CAPTIONING OCTOBER 13, 2009 BOCC LAND USE AFTERNOON SESSION ***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME BACK TO THE AFTERNOON SESSION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULARLY SCHEDULED LAND USE MEETING. AT THIS TIME, MS. HARVEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REVIEW ANY AFTERNOON CHANGES? >>PAULA HARVEY: COMMISSIONERS, THE ONLY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA ARE ACTUALLY LISTED AS MODIFICATIONS ON PAGE 1 OF THE AGENDA, ITEMS A-3 AND A-4. PRS APPLICATION 09-61 BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THAT OFFICE. AND PRS 08-415, RICHLAND PROPERTIES, THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 10th LAND USE MEETING. THOSE ARE OUR ONLY CHANGES TO THE AFTERNOON. >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE CHANGES. >>KEN HAGAN: GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGES COMMISSIONER NORMAN -- >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: -- TO MOVE THE CHANGES, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: COMMISSIONER BECKNER, MAY I HAVE YOUR VOTE FOR THE CHANGES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: FIRST ITEM. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-1 -- I'M READING FROM THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 5 OF THE AGENDA -- THIS IS THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE LAKEWOOD POINTE BROWNFIELD DESIGNATION. THIS IS A 15-ACRE SITE THAT'S LOCATED ON MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD, EAST OF I-75. CHARNER REECE FROM OUR STAFF IS HERE TO POINT OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE BROWNFIELD DESIGNATION. THIS IS A FINAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, CHARNER. >>CHARNER REECE: THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. CHARNER REECE, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DESIGNATION OF A BROWNFIELD AREA FOR THE LAKEWOOD POINTE PROPERTY, AN APPROXIMATE 15-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 11122 EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD IN SEFFNER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LAKEWOOD DRIVE, NORTH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD. THE BOARD'S DESIGNATION OF THE LAKEWOOD POINTE PROPERTY WILL ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER, LAKEWOOD POINTE, LIMITED, TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION OF THE CONTAMINATED SOIL ON THE SITE. THE LAKEWOOD POINTE, LIMITED, OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE COSTS OF REMEDIATION. THE COUNTY HAS NO FINANCIAL OBLIGATION FOR THE -- FOR THE PROPERTY -- OVER THE PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING -- FOLLOWING THE CLEANUP, LAKEWOOD POINTE, LIMITED, WILL -- IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ON THE SITE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING ZONING. STAFF FINDS THE APPLICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGNATING A BROWNFIELD AREA AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BY ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION IN YOUR AGENDA ITEM MATERIALS. THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, JEFFREY PETERS, WITH E SCIENCES IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SITE, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? COME DOWN, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. >> HI, COMMISSIONER. MY NAME IS CHARLES HUBBARD. I'M A DIRECTOR AT LARGE WITH THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, AND I ALSO HAPPEN TO LIVE AROUND THE CORNER FROM THIS PROJECT. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE AT ALL WITH THE BROWNFIELD DESIGNATION. WHAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IS THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING. MOST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I LIVE IN, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY MANGO, IS ALL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES UNTIL A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN THEY PUT IN A -- I BELIEVE IT'S A SECTION 8 HOUSING ON WILLIAMS AVENUE NORTH OF MLK BOULEVARD. EVER SINCE THAT HAPPENED, THE CRIME RATE HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY. I'VE HAD POLICE HELICOPTERS FLYING OVERHEAD ALMOST EVERY NIGHT. I'VE HAD SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DEPUTIES TELL ME TO STAY INSIDE WHEN I'M SITTING IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. I GREW UP IN PHILLY, SO I'M KIND OF USED TO THAT IN PHILLY BUT NOT HERE IN SEFFNER, AND THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE I HAVE. THE BROWNFIELD DESIGNATION IS FINE, BUT I REALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYMORE LOW-INCOME HOUSING IN THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. HUBBARD. >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER SHARPE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS. OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-2 ON THE AGENDA IS CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATION OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK. WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY IS A LOG CABIN THAT'S LOCATED AT 16215 HANNA ROAD IN LUTZ AT THE SITE OF THE LEARNING GATE COMMUNITY SCHOOL. THE SITE HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES REVIEW BOARD. THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THE DESIGNATION CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CHARNER REECE WILL GIVE YOU BACKGROUND ABOUT THE LOG CABIN AND ITS HISTORIC DESIGNATION. >> THE SHAW FAMILY CABIN WAS BUILT IN 1935, AND THEN WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED, IT WAS A REQUIREMENT IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE REZONING TO PRESERVE THE CABIN, RELOCATE IT TO A SUITABLE LOCATION. IT WAS RELOCATED IN 2005 TO 16215 HANNA ROAD IN LUTZ, THE SITE OF THE LEARNING GATE COMMUNITY SCHOOL, AND IN YOUR PACKET, OF COURSE, YOU DO HAVE THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION REPORT, WHICH CONTAINS THE DETAILS, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY, AND A NUMBER OF PHOTOGRAPHS. THE LOG CABIN DOES QUALIFY FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION UNDER THE CRITERIA STATED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE RESOURCES REVIEW BOARD HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 18th WHEN THEY CONSIDERED THE DESIGNATION. A REPRESENTATIVE OF LEARNING GATE COMMUNITY SCHOOL WAS PRESENT AND WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE DESIGNATION. THERE WERE NO -- THERE WAS NO ONE IN OPPOSITION TO THE DESIGNATION. SO THE REVIEW BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT -- TO RECOMMEND DESIGNATION OF THE LOG CABIN AS A HISTORIC COUNTY LANDMARK. YESTERDAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PASSED THE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DESIGNATION, AS MS. HARVEY MENTIONED, AND I DO HAVE A COPY OF THAT RESOLUTION FOR THE CLERK FOR YOUR RECORDS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO PROCEED WITH A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF THE DETAILS IN THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION REPORT, I WILL. IF NOT, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, AND I ALSO WANTED TO INDICATE THAT THE LEARNING -- LEARNING GATE COMMUNITY SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVE, CHARLES GIRARD, IS HERE ALSO IN THE AUDIENCE. THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. REECE. THIS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: I'M SORRY. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? >> YES, SIR. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. PLEASE. >> I'M KAY TAYLOR. I LIVE ON HANNA ROAD, 16142, DIAGONAL TO THE SCHOOL, AND I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED ABOUT ANY OF THIS HAPPENING. I HAVE RECEIVED NOTHING BY MAIL FOR THE PREVIOUS HEARING SHE JUST SPOKE OF AND NOTHING ABOUT THIS ONE UNTIL ABOUT 7:00 LAST NIGHT. AND THE ONLY PROTEST I HAVE ABOUT THAT DESIGNATION IS I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THE WHOLE 26 ACRES IS GOING TO BE DESIGNATED AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK BECAUSE IF IT IS, IT CHANGES HOW THIS BOARD OPERATES IN ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THEY WANT TO DO TO THAT PROPERTY. SO IF IT RECEIVES A HISTORICAL DESIGNATION, ANY PROPERTY AROUND THERE CAN BE CONDEMNED TO CREATE MORE PARKING, MORE ROAD ACCESS, AND HEAVIER TRAFFIC ON OUR ROAD THAN WE ALREADY HAVE, AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF ANYONE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR ME. THAT LOG CABIN DOESN'T TAKE UP BUT ABOUT 25 SQUARE FEET -- 250 SQUARE FEET, SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO DESIGNATE THAT WHOLE 26 ACRES, I AM MORE THAN OPPOSED. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. MS. REECE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO -- >> YES, I WOULD. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THE DESIGNATION IS ONLY FOR THE BUILDING, NOT THE LAND. >>KEN HAGAN: AND I'LL CONCUR WITH THE WOMAN ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE -- OF THE STRUCTURE. I TOO HAVE BEEN IN THE LOG CABIN, SO -- MS. HARVEY, BEFORE WE VOTE, ANY ISSUES ON -- AS FAR AS NOTIFICATION OR ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS? >>PAULA HARVEY: I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH EXACTLY HOW HER PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. I HAVE VERIFICATION OF ALL THE NOTICES THAT WENT OUT IN THE MAIL TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE PROPERTY, AND I DON'T FIND THAT THERE'S ANY DISCREPANCY. I THINK ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE NOTICED ACCORDING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THIS DESIGNATION IN FACT DID GET THAT NOTICE. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION -- >> I'M DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. I DID NOT GET THE NOTICE. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-3 IS REZONING PETITION 09-892. THIS IS AN APPLICATION THAT WAS APPLIED FOR BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STAFF IN -- ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN WHAT IS TO BE KNOWN AS THE RIVERVIEW DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AND THE RIVERWALK AREA. THE PROVISIONS IN THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS WERE ACTUALLY ADOPTED INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THIS LAST ROUND OF AMENDMENTS. THIS IS THE FOLLOW-UP TO THAT TO ACTUALLY DESIGNATE THE PROPERTIES THAT WILL RECEIVE THOSE PARTICULAR DESIGNATIONS. ALL OF THE AFFECTED PARTIES WERE NOTICED. THIS WAS REVIEWED BY THE ZONING HEARING MASTER. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION. AND THE ZONING HEARING MASTER DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH A FINDING OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT IS A COUNTY-INITIATED APPLICATION. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION. >>KEVIN WHITE: SO MOVE. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-4, PRS APPLICATION 09-484. CLOUD STREET CORPORATION IS CONSIDERING MODIFICATION ON AN 8.2-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STATE ROAD 60 AND ST. CLOUD AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN TO RECONFIGURE THE RETAIL ENTITLEMENTS ON THE SITE FROM ONE PARCEL TO ANOTHER. THEY'RE MODIFYING THE SETBACKS AND ALSO REQUESTING A SECOND ACCESS POINT ON ST. CLOUD AVENUE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THE APPLICANT HERE? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. >> HI. VIN MARCHETTI FOR THE RECORD. >>KEN HAGAN: DO YOU NEED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE RECORD? >> NO THANK YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >> APPRECIATE IT. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-5, PRS APPLICATION 09-715, IS AN APPLICATION BY GREG NOWAK, WHO IS PROPOSING TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS ON FIVE ACRES THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE -- AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GUNN HIGHWAY AND VAN DYKE ROAD. THE ACTUAL PARCEL UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR MODIFICATION, PARCEL 3. THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TO ALLOW TWO BUILDING STRUCTURES TO BE THERE INSTEAD OF ONE AND TO MODIFY THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE COMMERCIAL THAT'S ASSIGNED TO THIS PARTICULAR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THIS WAS REVIEWED AT YOUR LAST HEARING, COMMISSIONERS. YOU DID ASK THE APPLICANT TO MEET WITH THE KEYSTONE CIVIC ASSOCIATION. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THEY DID MEET. YOU ALSO ASKED STAFF TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE DISCREPANCIES IN SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM WHAT WE HAD CALCULATED IN TERMS OF OUR PERMITS THAT WE HAD ISSUED VERSUS THAT THAT WAS INDICATED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. WE DID CONFIRM THAT THE DISCREPANCY WAS OCCURRING BECAUSE OF THE CANOPY THAT'S OVER THE DRIVE-THROUGH AREA AT THE BANK. COMMISSIONER NORMAN HAD ASKED ME SPECIFICALLY WHETHER OR NOT THIS HAD BEEN REVIEWED CONSISTENT WITH OUR OTHER PRACTICES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, AND IN FACT, WE DID REVIEW IT CONSISTENT WITH THAT. WE DO NOT COUNT CANOPIES OVER DRIVE-THROUGHS AT BANKS AS PART OF THE FLOOR AREA FOR CALCULATING SQUARE FOOTAGE. THAT BEING SAID, WE BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICATION IS IN ORDER AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THE APPLICANT HERE? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. >> I'M DAVID GOREE WITH THE BELLEAIR DEVELOPMENT GROUP, AND FOR THE RECORD, WE DID MEET WITH THE KEYSTONE ASSOCIATION TO GO OVER THEIR NEEDS AND CONCERNS. WE PRESENTED THEM SOME PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS, WHICH THEY WERE ALL IN FAVOR OF. THE ONLY OUTSTANDING ISSUE WAS AS PAULA COMMENTED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH FOR THE BANK AND WHETHER THAT WAS PART OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE PERTAINING TO THE PD OR NOT. I DO HAVE ONE LETTER FROM AN ADJACENT OWNER OF SUPPORT FOR APPROVAL, AND I ALSO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS THAT I DID LOOK ALSO AT THE TRIP GENERATION FOR THE IMPACT, COMPARING THE 4,000-SQUARE-FOOT DAY CARE TO THE 5,000 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE, AND THE NUMBERS BASED ON THE 7th EDITION I.T.E. TRIP GENERATION REPORT CAME UP TO THE DAY CARE WOULD HAVE 317 TRIPS PER DAY. IF WE WENT WITH THE 5,000 MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE, THAT WOULD BE ONLY 181, A SIGNIFICANT LESS IMPACT TO THE AREA AS FAR AS TRANSPORTATION AS WELL AS UTILITIES. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >> IS THIS ON? I'M PAMELA JO HATLEY. I REPRESENT THE KEYSTONE CIVIC ASSOCIATION. THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DID MEET WITH MR. GOREE, AND A CONSENSUS WAS ACTUALLY REACHED AT THAT MEETING THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD SUPPORT ONE BUILDING FOR 2500 SQUARE FEET FOR MEDICAL OR OFFICE USES, AND MR. GOREE PRESENTED THE COMMUNITY WITH THESE ELEVATIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY ALSO SUPPORTS. THEY SEEM TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN CRITERIA IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SO TO THAT EXTENT, THE COMMUNITY REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO THE EXTENT THAT IT EXCEEDS ONE 2500-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING FOR MEDICAL OR OFFICE USES AND ALSO THAT THE REQUIREMENT BE INCLUDED THAT DESIGN CRITERIA BE CONSISTENT WITH THE KEYSTONE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AS FAR AS THE -- AS FAR AS THE DISCREPANCY OVER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT WAS POINTED OUT AT THE SEPTEMBER HEARING OR RATHER IT WAS REPORTED AT THE SEPTEMBER HEARING THAT -- THAT THE -- THE APPROVED ZONING FOR THIS PD WAS 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF CN USES ON PARCELS 1 AND 2 AND A 4,000- SQUARE-FOOT CHILD-CARE CENTER ON PARCEL 3, AND THE COMMUNITY AGREES WITH THAT. THAT'S HOW THEY UNDERSTOOD THE ZONING TO BE. THE COMMUNITY ALSO BELIEVES THAT MORE THAN 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF CN USES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON PARCELS 1 AND 2. THERE MAY BE A DISCREPANCY IN THE RECORD, BUT THERE'S NO DISCREPANCY ON THE GROUND, AND THIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY THERE ON THE GROUND. THIS IS THE BANK BUILDING, THIS IS THE RETAIL STRIP CENTER, AND THIS IS THE CAR WASH. NOW, IT WAS ALSO REPORTED AT THE SEPTEMBER HEARING THAT STAFF RELIED ON AS-BUILT SURVEYS TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS ACTUALLY BUILT ON THE GROUND. SO WE REQUESTED TO VIEW THOSE -- THOSE AS-BUILT SURVEYS, AND WE WERE TOLD BY THE COUNTY THAT THEY DID NOT EXIST, THE COUNTY DID NOT HAVE THEM. IN FACT, I MET WITH MR. GRADY, AND HE SAID THAT STAFF HAD NOT REVIEWED AS-BUILT SURVEYS BUT RATHER HAD RELIED ON CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL LETTERS, SO THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL LETTERS, OF COURSE, DO NOT COINCIDE WITH WHAT'S BUILT ON THE GROUND. THEY ACTUALLY WERE FOR APPROVING THINGS LIKE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND CONCURRENCY, SO THOSE AREN'T TO BE RELIED ON FOR WHAT ACTUALLY IS BUILT ON THE GROUND. SO SINCE WE COULDN'T GET THE AS-BUILT SURVEYS, WE WENT TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, AND WE GOT CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S MEASUREMENTS WHERE THEY ACTUALLY WENT OUT AND MEASURED THE BUILDINGS ON THE GROUND. THIS IS THE BANK BUILDING AND THIS IS THE STRIP RETAIL CENTER AND THIS IS THE CAR WASH. OF COURSE, THE DRAWINGS THAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HAS DONE AND THEIR MEASUREMENTS AGREE WITH THE BUILDINGS ON THE GROUND. THOSE SHOW A TOTAL OF 17,426 SQUARE FEET OF STRUCTURES ON THE GROUND. NOW, CLEARLY THERE'S MORE THAN 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF CN USES, SO THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHAT IS SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WHAT'S NOT SQUARE FOOTAGE IN A STRUCTURE? I ASKED MR. GRADY THAT QUESTION, AND HE COULDN'T ANSWER IT AND REFERRED ME TO THE BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT -- DIVISION AND ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL DIVISION. I WENT TO THOSE. I SPOKE WITH JOHN AUSTIN, I SPOKE WITH -- OR BY E-MAIL MR. BURROW, AND WAS FINALLY REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND STILL DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. FINALLY I DID RECEIVE AN E-MAIL FROM MR. GRADY, AND I'VE GIVEN YOU-ALL A COPY OF THAT AS WELL. IN HIS E-MAIL HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE BANK DRIVE- THROUGH AREA DOES NOT COUNT FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS -- ACCORDING TO HIS E-MAIL IS THAT THE BANK DRIVE-THROUGH AREA IS NOT CONSIDERED PRIMARY RETAIL SPACE. NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT ALL OF THE CAR WASH, INCLUDING THE CAR WASH BAYS, ARE CONSIDERED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH, AND THESE ARE IN YOUR PACKAGES, BUT THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH -- THIS IS THE CAR WASH, THE CAR WASH BAYS. THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BANK DRIVE-THROUGH AREA. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THESE STRUCTURES ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL, AND PARTICULARLY AS FAR AS VISUAL IMPACT OR IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE VERY, VERY CLOSE, NOT ONLY IN THE WAY THEY LOOK BUT THE WAY THEY'RE BUILT WITH, YOU KNOW, SOME WALLS IN BETWEEN THEM AND AN END WALL, AND I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT ALSO IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT THE END WALL FOR THE BANK IS QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURE. IN FACT, IT'S MORE VISUALLY SUBSTANTIAL THAN THE CAR WASH END WALL. SO WE WOULD ARGUE, FIRST OF ALL, THIS POLICY OF NOT COUNTING BANK DRIVE-THROUGHS AS -- IN SQUARE FOOTAGE IS AN ARBITRARY DISTINCTION, AND HIS -- MR. GRADY'S EXPLANATION ACTUALLY WENT ON TO SAY THAT -- THAT GASOLINE -- COVERED GASOLINE PUMPS ARE -- ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE; HOWEVER, COVERED GARDEN CENTERS AT LARGE RETAILERS IS CONSIDERED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND AGAIN, THAT'S SUCH AN ARBITRARY DISTINCTION BECAUSE WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHETHER -- WHAT IS RETAIL SPACE AND WHAT ISN'T RETAIL SPACE, A GARDEN CENTER, OF COURSE, IS RETAIL SPACE, BUT SO IS A GASOLINE PUMP FOR THAT PARTICULAR USE, SO I THINK THAT THE DISTINCTION OF RETAIL SPACE IS REALLY ARBITRARY AND ESPECIALLY FOR ZONING PURPOSES WHERE ZONING IS SUPPOSED TO SEPARATE NONCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. FOR THAT PURPOSE, REALLY, WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF WHAT'S ON THE GROUND. AND FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT -- AGAIN, THAT THAT POLICY IS NOT A WRITTEN POLICY, IT'S NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THIS COUNTY, IT'S NOT PART OF THE HAPPENED DEVELOPMENT CODE OR ANY TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURES MANUAL THAT WE COULD FIND AT ALL, SO WE ASK THE BOARD NOT TO GO BY THAT ARBITRARY POLICY. I DON'T BELIEVE IT COULD BE SUPPORTED BY ANY LOGICAL ARGUMENT. AND FINALLY, AS TO DESIGN STANDARDS OF ANY BUILDING, WE -- WE APPRECIATE THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY BY MR. GOREE. WE HOPE THAT THOSE -- THAT SUCH DESIGN CRITERIA ARE A REQUIRED PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THOUGH, AND WE REITERATE OUR ARGUMENT FROM THE SEPTEMBER HEARING THAT ACCORDING TO FLORIDA STATUTE 163.3194, AFTER A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ANY PORTION OF IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED, ALL DEVELOPMENT AND ALL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FROM THAT POINT ON HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS ADOPTED AND -- ANY PORTION OF IT AS ADOPTED, SO THAT -- THAT PARTICULAR STATUTE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS IN LAKE ROSA VS. PUTNAM COUNTY AND IN BAY POINT CLUB VS. BAY COUNTY. THOSE TWO CASES DO BOTH AGREE THAT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT IS ON THE DATE THAT THOSE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS ARE -- ARE GIVEN. FINALLY, I DID HAVE ALSO ONE LAST PHOTOGRAPH OF THE RETAIL CENTER. THERE'S ALSO DISCREPANCY OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE RETAIL CENTER. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, ALL ENCLOSED BUILDING THERE, AND I BELIEVE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PACKAGES IS A CALCULATION OF THE SQUARE FEET, AND IT -- IT DOES EQUAL ALL OF IT MORE THAN 17,000 SQUARE FEET, SO TO CONCLUDE, THE COMMUNITY JUST WOULD ASK THAT THE COMMISSION -- THAT THE COMMISSIONERS DENY THIS REQUEST TO THE EXTENT THAT IT EXCEEDS ONE 2500-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING, REQUIRE THAT DESIGN CRITERIA BE CONSISTENT WITH THE KEYSTONE-ODESSA DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE COMP PLAN AND HAPPENED DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT'S FRUSTRATING TO THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE TO COME OUT AND MONITOR EVERY DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND EVERY CONSTRUCTION PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT THEIR EFFORTS THAT WENT INTO WHEN THEY WERE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING EFFORT WERE NOT IN VAIN, AND THEY WANT THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO BE RESPECTED. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. HATLEY. HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT? SEVEN MINUTES. OKAY. >> WE'RE GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. STEVEN MORRIS, WAYNE ROAD, ODESSA 33556. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON GAS PUMPS OR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DEPTH AND WIDTH OF THE BURIED GAS TANKS NOR THE HORSEPOWER OF THE TRUCK THAT DELIVERS THE FUEL. I DO, HOWEVER, HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT WHEN I PAY FOR TEN GALLONS OF GAS, I WILL GET TEN GALLONS OF GAS. WHEN CITIZENS, LAYMEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WORK WITH DEVELOPERS, PETITIONERS, AND STAFF ON A PD OF AN AGREED-TO SPECIFIED QUANTITY OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, WE AGAIN HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THIS AGREED-TO SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL BE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BUILT ON THAT PROPERTY. TWO, THREE, FOUR OR MORE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR, OH, THAT PART OF THE BUILDING WAS AGREED TO ON A TUESDAY, SO WE ALLOWED IT TO BE BUILT, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY COUNT AGAINST THE TOTAL PERMITTED SIZE, OR THAT WAS DOUBLE FRIDAY WHERE EVERY PROJECT IS ALLOWED TO BE DOUBLE THE ACTUAL SIZE, BUT IT ONLY COUNTS AS HALF IN THE CALCULATION. TO PUT IT IN OTHER WORDS, COMMISSIONERS, IF IT'S ON THE GROUND, IT COUNTS. IN ORDER TO ENSURE CITIZENS ARE PROTECTED WHEN THEY PURCHASE FUEL, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REGULARLY CHECKS PUMPS TO BE SURE THEY ARE DISPENSING THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF FUEL. PROTECTION FOR BOTH THE VENDOR AND THE CITIZENS. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PROTECTION POLICY SEEMS TO BE LACKING WITH REGARDS TO THE LAND USE PROCESS. INSTEAD, THERE APPEARS TO BE THREE SETS OF NUMBERS. THE PETITIONERS "THIS IS WHAT I WANT" NUMBER AND THE PERMITTED "WELL, THIS IS WHAT WE THINK IT IS" NUMBER, NEITHER OF WHICH ARE BACKED UP BY ANY ACTUAL MEASUREMENT NOR PROVIDE ANY PROTECTION FOR THE CITIZENS. AND FINALLY, THERE IS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S NUMBER, WHICH IS ARRIVED AT BY ACTUALLY MEASURING THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE BEFORE YOU TODAY, DETERMINING THE REAL NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ALREADY BUILT HAS BECOME INCREDIBLY PAINFUL TO DETERMINE DUE TO THE LACK OF ANY DEFINABLE PROCESS OR APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS. IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE PETITIONER, THE COMMUNITY OFFERED HIM ONE BUILDING NOT TO EXCEED 2500 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED ON THE WHOLE OF PARCEL NUMBER 3. THIS WAS ARRIVED AT BY TAKING THE AVERAGE OF THE PERMITTED NUMBER AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S NUMBER, THEN SUBTRACTING THIS FROM THE 19,000, WHICH IS THE TOTAL PERMITTED AMOUNT FOR THAT PD. THE COMMUNITY FELT THIS WAS THE FAIREST AND SIMPLEST WAY TO ARRIVE AT THE ALL-IMPORTANT LEFT-TO-BE-DEVELOPED NUMBER. COMMISSIONERS, WE BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO CHOICES BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE FIRST WOULD BE TO OFFER THE PETITIONER THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP ONE 2500-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING ON THE FULL PARCEL NUMBER 3 WITH AN ADDENDUM THAT HE MEETS WITH US ONCE AGAIN TO MEET AND DISCUSS ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND ANY OTHER LANGUAGE REQUIRED FOR THE AMENDED PD. THIS SHOULD TAKE VERY LITTLE TIME, AS WE'RE HALFWAY THERE. THE OTHER IS WE MERELY VOTE TO DENY AND INSTRUCT STAFF TO AMEND THE CURRENT LANGUAGE TO CHANGE 4,000 SQUARE FEET DAY CARE TO 2,000 SQUARE FEET DAY CARE. ANYTHING ELSE, AND THIS DEAL IS NO LONGER A DEAL. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. MORRIS. ANYONE ELSE? THE APPLICANT HAS OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE STRIP RETAIL PROJECT THAT THE -- PAULA SHOWED EARLIER WAS NOT A PROJECT THAT WE DID. WE WERE NOT PART OF THE DESIGN OR THE OUTCOME OF THE LOOKS. WE SOLD THE LAND, AND WE WERE NO LONGER ANY PART OF IT. WE DID INFORM THE BUYER OF THE PD IN THE CONDITIONS PLACED ON THAT PARCEL. I ALSO ASKED THE KEYSTONE ASSOCIATION HOW THEY FELT ABOUT THE LAST PROJECT THAT WE DID BEING THE FIFTH-THIRD BANK. ALL OF THEM IMMEDIATELY TOLD ME THAT THAT IS THEIR MODEL FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF THE APPEARANCE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE COMMUNITY. SO I'VE BEEN A LITTLE CONFUSED HOW WE BUILT THE MODEL FOR THE ASSOCIATION AND WE'RE TRYING TO CUT THE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY POSSIBLY AS MUCH BY -- IN HALF WITH MORE BUILDINGS THAT LOOK MORE LIKE THE BANK THAT FITS THEIR IMAGE. WE KNEW ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN THE PD. THE BUILDINGS I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO BEING A VERY GOOD FIT TO THE COMMUNITY, MATCHING THE DESIGN CRITERIA ARE THE ANTICIPATION AND HOPES OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND I'M COMPLETELY CONVINCED THAT WE CAN DO THAT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. PAULA, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. >>PAULA HARVEY: YES, SIR. >>KEN HAGAN: THROUGHOUT THE LAST HEARING AND THIS -- THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP HEARING COMMENTS ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE, SURVEYS, YOU KNOW, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. >>PAULA HARVEY: YES, SIR. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS AFTERNOON MS. HATLEY REFERENCED AN ARBITRARY DISTINCTION OR ARBITRARY POLICY WITH RESPECT TO DRIVE-THROUGH OR WITH RETAIL. I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WAS THIS STRUCTURE PERMITTED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES, AND IS THE SQUARE -- WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER DRIVE-THROUGHS? >>PAULA HARVEY: SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, NO, IT WAS NOT PERMITTED ANY DIFFERENTLY. I APPRECIATE THE PHRASING OF ARBITRARY, BUT IN FACT, WHERE IT MAY APPEAR TO BE ARBITRARY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, IT'S ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE PERMITTING WE'VE DONE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. ALL OF THE CAR WASHES IN THE COUNTY HAVE THE TOTAL AREA UNDER ROOF COUNTED AS THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE. WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THAT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, AND WE VERIFIED THAT WITH BUILDING SERVICES. IN TERMS OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH CANOPY, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE DO NOT COUNT THE CANOPIES ON THE DRIVE-THROUGHS AT BANKS. WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT IN THAT POLICY AS WELL ALL OVER THE COUNTY. IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURE. I NEED TO POINT OUT THAT ONE OF THE REASONS IT APPEARS TO BE SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURE IS BECAUSE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE KEYSTONE PEOPLE HAVE FOR PROJECTS DEVELOPED IN THEIR AREA. OTHERWISE, I DOUBT SERIOUSLY THAT ALL OF THOSE BRICKS AND HEAVY COLUMNS WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO BE SO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY ARE AT OTHER CANOPY LOCATIONS FOR BANK DRIVE-THROUGHS. SO, I MEAN, CERTAINLY THE COUNTY CAN GO BACK, WE CAN LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND START DRAWING DISTINCTIONS THAT ARE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY ABOUT WHAT'S COUNTED, WHAT'S NOT COUNTED, WHY OR WHY NOT, BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT IF WE START CHANGING IT FOR THIS PROJECT AND THEN BASED ON THAT START ENFORCING IT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ALL OVER THE COUNTY, WE'VE CREATED AN AWFUL LOT OF NONCONFORMITY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. THE LAST THING, COMMISSIONERS, I DO NEED TO POINT OUT IS THAT WHEN YOU DO A COMPARISON OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGES THAT WE'VE RELIED ON IN TERMS OF ADVISING THE PROPERTY OWNER WHAT WAS REMAINING ON THE SITE TO BE DEVELOPED AND COMPARE THAT TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER LESSING OUT THE BANK CANOPY ONLY, WE ACTUALLY SHOW MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE BEING APPROVED BY THE COUNTY THAN WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HAS ACCOUNTED FOR BY SOME -- WELL, 37 SQUARE FEET, SO WE OFFERED TO THE PROPERTY -- TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT LESS THAN WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S FIGURES WOULD HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR. I DON'T THINK WE'VE SHORTCHANGED ANYBODY AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE GIVEN ANYBODY ANY BREAKS. CONSISTENT WITH HOW IT IS THAT WE'VE PERMITTED OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE COUNTY, WE'VE MOVED FORWARD, PROPERLY ADVISED THE APPLICANT AS WHAT WAS AVAILABLE. THE APPLICANT DID, IN FACT, SAY AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT SO THAT THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO BUILD A CHILD-CARE CENTER BUT INSTEAD, THEY WANT TO USE THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE SQUARE -- OF THE CHILD-CARE CENTER PLUS WHAT'S REMAINING ON THE SITE IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL ALLOWABILITY AND CONSTRUCT TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS. >>KEN HAGAN: AND STAFF -- >>PAULA HARVEY: THAT'S HOW WE CAME TO IT. >>KEN HAGAN: AND STAFF BELIEVES THAT WHAT IS REQUESTED IS LESS INTENSIVE THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED? >>PAULA HARVEY: WE'VE VERIFIED THAT THROUGH TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS. THE TWO SMALLER OFFICES WILL DEFINITELY GENERATE LESS TRAFFIC -- >>KEN HAGAN: SO YOU CONCUR WITH THE APPLICANT'S NUMBERS WITH RESPECT TO TRIPS? >>PAULA HARVEY: YES, WE DO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. >>MARK SHARPE: LESS INTENSIVE THAN A CHILD-CARE CENTER? >>PAULA HARVEY: THAN THE CHILD-CARE CENTER, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS GOING TO AFFECT PEAK TRAFFIC. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY'S LIGHT. I WAS GOING TO ASK. BUT THEN ARE THE TWO BUILDINGS RATHER THAN THE ONE, THOUGH, STILL CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN? >>PAULA HARVEY: WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT THE ELEVATIONS THAT THEY SHOW THAT MR. GOREE APPARENTLY INDICATED -- THEY INDICATED THAT HE HAD SHOWN THEM TO THEM. IF THE BOARD WANTS TO HAVE THOSE ELEVATIONS BE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR HOW THE BUILDINGS SHOULD APPEAR, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE COPIES OF THEM THAT WE WILL ADD THE CONDITION THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE ELEVATIONS, AND THEY'LL BE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT WILL BE BUILT. >>MARK SHARPE: I MEAN, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT ANY APPROVAL WOULD -- BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT IN MAKING SURE THAT -- AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE KEYSTONE CIVIC ASSOCIATION ARE VERY PRIDEFUL OF WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE AND WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ARE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ISSUE. IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE ARGUING OVER SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN EXACT WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE, AND WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE SEEMS TO ME, MY PERSPECTIVE, MORE -- MORE AMENABLE TO THE -- TO THE -- TO THE COMMUNITY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE ISSUES OF TRAFFIC THAN WHAT THEY WOULD CURRENTLY HAVE. I -- IN THIS CASE I THINK THAT THE -- THE APPLICANT IS -- IS -- SO LONG AS WE MEET THE DESIGN CRITERIA. THAT TO ME IS A MAJOR CONCERN. ARE WE -- I MEAN -- >>KEN HAGAN: WHAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE DO WE NEED TO MAKE A CONDITION? >>PAULA HARVEY: WELL, AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS, WHENEVER WE'VE HAD ISSUES REGARDING HOW A BUILDING IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK, THE CLEANEST WAY TO DEAL WITH IT RATHER THAN RELYING ON GENERAL LANGUAGE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN AND THE CODE, WHICH STILL LEAVES IT TO AN INTERPRETATION, I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE ACTUAL ELEVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED TO ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS AS A GUIDE FOR WHAT CAN BE PERMITTED. >>MARK SHARPE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: CAN THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. DO YOU -- DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND DO YOU CONCUR? DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT MS. HARVEY JUST -- HER RECOMMENDATION? >> YES, I CONCUR. THE PD LISTS PRETTY SPECIFICALLY THE ARCHITECTURAL APPEARANCE THAT IS BEING LOOKED FOR OUT THERE, AND I THINK THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY AGREE TO ATTACHING ELEVATIONS IN CALLING THEM OUT IN REFERENCE TO THOSE SPECIFICATIONS SO THAT THE TWO ARE TIED TOGETHER AND THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING. WE WOULD COMPLETELY STAND BEHIND THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: MR. GORMLY HAD -- DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? >>ADAM GORMLY: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THOSE ARE THE ELEVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE RECORDS, THE ONES THAT YOU'RE AGREEING TO? >> YES, THEY'RE ONES I HAVE PRESENTED TO THE KEYSTONE ASSOCIATION, AND EITHER ME OR THEM CAN FORWARD TO STAFF A COPY. >>ADAM GORMLY: I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN A COPY SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK, SO WE HAVE IT. >> OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE'VE APPLIED THESE STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AS I'M UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION IN >>PAULA HARVEY: WE CHECKED ON IT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WITH THE CONDITIONS JUST DISCUSSED, I'LL MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION, BUT CAN WE BRING THE KEYSTONE CIVIC ASSOCIATION BACK FOR A SECOND? I MEAN, THE ISSUE SEEMS TO BE A BATTLE OVER BUILDINGS, WHETHER WE GO WITH A CHILD-CARE CENTER OR A SECOND BUILDING. I MEAN -- AND THE CHALLENGE HERE IS THIS IS SIMILAR TO ANOTHER SOUTH COUNTY WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE ANY AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE, ANY MODIFICATION TO THAT AGREEMENT, I MEAN, IS FIERCELY RESISTED OFTENTIMES JUST ON THE PRINCIPLE OF WE'RE MODIFYING WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN AN EXISTING AGREEMENT. IN THIS INSTANCE, I THINK MARKET CONDITIONS SUGGEST THAT A CHILD-CARE CENTER NO LONGER IS VIABLE. WHAT -- WHAT WOULD BE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE THE DETRIMENT TO US MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS APPLICATION, THE -- WITH REGARD TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? >> WELL, AS I EXPLAINED, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS -- EXCEEDS THE 15,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WAS APPROVED ON PARCELS 1 AND 2 ALREADY, AND AS I EXPLAINED, IT'S -- IT'S AN ARBITRARY DISTINCTION. NOW, IT MIGHT BE A POLICY THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED IN THE PAST -- IN THE PAST, BUT -- AND IT'S A POLICY THAT APPARENTLY HAS NOT BEEN TESTED, AND BY TESTED, I MEAN BY AN OPPOSITION BEFORE A COURT OF LAW. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A POLICY THAT IS DEFENSIBLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT WRITTEN, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WHEN YOU SCRUTINIZE THE REASONS FOR IT, RETAIL SPACE, AS I EXPLAINED, I THINK WE CAN TEAR THAT APART. THERE JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANYTHING TO SUPPORT IT. WHY DO WE COUNT -- WHY DO WE COUNT A VERY SIMILAR STRUCTURE IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A BUILDING, IT'S ATTACHED, IT'S BUILT VERY MUCH THE SAME WAY, WHY DO WE COUNT IT IN THE SQUARE FOOT OF A BUILDING IN ONE CASE AND NOT IN ANOTHER CASE? AND IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. NOW, IF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTED A POLICY, IT WAS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHERE EVERYBODY WAS ON NOTICE THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT'S DONE, THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT, BUT IT ISN'T, AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT A POLICY LIKE THAT COULD BE CHANGED AT ANY WHIM GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE, AND NO APPLICANT REALLY IS -- IS PROTECTED BY IT AND IT CAN NEVER BE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED. AND MY -- MY CLIENT JUST POINTED OUT THAT -- THE POINT WAS LESS CONCRETE ON THE GROUND. I THINK IT'S THE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED WITH. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. AND I JUST WANTED THAT FOR THE RECORD. AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 4-2. COMMISSIONERS BECKNER AND NORMAN VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. NEXT ITEM. >>PAULA HARVEY: THE NEXT ITEM -- NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS ITEM F-6, PRS APPLICATION 09-769. THIS APPLICATION MADE BY CENTEX HOMES PERTAINS TO A 20-ACRE PART OF PD 05-1253. THERE WAS A CONDITION THAT WAS APPLIED TO THIS PARTICULAR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT REQUIRED DEDICATION FOR A SCHOOL AND PARK SITES. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AS I HAD INDICATED IN A PREVIOUS HEARING, STATED THEY DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A PARK DEVELOPED ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, AND AT THAT TIME THE SCHOOL BOARD THEN IDENTIFIED THAT THEY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO HAVING ADDITIONAL ACREAGE TO THEIR SITE. THERE HAS BEEN SOME NEGOTIATION THAT HAS GONE ON BETWEEN THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE APPLICANT REGARDING PAYMENT OF FEES, TIMING OF DEDICATION, AND SUCH ISSUES AS THAT. WE HAVE PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP REVISED CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT AND AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES, SPECIFICALLY CONDITION 9.1 THAT'S FOUND ON PAGE 6 OF YOUR BACKUP. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BOTH THE PARTIES DO AGREE. WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: DOES THE APPLICANT NEED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE RECORD? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD. WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AND HAVE A CONCURRENCE ON THE CONDITION. WE'D ASK YOUR APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >> THANK YOU. >>PAULA HARVEY: PRS APPLICATION 09-1043, APPLICATION BY OLGA ALVAREZ. THIS PERTAINS TO PROPERTY THAT -- A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT LOCATED AT 6460 REEF CIRCLE, WHICH IS WEST OF HENDERSON ROAD AND SOUTH OF GUNN HIGHWAY. THE APPLICANT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY REQUESTING AN ALLOWABILITY FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING AT THIS ADDRESS. IN CONSIDERATION OF THAT, THEY'RE ASKING TO WAIVE SOME OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING STANDARDS REGARDING LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS FOR THE FACILITY WHICH IS CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY. IT IS INTENDED THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE WOULD BE UTILIZED FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS OLGA ALVAREZ. MY ADDRESS IS 6460 REEF CIRCLE, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33625. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MARICELA MEDRANO FROM PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AND I'M HERE TO SERVE AS AN INTERPRETER FOR OLGA ALVAREZ. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> I'M HERE TODAY TO REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 83-0230. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THIS MINOR MODIFICATION WILL ALLOW ME TO KEEP MY A ACCESSORY DWELLING AND MY PROPERTY AND -- >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY THIS PAST JULY 2009, AND -- WHICH WAS IN FORECLOSURE. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> WHAT MOTIVATED ME TO BUY THIS PROPERTY IS THAT THIS HAD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING FOR MY SON WHICH HAS 25 YEARS -- WHICH IS 25 YEARS OLD AND IN A FEW MONTHS WILL COME FROM COLOMBIA TO LIVE IN TAMPA. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THIS WILL BE PERFECT FOR HIM, WHICH -- BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER BUT ALSO TO KEEP OUR PRIVACY. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING HAS ONLY 934 SQUARE FEET, AND THE ACCESSORY DWELLING ONLY 350 SQUARE FEET. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> AFTER I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, I MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING BECAUSE IT WAS DETERIORATED. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THE REASONS I SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF MY ACCESSORY DWELLING ARE AS FOLLOWS. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THERE IS ENOUGH PARKING IN MY -- WITHIN MY PROPERTY FOR BOTH DWELLINGS. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THE ACCESSORY DWELLING ONLY MEASURES 350 SQUARE FEET. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> IT'S NOT VERY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THIS IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MY PROPERTY. THE ACCESSORY DWELLING IS SCREENED FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE NORTH AND ON THE SOUTH FOR A PRIVACY SIX-FOOT WOOD FENCE. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> AND IT IS SCREENED FROM THE PROPERTY ON THE BACK BY A SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A RETENTION POND IN THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY THAT SEPARATES MY PROPERTY FROM THE MULTIFAMILY LOCATED IN THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THE SITE OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> SEVERAL OF MY NEIGHBORS CALLED ME AFTER RECEIVING THE LETTER OF NOTICE, AND THEY EXPRESSED THEIR SUPPORT TO MY REQUEST. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST ALSO THE REDUCTION OF THE SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR MY ACCESSORY DWELLING. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM FIVE FEET TO THREE FEET WITH SIX INCHES. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> IN THE REAR YARD FROM 15 FEET TO THREE FEET WITH THREE INCHES. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> I WILL GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR APPROVAL TO MY REQUEST. THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING DOES NOT AFFECT TO MY -- IN ANY WAY TO MY NEIGHBORS. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THE ELIMINATION OF THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING WILL REDUCE MY PROPERTY VALUES AND THE MOST IMPORTANT, THAT I WON'T HAVE A PLACE TO OFFER TO MY SON WHICH SOON COMES FROM COLOMBIA. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S JANICE HOLT, 6458 REEF CIRCLE, TAMPA 33625. THIS IS MY BROTHER, RODNEY. WE DWELL TOGETHER. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT IT, BUT I'M THE NEIGHBOR. I HAVE PICTURES, BUT I DIDN'T BRING TEN COPIES. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT IT, BUT -- WE CAN SHOW PICTURES OVER THERE? >>PAULA HARVEY: RIGHT, ON THAT MACHINE RIGHT THERE. >> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU HOW CLOSE IT IS TO MY PROPERTY AND THAT THE LOOKS OF THE DWELLING DOES NOT MEET OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS, AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT -- >> WE'RE IN A DEED RESTRICTED COMMUNITY, AND THE BYLAWS IN OUR DEED RESTRICTED BASICALLY STATE NO SECOND DWELLINGS ON THE PROPERTY, INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND QUITE FRANKLY, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF IT IF IT WAS EVER PERMITTED, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS ELECTRICAL AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THAT THERE MIGHT BE A SEVERE FIRE HAZARD BEING SO CLOSE TO OUR PROPERTY, AND AS FAR AS -- WE WERE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS BEING DONE. THIS IS THE FIRST NOTIFICATION WE KNEW THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE A SECOND DWELLING INSTEAD OF A UTILITY SHED THAT THE PRIOR NEIGHBORS HAD CONSTRUCTED, AND WHEN THEY ADDED ON TO IT AND REMODELED IT FOR A SECOND DWELLING, WE HAD NO IDEA UNTIL WE GOT THE LETTER IN THE MAIL THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR. >>KEN HAGAN: DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THE PHOTOS? >> THIS IS A PICTURE BETWEEN -- THIS IS A PICTURE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES, THE FENCE THAT SEPARATES OUR HOUSES. >> TESTING. >> SORRY. THIS IS -- THE FIRST PICTURE IS BETWEEN OUR TWO HOUSES, SHOWS THE FENCE, AND IF YOU CAN SEE AT THE TOP CORNER -- YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT IN THIS PICTURE, BUT IT SHOWS THE ROOF. THIS IS THE DWELLING FROM MY BACKYARD TO THEIRS. THAT'S THE -- THE NEW DWELLING THEY PUT IN. AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. IT DOES NOT MEET OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS EITHER WHERE IT HAS TO LOOK -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> FOR BEING A BLOCK BUILDING. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, AND IF YOU'LL SEE ON THE RIGHT- HAND SIDE, THAT'S THEIR BACK PORCH, AND THAT'S HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THEIR BACK PORCH. AND THIS IS FROM MY PATIO WHERE MY POOL ENCLOSURE IS. FROM MY FENCE IT'S ONLY LIKE FOUR FEET BUT LIKE THREE FEET FROM THE ROOF OVERHANG. AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: ADAM, I WANT TO -- I WANT TO -- I TOO HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THIS, AND I WANTED TO ASK YOU -- ASK YOUR OPINION. IT -- IT APPEARS THAT THE -- YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING DOES NOT -- YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM SETBACKS, MINIMUM LOT SIZES REQUIRED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THAT THIS WOULD, IN JUDGING BY THE PICTURES, CREATE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT IT WOULD BE GIVING THIS PROPERTY THE BENEFIT THAT OTHER PROPERTIES DO NOT ENJOY IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, POSSIBLY CREATE, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL OFF-SITE IMPACTS. WHAT -- IS THAT ACCURATE OR IS THAT INCORRECT OR CAN YOU CLARIFY IT FOR ME? >>ADAM GORMLY: YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET THE SETBACKS AS WOULD BE PRESCRIBED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLINGS. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE -- THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM AS PART OF THIS -- AS PART OF THIS REQUEST AS WELL AS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE 7,000 -- HE BELIEVES 7,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS LOT IS SMALLER THAN THAT. THEY -- YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE PD DOESN'T OTHERWISE ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLINGS, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAD TO COME HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR THAT TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD TO ALLOW THIS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST. COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>PAULA HARVEY: MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER. SOMEONE ELSE WANTED TO SPEAK. >>KEN HAGAN: OH, OKAY. I'M SORRY. COME ON DOWN. >> I JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE THING. >>PAULA HARVEY: YOU HAVE TO TALK IN THE MIKE, MA'AM. >> I'M SORRY. I'M BERNIECE MORRIS, AND I LIVE AT 6719 GILDA DRIVE, RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, TEN HOUSES DOWN FROM WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS. WE ACTUALLY WENT TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MEETING, AND WE BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP TO THEM TO SEE IF THEY WERE AWARE OF IT, AND THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF IT. AND THE PRESIDENT OF OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SENT YOU A LETTER STATING THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH BEING A DEED RESTRICTED AREA THAT IT HAD TO BE WITHIN 15 FEET FROM THE BACK PROPERTY LINE, AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS SO CLOSE TO THAT CONCRETE BLOCK WALL -- NOT ONLY THAT. ONE OF THE OTHER GENTLEMEN THERE WORKS WITH THE TAXING DISTRICT THING, AND HE WAS SAYING THAT FROM A FIRE PERSPECTIVE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET BEHIND THAT DWELLING OR BEHIND THAT DWELLING TO PUT IT OUT. AND THE MAIN CONCERN I THINK TOO IS -- I MEAN, WE'RE REALLY SORRY, WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF MONEY OR WHATEVER WENT INTO IT FOR THESE PEOPLE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN YOU -- WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE PERMITS PULLED AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND WHEN YOU HAVE ALL THIS ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS PUT INTO IT, WE WERE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE FIRE HAZARD WAS THE MAIN CONCERN WITH IT TOO. OKAY? THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM, FOR COMING DOWN. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? BEFORE WE GO ON TO BOARD COMMENT, I WANT TO OFFER THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL IF THEY WANT TO MAKE ANY FINAL COMMENTS. >> OKAY. [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> I KNOW THAT MY PD DOESN'T ALLOW TO -- FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING AND THAT I DON'T MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THIS HOUSE WAS -- THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING WAS BUILT IN 2006, AND I JUST PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2007. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THE ONLY THING I DID IS TO IMPROVE THE CONDITION OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING AND -- AND THERE IS NOT ANY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK THAT COULD BE -- MY STRUCTURE COULD REPRESENT A FIRE HAZARD. THERE IS NOTHING -- NO STRUCTURE IN THE BACK. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THE SETBACK EXCEEDS THE THREE FEET, AND THE ACCESSORY DWELLING ONLY MEASURES 350 SQUARE FEET. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES FIVE FEET SETBACK, AND I'M JUST REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF ONE FOOT AND A HALF. THAT MEANS THREE -- TO HAVE A SETBACK OF 3.5. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> MY INTENTION IS NOT TO CAUSE ANY PROBLEM FOR MY NEIGHBORS, AND I WILL DO WHATEVER YOU DECIDE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT IT WAS OBVIOUSLY ANSWERED, AND THAT QUESTION WAS DID THEY BUILD THIS STRUCTURE OR WAS IT ALREADY THERE? AND I BELIEVE SHE JUST PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THE -- THAT THIS STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN 2006, AND -- COULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY ONCE MORE WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY? >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> I -- SHE HAD THE CLOSING ON JULY 10th OF THIS YEAR -- OF THIS YEAR, AND THE BUILDING WAS ALREADY THERE, AND SHE HAS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FROM 2006 WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE STRUCTURE. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN ON THE PROPERTY SINCE 2006 AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IS SAYING THAT IF -- I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS THERE, AND -- >> [INAUDIBLE] THEY HAD A SHED. >>KEVIN WHITE: YOU CAN'T TALK FROM THERE -- >>KEN HAGAN: SORRY, MA'AM -- >>KEVIN WHITE: --SO IF YOU WANT TO COME ON UP. I'D LIKE YOU TO PLEASE CLARIFY THAT -- YOUR POSITION ON THAT FOR ME BECAUSE -- PLEASE COME UP TO THE MIKE BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD IT AS YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A STRUCTURE THERE. >> THE PRIOR OWNERS TO -- TO MS. -- I FORGOT HER LAST NAME, OLGA. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. THAT'S FINE. >> SHE -- THERE WAS A SHED BACK THERE, AND THEN THEY EXTENDED FROM THE SHED FORWARD, WHICH IS A HUGE BUILDING NOW, VERSUS JUST THE SHED THAT THEY HAD. THE PREVIOUS OWNERS HAD PUT UP A -- LIKE A STORAGE SHED, AND THEN THEY EXTENDED FROM THAT STORAGE SHED FORWARD AND MADE IT A DWELLING. AND THAT DWELLING HAS JUST BEEN DONE WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, IF -- CAN THE APPLICANT RESPOND TO THAT AS FAR AS TO WHAT -- WHAT TYPE OF UPGRADES THEY DID TO THE -- THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS CURRENTLY THERE. >> [SPEAKING SPANISH] >> IT HAD THE -- IT HAD A BATHROOM AND THE ELECTRIC INSTALLATION AND SHE DID AN ADDITION FOR THE KITCHEN. SHE CHANGED THE DOORS. [SPEAKING SPANISH] AND SHE MADE A BETTER -- SHE IMPROVED THE FACADE, THE FRONT WALL WITH A WINDOW AND THE DOOR THAT YOU SAW IN THE PICTURE. >>KEVIN WHITE: DID SHE INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING AT ALL? >> SHE SAYS SHE INCREASED A LITTLE BIT TO THE FRONT. >>KEVIN WHITE: IS THAT THE PORCH, OR DID THEY ADD ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE BUILDING? >> SOMETHING LIKE THIS SHE SAYS. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>KEVIN WHITE: THAT'S FINE. MS. HARVEY, CAN YOU -- FOR ME, COULD YOU EXPOUND ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL ON THIS FOR ME, PLEASE. >>PAULA HARVEY: WELL, CLEARLY WHEN THE STRUCTURE FIRST WENT UP, WHOEVER IT WAS THAT PUT IT UP, THEY PUT IT UP AS JUST AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH HAS THE ALLOWABILITY UNDER THE CODE TO BE WITHIN THREE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S UNINHABITABLE SPACE. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE FOR THE -- ACTUALLY FOR NOW THEY DON'T REQUIRE PERMITS FOR THEM. THEY'RE JUST ABLE TO PUT IT UP AS LONG AS THEY MEET THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WE DO FIND VERY OFTEN THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY THAT A LOT OF TIMES THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE THEN RENOVATED OR REMODELED TO BECOME DWELLINGS. THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT THE DWELLING -- ACCESSORY DWELLING REQUIREMENTS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT THAN JUST FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THEY HAVE TO BE SET BACK FURTHER FROM THE PROPERTY LINES THAN DOES THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, PLUS THERE'S ALL OTHER TYPES OF CONSIDERATIONS. THEY SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED PERMITS TO DO ANY RENOVATIONS TO THAT STRUCTURE AHEAD OF, THEN SUBSEQUENTLY BEING FOUND OUT AND HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROCEDURES WHERE IN ORDER TO BECOME COMPLIANT, AN APPLICANT FINDS THAT THEY EITHER MUST AMEND THEIR ZONING OR GET A VARIANCE OR WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE TO PUT THEIR SITUATION IN A LEGAL STATUS. THIS APPLICANT, I DON'T FAULT THEM FOR GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AT ALL, THEY NEEDED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AS A FIRST ATTEMPT TO TRY TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION FOR THEMSELVES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T TESTIFY TO THE EXACT NATURE OF WHAT OCCURRED NOR WHAT THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WAS OF THOSE PERMITS, BUT IT'S CLEAR TO ME IN LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION THAT IT STARTED AS JUST AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH WAS CALLED A SHED BY ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND NOW IT HAS BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. WE CONSIDER IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT EVERY PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN A ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS IT TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING, AND WE HAVE THEM FROM VERY LARGE DEVELOPED PROPERTIES SUCH AS AVILA ON DOWN TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WITH MUCH SMALLER LOTS, BUT THEY STILL ARE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS. AND SO OUR PERSPECTIVE IN TOTAL IS TO ESSENTIALLY GIVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO ANY PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS A DESIRE TO DO THAT IF THEY HAVE SOMEONE THAT THEY WANT TO PROVIDE A DWELLING FOR, AND IN THIS CASE, THIS LADY'S INDICATED THAT SHE PLANS ON USING IT FOR HER SON TO RESIDE IN. SO, YOU KNOW, OUR POSITION WAS NOT NECESSARILY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE TECHNICALITIES OF WHAT BROUGHT HER TO THE PROCESS BUT THE RESULT BEING THAT SHE WOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING AS WOULD ANY OTHER SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNER IN THE COUNTY. >>KEVIN WHITE: AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF THEY WANT TO DO ANY FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH AS ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, OR ANY -- AC, ANY OF THAT STUFF THAT IF THIS WAS APPROVED, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NECESSARY PERMITTING PROCESSES AT THAT TIME? >>PAULA HARVEY: WELL, AT THIS POINT, THE CLARIFICATION OF THE ZONING DOES NOT RECTIFY THE BUILDING ISSUE. SHE IS GOING TO HAVE TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND GET CLEARANCE ON ALL OF THOSE, EVEN IF THEY'RE AFTER THE FACT, BEFORE ANYONE CAN OCCUPY THE UNIT. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MS. HARVEY, HAVE WE LOOKED AT -- OR WAS PART OF THIS CONSIDERATION WHAT IS IN THE DEED -- WHAT IS IN THE BYLAWS OF THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE DEED RESTRICTED COMMUNITY AS FAR AS WHAT IS ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED AS A DWELLING STRUCTURE? >>PAULA HARVEY: THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DOES NOT ACTUALLY ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS. WHAT WE DO IS REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR THE ALLOWABILITIES UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IF THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, IF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WANTS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THAT, THEN THEY CERTAINLY CAN, BUT IT'S A CIVIL MATTER BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE AREA AND THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT, NOT BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO IS THIS IN VIOLATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT'S IN PLACE, DO YOU KNOW? >>PAULA HARVEY: I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS, COMMISSIONER, SO I WOULD NOT KNOW. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: NO, MA'AM. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>KEVIN BECKNER: MR. GORMLY, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT? >>ADAM GORMLY: JUST TO REITERATE WHAT MS. HARVEY CORRECTLY SAID, THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE BASICALLY A PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL MATTER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION AND IS NOT SOMETHING THE COUNTY'S A PARTY TO, NOR HAVE WE HAD ENFORCEMENT ACTION -- ENFORCEMENT POWER FOR THOSE. YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MAY CHOOSE TO WAIVE OR ALLOW CERTAIN THINGS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS, THAT'S SOMETHING BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE COUNTY WOULDN'T HAVE A HAND IN, SO IT'S NOT AN ELEMENT OF CONSIDERATION WHEN WE REVIEW THESE REQUESTS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO, THEN, WE CAN APPROVE SOMETHING, AND THEY COULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE CIVIL ACTION AGAINST IS IT THE COUNTY, IS IT THE RESIDENT? WHO DO THEY TAKE ACTION AGAINST? >>ADAM GORMLY: IT WOULD BE AMONGST THE RESIDENTS. IT WOULD BE A PRIVATE CIVIL MATTER AMONGST THE RESIDENTS AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. >>KEVIN BECKNER: BUT YOU AS THE STAFF DO NOT FIND ANY, THEN, VIOLATION FROM THE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE AND FIND IT ACCEPTABLE AS FAR AS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AS IMPROVEMENTS GO? >>PAULA HARVEY: OUR APPROVAL HERE, COMMISSIONER, WOULD BASICALLY BE SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS IT TO BE PERMITTED, BUT THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION THEN TO MEET ALL OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT COME TO THEM, INCLUDING THEIR OWN DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT GOVERN THE PROPERTY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO WE COULD ACTUALLY APPROVE IT, AND -- BUT YET THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNANCE OF THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THEN ALSO OTHER PERMITTING ISSUES THAT MAY NOT GET APPROVED ANYWAYS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE -- >>PAULA HARVEY: THAT'S CORRECT. THEY ALSO HAVE TO -- AS I'LL POINT OUT TO THE BOARD AGAIN AND TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET PERMITS APPROVED THROUGH THE BUILDING DIVISION. THOSE MAY BE AFTER-THE-FACT PERMITS, AND THEY MAY NOT BE EASILY OBTAINED. >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE TO DENY. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN TO MOVE TO DENY THE APPLICATION. I SUPPORT THE MOTION. AS I SAID, THIS HAS GOT A LOT -- I'M NOT SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT -- THAT THE COMMUNITY LIKELY HAS DEED RESTRICTIONS OPPOSING THIS. AS STATED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, WE CANNOT USE THAT AS A BASIS FOR DENIAL, BUT I THINK THIS WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND I'LL -- I'LL PASS THE GAVEL AND SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN'S MOTION TO DENY. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAGAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-1. COMMISSIONER WHITE VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>PAULA HARVEY: NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS ITEM F-8 ON THE AGENDA, PRS APPLICATION 09-1046. THIS IS ABOUT A 11-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GEORGE ROAD, SOUTH OF HILLSBOROUGH AVENUE. CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR AN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT CAME TO US BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN A RESTRICTION IN THE ORIGINAL ZONING ON THE PROPERTY TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF THEIR GROUND SIGN TO EIGHT FEET. THE APPLICANT CAME FORWARD BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO UP TO 15 FEET ON THEIR PROPERTY. IN EXAMINING THE REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN THIS SITE REGARDING SIGNAGE, WE DETERMINED THAT, IN FACT, 15 FEET WAS AN ALLOWABILITY UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, AND IT WAS ONLY THE CONDITION IN THE ZONING THAT WAS RESTRICTING THE HEIGHT. OUR RECOMMENDATION TO YOU AT THIS POINT IS RATHER THAN ACTUALLY AMENDING THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN IN CONDITION 13 THAT'S PROVIDED FOR THAT CONDITION 13 JUST BE STRICKEN FROM THE APPLICATION OR FROM THE CONDITIONS THEMSELVES. THAT MEANS THEN ALL THE SIGN REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 7 AND THOSE PERTAINING TO TOWN 'N COUNTRY WOULD BE APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR PERMITTING. AND I THINK THE APPLICANT AGREES WITH THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. TOM DEAL, AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR PP MAINSAIL, 1921 TAMPA EAST BOULEVARD. I'M IN CONCURRENCE -- I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH PAULA, AND I'D LIKE TO RESERVE COMMENT, IF NECESSARY, FOR REBUTTAL. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>PAULA HARVEY: THAT IS STRIKING CONDITION 13; CORRECT? >>KEN HAGAN: YES. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: ITEM F-9, COMMISSIONERS, PRS APPLICATION 09-1048, IS AFFECTING A 2.5-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 41, NORTH OF SUNSET LANE IN LUTZ. THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED WITH A DRUGSTORE, AND THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH DRUGSTORE OPERATIONS TYPICAL IN OUR COMMUNITY KNOW THAT EACH ONE OF THEM PROVIDES FOR A FILM DEVELOPING SERVICE AND THEY ALSO PROVIDE FOR THESE SMALL ACCESSORY MEDICAL CLINICS AS WELL AS PART OF THEIR PHARMACY OPERATION. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT, IN EXAMINING THE CONDITIONS THAT GOVERNED THE ZONING ON THE SITE, FOUND THAT, ONE, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE RURAL AREA, THEY CAN ONLY BE SERVED WITH WELL AND SEPTIC, AND SECONDLY, THERE WAS A LIST OF USES THAT WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE CONSIDERED ON THESE PROPERTIES, AND THAT WAS PRIMARILY BECAUSE THOSE USES CONTRIBUTED TO POTENTIAL OF WASTE PRODUCTS GOING INTO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO TAMPA BAY WATER, WHO HAD CONCERN ABOUT THE QUALITY OF POTABLE WATER IN THIS AREA. THE APPLICANT'S BEEN WORKING AT THIS APPLICATION FOR SOMETIME. THEY ACTUALLY SOUGHT OUT TAMPA BAY WATER, ASKED THEM TO REVIEW THEIR SITUATION, AND TAMPA BAY WATER HAS ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE DRUGSTORE ON THIS SITE WITH THE ACCESSORY OPERATIONS OF FILM DEVELOPMENT AND THE ACCESSORY MEDICAL CLINIC. SO WITH TAMPA BAY WATER'S CONCURRENCE, WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. WEAVER. DO YOU NEED TO ADD ANYTHING? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, RON WEAVER FOR THE RECORD, 401 EAST JACKSON STREET, AND I'D LIKE TO RESERVE ANY EXTRA TIME FOR REBUTTAL. ON JUNE 26th, 2009, WALGREENS CORPORATE, DEERFIELD, ILLINOIS, CONFIRMED THAT THE PHOTO EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT THE WALGREENS AT U.S. HIGHWAY 41 AND SUNSET LANE IN LUTZ WILL NOT BE DIRECTLY PLUMBED TO THE SINK OR DISCHARGED INTO THE SEPTIC SEWER, AND THEN IT HAS ALL OF THE OTHER REGULATORY PRECAUTIONS WITH RESPECT TO DISPOSAL INTO DRUMS, WHICH ARE THEN TAKEN OFF AS REQUIRED AND REGULATED TO TAKE CARE OF ONE OF THESE CONDITIONS. WE THEN HAVE A LETTER FROM TAMPA BAY WATER DATED JUNE 12, 2009. THE SUBJECT, REZONING SITE IS LOCATED UPGRADIENT OF A CERTAIN WELL. THE TAMPA BAY WATER STAFF HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REZONING REQUEST PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE WELLHEAD AND SURFACE WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION REGULATIONS, YOUR REGULATIONS 3.05, WHICH WE WILL DO. WE'LL USE BEST PRACTICES, AND WE'LL BE TAKING CARE OF THESE TWO ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO ADDITIONAL USES ON THE SITE. I GOT MY FLU SHOT AT WALGREENS LAST WEEK. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE. THAT NURSE PRACTITIONER'S IMPORTANT, AND THE PROCESSING OF FILM IS JUST PART OF ANY EFFECTIVE WALGREENS, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEVIN BECKNER: [INAUDIBLE] >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAULA HARVEY: OUR LAST TWO ITEMS FOR US TO CONSIDER THIS AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, ITEM G-1-A AND G-1-B ARE ABOUT THE BIG BEND TRANSFER COMPANY DRI. WE HAVE IN CONSIDERATION TODAY A NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE, WHICH IS A MODIFICATION TO THE DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AND ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, MAJOR MODIFICATION 09-681, WHICH IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE ZONING HEARING MASTER. THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO ASK JOHN HEALEY FROM OUR STAFF TO COME FORWARD AND JUST BRIEFLY OUTLINE FOR YOU THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DRI AND THE MAJOR MOD. >>JOHN HEALEY: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. JOHN HEALEY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE BIG BEND TRANSFER COMPANY DRI NUMBER 245 HAS PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: EXTEND THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT DATE FOR THE SULFUR HANDLING FACILITY BY FIVE YEARS, FROM MARCH 16th, 2014, TO THE SAME DATE OF 2019, EXTEND THE PERIOD BY WHICH THE DEVELOPER MUST DEDICATE TWO ACRES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE STATION OR DONATE A CASH EQUIVALENT FOR AN AMOUNT -- FOR AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT, EXCUSE ME, FOR THE SAME TIME PERIOD, IDENTIFY THE NEW AUTHORIZED AGENT, AND MODIFY A CONDITION TO DELETE REFERENCE TO IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION, AS THE DEAL DOES NOT AUTHORIZE SUCH CONSTRUCTION. STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT. ALSO PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEWED IT, EPC, THE PORT OF TAMPA'S REVIEWED IT. NO AGENCIES HAVE RAISED ANY OBJECTIONS. STAFF RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD FIND THAT THE CHANGE IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED CHANGE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AVAILABLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. HEALEY. APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. TIM BUTTS, 4343 ANCHOR PLAZA PARKWAY FOR ENGELHARDT HAMMER & ASSOCIATES. WE REPRESENT MOSAIC FERTILIZER FOR THIS DRI NOPC. WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND HAVE NO OBJECTIONS. >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >> I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU'D LIKE. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: IS THAT "A" AND "B"? >> YES. >>KEN HAGAN: WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BOTH G-1-A AND G-1-B BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: MS. HARVEY, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS THIS AFTERNOON? >>PAULA HARVEY: NO, SIR, WE'VE COMPLETED OUR AGENDA. >>KEN HAGAN: WITH THAT WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. 1