGING ISSUE NEEDS ARE TO EXPAND THIS DINING HALL TO APPROXIMATELY 7500 SQUARE FEET. THOSE PLANS HAVE BEEN DRAWN, THEY'VE BEEN SUBMITTED. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCES WITH THE COUNTY STAFF AND PRESUBMITTAL MEETINGS. MARK JOHNSON, DYKES ARCHITECTS, IS THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD, AND THOSE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AS WELL. THAT DINING FACILITY EXPANSION, MADAM HEARING MASTER, IS IN THE CENTER PART OF THE CAMPGROUND. SINCE THAT'S THE FOCAL POINT, THAT IS THE MOST INTERNALIZED COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSAL. JUST LET ME LIST A FEW OF THE USES, AND IF YOU WANT TO JOT DOWN THE WEB SITE, MADAM HEARING MASTER, IT'S ROTARYSCAMPFLORIDA.ORG. I'M GOING TO FILE CERTAIN EXCERPTS FROM THE WEB SITE INTO THE RECORD, BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE ACTIVITIES, THEY HAVE A PLAYGROUND, POOL, ARCHERY, VOLLEYBALL, THEY HAVE A LIBRARY, BUTTERFLY GARDEN, BASKETBALL COURTS, GAME COURTS, PLAYING FIELDS, ARTS PAVILION, CRAFTS, ASSEMBLY HALL, PICNIC TABLES, CAMPFIRE, GAZEBO, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. I'LL NOT READ ALL OF THIS WEB SITE EXCERPT INTO THE RECORD, BUT I WILL FILE IT SO THAT YOU CAN READ IT AT YOUR DISCRETION. IN TERMS OF THE TWO WETLAND AREAS, WE HAVE THAT WETLAND SURVEY COMPLETED. THAT WAS COMPLETED JULY 31st OF THIS YEAR. EPC'S COMMENT FILED OF RECORD INDICATES NO OBJECTION. THIS, OF COURSE, IS GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS. AND AS YOU'RE ALSO PROBABLY AWARE, MS. BELFLOWER, SECTION 6.11.20 IS THE -- IS THE BASIS FOR THE CAMPGROUND TRANSITION FACTOR, IF YOU WILL, FOR CONVERSION OF CAMPER UNITS OR CAMPER SITES TO THE DENSITY PER ACRE, AND IT'S CURRENTLY TEN CAMPERS PER ONE DWELLING UNIT. WE HAVE 9.6 ACRES OF UPLAND. IF YOU TAKE THE 9.6 ACRES -- WE'RE IN A RES-6 COMP PLAN -- TIMES THE TEN-CAMPER-PER-DWELLING-UNIT CONVERSION TIMES THE 1.25, SINCE OUR WETLAND EXCEEDS 25% OF THE PARENT TRACT, THE OVERALL CAMPER CAPACITY OF THIS SITE IS ABOUT 720. SO I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU WE ARE LESS THAN 25% OR APPROXIMATELY 25% OF THAT CAPACITY. THE CAMPGROUND HAS HAD A GOOD-NEIGHBOR POLICY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. THEY HAVE A LIGHTS OUT POLICY. THEY HAVE NOISES CERTAINLY ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPERS HAVING FUN, BUT THEY DO THEIR BEST TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. IN FACT, WE'VE HAD STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY. AS RECENT AS LAST WEEK, CLOSEST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE CALLED OUR OFFICE AS WELL AS THE BOARD MEMBERS, INDICATED THEY'RE IN SUPPORT. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION LETTERS THAT HAVE COME INTO THE FILE. WE CERTAINLY HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY. THIS WILL HAVE LIMITED IMPACTS, MADAM HEARING MASTER, IN TERMS OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS, CERTAINLY IN TERMS OF THE NIGHTTIME ACTIVITIES. I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE HAS BEEN A RECENT T- MOBILE CELL TOWER APPROVAL GRANTED APPROXIMATE TO THIS LOCATION AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER, SO WE MAY WANT TO AMEND CONDITION 1 SINCE THAT DECISION WAS RENDERED. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU WERE THE HEARING MASTER, MS. BELFLOWER, BUT IT WAS APPROVED FOR A MONOPOLE 155 FEET. I'LL SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD SHOWING THE SPECIFIC LOCATION. SO IN ORDER TO BE LEGAL CONFORMING FROM THIS POINT ON, I THINK WE NEED TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS TO ALLOW BOTH THE CAMPGROUND EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE'RE SEEKING AND THOSE SPECIFIC USES AS WELL AS THIS CELL TOWER APPROVAL. AND BY THE WAY, THE T-MOBILE CELL LEASE ENCOMPASSES ABOUT 3600 SQUARE FEET TOTAL. WE HAVE A FINDING OF CONSISTENCY FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THEIR ASSESSMENTS ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THIS CAMPGROUND THAT'S SERVED THE COMMUNITY AND THESE CHILDREN FOR OVER 35, 40 YEARS. WE HAVE NO AGENCY OBJECTIONS THAT I'VE NOTED OF RECORD IN THE OPTIX REVIEW, THE FILE REVIEW. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALSO FILES THIS -- OR CONSIDERS THIS AN APPROPRIATE USE, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. I WOULD NOTE THAT CONDITION 7 INDICATES INTERNAL PARKING AND NO PARKING TO THE EAST. WE CERTAINLY WILL HAVE NO PARKING TO THE EAST, MADAM HEARING MASTER, AND PARKING IS GOING TO BE INTERNALIZED AND HAS BEEN INTERNALIZED FOR THOSE LIMITED CARS THAT PARK THERE. BY INTERNALIZED, WE CERTAINLY HOPE THAT MEANS NO DIRECT PARKING ABUTTING CAMP FLORIDA ROAD TO THE NORTH, AND THAT IS THE CASE. WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT BUFFER ALONG CAMP FLORIDA ROAD WITH A SIGNIFICANT BUFFER ON THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL FOR THAT SUBDIVISION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CAMP FLORIDA ROAD, AND THE PARKING THAT WE HAVE, IF ANY, PERHAPS FIVE TO TEN CARS MAXIMUM AT ANY GIVEN TIME, WOULD BE INTERNALIZED IN OUR INTERPRETATION. I THINK STAFF IS BANTERING ABOUT A SPECIFIC LINEAR DISTANCE, AND WE OPPOSE THAT FOR THE VERY REASON WE WANT TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY FOR ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES. THE OTHER ISSUE, MADAM HEARING MASTER, THAT WE SAW ON THE STAFF REPORT WAS A REFERENCE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A STATEMENT THAT THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE VACATED PRIOR TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR THAT ANY BUILDING ENCROACHMENT SHALL BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THIS ACTION. THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS VACATED ON APRIL 22nd OF 1970. I'M GOING TO FILE THAT ORDER OF VACATION, THE BOARD RESOLUTION INTO THE RECORD. WE DID FILE THAT TO THE COUNTY. IT WAS KIND OF HARD TO READ, BUT I HAVE A GOOD, CLEAR COPY FOR YOU THIS EVENING, SO SINCE THERE IS NO EASEMENT INTEREST WITHIN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION -- AS YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS US ON BOTH SIDES OR OUR CLIENT -- THERE'S NO REASON TO WAIVE ANY SPECIAL SETBACKS OR ENCROACHMENTS OF THOSE STRUCTURES BECAUSE OUR CLIENT NOW OWNS THAT ENTIRE 17.7 ACRES IN FEE TITLE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU, MADAM HEARING MASTER. I'D LIKE TO HAVE MR. EDENFIELD DISCUSS JUST BRIEFLY THE CAMP'S OPERATION, HIS INVOLVEMENT, AND THEN I'LL FILE THESE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: MY ONLY QUESTION WAS WHICH CONDITION WAS THAT ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY? >> ACTUALLY, MS. BELFLOWER -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I THINK IT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> I THINK IT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT AS A PREFACED COMMENT AT THE TOP THAT I THINK WAS LISTED AS PART OF A CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT, SO IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC CONDITION, BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATION IS NOT NECESSARY BASED UPON THE VACATION DOCUMENTS I'M GOING TO FILE INTO THE RECORD. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I'M NOT SEEING IT IN THE COPY THAT I HAVE OF THE STAFF -- OKAY. I BELIEVE STAFF -- >> IT'S THE TOP OF REQUEST DETAILS, AND THEN IT'S STAFF FINDING BULLET POINT NUMBER ONE, SO IT'S NOT A CONDITION GRANTED, BUT IT IS A STAFF FINDING THAT WE JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ON THE SITE PLAN YOU SHOW PROPOSED CELL TOWER, BUT IT ALSO SHOWS IT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ACCESS ROAD. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S A DRIVEWAY. THE DRIVE INTO THE CAMPGROUND IS TO THE EAST, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY DRIVE INTO THE CAMPGROUND, AND IN ACTUALITY, MADAM HEARING MASTER, THE DROP-OFF AND DEPARTURES, THE TRAFFIC WILL BE ACTUALLY DRIVING DIRECTLY AROUND THAT CELL TOWER, SO IT'S ALMOST DEAD SPACE, IF YOU WILL. THERE'S A ROTARY TURN, AND THAT DRIVEWAY COMES IN, AND THAT WILL BE WHERE THE CELL TOWER IS PROPOSED, AND THEN THE CAMPERS AND THE BUSES WILL GO AROUND THAT CELL TOWER, DROP OFF, THE INFIRMARY BUILDING'S GOING TO BE USED FOR THE CHECK-IN, AND THEN THEY EXIT OUT THAT SAME DRIVEWAY, AND THERE'S A MAIN DRIVE COMING IN AS WELL DIRECTLY NORTH-SOUTH FROM CAMP FLORIDA ROAD. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SO YOU'RE GOING TO SUBMIT A REVISED SITE PLAN THAT WILL REFLECT THE LOCATION OF THE CELL TOWER AND THE COMPOUND THAT GOES AROUND THE CELL TOWER AND HOW THAT AFFECTS YOUR DRIVEWAYS? >> WE WILL DO THAT ON THE CERTIFIED PLAN. IN FACT, THIS IS A -- I'LL JUST CONTINUE ON. THERE'S AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE CELL TOWER GRAPHIC OF THE 3600-SQUARE-FOOT T-MOBILE LEASE. THE TOWER IS HERE, ACCESS DRIVE, AND THEY'LL BE DRIVING AROUND THE POLE AND COMING BACK OUT THE SAME DRIVEWAY, SO WE FORESEE NO DISRUPTION, AND IN FACT, IT WAS A VERY FAVORABLE DEAL TO THE CAMPGROUND FINANCIALLY, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, AND IMPROVED CELL SERVICE AS WELL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I'LL SUBMIT THESE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD. I DON'T BELIEVE MR. EDENFIELD WAS SWORN, SO YOU MAY HAVE TO SWEAR HIM IN AS WELL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF YOU WOULD JUST STATE THAT YOU SWEAR OR CONFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH. >> I DO. MY NAME IS MIKE EDENFIELD. OFFICE ADDRESS IS 206 MASON STREET, BRANDON, FLORIDA I'M THE PAST CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. I'VE CHAIRED IT FOUR TIMES IN THE LAST 18 YEARS. I CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT. WE STARTED THIS CAMP IN 1991 AS A CAMP FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL MEDICAL NEEDS, AND WE MAKE A HOME IN THE SUMMER AND THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE YEAR FOR CHILDREN WITH CANCER, MD, MS, AND DIABETES. ONE OF THE SHORTCOMINGS IN THE CAMP FROM THE FIRST YEAR WE WERE THERE IS THE DINING HALL. IT WAS BUILT BACK IN THE '50s. IT WAS BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE ABOUT 80 KIDS. WE CAN HANDLE 110 TO 120 NOW. SOMETIMES HALF OF THOSE ARE IN WHEELCHAIRS. WE CAN'T FEED THEM ALL AT ONCE, THEY CAN'T GET TOGETHER ALL AT ONCE. ONE OF THE THINGS A NEW DINING HALL WILL GIVE US IS A DISPENSARY FOR THEIR MEDS SO THAT WHEN THEY COME IN IN THE MORNING, AT LUNCH, IN THE EVENING, AS THEY ROLL THROUGH THE MEAL LINE, THEY GET THEIR MEDS AND GO RIGHT ON THROUGH. WITH REGARDS TO THE ISSUE ON THE PARKING, AS MR. HORNER MENTIONED, WE HAVE VERY FEW CARS ON-SITE. MOST OF THE KIDS COME IN IN BUSES, 30, 40, 50 TO A BUS. THEY'RE DROPPED OFF, BUSES LEAVE. VERY FEW OF THE COUNSELORS DRIVE. THE ONES THAT DO ARE USUALLY YOUNGER KIDS, 18 TO 25. THEY'RE CARPOOLING, THEY PARK THERE. WITH REGARDS TO THE CELL TOWER, IT IS BASICALLY DEAD SPACE FOR US. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PAPER, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A DRIVEWAY THERE, AND THERE IS. IT'S A DIRT ROAD. WE'RE SIMPLY GOING TO GO AROUND THAT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >> THE EASEMENT WAS VACATED IN 1970, AND I JUST -- THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAVE. [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NOT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF I COULD STOP COUGHING, I DO. >> BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. >> AND I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T HAVE THE COUGH UNTIL TODAY. I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT -- MR. HORNER INDICATED THAT DIFFERENT USER GROUPS -- AND THERE WAS SOME ACTIVITY GOING ON OUT THERE THIS PAST SUNDAY WHEN I WAS OUT THERE LOOKING AT THE SITE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHICH TROOP WE HAD IN. LET ME GIVE YOU WHAT -- A NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS FOR US, AND WE LOOK AT TWO ITEMS. WE LOOK AT THE SUMMER, WHERE GENERALLY SPEAKING WE HAVE A GROUP COMING IN, DIABETES, MD, MS. THEY'LL COME IN ON A FRIDAY AND LEAVE THE FOLLOWING SATURDAY OR COME IN ON A SATURDAY, LEAVE THE FOLLOWING SUNDAY. IN THE OFF SEASON, SCHOOL YEAR, WE WILL HAVE GROUPS COME IN SOMETIMES ON A THURSDAY, USUALLY ON A FRIDAY, AND LEAVE ON A SUNDAY. OUR PRIMARY FUNCTION IS SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN AND ADULTS. ON A SPACE-AVAILABLE BASIS, THERE ARE SOME CHURCH GROUPS THAT USE OUR FACILITY, SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT GROUP MAY HAVE BEEN OUT THERE THIS PAST SUNDAY, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SO IT'S NOT ALL SPECIAL NEED CHILDREN, IT MAY BE CHURCH GROUPS THAT MAY INCLUDE ADULTS, IT MAY INCLUDE CHILDREN, IT MAY BE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT COME TO THE CAMP? >> CORRECT, ON A SECONDARY BASIS. PRIMARY FOCUS FOR US IS SPECIAL NEEDS. THEY GET FIRST PRIORITY. WE HAVE GROUPS THAT ARE BOOKED OUT INTO 2010 COMING IN. THEN ON A SPACE-AVAILABLE BASIS, IF THERE'S A LOCAL CHURCH THAT WANTS A CHURCH FUNCTION FOR THEIR KIDS AND THEIR FAMILY, WE MAKE THAT AVAILABLE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> YES, MA'AM. >> THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING MASTER. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE -- EXCUSE ME. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. HOW CAN I JUST FORGET ABOUT STAFF? >>TYLON McGEE: TYLON McGEE, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. AS STATED, THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CAMPGROUND FOR 200 CAMPERS. AS FAR AS BULLET POINT NUMBER ONE, MY REPORT WAS WRITTEN PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF HIS -- OF THE PAPERWORK FOR THE VACATING OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND IF YOU LOOK AT -- I DON'T KNOW -- IF YOU LOOK AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INFORMATION, IT ALSO STATES THAT THERE IS 15-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO THE APPLICANT WOULD EITHER HAVE TO VACATE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY OR THE UTILITY EASEMENT RIGHT-OF- WAY OR DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY CAN HAVE THE USES WITHIN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO THAT BULLET POINT WOULD STILL STAND. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IS THAT LISTED AS A CONDITION OR IS IT JUST NOTED? >>TYLON McGEE: NO, IT WAS JUST IN STAFF FINDINGS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ONE WOULD HOPE THAT IT'S NOT BEING USED SINCE THEY'VE GOT A SWIMMING POOL IN IT. >> IT'S NOT. THERE'S NO EASEMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>TYLON McGEE: EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS -- THE ACTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS VACATED, WITHIN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY THERE'S A 15-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IT'S -- >>TYLON McGEE: THAT WOULD NEED TO BE VACATED. >>BRIAN GRADY: IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO GO BEYOND THE ZONING, EITHER THEY'VE GOT IT OR THEY DON'T, AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT SITE PLANNING. >>BRIAN GRADY: WE NEED TO RESOLVE WHETHER OR NOT -- THE DOCUMENTATIONS I THINK THEY SUBMITTED WERE QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT THAT EASEMENT WAS VACATED, SO THAT'S JUST THE ISSUE, SO WE'VE GOT TO CLARIFY WHETHER THAT EASEMENT WAS VACATED OR NOT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT -- [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>TYLON McGEE: AND I HAVEN'T RECEIVED THAT DOCUMENTATION AS OF YET THAT IT HASN'T BEEN. UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE APPLICANT CAN HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 785 CAMPERS. THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING 200 CAMPERS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. CONDITION NUMBER ONE, AMENDING IT TO ADD THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE OR THE MONOPOLE, YOU CAN DO THAT. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. THE SITE WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT FALLS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND ALSO FALLS WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES AT THE ROTARY CLUB CAMPGROUND LOCATED ON 17.7 ACRES AND FRONTING ON CAMP FLORIDA ROAD, WEST OF LAKEWOOD ROAD. CURRENTLY THERE ARE SEVEN CABINS ON-SITE, A DINING HALL, STORAGE BUILDINGS, AND VARIOUS RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. THE SITE IS WOODED ALONG THE PERIMETER AND ADJACENT TO RURAL HOMESITES ON LARGE LOTS. PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TEN CAMPERS CONSTITUTE ONE DWELLING UNIT, AND EACH CABIN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ACCOMMODATES APPROXIMATELY 20 CAMPERS. WITH THE MAXIMUM OF 200 CAMPERS, THIS WOULD EQUATE TO AN OVERALL DENSITY OF 20 DWELLING UNITS. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY SPECIFIED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. OVERALL, THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROVIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WITH CONDITIONS WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES AND WOULD NOT CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT USES. AND BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND THE ADDITION OF THE CELL TOWER DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING? >>DAVID HEY: NO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NO ONE, IF WE COULD ASK THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES BACK UP. >> THANK YOU, MS. BELFLOWER. I'LL JUST CONFIRM -- AGAIN, MICHAEL HORNER FOR THE RECORD - - THAT WE FILED TWO DOCUMENTS TO MS. McGEE. ONE WAS A FAXED POOR COPY, AND THEN I HAND-DELIVERED A BETTER-QUART COPY WHICH I FILED JUST A MINUTE AGO. THERE IS NO EASEMENT WITHIN THAT NORTH-SOUTH 25-FOOT RIGHT- OF-WAY. THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY VACATED. THERE ARE SOME EASEMENTS RUNNING PARALLEL TO CAMP FLORIDA ROAD THAT I BELIEVE THOSE FIRST DOCUMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN REFERENCING AND PERHAPS CONFUSED HER, BUT THERE ARE NO WATER AND SEWER LINES, THERE IS NO EASEMENT WITHIN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT'S BEEN VACATED, BUT YOU'LL BE CERTAINLY ABLE TO READ THOSE DOCUMENTS YOURSELF. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THANK YOU. SEEING NOTHING FURTHER ON THIS MATTER, THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 12. IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 08-1329. THE APPLICANT'S CWD, INCORPORATED. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL-1 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM HEARING MASTER. SCOTT SHERIDAN WITH KING ENGINEERING, 4921 MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 300, TAMPA, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, CWD, INC. BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, THE PD PETITION IS TO REZONE THREE PARCELS, APPROXIMATELY 42 ACRES OF LAND, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING EAGLES PD AND EXISTING EAGLES SUBDIVISION IN NORTHEAST -- OR NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THE PETITION BEFORE YOU IS FOR 49 UNITS TOTAL, WHICH IS 1.2 DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT OF A PLAN AMENDMENT A FEW MONTHS BACK INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO INCREASE THE LAND USE DENSITY ON THIS PROPERTY TO ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE ITS DEVELOPMENT AS ONE OF THE REMAINING PARCELS WITHIN THE EXISTING URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY. WE'VE WORKED PRETTY CLOSELY WITH STAFF ON THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN FRONT OF YOU AND FEEL THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT BOTH WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND OBVIOUSLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I DIDN'T HAVE A SITE PLAN BEFORE, SO -- YES, SIR, YOU ARE GOING TO NEED TO SIGN IN. OKAY. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AN AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A 49-UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION. THE PARCELS TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 42 ACRES, AND THEY'RE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE ADJACENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION SAID APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES OR 33% OF THE SITE CONSISTS OF WETLANDS. THEY DID HAVE CONCERNS OVER THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF THE ACCESS ROADS, SO WE PUT IN A CONDITION THAT RESTRICTS THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF ACCESS POINTS TO EPC APPROVAL. ADDITIONALLY, NATURAL RESOURCES INDICATED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES, INCLUDING WHAT APPEAR TO BE GRAND OAKS, AND THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT LISTED ANIMAL SPECIES ARE LOCATED ON THE SITE. A CONDITION HAS BEEN ADDED BY NATURAL RESOURCES TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE ALSO. PLANNING COMMISSION WAS CONCERNED ABOUT ADJACENT LOTS TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST, THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE, SO WE DID PUT IN A PROVISION FOR 8400-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS IN THAT AREA, 70 FEET WIDE WITH 25-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACKS ADJACENT TO PARCEL -- OR FOR PARCEL "A." STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPATIBLE AND COMPARABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, THEREFORE APPROVABLE. THANK YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THAT LAST CONDITION YOU WERE ADDRESSING IS FOR THE LOTS THAT ARE AT THE ENTRANCE; IS THAT CORRECT, OR CLOSE TO THE ENTRANCE? >>SUSAN MARINER: YES, BY PATTERSON ROAD. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I'M CONFUSED BY THE ZONING -- I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ASC-1, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE LOTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THESE POCKETS IS ALSO ZONED ASC-1, AND THEY'RE DEFINITELY NOT ONE-ACRE LOTS. IS -- WHAT IS THE STORY WITH THE PD? IT LOCKS LIKE THE PD CAME RIGHT UP TO THE STRIP OF LOTS BUT DID NOT INCLUDE THEM. IS THAT THE WAY THE ZONING -- >>SUSAN MARINER: I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE SITE. THE APPLICANT MAY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE COVER SHEET THAT YOU HAVE -- AND MAYBE THAT'S INCORRECT, BUT IT APPEARS LIKE THAT ENTIRE LINEAR STREET IS ASC-1. >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT ENTIRE LINEAR STREET IS ASC-1. I KNOW THE APPLICANT COULD PROBABLY EXPAND ON THE HISTORY, BUT THEY HAD -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT AREA ALONG EAGLE ENTRY DRIVE HAD BEEN PLATTED HISTORICALLY MANY, MANY YEARS AGO PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO THERE'S SOME VESTING THEY HAD THERE WITH RESPECT TO THOSE PLATTED LOTS ALONG THAT PORTION THERE. NOW, WHEREAS THESE AREAS WERE NOT PLATTED, THEY'RE UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP AS THIS PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THEY WEREN'T -- DIDN'T HAVE THAT SAME, YOU KNOW, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, VESTING ENTITLEMENTS, AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE IN THIS PROCESS BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN WAS AMENDED TO ALLOW MORE DENSITY IN THAT AREA BECAUSE OTHERWISE THESE AREAS WEREN'T DEVELOPABLE UNDER THE PRIOR RES-1 COMP PLAN BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURRED IN THOSE EXISTING PLATTED LOTS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>BRIAN GRADY: BECAUSE IT'S ALL UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS PD-H. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LOT SIZE IS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LOT SIZE IS ON THE PD-H TO THE NORTH? >> I DON'T. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: STAFF HAS NO PROBLEM WITH PUTTING 5,000-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS AT THE EDGE OF THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY? >> MADAM HEARING MASTER, IF I CAN DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS GRAPHIC I JUST PUT ON THE ELMO IS ACTUALLY THE LOTS IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: WELL, THERE WENT THE LIGHTS. I MEANT TO WARN YOU ALL THE LIGHTS GO OFF AT 10:00, AND HOPEFULLY SECURITY WILL GET THEM TURNED BACK ON VERY QUICKLY. >> OKAY. I ASSUME YOU CAN STILL SEE THAT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THIS HAS NOT BEEN A GOOD NIGHT FOR HAVING THIS HEARING. YOU DID IT. THEY WERE ON UNTIL THE DOOR SLAMMED. GO AHEAD. WE CAN -- WE CAN SEE THE GRAPHIC. >> AS LONG AS YOU CAN SEE THE GRAPHIC. WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A BLOW-UP OF PARCEL "B," WHICH IS THE PARCEL WITHIN THE PD IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT, AND WHAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED TO THE NORTH ARE ACTUALLY 50-FOOT LOTS IN THAT ADJACENT PD ZONING DIRECTLY NORTH OF US ON THAT EXISTING GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY TO OUR NORTH, SO THEY ARE CONSISTENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THANK YOU. >> SURE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD OF PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. DAVID HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THIS APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT FALLS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL-2 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND ALSO FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH COMMUNITY PLAN. THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES 49 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON THIS APPROXIMATELY 41.7-ACRE SITE. THE DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE 1.2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THIS COMPLIES WITH THE RESIDENTIAL-2 LAND USE CATEGORY. THIS SITE WAS PART OF A RECENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE LAND USE IN THIS AREA FROM RESIDENTIAL-1 TO RESIDENTIAL-2. THE INTENT OF THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA ON THE REMNANT PARCELS WITHIN THE LARGER PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA. THE SITE IS ADJACENT TO A LARGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SUBURBAN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON LOTS RANGING FROM 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 8,000 SQUARE FEET AND LARGER WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. PARCEL "A" DOES OF THE PROJECT DOES ABUT THE RURAL AREA TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST. AS SUCH, LOT SIZES ALONG THESE BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE LARGER TO PROVIDE A TRANSITION TO THE RURAL AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THE ALLOWANCE OF SOME SMALLER LOT SIZES PERMITS THE SITE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF 25% OF THE OPEN SPACE. OVERALL, THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROVIDE FOR A COMPATIBLE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE DENSITY AND SCALE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING IN THIS PART OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. AND BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? SEEING NO ONE, THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? DID YOU SUBMIT THAT PLAN? >> NO. [INAUDIBLE] >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. AND IF YOU HAVE THE PD NUMBER FOR THAT, IF IT'S NOT ON THE DRAWING WHAT THE ACTUAL REZONING NUMBER WAS. >> YEAH. LIKELY THAT PD NUMBER IS ON THE PLAN ITSELF. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IT IS ON THE PLAN? >> YES. >> YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> I HAVE IT IF YOU WANT IT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YES, IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE IT TO ME. >> IT'S 82- -- >> SIR, YOU HAVE TO BE ON RECORD. >> IT IS 82-0299, PD-H 82-0299. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS, SO I WILL JUST TAKE THE APPLICANT'S INFORMATION AS TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FROM THAT. >>BRIAN GRADY: IT SHOULD BE SCANNED. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IT SHOULD BE IN OPTIX? >>BRIAN GRADY: IT SHOULD BE. IF THERE IS A CERTIFIED GENERAL SITE PLAN, IT SHOULD BE, BUT YOU CAN CHECK IN OPTIX IN THE ARCHIVE TO SEE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 13, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 08-1167. THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO MODIFY EXISTING APPROVALS TO ALLOW FOR MORE RETAIL AND HOTEL USES WITHIN THE PROJECT. TYLON McGEE WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD. THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO MODIFY AN EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED IN 1999. WE'RE ASKING TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL HOTEL ROOMS AND A MIXED- USE PROJECT. WE'RE MODIFYING THE OFFICE AND RETAIL ENTITLEMENTS, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ABILITY TO USE A MATRIX FOR TRADE- OFFS. WE HAVE DELETED THE MANUFACTURING USES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN THE 1999 REZONING. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 301 AND I-4 AND SLIGH. IT'S ONE OF THE AREAS ENCOURAGED FOR THESE TYPES OF USES. I WON'T READ THEM INTO THE RECORD, BUT WE HAVE POLICY B-5, B-10, B-5.11 AND B-5.12 IN OUR FAVOR. ACCORDING TO EPC, THE COW PONDS ON THE PROPERTY ARE EXEMPT FROM A WETLANDS DELINEATION, AND WE DID ALSO ADD A 20-FOOT BUFFER ALONG SLIGH, MAPLE, AND THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ON THE CONDITIONS THAT ALONG SLIGH WE WILL ONLY BE PROVIDING FOR A 20-FOOT SCREENING. THERE WILL BE NO WALL OR FENCING PROVIDED. JUST TO GO OVER BRIEFLY, THERE WERE FOUR MINOR CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS. IN CONDITION NUMBER ONE, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF THIS EVENING TO STATE THAT A NEW CONDITION WOULD BE ADDED. ANY COMBINATION OF APPROVED USES MAY BE BUILT ON THE SITE PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE GROSS PEAK-HOUR TRIPS DO NOT EXCEED 1126 A.M. AND 1150 P.M. TRIPS BASED ON THE CURRENT ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES OR OTHER APPROVED STUDIES. RETAIL USES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN HOTEL OFFICE PODS "A" AND "B" EXCEPT AS ACCESSORY USES. THE USES ON-SITE SHALL CONSIST OF AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING, HOTEL OFFICE OR RETAIL. AT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL, THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE INBOUND AND OUTBOUND EXTERNAL P.M. TRIPS CONSISTENT WITH THIS REQUIREMENT, AND A REPORT ACCEPTABLE TO THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DEMONSTRATING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TRADE-OFF. A MINOR CHANGE TO THE CERTIFIED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN DEMONSTRATING THE TOTAL AMOUNTS OF TRADE-OFFS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF USES, AND THE STAFF WILL PUT THAT INTO THE RECORD. CONDITION 4 WAS MODIFIED JUST TO STATE THAT -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IS THAT TO REPLACE CONDITION 1 OR A NEW CONDITION? >> IT'S AN ADDITION. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AN ADDITION, OKAY. >> YES, MA'AM. CONDITION 4 WAS MODIFIED AT THE VERY END TO STATE, EXCEPT THAT OPAQUE BUFFERING AND FENCING ALONG SLIGH AVENUE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED. CONDITION 10 WAS MODIFIED. IT STATES CURRENTLY THAT WE WOULD BE IMPROVING -- MAY BE IMPROVING THE INTERSECTION OF 301 AT BRECKENRIDGE AND SLIGH. THAT SHOULD BE AT U.S. 301 AND THE PROJECT ENTRANCE. STAFF HAS THAT CHANGE FOR YOU. CONDITION NUMBER 12 IS JUST A CLARIFICATION THAT MAPLE LANE IS A LOCAL ROAD. SO WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY OF YOU. THANK YOU. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>TYLON McGEE: TYLON McGEE, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCREASE HOTEL ROOMS, INCREASE HOTEL SQUARE FOOTAGE, DECREASE OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE, DECREASE RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND DELETE MANUFACTURING USES, AND IS SEEKING ACCESS ONTO U.S. 41. AS FAR AS THE CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS, STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ADDITION TO CONDITION NUMBER 1, AND AS FAR AS CONDITION NUMBER 4, IT SHOULD SAY OPAQUE FENCING, NOT BUFFERING. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>TYLON McGEE: AND AS FAR AS THE CHANGES TO CONDITION NUMBER 10 AND 12, STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT TOO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE REVISED CONDITIONS IN THE RECORD FOR ME SINCE I DIDN'T WRITE ALL THAT DOWN? >>TYLON McGEE: YES. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>TYLON McGEE: BUT THE ADDITION, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A COPY OF IT FOR YOU, THEN GIVE IT TO YOU. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: WELL, IF YOU CAN JUST PUT IT INTO OPTIX AS A CHANGE TO CONDITION AGREED TO AT THE HEARING. >>TYLON McGEE: WE WILL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>DAVID HEY: THANK YOU, MADAM HEARING OFFICER. DAVID HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. IT WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SITE FALLS WITHIN THE TAMPA SERVICE AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THE PROJECT SITE IS THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE CURRENT PD TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF THE HOTEL USES ON-SITE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CM U-12 CATEGORY, WHICH IS TO ALLOW FOR URBAN-LEVEL INTENSITIES IN AREAS ADJACENT TO ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD INTERSECTIONS AND ALLOW FOR A MIXTURE OF USES IN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS. THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. HIGHWAY 301 AND SLIGH AVENUE IS ADJACENT TO THE SITE, AND BOTH FUNCTION AS ARTERIAL ROADWAYS. ESSENTIALLY THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION REDISTRIBUTES USES ALLOWABLE IN THIS FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. THE SITE IS LOCATED, AGAIN, ADJACENT TO AND HIGHLY ACCESSIBLE TO U.S. HIGHWAY 301 AND I-4. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR THE LOCATION OF MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS IN PROXIMITY TO INTERSTATE INTERCHANGES. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION PROVIDING A MIX OF USES INCLUDING HOTELS, RETAIL, AND OFFICE USES IS CONSISTENT AND FURTHERS PLAN, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES RELATED TO INTERCHANGE LAND USES. IT SHOULD BE NOTED ALSO THAT STAFF ORIGINALLY HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THE TRANSITION TOWARD THE LOWER-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THROUGH THE CONDITIONS THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MITIGATED BY THE APPLICANT, THE INTENSITY, OVER TO THE LOWER-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST. BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I WILL GIVE MS. McGEE'S NOTES BACK TO HER, AND IF YOU WILL JUST PUT THAT IN THE RECORD AS A CHANGE TO THE CONDITION. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION. SEEING NO ONE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER, MS. JAMES? SHE'S INDICATING NO. ALL RIGHT. THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE FINAL ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS AGENDA ITEM 14. IT'S MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 08-1278. THE APPLICANT'S MARK BENTLEY. THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PD TO MODIFY THE PROJECT TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE PROJECT. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING, MS. BELFLOWER. MY NAME IS MARK BENTLEY, 201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, TAMPA 33602. I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER, HILLSBOROUGH, LLC, AND I HAVE WITH ME THIS EVENING OUR PROJECT ENGINEER, MATT CAMPO, AND ONE OF THE PRINCIPALS, JASON RAPPAPORT, WITH HILLSBOROUGH, LLC. I IMAGINE YOU'VE ALREADY INSPECTED THE PROPERTY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I DID AS CLOSE AS I CAN GET TO IT. I DIDN'T GET ON THE PROPERTY. >> THAT'S A GOOD THING. THAT'LL SAVE US A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. IN ANY EVENT, IT'S 8.5 ACRES MORE OR LESS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF A MAJOR ARTERIAL, WHICH IS SIX-LANED STATE ROAD 580 OR ALSO KNOW AS HILLSBOROUGH, AND IT'S ABOUT A QUARTER MILE EAST OF RACE TRACK ROAD. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORIGINALLY AS A PD IN JANUARY OFF 2006, AND THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT PRS TO MODIFY ONE OF THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS. THE PROPOSAL NOW IS TO ACTUALLY ADD TWO ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES, MAINTAIN THE EXISTING, WHICH WAS ROUGHLY APPROVED FOR 38 TOWNHOMES AND 32,016 SQUARE FEET OF CG USES, OKAY, SO WE MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO WITH RESPECT TO I'LL CALL IT THE APPROVED PD. THEN WE ALSO HAVE A SCENARIO ONE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY 34 TOWNHOMES AND I THINK 16,000 MORE OR LESS SQUARE FEET OF CG. AND OPTION THREE WOULD BE ALL OFFICE OR RETAIL FOR THE PROJECT. SO THE FIRST TWO OPTIONS WOULD BE MORE OR LESS MIXED-USE, AND THE FINAL ONE WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF WHATEVER THE MARKET DICTATES, BUT THAT WOULD BE MORE OR LESS OFFICE AND RETAIL, AND -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IF I COULD INTERRUPT YOU. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED IN OPTION ONE THAT INCLUDES THE TOWN HOUSES? OR OPTION TWO, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE? >> OKAY. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED. THE ORIGINAL PD WAS APPROVED AS WE SPEAK RIGHT NOW, 32,016 SQUARE FEET OF CG USES AND 38 TOWNHOMES. IT WAS A DENSITY OF SIX PER ACRE MORE OR LESS. SO WHAT THEY CHARACTERIZED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS OPTION ONE IS 16,000 SQUARE FEET OF CG USES AND 34 TOWNHOMES, AND I GUESS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE AND TWO IS THERE'S AN ALLOCATION OF .42 ACRES OF WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THE RESIDENTIAL AREA IN OPTION ONE, AND THEY'VE CREATED ANOTHER PARCEL THERE, BUT IN ANY EVENT, THAT'S BEEN A REDUCTION, I GUESS WE'LL CALL IT OPTION ONE VERSUS THE ORIGINAL PD OBVIOUSLY. OKAY? SO WE GO FROM 32,000 TO 16,000, 38 UNITS TO 34, AND OPTION THREE IS AN F.A.R. OF .311, WHICH IS FAR BELOW WHAT'S ALLOWED UNDER THE OC CATEGORY, AND THAT WOULD BE COMPLETE RETAIL AND/OR OFFICE. AND JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THE CONDITIONS. THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ABOUT MAINTAINING THE ORIGINAL PD, AND WE JUST THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF ASSUMED, AND WE'LL TAKE BLAME TORE THAT, SO I'VE WORKED IT OUT WITH STAFF. WE'RE JUST GOING TO RECOGNIZE WHAT WE CALL THE ORIGINAL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PUT THAT UNDER CONDITION 1 BEFORE YOU SEE -- IT'LL SAY -- SO THIS WILL BE THE FIRST CONDITION UNDER ONE. THEN YOU'LL SEE OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO, AND THEN ALSO AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGE IN CONDITION NUMBER 7 WHERE IT SAID BEFORE THE PROJECT MAY BE PERMITTED A MAXIMUM 34 TOWNHOMES, THE 34 WOULD BE CHANGED TO 38 TO REFLECT THE ORIGINAL APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO BOTH STAFFS ARE IN AGREEMENT -- EXCUSE ME -- AND HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, AND ALL AGENCIES -- THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS FROM ANY AGENCIES, SO WE'D RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU ISSUE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL GLADLY TRY TO ANSWER THEM. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: WELL, I THOUGHT I DIDN'T, BUT NOW I'M REALLY CONFUSED. OKAY. SO THE STAFF'S CONDITIONS DO NOT REFLECT YOUR REQUEST FOR - - TO KEEP BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE APPROVED AS ONE OPTION? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO YOUR PROPOSAL IS TO TAKE THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE STRUCK THROUGH IN THE STAFF REPORT RELATIVE TO CONDITION 1, AND THEN THOSE WOULD BE EXISTING PLAN OPTION OR WHATEVER -- OKAY. STAFF IS PROVIDING ME SOME ... OKAY. SO THE FIRST -- FIRST ONE WOULD BE -- THE FIRST OPTION IS THAT THE APPROVED GENERAL SITE PLAN -- GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED UNDER SUCH-AND-SUCH PROCESS IS OPTION -- THE FIRST OPTION? >> CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OPTION? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> AND I GUESS THERE'S A FEW WAYS TO SKIN A CAT. I GUESS YOU COULD TAKE THE STRIKE-THROUGH OUT, BUT THEN YOU'D HAVE TO ADD A NOTE ABOUT THE 80% IMPERVIOUS AND THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT, SO IF THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU JUST TO HANDLE IT THIS WAY, I THINK IT'S A GOOD APPROACH, AND JUST CHANGE CONDITION 7, LIKE I MENTIONED, FROM 34 TO 38, AND THIS SHOULD BE GOOD TO GO. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. I THINK THE STAFF HAS IN THE DRAFT -- AND I'M SURE THEY'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IT -- THAT THE 80% IMPERVIOUS IS BACK IN, SO -- >> IT'S ALWAYS BEEN IN. WHEN WE DID THE FIRST REZONING, THEN WE HAD A PRS TO GET FROM 75% TO 80, BUT THE CONDITION WAS WE HAD TO HAVE NO GREATER THAN 75% FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT, SO THE 80'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. IF YOU AND STAFF ARE IN AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT THE WORDING IS SUPPOSED TO READ -- AS LONG AS EVERYBODY'S SAYING THE SAME THING. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I DID REVIEW THIS ADDITION FOR THE EXISTING APPROVED PLAN, AND THE WORDING IS THE SAME AS SOME OF THE WORDING THAT HAS -- HAD BEEN STRUCK OUT, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND REVISE THE CONDITIONS AND MAKE THIS PART OF CONDITION NUMBER 1. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>SUSAN MARINER: THERE ISN'T ANY NEW LANGUAGE OR CONDITIONS TO THIS. IT'LL JUST BE REPOSITIONED. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE CHANGE TO NUMBER 7 GOING FROM 34 TOWNHOMES TO 38, WOULD THAT BE IN ALL OPTIONS? >>SUSAN MARINER: WELL, THAT CONDITION IS A PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION THAT JUST -- IT HAS TO DO WITH WETLAND CREDITS AND THAT KIND OF THING, AND SO THAT IS A CATCH-ALL CONDITION WHERE WE PUT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT, AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT, NO MATTER WHAT OPTION, WOULD BE 38 TOWNHOMES AND THE 115,000 SQUARE FEET. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: IT SAYS 34, THOUGH. IF THAT'S THE MAXIMUM, THIS WAS JUST A REFLECTION OF WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR OR WHAT YOU-ALL THOUGHT THEY WERE ASKING FOR AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THE MAXIMUM THE COMP PLAN WOULD ALLOW? >>SUSAN MARINER: NO. WHEN THEY TURN IN THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN -- I THINK YOU HAVE A SET OF -- THEY TURNED IN THREE SITE PLANS. I THOUGHT THE CERTIFIED PLAN AND THEN -- THEY HAVE LABELED OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO, AND SO -- WELL, LET ME GO AHEAD THROUGH MY PRESENTATION. MAYBE IT'LL ANSWER IT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: YES, PLEASE. >>SUSAN MARINER: OKAY. THE REQUEST WAS TO CHANGE FROM HAVING COMMERCIAL POD AND HAVING THE TOWN HOUSE -- TOWNHOME POD TO HAVING THREE PARCELS, SO THAT'S OPTION ONE, WHICH CONSISTED OF -- OPTION ONE HAD TWO PARCELS THAT WERE COMMERCIAL AND ONE THAT REDUCED THE TOWNHOMES TO 34, FROM 38 TO 34. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. >>SUSAN MARINER: THEN THE OPTION THREE, WHICH IS THE THIRD PAGE, BASICALLY PRESENTED FOUR PARCELS, AND ALL OF THEM CONTAINED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND ALL THREE OF THESE DESIGNS INCLUDE THE FRONT PARCEL, THE ONE RIGHT ON HILLSBOROUGH. >>SUSAN MARINER: THAT'S CORRECT. PARCEL 1 REMAINS THE SAME IN ALL OPTIONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BUT THAT IS NOT -- PARCEL ONE WILL REMAIN THE SAME IN ALL THREE OPTIONS? >>SUSAN MARINER: WELL, NO. PARCEL ONE WAS ORIGINALLY 32 -- 32,000 SQUARE FEET. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: PARCEL 1 IS NOT BEING INCLUDED IN THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION, THOUGH, IS IT? >>SUSAN MARINER: IT WAS THE ORIGINAL -- IN THE ORIGINAL REZONING. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO IN THE ORIGINAL REZONING IT WAS APPROVED FOR A 32,000 CG SQUARE FEET, AND THAT HAS NOT CHANGED OR THAT HAS CHANGED? >>SUSAN MARINER: THAT HAS CHANGED. THEY'VE BROKEN UP THE COMMERCIAL IN THESE NEXT TWO OPTIONS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: I UNDERSTAND THEY BROKE UP THE COMMERCIAL IN GENERAL. I'M JUST GOING TO KILL THAT MICROPHONE THERE. THE EXISTING PLAN HAS PARCEL ONE WITH ALL THE COMMERCIAL IN IT? >>SUSAN MARINER: CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: AND THE BALANCE WAS MULTIFAMILY? >>SUSAN MARINER: CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THE OPTION ONE, WHICH IS REALLY OPTION TWO BUT WE'LL CALL IT OPTION ONE, HAS PARCEL ONE STILL WITH CG USES -- >>SUSAN MARINER: CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: -- AND A SMALL PARCEL ACROSS THE ACCESS ROADWAY, WHICH USED TO BE MULTIFAMILY IS NOW CG USES? >>SUSAN MARINER: CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BUT PARCEL ONE'S ENTITLEMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE-WISE IS THE SAME OR IS IT LESS? >>SUSAN MARINER: IT'S -- >> IT'S LESS. >>SUSAN MARINER: IT'S LESS. IT'S 16,009 SQUARE FEET. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: HOW CAN WE CHANGE THE ENTITLEMENTS ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REZONING? >>SUSAN MARINER: WELL, IT'S PART -- IT'S UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE DESCRIBED MAJOR MODIFICATION. >> IT'S INCLUDED. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: LEGALLY -- UNDER THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS IT'S INCLUDED? >> I CAN EXPLAIN ALL THIS. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL -- WE WON'T -- >> OKAY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: WE WON'T DELAY THINGS ANY FURTHER. WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT EXPLAIN IT. >> MS. BELFLOWER, HERE'S THE SITUATION. THE EXISTING PARCEL ONE WAS APPROVED FOR 32 AND CHANGE. OKAY. IT'S ACTUALLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. SITE WORK'S ABOUT 60% COMPLETE. SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO DEVELOP ON THAT SITE 9,409 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S A REALITY. OKAY. SO WHAT THEY DID, JUST LIKE YOU REFERENCED THERE, THEY CREATED THIS OTHER PARCEL WHERE THEY DELETED .42 ACRES FROM WHAT WAS THE MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT. THEN THERE'S AN ALLOCATION OF 6600 SQUARE FEET TO THIS NEW LITTLE PARCEL, SO THE TOTAL RETAIL FOR OPTION TWO, OUR CG USES, IS 16,000 PLUS 34 TOWNHOMES, AND WHAT I NOTICED HERE IS BECAUSE OF THIS SHIFT -- IF YOU GO TO CONDITION 7 -- ACTUALLY, OPTION NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE ALL CG SCENARIO, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 156,000. MATT, CAN YOU ADD THAT UP? >>SUSAN MARINER: THIS IS THE TOTAL. [INAUDIBLE] >> I -- ANYHOW, WHAT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND HERE IS THAT -- CONDITION 7'S KIND OF CONFUSING, AND I DON'T EVEN THINK IT'S NECESSARY, SO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A CONDITION HERE AGAIN THAT WE'RE GOING TO RESPECT THE COMP PLAN AND ALSO THE WETLAND AREA AND THINGS LIKE THAT REGARDLESS OF THE SCENARIO BUT JUST TO KIND OF FLAT-OUT INDICATE MAXIMUM OF 38 TOWNHOME UNITS AND 115,000, THAT'S REALLY NOT ACCURATE. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE STRIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT STARTS WITH, THE PROJECT, AND DOWN TO COMMERCIAL USES AND JUST START THAT WHOLE CONDITION WITH, SUBJECT TO FORMAL DELINEATION OF ON-SITE CONSERVATION AREAS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, THAT THE COMP PLAN MAY REQUIRE THAT THE INTENSITY BE LIMITED. >> YEAH. BECAUSE THE SCENARIOS ARE ALL GOING TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE CONDITION. >> JUST SO WE HAVE THIS STRAIGHT, WHAT I HAVE HERE IS -- MATT HAS A CALCULATOR HERE, AND -- 9,409 SQUARE FEET FOR -- DO YOU HAVE IT, MATT? OKAY. SO THE OVERALL TOTAL FOR OPTION THREE? >> RIGHT. >> OKAY. WELL, SUSAN WAS RIGHT. I STAND CORRECTED. SO IT'S 115,909 FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, BUT IF WE STRIKE THAT SENTENCE, LIKE I SAID, I THINK IT'S CONFUSING AND NOT REALLY NECESSARY. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: BECAUSE IT COULDN'T BE -- YOU COULDN'T HAVE 34 OR 38 TOWNHOME UNITS AND 115,000 -- >> EXACTLY. SO IF YOU HAVE THE 38, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU GET THE 32, AND -- >>BRIAN GRADY: I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT BECAUSE - - >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE -- >>BRIAN GRADY: THE INTENT IS STILL THERE BECAUSE THE INTENT IS JUST TO PUT A DEVELOPER ON NOTICE THAT THE MAXIMUMS OUTLINED MAY NOT BE ACHIEVED BECAUSE UNTIL THEY DO FORMAL DELINEATIONS AND MAKE -- >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO BASICALLY YOU'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE THE PART OUT THAT MAKES REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT -- OR NUMBER OF UNITS? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES, WE CAN DO THAT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS TO THE QUESTION -- I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT THEM DEVELOPING PARCEL 1 NOW. SAME OWNERSHIP, BUT WAS IT INCLUDED IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION? >> EXACTLY. IT'S BEEN INCLUDED FROM THE ORIGINAL ZONING TO THE PRS TO THE ZONING THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION TONIGHT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THEN DO WE KNOW HOW WE ENDED UP WITH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT ONLY SHOWS PART OF THE PD? THAT LEGAL CAME FROM SOMEWHERE. >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT MAY HAVE -- WELL, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE FOLIO NUMBER THEY MAY HAVE INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION. I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THEY'RE SEPARATE FOLIO NUMBERS. THAT'S SOMETIMES HOW THAT OCCURS. >> THERE'S TWO FOLIOS, AND WE SQUARED THIS AWAY WITH SUSAN EARLY ON. SHE RAISED THE QUESTION AS WELL. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. SO BOTH FOLIOS, THE ENTIRE PD WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR APPLICATION? >> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. PLANNING COMMISSION. YES. >>DAVID HEY: THE SITE WAS REVIEWED UNDER THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT FALLS WITHIN THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20 LAND USE CATEGORY. IT ALSO IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND FALLS ALSO WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWN 'N COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN. OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20, AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE, IS ONE OF THE MOST INTENSIVE LAND USE CATEGORIES WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IS NOT APPLICABLE UNDER OC-20 LAND USE CATEGORY. AND THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20 LAND USE CATEGORY IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TYPE USES, OFFICE USES, AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS, AND COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL USES. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING PD TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20 LAND USE CATEGORY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE CURRENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING TO ALLOW FOR ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. ALL THAT MATH IS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT. WE WON'T GO OVER THAT AGAIN. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THANK YOU. >>DAVID HEY: KEEP IT NICE AND SHORT. BOTH DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS WOULD PROVIDE FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ALONG THAT PORTION OF HILLSBOROUGH AVENUE, AND BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS AND THE POLICIES FOUND WITHIN THE COMP PLAN THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT? ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NO ONE, MR. BENTLEY, HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A GREAT EVENING. >>LAURA BELFLOWER: THANK YOU. WHAT'S LEFT OF IT. AND THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER IS CLOSED, AND WE ARE THROUGH FOR THE EVENING. 1