CAPTIONING JULY 26, 2010 ZONING HEARING MASTER ***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THIS EVENING'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. MY NAME IS STEVE LUCE, AND I'LL BE CONDUCTING THIS EVENING'S HEARINGS. IF YOU'D ALL PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] THANK YOU ALL. YOU MAY BE SEATED. AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO ASK THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF TO INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AT THE DAIS AND THEN TELL US IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. >>BRIAN GRADY: GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE. BRIAN GRADY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. JOINING US AT THE DAIS TONIGHT ARE, TO MY LEFT, MR. CAMERON CLARK WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND, TO HIS LEFT, MS. MARCIE STENMARK WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY- COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. WE DON'T HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA TONIGHT, SO I'LL GO THROUGH THE PUBLISHED WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES BEGINNING ON PAGE 1 OF THE AGENDA. THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 1-A, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10- 0547. THE APPLICANT IS NORTHDALE DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO THE AUGUST 23rd, 2010, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-B, REZONING APPLICATION 10-0558. THE APPLICANT'S LAZARO R. LANTES. THIS PETITION'S OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS ACTUALLY BEING CONTINUED TO THE 9/20/2010 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. THE AGENDA SAYS AUGUST 23rd, BUT IT WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE 9/20/2010 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-C, REZONING APPLICATION 10-0623. THE APPLICANT IS LEROY GONZALEZ. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 23rd, 2010, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-D, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0674. THE APPLICANT'S PIZZA D'CARLO GOURMET PIZZA. THIS PETITION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING PROCESS. ITEM 1-E, REZONING APPLICATION 10-0682. THE APPLICANT'S LILLYBETH ARROYO. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 23rd, 2010, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-F, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0704. THE APPLICANT'S CERAFUND INVESTMENTS. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 23rd, 2010, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-G, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0713. THE APPLICANT'S DAVID W. CALDWELL. THIS PETITION'S OUT OF ORDER AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 23rd, 2010, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. AND ITEM 1-H, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0715. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 23rd, 2010, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. AND ITEM 1-I, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0717. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 23rd, 2010, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. THIS CONCLUDES WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES. >>STEVE LUCE: MR. GRADY, YOU MENTIONED ITEM 1-A THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. THAT WAS FILED TIMELY, AND IT'S BASICALLY A MATTER OF RIGHT AND GRANTED. >>STEVE LUCE: MATTER OF RIGHT -- >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. >>STEVE LUCE: -- GRANTED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. OKAY. AT THIS POINT I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING TONIGHT'S HEARING, AND THEN WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST APPLICATION. THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRST, STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THE ITEM. THEN THE APPLICANT AND ANY OF THE WITNESSES OF THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. NEXT 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 THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE PROPONENTS, WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BUT ARE NOT CONNECTED DIRECTLY WITH THE PETITION WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT. FOLLOWING THAT, THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE OPPONENTS, WHO ARE AGAINST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION. PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT IS A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION. SO IF THERE'S A LARGE GROUP, YOU MAY WANT TO ORGANIZE YOUR STATEMENTS SO THAT ALL THE TIME DOES NOT GET USED UP BEFORE EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THEN IF EITHER STAFF HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR REVISIONS TO THEIR REPORTS TO BE MADE FOLLOWING THE TESTIMONY, THEY'LL BE MADE NEXT. AND BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE LAST PERSON TO SPEAK 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'S A CHIME AT THE PODIUM THAT WILL SOUND ONCE WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS REMAINING AND WILL SOUND THREE TIMES WHEN THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. IF IT APPEARS THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION, ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED. WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD. AFTER YOU PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY, PLEASE SIGN IN WITH THE CLERK -- THERE IS A PAD DOWN AT THIS END OF THE PODIUM -- GIVING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. THESE ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BASED ON FACT-BASED EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND 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. BECAUSE THERE ARE TIME LIMITS, I ASK THAT YOU TRY NOT TO REPEAT TESTIMONY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN. IT IS REQUIRED THAT ALL TESTIMONY GIVEN REGARDING ANY APPLICATION BE GIVEN UNDER OATH, SO AT THIS TIME, TO EXPEDITE MATTERS, I'LL GIVE THE OATH TO ALL PARTIES WHO THINK THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING. WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND TAKE THE OATH. [PARTICIPANTS SWORN IN] OKAY. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. YOU MAY BE SEATED. THE FIRST GROUP OF APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD TONIGHT ARE THE SPECIAL USES. WITH THE SPECIAL USES, TONIGHT'S HEARING IS THE ONLY HEARING ON THE PETITION, AND AS THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER, I WILL RENDER A DECISION ON THE APPLICATIONS. THE DECISIONS WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OF THIS HEARING. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL NOW PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT PROCESS. >>CAMERON CLARK: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CAMERON CLARK. I'M AN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. THIS PORTION OF THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING IS FOR SPECIAL USE APPLICATIONS. TODAY'S HEARING IS THE TIME FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY. THIS EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY WILL BE THE ONLY EVIDENCE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE APPEALS BOARD IF AN APPEAL IS FILED. THIS MEANS THAT THE RECORD CLOSES AT THE END OF TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING, AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE RECORD. ANY DECISION BY THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER MAY BE APPEALED TO THE APPEALS BOARD. THE APPEALS BOARD WILL ONLY CONSIDER THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND THE RECORD OF TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING IN REACHING A FINAL DECISION ON THE PETITIONS. IF AN APPEAL IS FILED, THE APPEALS BOARD SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE RECORD OF TODAY'S HEARING AND SHALL CONSIST OF ORAL ARGUMENT BY COUNTY STAFF, THE PARTY APPEALING THE DECISION, AND ANY INTERVENERS, EACH OF WHOM MAY BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL. THE FOLLOWING SHALL HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER OR TO INTERVENE IN AN APPEAL: ONE IS THE APPLICANT, OR TWO IS ANY PERSON OR ENTITY THAT APPEARED BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER, PRESENTED TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE, AND IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER. IT IS THE ROLE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ENSURE THAT NO NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS ALLOWED BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL RECOMMEND THAT THE APPEALS BOARD DISREGARD EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT IS NOT CONTAINED IN TODAY'S RECORD. ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE APPEALS BOARD THAT IS OUTSIDE THE RECORD MADE AT TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING COULD JEOPARDIZE THE LEGALITY OF THE APPEALS BOARD DECISION, AND THE PRESENTER OF THAT EVIDENCE COULD HURT HIS OR HER OWN CAUSE. THE SAFEST COURSE OF ACTION FOR YOU WOULD BE TO WRITE DOWN ANY COMMENTS YOU MAKE TODAY AND REPEAT THEM TO THE APPEALS BOARD. THEREFORE, PLEASE BE SURE THAT ALL INFORMATION YOU WISH TO BE HEARD BY THE APPEALS BOARD IS CONTAINED IN TODAY'S RECORD. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, MR. CLARK. AT THIS POINT, MR. GRADY, IF YOU WOULD CALL THE FIRST SPECIAL USE PETITION. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE FIRST ITEM IS ON PAGE 2 OF THE AGENDA, AGENDA ITEM 2, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0301. THE APPLICANT'S F&L TOWERS, LLC. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR A CELL TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES. MR. LUCE, YOU HAD HEARD THIS CASE PREVIOUSLY. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A RECONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS OBJECTIONS FILED IN YOUR PREVIOUS DECISION. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR STAFF COMMENTS AFTER YOU HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD TOO, MR. GRADY, I THINK THE ISSUE ON RECONSIDERATION IS NARROW IN FOCUS. IT'S REGARDING MY OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION. >>BRIAN GRADY: CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING. >>CAMERON CLARK: THE FOCUS OF THE HEARING IS DIRECTED AT THE -- YES, EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST STATED. THERE COULD STILL BE OBVIOUSLY COMMENTS THAT COULD BE ADDED, BUT YOU CAN NARROW THE FOCUS IN THAT DIRECTION. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT. >> THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICE. JIM PORTER. I'M WITH THE LAW FIRM OF ADAMS & REESE, 401 JACKSON STREET. I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. WITH ME AS PART OF THE APPLICANT'S TEAM IS ETHEL HAMMER, WHO'S A PROFESSIONAL PLANNER AND WILL BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY TO YOU, AS WELL AS MICHAEL LINET FROM F&L TOWERS. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING THE REHEARING. ON APRIL 2nd YOU RENDERED A DECISION BASICALLY FINDING OUR APPLICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BUT FOR THE ISSUE OF PARKING. YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING THE USE ON -- ON THE PROPERTY AND WHAT THAT AFFECT WOULD HAVE ON THE PARENT TRACT. >>STEVE LUCE: CORRECT. >> SO WE'VE GONE BACK, WE ADDRESSED THAT WITH THE COUNTY. WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN APPROVED PARKING PLAN THAT MS. HAMMER WILL BE PRESENTING TO YOU TONIGHT. I'M GOING TO SUBMIT INTO THE RECORD FOR YOUR -- FOR RECORD PURPOSES A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND YOUR ORDER GRANTING IT, YOUR ORIGINAL DECISION, AND THE ORIGINAL EVIDENCE THAT WE SUBMITTED. WE'D LIKE TO INCORPORATE THE PRIOR RECORD INTO TONIGHT'S HEARING AS WELL. WE DID LIMIT THIS TO PARKING BOTH ON THE RECONSIDERATION AND ON THE NOTICE WE PROVIDED, SO THAT IS OUR INTENT, TO ONLY ADDRESS THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS. AT THIS POINT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MS. HAMMER, AND I'M GOING TO BE PASSING OUT IN ADDITION TO THIS THE PARKING PLAN THAT'S BEEN APPROVED. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ETHEL HAMMER, ENGELHARDT HAMMER AND ASSOCIATES, 4343 ANCHOR PLAZA PARKWAY, TAMPA 33634. AND I AM GOING TO BE GIVING A BRIEF PRESENTATION. I CERTAINLY WILL KEEP IT BRIEF SINCE THE FOCUS OF THE APPLICATION IS BRIEF, BUT I WANTED TO START OUT SORT OF REMINDING YOU OF THE CONTEXT OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF, AND IF YOU RECALL, THIS IS LOCATED ON NORTH ARMENIA, SOUTH OF PINE LAKE DRIVE IN THE FOREST HILLS AREA OF THE COUNTY. IT'S LOCATED ON A PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S DEVELOPED WITH A FREESTANDING 24- HOUR LAUNDRY CENTER. MULTIFAMILY TOWN HOUSES ARE LOCATED TO THE WEST APPROXIMATELY 195 FEET ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH ARMENIA. LAKE MAGDALENE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS LOCATED TO THE EAST. TO THE SOUTH IS A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER WHICH HAS APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA. A SIGNIFICANTLY SIZED TECO SUBSTATION IS DIRECTLY NORTH, AND A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS IS LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE TECO SUBSTATION. THE SUBJECT SITE HAD 11 PARKING SPACES, INCLUDING ONE HANDICAPPED. AS YOU CORRECTLY REFERENCED IN YOUR PREVIOUS DECISION, THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER AND THE SUPPORTING EQUIPMENT DOES DISPLACE A FEW OF THE PARKING SPACES ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY. OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS WE HAVE MET ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WITH DAVE OLSON AND TONY MARCO, THE STAFF MEMBERS OF THE TRANSPORTATION SECTION OF PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. WE'VE DISCUSSED SEVERAL DIFFERENT PARKING SPACE RECONFIGURATION PLANS, AND THE ONE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING WAS THE ONE THAT WAS FINALLY DECIDED UPON WHICH WAS SIGNED AND APPROVED BY TONY MARCO, WHO IS THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO MAKE THAT DECISION ON PGM STAFF. THE PROPOSED PLAN WOULD RESTRIPE THE EXISTING PARKING AREA, THEREBY REPLACING THE SAME NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AS EXISTED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CELL TOWER, WHICH IS 11. THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF AND HAS AGREED TO ADDITIONAL SITE MODIFICATIONS TO THE HANDICAPPED SPACE, WHICH WOULD BRING IT UP TO CURRENT CODE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET CURRENT CODE AT THE PRESENT TIME. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION FROM ANY OF THE OTHER AGENCIES. THE SITE HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY -- OR AT LEAST PRELIMINARILY REVIEWED IN CONCEPT BY STORMWATER. THE ENTIRE SITE RIGHT NOW IS IMPERVIOUS. WE ARE NOT ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, SO THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY STORMWATER ISSUES WITH THE RESTRIPING OF THE PARKING LOT FOR THE 11 PARKING SPACES. AND I KNOW THAT ONE OF MY STAFF MEMBERS TODAY, TY MAXEY, TALKED TO BRIAN GRADY ABOUT THE STORMWATER ISSUE. WE FELT THAT MIGHT BE AN ISSUE AS WELL, AND BRIAN SAID THAT HE FELT THAT THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT SITE DEVELOPMENT STAGE, BUT YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT WITH HIM. SO WITH THAT, THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: YEAH. LET ME JUST ASK YOU ABOUT -- THE LAYOUT THAT YOU HAD A MUTUAL AGREEMENT WITH STAFF ON SHOWS A COUPLE OF THE PARKING SPACES OVERLAPPING THE CELL TOWER ACCESS EASEMENT. HOW -- WHAT IS THE -- I DIDN'T SEE THE LANGUAGE IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARENT PROPERTY OWNER AND THE CELL TOWER COMPANY, BUT IT -- IS THERE AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT BLOCKING THE ACCESSWAY? >> THIS IS -- THIS PARKING PLAN HAS BEEN AGREED TO BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL, AND HE'S AWARE THAT THIS WILL NEED TO BE RESTRIPED. THE CELL TOWER IS ACCESSED ON AN AVERAGE OF ONCE A MONTH, SO IT IS UNLIKELY THAT -- THE PARKING RATIO -- THE PARKING USAGE ON THIS SITE HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN VERY LOW, SO THERE'S REALLY NO CONCERN ON THE PART OF THE CELL TOWER PROVIDER THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE SITE. AND THE STACKING WITH THE EMPLOYEE PARKING, I WILL MENTION THAT AS WELL. WE TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT THAT, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE APPROVED ON MANY OTHER RETAIL CENTERS IN THE PAST. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THE -- WHEN I FIRST TOOK A LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF PARKING, I ALSO LOOKED AT THE CROSS-ACCESS THAT -- EITHER INFORMALLY OR FORMALLY WITH THE SHOPPING CENTER TO THE SOUTH -- >> RIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- AND NOW THIS PROPOSED PARKING DESIGN LAYOUT. IF SOMEBODY WOULD PARK AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE COIN- OPERATED LAUNDRY SITE, IT PROBABLY WOULD BLOCK ANY ABILITY TO CROSS FROM ONE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE PARKING IS LAID OUT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS REGARDING CROSS- ACCESS? >> I KNOW FOR A FACT THERE IS NOT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> THERE IS NO FORMAL CROSS-PARKING AGREEMENT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: AT THIS POINT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. AS MR. GRADY STATED, THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY HEARD ON MARCH 15th, 2010, WHICH WAS DENIED BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PARKING FOR THE PARENT TRACT WOULD BE ELIMINATED AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CELL TOWER COMPOUND, AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED AS TO HOW THE PARKING WOULD STILL MEET THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENT. A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY THE APPLICANT, SAYING AND STATING THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MET. AND THEN ON JULY 1st, 2010, A PARKING CONFIGURATION PLAN WAS RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY AND REVIEWED BY STAFF AND APPROVED AND SIGNED ON JUNE 24th, 2010. WITH THAT, I CAN GO THROUGH MY REPORT OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM. >>STEVE LUCE: NO, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. I SAW IN THE FILE THAT MR. MARCO -- >>ISABELLE ALBERT: CORRECT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- HAD SIGNED OFF ON THE PROPOSED PARKING PLAN. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: CORRECT. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU. OKAY. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>MARCIE STENMARK: GOOD EVENING, MR. HEARING MASTER. SINCE THIS IS A RECONSIDERATION, I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A 160-FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE STRUCTURE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING USES AND THE PLANNED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE AREA. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS POINT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. APPLICANT WAIVES RIGHT FOR REBUTTAL. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 3, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0544. THE APPLICANT'S MEMORIAL TOWNHOMES. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? >> YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS RANDOLPH WEDDING. I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS PROJECT. I REPRESENT THE OWNER, MEMORIAL TOWNHOMES. WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT BY STAFF OF THIS APPLICATION. IN PARTICULAR, WE THINK THEIR FINDINGS ABOUT THE VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IS DEAD ON THE MARK, AND THAT'S GOOD. WE LIKE THAT. THERE IS ONE SMALL ISSUE THAT WE'D LIKE TO BRING UP AT THIS TIME. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE SECOND RECOMMENDED CONDITION. THIS ADDRESSES ACCESS OFF OF WEBB ROAD AND ESSENTIALLY SAYS ONE ACCESS. WE HAVE SINCE THIS REPORT WAS WRITTEN MET WITH TRANSPORTATION AND HAVE WORKED OUT SOME ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF WEBB AND MEMORIAL, WHICH WILL RELIEVE THAT SITUATION, AND WE ASSUME THAT IN THE PROCESS OF GOING FORWARD WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL THROUGH THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS THAT THAT MATTER WILL RESOLVE ITSELF. BEYOND THAT, SIR, I AM HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. JUST TO CLARIFY YOUR POINT ABOUT ACCESS -- >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: -- YOU -- IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING OR REQUESTING THAT THERE BE TWO ACCESS POINTS? >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. PER THE SITE PLAN? >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. COULD YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT -- >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: -- REGARDING WEBB ROAD IMPROVEMENTS? >> LET ME GET AN EXHIBIT. THE CONCERN WAS FOR THE ACCESS -- >>BRIAN GRADY: SIR, YOU NEED TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. >> SORRY. THE CONCERN WAS FOR THE ACCESS HERE CLOSEST TO MEMORIAL AND WEBB'S INTERSECTION. WE HAVE IMPROVED THIS BY WIDENING AND SUPPLYING A WIDER SEPARATION BETWEEN BY GRANTING SOME ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE PROPERTY SIDE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN AND MADE THIS A ONE WAY IN ONLY ACCESS AND MOVED THE TWO WAY COMPLETELY AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION TO THE END. TRANSPORTATION HAS AGREED WITH US THAT THIS IS A WORKABLE SCHEME. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. IS THAT SITE PLAN DIFFERENT FROM THE SITE PLAN THAT'S ON FILE? >> I DO NOT KNOW THAT, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: YES. FOR THE RECORD, THE SITE PLAN I HAVE ON FILE IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. THE LOCATION OF YOUR TWO DRIVEWAYS -- >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: -- ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. >> MAY I LEAVE THIS ONE WITH YOU? >>STEVE LUCE: LET ME ASK STAFF WHEN THEY GET UP WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE GOT A MORE MANAGEABLE SITE PLAN I CAN FOLD UP AND TAKE HOME WITH ME. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> AS I SAID, WE'RE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO WORK THIS OUT DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND WOULD LIKE TO GO FORWARD. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. >>STEVE LUCE: NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS FOR A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME FOR A MAXIMUM OF 134 PEOPLE WITHIN 75 UNITS WITH A TOTAL BUILDING AREA OF 30,503 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ASK FOR A WAIVER OF THE 500- FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FROM SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING THAT'S LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SITE, NORTH OF THE SITE AND SOUTH OF MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION WAS THAT A SCHOOL'S LOCATED ON -- TO THE NORTH ON THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AND THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH IS ACROSS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WITH -- AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG THIS PORTION OF MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, THEREFORE, APPROVABLE. WE DID DISCUSS THIS WITH THE APPLICANT. HE WORKED WITH STEVE COOK, BUT ANOTHER SITE PLAN WAS NOT SUBMITTED. WE SAID, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE TO ANOTHER HEARING, AND THE APPLICANT DID AGREE TO THIS WORDING. IT SAYS, THE APPLICANT MAY BE PERMITTED ONE ACCESS, NOT THAT THEY SHALL BE, AND THEN ALSO THAT THEIR ACCESS MAY BE RESTRICTED. THERE IS A SCHOOL ACCESS RIGHT THERE ON THE NORTHERN BORDER, SO THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT NORTHERN ACCESS POINT AND MEET THE TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS TECHNICAL MANUAL REQUIREMENTS, AND SO THIS WAS NOT REVIEWED TO THE LEVEL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO GO FORWARD BASED ON THIS CONDITION AND ON THE DATE OF THE MARCH 25th, 2010, PLAN. >>STEVE LUCE: HMM. >>BRIAN GRADY: I THINK TO CLARIFY, MR. LUCE, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE FELT THAT THE WAY THOSE CONDITIONS WERE WORDED THAT THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS THEY'RE GOING TO GET WILL BE DETERMINED DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND THAT THROUGH THIS CONDITION, THEY'RE BEING PUT ON NOTICE THAT GIVEN THE SEPARATION ISSUES AND [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] ACCESS MANAGEMENT, THEY'RE NOT GUARANTEED TO GET TWO ACCESS POINTS BECAUSE AGAIN THE FINAL ENGINEERING HAS NOT BEEN WORKED OUT, AND AS MS. MARINER SAID, THERE'S OTHER USES AND ACCESS POINTS AND SEPARATION ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT, AND I THINK THEY'VE HAD SOME PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT WHAT MIGHT WORK, BUT AGAIN, UNTIL THEY GET INTO THAT FULL REVIEW, FULL ENGINEERING, AND LOOKING AT ALL THOSE ISSUES, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT FINAL APPROVAL, SO -- >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. WELL, THERE'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR SENTENCES IN THIS PROPOSED CONDITION NUMBER 2. IF YOU'VE GOT THE CONDITIONS IN FRONT OF YOU, IF YOU JUST STRUCK THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES AND STARTED THIS CONDITION WITH THE DESIGN OF THE ACCESS POINTS -- POINT OR IN PARENTHESES POINTS -- SHALL BE REGULATED BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ACCESS MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE, IN MY OPINION, THE -- STARTING OUT THE CONDITION BY SAYING, THE APPLICANT MAY BE PERMITTED ONE ACCESS POINT ON WEBB ROAD, I MEAN, IT'S -- IT'S REALLY NOT TELLING ME MUCH -- >>SUSAN MARINER: TRANSPORTATION STAFF IS HERE IF YOU'D LIKE TO ASK THEM ABOUT THAT CONDITION. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. IT IMPLIES MAYBE THEY ONLY GET ONE ACCESS POINT WHEN, IN FACT, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE APPLICANT, HE'S WORKED WITH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STAFF, AND HE MAY BE ABLE TO GET TWO, SO IF WE JUST MADE IT MORE GENERIC, IT MIGHT ADDRESS THE COMMENT YOU JUST MADE ABOUT THEY'LL MEET SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT CONDITION NUMBER 1. IT'S FOR 134 RESIDENTS, AND THIS IS A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME? >>SUSAN MARINER: THAT'S CORRECT. >>STEVE LUCE: AND IT'S BASED ON A MULTIPLIER. >>SUSAN MARINER: AND IT MET THAT. >>STEVE LUCE: BASED ON NUMBER OF RESIDENTS, SO MANY PLACED RESIDENTS EQUAL A UNIT? >>SUSAN MARINER: THAT'S CORRECT, AND IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. NOW, YOU ALSO SAY 75 UNITS. >>SUSAN MARINER: THIS WAS TO TAKE -- INFORMATION THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THE APPLICANT'S -- >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >>SUSAN MARINER: -- SITE PLAN. >>STEVE LUCE: I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY DEALING WITH HERE IS 75 ROOMS BECAUSE IF YOU DO THE MATH BASED ON THE ACREAGE AND THE COMP PLAN CATEGORY, YOU CAN GET ABOUT 69 DWELLING UNITS, SO NOT TO CONFUSE MATTERS, IF WE JUST CALL THEM 75 ROOMS RATHER THAN UNITS, I THINK IT WILL BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>SUSAN MARINER: I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND WE'LL ASK PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF THE SAME QUESTION. >>SUSAN MARINER: THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-20 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IT'S ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN 'N COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ASSISTED LIVING -- A SPECIAL USE FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY FOR A TOTAL OF 75 UNITS, AND ROOMS IS AN ACCEPTABLE WAY TO US TO DESCRIBE IT, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED SEPARATION DISTANCE OF THE 500 FEET OF THE LIVING FACILITY FROM A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. BASED ON THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THE PROPERTY'S LOCATION IN PROXIMITY TO RETAIL AND OFFICE USES, THE SITE IS APPROPRIATE AND SUITABLE FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, AND THE PROPOSED LIVING FACILITY IS SIMILAR IN SCALE AND INTENSITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USES WITHIN ANY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY, AND THE FACILITY SHALL BE OF A DESIGN AND INTENSITY AND SCALE TO SERVE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE VISION OF THE TOWN 'N COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN. BASED ON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USES CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. GRADY, IF I COULD GET MR. SHOPMYER TO COME FORWARD. MR. SHOPMYER, GOOD EVENING. >>GLEN SHOPMYER: GOOD EVENING. >>STEVE LUCE: REGARDING THIS APPLICATION AND THE DRIVEWAYS PROPOSED ON WEBB ROAD, HAVE YOU MET WITH THE APPLICANT? >>GLEN SHOPMYER: GLEN SHOPMYER, TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. MET WITH HIM PHYSICALLY, NO. I DID MEET WITH HIM VERBALLY OVER THE PHONE WITH STEVE COOK PRESENT. THE SITUATION WAS AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, THAT ACCESS POINT WAS RIGHT THERE AT THE VORTEX OF, YOU KNOW, THE LEFT TURNING VEHICLES COMING ON AND THE RIGHT TURNING VEHICLES LEAVING MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. TYPICALLY THAT USUALLY OCCURS AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED BASED ON MY VISUAL OBSERVATION OF THE LOCATION, AND THAT IS WHY I RECOMMENDED THEY ONLY BE RESTRICTED TO ONE ACCESS POINT; HOWEVER, BASED ON DISCUSSIONS ALSO WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHO WERE -- THEY BASICALLY NEEDED TWO ACCESS POINTS TO MANEUVER AROUND WITHIN THE SITE, SO WE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO DO THAT AND SAID, WELL, WITH THE ACCESS POINT RESTRICTED TO RIGHT AT THE -- THE SOUTHERN ONE RESTRICTED TO RIGHT IN ONLY, AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE COULD MAKE THAT MOVEMENT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, WORRYING ABOUT IT. SO YES, WE'VE MET WITH THEM, AND WE CONCUR TO TWO ACCESS POINTS, THE SOUTHERN ONE BEING RESTRICTED TO RIGHT IN ONLY. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? >> I DON'T KNOW IF I'M IN OPPOSITION. I JUST DON'T FOLLOW THIS WHOLE THING, SO CAN I JUST ASK? >>STEVE LUCE: ABSOLUTELY. >> PLEASE. MY NAME IS LYNETTE PEEL. I LIVE AT 4621 BAY CREST DRIVE, AND ACCORDING TO THE CONVERSATION WITH MS. MARINER, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY; AM I CORRECT? >>STEVE LUCE: IT'S CALLED A -- >> FOR 75 BEDS IS WHAT I WAS TOLD. >>STEVE LUCE: FOR 134 RESIDENTS. >> 134 RESIDENTS. >>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT. >> 75 BEDS IS WHAT I WAS TOLD, SO I'M ONLY TRYING TO FIND OUT. I'M -- >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. WELL, THE GENTLEMAN -- >> I DON'T KNOW IF I'M IN OPPOSITION, BUT I WONDER IF SOMEBODY COULD ENLIGHTEN US ABOUT THIS OR GIVE US RENDERINGS OR A PICTURE OR SOMETHING. >>STEVE LUCE: MR. GRADY, DO YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT -- >>BRIAN GRADY: WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN ON RECORD. I'M NOT SURE IF IT ACCOMPLISHES WHAT HER DESIRE IS, BUT IT AT LEAST SHOWS THE BUILDING LAYOUT, SO WE COULD PROVIDE THAT TO HER. >> I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY KNOWS THE SITUATION. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THREE SEPTIC TANKS ON THIS SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY NOW SITTING THERE. IT'S A VERY BIG FLOODING PROBLEM FOR MY SUBDIVISION BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT OPPOSITE ONE OF THE ENTRANCES TO MY SUBDIVISION, SO ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING THERE, I -- YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SO MUCH AS TO SAY DON'T BUILD IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT. >>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH SOMEBODY OR -- >>STEVE LUCE: THIS IS -- >> -- TAKE THE INFORMATION BACK. >>STEVE LUCE: IT'S A LITTLE UNORTHODOX, BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE, AND HE DOES HAVE A RENDERING OF THE SITE PLAN. SIR, IF YOU COULD BRING THAT FORWARD AND DO ME A FAVOR IS THAT IF YOU COULD COME BACK TO THE MICROPHONE. MA'AM, WHAT I'D LIKE HIM TO DO IS PROVIDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ON THE RECORD AND SHOW THE GRAPHIC TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AS YOU WALK AROUND THE PROPERTY. >> YES, SIR. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME TELL YOU THAT THIS FACILITY IS DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR THOSE WITH ADVANCED STAGES OF DEMENTIA. THERE WILL NOT BE A SINGLE PERSON HERE WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE, FOR INSTANCE, SO TRAFFIC IS A VERY SMALL CONCERN IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THIS IS THE [INAUDIBLE] >>STEVE LUCE: TRY TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE BUT ALSO TALKING TO HER AT THE SAME TIME. >> [INAUDIBLE] ON ME. THIS IS THE SITE. THIS IS MEMORIAL. THIS IS WEBB ROAD. THE BUILDING SITS HERE BACK FROM THE STREET AND DOWN TO THE SCHOOL AS YOU KNOW, WHICH IS BEHIND IT. >> YES. >> RIGHT. AND THE BUILDING IS LIKE SO, AND IT HAS 75 UNITS IN IT. >> RIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT, SIR. >>BRIAN GRADY: YOU NEED TO BE ON THE MICROPHONE. >>STEVE LUCE: EXCUSE ME, SIR. IF YOU COULD, PLEASE SIT DOWN AND LET THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER COME FORWARD. >> [INAUDIBLE] DISRUPT THESE PROCEEDINGS. >>STEVE LUCE: THAT'S FINE. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO GET IT STRAIGHT IN MY MIND. >>STEVE LUCE: SURE. >> YOU DO KNOW THAT THE COUNTY IS ABOUT TO START CONSTRUCTION AT THE NORTH END OF WEBB ROAD WIDENING WEBB ROAD. WELL, NOBODY PAID ATTENTION TO THE SOUTH END OF WEBB ROAD. WE HAVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT; WE HAVE A FLOODING PROBLEM. I JUST WAS HOPING THAT THE COUNTY WOULD TAKE THAT AND GIVE IT TO THE SCHOOL OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE PROPER PARKING OR SOMETHING, SO WHAT I'M TAKING BACK IS YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD THIS THING WITHOUT -- >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE COUNTY IS NOT THE APPLICANT, THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPING -- >> THAT IS CORRECT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- THIS PROPERTY. IT WILL BE A PRIVATE DEVELOPER THAT'S BUILDING THIS PROPERTY. >> BUT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO ALLOW IT; AM I CORRECT? >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. >> OKAY. CAN -- WILL THIS GO TO ANOTHER HEARING? CAN I BRING MORE PEOPLE JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE? >>STEVE LUCE: NO. THIS IS A SPECIAL USE HEARING, AND SPECIAL USES ARE DECIDED HERE BY ME, AND I HAVE 15 WORKING DAYS TO RENDER A FINAL DECISION. IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED, THERE'S A SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS TO SUBMIT DETAILED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AS TO HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, WHICH WILL ADDRESS ISSUES REGARDING TRANSPORTATION -- >> RIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- AND CONCURRENCY. >> RIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- AND ADDRESSING THE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND CONGESTION CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE. >> ARE WE ALLOWED TO LISTEN IN TO THESE -- >>STEVE LUCE: THEY ARE NOT TYPICALLY ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS. >> OH. >>STEVE LUCE: IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES STAFF CAN KEEP YOU ADVISED AS TO THE PROCESS. >> THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH. THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH. >>STEVE LUCE: BUT JUST TO ADD TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THEY ALSO ADDRESS ISSUES REGARDING STORMWATER, THEY ALSO -- WHICH MEANS THE FLOODING ISSUE THAT YOU'VE HISTORICALLY HAD IN YOUR COMMUNITY. >> IN FACT, I DID CALL MR. CABRERA'S OFFICE TODAY -- I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S HERE -- BECAUSE I WAS GIVEN THE NAME BY YOU TO CONTACT HIM. HE'S VERY AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, SO -- >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND SO STORMWATER IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT'S ADDRESSED. >> OKAY. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND THE ISSUE REGARDING PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER, IF THERE ARE HISTORICALLY SEPTIC TANKS ON A PROPERTY -- >> THREE OF THEM. >>STEVE LUCE: -- DURING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, IT'S MORE THAN LIKELY IF PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER LINES ARE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY -- AND I STRONGLY SUSPECT THAT THEY ARE -- THAT THEY WILL CONNECT TO PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER, SO -- >> YEAH. >>STEVE LUCE: -- THE HISTORIC NATURE OF SEPTIC TANKS ON THE PROPERTY WILL BE ADDRESSED. >> I JUST WONDER -- >>STEVE LUCE: SO THE TRAFFIC, STORMWATER, AND WATER AND SEWER WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY, JUST SO YOU KNOW. >> THE ONLY CONSIDERATION ALSO ABOUT THE FLOODING IS BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT UP PRETTY HIGH AND, THEREFORE, THE FLOODING WILL TAKE PLACE INTO BAY CREST. >>STEVE LUCE: ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT IS THAT IT CANNOT CREATE AN ADVERSE OFF- SITE FLOODING CONDITION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. >> OKAY. >>STEVE LUCE: THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE APPROVED. >> SO SIR -- SOMEBODY FROM PLANNING AND GROWTH OR STORMWATER, THEY'RE GOING TO COME AND INSPECT ALL THIS AND LET US KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON? IS THIS NORMAL? >>STEVE LUCE: NO. THIS IS A FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SPECIAL USE. BEYOND THIS HEARING THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE. >> OKAY. >>STEVE LUCE: IT'S NOT A NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. >> RIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: BUT BECAUSE YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS PROJECT, YOU CAN -- >> I DO. >>STEVE LUCE: -- GET CONTACT NAMES AND NUMBERS FROM STAFF AND YOU CAN KEEP TRACK OF THE PROGRESS OF THIS PROJECT. >> OKAY. >>STEVE LUCE: NOW, THAT DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY SORT OF STANDING IN TERMS OF OBJECTING TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE THE PROJECT OR NOT, BUT IT AT LEAST KEEPS YOU TRACK -- APPRISED OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS AND THE -- SORT OF WHEN THE PROJECT WOULD BE DEVELOPED. >> BUT WE ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO STAFF ON THIS AT DIFFERENT TIMES TO ASK THEM WHERE WE ARE? >>STEVE LUCE: THEY ARE AT YOUR DISPOSAL. >> I COULD TALK TO THEM? >>STEVE LUCE: YES. >> STORMWATER, WHOEVER I NEEDED? >>STEVE LUCE: YES. >> OKAY. I'M NOT HERE TO SAY, NO, DON'T DO THIS, BUT I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT ALL IS INVOLVED TO DO THIS THING, SO I GUESS -- IS THIS GOING TO BE A DECISION-MAKING TIME TODAY? >>STEVE LUCE: AFTER TONIGHT'S HEARING, I HAVE 15 DAYS TO RENDER A FINAL DECISION. >> OKAY. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND, MA'AM, I NEED YOU TO SIGN IN. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? >>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. NO. AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FINAL COMMENT OR REBUTTAL. >> NO, SIR. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH THAT, THIS CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10- 0625. THE APPLICANT'S LEARNING GATE COMMUNITY SCHOOL, INCORPORATED. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE EXISTING NUMBER OF STUDENTS ON THE PROJECT FROM 550 TO 600. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. APPLICANT. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JOHN GIBBONS. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE SAXON GILMORE FIRM HERE IN TAMPA, 201 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, AND I REPRESENT THE LEARNING GATE COMMUNITY SCHOOL, INC. WE'RE HERE TONIGHT FOR AN APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS ALLOWED UNDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FROM 550, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED, TO 600, AND ALSO TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE PROJECT FROM 40,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED, TO 42,000. IN CONNECTION WITH THE INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE, THERE IS NO INTENTION TO CHANGE THE SITE PLAN OR TO INCREASE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS THAT ARE -- ALREADY EXIST THERE, BUT THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT CONSTITUTES BREEZEWAYS AND PORCHES WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT COULD BE ENCLOSED TO RECONFIGURE THE CLASSROOM AREAS, AND SO THAT'S THE NATURE OF THAT REQUEST. OF COURSE, ANY CHANGE LIKE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE SCHOOL TO GO THROUGH THE BUILDING REVIEW PROCESS AND GET THAT APPROVED. THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL STUDENTS IS BASED ON THE SUCCESS OF THE SCHOOL. THE SCHOOL HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 2001. IT'S A PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, AND IT HAS A CONSIDERABLE WAITING LIST. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL ACADEMICALLY, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RATED AN "A" SCHOOL, AND I'VE HEARD SUPERINTENDENT ELIA SAY ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS THAT THIS SCHOOL IS THE CROWN JEWEL IN THE CHARTER SCHOOL MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTY. THE -- YOU MAY FIND WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE MATERIALS THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION OVER THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT WAS BEING REQUESTED. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS TO GO TO 650. THAT HAS BEEN LIMITED TO 600. THERE'S NO -- SO THAT IS THE REQUEST NOW IS FOR 600 STUDENTS, NOT 650, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO CONFUSION OVER THAT. THE INTERESTING THING REGARDING THAT IS THAT THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT'S REPORT IS BASED ON 650 STUDENTS AS OPPOSED TO 600, AND ALSO, THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY US WAS ALSO BASED ON 650 STUDENTS. NOW, THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SUBMITTED SHOWS MINIMAL IMPACT WITH THE INCREASED STUDENTS, SO THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE 50 STUDENTS LESS EVEN STRENGTHENS THAT POSITION. IN ADDITION, THE STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL AS THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES LAND USE ELEMENT. IT'S -- THIS IS A REALLY GREAT SCHOOL THAT'S SUCCESSFUL THERE, AND THIS REQUEST IS REALLY OF A FAIRLY MINIMAL NATURE, AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >>STEVE LUCE: I BELIEVE LAST TIME WE HAD A HEARING ON THIS AND I WAS THE HEARING OFFICER THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF TESTIMONY REGARDING ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENT OUT IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL. >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: HAS THAT IMPROVEMENT BEEN COMPLETED? >> YES, SIR. THERE'S BEEN A RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE AND A LEFT-HAND TURN LANE CONSTRUCTED, ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, AND ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY HAS BEEN DEEDED BY THE SCHOOL TO THE COUNTY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. THAT PROJECT IS ALL DONE, IT'S IN PLACE, AND HAS BEEN OPERATING FOR SOMETIME. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING SCHOOL, KINDERGARTEN THROUGH 8th GRADE, SUBJECT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 6.11.88, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS BY 50 AND TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 2,000 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT'S ALSO REQUESTING A WAIVER THAT'S A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO A ROADWAY SHOWN ON THE MPO LONG-RANGE PLAN. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WAIVER. STAFF SUPPORTS THAT. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION, ALL CLASSROOM CHANGES WILL BE INTERNAL THROUGH THE ENCLOSED -- ENCLOSURE OF CERTAIN BREEZEWAYS UNDER ONE ROOF, AND NO ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL BE REQUESTED THAT WILL RESULT IN ANY CHANGES IN THE FOOTPRINT. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT. >>STEVE LUCE: NO -- NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>MARCIE STENMARK: THANK YOU. MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-1 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE RURAL SERVICE AREA. IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE LUTZ COMMUNITY PLAN. AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT AND MS. MARINER, THE REQUEST WAS CHANGED FROM 650 STUDENTS TO 600, SO PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR REPORT IS INACCURATE WITH THAT FACT. THEY'RE ALSO REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 40,000 SQUARE FEET TO 42,000 SQUARE FEET. THE FACILITY IS LOCATED ON A 26.5-ACRE PARCEL, OF WHICH ONLY EIGHT ACRES ARE UTILIZED BY SCHOOL BUILDINGS. THE REMAINING 18 ACRES ARE UNDEVELOPED DUE TO THE EXISTENCE OF WETLANDS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RECONFIGURE EXISTING BUILDINGS THROUGH THE ENCLOSURE OF BREEZEWAYS. THE SPECIAL USE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. POTENTIAL IMPACTS WILL BE MITIGATED THROUGH BUFFERING AND SCREENING AND SITE DESIGN AND PROGRAMMING. WITH THAT, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AT THIS POINT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M KATHLEEN FERNANDEZ, ESQUIRE, 2323 1/2 AILEEN STREET IN TAMPA 33607. SIR, WE WERE BEFORE YOU LAST TIME, AS YOU STATED, AND I -- ACTUALLY, LET ME START WITH THE FACT THERE'S A NOTICE ISSUE THE NEIGHBORS ARE VERY CONCERNED WITH. A SIGN FOR NOTIFICATION OF THIS HEARING WAS PLACED IN FRONT OF A DAY CARE THAT IS AFFILIATED WITH THE SCHOOL BUT NOT PART OF THE SCHOOL AND SOME CONCERN THAT THAT BUILDING OR THAT PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE USED FOR SOME PORTION OF THIS, SO IT'S A CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT THEY WOULD PLACE A NOTIFICATION IN FRONT OF THAT DAY CARE THAT'S OWNED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL, AND APPARENTLY THE CHILDREN OF THAT SCHOOL USE THE EGRESS AND THE INGRESS OF LEARNING GATE, THE MAIN SCHOOL, SO THERE IS SOME CONCERN THERE, AND I'M NOT SURE OF HOW TO RESOLVE THAT CONCERN. >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT AWAY. FIRST, HAVE YOU BROUGHT THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF? >> I HAVE E-MAILED PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT WITH NO RESPONSE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. MR. GRADY, YOU JUST HEARD THE TESTIMONY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS ISSUE? >>BRIAN GRADY: NO, I'M NOT. I'LL NEED TO LOOK INTO THIS WHILE THE TESTIMONY CONTINUES. >> THERE ARE TWO PICTURES THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE -- WHAT THEY CALL THE PGM STORE, AND ONE OF THEM SHOWS IT'S DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE DAY CARE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. JUST SO YOU CAN CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, WHERE IS THE LOCATION OF THE DAY CARE? >> I SHOULD KNOW THE ADDRESS. I BELIEVE IT'S 16 -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU. -- 331. IT'S ACTUALLY AROUND THE CORNER FROM THE ENTRANCE TO THE SCHOOL. >> 16231. >> I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: IS THIS DAY CARE INCORPORATED ONTO THE 26.53 ACRES OF THE SCHOOL SITE? >> ORIGINALLY IT WAS NOT. FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, ABOUT NINE MONTHS IN 19 -- IN 2008 IT WAS ILLEGALLY INCORPORATED, AND IT WAS REMOVED AGAIN FROM THE PARCEL, AND SO CURRENTLY IT'S A SEPARATE PARCEL. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S STILL CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THEY GET RESIDENTIAL TRASH PICKUP EVEN THOUGH IT'S A BUSINESS THERE, AND EVERYONE'S AWARE IT'S A BUSINESS THERE. NO ONE WANTS TO CHANGE IT AS FAR AS THE COUNTY'S CONCERNED, BUT IT'S A SEPARATE BUSINESS OWNED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF LEARNING GATE, AND IT OPERATES AS A DAY CARE, AND I ASSUME THOSE CHILDREN THEN FEED IN TO THE KINDERGARTEN AT LEARNING GATE, BUT PARENTS DO NOT DROP OFF OR PICK UP AT THE DAY CARE, THEY DROP OFF AND PICK UP AT LEARNING GATE. >>STEVE LUCE: IF I CAN GET YOU TO USE THE ELMO, I HAVE A GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS THE SCHOOL SITE. MAYBE YOU CAN USE THE ELMO, AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY POINT TO THE LOCATION OF THE CHILD CARE. >> THIS IS THE SCHOOL PROPERTY. >>STEVE LUCE: CORRECT. >> AND THIS RIGHT HERE, THIS LITTLE TINY SECTION HERE IS THE DAY CARE. ACTUALLY THE DAY CARE OWNS THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THE OTHER LITTLE -- >>BRIAN GRADY: MA'AM, THERE'S A MIKE OVER THERE THAT YOU SHOULD USE. >> I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> THE LEARNING GATE PROPERTY IS WHAT'S SHADED HERE. >>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT. >> THE DAY CARE IS THIS LITTLE SECTION HERE THAT'S CLEAR WHERE YOU SEE THE ROADWAY CURVES, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DAY CARE ALSO OWNS THAT LITTLE PORTION ACROSS THE STREET. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND WHERE DID YOU SAY THE SIGN WAS? >> THE SIGN IS PLACED RIGHT -- APPROXIMATELY RIGHT HERE, RIGHT AFTER THE CURVE. >>STEVE LUCE: HMM. MR. CLARK, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THIS MATTER? THANK YOU. >>CAMERON CLARK: MR. LUCE, GIVE ME JUST ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. >>STEVE LUCE: SURE. MA'AM, IF -- >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: REGARDING THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN, ANY OTHER ISSUE REGARDING THE NOTICE? >> NO, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, NO, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. SO THAT'S IT? >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: WHILE THEY'RE TALKING, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OBJECTION TO YOU MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. >> OF COURSE. THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, WE PRESENTED APPROXIMATELY 22 PETITIONS AGAINST THE INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT. SEVERAL NEIGHBORS SPOKE AT THAT TIME. I BELIEVE SOME OF THEM ARE HERE TO SPEAK TODAY. FROM THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS PLACED ON LEARNING GATE, NEIGHBORS HAVE FOUGHT HARD FOR THE LAST NINE YEARS TO GET THEM INTO COMPLIANCE, TO GET THE ROADWAY DONE. THERE'S STILL COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND I KNOW THE LAST TIME MR. GIBBONS' STATEMENT WAS THAT SHOULD BE DONE IN A DIFFERENT FORUM, BUT TO GET MR. BLINCK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT OUT THERE TO LOOK AT THE SIMPLEST MATTERS WE CAN'T DO. NEIGHBORS CAN'T DO IT, I CAN'T DO IT. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY IS HOW THEY'LL CONTINUE TO WORK IN THE BUFFER. THE BUFFER'S A 40-FOOT BUFFER FROM THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS. IF I CAN GIVE YOU -- OR SHOW YOU THESE PICTURES AND THEN HAND THEM TO THE CLERK. THOSE PICTURES SHOW A LIGHT POLE THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN FRONT OF LEARNING GATE, AND TO THE RIGHT OF THAT LIGHT POLE YOU SEE A WOODEN FENCE STRUCTURE. THE METAL FENCE THERE IS ACTUALLY 16143, THE NEIGHBORS LANDOWNERS. BEHIND THAT WOODEN FENCE THERE'S CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL THAT HAS GROWN INTO ITS OWN STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THERE SO LONG. THERE'S ALSO A PARKING LOT THAT CREEPS IN TO THAT 40 FEET. LEARNING GATE CONTINUES TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THOSE INITIAL CONDITIONS, AND MR. BLINCK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT GIVES THE EXCUSE THAT HE CAN'T JUST WALK ON THEIR PROPERTY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WALK ON THE PROPERTY TO SEE THIS VIOLATION. AND THE HOMEOWNERS AT 16143 WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT HAVE GRANTED PERMISSION FOR SOMEONE TO GO ON THEIR PROPERTY AND LOOK, BUT AGAIN, HE DOESN'T WANT TO, AND THEY'RE ASKING THAT YOU AT LEAST GIVE THEM SOME HELP IN LIMITING WHAT LEARNING GATE DOES. LAST TIME WE WERE BEFORE YOU, MR. GIBBONS SPOKE VERY NICELY ABOUT LEARNING GATE, AND I WILL QUOTE HIM FROM THAT TRANSCRIPT ON PAGE 93 AND 94, AND THIS REQUEST IS IT SIMPLY TO TAKE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS FROM 500 TO 550, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER THAT THE BUILDINGS CAN ACCOMMODATE ON THIS SITE. THE SCHOOL CURRENTLY EXCEEDS THAT LIMITATION -- BECAUSE THEN WE KNEW [INAUDIBLE] HIS PETITION OR THE PETITION AT THAT TIME BY LEARNING GATE ALSO SAID THE MAXIMUM WAS GOING TO BE 550. NOW WE GET A PETITION THAT SAYS THE MAXIMUM IF IT STAYS THE WAY IT IS IS 585. I DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE EXTRA 35 KIDS GOT INVOLVED EXCEPT THAT THEY'RE PROJECTING THEIR ENROLLMENT IN AUGUST TO BE, I BELIEVE, 568, SO THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. IT'S ALSO VERY CONCERNING TO NEIGHBORS WHEN THEY HEAR THE CHANGE FROM 600 TO 650 BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S COMING. WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE AGAIN IN A YEAR. SO THOSE ARE THE CONCERNS. THERE WAS TALK TONIGHT ABOUT HOW EVERYTHING COMPLIES WITH THE FUTURE LAND ELEMENT, BUT GOAL NUMBER 10 TALKS ABOUT THE POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP IN CONNECTION TO THE NEIGHBORS. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. I GUESS LASTLY WHAT I'LL SAY IS THE CONCERN WITH THE NEIGHBORS IS THAT EVERYTHING LEARNING GATE SAYS CHANGES. I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD -- WE'LL USE THE WORD "INCONSISTENT." THEY CONTINUALLY TELL THE NEIGHBORS SOMETHING AND THE COUNTY AND THEY DO THE DIFFERENCE, SO I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY TONIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? YES, MA'AM. >> GOOD EVENING. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS GREG HOFSCHNEIDER. I LIVE AT 16236 LAKE PALM DRIVE, LUTZ 33549. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO LET MR. GIBBONS KNOW I DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT'S BUILT ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, SOMETHING'S GOING TO BE BUILT THERE. LAST HEARING HE ACCUSED ME OF -- OR HE SAID I HAD SOME SORT OF ALTER AGENDA. THERE IS NONE. SOMETHING'S GOING TO BE BUILT THERE. BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT, IF THERE WAS A HOME DEPOT BUILT THERE, HOME DEPOT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE VARIANCES. WE'RE JUST ASKING LEARNING GATE COMPLY WITH THE VARIANCES. THOSE PICTURES MS. FERNANDEZ SHOWED YOU -- GAVE YOU, THEY DON'T SHOW THE BUILDING EXCEEDING THE 40 FEET, NOT JUST THE PARKING LOT, NOT JUST SOME CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. THERE IS A BUILDING EXCEEDING THE LIMIT. THERE IS A LIGHT THAT EXCEEDS THE 18 FEET, NONGLARE. THERE ARE TWO LIGHTS LIKE THAT. SINCE THEY FIRST OPENED -- APPLIED FOR A SCHOOL THERE, THAT I DIDN'T -- THAT I DIDN'T CONTEST BECAUSE THERE WAS 360 STUDENTS. SOMETHING HAD TO BE BUILT THERE. NOT A PROBLEM WITH IT. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM NOT COMPLYING WITH THEIR VARIANCES. NOW, WE'RE GOING INTO THE 2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR WITH A PROJECTED ENROLLMENT ABOVE WHAT THEY'RE -- WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE, SO UNLESS YOU APPROVE THIS LIKE YOU DID LAST TIME AGAINST MY ADVICE, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, NOT WHAT YOU ALLOW THEM TO DO. THEY WILL ASK FOR IT LATER. MR. BLINCK FLAT-OUT REFUSES, USING HIS WORDS I WILL NOT. SOMEBODY'S GOT TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE. WILL IT TO THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS, THE COUNTY OFFICIALS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND TAKE CARE OF THIS. IF YOU HAD CHILDREN AND THEY KEPT DOING SOMETHING YOU TELL THEM NOT TO DO, AT WHAT POINT ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THEM? THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? >> GOOD EVENING. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS KATE TAYLOR. I LIVE AT 16142 HANNA ROAD, LUTZ 33549. I AM ON A DIAGONAL FROM THE SCHOOL. I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS. I HAVE LIVED OUT THERE LONGER THAN MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME TO BE HEARD. I LIKE THE AREA, I LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THOUGHT I COULD GET ALONG WITH LEARNING GATE, BUT I'VE BEEN SHOWN DIFFERENTLY. I HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE AND I HAVE SAID PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO A SCHOOL. I LOVE CHILDREN, BUT I RESENT HOW THEY HAVE INTRUDED INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I STILL AM A WORKING WOMAN, AND THERE ARE DAYS WHEN THEY WON'T EVEN ALLOW ME OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY. WHEN THEY HAVE EVENTS, THEY PARK ILLEGALLY. WHEN THEY HAVE PICKUP TIMES, THEY START LINING UP UP AND DOWN THE STREET BECAUSE IT'S CONGESTED IN THEIR PARKING LOT, SO THEN THEY'RE OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC OR THEY'RE ON THE EASEMENTS AND THE PROPERTIES OF MYSELF AND MY NEIGHBORS. I DON'T BELIEVE THEM ANYMORE. ORIGINALLY I TRIED TO SPEAK WITH THEM DIRECTLY BY PHONE CALL OR BY APPEARING AT THEIR SCHOOL, AND I WASN'T HEARD OR REALLY ACKNOWLEDGED, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE A BUSINESS, THEY'RE MAKING MONEY, AND THAT'S JUST DANDY, BUT THIS IS STILL A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WHEN I WAS HERE LAST TIME, I MENTIONED THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN DARK AT NIGHT IN WINTER SINCE THEY'VE BEEN THERE. WHEN THE DECIDUOUS TREES DECIDE TO SHED THEIR LEAVES, THEY'RE LIT UP LIKE AN AFTER-HOURS INSTITUTION OF SOME KIND, SO I'M VERY DISGRUNTLED ABOUT IT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD AND NOT JUST HEARD BUT HAVE SOME OF THESE ISSUES ADDRESSED. IT'S QUITE DISCONCERTING TO BE A TAXPAYER AND A LONG-TIME RESIDENT AND HONORING ALL THE CODES WHEN OTHERS ARE NOT COMPELLED TO DO THE SAME. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: MA'AM, LET ME ASK YOU, SINCE THE TIME THAT THEY'VE DONE THEIR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, HAS THAT IMPROVED THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS OUT ON YOUR ROAD IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE? >> NO. NO, NOT -- NOT REALLY, NO BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT ROUTES, I AM ON HANNA PARALLEL TO 41 -- EXCUSE ME, SO THERE IS A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT THE CORNER OF HANNA AND 41, AND THAT'S THE ROUTE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM BETTER TIME WITH THE LIGHTS. SO NO, IT HASN'T REALLY EASED MUCH OF ANYTHING. >>STEVE LUCE: HMM. AND THE LIGHTS THAT ARE ON THEIR PROPERTY, DO THEY STAY ON ALL NIGHT LONG OR DO THEY EVENTUALLY TURN OFF? >> NO. AS FAR AS I'VE BEEN ABLE TO OBSERVE, THEY'RE ON 24. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> AND THEY START EARLIER IN THE WINTER, SO -- >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> UH-HUH. >> GOOD EVENING TO EVERYBODY. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS CLEM LAZARO. I'M REPRESENTING MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND. WE HAVE A TEN-ACRE PROPERTY VERY ADJACENT TO THE SCHOOL, LIKE FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK OF OUR PROPERTY. WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR PROPERTY, WE WERE THINKING THIS IS -- THIS IS PARADISE, THIS IS REALLY, YOU KNOW -- THEN I FIND OUT THAT I CAN'T LET MY DOG LOOSE NOW THAT THEY HAVE A PROTECTION BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND OUR -- AND MY DOG. MY CONCERN IS ALSO LIKE KIDS CALLING MY DOG AND BARKING TO THE DOG, IMITATING THE DOG AND TEASING THEM, YOU KNOW. I HAVE FOUR DOGS FOR FIVE YEARS SINCE I LIVE THERE. I KEEP MY DOGS INSIDE THE HOUSE. THE ONLY TIME I LET THEM OUT IS REALLY JUST TO PEE, AND WHEN THEY ARE OUT, I HAVE TO REALLY HOLD THEM WHEN THEY'RE PEEING. NOW, AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF DOING THAT, I THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD BE LIKE 300 SCHOOL KIDS RUNNING AROUND, VOLLEYBALL, SCREAMING. THAT'S FINE WITH ME. I LOVE KIDS CAN. MY CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC. RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY WHEN IT'S TIME TO GO FOR -- TO THE SCHOOL, YOU HAVE TO WAIT IN LINE BEFORE YOU CAN GO THROUGH. IF I'M IN A HURRY TO GO TO WORK, I HAVE TO BEEP, BEEP BEFORE I CAN GO THROUGH. IF IT'S TIME FOR PICKUP, EITHER I HAVE TO PICK UP THE TRASH THE NEXT DAY OF BURGER KING AND McDONALD'S -- AND THAT'S OKAY TOO BECAUSE KIDS ARE HUNGRY AND ACCIDENTALLY THEY DROP THEM. I'M NOT TELLING THEM THAT THEY'RE THE ONE TRASHING IT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF, BUT THIS CONCERN -- WHAT ABOUT IF THERE'S A BIG FIRE THAT THE KIDS NEEDS TO BE EVACUATED? I'M A REGISTERED NURSE. FOR SO LONG THAT -- THESE ARE CONCERN FOR ME IF THERE'S A BOMB THREAT, HOW MANY PARENTS WILL BE RUSHING TO THAT GATE LEARNING SCHOOL TO SAVE THEM? THAT'S MY CONCERN. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I HAVE, I WAKE UP ONE MORNING, THERE IS A SIGN -- A SCHOOL SIGN RIGHT HERE ON MY RIGHT SIDE OF MY GATE ENTRANCE AND THE LEFT SIDE I HAVE ALSO A SIGN OF A BLINKING LIGHT THAT THEY WERE DIGGING AND PUTTING IT IN. THAT'S OKAY TOO. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN, BUT SOME OF MY VISITORS GET CONFUSED. THEY PASS BY AND GOING BACK AND FORTH. THEY THOUGHT THAT MY GATE IS THE PART OF THE SCHOOL BECAUSE OF THE LINE GOING TO MY PROPERTY. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I HAVE IS LIKE THAT ROAD, HANNA ROAD, BEING A NEW RESIDENTIAL MEMBER IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, I TREASURE THE PEACE. JUST TO COME IN AND OUT OF HANNA ROAD GOING TO 41 OR NEBRASKA, WHEN IT CURVES TO CHAPMAN ROAD, THERE IS A PALM TREE THERE, AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE DRIVEWAYS THAT YOU REALLY HAVE TO SLOW DOWN AND PRACTICALLY STOP BEFORE YOU CAN MAKE A TURN. YOU CAN GO FOR YOURSELF, SIR. YOU WOULD SEE IT. I TREASURE EVERY BIT OF MY PLACE. I LOVE IT. IT'S A PARADISE. AND ONE TIME THEY HAVE A BIG EVENT. THEY ASK ME IF THEY CAN PARK IN MY PROPERTY, AND I LOOK ACROSS MY PROPERTY, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO LAWN MOW IT. USUALLY THEY WILL ASK THEM IF I CAN PARK OVER THERE, AND SO I TOLD THEM I WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS TO THEM. I WELCOME THEM. AND THEY GAVE ME $200 AS A RENT FOR THE HALF A DAY. THEY'RE REALLY NICE PEOPLE. I DON'T WANT TO GO AGAINST, YOU KNOW, A GOOD NEIGHBOR, BUT THE ONLY CONCERN, WHEN DOES THIS THING STOPPED? I'M AN OWNER OF ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. WHEN WE WERE BUILDING OUR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, EACH ONE OF MY RESIDENTS THAT DON'T HAVE VISITORS, BUT STILL WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GIVE ONE PARKING SPACE TO EACH ONE OF THEM, SO MY CONCERN IS LEGITIMATE. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE KIDS. RIGHT THERE AT THE BACK WHERE THE ALLEY OF THE -- OF LAKEFRONT BEHIND MY PROPERTY GOES THERE TO 275. THERE IS A BLACK TRUCK THAT PARK THERE SOMETIMES. THEY GO FISHING INTO OUR PROPERTY. IT IS ADJACENT TO THE SCHOOL. I HAVE CALLED THE SCHOOL A COUPLE OF TIMES WHEN THERE WERE KIDS THAT WERE MISSING, AND THEY WERE NOT TOO FAR FROM OUR -- FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I SHOW THEM CONCERN THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT CAN REALLY COME THROUGH MY PROPERTY AND GO THERE, AND I CAN HEAR THE KIDS AT THE BACK THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A SMALL HOUSE THERE AT THE BACK TOO. MY CONCERN ARE LEGITIMATE, SIR. I BOUGHT THIS SMALL PROPERTY FOR ME AND MY HUSBAND TO GROW OLD. I DON'T WANT ANY RUNNING AROUND SO MUCH KIDS. NOW IT'S UP TO 8th GRADE. WHEN DOES IT STOP? I WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE THEIR PLANS. THEY HAVE 26 ACRES. ARE THEY BUILDING HIGH SCHOOL IN THE FUTURE IN I'D LOVE TO KNOW. I LOVE THE PEOPLE WHO WORK THERE. I MEET THEM OCCASIONALLY. I LOVE THE KIDS WHO RUN AROUND. IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME, BUT ONLY THING THAT BOTHER ME, IF MY DOG WILL START DIGGING INTO THE GROUND BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING CALLED BY THEM. SO I -- I LEAVE IT TO YOUR HEART TO FIND IT THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT ALSO TO EXIST IN THIS SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I FIND IT IS A TREASURE FOR MY OLD AGE AND MY GRANDCHILDREN. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. DOES ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS ROCHAN PREMRAJ. I LIVE AT 16401 HANNA ROAD, LUTZ 33549. I LIVE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY OF LEARNING GATE, AND I HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR A WHILE, AND I HAVE BEEN NOTICE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT TO LEARNING GATE AND IT'S ALL NEGATIVE. FROM THE TIME THEY START -- YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAD KEEP THE SCHOOL THE WAY IT IS, IT WOULD BE FINE WITH ME, BUT IF THEY'RE ASKING FOR MORE STUDENTS, THAT MEANS MORE TRAFFIC. MORE TRAFFIC MEANS MORE CONGESTION, AND MORE CONGESTION MEANS THAT I HAVE MORE TIME I HAVE TO WAKE UP EARLIER TO GO TO WHERE I HAVE TO GO. THE EXTENSION THEY DID ON THE ROAD CANNOT WITHSTAND THAT TRAFFIC BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO REALIZE TRAFFIC IS COMING FROM LIVINGSTON AVENUE RIGHT INTO HANNA ROAD, INTERSECTING 41. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE STUDENTS. I DON'T MIND ACTUALLY 500, 550 STUDENTS, BUT WHAT THEY HAVE IS GOOD ENOUGH, AND I STRONGLY DISAPPROVE OF THE INCREASE OF THE STUDENTS. YOU KNOW, IT'S -- HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, IF THEY'RE PLANNING TO PUT HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THERE, THAT MAY BE A RECIPE FOR DISASTER. I THINK THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY HAVE AND CONTENT WITH WHAT THEY HAVE AND LET'S MOVE ON AS GOOD NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. THE NEXT PERSON, PLEASE. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. AT THIS POINT, STAFF REGARDING THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE FIRST. >>BRIAN GRADY: WE'RE STILL LOOKING INTO THAT MATTER. WE'VE NOT RESOLVED THAT YET. AT THIS POINT YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE APPLICANT REBUTTAL. >>CAMERON CLARK: [INAUDIBLE] >>BRIAN GRADY: I GUESS WE'RE READY TO ADDRESS IT. >>CAMERON CLARK: MR. LUCE, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION IN THAT YOU HAVE TESTIMONY THAT THE -- ONE OF THE NOTICE SIGNS -- ONE OF THE TWO NOTICE SIGNS WAS NOT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THE CODE REQUIRES THAT IT BE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AT THIS POINT STAFF CAN'T -- AND I GUESS MS. MARINER COULD SPEAK TO THIS. SHE SEEMS TO RECALL THAT IT WAS IN THE RIGHT LOCATION, BUT SHE CAN'T SWEAR TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS EXACTLY IN -- ON THE PROPERTY. I WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS ANY TESTIMONY AVAILABLE FROM ANYBODY WHO COULD -- WHETHER IT WAS CONTRADICTORY OR WHETHER IT WOULD CORROBORATE WHAT THE OTHER TESTIMONY WAS BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, THE ONLY TESTIMONY YOU HAVE -- THE ONLY SWORN TESTIMONY IS THAT IT WAS ON THE WRONG LOCATION, SO I'D ACTUALLY ASKED THE APPLICANT IF ANYBODY ELSE HAD SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT. >>STEVE LUCE: ARE THERE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SIGN? >>CAMERON CLARK: THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, AND I HAD INQUIRED OF MR. GRADY TO SEE IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO HAVE THOSE SO YOU COULD SEE THEM ON SCREEN. THEY'RE IN THE OPTIX SYSTEM, AND YOU CAN SEE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF POSTING. IT'S JUST THAT BASED ON WHERE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS IS LOCATED, YOU CAN'T TELL FOR CERTAIN EXACTLY WHERE -- DETERMINE THE LOCATION. I'LL LET BRIAN SPEAK TO THAT. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, THERE'S A STRUCTURE, AND I THINK THAT'S THE DAY CARE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT'S ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND THE PHOTO IS -- IF YOU'RE FACING THE PROPERTY ALONG HANNA ROADWAY -- IS TO THE LEFT OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH AGAIN, THE PROPERTY WOULD -- THE PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE TO THE LEFT OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THAT PHOTO WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE SIGN IS ON THE DAY CARE PROPERTY OR ON THE EDGE OF THE SCHOOL PROPERTY, AND SO YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, ASCERTAIN THAT FROM THE PHOTO, AND AS CAMERON SAID, THE OPPOSITION TESTIMONY WAS ON THE RECORD SAYING THAT WHERE THAT IS IS ON THE DAY CARE PROPERTY. >>STEVE LUCE: I MEAN, THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS A BUILDING IN THE BACK, WHICH IS A DAY CARE, AND THEN A FENCE WHICH SEEMS TO BE PART OF THE DAY CARE PROPERTY. IT'S FENCING IN THE DAY CARE PROPERTY. NOW -- AND WE DON'T HAVE SURVEYS IN FRONT OF US. I HAVE AN AS-BUILT AS TO WHERE YOU PUT THE SIGN REGARDING THE PROPERTY LINES, BUT IT APPEARS TO BE THAT THE SIGN IS IN FRONT OF THE DAY CARE. YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO -- >> IF I COULD SPEAK TO THAT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THE NOTICE. >> OKAY. THERE CLEARLY IS A SIGN IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL, CLEARLY IS ONE THERE. >>STEVE LUCE: YES. >> THERE ARE TWO SIGNS THAT WERE POSTED, OKAY. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ONE THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT CHARLES GERARD IS HERE WHO HAS SEEN IT, AND IF YOU COULD SWEAR HIM IN, HE COULD TESTIFY AS TO WHERE IT IS. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME ASK A QUESTION TO STAFF. THERE'S ONE SIGN THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY CLEARLY AND ONE SIGN THAT'S QUESTIONABLE BUT APPEARS TO BE OFF THE SITE IN FRONT OF THE DAY CARE. >>BRIAN GRADY: THERE'S ONE SIGN THAT WAS POSTED AT THE ENTRANCE -- DIRECT ENTRANCE TO THE SCHOOL, AND THERE'S ANOTHER ONE POSTED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ON HANNA. >>STEVE LUCE: UH-HUH. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE OPTIX, YOU KNOW, INDICATED THAT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PLACED SORT OF IN THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY THERE ON THEIR PROPERTY, AND AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT SIGN WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY OR NOT OR IS ON THE DAY CARE PROPERTY. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. REGARDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE SIGN IF YOU'RE ON ONE STREET, BUT IF YOU'RE ON A CORNER, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO SIGNS? >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT'S BEEN OUR POLICY, AND THAT'S WHY TWO SIGNS WERE POSTED GIVEN THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THE CORNER PROPERTY'S A DIFFERENT PROPERTY, THE SITUATION OF THE PROPERTY, THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED -- DIRECTED THAT TWO SIGNS BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. SO AS A PRACTICE, IF YOU'RE ON A CORNER, WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS MUCH COMMUNICATION WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE LARGER NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SO YOU HAVE SIGNS ON TWO SIGNS IF YOU'RE ON A CORNER. SO THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAVE FROM SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO SPEAK TO WHAT? >> TO WHERE THE SIGN IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. LET'S BRING HIM FORWARD. >> HE'LL NEED TO BE SWORN IN. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD FIRST. >> CHARLES GERARD. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. IF YOU COULD, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? >> I DO. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'VE BEEN LISTENING ALONG WITH REGARD TO THE NOTICE. YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF THAT SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY? >> YES, SIR. ACTUALLY THE -- I ACTUALLY SAW THE INSTALLATION OF THE SIGN WHICH IS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE DAY CARE, AND THAT IS -- THAT IS RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE -- OF THE SCHOOL. THE OTHER SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS OVER BY THE LEARNING GATE COMMUNITY SCHOOL, THAT IS -- >>STEVE LUCE: YOU'RE CONFUSING ME. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>STEVE LUCE: WHY DON'T YOU START OVER. THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE IS THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. >> OKAY. THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE -- >> WHERE THE DAY CARE -- >> -- WHERE THE DAY CARE IS. >>STEVE LUCE: WHERE THE DAY CARE CENTER IS. >> -- YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND WHAT -- WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICANT FIRST? LET'S ESTABLISH THAT. >> I'M THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR LEARNING GATE COMMUNITY SCHOOL. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND WHAT'S YOUR INVOLVEMENT THEN SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE SIGN, POSTING OF THE SIGN? >> NONE WHATSOEVER AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL POSTING OF THE SIGN, NOTHING. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. SO THIS IS JUST YOUR GENERAL OBSERVATION BECAUSE YOU DO WORK ON THIS PROPERTY? >> YES. I DO THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY. YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW I ESTABLISHED THAT. WHAT IS YOUR TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF THE SIGN ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY? >> WELL, THE -- THE REASON I BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF MR. GIBBONS WAS THE IMPRESSION WAS THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE SIGN ON THE PROPERTY. >> NO, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. >> WELL -- >> IT'S THE LOCATION OF THE ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE HE WANTS TO KNOW. >> THE LOCATION OF THE ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE IS -- IT'S AT THE LEARNING GATE DAY CARE ADJACENT TO THE -- >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OKAY. >>STEVE LUCE: MR. GIBBONS, I THINK WE HAVE AN ISSUE REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. CLARK, UNLESS YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, I THINK THIS APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED, THEREFORE IS OUT OF ORDER. >>CAMERON CLARK: YEAH. IT WOULD SEEM THAT THERE IS A QUESTION AS TO THE NOTICE, AND SO THE SAFEST COURSE OF ACTION MAY BE FOR YOU TO CONTINUE IT FOR THE -- >>STEVE LUCE: GIVEN THE FACT WE'VE ALREADY HAD TESTIMONY, I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IS CONTINUE THIS OR BECAUSE OF THE NOTICE ISSUE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REHEAR? >>CAMERON CLARK: BECAUSE OF THE NOTICE ISSUE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO -- I BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REHEAR. THAT SAID, YOU CAN MAKE PART OF THE RECORD OPPONENTS' TESTIMONY OR PROPONENTS' TESTIMONY BECAUSE THAT IS PART OF THE RECORD. PEOPLE CAN REVIEW THAT PRIOR TO THE NEXT HEARING; HOWEVER, YES, IN THAT INSTANCE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE RE-PRESENTED. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND THIS IS A RENOTICE BY THE APPLICANT? >>BRIAN GRADY: NO, THIS WOULD BE A -- THE COUNTY WOULD REPOST THE SIGN IN THE CORRECT LOCATION BECAUSE THE OTHER FORMS OF NOTICE ARE CORRECT. THE ONLY FORM OF NOTICE THAT IS INCORRECT IS THE SIGN POSTING, SO THAT WILL BE REPOSTED. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. SO THE COUNTY STAFF WILL REPOST THE PROPERTY? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT POSTS THE SIGNS, AND SO WE WILL DIRECT THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT TO REPOST THAT SIGN. >>STEVE LUCE: AND REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT DOES NOT NEED TO HAPPEN? >>BRIAN GRADY: NO, BECAUSE -- AND MR. CLARK CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THERE'S THREE FORMS OF NOTICE, AND SO AS LONG AS -- SO THERE'S LIKE THREE TRACKS, AND IF TWO OF THEM ARE CORRECT, YOU DON'T NEED CORRECTIVE NOTICE ON THOSE, YOU NEED TO CORRECT WHAT WAS INCORRECT, AND SO YOU'RE CONTINUING ON THE RECORD HERE, SO CERTAINLY ANYBODY WITH CONCERNS HERE AT THE HEARING IS GOING TO KNOW OF THE NEW HEARING DATE, AND SO WE WILL REPOST THE SIGN SO THAT IF THERE'S SOMEONE OUT THERE OR SOMEHOW THIS CAUSES SOME SORT OF CONFUSION, IT WOULD BE REPOSTED, AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT NEEDS TO BE REDONE IN THIS INSTANCE. >> COULD I ASK A QUESTION, MR. LUCE? >>STEVE LUCE: YES, SIR. >> WHAT IF WE FIND THAT THE SIGN IS ACTUALLY PROPERLY POSTED? >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, BASED ON THE -- I CAN ONLY GO BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED -- >> I UNDERSTAND. >>STEVE LUCE: -- TO ME TONIGHT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AND BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF YOUR CONTRACTOR, BASED ON THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT I HAVE THAT SEEMS TO CLEARLY INDICATE TO ME, ALTHOUGH I DON'T HAVE A SURVEY IN FRONT OF ME, THAT SHOWS AN AS-BUILT AS TO WHERE YOU POSTED THE SIGN RELATIVE TO PROPERTY LINES, IT APPEARS THAT THE NOTICE SIGN IS ON FRONT OF THE DAY CARE SITE. >> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR ME TO SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH? >>STEVE LUCE: YES, SIR. >> MR. LUCE, CAN I MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT ABOUT THE NOTICE? >>STEVE LUCE: IN A MOMENT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL. >>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, BUT IT'S -- IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT COMMENT ON THE RECORD. >> IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL FROM THAT PHOTOGRAPH AS TO WHERE EXACTLY THE SIGN IS LOCATED VIS-A-VIS THE PROPERTY LINE. >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, I FIND THE CASE IS OUT OF ORDER REGARDING NOTICE. MR. GRADY, WHEN WOULD THIS APPLICATION BE CONTINUED TO? >>BRIAN GRADY: THERE'S A 30-DAY REQUIREMENT FOR POSTING OF INCORRECT NOTICE, SO BASED ON THAT, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE SEPTEMBER 20th HEARING. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND MA'AM, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT REGARDING THE NOTICE? >> MR. LUCE, I THINK THE KEY THING THAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO FORGET IS THERE IS SIDEWALK ONLY IN FRONT OF THE DAY CARE. THE LEARNING GATE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY HAS NO SIDEWALK. THE SIGN IS IN FRONT OF THE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS IN FRONT OF THE DAY CARE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. MR. GRADY, ANNOUNCE THAT ONE MORE TIME FOR THE RECORD. >>BRIAN GRADY: SEPTEMBER 20th, 2010. >>STEVE LUCE: THIS ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 20th, 2010, 6:00 P.M. IN THESE CHAMBERS. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR. >> SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. MR. GRADY, WILL YOU INTRODUCE THE NEXT APPLICATION. >>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 5, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0651. THE APPLICANT'S WALGREENS. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 2-APS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: YES, MA'AM. >> GOOD EVENING MR. ZONING HEARING MASTER. GRACE YANG, GRAYROBINSON LAW FIRM, 201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 2200, TAMPA, FLORIDA. I AM THE AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PETITIONER, REPRESENTING THE WALGREENS PHARMACY LOCATED AT 1001 78th STREET IN TAMPA. THIS IS AN EXISTING WALGREENS PHARMACY STORE. WE ARE REQUESTING A 2-APS SPECIAL USE. THE SITE IS ZONED CG, AND THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE CN AND CG TO THE NORTH, CG TO THE EAST, CN TO THE SOUTH, AND CG TO THE WEST. THE STORE IS SURROUNDED BY VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USES, INCLUDING RESTAURANTS, DRY CLEANER, A 7-ELEVEN STORE, AN ADVANCE AUTO PARTS STORE, AND AN AMSCOT STORE. THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE STORE IS ORIENTED TOWARDS 78th STREET AND PALM RIVER ROAD. HERE IS THE WALGREENS PHARMACY ON THE MAP. THIS STORE DOES MEET THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SEPARATIONS, BUT WAIVERS ARE NEEDED BECAUSE THE STORE IS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THREE COMMUNITY USES. THE FIRST COMMUNITY USE -- THE CLOSEST COMMUNITY USE IS THE WINSTON PARK PROPERTY LOCATED HERE APPROXIMATELY 233 FEET AWAY TO THE SOUTHWEST. SO WE REQUIRE A WAIVER OF 267 FEET. THE LOCATION BETWEEN THE PARK AND THE PHARMACY, THERE IS A BUFFER WITH THE PARKING LOT GROUNDS HERE AND DESTIN DRIVE BEFORE GOING OVER TO THE PARK THAT PROVIDE BUFFERS. THE SECOND BUFFER THAT'S -- EXCUSE ME. THE SECOND USE THAT REQUIRES A DISTANCE WAIVER IS THE KEENEY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO THE SOUTH. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED HERE. KEENEY UNITED METHODIST IS APPROXIMATELY 314 FEET AWAY, SO WE NEED A WAIVER OF 186 FEET. AND AGAIN, BUFFERS INCLUDE WALGREENS PHARMACY PARKING LOT. THERE'S ALSO A RETAIL STORE HERE AT THE ADVANCE AUTO PARTS STORE THAT CREATES A BUFFER BETWEEN THE WALGREENS AND THE CHURCH. FINALLY, THE THIRD WAIVER REQUESTED IS FOR THE LIBRARY. THERE IS THE 78th STREET COMMUNITY LIBRARY WHICH IS LOCATED HERE TO THE EAST. THE COMMUNITY LIBRARY PROPERTY IS 495 FEET AWAY, SO WE NEED A FIVE-FOOT DISTANCE WAIVER FROM THE LIBRARY. BUFFERS INCLUDE THIS COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, WHICH IS THE -- WHICH INCLUDES THE AMSCOT STORE, THE GROUNDS, AND THEN THE LIBRARY GROUNDS THERE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. I BELIEVE STAFF FINDS THIS APPROVABLE, AND WE ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. AT THIS POINT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 2-APS, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT DESCRIBED EVERYTHING, AND I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? >>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> NO, THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. MR. GRADY, READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 6, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0652. THE APPLICANT IS WALGREENS CORPORATION. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 2-APS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> MR. ZONING HEARING MASTER, GRACE YANG, GRAYROBINSON, 201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 2200, TAMPA, FLORIDA. THIS IS FOR AN EXISTING WALGREENS PHARMACY LOCATED AT 514 EAST WINDHORST ROAD IN BRANDON. THE REQUEST AGAIN IS FOR A 2-APS PACKAGED BEER AND WINE USE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED PD. THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE RSC-6 TO THE NORTH, PD-C TO THE EAST, PD TO THE SOUTH, AND PD TO THE WEST. THIS STORE IS SURROUNDED BY VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USES TO THE EAST, THE WEST, AND THE SOUTH, AND THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE STORE IS ORIENTED TOWARDS KINGSWAY ROAD AND WINDHORST ROAD. HERE'S THE LOCATION OF THE STORE ON OUR AERIAL. THIS STORE ALSO MEETS THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT WE DO NEED WAIVERS BECAUSE THIS STORE IS WITHIN 500 FEET OF ONE COMMUNITY USE. LaPETITE ACADEMY IS 286 FEET TO THE EAST, SO WE REQUIRE A 214-FOOT DISTANCE WAIVER. THE BUFFERS INCLUDE THE WALGREENS PARKING LOT, KINGS HIGHWAY ROAD, A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER HERE WHICH INCLUDES AN OASIS FOOD MART STORE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >>STEVE LUCE: NONE AT THIS TIME. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. AGAIN, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: NO. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? >>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER. >>STEVE LUCE: APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> NO, THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. MR. GRADY, READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0653. THE APPLICANT'S WALGREENS CORPORATION. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 2-APS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> GRACE YANG, GRAYROBINSON, 201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 2200, TAMPA, FLORIDA. >>STEVE LUCE: BUSY TONIGHT, AREN'T WE? >> YES. I WILL TRY TO GET THROUGH THESE FOR YOU. THIS IS FOR AN EXISTING WALGREENS PHARMACY STORE LOCATED AT 2110 EAST BRANDON BOULEVARD IN VALRICO. THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED CG. SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE CG TO THE NORTH, CG TO THE EAST, PD-C TO THE SOUTH, AND CG TO THE WEST. THE STORE IS SURROUNDED BY VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USES TO THE EAST, WEST, AND SOUTH, AND THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE STORE IS ORIENTED IN A SOUTHWEST DIRECTION. THIS STORE ALSO MEETS THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY USES; HOWEVER, WE DO NEED DISTANCE WAIVERS BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO COMMUNITY USES AFFECTED WITHIN 500 FEET. THE FIRST IS A CHURCH, THE IGLESIAS DE DIOS CHURCH WHICH IS LOCATED AT 111 NORTH VALRICO ROAD. HERE'S THE WALGREENS STORE ON THE MAP, THE AERIAL THAT I HAVE HERE, AND THIS BUILDING IS THE IGLESIAS DE DIOS CHURCH. IT'S ABOUT 204 FEET AWAY TO THE NORTHWEST, REQUIRING A 296- FOOT DISTANCE WAIVER. AS YOU'LL SEE FROM THE AERIAL, HERE'S THE WALGREENS STORE. IT IS SEPARATED BY A STREET HERE. YOU'VE GOT JELANE DRIVE HERE AS WELL, AND THERE'S A STRIP CENTER IN BETWEEN -- OOH -- THAT INCLUDES -- EXCUSE ME -- OTHER COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUSINESSES SUCH AS A HAIR SALON AND A TAILOR. THE SECOND DISTANCE WAIVER REQUIRED IS FROM ANOTHER CHURCH. IT'S CALLED THE FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH. HERE'S THE WALGREENS PHARMACY, HERE'S THE FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH TO THE EAST. IT'S ABOUT 240 FEET AWAY, REQUIRING A 260-FOOT DISTANCE WAIVER. THE BUFFERS INCLUDE THE PARKING LOT FROM THE WALGREENS, JELANE DRIVE AGAIN, AND THEN THERE IS A CG PARCEL HERE IN BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE WALGREENS PHARMACY. I BELIEVE STAFF FINDS THIS APPROVABLE GIVEN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? >> I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> NO, THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. MR. GRADY, YOU READY FOR THE NEXT APPLICATION? >>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT APPLICATION IS AGENDA ITEM 8, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0654. THE APPLICANT IS WALGREENS. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 2-APS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> MR. LUCE, GRACE YANG, REPRESENTING THE WALGREENS PHARMACY STORE AT 11010 BLOOMINGDALE AVENUE IN RIVERVIEW. THIS IS ALSO AN EXISTING WALGREENS PHARMACY STORE REQUESTING A 2-APS PACKAGED BEER AND WINE USE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED ASC-1. SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE ASC-1 TO THE NORTH, PD AND CN TO THE EAST, PD-MU TO THE SOUTH, AND PD TO THE WEST. THE STORE IS SURROUNDED BY VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USES TO THE EAST, THE WEST, AND THE SOUTH. THE STORE MEETS THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, BUT A WAIVER IS NEEDED BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN 500 FEET OF A COMMUNITY USE, WHICH IS PROVIDENCE PARK. PROVIDENCE PARK IS ABOUT 385 FEET AWAY TO THE NORTHEAST, REQUIRING A 115-FOOT DISTANCE WAIVER. THE BUFFERS INCLUDE THE PARKING LOT AT THE WALGREENS SHOPPING CENTER, PROVIDENCE ROAD, WHICH HAS ABOUT SEVEN LANES, I THINK, AND ANOTHER COMMERCIAL PARCEL TO THE EAST THAT HAS A SUNTRUST BANK, A BARBECUE RESTAURANT, AND SOME OTHER USES IN THERE THAT CREATE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE WALGREENS AND PROVIDENCE PARK. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. WE DO FIND THIS APPROVABLE, AND I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO SAY. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: AT THIS POINT IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> NO, THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 9, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0703. THE APPLICANT IS WALGREEN CORPORATION. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR A DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR 2-APS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. ZONING HEARING MASTER. GRACE YANG, GRAYROBINSON, 201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 2200. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF AN EXISTING WALGREENS PHARMACY STORE LOCATED AT 13317 NORTH BOULEVARD IN TAMPA. IT IS AT THE CORNER OF NORTH BOULEVARD AND FLETCHER AVENUE. THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED PD. THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE RSC-4 AND BPO TO THE NORTH, CN TO THE EAST, RSC-6 TO THE SOUTH, AND CN TO THE WEST. THE STORE IS SURROUNDED BY VARIOUS COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES IN THE AREA. THERE IS AN EIGHT-FOOT WALL BEHIND THE STORE THAT SEPARATES THE STORE FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS AS WELL. THIS STORE MEETS THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY FOR A 2-APS APPROVAL, BUT A WAIVER IS NEEDED BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN 500 FEET OF A COMMUNITY USE. THAT COMMUNITY USE IS HAMNER PARK, WHICH IS LOCATED ABOUT 273 FEET AWAY TO THE NORTHWEST. BUFFERS INCLUDE THE WALGREENS PARKING LOT AND THE MULTILANE FLETCHER AVENUE THAT GOES BETWEEN THE STORE AND HAMNER PARK. I AM AWARE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSIENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DID RECEIVE SOME CORRESPONDENCE FROM KATHLEEN REDMAN COMPLAINING OF SOME TRANSIENTS IN THE OFFICE PARK NEAR WHERE THEY ARE. I CHECKED WITH THE STORE MANAGER, TOM SPRIGG. MR. SPRIGG, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING, BUT HE DID ASK ME TO PUT A LETTER INTO THE RECORD, WHICH I WILL DO SO, AND TO SUMMARIZE, MR. SPRIGG HAS BEEN THE STORE MANAGER AT THE WALGREENS STORE SINCE JANUARY 9th, 2008, AND TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A COMPLAINT AT THE STORE OR CALLS IN CONCERNING TRANSIENTS IN THE AREA, AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS LETTER GOT INTO THE RECORD BECAUSE HE'S NOT AWARE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT LOITERING OR HOMELESS PEOPLE SURROUNDING THEIR STORE. HE DID SAY THAT SOMETIMES ON OCCASION WHEN THEY FOUND A PANHANDLER, THEY WOULD ASK THE PANHANDLER TO PLEASE LEAVE, AND THEY WOULD LEAVE WITHOUT INCIDENT, SO I'D LIKE TO ENTER THE LETTER FROM TOM SPRIGG INTO THE RECORD. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, NICHOLAS SAMINSKY IS HERE TONIGHT IN PLACE FOR MR. SPRIGG IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STORE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. WE DO FIND THIS APPROVABLE, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: AT THIS POINT IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: SIR. >> GOOD EVENING. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> KENNETH MUELLENBERG, 13313 NORTH HAMNER AVENUE, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33612. LAST WEDNESDAY, THE 21st, I SUBMITTED A PETITION SIGNED BY THE NEIGHBORS TO STOP WALGREENS FROM SELLING ANY TYPE OF ALCOHOL, BEER, OR WINE. I ALSO SUBMITTED SOME PICTURES. WE HAD THOSE REALLY BAD STORMS I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT FIVE WEEKS AGO. AT THAT TIME PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HAD JUST PUT UP THE SIGN. WITHIN TWO DAYS THE SIGN -- THE STORM HAD KNOCKED DOWN THE SIGN. I WAITED APPROXIMATELY I'M GOING TO SAY FOUR TO FIVE DAYS SUSPECTING THAT SOMEONE THAT WORKED IN THE WALGREENS WOULD MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT AND THE SIGN WOULD GO BACK UP. I AT THAT TIME CALLED PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I LEFT A MESSAGE STATING THAT I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME PROCEDURE BASED ON THE SIGNAGE BEING UP FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO NOTIFY THE NEIGHBORS THAT THEY HAD PLANNED ON PETITIONING FOR A BEER AND WINE LICENSE. I RECEIVED NO RESPONSE, BUT THE NEXT DAY THE SIGN WAS UP AGAIN. WITHIN TWO DAYS THE SIGN WAS DOWN AGAIN AND WAS NEVER PUT UP AFTER THAT. I HAVE PICTURES OF WHEN THE SIGN WAS ORIGINALLY TAKEN DOWN. I HAVE PICTURES TAKEN AFTER I WENT TO PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ON WEDNESDAY, THE 21st. I MET WITH THE STAFF, AND I MENTIONED TO THEM THAT THERE WAS NO SIGNAGE STIPULATING WHAT THEY WERE INTENDING. THE LADY THERE ACTUALLY TOLD ME -- SHE SAID, OH, YOU MUST HAVE BEEN THE ONE THAT CALLED. WE WENT BACK AND WE PUT THE SIGN UP. I SAID, YES, YOU DID, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN THERE, IT'S COMPLETELY GONE, AND MY PICTURES SHOW THAT WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY KNOCKED DOWN, IT WAS OBVIOUS TO SEE THAT IT WAS LAYING THERE, IT WAS VERY -- YOU COULD SEE IT VERY EASILY. THE SECOND TIME APPARENTLY IT WAS KNOCKED DOWN, IT WAS ACTUALLY KNOCKED DOWN BEHIND THE CULVERT TO WHERE IT COULDN'T BE SEEN BY ANYONE. I MEAN, WE HAVE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT -- EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID, BUT WE HAVE RESIDENTS -- RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES DIRECTLY BEHIND THE WALGREENS, DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE WALGREENS ACROSS A VERY SMALL STREET, HAMNER AVENUE. WE HAVE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD 50 YEARS. I WAS ALSO TOLD WEDNESDAY, LAST WEDNESDAY, THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY E-MAIL THEIR FEELINGS ABOUT THIS SITUATION AND THE REZONING OF THIS AND THE SELLING OF BEER AND WINE. THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO E-MAIL THESE PEOPLE. THE LADY THAT LIVES DIRECTLY BEHIND THE WALGREENS IS ACTUALLY IN A WHEELCHAIR. SHE WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE KNOWN THIS. SO I DO HAVE A PETITION THAT'S BEEN SIGNED BY I BELIEVE 34 PEOPLE. I HAVE THE SUPPORT OF ALL THE RESIDENTS. I WAS ALSO TOLD AT THAT TIME THAT IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY SIGN A PETITION BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT MAY BE FRAUDULENT OR WHETHER THEY SHOW UP HERE AND SPEAK IN PERSON OR SEND AN E-MAIL IN OR SEND A LETTER IN. WELL, WE WEREN'T AWARE OF THOSE SITUATIONS. THE RESIDENTS ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THEM SELLING. I'VE SUBMITTED A PETITION BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE REASONS THEY DON'T WANT THAT THERE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I WOULD ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE BASED ON THESE FACTS, THAT THE NEIGHBORS -- NEIGHBORS HAVEN'T BEEN NOTIFIED CORRECTLY AND ALSO GIVE THE NEIGHBORS THAT -- MANY WHO HAVE LIVED THERE OVER 50 YEARS, MANY THAT ARE ELDERLY, TO ACTUALLY GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION IN THIS MATTER. >>STEVE LUCE: SIR, LET ME JUST FIRST ADDRESS THE SIGN. MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD, JUST TALK GENERALLY ABOUT HOW YOU DEAL WITH SIGNAGE THAT -- AFTER YOU POST IT AND IF THAT SIGN FALLS DOWN, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT HISTORICALLY. >>BRIAN GRADY: WELL, HISTORICALLY, AS MR. MUELLENBERG ALLUDED TO, IF WE'RE APPRISED OF THE SITUATION OF THE SIGN BEING DOWN, WE CONTACT THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT AND ASK THEM TO GO REPOST THE SIGN AND PUT IT BACK UP, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE DO. BOTH -- IN THIS CASE, THE SIGNS WERE CORRECTLY POSTED ON THE PROPERTY, AND SO THE FACT THAT IT MAY FALL DOWN, IF WE ARE ADVISED OF THAT, WE TRY TO PUT IT UP. HISTORICALLY THE FACT THAT THE SIGN MAY FALL DOWN HAS NOT BEEN DEEMED A REASON FOR IT TO BE CALLED OUT OF ORDER FROM A NOTICE PROCEDURE STANDPOINT, AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE, BOTH SIGNS WERE CORRECTLY POSTED ON THE PROPERTY, SO FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS CASE, IT IS IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD. CERTAINLY YOU CAN TAKE MR. MUELLENBERG'S TESTIMONY INTO CONSIDERATION AS YOU GO FORWARD ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THERE'S ANY CAUSE TO CONTINUE IT, BUT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, PROCEDURALLY IT'S IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. I MEAN, SIR, GENERALLY STAFF OR IN PRIOR YEARS APPLICANTS HAD A RESPONSIBILITY OF POSTING THE PROPERTY, BUT THE WAY THAT WE'VE HISTORICALLY APPROACHED SIGNS THAT FALL DOWN EITHER ON THEIR OWN OR SOMEBODY INTENTIONALLY KNOCKS THEM DOWN IS THAT THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO POST IT AND DO THEIR BEST TO TRY TO RESPOND IF SOMEBODY CALLS AND SAYS PLEASE COME BACK OUT AND PUT IT BACK UP TO DO SO, BUT IT STARTS GETTING BEYOND THE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO KEEP RUNNING BACK OUT TO ADJACENT SITE -- OR PROPERTIES AND REPOSTING A SIGN EVERY TIME A SIGN FALLS DOWN, SO WHAT WE'VE COME TO TAKE IS A POSITION THAT THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE THE SIGN'S POSTED CORRECTLY ORIGINALLY, THAT IT'S PHOTOGRAPHED, THAT THEY DO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE, AND THAT IT'S ALSO PLACED IN THE NEWSPAPER? >>BRIAN GRADY: THERE'S A LEGAL AD ALSO, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. SO THEY TRY MULTIPLE AVENUES TO GET THE WORD OUT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. NOW, MR. GRADY, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT E-MAIL. IS THERE ANY FORMAL WAY OF GETTING THE WORD OUT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT BESIDES CALLING ON THE PHONE -- BECAUSE YOUR PHONE NUMBER'S ON THERE, BUT IS YOUR -- IS YOUR INTERNET E-MAIL ADDRESS ON THESE -- >>BRIAN GRADY: THERE IS AN E-MAIL ADDRESS ON THE SIGN THAT THEY CAN E-MAIL COMMENTS TO -- >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >>BRIAN GRADY: -- ALSO. >>STEVE LUCE: THAT'S ON THE POSTED SIGN? >>BRIAN GRADY: POSTED SIGN. >>STEVE LUCE: IS IT ALSO IN THE NOTICE THAT GOES OUT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? >>BRIAN GRADY: I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE NOTICE ALSO. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER CALL OR E-MAIL BRIAN GRADY AND STAFF IN GENERAL -- >> RIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- TO GET THE WORD OUT, SO MY FINDING IS THAT THIS APPLICATION IS IN ORDER REGARDING THE PROPER NOTICE. NOW I DO HAVE ALL YOUR OTHER TESTIMONY. >> WELL, YEAH, AND I MEAN, I'LL JUST SAY WHEN -- THE NEIGHBORS ACTUALLY KIND OF ASKED ME TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF, AND OF COURSE, YOU DO HAVE THE PETITION IN FRONT OF YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT. >> I WILL SAY THIS, WHEN THE NEIGHBORS THAT MAYBE LIVED A LITTLE FURTHER UP THE STREET, FURTHER THAN THE 250 FEET AWAY, WHEN THEY ASKED ME, YOU KNOW, TO HELP THEM WITH THIS PETITION, THEY SAID TO ME, WELL, WHY WEREN'T WE NOTIFIED? WHY DIDN'T WE GET ANY PAPERWORK? HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THIS IS GOING ON? THEY DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE WALGREENS IS SITUATED ON THE CORNER. THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THE BACK STREETS DON'T NECESSARILY EVER SEE THE PART THAT -- ON NORTH BOULEVARD OR FLETCHER AVENUE, AND SO THOSE NEIGHBORS HAD NO IDEA THAT THEY WERE - - THAT THIS WAS EVEN GOING ON, AND I'M -- I WOULD THINK HONESTLY THAT IN, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE GOOD AND RIGHT AND JUST AND TRULY THE FIDUCIARY DUTY AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT -- I WOULD THINK WITH ALL THE -- ALL THESE SITUATIONS PERTAINING TO THIS APPLICATION, I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD HONESTLY BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EVERYTHING GOOD AND RIGHT TO CONTINUE THIS CASE TO GIVE THESE ELDERLY PEOPLE -- LIKE I SAID, MANY WHO ARE OLDER, MANY WHO HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE THAN 50 YEARS. THEY FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS. I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR AND JUST TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION IN THIS MATTER, ESPECIALLY WITH SITUATIONS LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM BEING WITH WALKERS AND WHEELCHAIRS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. >>STEVE LUCE: I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, SIR, BUT THAT'S A POINT OF POSTING THE PROPERTY SO PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY AND DRIVE BY THE PROPERTY CAN SEE THOSE SIGNS. THOSE ARE FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T NECESSARILY LIVE WITHIN THE PROPER MAILED-OUT NOTICE DISTANCE OF -- IN THIS CASE IT'S 250 FEET? >>BRIAN GRADY: 300 FEET. >>STEVE LUCE: IN THIS CASE 300 FEET, THAT THOSE POSTED SIGNS ARE THERE TO HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FOLKS THAT LIVE BEYOND 300 FEET. >> RIGHT. WELL, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, I MEAN, BUT BASED ON WHERE THE WALGREENS IS -- AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I MEAN, THERE'S ONLY TWO ROADS THAT LEAD TOWARDS THE BACK OF THAT WALGREENS, AND THERE'S MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THE HUGE AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC THAT ARE COMING THROUGH THERE. >>STEVE LUCE: LET ME ALSO ASK, MR. GRADY, DOES AB SPECIAL USES HAVE A REQUIREMENT REGARDING A PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IN THE EVENT AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS ONE? >>BRIAN GRADY: NOT FOR THE SPECIAL USES. >>STEVE LUCE: NOT FOR THE SPECIAL USES? OKAY. >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT IF -- NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE REGISTERED THROUGH THE OFFICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS TO RECEIVE NOTICE OF ZONINGS, THOSE WITHIN A MILE ARE ALSO NOTIFIED. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. SO IF THERE IS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THEY WOULD HAVE -- IF THEY'RE REGISTERED WITH THE COUNTY, THEY WOULD HAVE ALSO RECEIVED A NOTICE, AND THEY'RE SENT OUT IN A SUFFICIENT TIME IN ADVANCE? >>BRIAN GRADY: THEY'RE MAILED OUT WITH THE REGULAR NOTICES. >>STEVE LUCE: ABOUT HOW MANY DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING? >>BRIAN GRADY: IT'S A MINIMUM 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. >>STEVE LUCE: 30 DAYS. >>BRIAN GRADY: SAME DEADLINE FOR THE NOTICE LETTER. BASICALLY THE NOTICE LETTER THEY SEND OUT, THEY HAVE TO SEND OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET AND ALL REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN A MILE. >>STEVE LUCE: AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH YOUR COMMENTS REGARDING GETTING THE WORD OUT, BUT I THINK IT'S A PRETTY TRIED AND TRUE PROCESS THAT THE COUNTY HAS ADOPTED. IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO OTHER LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AROUND THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT'S A PROCESS THAT SEEMS TO WORK. I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T SEE THE SIGN, THEY DON'T LIVE WITHIN 300 FEET AND THEY DON'T GET THE NOTICE, BUT IF YOU GOT THE NOTICE AND SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE IN YOUR COMMUNITY DID GET IT, I MEAN, YOU -- YOU'RE NOT A -- I MEAN, IT'S NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO GET THE WORD OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE BEYOND 300 FEET, BUT THE OPPORTUNITY EXISTS BECAUSE YOU DO GET NOTICE 30 DAYS PRIOR TO TRY TO START TALKING TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND THAT SORT OF THING, SO -- >> RIGHT, RIGHT. I MEAN -- AND I'M KIND OF CURIOUS. I MEAN, HOW ABOUT PERTAINING TO THE PETITION? I MEAN, IN YOUR EYES, I MEAN, YOU HAVE ALMOST 100% OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE WALGREENS, ALMOST 100% OF THOSE RESIDENCES THAT OPPOSE WALGREENS SELLING ANY KIND OF ALCOHOL -- >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, THAT'S INFORMATION THAT I WILL TAKE UNDER CONSIDERATION IN RENDERING A DECISION. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS THAT'S -- THERE ARE ALSO MANY MORE ISSUES THAT AREN'T IN THE PETITION THAT THESE NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE EXPRESSED AS WELL. >>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, NOW IS THE TIME TO -- >> WELL, I MEAN, THE VAGRANCY, THE NEIGHBORS ARE UPSET ABOUT THE VAGRANCY. I MEAN, I CAN -- YOU HAVE A PETITION IN FRONT OF YOU. IS IT NECESSARY FOR ME TO READ IT? >>STEVE LUCE: NO, IF IT'S IN THE PETITION, IF IT'S WRITTEN OUT WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE, THAT'S FINE. >> THEN THE ADDITION WOULD BE THE GANGS OF CHILDREN OR YOUNG KIDS I WOULD SAY AND THE VAGRANCY ISSUE AND THE GANGS OF KIDS. AND, YOU KNOW, AS YOU SEE IN THE PETITION, CRIME IS UP TREMENDOUSLY, TRAFFIC. ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY HAS SEEN AN INCREASE OF OVER A THOUSAND PERCENT IN FRONT OF TRAFFIC, 18 WHEELERS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS GENE GULLETT. I LIVE AT 13309 NORTH HAMNER AVENUE, TWO HOUSES SOUTH OF KEN. MY PROPERTY -- CORNER OF MY PROPERTY IS ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE CORNER OF THE WALGREENS PROPERTY, AND MY CONCERN IS IS THAT WE'VE BEEN DOWN HERE BEFORE, AND THINGS SEEM TO CHANGE AFTER WE COME DOWN AND SPEAK WITH YOU AND THIS TYPE OF THING. WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED TO PUT WALGREENS OR HAVE THE MEETING, WE HAD A LADY COME OUT AND TALK TO US AT THE CREDIT UNION THERE AND SUGGEST THAT THEY CLOSE OFF OUR STREET BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A ONE BLOCK STREET, COMES OFF OF FLETCHER AVENUE, IT GOES DOWN TO 131st, AND WHEN WE GOT DOWN HERE TO THE MEETING, SHE SAYS, NO, THAT DIDN'T WORK, SO WE'VE GOT TO GO WITH PETITION "B," AND -- THAT NONE OF US HEARD ABOUT, SO WE HAD TO AGREE TO THAT. THEN WE CAME TO ANOTHER MEETING AND THEY SHOWED US A SITE PLAN, AND AFTER THEY BUILT THE BUILDING AND PUT THE EGRESS AND INGRESS TO THE PROPERTY, THE SITE PLAN HAD CHANGED, AND THEY NEVER CAME BACK TO THE COMMUNITY TO SHOW IT. MR. MUELLENBERG DIDN'T BRING IT UP, BUT THE WALL THAT THEY SAY -- THE EIGHT-FOOT WALL THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BORDERING THE PROPERTY WAS SUPPOSED TO COME OVER TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE. THE EXIT TO THE WALGREENS WAS SUPPOSED TO COME OUT TO FACE THE BANK. WHEN EVERY CAR COMES TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH PHARMACY AND SITS IN THAT LINE, THEIR HEADLIGHTS ARE IN HIS FRONT BEDROOM WINDOWS, OKAY. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOWN ANOTHER 10, 12 FEET. THEY TOLD US FROM WALGREENS THAT 80% OF THEIR -- OR MORE OF THEIR MERCHANDISE CAME ON WALGREENS TRUCKS THAT WOULD COME ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK. THERE'S TRUCKS IN THERE STARTING AT EARLY IN THE MORNING TILL LATE AT NIGHT, AND THERE'S THE BREAD TRUCKS, THERE'S THE COKE TRUCKS, AND NOW IT'S GOING TO BE THE BEER TRUCKS AND ALL THAT. SO THAT'S NOT BEEN THE CASE. THEY TOLD US IT WOULD NEVER BE A 24-HOUR WALGREENS. WELL, THEY TRIED TO GO TO 24 HOURS, AND WE MADE SOME THING. THEY TOOK IT BACK TILL MIDNIGHT AT CHRISTMASTIME, SO IF THIS HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, DO WE GO TO 24 HOURS NEXT AFTER WE GET THE BEER AND EVERYTHING? SO IT'S FROM ONE THING TO THE OTHER. I SPEND ONE DAY A WEEK GOING UP AND DOWN HAMNER AVENUE WITH A BUCKET AND A PICKER-UP WITH ALL THE TRASH THAT COMES FROM THE PEOPLE GOING TO AND FROM WALGREENS, THE RECEIPTS FROM WALGREENS OUT OF THEIR BAGS AND STUFF, SO THAT'S WHY I KNOW IT'S COMING FROM WALGREENS. AND LIKE KEN SAID, YOU KNOW, THE CRIME RATE HAS INCREASED TREMENDOUSLY SINCE WE'VE HAD THAT. SO WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC AND THE -- NOT KNOWING WHAT WALGREENS IS REALLY, TRULY GOING TO DO NEXT, WE HAVE THOSE CONCERNS, AND THAT'S MY CONCERN, AND I APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO IT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? >>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER. >>STEVE LUCE: JUST CURIOUS, THE COMMENTS THAT HE'S MADE REGARDING I THINK SITE DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALGREENS. >>BRIAN GRADY: UH-HUH. >>STEVE LUCE: THIS SITE IS A EUCLIDIAN ZONING? >>BRIAN GRADY: IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. >>STEVE LUCE: IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT? AND YOU DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE THE ZONING CONDITIONS, DO YOU? >>BRIAN GRADY: NO, I DO NOT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THEY'RE AVAILABLE IN OPTIX, I PRESUME? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. YES, THEY'RE AVAILABLE, PUBLIC RECORD. >>STEVE LUCE: AND THIS IS '04. THEY SHOULD BE IN THERE. >>BRIAN GRADY: YES, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> YES, SIR, PLEASE. SEVERAL POINTS THAT I WANT TO COVER BASED ON WHAT I WAS HEARING. ONE ABOUT THE NOTICE ISSUE. I'M SORRY IF THE SIGN GOT KNOCKED DOWN BECAUSE OF BAD STORMS THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE ORIGINAL POSTING. IN CHECKING WITH THE STORE MANAGEMENT, THEY DO TELL ME THAT THEY HAD TO PUT THE SIGN BACK UP A FEW TIMES SO THAT WHEN THEY NOTICED THAT THE SIGN WAS DOWN, THEY WOULD TRY TO PUT IT UP SO THAT THEY COULD PROPERLY NOTIFY THE NEIGHBORS. OUR MAILED NOTICES DID GO OUT AS CODE REQUIRES TO ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET. WE DID NOTIFY SIX NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OF RECORD. THEY WERE THE HOA OF NORTH POINTE, INC., LAKE CARROLL COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, LAKE MAGDALENE MANORS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, LAKE MAGDALENE RESTORATION ASSOCIATION, MAGDALENE RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND NORTH FOREST HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. SO I DID WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE DID TRY TO NOTIFY THE IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AS WELL. I HEARD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND ABOUT TRAFFIC CONGESTION. THIS IS AN EXISTING WALGREENS PHARMACY STORE. WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING THAT THE APPROVAL FOR BEER AND WINE WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ADD TO THE TRAFFIC. THE STORE IS THERE. IT'S A CONVENIENCE STORE. IT'S A PHARMACY WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY COMING IN AND OUT FOR SHOPPING, AND THE HOPE IS THAT HAVING THE BEER AND WINE WOULD BE AN ADDED CONVENIENCE FOR THE EXISTING WALGREENS CUSTOMER BASE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WALGREENS WANTS TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PHARMACY AND TO HAVE GOOD RELATIONS WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE STORE MANAGER, WHICH YOU WILL SEE IN THE LETTER THAT WE PROFFERED, IS THAT THE STORE HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS IN THE PAST CONCERNING LIGHTING, CONCERNING TRANSIENTS AND SOME PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS ABOUT PANHANDLERS IN THE AREA, BUT THE PANHANDLERS ARE THERE NOW WITHOUT -- WITHOUT THE BEER AND WINE BEING PRESENT, AND UNFORTUNATELY OR -- I MEAN, IT'S JUST A REALITY THAT WE HAVE -- WE HAVE TRANSIENTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE TRAVELING IN THE TAMPA AREA AND IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THIS STORE CLOSES AT 10:00 P.M. SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. THAT IS A CONDITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I BELIEVE THE STORE WILL CONTINUE TO BE CLOSED AT 10:00 P.M. SEVEN DAYS A WEEK BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE ALLOWED BY THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS. THE STORE WILL BE A RESPONSIBLE ALCOHOL VENDOR. ALL OF THE STAFF AND THE EMPLOYEES WILL GO THROUGH CAREFUL RESPONSIBLE ALCOHOL VENDOR TRAINING. THEY'LL BE TRAINED AT ALL LEVELS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT SELLING TO ANYONE WHO SHOULDN'T BE GETTING THE BEER AND THE WINE. SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BEER, THEY WILL NOT BE SELLING ANY SINGLE CANS OF BEER. THEY WILL ONLY BE SELLING SIX PACKS, 12 PACKS, 18 PACKS, CASES, AND THIS WAS NOTED IN THE MAILING IN A FACT SHEET THAT I INCLUDED WITH MY MAILING TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND I WILL ENTER ANOTHER COPY OF THAT INTO THE RECORD FOR YOU. THIS WAS A WALGREENS FACT SHEET THAT WAS INCLUDED WITH MY MAIL-OUTS TO ALL OF THE IMPACTED NEIGHBORS. AGAIN, I'M SORRY THAT THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS WITH -- WITH TRANSIENTS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENTIRELY RELEVANT, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY IF YOU ALLOW THE WALGREENS TO SELL. IT IS CONSISTENT, I THINK, WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THERE'S COMMERCIAL USES. I BELIEVE THERE IS A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE ACROSS THE STREET THAT ALSO SELLS PACKAGED BEER AND WINE. IT MEETS THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. THE ONLY WAIVER WE NEED IS FROM THE PARK. >>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU COULD, THE TESTIMONY BY ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS IS REGARDING CONVERSATIONS THEY'VE HAD WITH WALGREENS OR THE DEVELOPER OF THE SITE REGARDING ACCESS OR HOURS OF OPERATION OR -- OR THE WALL. COULD YOU ELABORATE? I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MET WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY. >> UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE ANY FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANY MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORS -- WITH THE NEIGHBORS OR CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. I DO KNOW IN THE PAST THAT THERE WERE SOME COMPLAINTS ABOUT NOISE -- EXCUSE ME -- LIGHTING, ABOUT LIGHTING COMING FROM SOME SECURITY LIGHTS THAT THEY HAD OUTSIDE, AND WALGREENS RESPONDED BY TAKING DOWN THOSE MOTION SENSOR LIGHTS. OTHER THAN THAT, AS FAR AS THE WALL, I BELIEVE THE WALL HAS BEEN IN PLACE. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY ISSUE ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE WALL. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CODE -- I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES OR ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT COUNTY HAS -- COUNTY STAFF HAS RAISED REGARDING ANY DEVIATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STORE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY, MA'AM? >> NO. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: NO FURTHER COMMENT? >> NOTHING FURTHER, YES. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: HOLD ON A SECOND. DO YOU HAVE ONE? >> YEAH. >>STEVE LUCE: BRIEF COMMENT? >> YES, YES, BRIEF COMMENT. FIRST I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT PROBABLY TWO YEARS AGO WALGREENS WAS STAYING PAST THE 10:00 P.M. LIMIT, AND THEY WERE STAYING OPEN UNTIL MIDNIGHT. THEY STARTED, I THINK, AT 24 HOURS. WE FILED COMPLAINTS. THE NEXT YEAR THEY DID THE EXACT SAME THING. THEY DIDN'T COMPLY THE FIRST YEAR, THEY DIDN'T COMPLY THE SECOND YEAR. THEY HAVEN'T COMPLIED WITH LANDSCAPING ISSUES, BUSHES, TREES, SHRUBS, SO MANY -- ON SO MANY DIFFERENT LEVELS. I MEAN, I DON'T SEE HOW -- SELLING BEER AND WINE CAN'T DO ANYTHING MORE THAN COMPOUND THE ISSUES THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING AND JUST DETRACT EVEN MORE FROM THE QUALITY OF LIVES OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. I'LL ALLOW YOU AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL ONE MORE TIME GIVEN -- >> THANK YOU, MR. LUCE. >>STEVE LUCE: -- THE COMMENTS BY THE OPPOSITION. >> I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE LETTER THAT TOM SPRIGG, THE STORE MANAGER, PROVIDED TO ME, THE ORIGINAL WHICH I HAVE HERE, AND HE IS SAYING THAT HE IS AWARE THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM OF THEM BEING OPEN UNTIL MIDNIGHT THE WEEK BEFORE CHRISTMAS WHEN THE ORDINANCE STATED THE OPERATING HOURS, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO CLOSE BY 10:00 P.M. THAT HOURS ISSUE WAS REPORTED IN 2009 BUT NOT BEFORE, AND I -- TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ONCE THE STORE WAS AWARE THAT THEY NEEDED TO CLOSE BY 10:00 P.M., THAT THEY DID CLOSE BY 10:00 P.M. AFTER THE COMPLAINTS WERE RAISED AND AFTER THERE WAS AWARENESS AT THE STORE. SO THE ASSISTANT MANAGER IS HERE. HE TELLS ME THAT THE STORE CLOSES BY 10:00 P.M. SEVEN DAYS A WEEK AND THAT IT WILL REMAIN CLOSED AT 10:00 P.M. SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? >> YES, SIR. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AND MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 10, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0706. THE APPLICANT'S WALGREENS CORPORATION. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 2-APS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> MR. LUCE, GRACE YANG, 201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 2200, TAMPA, FLORIDA. THIS IS FOR AN EXISTING WALGREENS STORE AT 5605 FISHHAWK CROSSING BOULEVARD IN TAMPA. THE SITE IS ZONED PD-MU, AND IT'S SURROUNDED TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST WITH PD-MU PARCELS. THIS STORE IS LOCATED NEAR THE CORNER OF FISHHAWK BOULEVARD AND FISHHAWK CROSSING BOULEVARD. IT MEETS THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, BUT A WAIVER IS NEEDED BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN 500 FEET OF A COMMUNITY USE. THAT COMMUNITY USE IS THE RANDALL MIDDLE SCHOOL AND FISHHAWK SPORTS COMPLEX LOCATED AT 606 EAST WINDHORST ROAD. THE PROPERTY FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND SPORTS COMPLEX IS ABOUT 452 FEET AWAY TO THE NORTHEAST, REQUIRING A 48-FOOT DISTANCE WAIVER. THE BUFFERS INCLUDE THE WALGREENS PARKING LOT, FISHHAWK BOULEVARD, AND THE GROUNDS OF THE RANDALL MIDDLE SCHOOL. GIVEN THAT WE ONLY NEED A 48-FOOT DISTANCE WAIVER AND THE INCIDENTAL ALCOHOL USE WE FEEL WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MIXED-USE CHARACTER OF THIS AREA, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. WE DO FIND THIS REQUEST APPROVABLE, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS POINT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> NO, THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 11, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0712. THE APPLICANT'S SRJ RESTAURANT, INCORPORATED. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 4-COP-RX ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> HI. SHERRY ALDAY, 22638 EAGLES WATCH DRIVE IN LAND O'LAKES. I'M THE OWNER -- MY HUSBAND AND I ARE THE OWNER OF THE WINNERS SPORTS GRILL, AND IT'S OPERATED WITH A 2-COP BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR 12 YEARS, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE IT TO A 4-COP [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] AND WE JUST NEED A DISTANCE WAIVER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES BEHIND US WHICH IS SEPARATED BY A PARCEL "B" CONSERVATION AREA. THE CLOSEST ACTUAL HOUSING TO THE -- OUR LOCATION IS 321 FEET, WHICH IS WITHIN THE -- OR BEYOND THE 250-FOOT LIMIT. AND THAT'S IN THE WET ZONE THAT I PROVIDED. AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT. OH, ALSO, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THE OUTSIDE SEATING AREA IN THE FRONT OF OUR LOCATION IN THE WET ZONE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >>BRIAN GRADY: MA'AM, WAS THAT INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY YOU SUBMITTED? >> YES. >>BRIAN GRADY: OKAY. >>STEVE LUCE: MR. GRADY, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE OUTLINE OF WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING A 4-COP-RX, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S COVERING THE BUILDING ITSELF. MA'AM. >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: A QUESTION I'M ASKING STAFF ABOUT IS REGARDING YOUR SEATING AREA, THE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, IS THERE A CANOPY THAT GOES OUT OVER THE SIDEWALK? >> WE HAVE A COVERED EASEMENT RIGHT THERE UNDER THE THING THAT WE HAVE SOME TABLES ALONG. >>STEVE LUCE: THE SEATING AREA WOULD BE ON THE SIDEWALK UNDER THE CANOPY? >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. MR. GRADY, THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN THAT THE SEATING AREA IS BENEATH AN OVERHANG, SO AN AERIAL VIEW SHOWS BUILDING, BUT THAT MAY BE, IN FACT, THE CANOPY THAT OVERHANGS THE SIDEWALK? >> YEAH, THERE'S ABOUT A TEN-FOOT -- >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. I THINK WE'RE OKAY, MR. GRADY. IF YOU'D JUST THINK ABOUT THAT OR CONFIRM THAT FOR ME. >>BRIAN GRADY: I THINK IT'S OKAY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY, THEY SHOW A DOTTED AREA WHICH I THINK WOULD PROBABLY BE THE BUILDING OUTLINE, AND THEN THE WET ZONE SURVEY BOUNDARY GOES BEYOND THAT BUILDING OUTLINE, SO THAT WOULD BE -- IT ENTERS A NOTE ABOUT OUTSIDE SEATING AREA, SO IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE IN ORDER. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. AT THIS POINT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A 4-COP-RX ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. IT DOES REQUIRE A WAIVER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING LOCATED 123 FEET TO THE WEST. 150-FOOT SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING WEST OF THE SITE. THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION IS THAT THE CLOSEST -- BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT AREA THERE'S A WETLAND AND A TREED AREA. THERE WILL BE NO CUSTOMER ACCESS FROM THE WEST, AND THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL USE IS 321 FEET. BASED ON THE WET ZONE -- EXCUSE ME. BASED ON THE WET ZONE SURVEY SUBMITTED JUNE 3rd, 2010, FOR A 5,144-SQUARE-FOOT RESTAURANT THAT INCLUDES AN OUTSIDE PATIO AREA AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION, STAFF SUPPORTS THE REQUEST. IF IT'S GRANTED, THE EXISTING PERMIT WILL BE RESCINDED. AND THEY DID IDENTIFY ON THE -- IN THEIR WRITE-UP THAT IT WAS TO INCLUDE AN OUTSIDE SEATING AREA. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. NOW, THE EXISTING 2-COP-RX, DOES THAT INCORPORATE THE OUTSIDE SEATING AREA? >> NO. >>STEVE LUCE: NO? OKAY. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT THE EXISTING 2-COP-RX DOES NOT INCORPORATE THE OUTSIDE SEATING AREA, SO THIS 4-COP-RX WILL INCLUDE THAT OUTSIDE SEATING AREA THAT GOES OUT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, YOUR STOREFRONT ITSELF. OKAY? >>SUSAN MARINER: THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? >>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER. >>STEVE LUCE: APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD. THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AND MR. GRADY, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT AND LAST SPECIAL USE APPLICATION. >>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 12, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 10-0716. THE APPLICANT'S C.J. KRAFT, THE PRESIDENT OF MESSIAH LUTHERAN. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR A CHILD-CARE CENTER. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS GRANT WALTERS. I LIVE AT 13726 STAGHORN ROAD IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, 33626. I'M REPRESENTING MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH, THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE FOR THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THIS SITE IS LOCATED AT 14920 HUTCHISON ROAD AND IS ZONED AS AN RSC-6 PROJECT. MESSIAH HAS RECENTLY COMPLETED A NEW BUILDING AND AN ASSEMBLY HALL THAT HAS RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON MAY 14th THIS YEAR, BARELY TWO MONTHS AGO. THE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS NEW BUILDING INCLUDES ADDITIONAL CHILD-CARE FACILITIES. AS A RESULT, MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH, WHO CURRENTLY HOLDS A 60 CHILDREN CHILD-CARE PERMIT IS REQUESTING AN INCREASED CHILD-CARE PERMIT OF 124 CHILDREN AGES THREE TO FIVE YEARS OF AGE IN ADDITIONAL USE WITH AN ADDITION ALSO OF EIGHT ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS TOTALING 6312 SQUARE FEET. AS FAR AS THE LAND USE GOES FOR OUR PROPERTY, THE COMPATIBILITY OF OUR PHYSICAL LAND USE FEATURES WITH ADJACENT LAND USES AND THE OVERALL DENSITY OF THESE ACTIVITIES IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER LAND USES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA IS NEGLIGIBLE. LET ME EXPLAIN. I'D LIKE TO GO TO THE VIEWER FOR THAT, PLEASE. THIS IS -- I DON'T THINK THIS IS ON. THIS IS AN ENLARGEMENT OF WHAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. AND WE FIND THAT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WE HAVE A PROPERTY LOCATION OF A PD THAT IS ACROSS HUTCHISON ROAD FROM US. ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY THERE IS ANOTHER PD. THIS IS A SHOPPING CENTER AS WELL AS THE ONE ON THE EAST SIDE. IT CONTAINS ALSO AN ACKERMAN JEWELERS AND A CVS STORE. ON THE WEST SIDE IS ACTUALLY A COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WOULD ALLOW THE LYNN TURNER ROAD TO EXTEND PAST OUR WESTERN SIDE AND ON UP TO PROBABLY RAWLS ROAD. THAT'S AS FAR AS THIS EASEMENT THE COUNTY HAS GOES THERE, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, EXCUSE ME. >>STEVE LUCE: MR. WALTERS, DO YOU KNOW HOW WIDE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS? >> NO, I DO NOT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> I KNOW THAT THE COUNTY HAS ASKED THAT IF THERE IS ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BY US OF A FEATURE THAT WE'LL BE SHOWING IN A MOMENT HERE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO -- THEY WOULD LIKE 50 ADDITIONAL FEET. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID THAT CORRECTLY. IT WAS -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THEY WANT US TO IDENTIFY IT. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, YES. OKAY. FORGOT ABOUT THAT. ON THE NORTH SIDE WE ABUT AGAINST AN RSC-6 PROPERTY IN THIS CASE. NOW, THIS PROPERTY IS WHERE WE'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE, AND THAT VARIANCE IS FOR THE -- THE LAND USE -- JUST A MINUTE HERE. I HAVE TO GET MY NOTE OUT. WHERE ON EARTH IS THAT THING? FOR THE LAND USE VARIANCE OF -- ON A ROADWAY THAT WE OWN, A PRIVATE ROADWAY THAT WE OWN, AND A BETTER PICTURE OF THAT WOULD BE SHOWN HERE IN A MOMENT. THAT'S IN THIS PICTURE, AND IT IS NOW SHOWING HUTCHISON ROAD ON THE EAST SIDE HERE ALONG WITH A LEFT TURN LANE THAT WAS PART OF THE BUILDING CONTRACT THAT WE PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY AND PAID FOR, WHICH WAS A LEFT TURN LANE TO CAUSE STORAGE TO BE ALLOWED TO TURN LEFT WITHOUT IMPEDING TRAFFIC ON HUTCHISON ROAD AND INTO THE PROPERTY ITSELF AND THIS PRIVATE ROAD THAT YOU SEE HERE. LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM US AND OFF OF OUR PROPERTY IS A HOUSE WHICH IS A TRAINING CENTER FOR CARROLLWOOD CARE CENTER. A PICTURE OF THAT WILL COME UP A LITTLE LATER IN ANOTHER PART. THE -- BOTH THE -- BOTH THE -- THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE SEEKING AND -- ON THIS -- ON THIS HERE IS THAT IN THE BUFFERING AND -- I HAVE TO READ MY NOTES. [INAUDIBLE] EXCUSE ME. WHERE IS THAT? I'M SORRY. HANG ON A SECOND, PLEASE. ON THAT PROPERTY WE HAVE A -- A VARIANCE IN THIS CASE, A REQUEST BECAUSE AN EASEMENT WAS GRANTED TO THIS PROPERTY BY MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH FOR AN ACCESS ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARIES OF THIS PROPERTY IN 1985 AND '86. THERE WERE TWO VARIANCES. THAT EASEMENT ALLOWS A 50-FOOT-WIDE ACCESS ROAD TO CARROLLWOOD CARE CENTER, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE BACK AND - - BETTER SHOWN PROBABLY ON THE FIRST PICTURE THAT I HAD UP HERE, AND THAT'S THIS OVER HERE -- AND IN THE BACK OF THE PARCEL FROM HUTCHISON ROAD. FURTHERMORE, ACCESS BY EASEMENT WAS ALSO GRANTED TO TAMPA ELECTRIC IN ANOTHER DOCUMENT. OTHER UTILITIES ARE ALSO PROVIDED TO CARROLLWOOD CARE CENTER ALONG THIS EASEMENT AS WELL. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 6.06.06-10-A SPECIFIES THAT BUFFERING AND SCREENING CANNOT BE PROVIDED ALONG THIS NORTHERN BOUNDARY AS ELEMENTS OF THE EASEMENT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS RULE, THE REASON FOR THAT BEING THAT THERE IS NO BASIC LAND LEFT TO DO THAT ON. BY ALLOWING THIS VARIANCE, THE JOINT RIGHTS OF MESSIAH LUTHERAN TO TECO AND THE CARROLLWOOD CARE CENTER WOULD BE PRESERVED. AS YOU KNOW, BOTH TECO AND CARROLLWOOD CARE HAVE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURES ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE ACCESS ROAD GRANTED BY MESSIAH'S EASEMENTS, AS DO OTHER UTILITIES; THEREFORE, THIS VARIANCE, IF ALLOWED, WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH OR INJURE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. NAMELY, TECO HAS PROVIDED A LETTER TO YOU REQUESTING VARIANCE APPROVAL BY STATING THAT HAVING EXISTING ELECTRICAL UTILITIES LOCATED ALONG THE ACCESS OF THE ROAD TO THE CARE CENTER IN THE BACK AND DROP-OFF SERVICE TO A HOUSE AND TRAINING CENTER ALSO LOCATED ON THAT EASEMENT WOULD -- IS REQUIRED. FURTHERMORE, CARROLLWOOD CARE CENTER HAS ALSO PROVIDED A LETTER ASKING VARIANCE APPROVAL, AS ANY UTILITY CHANGES WOULD AFFECT THEIR METHOD OF OPERATION AND THAT BOUNDARY AND SCREENING IS UNNECESSARY FOR THEIR HOUSING OR TRAINING CENTER ALSO ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CHURCH PARKING LOT, AS IT WOULD BLOCK THEIR ACCESS TO THE EASEMENT ROAD. ANOTHER PORTION OF THIS IS LISTED AS THERE. THAT'S WHERE WE WERE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE. AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL PERMIT FOR THE CHILD-CARE CENTER GOES -- LET ME PULL THESE PAPERS BACK UP HERE A MINUTE. WE HAVE PROVIDED WRITTEN REPLIES TO ALL APPLICANT CONDITIONS OF THE SUBSECTION OF 6.11.24. THAT'S THE CHILD-CARE CENTER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS. AND THESE REPLIES REPRESENT OUR VIEW OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT WAS ENACTED IN THE LAST CHANGE, WHICH WAS FEBRUARY 12th OF 2010. CONDITION "A," THE PROPERTY ACCESS AND A PATRON PARKING AT THE NEW ASSEMBLY BUILDING HAS BEEN IMPROVED BY A NEW CHURCH-FUNDED LEFT TURN RAID OFF HUTCHISON ROAD LEADING TO A PRIVATE ROAD LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY. PATRON ACCESS AND PARKING IS LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE NEW BUILDING. CONDITION "B" ALSO STATES WE -- IT DOES NOT APPLY TO US. THIS STATE -- THIS SITE DOES NOT HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AND IS NOT PART OF A RESIDENCE. THEREFORE, A CHURCH PROVIDES PLENTY OF PARKING IN THREE LOTS ALREADY. CONDITION "C," EMPLOYEE AND VAN PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN ALL THREE LOTS. EMPLOYEES NORMALLY PARK AWAY FROM ALL ENTRANCES AS AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS PRECAUTION. CONDITION "C" -- "D," OUR FENCED PLAYGROUND LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF THE CAMPUS HAS BEEN ENLARGED TO 6,400 SQUARE FEET AND IS ABOUT 175 FEET FROM OUR NORTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE. THE CONDITION LOCATED IN THE CHILD-CARE PORTION ONLY ASKS FOR 100 FEET DISTANCE, BUT IT'S IN THE CENTER OF OUR PROPERTY. ANY NOISE FACTOR IS NEGLIGIBLE FROM THIS, AS THE CHILDREN WILL BE EITHER IN THE CLASSROOM OR ON PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND ARE SUPERVISED AT ALL TIMES BY ADULTS. CONDITION "E," THE LOCATION AND EXTENT OF THE FACILITY DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD, AS IT IS -- AS IT IS LOCATED NEAR THE BACK OF OUR PROPERTY, AS YOU COULD SEE FROM HERE. AND CONDITION "F," OUR CHILD-CARE FACILITY CONTINUES TO SERVE THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. WE VIEW INTENSITY AND SCALE OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICE TO BE IMPROVED BY OUR APPLICATION HERE. CONDITION "D" -- "G," EXCUSE ME, DOES NOT APPLY. THIS SITE DOES NOT HAVE A FAMILY CARE SYSTEM TO IT. WE HAVE FOR 25 YEARS ALSO IN THIS CASE NOTED THAT WE HAVE NO OVERNIGHT LODGING AT OUR FACILITY. OUR FACILITY BASICALLY RUNS -- IN THIS CASE PRESCHOOL TRAFFIC SHOULD NOT BE AN ADVERSE AFFECT, AS THE SCHOOL HOURS ARE FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 2:30 P.M., NORMALLY REDUCED TRAFFIC PERIODS THAT ARE ON HUTCHISON ROAD NOW AIDED BY A LEFT TURN LANE PROVIDED BY THE CHURCH. WE ACCEPT IN THIS CASE ALL NINE RECOMMENDED ZONING CONDITIONS AS PRESENTED BY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND IN THIS CASE THE EPC AS STATED IN THEIR JULY 15th LETTER AND THE EPC IN THE JUNE 23rd LETTER OF 2010. ZONING HEARING MASTER, BASED ON OUR APPLICATION AND OUR WRITTEN REPLIES TO ALL -- AND OUR GOOD USE OF OUR ORIGINAL CHILD-CARE PERMIT, WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED ALL LOCATION, ZONING, AND PLANNING COMPATIBILITY MATTERS AND, THEREFORE, SEEK APPROVAL OF OUR CHILD-CARE APPLICATION AND VARIANCE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THOUGH, YOU SAID YOU HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO ALL NINE ZONING CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MY STAFF REPORT INDICATES EIGHT ZONING CONDITIONS. >> YES, SIR. THERE'S A NINTH ONE THAT WAS PROVIDED SEPARATELY BY EPC. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> BASICALLY THAT WE WOULD NOT BE -- THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER BOUNDARY SURVEY DONE BEFORE ANY CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION OCCURRED ON THE SITE AT A FUTURE DATE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> A DELINEATION MAP, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. STAFF DOES SUPPORT THE REQUEST FOR THE INCREASE OF STUDENTS FOR THE CHILD-CARE CENTER AND SUPPORTS THE VARIANCE. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. MS. MARINER, JUST LET ME ASK YOU BRIEFLY, PROPOSED CONDITION NUMBER 2. >>SUSAN MARINER: YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE INTENT OF THAT CONDITION? >>SUSAN MARINER: WELL, IT'S -- THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A VARIANCE -- HAVE A TEN-FOOT TYPE "A" BUFFERING AND SCREENING ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, BUT BASED ON THE FACT THAT TECO -- IT'S A TECO EASEMENT AND THEY PROVIDED A NONOBJECTION LETTER AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SUPPLIED A LETTER ALSO, THEN STAFF DOESN'T FEEL IT'S NECESSARY FOR THAT SCREENING ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE. >>STEVE LUCE: SO -- BUT THE CONCLUDING COUPLE OF WORDS IN THE PROPOSED CONDITION, SHALL BE PERMITTED. >>SUSAN MARINER: [INAUDIBLE] >>STEVE LUCE: WHAT IS -- I'M NOT CLEAR. >>SUSAN MARINER: OH, THE VARIANCE IS PERMITTED. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>MARCIE STENMARK: HI. MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CHILD-CARE FACILITY IS BEING REQUESTED TO INCREASE FROM 60 TO 124 CHILDREN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USES WITHIN ANY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY. THE PROPOSED INCREASE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING EXISTING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THE EXISTING FACILITY HAS PROVIDED FOR A DESIGN THAT MITIGATES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY PLACING AN EXPANDED PLAYGROUND AREA INTERNAL TO THE SITE AND AWAY FROM SURROUNDING RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PARCELS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. MR. GRADY, THE EPC CONDITION THE APPLICANT REFERRED TO, DO YOU HAVE THAT IN WRITING, FROM EPC? >>BRIAN GRADY: WE CAN CHECK OUR AGENCY COMMENTS, BUT IT MAY BE AN AGENCY COMMENT, WHICH IS PROBABLY THEIR STANDARD CONDITION REGARDING WETLAND IMPACTS, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH EPC REGULATIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS IF THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING THAT THAT BE INCLUDED AS A PROPOSED CONDITION? >> HEARING MASTER, I HAVE A COPY OF THAT WITH ME, AND I'LL SUBMIT THAT TO YOU. >>BRIAN GRADY: I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY -- IF YOU WANTED US TO ADD IT, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM DOING SO. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> NO, THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I THINK THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE SPECIAL USES. I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO THE RECORD, AND I BELIEVE MR. CLARK HAS A FEW INSTRUCTIONS HIMSELF. SO I'LL READ THEM INTO THE RECORD AT THIS POINT IN TIME. NOW WE WILL TURN TO THE REZONINGS AND MAJOR MODIFICATION PORTION OF THE AGENDA. THESE ARE HANDLED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE SPECIAL USES. THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT THERE BE A HEARING BEFORE A ZONING HEARING MASTER ON ALL REZONING AND MAJOR MODIFICATION REQUESTS PRIOR TO A FINAL DECISION BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE ZONING HEARING MASTER DOES NOT MAKE THE FINAL DECISION BUT INSTEAD RENDERS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THEIR FINAL DECISION ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUEST IS MADE AT THEIR OWN PUBLIC MEETING. MY RECOMMENDATION ON EACH APPLICATION HEARD WILL BE RENDERED WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS, AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATION IS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AND NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS THAT GOVERN PARTICIPATION AT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING. >>CAMERON CLARK: THANK YOU, MR. LUCE. AGAIN, MY NAME IS CAMERON CLARK. I'M AN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING IS THE FIRST STEP OF A TWO-STEP REZONING PROCESS. THIS HEARING IS THE TIME FOR REZONING APPLICANTS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF EACH CASE. THEREFORE, THE RECORD OF EACH CASE WILL CLOSE AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING, AND NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED THEREAFTER. THE SECOND STEP OF THE REZONING PROCESS IS A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD WILL TAKE A DECISION ON EACH APPLICATION. TONIGHT'S APPLICATIONS ARE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD AT ITS SEPTEMBER 14th, 2010, LAND USE MEETING. IN RENDERING ITS DECISION, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER ONLY THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER. THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH APPLICATION HEARD TONIGHT ON AUGUST 16th, 2010. AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, EACH INDIVIDUAL WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MUST FILE AND EXECUTE A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FORM NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON AUGUST 26th, 2010. PLEASE NOTE THAT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS MUST BE RESPONSIVE TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION. ACCORDINGLY, SUCH REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE FILED UNTIL AFTER THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE COUNTY ON AUGUST 16th. THEREFORE, IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, PLEASE BE SURE TO FILE YOUR ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS BETWEEN AUGUST 16th AND THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON AUGUST 26th. REQUESTS NEED TO BE FILED WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE 12th FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING. THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT AT ITS PUBLIC MEETING; HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE BOARD CAN ELECT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT FROM A PARTY OF RECORD. A PARTY OF RECORD IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FITS INTO AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOUR FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: FIRST, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PRESENT TONIGHT AND PRESENTS ORAL TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; SECOND, AN INDIVIDUAL CERTIFIED BY THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AS HAVING BEEN MAILED NOTICE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; THIRD, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE MASTER FILE AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S HEARING; OR FOURTH, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BY PROXY AT TONIGHT'S HEARING. IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, PARTIES OF RECORD WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD IF THEY MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, EACH INDIVIDUAL WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MUST FILE AND EXECUTES A PROPERLY COMPLETED REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IN A TIMELY MANNER. A PROPERLY COMPLETED REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT MUST BE RESPONSIVE TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION AND MUST CLEARLY SET FORTH WHY ORAL ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES: NUMBER ONE, TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITIES IN THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; NUMBER TWO, TO UNDERSTAND A REQUEST TO ENTER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD; NUMBER THREE, TO ADDRESS A MISTAKE IN THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION; OR NUMBER FOUR, TO ADDRESS A MATTER THAT WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT BUT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION. IF THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, THE CONTENT OF THAT ARGUMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE CONTENT OF THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED VERBALLY OR IN WRITING TO THE HEARING MASTER TONIGHT. THE ROLE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS TO ENSURE THAT ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MET THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD AND TO ENSURE THAT NO NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS INTRODUCED OR ALLOWED AT THE BOARD'S PUBLIC MEETING. FOR THESE REASONS, PLEASE MAKE SURE ALL INFORMATION YOU WISH THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AT THE PUBLIC MEETING IS PLACED INTO TONIGHT'S RECORD. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CLARK. MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD CALL THE FIRST PETITION. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 13, REZONING APPLICATION 10-0641. THE APPLICANT IS JIM STUTZMAN. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL-1 TO BPO, WHICH IS BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE. MY NAME IS JIM STUTZMAN. MY MAILING ADDRESS IS P.O. BOX 320323 IN TAMPA. THE ZIP IS 33679, AND AS BRIAN MENTIONED, WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM ASC-1 TO BPO TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMPLEX. THE 1.5-ACRE SITE IS WITHIN THE BIG BEND/301 AREA IN SOUTHERN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. I'D LIKE TO USE THE ELMO TO GO OVER SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE IN THE AREA. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> THIS IS -- IS THIS ON? THIS IS THE -- AN EXISTING LAND USE MAP OF THE AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S LOCATED IN THIS AREA. IT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF 301, JUST NORTH OF SUMMERFIELD CROSSINGS BOULEVARD. THIS IS THE BIG BEND/301 INTERSECTION, AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS GRAPHIC THAT THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL COMMERCIAL NODE FORMING AT THAT INTERSECTION, AND WE FEEL THAT WE ARE PART OF THAT NODE, BUT WE'RE PART OF THE TRANSITION TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM THE NODE, AND THERE IS SOME SINGLE- FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE WEST, BUT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL CREEK DRAINAGE AREA WITH FAIRLY THICK VEGETATION ON THE WEST SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY THAT DOES CREATE A NICE SCREEN -- SCREENING AND BUFFER AREA FROM OUR PROPERTY. THIS AREA IS PART OF THE SUMMERFIELD CROSSING DRI. THIS IS NOW VACANT PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS 301 FROM OUR PROPERTY, BUT IT IS APPROVED FOR OFFICE AND TECHNICAL TYPE USES. THIS AREA IS APPROVED FOR MORE OF THE RETAIL COMPONENT OF THE DRI, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE OTHER VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USES AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE MAJOR INTERSECTION. THIS IS THE AERIAL PHOTO FROM YOUR BACKUP. IT DOES SHOW THE ZONING AND THE EXISTING LAND USE AGAIN. THIS IS THE DRAINAGE AREA AND THE CREEK THAT FALLS ON THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF OUR PROPERTY. THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION. YOU CAN SEE TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE NORTH THERE ARE BPO ZONINGS WHICH ARE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING. AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE BIG BEND INTERSECTION, YOU HAVE A CN ZONING FOR A GAS STATION, AND THEN THE MORE INTENSE ZONING'S CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION. THERE IS ALSO A CN ZONING IN THIS LOCATION A LITTLE OFF THE MAP BUT FOR ANOTHER GAS STATION, SO WE FEEL THAT WE ARE PART OF THAT TRANSITION AND WOULD CONTINUE THE TREND OF LESS INTENSE USES AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE OFFICE TECHNICAL PART OF SUMMERFIELD IS -- REMAINS VACANT, BUT THIS CORNER OF SUMMERFIELD IS DEVELOPING AS LIKE A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL NODE. OUR PROPERTY WILL HAVE -- ONLY HAVE ACCESS ONTO 301. IT'S ON THE PERIPHERY OF THESE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP. AGAIN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THIS LOCATION. IT FALLS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-6 CATEGORY. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SUMMERFIELD HAS A RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK DESIGNATION ACROSS THE STREET AND ALSO THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MORE INTENSE CATEGORIES IN THE COUNTY. AND WE ARE -- PART OF THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE 300-FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FROM SUMMERFIELD CROSSING BOULEVARD, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED A LOCAL ROAD IN THIS LOCATION. IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, THEY FELT THAT WE REALLY NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A WAIVER OF THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA BECAUSE 75% OF THE FRONTAGE OF OUR PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN THAT 300-FOOT DISTANCE. WE FEEL WE DO MEET THOSE CRITERIA. THE PRIMARY CRITERIA IS COMPATIBILITY AND CONSISTENCY WITH ADJACENT LAND USES, AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PREVIOUS GRAPHICS THE SIMILAR ZONING NORTH AND SOUTH, THAT IT IS PART OF A TRANSITION AWAY FROM THE MAJOR COMMERCIAL NODE AT BIG BEND ROAD. ALSO WE WILL HAVE DIRECT FRONTAGE ON 301. OUR ONLY ACCESS WILL BE THROUGH 301. THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL VEGETATIVE BUFFER AND SCREENING TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH, AND SO WE FEEL THAT OUR REQUEST IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT SITE, THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN THE AREA, AND AGAIN FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE AND WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THIS SITE. I DO HAVE TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT I'LL SUBMIT TO THE CLERK. >>STEVE LUCE: FROM? >> FROM AREA PROPERTY OWNERS. ONE IS THE OWNER OF THIS GAS STATION THAT IS IN THIS LOCATION AT THE SOUTHERN INTERSECTION, AND THE OTHER ONE IS FROM ANOTHER BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNER FURTHER SOUTH. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG THIS PORTION OF U.S. 301, THEREFORE APPROVABLE. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN AND SOUTHSHORE AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THE APPLICANT DID SUMMARIZE THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND EXISTING ZONING. I WON'T REPEAT THAT. I THINK HE DID A FINE JOB WITH THAT. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.8 ALLOWS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO GRANT A WAIVER TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA BASED ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE USE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT IS COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BOARD APPROVE THE WAIVERS TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? >>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER. >>STEVE LUCE: APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> NO FURTHER COMMENTS. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 14, REZONING APPLICATION 10-0708. THE APPLICANTS ARE MARTA AND JOSE A. RODRIGUEZ. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY-6 TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY-6 WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARTA RODRIGUEZ, AND OUR P.O. BOX IS P.O. BOX 2357, RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA 33568, AND THIS IS JOSE A. RODRIGUEZ, SAME ADDRESS. OUR REQUEST IS JUST TO ADD A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY TO THE PROPERTY, AND WE DID NOTICE THAT MOST OF THE MOBILE HOMES - - I'M SORRY, MOST OF THE PROPERTIES SURROUNDING OUR PROPERTY DO HAVE MOBILE HOMES ON THERE CURRENTLY, AND ALSO THE PROPERTY THAT IS RIGHT NEXT TO US WITHIN THE SAME BLOCK ON THE WEST SIDE AND ALSO BEHIND US, THEY BOTH HAVE -- THEY CURRENTLY BOTH HAVE MOBILE HOMES ON THEIR PROPERTIES, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE OFF. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> THAT'S IT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RSC-6 WITH A RSC-6 MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. WE DO FIND THIS COMPATIBLE AND APPROVABLE, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IT IS ALSO WITHIN THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE COMMUNITY PLAN AND SOUTHSHORE AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN. THIS REZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE AND COMPARABLE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE COMMUNITY PLAN, SUPPORT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZES MANUFACTURED HOUSING AS A VIABLE MEANS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BASED ON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AND MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 15. IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 10-0714. THE APPLICANT IS TOM TIMPSON. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM CN AND CN-THONOTOSASSA MAIN STREET TO, CG-THONOTOSASSA MAIN STREET WITH RESTRICTIONS. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD. AS BRIAN STATED, THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ALREADY ZONED FOR CN AND CN-TMS, WHICH IS THONOTOSASSA MAIN STREET. WE ARE PROPOSING CG-R AND CG-R-TMS, THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS ACTUALLY -- IS OUTSIDE OF THE MAIN STREET OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE MAIN STREET OVERLAY DISTRICT. IT DOES LIE WITHIN THE RES-6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND WOULD PERMIT UP TO A .25 F.A.R., BUT BECAUSE OF THE THONOTOSASSA MAIN STREET OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO STORIES. WE'LL ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PORCH, COVERED WALKWAY, PORTICO, PITCHED ROOF LINES OUT OF METAL SHINGLES OR TILE, DORMERS, AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AS PART OF THE ROOF. WITH THE CHANGE FROM THE CN TO THE CG, THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING WON'T ACTUALLY CHANGE. WE HAVE AN ALLOWABLE USE THAT WILL EXPAND, BUT THE BUILDING ITSELF WILL LOOK THE SAME UNDER THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. THE SIGNAGE WILL BE LIMITED TO GROUND OR MONUMENT SIGNS 15 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH ARCHITECTURAL FINISH ON THE SIGNS, AND THERE ARE ENHANCED STANDARDS FOR LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. EVEN THOUGH IT'S ALREADY ZONED COMMERCIAL AND THE THONOTOSASSA MAIN STREET -- EXCUSE ME -- THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, STAFF FELT THAT A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER WAS APPROPRIATE, SO I HAVE FILED A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER. THERE IS AN UPDATED WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED JULY 13th, 2010. I BELIEVE IT IS IN OPTIX. WE BELIEVE WE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. ALONG THIS PORTION OF MAIN STREET, THERE ARE ALREADY CN, CM -- CN, CG, AND RSC-6 USES ALLOWING FOR THE MIXED-USE AS OUTLINED BY THE COMMUNITY PLAN. LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING AREA, THERE'S A LARGE PD-C ON MAIN STREET BETWEEN GROVEWOOD AND 579, THERE'S MIXED COMMERCIAL OF CN AND CG ON ALL FOUR CORNERS AT MAIN STREET AND 579. IN ADDITION, OUR BLOCK ITSELF BETWEEN GROVEWOOD IS COMMERCIAL WITH ONE VERIZON SUBSTATION, SO WE MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF OVER 50% OF THE BLOCK IS ALREADY CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE AGENDA ITSELF IS SAYING THE REQUEST IS FROM CN TO CG-TMS. >> IT SAYS CG-R. THE STAFF HAS REQUESTED TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ON THE SITE. ONE WOULD BE THERE WOULD BE A SOLID FENCE ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY SEPARATING IT FROM THE EXISTING MOBILE HOMES, AND TWO, THAT NO VEHICLE SALES WILL BE PERMITTED, AND WE AGREE TO THOSE CONDITIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. SO IT'S CG-R AND CG-TMS? >> CG-R-TMS, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: CG-R-TMS? >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. CG-R AND CG-R-TMS? >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: AND THE WAIVER THAT'S REQUESTED IS REGARDING THE NONRESIDENTIAL LOCATION CRITERIA? >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND THE ISSUE ABOUT THE OVERLAY PLAN FOR MAIN STREET? >> THERE IS NO -- WE WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OVERLAY PLAN. >>STEVE LUCE: COMPLIANCE WITH THE OVERLAY. >> NO WAIVER OF ANY KIND IS REQUESTED FROM THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. >>STEVE LUCE: AND JUST FOR MY UNDERSTANDING AND TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT, YOU ALREADY HAVE COMMERCIAL ZONING. >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: I THOUGHT I READ SOMEWHERE IN THE FILE THAT A REQUEST FOR CAR SALES HAD BEEN AT SOME POINT AN ISSUE OR BROUGHT UP BY THE APPLICANT. STAFF SAID ESSENTIALLY THAT WE'D RATHER NOT SEE CAR SALES AT THIS LOCATION. >> YES. WE DID NOT BRING IT UP AS A PROPOSED USE. WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR ALL ALLOWABLE USES IN CG. THEY WENT THROUGH THE LIST AND SAY, OKAY, THOSE ARE FINE EXCEPT FOR THE CAR SALES. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. SO THAT WAS WHAT THAT ISSUE WAS ABOUT? >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: AND WHAT WAS THE -- FROM YOUR APPLICANT'S POINT OF VIEW, WHAT'S THE INTENT OF CHANGING THE CN TO CG? >> WE ARE LOOKING FOR AN EXPANDED USE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LIST BETWEEN CN AND CG, SOME OF THE USES IN CG ARE ACTUALLY MORE RURAL IN CHARACTER, YOU CAN HAVE LUMBERYARDS, YOU CAN HAVE A DISCOUNT STORE, YOU CAN HAVE A PAWN SHOP, YOU CAN HAVE A GUN SHOP. THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF USE GLASS ARE MORE RURAL CHARACTER THAT WOULD MEET THONOTOSASSA THAT YOU CAN'T DO IN CN. >>STEVE LUCE: IS YOUR PROPERTY OWNERS LOOKING TO MARKET THE PROPERTY TO FIND THE RIGHT FIT -- >> YES. THE APPLICANT IS THE POTENTIAL PURCHASER, BUT THE USE ITSELF WILL BE INSIDE THE SAME STYLE OF BUILDING, WHETHER IT'S CN OR CG. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THIS PORTION OF MAIN STREET. WE DID RECOMMEND THE CONDITIONS BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE VEHICLE SALES WASN'T CONDUCIVE TO THE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE THONOTOSASSA OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ALSO, THE APPLICANT COULD CHOOSE BETWEEN A HEDGE OR A FENCE, AND WE FELT LIKE THAT A FENCE WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE MORE INTENSE -- THE POTENTIAL FOR MORE INTENSE USES ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THEREFORE, WE -- WE FIND THIS APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS, AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THOSE. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>MARCIE STENMARK: MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE RURAL AREA. IT IS ALSO WITHIN THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN -- LET ME BACK UP. THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY ENVISIONS A MAIN STREET AS THONOTOSASSA'S DOWNTOWN AND FOCAL POINT OF COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITY. IN ADDITION, THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE THONOTOSASSA MAIN STREET OVERLAY WHICH APPLIES ADDITIONAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS TO CREATE A RURAL MAIN STREET DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. ALLOWING COMMERCIAL USES IN THIS LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN VISION FOR MAIN STREET. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.8 ALLOWS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO GRANT A WAIVER TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA BASED UPON COMPATIBILITY OF THE USE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BOARD APPROVE THE WAIVER TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. WITH THE RESTRICTIONS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT, THE REZONING WOULD NOT HAVE UNFAVORABLE OR ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. LET ME JUST ASK YOU ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STRATEGY FOR THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN. IT TALKS ABOUT DESIGNATING MAIN STREET AS THONOTOSASSA'S DOWNTOWN AND DEVELOP A CENTRAL GATHERING PLACE AND MAKE DOWNTOWN A FOCAL POINT OF COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITY. AND WITH RESPECT TO ZONING DISTRICTS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CN OR CG? >>MARCIE STENMARK: THAT'S CORRECT, MR. LUCE. WE REVIEWED THE LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES AND HOW THAT WOULD CHANGE WITH THIS APPLICATION. THERE WAS ONE USE THAT WAS OF CONCERN TO US, AND THAT WAS THE AUTO SALES. WE FELT THAT THE RURAL MAIN STREET THAT WAS TRYING TO BE CREATED BY THE ZONING CODE AND ALSO THE FUTURE -- THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WOULD NOT WORK WITH THAT KIND OF AUTO- DOMINATED USE AND THAT THE OVERLAY HAD NOT CONTEMPLATED AUTO SALES, SO WE HAD SUGGESTED TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEY NOT INCLUDE IT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND MR. GRADY, THE SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IF YOU KNOW, BRIEFLY COULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THEY MAY BE? >>BRIAN GRADY: I DON'T KNOW THEM OFFHAND. I CAN CERTAINLY LOOK THOSE UP IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO -- >>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, THAT OR IF MS. MARINER KNOWS. >>BRIAN GRADY: WE COULD DO THAT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. I'LL ASK TO SEE IF THERE'S PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION FIRST. AT THIS POINT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. I DIDN'T GIVE YOU MUCH TIME, MR. GRADY, TO LOOK THAT UP. >> IF I MAY, IN MY WRITTEN STATEMENT I OUTLINED THE DESIGN CRITERIA WHEN I SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT THE MAIN ENTRANCE ON THE -- THE PUBLIC ENTRANCE ON MAIN STREET? >>STEVE LUCE: DO YOU HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF YOU? >> PARDON? >>STEVE LUCE: DO YOU HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF YOU? >> I'M READING FROM MY STATEMENT. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. PLEASE PROCEED. COULD YOU READ THOSE OFF TO ME? >> SURE. PUBLIC ENTRANCE ONTO MAIN STREET WITH A PORCH, COVERED WALKWAY OR PORTICO, PITCHED ROOF LINES OUT OF METALS, SHINGLES OR TILE, DORMERS AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AS PART OF THE ROOF. THE BUILDING ELEVATION WILL INCORPORATE RECESSES AND PROJECTIONS AND WILL BE CLAD WITH WOOD, COMPOSITE SIDING, BRICK AND/OR STUCCO. SIGNAGE IS LIMITED TO GROUND OR MONUMENT SIGNS 15 FEET IN HEIGHT, ARCHITECTURALLY FINISHED, AND THEN THERE'S ENHANCED STANDARDS FOR LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. >>STEVE LUCE: IS THERE ANY STANDARD IN THERE REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING, LIKE A BUILD-TO LINE, THE IDEA ABOUT MAIN STREET TO BRING THE BUILDINGS CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK? >> THERE REALLY WASN'T WITHIN THE -- THEY WANT THE PUBLIC ENTRANCE ONTO MAIN STREET, BUT THERE REALLY WASN'T ANYTHING SAYING THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE ALL YOUR PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDING TYPE THING. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL, I SUPPOSE, AT THIS POINT. >> NO, THANK YOU. >>BRIAN GRADY: MR. LUCE, BEFORE SHE FINISHES, JUST TO GIVE YOU THE CODE CITATION IN CASE YOU WANT TO REVIEW THOSE YOURSELF, IT'S SECTION 3.18.05. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS ZONING APPLICATION. MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE FINAL ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 16. IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 10-0619. THE APPLICANT IS ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH CARE CENTER, INCORPORATED. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AS-1 AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A COMMUNITY HOSPITAL WITH RELATED MEDICAL OFFICE USES. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE, STAFF, MEMBERS OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE. MY NAME IS RICHARD DAVIS, 220 -- >>BRIAN GRADY: MR. DAVIS, COULD YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER. THANK YOU. >> 220 EAST MADISON STREET, SUITE 512. I'M HERE THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF BAYCARE ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, AND WE HAVE PRESENTED -- WE'LL PRESENT TO YOU TONIGHT RZ 10-0619. THIS IS AN APPLICATION RELATING TO A REZONING FROM AN EXISTING PD CLASSIFICATION AND AN AS-1 CATEGORY TO PD. JUST VERY BRIEFLY, APPROXIMATELY 62 ACRES OF THE 72.4 ACRES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING ARE CURRENTLY ZONED PD FOR A HOSPITAL USE. APPROXIMATELY TEN ADDITIONAL ACRES HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY MY CLIENT, AND THOSE TEN ADDITIONAL ACRES ARE ZONED AS-1, AND WE ARE SEEKING TO BRING THOSE INTO THE PD. WE ARE NOT INCREASING ENTITLEMENTS, AND IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR THAT UNDERSTANDING TO BE EXPRESSED HERE THIS EVENING. WE ARE NOT INCREASING ENTITLEMENTS. WE HAVE REDESIGNED THE SITE. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST BRIEFLY INTRODUCE OUR PARTICIPANTS THIS EVENING. IN OUR CASE IN CHIEF, YOU WILL HERE FROM MR. JOHN LaROCCA, OUR PLANNING EXPERT. I WILL TENDER INTO THE RECORD IN JUST A MOMENT EVERYONE'S RESUMES. FOR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR QUESTIONS IN OUR CASE IN CHIEF, WE HAVE MR. STEVEN HENRY, WHO IS OUR TRANSPORTATION EXPERT. WE HAVE CHUCK SECORD FROM MY CLIENT WHO IS AN ARCHITECT SCHOOLED IN THE AREA SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH THE DESIGN OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, AND FINALLY JESSE BLACKSTOCK FROM THE WILSONMILLER FIRM IS OUR ENGINEER SITE DESIGNER. FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, I WILL HAND TO THE CLERK -- I HAVE MULTIPLE COPIES OF EACH RESUME. THERE ARE FIVE COPIES OF EACH OF OUR EXPERTS' RESUMES THERE, AND I WOULD ASK, MR. LUCE, THAT YOU ACCEPT OUR EXPERTS AND THEIR BACKGROUNDS. CERTAINLY, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THEY ARE TENDERED FOR YOUR EXAMINATION THIS EVENING SHOULD YOU SO DESIRE. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL UPON MR. JOHN LaROCCA TO PRESENT OUR MATTER IN GREATER DETAIL. MR. LaROCCA HAS PREPARED A PLANNING ANALYSIS WHICH I WILL STEAL HIS FILE FOR ONE SECOND AND HAND THIS IN TO EVERYONE AS WELL FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU, RICK. I'M JOHN LaROCCA, MURPHY LaROCCA CONSULTING GROUP, 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD IN TAMPA, AND I'VE BEEN ASSISTING IN THE PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATION AND DIRECTING MY EFFORTS TOWARD PLANNING- AND ZONING-RELATED ISSUES. IN AN EFFORT TO BE BRIEF THIS EVENING BECAUSE THE BULK OF THIS INFORMATION, IF NOT ALL OF IT, IS IN YOUR BACKUP PACKET, THE PROPERTY, AS RICK INDICATED, IS A REZONING OF A 72-ACRE SITE, 60 -- APPROXIMATELY 62 ACRES OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN ZONED PD WITH THE ENTITLEMENTS GRANTED IN PREVIOUS -- TWO PREVIOUS REZONINGS. THE PROPERTY'S GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIMMONS LOOP AND BIG BEND ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THE REZONING IS TO RECONFIGURE THE SITE SUBSEQUENT TO THE OBTAINING OF A CERTIFICATE OF NEED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION GRANTING THE HOSPITAL'S FORMAL APPROVAL THROUGH THAT STATE PROCESS AND A REFINEMENT PROCESS THROUGH MASTER PLANNING. LONG-RANGE PLANNING IN THE AREA HAS CAUSED RECONFIGURATION -- >>STEVE LUCE: WHEN WAS THE CON ISSUED? >> IN LATE 2009 IT WAS FINALIZED. THE PREVIOUS ZONING -- >>STEVE LUCE: APPROVED? >> APPROVED. THE PREVIOUS ZONINGS WERE GRANTED IN 2004 WITH AN AMENDMENT IN 2007 AND THE ADDITION OF SOME ADDITIONAL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING USE APPROVED IN A 2007 REZONING. THE -- ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS BEING DONE IS THE ADDITION OF TEN ADDITIONAL ACRES THAT WERE ACQUIRED BY THE HOSPITAL. THE SITE PLAN THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR BACKUP PACKET ILLUSTRATES A -- ESSENTIALLY A RECTANGULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. THE AS-1 PROPERTY COMPLETES THE RECTANGLE. THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN ONGOING REFINES LAND USES ON THAT SITE. ACCESS POINTS HAVE BEEN REALLOCATED AND RELOCATED WITH TWO ACCESS POINTS ON SIMMONS LOOP ROAD, ONE ON BIG BEND ROAD, AS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, AND A RESTRICTED ACCESS AT THE PROPERTY WHERE IT CONNECTS TO LINCOLN ROAD. THE LAND USE PLAN IS A -- THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATIONS ALL COMBINED PERMIT THE USE. THE PROPERTY'S WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED WITHIN THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN AND SOUTHSHORE AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN. THE APPLICATION REFINES PREVIOUS CONDITIONS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN WITH THE TWO PREVIOUS REZONINGS. THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN REITERATED AND REFINED, AS WILL BE PRESENTED BY STAFF AND AS IS IN YOUR PACKET. THERE IS ONE CONDITION RELATED TO A SETBACK CALCULATION FOR THE NORTHEASTERNMOST MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING THAT I UNDERSTAND MS. ALBERT WILL ENTER INTO THE RECORD A CORRECTED OR REMOVED CONDITION THAT WILL CORRECT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF HAS FOUND THE APPLICATION TO BE APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. AND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY-COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS FOUND THE APPLICATION TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AND FURTHERS THE INTENT OF THE CONCEPT PLANS AND THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE REPORT THAT RICK DISTRIBUTED WAS AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LAND USE POLICIES AND PLANS AND HOW WE COMPLY WITH THAT. I THINK YOU'LL SEE MANY OF THOSE SAME POLICY PLANS, OBJECTIVES, AND GOALS OUTLINED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. WE'LL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IN MORE SPECIFICITY SHOULD THEY COME UP DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. MR. LaROCCA, LET ME ASK, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME -- IS -- IS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR THE ENGINEER GOING TO PRESENT THE SITE PLAN OR MAYBE YOU WANT TO DO THAT. >> I WILL BE GLAD TO, AND I WILL DO THAT NOW FOR PURPOSES - - IF I WOULD, IF I MAY MOVE TO THE -- >>STEVE LUCE: YEAH. IF YOU COULD, JUST WALK ME AROUND THE PROPERTY AND IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR AND WHAT'S DIFFERENT. >> I'M START WITH -- IS THERE A MICROPHONE HERE? I'LL START WITH THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. THAT'S REALLY THE BEST WAY TO ILLUSTRATE THE PROPERTY'S LOCATION IN CLARIFYING THE PREVIOUSLY ZONED PD WITHIN THE RECTANGLE. THE YELLOW AREA -- AND I'M UTILIZING THE AERIAL PHOTO THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET. THE AREA IN YELLOW IS THE OVERALL RECTANGLE MAKING UP THE APPROXIMATE 72 ACRES. THERE IS APPROXIMATELY TEN ACRES AS-1 THAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE -- THIS PARTICULAR REZONING REQUEST. THE ORIGINAL ZONING PD, THE SMALLER PD UP IN THE DIRECT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIMMONS LOOP AND BIG BEND WAS ZONED IN 2007 FOR 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN 2004 FOR A 150-BED HOSPITAL, 400,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, AND A 220,000-SQUARE-FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING COMPONENT. AGAIN, BIG BEND ROAD IS ON THE NORTH, SIMMONS LOOP IS ON THE WEST, LINCOLN ROAD IS ON THE EAST. THAT ABUTS AND STOPS AT THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. THE SITE PLAN THAT -- MOST RECENTLY REVISED SITE PLAN, AS WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF AND AGAIN IN YOUR PACKET, REFLECTS AN ACCESS INGRESS/EGRESS POINT ON BIG BEND ROAD WHICH ORIGINALLY EXISTED AND TWO NEW INGRESS/EGRESS POINTS ON SIMMONS LOOP ROAD. SIMMONS LOOP IS NOW DESIGNATED ON THE COUNTY'S LONG-RANGE PLAN AS A COLLECTOR LONG-RANGE ARTERIAL ROAD THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF THE COUNTY, AND THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS AND IN WORK WITH THE COUNTY STAFF REDIRECTED THE TWO ACCESS POINTS TO THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION. THE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING -- THE ORIGINAL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING THAT WAS UP IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER HAS NOW BEEN MOVED TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE, AND THE CENTRAL COMPONENT OF THE SITE PLAN WHERE THE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING COMPONENTS WERE ORIGINALLY APPROVED ARE ESSENTIALLY IN THE SAME PLACE. THEY'VE BEEN COMPACTED SLIGHTLY WITH AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 110 FEET. THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED AND NOTED IN THE SITE PLAN, BUT ESSENTIALLY WITH ADDING OF TEN ADDITIONAL ACRES, THE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING STILL REMAIN CENTRALLY LOCATED TO THE RECTANGLE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES. ACCESS POINTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BECAUSE OF THE REALIGNMENT OF THE NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS IN EXISTENCE IN 2004. CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO MEET CURRENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IN CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY PLANS AND POLICIES, AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING HAS INCREASED TO 110 FEET MAXIMUM WITHIN THAT ENVELOPE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND LINCOLN ROAD, WHAT'S -- WHY -- IF YOU KNOW, WHY WAS A - - IT APPEARS TO BE A COUNTY COLLECTOR ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE ADJACENT DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY? >> WELL -- >>STEVE LUCE: IT'S COMING OUT AT YOUR SITE. >> LINCOLN ROAD AT THAT POINT, IT REALLY SERVES -- IT DOES NOT GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ANYMORE AND IT STOPS AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT, AND ALL IT REALLY SERVES IS AS A LOCAL ACCESS POINT TO THE HOSPITAL PROPERTY. THE ROADS IN THAT AREA HAVE BEEN REALIGNED IN TERMS OF THE LONG-RANGE PLANS FOR THE AREA. AT ONE POINT THERE WAS A NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR BEING CONSIDERED IN THAT AREA, AND NOW SIMMONS LOOP ROAD HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS THAT CORRIDOR. AND I'M SURE STAFF CAN GIVE YOU MORE OF A HISTORY ON THAT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. BUT FROM THE WAY IT SWEEPS THROUGH THE ADJACENT DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY AND STUBS OUT, I MEAN, THE LOGIC WOULD DICTATE THAT THAT WAS INTENDED TO EXTEND FURTHER TO THE WEST? >> AT -- AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST IN THE EARLY PLAN THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED, BUT THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE. STEVE HENRY WILL BE GRAD TO ANSWER ANYMORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. STEVE. >>STEVE LUCE: YEAH. >> YOU WANT TO SPEAK OFF THE PLAN? >> STEVE HENRY, LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, 5023 WEST LAUREL, TAMPA. ORIGINALLY, IF YOU GO BACK IN THE RECORDS AND LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY, YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE LINCOLN ROAD COMES DOWN THROUGH AND ACTUALLY CUT THROUGH THE -- WHICH IS NOW BULLFROG CREEK AND CONNECTED DOWN. AT ONE POINT THE COUNTY HAD ASSUMED THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD, BUT BECAUSE OF -- EXTENDING IT TO THE NORTH WAS NOT FEASIBLE AND ALSO CROSSING BULLFROG CREEK WAS NOT FEASIBLE, THEY DETERMINED THAT THE MORE APPROPRIATE LOCATION IS SIMMONS LOOP ROAD, SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE REASON THAT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY -- LINCOLN ROAD WAS BUILT IN THAT CONFIGURATION, BUT AFTER GOING THROUGH LOOKING AT BULLFROG CREEK AND LOOKING TO THE NORTH, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WAS NOT THE CORRECT ALIGNMENT FOR THAT NORTH-SOUTH ROAD. >>STEVE LUCE: SO BETWEEN 2004 WHEN THE REZONING WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND TODAY, THE MPO PLAN HAS CHANGED? >> CORRECT, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. NOW SIMMONS LOOP ROAD IS PROPOSED TO BE A -- MORE OF A REGIONAL NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR? >> YES. IT WILL RUN -- SIMMONS LOOP ROAD WILL RUN FROM GIBSONTON DRIVE DOWN SOUTH TO THE EXTENSION OF BALM RIVER ROAD, WHICH IS -- RUNS THROUGH BELMONT DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH. >>STEVE LUCE: GO FAR ENOUGH SOUTH, YOU GET TO AN UPLAND MITIGATION BANK, SO -- >> IT WILL ACTUALLY RUN ALL THE WAY TO BALM ROAD TO THE SOUTH, SO IT WILL CONNECT IN TO AN EAST-WEST ROAD. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT THE INTERCHANGE WITH THE INTERSTATE JUST TO YOUR WEST. >> CORRECT. >>STEVE LUCE: AND ARE THERE TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT THE OFF RAMPS AND ON RAMPS AT THAT LOCATION? >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: AND THERE'S A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT 301 -- >> CORRECT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- AND A DEVELOPMENT TO YOUR EAST WITH LINCOLN ROAD? DO THEY HAVE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL? >> THEY DO NOT HAVE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ALTHOUGH THERE IS ONE PLANNED FOR LINCOLN ROAD, AND THERE WILL ALSO BE ONE AT SIMMONS LOOP ROAD. >>STEVE LUCE: PLANNED BY THE COUNTY OR D.O.T. OR -- >> AT ONE POINT THAT SIGNAL FOR LINCOLN AND BIG BEND WAS ACTUALLY FUNDED AND GOING TO BE INSTALLED BY THE COUNTY, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE MONEY WAS REAPPROPRIATED FOR VARIOUS REASONS, BUT YES, THAT HAS BEEN -- >>STEVE LUCE: IT'S BEEN PLANNED? >> -- BEEN PLANNED, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: NOW THAT THE MPO LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED, SO TO SPEAK, WILL -- IS A SIGNAL CONTEMPLATED AT SIMMONS LOOP AND BIG BEND? >> YES. AND WE HAVE -- AND THERE'S A CONDITION IN THERE THAT AT SUCH TIME AS IT MEETS SIGNAL WARRANTS THAT SIGNAL WILL BE INSTALLED. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. REGARDING THE CHANGE IN THE ROADWAY NETWORK SURROUNDING YOUR PROPERTY, THEN, WAS A NEW TRAFFIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED? >> YES, IT WAS. AND THE ANALYSIS WAS DONE TO LOOK AT THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE ROADWAY SYSTEM. >>STEVE LUCE: TO LOOK AT PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION NOW THAT YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF DRIVEWAYS? >> DIFFERENT SET OF DRIVEWAYS -- >>STEVE LUCE: AND DIFFERENT SET OF ROADWAY -- >> -- DIFFERENT ROADWAY SYSTEMS WITH SIMMONS LOOP ROAD, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. BASED ON WHAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY AND PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED AND NOW WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND WHAT YOU ANALYZED, COULD YOU HIGHLIGHT ANY CHANGES? >> THE PRIMARY CHANGE WAS THE ACCESS TO -- THE MAIN ACCESS FOR THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME WE DID THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS, ORIGINAL ZONING, WAS BIG BEND ROAD BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IN TIME SIMMONS LOOP WAS NOT GOING TO BE SIGNALIZED, AND SO IT WAS ANTICIPATED THAT THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY SIGNALIZED AND BE THE MAIN ACCESS FOR THE HOSPITAL. SINCE THAT TIME, NOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LINCOLN ROAD AND SIMMONS LOOP AS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACING TO PUT ANOTHER SIGNAL AT THE HOSPITAL'S ENTRANCE, SO THIS WILL ACTUALLY BECOME A LEFT IN, RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT MEDIAN OPENING, NO LEFT OUT, AND SO THAT'S THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE IN THE CONFIGURATION IS THE ACCESS TO BIG BEND ROAD FROM WHAT WITH WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND WHAT YOU SEE TODAY. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND IN TERMS OF CONCURRENCY, I MEAN, THAT KIND OF GETS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ZONING, BUT IN TERMS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE -- >> WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY TO ESTABLISH MITIGATION AND TO MEET CONCURRENCY IN THE AREA. AND ACTUALLY, WE'RE WORKING OUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY REGARDING THE MITIGATION FOR IT TO MEET CONCURRENCY. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK IT A DIFFERENT WAY. WAS THERE TRAFFIC MITIGATION PRIOR IN 2004 OR -- IF YOU KNOW? >> IT JUST DEALT WITH ACCESS -- >>STEVE LUCE: ACCESS ONLY? >> RIGHT, ACCESS CONFIGURATION, SIGNALIZATION -- >>STEVE LUCE: AND SIGNALIZATION? >> -- THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, BUT THERE WAS NOT A PER SE MITIGATION PLAN DONE AT THAT POINT IN TIME. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THE ON-SITE CIRCULATION, THE BIG LOOP AND THE DOTTED LINES -- >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: -- ARE THOSE PLANNED TO BE PUBLIC ROADS? >> NO, THAT WILL BE A PRIVATE CIRCULATION ROUTE. >>STEVE LUCE: SO RESIDENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT SITE TO THE EAST COULDN'T USE THE INTERNAL ROADWAY NETWORK THROUGH THE HOSPITAL SITE TO GET TO SIMMONS LOOP ROAD? >> NO. THE ACCESS TO LINCOLN BACK HERE WILL BE GATED AND BASICALLY USED FOR EMPLOYEES AND DELIVERIES. THIS IS THE BACK OF THE HOSPITAL AND PRIMARILY USED FOR, AGAIN, DELIVERIES AND EMPLOYEES. THAT WILL BE A RESTRICTED ACCESS. >>STEVE LUCE: SO THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES AND GUESTS AND VISITORS AND PATIENTS COULD GO OUT ON LINCOLN ROAD? >> EMPLOYEES COULD GO AND DELIVERIES BUT NOT PATIENTS OR GUESTS. >>STEVE LUCE: AND YOU KNEW THAT WHEN YOU DID YOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS? >> YES. OUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. >>STEVE LUCE: IN TERMS -- I THINK I READ THE CONDITIONS. YOUR DRIVEWAYS ARE THE ONLY THING THAT'S A CONDITION AT THIS POINT IN TIME -- >> CORRECT, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: -- TIME IN TERMS OF MITIGATION? >> RIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: SIGNALIZATION -- >> SIGNALIZATION OF SIMMONS LOOP AND BIG BEND IS ALSO A CONDITION, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: AND TO WIDEN SIMMONS LOOP AT LEAST ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY? >> PARDON? >>STEVE LUCE: AND WIDEN SIMMONS LOOP ADJACENT -- >> YES, RIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- TO THE PROPERTY? >> CORRECT, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: AND MR. LaROCCA, SINCE I -- I SAW A COMMENT IN THE FILE FROM EPC REGARDING THE HELIPORT LOCATION. >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: COULD YOU PROVIDE ANY TESTIMONY REGARDING THAT ITEM? >> WELL, WE HAVE PUT INTO THE RECORD A -- IF YOU CAN BEAR WITH ME, I JUST -- BECAUSE IT IS REFERENCED AND IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR PACKET, BUT I WILL -- IF NECESSARY, I'LL ENTER IT INTO THE RECORD AGAIN. IF I MAY PUT THIS DOWN. THERE WAS COMMENTARY MADE WITH REGARD TO THE HELIPAD. THERE IS A HELIPAD ON THIS HOSPITAL PRESENTED IN THE APPLICATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MASTER PLANNING OF THE HOSPITAL. >>STEVE LUCE: MR. LaROCCA, LET ME JUST STOP YOU TOO THERE BECAUSE AS AN ASIDE, IT'S RELATED, IS THAT YOU LABELED IT ON THE SITE PLAN AS A HELIPORT. >> HELIPORT. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. WHICH IS -- I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT'S YOUR INTENT. YOU'RE NOT -- AND IT'S NOT LIKE AN AIRPORT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE HELICOPTERS THAT REFUEL, PICK UP PASSENGERS FROM THE SURROUNDING REGION, AND TAKE THEM TO PARTS HERE AND THERE. >> NO. >>STEVE LUCE: I THINK IT'S MEANT TO BE A HELIPAD FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE HOSPITAL. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. >> BUT AS MENTIONED IN WHAT I'VE JUST DISTRIBUTED TO YOU, THE -- IT'S LABELED AS A HELIPORT, BUT THE HELIPAD AS IT IS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR THE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL IS -- THE REASON WHY IT WAS PLACED WHERE IT WAS PLACED, BECAUSE IT MUST BE PLANNED TO BE NEAR THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AND SERVICES ALONG THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THERE ARE -- THE HOSPITAL SERVES THE NEED OF THE COMMUNITY, AND FOR THE MOST PART, THE HELIPAD AND ITS USE WILL BE TO TAKE PATIENTS TO TRAUMA CENTERS FOR SERVICES AND NEEDS THAT MAY NOT EXIST AT THIS COMMUNITY LEVEL CARE, SUCH AS ST. JOSEPH'S MAIN HOSPITAL ON MLK IN TAMPA OR TAMPA GENERAL. >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT JUSTIFICATION YOU MENTIONED AS A DESIGN OF THE FACILITY, THE HOSPITAL, AND THE LOCATION OF THE EMERGENCY ROOM. HOW FAR ALONG ARE YOU IN THE ARCHITECTURE, THE PROGRAMMING, THE -- >> I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE -- TO THE HOSPITAL'S REPRESENTATIVE IN TERMS OF THE TIMING AND PLANNING. >>STEVE LUCE: SORRY, MR. LaROCCA -- >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >>STEVE LUCE: -- FOR ASKING QUESTIONS IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR PLANNING JUSTIFICATION. >> CHUCK SECORD WITH ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL. >> I'M CHUCK SECORD. I'M STAFF ARCHITECT AT ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL. WE ARE FINISHING UP OUR PROGRAMMING NOW AND GOING THROUGH STACKING DIAGRAMS FOR THE HOSPITAL. WE HAVE FLOOR PLANS. >>STEVE LUCE: FOR HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WORKING WITH ST. JOSEPH'S AND STARTING THE DEVELOPING PROGRAM, HOW MANY MONTHS, DAYS, OR JUST -- >> WELL, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS. >>STEVE LUCE: ABOUT SIX MONTHS? >> UH-HUH. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. BUT YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE POINT OF DOING SITE CIVIL OR PERMITTING WITH THE COUNTY YET? >> WE'RE DOING FEASIBILITY STUDIES RIGHT NOW ON CIVIL AS TO HOW WE'RE GOING TO PREPARE FOR FOUNDATIONS AND SO FORTH. >>STEVE LUCE: IN TERMS OF PROGRAMMING, YOU REALLY HAVEN'T GOTTEN DOWN TO THE DESIGN OF FLOOR SPACE, SPECIFIC FLOOR SPACE? >> YES, SQUARE FOOTAGE. YES, EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE. >>STEVE LUCE: WALLS AND HALLWAYS? >> AND STACKING DIAGRAMS, YOU KNOW, WHAT DEPARTMENTS ARE LOCATED ABOVE AND BELOW. >>STEVE LUCE: YOU'VE GOTTEN THAT FAR? >> YES. YES, WE HAVE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. YOU MAY PROCEED. >> WITH -- I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE HELIPORT OR HELIPAD, BUT WITH ALL THAT SAID, THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED WITH REGARD TO THAT BY THE EPC IN THEIR COMMENTARY HAD TO DO WITH POTENTIAL NOISE AND SITING OF THE HELIPAD, AND IT'S OUR POSITION THAT AT THIS POINT, THE FINAL AND SPECIFIC LOCATION IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FAA AND FDOT AND HOW THAT'S PLACED, BUT WE FELT FOR PURPOSES OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT'S GOING TO FUNCTION, HOW IT'S INTENDED TO FUNCTION, WE FELT IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE PLANNING LOCATION FOR THE PARTICULAR FACILITY TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND IT WILL BE SITED ACCORDINGLY WHEN IT GOES THROUGH THE FORMAL PERMITTING PROCESS. >>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU KNOW, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FREQUENCY IS, HOW OFTEN A HELICOPTER WOULD COME OR GO FROM THE SITE? >> AGAIN, IT'S BEYOND MY PURVIEW, BUT I'VE HEARD IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS 15, 20 TIMES A MONTH, IF THAT, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S -- THAT'S BASED ON GENERAL INFORMATION THAT I'VE RECEIVED REGARDING OTHER FACILITIES OF THIS SCALE AND SIZE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE ARCHITECT IN TERMS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ARE YOU -- IS THERE ANY -- WITH WILSONMILLER OR ENGINEERINGWISE, HOW FAR ALONG ARE THEY? >> WELL, AGAIN, I'D HAVE TO HAVE WILSONMILLER'S REPRESENTATIVE, JESSE BLACKSTOCK, ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I KNOW THERE'S PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING WORK BEING DONE WITH THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS. HOW FAR ALONG THAT IS, JESSE, DO YOU CARE TO ANSWER? >> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE. >>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING. >> THIS IS JESSE BLACKSTOCK WITH WILSONMILLER, 2205 NORTH 20th STREET IN TAMPA. AS FAR AS HOW LONG WE ARE WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE INTO THE PRELIMINARY MASTER PLANNING STAGE. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THAT ALREADY. WE'VE LOOKED AT PRELIMINARY EARTH WORK ANALYSIS. AS YOU CAN TELL BY THE PLAN THAT JOHN'S PRESENTED, WE'VE LOCATED PONDS AT LEAST CONCEPTUALLY, DONE SOME PRELIMINARY BEST-GUESS NUMBERS IN TERMS OF WHERE THE DIRT WOULD GO AND HOW IT WOULD MOVE AROUND, WE'VE DONE MASTER UTILITIES PLANS, WE'VE LAID OUT WATER, SEWER, STORM, RECLAIMED ON- SITE, SO WE'VE GONE A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE BASED ON THE SITE PLAN. >>STEVE LUCE: HOW MANY MONTHS BALLPARK HAVE YOU BEEN -- >> SAME AS CHUCK QUOTED TO YOU, SIX MONTHS. >>STEVE LUCE: ABOUT SIX MONTHS NOW? >> CORRECT, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. DAVIS. >> THANK YOU, MR. HEARING MASTER. AND CERTAINLY, AS THE EVENING PROGRESSES, ALL OUR EXPERTS ARE OPEN FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. LET ME JUST IDENTIFY A COUPLE OF POINTS AS WE CONCLUDE. FIRST OF ALL, BETWEEN THE MATERIALS THAT ARE OF RECORD, CERTAINLY YOUR QUESTIONS THIS EVENING, THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM OUR EXPERTS, WE WOULD TENDER THE SITE TO YOU AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMPATIBLE WITH AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I THINK IT IS -- IT IS IMPORTANT, THOUGH, BEFORE I CYCLE BACK TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS, TO HIGHLIGHT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS HOSPITAL, AND JUST HISTORICALLY, AS MANY OF YOU MAY KNOW, BUT ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL ACTUALLY FIRST ARRIVED IN TAMPA 76 YEARS AGO, SO THIS IS A -- THIS IS A HOSPITAL AND A GROUP OF HOSPITALS NOW THAT ARE AN ELEMENT OF THIS COMMUNITY AND ARE FOCUSED ON PROVIDING CARE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, AND THEIR MISSION STATEMENT IS PARTICULARLY POIGNANT. IT IS, WE WILL IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF ALL WE SERVE THROUGH COMMUNITY-OWNED HEALTH CARE SERVICES THAT SET THE STANDARD FOR HIGH QUALITY AND COMPASSIONATE CARE. AND THE KEY WORD THERE IS "COMMUNITY" BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY WAS ACQUIRED BY ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL IN THE MID-1980s, AND THE GOAL IS TO COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART HOSPITAL THAT DEMONSTRATES THE ABILITY TO SERVE THIS EMERGING COMMUNITY OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND THAT TIES BACK IN TO THE HELIPAD AS A FUNCTION OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE PATIENTS AT THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY THAT NEED TO BE TRANSPORTED TO LARGER FACILITIES IN THE ST. JOSEPH'S GROUP. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE HELIPAD. THAT'S THE PURPOSE NOW FOR TAKING THE AGGREGATED ACREAGE AS YOU'VE SEEN, NOT INCREASING ENTITLEMENTS, BUT REDISTRIBUTING ENTITLEMENTS ACROSS THE SITE AND DOING ADDITIONAL DESIGN FOR THE SITE SO THAT THE SERVICES CAN BE MOST EFFICIENTLY PROVIDED. BUT WHEN I COME BACK TO, AGAIN, THE KEY INGREDIENTS THAT -- THAT YOU REVIEW, CERTAINLY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A KEY ISSUE. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THE RECOMMENDATION AND YOU WILL HEAR MOMENTARILY THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WE CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THEIR FINDINGS THAT THIS USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU WILL HEAR FROM PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF, AND WE AGREE WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL. WE AGREE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS THEY HAVE BEEN MODIFIED. SO IN TOTAL AND AS AN AGGREGATE OF ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU WILL HEAR MOMENTARILY AND OUR TESTIMONY, WE CERTAINLY SUBMIT THIS SITE TO YOU AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. AGAIN, I HAVE ALL MY EXPERTS NOW SEATED DIRECTLY BEHIND ME, AND WE WILL RESPOND TO ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND CERTAINLY BE HERE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS THAT MAY ARISE DURING REBUTTAL. >>STEVE LUCE: MR. DAVIS, LET ME ASK YOU JUST IN SO MANY WORDS OR LESS IN SUMMARY, WHAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS REZONING? >> THE INTENT OF THIS REZONING IS TO TAKE THE ADDITIONAL TEN ACRES WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE HOSPITAL, UTILIZE THE PROPERTY IN THE MOST EFFICIENT -- THE MOST EFFICIENT MEANS THEY CAN -- AS YOU'VE HEARD, THE HEIGHT ON THE HOSPITAL STRUCTURE HAS BEEN RAISED -- AND RELOCATE THE MOB, THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER, AND CERTAINLY -- AND IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TOO, AS MR. HENRY HAS TESTIFIED, THERE HAS BEEN AN OVERALL CHANGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, AND WITH THAT CHANGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, THE REDESIGN OF THE SITE TO INCLUDE THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL ROAD IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FASHION THAN WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND ALSO THE NEW ACCESS POINTS, AS MR. HENRY TESTIFIED, ALL BECOME PART OF THE OVERALL PACKAGE, AND THAT'S THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS EFFORT, AND I CERTAINLY HAVE MR. McLAUGHLIN, THE HEAD OF REAL ESTATE, AND ONE OF THE OFFICERS OF OUR CLIENT HERE THIS EVENING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION TO MR. McLAUGHLIN, BUT OTHERWISE THAT'S THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACTION. >>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF. AS MR. LaROCCA MENTIONED, THERE IS A -- ACTUALLY A NOTE, IT'S NOT A CONDITION BUT THE NOTE IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATION WHICH IS NOTE NUMBER 1 I'D LIKE TO STRIKE OUT. IT IS NOT NEEDED FOR THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU WANT, I CAN JUST REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING ALONG THAT THEY HAVE TO AMEND THE WORD "HELIPORT" TO A "HELIPAD" ON THE GENERAL SITE PLAN CERTIFICATION. AND WITH THIS, I DO FIND THIS SUPPORTABLE AND APPROVABLE WITH CONDITIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THAT'S A NOTE REGARDING THE HELIPAD, BUT -- >>ISABELLE ALBERT: THE HELIPAD, CORRECT. >>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT, BUT THERE WAS A COMMENT BY MR. LaROCCA EARLIER ABOUT THE SETBACKS FOR THE OFFICE BUILDINGS. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: CORRECT. WHEN I -- LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AND LOOKING AT THEIR PROPOSAL, THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF I BELIEVE IT WAS 68 FEET WITH THAT, WITH THE TWO-FOR-ONE REQUIREMENTS. I -- I SAW THAT THEY NEEDED A MINIMUM OF A 96-FOOT SETBACK, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE -- THAT'S WHY THIS CONDITION WAS IN THERE SAYING, OKAY, YOU HAVE TO PUT THE ENVELOPE AT LEAST 96 FEET, AND THEN IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME -- HE SAYS, WELL, THE MAXIMUM OF 68, IF WE GO TO 40 FEET, THE SETBACK WOULD BE LESS, AND THAT IS TRUE, SO THEREFORE, I'M JUST LEAVING THE ENVELOPE AS IS. THEY ARE AWARE THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET THE TWO-FOR-ONE SETBACK. >>STEVE LUCE: WERE YOU TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT TO ME JUST A MINUTE AGO? >>ISABELLE ALBERT: I WAS. [LAUGHTER] >>STEVE LUCE: I GOT IT. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: I CAN START OVER. >>STEVE LUCE: NO, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. [LAUGHTER] I GUESS YOU NEEDED TO READ THAT ONE TO ME OR TELL ME TWICE. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? >>ISABELLE ALBERT: NO. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>MARCIE STENMARK: THANK YOU. MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION. AS MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS SITE IS WITHIN THREE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE URBAN MIXED USE-20 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE IS WITHIN THE SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, AND A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE SITE NEAR LINCOLN ROAD IS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. THE SITE IS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE SOUTHSHORE AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN. IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE INTERSTATE 75 CORRIDOR AND IS WITHIN AN AREA REQUIRING UP TO 50% OPEN SPACE. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA. IT'S NOTABLE THAT THE -- ALTHOUGH THE AREA IS PLANNED FOR URBAN AND SUBURBAN SCALE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN SOUTH AND WEST OF THE SITE IS CURRENTLY RURAL. POTENTIAL APPLICANTS TO SURROUNDING -- POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING USES HAVE BEEN MITIGATED, HOWEVER, THROUGH THE SITE DESIGN, INCLUDING BUFFERING, SITE LAYOUT, AND PRESERVATION OF THE BULLFROG CREEK SYSTEM. THE INCLUSION OF TWO FUTURE -- THE INCLUSION OF TWO LAND USES ON THE SITE IS CONSISTENT WITH FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 19.1, WHICH REQUIRES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MINIMUM OF TWO LAND USES, SO THEY COMPLY WITH THAT. A COMPLETE MULTIMODAL SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC TO CONVENIENTLY ACCESS THE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS IS CRITICAL BASED ON THE POLICIES, INCLUDING THE MIXED-USE PLAN CATEGORY POLICIES AND THE I-75 CORRIDOR POLICIES. AN INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND CONNECTIONS TO FUTURE SIDEWALKS ARE NOTED. GENERALLY THE SITE PLAN DOES MEET THE SPIRIT OF THE POLICIES. MY STAFF REPORT INDICATES THAT BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IS PROHIBITED TO LINCOLN ROAD. I'D LIKE TO CORRECT THAT ACCESS IS RESTRICTED, AND THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THEY MAY ALLOW EMPLOYEES ARE PLANNING TO ALLOW EMPLOYEES INTO THAT AREA. LINCOLN ROAD CONNECTS DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND IT ALREADY INCLUDES SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES. SEVERAL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ARE LOCATED IN THIS AREA, AND HAVING A MEANS OF ACCESS ON THIS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD ALLOW FOR EMPLOYEES AND VISITORS TO AVOID BIG BEND ROAD. SEVERAL POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT SUPPORT INTERCONNECTIVITY OF THE SITE TO ADJACENT SITES. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF SUPPORTS FULL ACCESS TO LINCOLN ROAD FOR VEHICLES, BIKE, AND PEDESTRIANS SO THAT ALL USERS OF THE HOSPITAL AND EMPLOYEES CAN ACCESS THE SITE AND NOT HAVE TO GO BACK OUT ONTO BIG BEND ROAD. A COMMISSION -- A CONDITION WAS RECOMMENDED PROHIBITING THE USE OF CONCRETE VERTICAL WALLS, AND THIS CAME OUT OF THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THE APPLICANT HAS ACCEPTED THAT. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA THAT HAS AN ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, AS NOTED BY CLOS, 50% OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE SITE PLAN INDICATES A MINIMUM OF 40% OPEN SPACE WHICH DEMONSTRATES A COMMITMENT TO FAR EXCEED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS OF 25%. IN ADDITION, THE BULLFROG CREEK CORRIDOR AND SURROUNDING WETLANDS ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN PRESERVED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE I-75 CORRIDOR AND FURTHERS THE INTENT OF THE POLICIES BY PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION, AND THE PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ASIDE FROM THAT ONE ISSUE I MENTIONED, THE LINCOLN ROAD -- LET'S SEE -- WE FOUND THE SITE PLAN TO BE VERY POSITIVE AND SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT IN ADDRESSING STAFF'S CONCERN. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. GRADY, IF YOU KNOW, IN 2004 WHEN IT WAS APPROVED -- AND LINCOLN ROAD THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, DID THEY HAVE A RESTRICTION ON ACCESS TO LINCOLN ROAD IN 2004 REGARDING JUST ONLY EMPLOYEES AND DELIVERIES? >>BRIAN GRADY: I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. I THINK AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AS THEY EXPLAINED, THEIR ACCESS POINTS WERE DIRECTLY TO BIG BEND AND THROUGH LINCOLN ROAD. MY RECOLLECTION, THERE WASN'T ANY ACCESS TO SIMMONS LOOP AT THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL, SO I DON'T RECALL ANY DISCUSSIONS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER REGARDING RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO LINCOLN AT THAT TIME. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. >>STEVE LUCE: AND YOU DON'T -- AT THIS POINT IN TIME, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO RESTRICTING ACCESS ONTO LINCOLN ROAD? >>BRIAN GRADY: WE'VE LEFT THAT TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. I DON'T THINK WE'VE -- WE'VE NOT PROHIBITED OR SAID IT'S GOING TO BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THERE'S ACCESS MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS IN THE CODE REGARDING INTERNAL ACCESS AND CROSS-CONNECTIONS THROUGH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE UNIQUE SITUATION IS HERE THAT -- THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS FOR, AGAIN, LINCOLN ROAD TO GO THROUGH AS DESIGNED AS A ROADWAY TO BE SOME SORT OF PUBLIC ROADWAY AS PART OF THE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THAT'S NOW CHANGED, SO LINCOLN ROAD IS NOT -- IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE THAT NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAY AS DESCRIBED. SIMMONS LOOP WILL BE THAT NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAY, SO AS THEY SAID, THE CONNECTION INTO THEIR PROPERTY'S GOING TO BE A PRIVATE CONNECTION AS A DRIVEWAY THAT CREATES A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE, SO THE CODE DOES REQUIRE INTERCONNECTIVITY AND PEDESTRIAN INTERCONNECTIONS AS ALLUDED TO BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO THERE'S REQUIREMENTS IN THERE. HOW THAT -- WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE DETERMINED THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO FENCE THAT OFF OR NOT, GATE THAT OFF FOR PRIVATE ACCESS, I THINK, IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DETERMINED AS PART OF REVIEW OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS AND FURTHER ANALYSIS AND THE CIRCULATION SYSTEMS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO CUT OFF THAT CONNECTION, AND IT MAY END UP BEING THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN TYPE CONNECTIONS ALSO. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S JUST -- WE -- GIVEN THE ISSUE, WE BASICALLY ARE NOT PROHIBITING IT BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CUT OFF THAT CONNECTION. >>STEVE LUCE: HMM. WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME IT'S PRETTY STANDARD AND APPROPRIATE PLANNING PRINCIPLE TO REQUIRE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN PROJECTS, SO -- >>BRIAN GRADY: WELL, THERE IS GOING TO BE INTERCONNECTION. AGAIN, IT'S JUST THE TYPE OF INTERCONNECTION. I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION. THE QUESTION IS IS ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO LIMIT IT TO JUST EMPLOYEES AND DELIVERIES, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE, AND SO THE CONNECTION'S GOING TO BE THERE. AGAIN, IT'S AN ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO COMPLETELY -- YOU KNOW, NOT ALLOW FOR ANY KIND OF PUBLIC ACCESS THROUGH THAT, AND SO AGAIN, AT THIS POINT THE CONNECTION'S THERE, IT'S JUST HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE LIMITED REMAINS TO BE DETERMINED. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? >> MR. LUCE, I AM ED BARNES. I LIVE AT 1205 KNIGHTS GATE COURT IN SUN CITY CENTER. I'M PRESIDENT OF THE SUN CITY CENTER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. I REPRESENT ABOUT 20,000 PEOPLE IN THE GREATER SUN CITY CENTER AREA. WE HAVE SUPPORTED THIS BAYCARE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS HOSPITAL SINCE THEY STARTED THIS PROCESS IN 2005. WE'VE HELPED THEM FIGHT THAT THROUGH THE AHCA PROCESS, THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS, AND THROUGH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO GET THIS HOSPITAL ESTABLISHED. WE DIFFER A LITTLE BIT FROM MR. DAVIS, I THINK, IN VIEW OF WHAT THIS HOSPITAL IS. WE VIEW THIS AS A REGIONAL HOSPITAL THAT SUPPORTS MULTIPLE CITIES WITHIN THIS AREA AND NOT A COMMUNITY HOSPITAL. IT SUPPORTS APOLLO BEACH, RUSKIN, RIVERVIEW, SUN CITY CENTER, AS WELL AS WIMAUMA, SO IT'S A FAIRLY DIVERSE HOSPITAL. WE THINK THAT IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO HAVE TWO HOSPITALS IN SOUTHERN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING AREAS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CARE. WE SEE THIS AS SUPPORTING OUR OVERALL MEDICAL CARE REQUIREMENTS IN THE WHOLE OF SOUTH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. YOU MAY NOT KNOW THAT THE MOST DENSITY IN HOSPITAL BEDS IS IN THE TAMPA-NORTHERN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AREA, BUT MOST OF THE POPULATION DOESN'T LIVE IN THE TAMPA AREA, MOST OF THE POPULATION LIVES IN UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. SO WE ENCOURAGE YOU AND -- TO SUPPORT THIS. WE THINK IT'S FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY AND IN THE LONG RUN IT'LL BE FOR THE BETTERMENT OF ALL OF SOUTHERN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? >> YES. MY NAME IS DONALD SCHINGS. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HANDICAPPED CLUB IN SUN CITY CENTER, AND I ALSO SUPPORT AND THE CLUB SUPPORTS THIS ADDITION OF A MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY IN SOUTH COUNTY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT IS? >> HI. MY NAME IS JIM DUFFY, AND I'M A RESIDENT OF SUN CITY CENTER, 705 WINTERBROOKE WAY, AND I SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF THIS -- OF THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE FIRST, IT PROVIDES A NEW MULTICOMMUNITY REGIONAL HOSPITAL IN SOUTH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND SECONDLY, IT ALSO DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATUS OF OUR EXISTING COMMUNITY HOSPITAL IN THE SUN CITY CENTER AREA. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> YES. AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL. REALLY, LET'S FOCUS ON THE ONE ISSUE OF THE INTERCONNECTIVITY FOR A MOMENT AND FOCUS ON IT FROM A BOTH A SITE-SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, AND CERTAINLY, WE -- WE RESPECT AND APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS THAT HAVE COME DURING THE REVIEW BY BOTH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, LET'S, FIRST OF ALL, DEAL WITH THE SITE-SPECIFIC SCENARIO. THE SITE-SPECIFIC SCENARIO IS THAT IN THIS LOCATION OF THE SITE -- AND I CAN CERTAINLY HAVE A NUMBER OF OUR EXPERTS TESTIFY TO THIS IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE IT. THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION ON THE SITE IS WHERE ON THE SITE THERE WILL BE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTIVE TERM, MR. HEARING MASTER, FUNCTIONS THAT ARE NOT PATIENT-ORIENTED FUNCTIONS. THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE DELIVERIES, THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE RECEIVING, AND TO QUOTE THE TERM SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS ALSO WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE CENTRAL ENERGY PLANT, WHICH WHEN YOU COMBINE THOSE THREE DYNAMICS, THIS IS NOT A PARTICULAR POINT AT WHICH OPEN PUBLIC ACCESS WOULD APPEAR APPROPRIATE. FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MY CLIENT, IT IS THEIR BELIEF THAT SUCH ACCESS AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT ACTUALLY CREATES SECURITY QUESTIONS AND ACTUALLY CREATES A SECURITY RISK. NOW, LET'S JUMP FROM THE SITE-SPECIFIC TO THE MORE GLOBAL. AS YOU LOOKED AT THE SITE PLAN -- AND MR. LaROCCA, IF YOU MIGHT PUT THE SITE PLAN BACK UP, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. NOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR SITE FROM A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE AND AS THE TESTIMONY REFLECTS, BOTH MR. LaROCCA'S TESTIMONY AND MR. HENRY'S TESTIMONY, THERE ARE NUMEROUS -- LITERALLY NUMEROUS OTHER POINTS OF ACCESS TO THE SITE THAT PROVIDE YOU THE ABILITY TO GET ONTO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL ROAD AND BASICALLY TRAVEL AROUND THE SITE, AND THOSE PARTICULAR ACCESS POINTS ALSO GIVE INDIVIDUALS ENTERING AT THOSE POINTS DIRECT ACCESS TO THOSE AREAS THAT ARE MORE PATIENT-ORIENTED. JOHN, IF YOU MIGHT POINT OUT THOSE ACCESS POINTS, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. AND SO FROM A NUMBERS PERSPECTIVE, JUST NOTHING MORE THAN NUMERICAL, YOU HAVE THREE SIGNIFICANT POINTS OF ACCESS THAT PROVIDE INTERCONNECTIVITY FROM THE SITE TO THE ADJACENT ROAD NETWORK AND TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE FOURTH ACCESS POINT, WHICH IS IN THE AREA AGAIN OF DELIVERIES, RECEIVING, AND THE CENTRAL ENERGY PLANT, IS A POINT OF ACCESS. IT IS A POINT -- IT WILL BE CONTROLLED. THAT'S THE ONLY DISTINCTION. IT WILL BE CONTROLLED FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT WORK AT THE HOSPITAL, FOR INDIVIDUALS MAKING DELIVERIES TO THE HOSPITAL, SO IT IS A POINT OF ACCESS. NOW, IS IT A -- IS IT AN UNIMPEDED POINT OF ACCESS? NO. YOU WILL REQUIRE APPROPRIATE IDENTIFICATION TO ENTER AT THAT POINT, BUT IT IS A POINT OF ACCESS TO THE SITE AND IT IS ONE THAT MY CLIENT FEELS IS CRITICAL TO THEM TO CONTROL IN THE FASHION THAT THEY HAVE DESCRIBED IN AN EFFORT TO ENSURE AGAINST SECURITY ISSUES. I WOULD SUBMIT THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POLICIES -- GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES IN THE PLAN, THAT DIRECT INTERCONNECTIVITY, WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A SITE THAT DOES HAVE INTERCONNECTIVITY. 75% OF THE ACCESS POINTS, POINTS WHICH TAKE YOU TO THOSE CENTERS ON THE SITE WHERE PATIENTS WILL MOST LIKELY AND PATIENTS' FAMILIES WILL MOST LIKELY BE ENTERING TO PARK AND TO GO INSIDE THE HOSPITAL OR INSIDE THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH IS IN THE UPPER CORNER, IT IS THOSE THAT PROVIDE CLEAR AND COMPLETE INTERCONNECTIVITY, AND THE FOURTH IS IN A MORE LIMITED FASHION. I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN THAT RELATE TO INTERCONNECTIVITY. NOW, I CAN CERTAINLY -- IF YOU WOULD LIKE, MR. HEARING OFFICER, I CAN HAVE MR. McLAUGHLIN SPEAK MORE TO THE ISSUE OF THE PATIENT-ORIENTED ACCESS POINTS VERSUS THIS PARTICULAR ONE AND THE ISSUES RAISED BY IT, AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO RESOLVE THIS IN A MANNER THAT IS SATISFACTORY TO EVERYONE. >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CROSS- ACCESS, IS THERE ANY OTHER LOCATION BETWEEN WHERE LINCOLN ROAD TOUCHES YOUR PROPERTY AND BIG BEND ROAD WHERE CROSS- ACCESS COULD BE PROPOSED? >> NOW, WHEN -- YOU MEAN FOR SOMEONE WHO ENTERS THE SITE FROM LINCOLN ROAD, THEY COULD LEAVE THE SITE -- >>STEVE LUCE: NO, IN GENERAL, NOT GETTING INTO -- WELL, I SUPPOSE IT LEADS TO SPECIFICS, BUT WHERE A CROSS-ACCESS POINT COULD BE PROPOSED, IF YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT THE BACK OF THE HOSPITAL IS -- IS AN AREA THAT WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, LIMIT IT TO EMPLOYEES, WOULD THERE BE SOMEWHERE ELSE ALONG YOUR EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY WHERE A CROSS-ACCESS POINT COULD BE PROPOSED? >> RESPECTFULLY, MR. HEARING OFFICER, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND IN FACT -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MR. HENRY COME UP AND BRIEFLY GIVE A LOCATION THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT. AGAIN -- BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE A POINT FOR THE RECORD CERTAINLY THAT -- THAT WE BELIEVE THAT OUR CURRENT DESIGN MEETS THE GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN, BUT TRYING TO RESPOND AS WE CAN, MR. HENRY, CAN YOU -- >> WE HAVE LOOKED AT ONE ALTERNATIVE LOCATION THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY PROVIDE CROSS-ACCESS. AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT THE -- I'LL ORIENT YOU -- INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROAD, LINCOLN ROAD HERE, UP IN THE RETAIL PORTION OF THE SITE DOWN ALONG THE SOUTHERN DRIVE OF THIS RETAIL PORTION TO BRING THAT IN TO THE LOOP ROAD. YOU KNOW, THAT IS PROBABLY THE -- A LOCATION THAT AT LEAST FROM A CIRCULATION STANDPOINT COULD PROVIDE SOME CROSS- ACCESS BUT KEEP IT OUT OF THE BACK-OF-HOUSE OPERATIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S IN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITIES? >> THAT'S IN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITIES. >>STEVE LUCE: MS. STENMARK, DID YOU TALK TO MR. HENRY ABOUT CROSS-ACCESS IN ANY DETAIL? >>MARCIE STENMARK: I TALKED TO MR. LaROCCA ABOUT THE ISSUE. WE'VE TALKED SEVERAL TIMES. I THINK THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING POSSIBILITY. THE ONLY ISSUE I SEE IS THAT THERE WILL BE A LITTLE MISSING SIDEWALK PIECE OR VEHICULAR PIECE BETWEEN THE OTHER PROPERTY'S PARKING LOT AND THIS SITE. >>STEVE LUCE: COULD YOU PUT THE AERIAL BACK UP. >> AERIAL? >>STEVE LUCE: THE AERIAL. YEAH. MS. STENMARK, I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT YOU'RE -- >>MARCIE STENMARK: TO SAY THE HOSPITAL PROVIDES A ROAD THAT CONNECTS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T EXACTLY CONNECT TO THE -- IT CONNECTS TO THE PROPERTY LINE, SO YOU HAVE A VERY SMALL AREA OF CONNECTION THAT DOESN'T EXIST TO THE PARKING LOT. >> AND IT WOULD NOT BE -- OUR INTENT WOULD BE TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS-ACCESS. THAT -- OBVIOUSLY THAT'S UP TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT IT. IT JUST -- IN THE BACK HERE -- THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT, BUT ONE OF THE CRITICAL THINGS IS WAY FINDING. YOU INTRODUCE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE BACK OF A HOSPITAL AND TRYING TO FIND THEIR WAY NOW AROUND TO THE FRONT OF THE HOSPITAL, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN FROM THE HOSPITAL'S STANDPOINT OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE THAT CIRCULATION AND GET THE SIGNAGE, TO GET THE PEOPLE TO THE RIGHT PLACE, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY FROM THE BACK OF HOUSE BUT ALSO TO GET PEOPLE AROUND, AND THAT'S THE REASON WE FOCUSED THE ACCESS WHERE WE ARE. THIS IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN A SHOPPING CENTER OR A SUBDIVISION WHERE YOU CAN WANDER YOUR WAY AROUND AND TRY TO FIND YOUR WAY. HERE YOU'RE COMING IN WITH EMERGENCIES OR TRYING TO FIND PEOPLE, SO IT'S VERY CRITICAL OF WHERE THE ACCESS IS AND HOW THAT CIRCULATION WORKS AND HOW THE WAY FINDING WORKS, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY THIS IS NOT FROM AN ACCESS STANDPOINT AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR OPEN CROSS-ACCESS. HERE, AGAIN, THE HOSPITAL'S WILLING TO PROVIDE IT TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND AT SUCH TIME AS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DONE, BUT THAT'S A LOCATION THAT AT LEAST FROM A WAY FINDING STANDPOINT, IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME ON, WE CAN DIRECT THEM APPROPRIATELY. >>MARCIE STENMARK: IF I MIGHT, MR. ZONING HEARING MASTER, THE OTHER SITE IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED AND ON THE GROUND. I THINK THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM ACTUALLY CONNECTING TO THIS OPPORTUNITY IS VERY SMALL GIVEN THAT THEY'RE ALREADY DEVELOPED. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. MR. HENRY, WHAT ABOUT THAT VACANT TRACT THAT'S RIGHT UP ON BIG BEND, THE UNDEVELOPED TRACT THAT'S ADJACENT TO YOU? >> THE ISSUE BECOMES IS -- IS, AGAIN, SITE CIRCULATION. WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS WHEN WE INTRODUCE PEOPLE INTO THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS, WE WANT TO GET THEM ON TO THE COLLECTOR ROADWAY OR THE CIRCULATION ROUTE, AGAIN, FOR WAY FINDING PURPOSES. IF WE INTRODUCE THEM UP HERE INTO WHAT WILL BE THE PARKING LOT OF A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND THEN HAVE TO FIND YOUR WAY THROUGH THE PARKING LOT OF A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING TO POTENTIALLY FIND YOUR WAY TO THE HOSPITAL, IT'S JUST FROM OUR STANDPOINT NOT A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS-ACCESS. THAT'S WHAT -- WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS FROM A STANDPOINT OF AGAIN -- THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE USE IN THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE VERY GOOD -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE AN ACCESS, A CROSS-ACCESS, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE GREAT WAY FINDING. YOU DO NOT WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE COME ON TO THE CAMPUS AND TRY TO WEAVE THEIR WAY AROUND AN INTERNAL PARKING LOT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS VERY CLOSELY AS TO WHERE WE FEEL FROM A CIRCULATION STANDPOINT IS THE BEST LOCATION TO INTRODUCE IT INTO THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS. >>STEVE LUCE: WHAT'S THE CURRENT USE ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY? >> THIS IS A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER. >>STEVE LUCE: RETAIL? >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: AND THAT USE TO THE SOUTH OF IT? >> IS MINIWAREHOUSE. >>STEVE LUCE: MINIWAREHOUSE? THE -- IT'S A PD, I SUPPOSE, CORRECT, THE PROPERTY TO YOUR EAST? >> THAT I'M NOT -- >>STEVE LUCE: MR. GRADY, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT ZONING IS? >> I'VE BEEN TOLD YES. >>STEVE LUCE: PD? >>BRIAN GRADY: YES, IT APPEARS SO. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SORRY, MR. DAVIS. I JUST HAD TO ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT OTHER LOCATIONS FOR POSSIBLE CROSS-ACCESS. >> MR. HEARING OFFICER, WOULD IT BE OF ASSISTANCE TO YOU FOR ME TO CALL MR. McLAUGHLIN HERE AND YOU CAN INQUIRE OF MR. McLAUGHLIN IN GREATER DETAIL ABOUT THE SECURITY ISSUES AND THE RISK ISSUES THAT ARE ATTENDANT TO THAT CORNER WHERE LINCOLN ROAD ENDS? THERE IS ACTUALLY A HIATUS BETWEEN THE END OF LINCOLN ROAD AND OUR PROPERTY AS WELL, SO -- BUT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, WOULD IT BE OF ASSISTANCE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE PHILOSOPHY BECAUSE THIS IS A PHILOSOPHY, MR. HEARING OFFICER, THAT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE NATURE OF THIS USE BEING A HOSPITAL AS OPPOSED TO PERHAPS THE ENTIRE SITE BEING PUT TO COMMERCIAL USES. >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, IS IT A GENTLEMAN WHO WORKS FOR THE HOSPITAL? >> MR. McLAUGHLIN, YES. >>STEVE LUCE: IF HE COULD, COME FORWARD. AND I GUESS BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THIS SITE, HAVE YOU WORKED ON OTHER HOSPITAL SITES IN FLORIDA OR THE SOUTHEAST OR UNITED STATES. >> YES, SIR. TERRY McLAUGHLIN, ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM. I'VE BEEN WITH ST. JOSEPH'S FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS NOW, AND AM WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH CHUCK SECORD, OUR ARCHITECT, PROJECT MANAGER THERE. JUST FINISHING THE NORTH HOSPITAL -- AND CHUCK WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER ON THAT -- WE FACED SOME OF THE SAME CHALLENGES, AND I THINK TO MR. DAVIS'S POINT AND TO MR. HENRY'S POINT, YOU KNOW, WE DO LIVE IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF HIGHER SENSITIVITY TO SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS. ONE OF THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THIS SITE AT THAT LINCOLN ROAD EXIT IS THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S AN EXISTING, YOU KNOW, DEAD-END INTO THE PROPERTY, AND IT PRESENTS SOME REAL CHALLENGES, YOU KNOW, ON A CAMPUS THIS SIZE TO PRODUCE A SAFETY AND SECURITY PLAN TO SUFFICIENTLY COVER ALL OF THE ACCESS POINTS. WE HAVE TO RESTRICT SOME OF THOSE POINTS. IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN ON A HOSPITAL CAMPUS, ESPECIALLY ST. JOSEPH'S, ONCE YOU'VE COME ON THE CAMPUS, THERE'S A NUMBER OF GATED, YOU KNOW, ACCESS POINTS -- >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, THAT'S A GOOD POINT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO THINK OF TAMPA GENERAL, LIKE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHERE THEY RESTRICT ACCESS, AND I CAN'T REALLY OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THINK OF ANY. >> WELL, THEY'RE MUCH SMALLER CAMPUSES, AND ST. JOSEPH'S IS ACTUALLY SMALL TOO, AND THAT'S WHAT KIND OF FORCES THE RESTRICTIONS TO HAPPEN ONCE YOU GET ON THE CAMPUS, AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN HERE -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PUT THAT BACK UP -- JUST POINTING OUT TO WHEN YOU COME ON THERE, AS MR. DAVIS REFERENCED, YOU COME INTO -- BASICALLY THE FIRST THING YOU WOULD SEE IS THE DELIVERY DOCK, THE RECEIVING DOCK, AND THE CENTRAL ENERGY PLANT WOULD ALL BE RIGHT THERE AT THE ENTRANCE. HOSPITAL CAMPUSES ARE DESIGNED TO PUT THOSE FUNCTIONS IN ONE PARTICULAR AREA BECAUSE THEY AREN'T SAFE ENVIRONMENTS, AND WE TRY TO REMOVE THOSE FROM WHEREVER PATIENTS AND VISITORS MIGHT WANDER. WHEN YOU COME ON TO THE CAMPUS LIKE THE ST. JOSEPH'S MAIN CAMPUS, IN ORDER TO GET TO THOSE AREAS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A BADGED EMPLOYEE OR BADGED CONTRACTOR BECAUSE THEY'RE GATED STOP POINTS TO WHERE YOU CAN'T GET BACK THERE. UNFORTUNATELY HERE, WE JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE ONE OF THE ROADS ACTUALLY DEAD-END INTO THAT POINT WHERE THAT IS CURRENTLY PLANNED, SO IT PRESENTS A BIT OF A CHALLENGE IN THAT, AGAIN, IT'S SORT OF A DEAD-END POINT AS OPPOSED TO BEING OUT ON LIKE SIMMONS LOOP IS OR BIG BEND ROAD. THEY'RE MUCH GREATER, LARGER PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES TO WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC, A LOT OF VISIBILITY. EVEN NOW, I KNOW THERE'S NOTHING GOING ON THERE, BUT IT'S SORT OF AN EXISTING DUMPING POINT FOR THE STORAGE PLACE, AND THERE'S NO OTHER PUBLIC USES TO THE SOUTH. THAT'S A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT'S MOSTLY WETLANDS TO THAT SIDE OF IT, WHICH IS THE NORTH END OF THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, SO THERE'S A LACK OF ANY PRESENCE THERE OTHER THAN THE APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET. >>STEVE LUCE: WELL, YEAH, I MEAN, THE USE THAT'S TO YOUR EAST, THERE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THERE? >> YES. >>STEVE LUCE: I DON'T WANT TO MICROMANAGE THIS ISSUE, BUT THERE'S POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS THERE. >> ABSOLUTELY. >>STEVE LUCE: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PD SPECIFICALLY IS APPROVED FOR. I'LL RESEARCH IT. YOU COULD HAVE MEDICAL DOCTORS, OTHER KIND OF CLINICS THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY DEVELOP IN TANDEM OR ANCILLARY TO THE HOSPITAL, SO YOU COULD HAVE THOSE KINDS OF OCCUPANTS IN THAT SHOPPING CENTER TO YOUR EAST THAT MAY WANT TO GET DIRECTLY TO THE HOSPITAL, YOU KNOW, WALKING OR, YOU KNOW, RIDING A BIKE OR, YOU KNOW, TAKING THEIR GOLF CART. >> SURE. >>STEVE LUCE: YOU KNOW, SO IT'S NOT JUST FROM A PLANNING POINT OF VIEW AS COOKIE-CUTTER PIECEMEAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IS DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY - - >> ABSOLUTELY. >>STEVE LUCE: -- AND HAVING FREE ACCESS FROM USES WE CAN'T EVEN THINK OF TODAY THAT WILL WANT TO INTERRELATE WITH A HOSPITAL ITSELF. IT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESS AND IT'S GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, NOT TO MENTION, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING AND THE TRANSPORTATION AND THE SECURITY ISSUES YOU HAVE. >> ABSOLUTELY. AND CERTAINLY, WE WOULD WELCOME THOSE OPPORTUNITIES IF THOSE BUSINESSES DID WORK CLOSELY WITH THE HOSPITAL, AND THE PHYSICIANS THEMSELVES AS STAFF MEMBERS WOULD HAVE ACCESS THERE BECAUSE, AS WE SAID, IT WOULD BE RESTRICTED AND WOULD ALLOW EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE, BUT AGAIN, JUST EMPHASIZING, WE REALLY NEED TO EMPHASIZE THE SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS THAT A HOSPITAL CAMPUS HAS, AND THAT JUST -- THIS DOES PRESENT A VERY UNIQUE CHALLENGE THAT I THINK WE COULD CONTROL, YET ALLOW A GREAT AMOUNT OF USE AT THAT SITE FOR ALL THE USES THAT MR. HENRY AND MR. DAVIS HAVE DESCRIBED. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. SO BASICALLY YOUR TESTIMONY -- YOUR POSITION AT THE MOMENT IS THAT CONNECTION TO LINCOLN ROAD IS NOT IDEAL; HOWEVER, THE IDEA OF PERHAPS HAVING A CROSS-ACCESS AT THE LOCATION THAT MR. HENRY POINTED TO? >> YES, SIR. >>STEVE LUCE: WOULD THE HOSPITAL BE OPPOSED TO AT LEAST PROVIDING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME CROSS-ACCESS? >> I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO WORK WITH STAFF ON SOME ALTERNATIVES IF WE CAN FIND THEM ON THAT SIDE AND WOULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT PROSPECTS ALONG THOSE LINES THAT MR. HENRY HAD DESCRIBED A FEW MINUTES AGO, CERTAINLY. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE YOU-ALL'S PATIENCE AND ALLOWING US TO RUN FAR OVER OUR FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL. I THINK, MR. HEARING OFFICER, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE HEARD FROM ALL OF THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE HOSPITAL ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AND A WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER OPTIONS. WE WOULD ASK THAT WHEN YOU PUT ALL THIS TOGETHER AND YOU LOOK AT THIS, CERTAINLY WE BELIEVE AND WE BELIEVE THE FACTS SHOW THAT THIS APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND AGAIN, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ENTITLEMENTS ARE NOT INCREASING THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, RATHER THE SITE IS BEING DESIGNED IN A FASHION TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT IN PROVIDING HEALTH CARE, WHICH IS THE CRITICAL GOAL OF MY CLIENT AND OF ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL BAYCARE SYSTEM, SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL, AND AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE ANY REMAINING QUESTIONS, WE'RE CERTAINLY HERE TO ANSWER THEM. >>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION AND CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. GOODNIGHT. 1