CAPTIONING MARCH 14, 2006 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. >>JOHN CRISLIP: GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THIS EVENING'S ZONING HEARINGS. MY NAME IS JOHN CRISLIP I'LL BE CONDUCTING THE MAJORITY OF THIS EVENING'S HEARINGS. BUT THE FIRST HEARING WILL BE SEATED AT MY RIGHT HEARING MASTER MARTIN SMITH. SO BEFORE WE BEGIN WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE TO OUR FLAG? (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.). >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, NOW I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MR. BRIAN GRADY FROM THE PLANNING GROUP MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. HE WILL TELL YOU WHAT CHANGES ARE BEING MADE TO TONIGHT'S AGENDA AND ALSO INTRODUCE SOME OF THE GUYS. >>BRIAN GRADY: FORD PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. BEFORE WE GO THROUGH CHANGES TO THE AGENDA, JOIN US TONIGHT ARE TWO MY LEFT MR. LOUIS WHITEHEAD WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND TO HIS LEFT MISS ZORNITA WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE DO HAVE A FEW CHANGES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA SO I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE. THE FIRST IS ITEM 1 E. 05-2089 IT WAS LISTED AS OUT OF ORDER CONTINUANCE. THE APPLICANT IS WITHDRAWING THIS. THAT'S ITEM 1-E 50-289 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. THE NEXT CHANGE IS ON PAGE 4 OF THE AGENDA. ITEM NO. 10 REZONING APPLICATION 06. THE APPLICANT IS GEORGE. THE APPLICANT IS WITHDRAWING THIS APPLICATION FROM THE ZONING HEARING MASTER PROCESS THEREFORE WILL NOT BE HEARD AND WILL NEED TO BE REFILED IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS. THE NEXT CHANGE IS ON PAGE 5 OF THE AGENDA ITEM NO. 16 APPLICATION 06. THE APPLICATION IS MARCETTI THEY HAVE REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO THE APRIL 4TH, 2006 ZONING MASTER HEARING. YOU ARE GOING TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST. >> CHRISTOPHER 110 NORTH TAMPA STREET HERE FOR MR. MARCETTI WE'RE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 16 ON PAGE 5 OF THE AGENDA DUE TO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CLOSE PERSONAL NATURE. >> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE REGARDING PETITION MAJOR MODIFICATION 128? >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT MAJOR MODIFICATION 06-0128 THEREFORE IS CONTINUED TO APRIL THE 4TH AT 6 P.M. >> WE HAVE ONE MORE CHANGE IN THE AGENDA I WAS INFORMED PRIOR TO THE START OF TONIGHT'S HEARING THAT THE APPLICANT FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 15 REZONING APPLICATION 06-0119 WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE THEY WILL -- THEY ARE HERE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. >> NAME IS MICHAEL WITH THE GENESIS GROUP 3910 US HIGHWAY NORTH SUITE 140 TAMPA FLORIDA 33619. THE REASON FOR ASKING FOR THIS CONTINUANCE IS TO WE JUST RECENTLY GOT NEW CONDITIONS FROM STAFF THAT WERE PROPOSED ON US. WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE CONDITIONS WITH OUR CLIENT AS WELL AS OUR LEGAL COUNCIL. IN HOPES TO MAYBE COME TO A RESOLVE ON SOME OF THESE CONTINUES. ALSO, DID YOU ASK FOR THE CONTINUANCE FOR THE APRIL 4TH HEARING, MR. GRADY. >>BRIAN GRADY: I DID NOT PROVIDE A DATE. >> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REQUEST IF WE COULD CONTINUE IT TO THE MAY 30TH 2006 TO GIVE US SOME EXTRA TIME TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. THAT -- >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT WILL REQUIRE CIRCUMSTANCES WE'LL HAVE TO DO FULL WAY NOTICE AND PAYMENT REPOSTING FEES TO CONTINUE THAT DATE. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. THEN -- IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RECENT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED -- >> YES, THE CONDITIONS WERE GIVEN TO US THIS AFTERNOON PRIOR TO THE MEETING. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OH, THIS AFTERNOON. ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE ON THIS ONE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE REGARDING REZONING PETITION 06-0119? ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RIVERVIEW DRIVE NEAR CRAKE AVENUE. ANYONE HERE REGARDING IT. WOULD YOU BELIEVE WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO COME ON MAY WHAT? >> MAY 30TH. >>JOHN CRISLIP: MAY 30TH? >> GOOD EVENING MR. HEARING OFFICER, GRAHAM I'M AN ATTORNEY AT SCHUMACHER 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 2100 WE REPRESENT AN ADJACENT PROPERTY WHO HAS AN OBSERVATION TO THE REQUEST. THEY ARE HERE AS ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND WE WOULD PREFER TO MOVE FORWARD THIS EVENING. >>JOHN CRISLIP: WELL, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. THAT THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PETITIONER JUST THIS AFTERNOON. AND HE SAYS THEY HAVE NOT HAD ADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THEM TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THEM OR WHETHER THEY WANT TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION TO THEM. >> I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. MR. HEARING OFFICER. AND ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT WE'VE BEEN DILIGENTLY TRYING FOR A MATTER OF MONTHS NOW TO DEAL WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE VERY ISSUES THAT ARE DISCUSSED AND DEALT WITH IN THE NEW CONDITIONS WHICH THEY SAW THIS AFTERNOON WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. AND THEY'VE BEEN AWARE OF THESE ISSUES BASED ON LETTERS THAT I'VE WRITTEN FOR SEVERAL WEEKS NOW. THEY'VE CERTAINLY BEEN AWARE OF THE ISSUES AND AGAIN WE WOULD REQUEST THAT IT MOVE FORWARD THIS EVENING. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. I THINK I'LL -- YES, DOESN'T TO SPEAK? >> I'M PAMELA JOE HATLY I'M AN ATTORNEY AND I REPRESENT AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ACTUALLY A PROPERTY THAT'S SURROUNDED BY THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE IN OBSERVATION AND WE ALSO SUBMITTED -- OBJECTION AND WE ALSO SUBMITTED REMARKS AND COMMENTS. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN A TOTAL LACK OF COMMUNICATION WITH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON TONIGHT, AS WELL. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. >> GOOD EVENING MR. CRISLIP. MY NAME IS ETHEL HANNAH. AND I REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. QUITE A FEW, AS A MATTER OF FACT. AND THAT PARTICULAR DATE THAT THEY ARE ASKING TO CONTINUE TO I WILL NOT BE HERE BECAUSE IT'S MY DAUGHTER'S COLLEGE GRADUATION. SO I WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU DO CONTINUE THIS, THAT YOU PICK AN ALTERNATIVE DATE BECAUSE I WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. THANK YOU. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. I HESITATE TO CONTINUE THIS ONE WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME HERE TO HEAR THE HEARING. I CAN -- YOU KNOW, REVIEW THE NEW CONDITIONS WHICH THE STAFF HAS PROPOSED. AND THE PETITIONER HAS THE OPPORTUNITY -- WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY OBJECTIONS HE MIGHT HAVE TO THEM. SO I THINK WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO GO ON WITH THE HEARING. >> IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR RIGHT. IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED FORWARD, WE CAN DO THAT. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S GO ON WITH THE HEARING THEN AND NOT CONTINUE IT. >> THANK YOU MR. HEARING OFFICER. >>JOHN CRISLIP: YES. >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT CONCLUDES THE REQUEST OF CHANGES TO THE AGENDA. I'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC'S REGARDING CONTINUANCE NOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. >>BRIAN GRADY: ON PAGE 1 OF THE AGENDA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE BEING WITHDRAWN OR CONTINUED. FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 1 A MAJOR MODIFICATION APPLICATION 05-2211. THE APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS APPLICATION FROM THE ZHM PROCESS ITEM 1 B. 06-0038 THE APPLICATION HAS WITHDRAWN THIS FROM THE PROCESS. ITEM 1 C MAJOR MODIFICATION APPLICATION 06-021 4. THE PATELL THIS IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND WILL BE CONTINUED TO APRIL 3RD, ITEM 1 D REZONING APPLICATION 06-0243 THE APPLICANT IS BURKHART DEVELOPMENT GROUP APRIL 3RD ZHM HEARING. 1 E WE'VE DEALT WITH. THAT'S THE -- DURING THE CHANGES. ITEM 1 F REZONING APPLICATION 06-0221. THE APPLICANT IS COPE COW INCORPORATED THIS APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD IS CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 4TH. ITEM 1 G 06-0222. THIS APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 4TH 2006 ZONING HEARING MASTER AND ITEM 1 H, THE APPLICATION IS VINCENT MARCETTI ASKED TO RETURN TO APRIL 4TH ZONING HEARING MASTER. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. AND ALL OF THESE PETITIONS ARE EITHER WITH DRAWN OR CONTINUED AS ANNOUNCED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT REQUEST THE ITEM FOR CONTINUANCE IS AGENDA ITEM 2 06-0101. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO THE APRIL 3RD. THIS CONTINUANCE IS NOT A MATTER OF FINDING ORDER AND CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE HEARING OFFICER. ASSIGNED FEES ARE REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REQUEST. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. >> THANK YOU MY NAME IS ETHEL HAMMER I AM REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AND WE'RE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF WE SUBMITTED A NEW TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND THEY HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO COMPLETELY REVIEW IT AND COME UP WITH A REVISED SET OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. SO WE WOULD ASK TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW THEM THE TIME TO DO THAT. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE REGARDING PETITION RZ 06-0101? YES. CAN YOU BE HERE ON APRIL THE 3RD? >> YES, I CAN. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. EVERYBODY IS SHAKING THEIR HEAD IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. SO PETITION 06-01-01 IS CONTINUED TO APRIL THE 3RD AT 6 P.M. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS 3. THE REZONING APPLICATION 06-0127 THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO THE APRIL 4TH 2006 HEARING MASTER HEARING THIS IS NOT A MATTER IN WRITING AND IS EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. FINE POSTING FEES WILL BE REQUIRED. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. >>BRIAN GRADY: CHRISTOPHER TORRES AGAIN 100 NORTH TAMPA. STREET HERE FOR MR. MARCETTI REQUESTING THIS CONTINUANCE DUE TO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CLOSE AND PERSONAL NATURE SUFFERED BY MR. MARCETTI. >>JOHN CRISLIP: IS THERE ANYONE HERE REGARDING 06-0127? ANYONE HERE REGARDING THAT PETITION? ALL RIGHT. I SEE NO ONE. SO THAT PETITION IS CONTINUED TO APRIL THE 4TH AT 6 P.M. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 4 REZONING APPLICATION 06-0113. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE MAY 1ST 2006 ZONING HEARING MASTER THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT AND REQUIRES A FINES OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE HEARING OFFICER. FULLY NOTIFYING POSTING RESUBMITTAL FEES ARE REQUIRED. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ETHEL HAMMER AND I AM HERE THIS EVENING REPRESENTING BUSH JUNK ENTERPRISES THIS HAS EXTENSIVE WETLANDS AND HABITAT AND WE HAVE DECIDED TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE SURVEY DONE FOR BOTH THOSE HABITAT TYPES BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ZONING APPLICATION. SO AS YOU KNOW, THAT TAKES A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. SO FOR THAT REASON, WE ARE ASKING FOR APPROXIMATELY A SIX-WEEK CONTINUANCE. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE REGARDING PETITION RZ 06-0113? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE, THAT PETITION IS CONTINUED TO MAY THE 1ST AT 6 P.M. >>BRIAN GRADY: THAT CONCLUDES THE DRAW OF CONTINUANCES. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK MR. SMITH IS READY FOR THE -- OH, THAT'S RIGHT. NO. BEFORE WE BEGIN THIS EVENING, IT'S CUSTOMARY TO BRIEFLY REVIEW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH WE OPERATE. AND THESE ZONING HEARINGS THAT'S TAKEN FROM THE COUNTY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE CONDUCTED BY A LAND USE HEARING OFFICER ON LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS PRIOR TO A FINAL DECISION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICERS DON'T MAKE THE FINAL BUT INSTEAD RENDER A RECOMMENDATION AND THEN THE FINAL DECISION ON THE REQUEST IS MADE BY THE BOARD AT THEIR OWN PUBLIC MEETING. THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED AS REQUIRED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRST THE STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THE ITEM. THEN THE APPLICANT AND ANY WITNESSES THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR REQUEST. NEXT THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL SUMMARIZE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. THEN THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE PROPONENTS PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT ARE CONNECTED IN NO WAY WITH THE APPLICATION ITSELF BUT IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT. FOLLOWING THAT THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE OPPONENTS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION WILL HAVE ALSO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION. IF THE STAFF HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, THEY WILL BE MADE AT THIS TIME. AND THE LAST PERSON TO SPEAK WILL BE THE APPLICANT, WHOLE HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES TIME TO REBUT ANY STATEMENTS MADE IN OPPOSITION TO HIS REQUEST. THERE'S A CHIME ON THE PODIUM THAT WILL SOUND ONCE WHEN 30 SECONDS REMAIN FOR THE SPEAKER. IT WILL SOUND THREE TIMES WHEN THE SPEAKER'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. IF IT APPEARS TO THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, THEN THE HEARING OFFICER HAS THE DISCRETION TO GRANT ADDITIONAL TIME. EACH PERSON WHO COMES TO THE PODIUM TO ADDRESS THE HEARING OFFICER WILL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN IN WITH THE CLERK AFTER THEIR TESTIMONY, THE PAD IS DOWN AT THIS END. GIVING THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS SO THAT THEY CAN RECEIVE A NOTICE FROM THE CLERK ABOUT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON THE PETITION. PERSONS WHO DO NOT SPEAK AT THIS HEARING OR PRESENT EVIDENCE WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY FURTHER MAILED NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY. ALL TESTIMONY WILL BE GIVEN UNDER OATH. ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE HEARING OFFICER MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE REQUEST BEING MADE BY THE APPLICANT. ONCE THE HEARING IS CLOSED, NO NEW EVIDENCE CAN BE SUBMITTED BY ANY PARTY TO THE HEARING OFFICER. AND THE HEARING OFFICER CAN HAVE NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE PETITION PRIOR TO FILING A RECOMMENDATION. WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARING OFFICER WILL RENDER RECOMMENDATION WHICH CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, A FINDING OF COMPLIANCE OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND A RECOMMENDATION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE APPLICATION. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT THAT GOVERN PARTICIPATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING. >>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: THANK YOU. ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. TONIGHT'S HEARING IS THE FIRST STEP OF -- FIRST OF TWO STEPS IN A TWO-STEP REZONING PROCESS. TONIGHT'S HEARING IS A TIME FOR APPLICANTS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF EACH CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RECORD OF EACH CASE WILL CLOSE AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING AND NO EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED HERE AFTER. THE SECOND STEP OF THE PROCESS IS A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AT WHICH THE BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION ON EACH PETITION. TONIGHT'S PETITIONS ARE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD AT THE BOARD'S APRIL 25TH MEETING. THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER ONLY THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER IN RENDERING ITS DECISION. THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH PETITION HEARD TONIGHT ON APRIL 4TH. AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO DESIRES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MUST FILE AN EXECUTED PROPERLY COMPLETED ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON APRIL 14TH, 2006. PLEASE NOTE THAT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS MUST BE RESPONSIVE TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION. ACCORDINGLY ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE FILED UNTIL THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE COUNTY ON APRIL 4TH. THEREFORE, IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, PLEASE BE SURE TO FILE YOUR ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST BETWEEN APRIL 4TH AND BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON APRIL 14. REQUESTS SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE 12TH FLOOR HERE AT THE COUNTY CENTER. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, YOU MAY CALL 276-2058. ORAL ARGUMENT INFORMATION IS SET FORTH AT THE TOP OF PAGE 1 ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO TAKE A COPY OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA WITH YOU SO THAT YOU WILL HAVE THIS INFORMATION AT YOUR DISPOSAL. THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE PUBLIC MEETING. HOWEVER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BOARD CAN ELECT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT FROM A PARTY OF RECORD. A PARTY OF RECORD IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FITS INTO AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR CATEGORIES: FIRST, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PRESENT TONIGHT AND PRESENTS ORAL TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. SECOND, AN INDIVIDUAL CERTIFIED BY THE US 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 DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING. IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUE A. PARTIES OF RECORD WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD IF THEY MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. FIRST AS PREVIOUSLY STATED EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO DESIRES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MUST FILE AN EXECUTED 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 THE ORAL ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES: NO. 1 TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITIES IN THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING. NO. 2, TO UNDERSTAND A RECORD -- EXCUSE ME; A REQUEST TO ENTER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. NO. 3, A MISTAKE IN THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION. OR NO. 4, TO ADDRESS THE MATTER THAT WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT BUT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION. IF THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEARING ORAL ARGUMENT, THE CONTENT OF THE ARGUMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED VERBALLY OR IN WRITING TO THE HEARING OFFICER TONIGHT. THE RULE 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 THAT NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS NOT INTRODUCED OR ALLOWED AT THE PUBLIC MEETING. FOR THESE REASONS PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU DESIRE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AT THE PUBLIC MEETING IS PLACED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. HEARING MASTER. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ALL TESTIMONY THAT'S GIVEN AT THIS HEARING MUST BE GIVEN UNDER OATH. SO WILL THOSE OF YOU WHO PLAN TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THIS EVENING PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SOFTWARE THAT THE TESTIMONY WHICH YOU WILL GIVE THIS EVENING WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >>THE AUDIENCE: I DO. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE'RE READY FOR MR. SMITH. >>MARTIN SMITH: THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 REZONING APPLICATION 05-1636 THIS IS REMAND ITEM. IT'S SOUTHWEST PROPERTIES OF TAMPA INC. THE REQUEST IS FROM THE REZONE FROM AGRICULTURE FROM FAMILY ONE TO PD FOR TOWN HOMES. MR. HEARING OFFICER THIS IS REMANDED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING ABOUT SOME LOCATIONS OF SOME CATTLE VATS ON THE PROJECT SO THE BOARD REMANDED SO THOSE ISSUES COULD BE ADDRESSED AND PUT INTO THE RECORD FOR CONSIDERATION BY YOU. AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN, SUSAN WILL GIVE THAT RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> THIS REMAND HEARING IS TO BE LIMITED TO THAT ONE ISSUE. >>MARTIN SMITH: THE ENVIRONMENTAL -- >> THAT IS MY CONCERNS. >>MARTIN SMITH: THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ABOUT CATTLE DIPPING. >> YES. >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >> TOOL AND ASSOCIATES CLEARWATER, FLORIDA FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. HEARING OFFICER ON NOVEMBER 8TH THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE YOU ON A REQUEST FOR A ZONING TO PD TO ALLOW 168 UNIT DEVELOPMENT JUST SOUTH OF SLY ALONG 78TH STREET AT THAT TIME YOU RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. ON JANUARY 109 THIS CAME BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL. AT THAT TIME AN ISSUE AROSE AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS A CATTLE VAT ON THIS PROPERTY OR NOT. DISCUSSION WENT ON. AND A MOTION WAS PASSED THAT REQUIRED A REMAND SOLELY ON THE ISSUE THERE ARE TWO THINGS TO LOOK AT TONIGHT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP TO THOSE ISSUES BECAUSE I'VE DEALT WITH THE OPPOSITION THAT'S GOING TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STAY ON POINT. WE'RE NOT HERE TO ADDRESS THE REZONING WE'RE HERE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF CATTLE VAT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE -- AT WHAT WAS REMANDED IT WAS REMANDED FOR TWO REASONS. ONE TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A CATTLE VAT. AND TWO, IF PRESENT, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A REMEDIATION REVIEW. WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO REVIEW A REMEDIATION PLAN, IF NECESSARY. I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED THERE IS A CATTLE VAT ON THE PROPERTY. OUR INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DID NOT SHOW ONE. BUT SUBSEQUENT REVIEW HAS SHOWN THERE IS A CATTLE VAT. TESTING IS TAKING PLACE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EPC AND BY THE APPLICANT. PRELIMINARY RESULTS ALL HAVE COME BACK GOOD. REVIEW IS CURRENTLY STILL GOING ON WITH THE EPC. AND WE DON'T EXPECT ANYTHING TO CHANGE. WE HAVE SPOKE WITH MR. GREG ROTLER OF DOH AND HE ADVISED US OF THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS. WE REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE CONDITION NO. 4 THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY STAFF AND WHAT THAT REQUIRES IS FOR US TO SUBMIT A REMEDIATION PLAN HAVE IT APPROVED AND COMPLETED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL. WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT CONTINUE. WE HE ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL OF CONDITION NO. 4 AND I'LL SAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT I HAVE FOR REBUTTAL. >>MARTIN SMITH: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. PLEASE SIGN IN HERE FROM STAFF -- WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF. SUSAN MARINER THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A SIDE PLAN SHOWING AROUND THE SOUTH PROPERTY VALUE. AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED FOR THE CLEANUP. WE WOULD ADD ANOTHER SENTENCE TO CONDITION 4 THAT WOULD JUST SAY THE PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED, IMPLEMENTED AND COMPLETED. >>JOHN CRISLIP: WOULD YOU READ THAT AGAIN. >>SUSAN MARINER: THE PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED, IMPLEMENTED AND COMPLETED. >>MARTIN SMITH: OKAY. >>SUSAN MARINER: AND E PC STAFF IS HERE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. THANK YOU. >>MARTIN SMITH: THANK YOU. YOU'RE HERE FROM EPC STAFF AT THIS TIME? CAN WE HEAR FROM EPC STAFF AT THIS TIME? >> MY NAME IS MARY YERGEN I'M WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION. JUST TODAY WE RECEIVED THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE PORTABLE WELL TESTING. IN THE VICINITY OF THIS REZONING. CURRENT INFORMATION INDICATES THAT THE WELLS HAVE NOT BEEN IMPACTED BY THE CATTLE DIPPING VAT. TYPICALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A CATTLE DIPPING VAT NOT ONLY DO YOU LOOK FOR THE PORTABLE WELLS IN THE VICINITY, YOU LOOK TO SEE IF THE SOIL AROUND THE VAT IS CONTAMINATED. AND YOU LOOK TO SEE IF THE GROUNDWATER AND -- THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE CATTLE DIPPING IS CONTAMINATED. YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW THIS -- THE SOILS BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO MOVE CONTAMINATED SOILS FROM ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER THERE BY SPREADING CONTAMINATION. AND IF YOU WERE GOING TO LEAVE THEM IN PLACE, YOU WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER LEVELS OF CONTAMINANTS THAT ARE IN THE SOIL WOULD BE LOW ENOUGH OR NON-EXISTENT SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T PRESENT ANY SORT OF HEALTH PROBLEM OVER THE LONG TERM FOR ANY FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY. WITH REGARDS TO THE SHALLOW GROUNDWATER YOU WOULD WANT TO TEST THAT IN THE INSTANCE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE WATERING ACTIVITIES. IF YOU HAD CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER, YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO DEWATER AN EXCAVATION AND THEN SPREAD THE CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER ONTO THE PROPERTY FURTHER CONTAMINATING. SO THE ISSUE WOULD BE AS WE POINTED OUT TO THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, THE FLORIDA STATUTES PROHIBIT US FROM COMPELLING A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER FROM CLEANING THESE UP. BUT IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH REGARDS TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? YOU KNOW, IF IT REMAINS AN AGRICULTURAL AREA, WELL, YOU KNOW, THEN MORE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE SO MUCH CONTACT WITH IT. BUT IF THE LAND USE CHANGES, WHAT'S TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? DEP HAS A NEW -- THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION HAS A NEW RULE THAT COULD BE FOLLOWED IF SOMEONE WANTED TO VOLUNTARILY CLEAN ONE OF THESE UP AND GO UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WHERE THEY COULD GO THROUGH AND GET APPROVALS OF ANY PLANS. AND REPORTS THEY MIGHT SUBMIT TO DETERMINE IF THE CLEANUP HAD BEEN PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALTH IN THE ENVIRONMENT. >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU DO HAVE YOUR -- YOUR AGENCY DOES HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER? >> WE ARE PROHIBITED FROM COMPELLING CLEANUP. IF SOMEONE WANTED TO COME IN AND WORK WITH US VOLUNTARILY, WE WOULD BE CAPABLE OF WORKING WITH THEM. AND IF THERE WERE LARGE CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER BLOOM, WE MIGHT ASK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO BECOME INVOLVED, AS WELL. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY DATA WITH REGARDS TO THE SHALLOW GROUNDWATER OR SOIL IN THE VICINITY OF THE CATTLE DIPPING. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HIRED A CONSULTANT. AND THEY WERE TO BE OUT THERE TODAY AND TOMORROW TO BEGIN THE TESTING AROUND THE CATTLE DIPPING VAT. >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SURE. >> JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, MR. SMITH SO EVERYBODY IS CLEAR IN THE AUDIENCE THAT THAT CONDITION, CONDITION 4, BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE ABOUT ANOTHER CURRENT REGULATIONS IF NOTHING CHANGED IN THE SITE EPC CANNOT COMPEL THEM TO CLEAN UP BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING CHANGES IN THAT UNIT. THAT CONDITION DOES REQUIRE THEM TO GO THROUGH THAT CLEANUP PROCESS AND THROUGH THAT EPC WOULD HAVE REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO REVIEW THAT AND WORK ON THAT. >>MARTIN SMITH: OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAVE ANYTHING? >> THANK YOU. THE ISSUE REGARDING WHAT'S AT ISSUE HERE IN THIS REMAND IS NOT ONE THAT REALLY HAS ANY BEARING ON THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUR FINDING OF CONSISTENCY REMAINS THE SAME AS PREVIOUSLY. >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE PERSONS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION -- IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING I GUESS JUST ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE CATTLE DIPPING VAT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT REGARDING THAT ISSUE? SEEING NO ONE RESPONDING, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION REGARDING THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE? >> I'M CHARLES TERRELL. COSSEY. 7814 EAST ALMAN STREET. HEARING OFFICER, PLEASE, SIR, YOU WERE REFERRING TO ONE INCIDENT OF THE CATTLE VATS THAT ARE REALLY STILL MULTIPLE ISSUES THAT STILL NEED TO BE RESOLVED IN THE HEARING ON THAT. >>MARTIN SMITH: THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, SIR. BUT THIS REMAND SESSION IS SPECIFICALLY TO HEAR TESTIMONY REGARDING THAT ISSUE. THE RECORD IS OPEN. THE FULL RECORD OF THE PREVIOUS HEARING IS STILL IN EFFECT. AND YOU CAN TESTIFY IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE REGARDING THOSE ISSUES. I'M PRESUMING FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BUT NOT THIS EVENING. JUST -- THE ONLY ISSUE I'M CONCERNED WITH AT THIS TIME IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE CATTLE DIPPING VAT. >> OKAY, SIR, I DO HAVE SOME EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED ON THAT, PLEASE. >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT. >> MAY I PRESENT A PACKAGE TO YOU, SIR, THAT'S PART OF WHAT I HAVE ON THIS ONE HERE. AND SOME LETTERS FROM OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT. IS THIS JUST ABOUT THE CATTLE VAT? >> NO, SIR, IT'S MULTIPLE BUT I CAN DIRECT YOU TO WHAT I WANT TO PRESENT. >>MARTIN SMITH: WELL, YOU CAN'T SUBMIT JUST ANY OTHER EVIDENCE EXCEPT THAT OF THE CATTLE VAT. >> I CAN SEPARATE IT RIGHT HERE FOR YOU, SIR AND GIVE YOU THAT. >>MARTIN SMITH: IF YOU WANT TO GIVE THAT VERBAL TESTIMONY NOW YOU CAN FILE THAT -- SEPARATE THAT AND FILE IT WITH THE CLERK WHENEVER YOU TESTIFY. >> OKAY. MAY I PRESENT? >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT. TEST THAT AGAIN, SIR, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ON OR NOT. >> HELLO, TEST, CAN YOU HEAR ME? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAY I ASK THE TV TO TURN THE OMA ON? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY QUICKLY THE AREA WE'RE REFERRING TO HERE IS TWO PIECES OF PARCEL HERE ONE I CALL A ONE I CALL B. THIS MAIN AREA IS 1636 THAT'S OUR AREA OF REFERENCE. I'LL JUST HIT ONE MORE OTHER REFERENCE SO WE CAN GET RIGHT TO THE POINT. THIS IS OVERALL AS YOU CAN SEE TWO OTHER PARCELS RIGHT HERE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE OPERATIONS GOING ON IN THE AREA RIGHT HERE. TO REHIGHLIGHT, WE HAVE A LOW LAND AT THIS POINT. I'M POINTING TO AN AREA OF CONCERN. THIS IS WHERE THE CATTLE VAT DIP IS. >>MARTIN SMITH: WHERE IS THE CATTLE VAT SIR. >> I'LL HAVE ANOTHER DIAGRAM. I'M JUST TRYING TO SHOW YOU REFERENCE. >>MARTIN SMITH: YOU HAVE TO KEEP TESTIMONY TO THE CATTLE VAT, SIR. SIT DOWN, I'M AWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD, MR. SMITH THAT I HAVE A CONTINUING OBJECTION TO ANYTHING HE SAYS OUTSIDE THE CATTLE VAT. >>MARTIN SMITH: I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> OKAY THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR THE DEP HAVE DESIGNATED THIS AREA AS BROWN FIELD AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS AREA IN THE CATTLE VAT. HERE IS THE AS I RECALL REPRESENTING THE TWO CATTLE VATS WE'RE CONCERNED WITH. ONE IS ON THIS PARCEL, SECOND PARCEL, B, WHICH IS JUST ON THE NORTH SIDE. NORTH AS BEING VERTICALLY UP. THE CATTLE VAT IS JUST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. THERE IS A SECOND ONE ON ANOTHER PIECE OF PARCEL BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ARGUMENT IN PROTEST HERE. THE ONE THAT I'M REFERRING TO HERE IS CATTLE VAT NO. 1 WHICH IS AN PART B. THERE IS TRUE EVIDENCE OF BEING IN SIGHT. IT IS LOCATED IN AN AREA RIGHT HERE IN THIS RED GRIDED AREA BY RED GRIDED AREA IS IMPORTANCE BECAUSE THAT'S NEXT TO WHERE THEY INTEND ON PUTTING THE RETENTION POND. THE RETENTION POND WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CATTLE VAT. THE PRESSURE FROM THE RETENTION POND CAN HELP PUSH THE ARSENIC IN VARIOUS PLACES BEYOND THIS POINT OF INTEREST RIGHT NOW. WE CAN TESTIFY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE BLOOM WOULD EXIST IN ABOUT A 200 TO 300 FOOT RADIUS. THAT'S REPRESENTED BY THIS DIAGRAM HERE WITH THE CATTLE VAT IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. A 50 FOOT RADIUS IS THE LIGHTER YELLOW HERE WHICH IS WHERE THEY ARE TRYING TO PUT UP A WALK AROUND, A PATH WALK, WHICH IS WITHIN -- WELL, JUST BEYOND A 50 FOOT RADIUS. APPROXIMATELY 300 FOOT RADIUS IS WITHIN THIS CIRCLE OF THE YELLOW ONE. YOU CAN SEE THE MAIN PATHWAY THEY HAVE IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT. I'M SORRY; BUT THE LINES OF THE DEVELOPMENT TOWN HOMES DID NOT COME THROUGH REAL GOOD ON THIS. BUT YOU CAN SEE HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THAT -- AT THIS ONE POINT HERE. THERE IS ANOTHER CONCERN OF ADJACENT PROPERTY HAVING A VAT ON THE LOWER RIGHT WHICH DIDN'T COME OUT ON THIS PRINT. AND IT WILL BE WITHIN -- THEY WILL HAVE TOWN HOMES WITHIN THAT VICINITY OF NEARLY 50 FOOT AND MORE UP TO 300 FOOT. THERE IS ANOTHER AREA THAT SHOULD BE VERY CONCERNED WITH. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. BECAUSE IN OUR STATEMENT OF CATTLE VATS THERE'S A VERY BIG DESCRIPTION ON THE CATTLE VATS. GIVE ME A SECOND. HERE IT IS RIGHT UNDER MY FLORIDA. HERE IS THE DESCRIPTION OF A CATTLE VAT. YOU CAN SEE IT REPRESENTS VERY WELL WHERE THE CATTLE VAT IS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH. AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT ANYBODY WHO FINDS ONE IS TO REPORT IT. THIS IS ONE REASON WHY IT HAS COME UP IN THE LATE ISSUES HERE AND IT WASN'T INITIALLY IDENTIFIED. THE ARSENIC THAT WAS USED IN THE CATTLE VATS WAS USED BETWEEN 19 06 AND 1962 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 50 YEARS OF USE. EACH ONE HAD APPROXIMATELY 1500 TO 2,000 GALLONS OF ARSENIC CONTAMINANTS OF WATER ALONG WITH OTHER AGENTS THAT WAS USED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF DIPPING THIS CATTLE EVERY TWO WEEKS. THIS IS MANDATED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND BY THE US IN TRYING TO TAKE CARE THAT WAS INFESTED ON THEM IT'S NOT JUST LOCAL IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IT'S NOT IN TAMPA. IT'S JUST NOT IN -- PRETTY MUCH THE SOUTHERN STATE THIS WAS GOING ON. FOR OVER 50 YEARS THIS WAS DONE. THE ARSENIC LADEN COWS WOULD BE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE CATTLE FIELD. THAT WHOLE BASIN OF THE WETLANDS HAS ARSENIC WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS ARSENIC AS WE'RE MOVING IT ABOUT. THE OBJECT OF TRYING TO MOVE SOME SOIL FROM THE CONTAMINATED VAT AREA OVER TO ANOTHER AREA THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED TO FILL A PIT WILL HAVE A POTENTIAL OF MOVING ARSENIC FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER AREA. WE CANNOT HAVE THAT MOVEMENT OF THAT SOIL JUST TO CONTAMINATE A LARGER AREA. THAT'S ALL THE SOIL THAT'S REMOVED FROM THAT LOCAL AREA, THAT VAT TO CREATE THAT RETENTION POND IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM RESIDENCE FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. ANY SOIL BEING BROUGHT IN FROM THE PIT AREA THE VAT SOIL NEEDS TO COME IN FROM WITHOUT THE AREA WHERE THERE'S CERTIFIED CLEAN SOIL SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE CONTAMINATED PEOPLE LIVING AMONGST OUR ARSENIC AREA. SIR, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO PRESENT ON THE ARSENIC AND THE VATS I'LL PRESENT THIS TO YOU IN EVIDENCE OF THE VAT. I HAVE ONE OTHER THAT IS PART OF THIS. AND THAT WAS THE SOIL -- EXCUSE ME; THE WATER TESTING. I HAD REQUESTED ANOTHER HEARING TO HAVE THE DEVELOPERS PAY FOR WATER SAMPLING -- EXCUSE ME; WATER SAMPLING TO CREATE A BASELINE OF UNDERSTANDING IN THE FUTURE OF ANY OF THE VATS WERE DISTURBED THAT WOULD CAUSE CONTAMINATION INTO THE WATER -- BECAUSE THIS IS THE WATER WE DRINK OUT OF THESE WETLANDS. IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A BASELINE. WE'RE TALKING WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THEY HAVE AND THEY DID CONDUCT A RAW TEST ON MINE. I JUST GOT THE REPORT BACK. I'LL GIVE YOU A COPY OF THAT REPORT THAT I HAVE. >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT, SIR. THANK YOU, WILL YOU PLEASE FILE THOSE DOCUMENTS WITH THE CLERK? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE CATTLE VAT? >> GOOD AFTERNOON I'M TOM MC FEAR SON 19 EAST ELM STREET. >> SIR, COULD YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE CLOSER. >> MY NAME IS TOM MC FEAR SON 1719 EAST ELM STREET. MY TEN ACRES IS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. MY LAND A HALF OF WHAT IT USED TO BE WHEN HOMESTEAD. I KNOW THEY ARE ONLY EXPAND ON THE DIPPING VATS AND I'LL STAY ON COURSE ON THAT. A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO I SPOKE WITH A MR. SHAFLEY OF THE FLORIDA STATE HEALTH ORGANIZATION. AND HE SET UP A HAZMAT TO DO INVESTIGATION ON THE POISE ONS ON OUR PROPERTY. THIS NEVER CAME ABOUT. AND THIS HAS BEEN DRAGGING ON FOR MANY, MANY YEARS TO ISOLATE THIS THING ON THE DIPPING VATS IS JUST ONE SOURCE OF THE POISON. TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER LIGHT ON THIS THING, MR. DULSY MENTIONED THE CATTLE WHEN THEY WOULD EXIT THE VATS WERE STILL COVERED WITH TOXIN SOLUTION AND THEY WOULD ROOM THE FIELDS. THIS WOULD -- ROAM THE FIELDS. THIS WOULD EITHER DRIP AND RUB OFF ON VEGETATION AND DRIP ON THE GROUND. A LITTLE BIT OF MATH -- LESTER'S DAIRY WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND OUR PROPERTY NORMALLY HAD ANYWHERE BETWEEN 150 TO 300 COWS AND I DID A LITTLE BIT OF MATH. FORGET THE MATH. SAY 200 COWS. PRICE THEM UP. MINIMUM HALF A GALLON OF WATER FOR 30 YEARS. THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF TOXINS THAT ARE SPREAD OUT OVER APPROXIMATELY 250 ACRES. WE'RE TALKING THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF THIS STUFF SPRINKLED AROUND. WE'RE PLAYING A DANGEROUS GAME WITH THE HEALTH PEOPLE. WE HAVE A HIGH INCIDENCE OF ILLNESS AND YOUNG DEATHS. MY FATHER DIED AT 35. MY MOTHER GOT MENTAL CONDITIONS. MY NIECE HAS PARKINSON'S DEGREE. THE MAN WHO OWNED THE DAIRY DIED YOUNG. HIS DAUGHTER DIED YOUNG. YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT ALL OF THIS GOING ON IN THIS AREA. I'VE CONSISTENTLY TRIED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE TOXINS HAVE BEEN OVER THE END HAVE ALWAYS BE AVOIDED. IN OTHER WORDS IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE HAZMAT DONE YEARS AGO WE COULD HAVE PROBABLY SAVED MY MOTHER'S LIFE AND HELPED A LOT OF PEOPLE. ON THE VATS ITSELF TO DO A WELL TEST IN VARIOUS VIS NITS IS NOT REALLY FINDING THE SOURCE BECAUSE ARSENIC DOESN'T GO AWAY IT'S PERMANENT. THE IDEAL SITUATION WOULD BE A GRID DEALING AROUND THE VATS AT VARIOUS DISTANCES AT VARIOUS DEPTH, THAT'S THE ONLY CONCRETE WAY YOU'RE GOING TO FIND WHERE THE STUFF IS. IT DIDN'T GO AWAY. IT JUST WENT SOMEWHERE. >>MARTIN SMITH: THANK YOU, SIR. COULD YOU PLEASE SIGN IN? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO TESTIFY REGARDING THIS ISSUE? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. DOES STAFF HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. >>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER. >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT. THEN THE COMMISSION HAS NOTHING FURTHER. ALL RIGHT IS THERE ANY REBUTTAL? >> RICK MILLAN FOR THE APPLICANT AGAIN. MR. SMITH, QUICKLY, I GUESS WHAT YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT IS WHAT I TOLD YOU FROM THE BEGINNING. YES, THERE'S A CATTLE VAT ON THE PROPERTY. AND 2, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A REMEDIATION PLAN. THE ONLY WAY LEGALLY THAT A REMEDIATION PLAN CAN BE FORCED ON THIS PROPERTY IS THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. EPC JUST TOLD YOU THAT LEGALLY THEY CAN'T FORCE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CLEAN THIS UP. BUT BECAUSE IT'S A CONDITION OF REZONING, THEY CAN DO IT IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. IF MR. DOSLY AND MR. MC FEAR SON WAS TRULY CONCERNED WITH THE CLEANUP THEY WOULD BE HERE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY THEY ARE GOING TO GET IT CLEANED UP. WE AGREE WITH CONDITION NO. 4 AND THE CHANGE MADE BY THE STAFF WE ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THAT CONDITION. THANK YOU. >>MARTIN SMITH: WITH THAT I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PETITION 13 -- 1636. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 REZONING APPLICATION 06-0148. THE REQUEST IS A REZONE FROM MANUFACTURING AND AGRICULTURALLY INDUSTRIAL TO A MANUFACTURING ZONING DISTRICT. DEBORAH LYONS WITH COUNTY STAFF WITH MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS ROB WALLACE 5119 NORTH FLORIDA AVENUE IN TAMPA. I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT FLORIDA BLOCK AND READY. WHICH IS TEMPTING TO REZONE A STRIP OF LAND. THEY HAVE A PARCEL THAT IS ABOUT 5.4 ACRES THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 36TH AVENUE. AND EAST OF THE CSX RAILROAD, SOUTH OF ST. PAUL. AND THE PARCEL RIGHT NOW HAS A SPLIT ZONING. IT HAS MANUFACTURING ON BASICALLY THE WESTERN TWO-THIRDS OF IT AND AN AI ZONING ON THE EASTERN THIRD OF IT. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS BRING IT ALL UNDER THE MANUFACTURING. AND CONVERT THE EASTERN THIRD FROM AI TO MANUFACTURING. NORTH OF US THERE'S A MANUFACTURING ZONING DISTRICT EAST IS MANUFACTURING, WEST IS MANUFACTURING. AND SOUTH IS MANUFACTURING. SO WE THINK IT'S DEFINITELY CONSISTENT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT WE WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH IN THE -- BEING THAT WE ARE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE'S BEEN NO OBSERVATIONS FROM REVIEW AGENCIES. I HAVE THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM ADJOINING AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT INTO THE RECORD FROM THREE BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE ADJACENT. AND NEIGHBORING TO THIS PROPERTY. CAN I SUBMIT THEM TO THE COURT? >>MARTIN SMITH: YES. >> SO JUST IN SUMMARY WE HAVE A SPLIT ZONING ON THE PARCEL. NOW WE'RE TRYING TO RECONCILE THAT. AND THERE'S MANUFACTURING ZONING ALL AROUND US. AND WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. >> JUST ONE QUESTION: HOW DO YOU ACCESS THE PROPERTY? I TRIED TO GET IN THERE ON 36TH FROM US 41. AND IT WAS BLOCKED AT THE RAILROAD. >> OKAY. FROM 41 YOU CAN GO EAST ON COSSLY AND THEN TURN SOUTH ON 54TH STREET. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OH, I SEE. COME IN -- IS 36TH THEN OPEN TO -- >> FROM THE EAST SIDE, YES. AND THEN AS WELL AS ST. PAUL IS AN EAST WEST ROAD THAT YOU COULD COME IN FROM 41 AND TURN RIGHT OR SOUTH ONTO 54. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. >>MARTIN SMITH: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >>DEBORAH LYONS: DEBORAH LYONS THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATELY 1.9 ACRE PARCEL FROM AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL TO MANUFACTURING. IT'S JUST A PORTION OF A FOLIO NUMBER THAT'S BEING REZONED THE OTHER PORTION IS BEING ALREADY ZONED MANUFACTURING. TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT NOTES THAT THE ACCESS ON 36TH STREET AS PROPOSED MAY REQUIRE IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE HEAVIER TRUCK TRAFFIC. OTHERWISE, IT'S FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>MARTIN SMITH: THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF? >> THANK YOU. THIS SITE HAS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IT'S LOCATED IN THE TAMPA SERVICE AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA THE PROPOSED REZONING TO THE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA WHICH CONTAINS A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE EITHER ZONED OR UTILIZED FOR MANUFACTURING USES. BASED ON THIS THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WANTS TO PROPOSE REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THANK YOU. >>MARTIN SMITH: THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION? DOES ANYONE WISH TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION? YES, SIR? >> GOOD EVENING SIR MY NAME IS MATT WIBER. I LOVE AT 4304 26TH AVENUE SOUTH TAMPA 33619. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE PALM RIVER CIVIC ASSOCIATION. I THINK ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THAT THAT STRIP HAS BEEN THERE FOR SO LONG IS IT'S A BUFFER. IMMEDIATELY I THINK SOUTH ON 36TH ARE RESIDENCES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. THESE ARE ELDERLY FOLKS. I UNDERSTAND THIS BUSINESS IS GOING TO BE IN CONCRETE BLOCK OR SOME TYPE OF CONCRETE MANUFACTURING. 75% OF WHICH IS GOING TO GO BY RAIL, 25% BY TRUCK. IT CONCERNS US GREATLY SINCE I'VE ALREADY BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL WITH CONCRETE RECYCLING. SO I'M WELL AWARE OF THE DAMAGE THAT'S CONCRETE DUST CAN DO. AND THERE ARE VARIOUS STATEMENTS OUT THERE ONLINE AND DIFFERENT AREAS THAT ADDRESS THE CONCRETE. I'M NOT COMPLETELY FAMILIAR. I'VE BEEN OUT OF TOWN. AND I'M NOT COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF MANUFACTURING THEY ARE GOING TO DO. BUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE HEAVILY LOADED SEMI TRAILERS POSSIBLY TRYING TO ACCESS 36TH, WHICH IS A SMALL TWO-LANE, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENT, I WOULD ASK IF YOU MUST APPROVE THIS AND TAKE AWAY THAT BUFFER STRIP, AT LEAST MAKE THEM GO OUT 54TH. I THINK THEY HAVE ACCESS ONTO 5TH AVENUE AT WHICH POINT THEY COULD GO DOWN TO EITHER ST. PAUL'S OR THEY COULD GO DOWN TO COSSLY'S BOULEVARD WHICH IS THE NEXT VIABLE STREET. I DON'T THINK -- I WOULD HOPE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTION OF GOING UP ALL THE WAY 36TH ACROSS THAT LITTLE BRIDGE AND IN FRONT OF A SCHOOL. I WOULD HOPE THEY WOULD BE GOING DOWN 54TH TO CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD. AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT ADDRESSED. THERE ARE ALSO 400 -- HE HAD THREE LETTERS I THINK OF COMPANIES IN THE AREA. WE HAVE 495 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT HAVE BEEN FILED. AND ANOTHER CONCERN THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE IS THIS GOING TO BE A 24/7 OPERATION? IF SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO WANT TO LIVE WHERE THEY HAVE LOUD SEMI TRACTOR TRAILERS COMING IN AT ALL TIMES OF DAY OR NIGHT. I CAN'T ADDRESS HOW THE MAN WANTS TO RUN HIS BUSINESS. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO THAT. WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE SERENITY THAT NOW EXISTS. YES, THERE'S MANUFACTURING. THAT MANUFACTURING IS AWAY FROM. THEY ARE THE CLOSEST MANUFACTURING TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. IF THE BACKEND HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE, THEY ARE WORKING THERE, NOT A PROBLEM. BUT PLEASE AT LEAST CONSIDER KEEPING THAT BUFFER THERE AS SOME KIND OF HELP. AND LET THEM GO OUT 54TH IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE EXACT PLAN. AND ALSO EPC HAS BEEN NOTIFIED FOR NOISE AND AIR CONTROL. BECAUSE I'VE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH CONCRETE IN VARIOUS FORMS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS MAN IS DOING. SO I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST HIM AT THIS POINT. BUT I HAVE ALERTED EPC TO BE ON THE LOOKOUT. I WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I'M SURE THE NEIGHBORS ON 36TH WOULD, ALSO. >> LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE CATEGORY HE'S APPLIED FOR, WHICH IS M WOULD ALLOW ANY OF THE RANGE OF USES WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. YOU WOULDN'T BE LIMITED TO ONE PARTICULAR USE. >> RIGHT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT HE'S -- THE USE FOR THE MANUFACTURING THAT'S IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THAT -- AND IF I CAN BE CORRECTED. IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT'S NOT. BUT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE MANUFACTURING SOME TYPE OF PREFAB CONCRETE. AND THAT'S GREAT UP ON 40TH STREET. BUT IT'S NOT REAL GREAT NEXT TO THE NEIGHBORS. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY EAST OF THIS STRIP, PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT'S AI IS ALSO ZONED IN? >> EAST OF THAT, THAT WOULD BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS, RIGHT? >> NO; NO. THAT'S WEST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACK. >> OKAY. YOU'RE GOING ON THE -- >>MARTIN SMITH: OPPOSITE THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 36TH, IT'S ALREADY ZONED M EAST OF HIS PROPERTY. DO YOU HAVE A ZONING MAP THERE? >> THIS IS AT THE 44TH STRIP THERE? OH, YOU'RE ON THAT ONE. ALL RIGHT. HERE IS 36TH HERE. OKAY. YEAH, THIS -- THE HOUSES ARE LOCATED HERE. RIGHT -- THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO FROM WHAT I'VE JUST SEEN THERE WOULD NOT BE -- IS FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM THE OTHER RESIDENCES, IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY USE THERE THAT'S CURRENTLY AFFECTING THEM. >>MARTIN SMITH: WHERE ARE THESE RESIDENCES YOU'RE REFERRING TO? >> 36TH STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE. >>MARTIN SMITH: YEAH, THE SOUTH SIDE. I SEE THE LOTS. BUT THIS OTHER M ZONING IS JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM THOSE LOTS. >> BUT I THINK THE OTHER M ZONING ACCESSES 54TH. IF THESE PEOPLE GO OUT 54TH, THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM ON 36TH. >>MARTIN SMITH: I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. 54TH IS EAST OF ALL OF THIS PROPERTY. AND WHERE ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THEM GOING OUT? >> WELL, IF THEY WOULD COME OUT AS MY UNDERSTANDING AND I'M TRYING TO FILL THIS IN AT THE LAST MINUTE. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO COME OUT ON 36TH STREET, THEN THEY WILL BE COMING RIGHT OUT IN FRONT OF THOSE RESIDENCES. >>MARTIN SMITH: 36TH AVENUE. >> 36TH AVENUE, I'M SORRY. THAT THEY WOULD BE COMING OUT AND TURNING RIGHT THERE IN FRONT. AND RUMBLING IN AND OUT 36TH. >>MARTIN SMITH: WELL, OF COURSE THIS IS THE ONLY -- >> MY QUESTION WAS: DO THEY HAVE ACCESS FROM 54TH FROM THAT PROPERTY FOR EGRESS. >>MARTIN SMITH: WELL, NONE THAT I CAN SEE. THE ONLY ACCESS IS TO 36TH. >> THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF KILLS SOME OF THE IDEA WE HAD. HOWEVER, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN PUT A CONDITION OF TIME OR SOME KIND OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEIGHBORS SO AT 2, 3 IN THE MORNING WE'RE NOT RUMBLING IN THERE WITH SEMI TRACTORS COMING IN AND OUT. >>MARTIN SMITH: IF M ZONING IS WHAT WE CALL -- I KNOW THIS WON'T MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU BUT IT'S CALLED A UKLIDEON ZONE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE CONDITIONS. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS. IT HAS TO ADHERE TO GENERAL CONDITIONS. BUT YOU CAN'T PUT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ON IT LIKE YOU COULD IF IT WERE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT. >> MR. CRISLIP, RECENTLY JUST TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION THAT RECENTLY THE BOARD ADOPTED REGULATIONS THAT ALLOWS IF THEY AGREE TO IT TO PUT CONDITIONS ON UKLIDEON BUT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO OPERATION RESTRICTION. WE JUST CAN'T IMPOSE THAT. IF IT'S SOMETHING WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO CONCUR TO. SO REGARDING LIMITATIONS ON OPERATIONS I WOULD SUGGEST THAT DURING THE APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL THEY CAN CERTAINLY RESPOND TO IT THEY CAN. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, THEN WE CAN'T. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE ON THE ACCESS IS WHEN I CAME IN FROM US 41 ON 36, THERE WAS A BARRIER AT THE RAILROAD TRACK. AND I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHY THEY -- THAT CAN'T BE OPENED UP AND THEN GO DIRECTLY OUT 41 AND WOULDN'T EVEN AFFECT THOSE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. >> I WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME SINCE IT'S NOT OPEN THAT'S BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH CSX RAILROAD AND GET PERMISSION FROM THEM TO MAKE A CROSSING THERE. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S VERY DIFFICULT -- >>JOHN CRISLIP: THERE'S NO CROSSING THERE? >> I DON'T KNOW. YOU SAID YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO GET ACROSS THERE. >>JOHN CRISLIP: YOU CAN'T. >> IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET CSX TO NEW CROSSINGS OF THEIR RAIL ROAD LINES. SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THAT'S NOT OPEN. IS BECAUSE CSX IS PROBABLY NOT WILLING TO ALLOW THE OPEN. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THE MAP LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S A THROUGH STREET THERE. OKAY. >> THAT BEING SAID IF WE CAN'T HAVE CONDITIONS, THEN I WOULD ASK AT LEAST THAT WE LEAVE THAT A 1 AS A BUFFER AND IT WILL KEEP IT BACK SOMEWHAT. BUT IF WE CAN'T, THEN WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. BUT WE WOULD LIKE SOME CONSIDERATION. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THE PROBLEM IS IT WOULD MAINLY BE BUFFERING THE OTHER M ZONE PROPERTY, WHICH IS EAST OF THE SITE. >> BUT WOULD IT ALSO NOT BE BUFFERING -- ISN'T THIS PROPERTY RIGHT ADJACENT TO 36TH AVENUE. >>JOHN CRISLIP: YES, IT HAS FRONTAGE ON 36TH. >> SO IF THAT FRONTAGE REMAINS ONE WAY WITH AN OFFICE OR WHATEVER -- >>JOHN CRISLIP: THAT'S HIS ONLY STREET FRONTAGE. >> THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON IN THE BACK IS ALSO -- I GUESS WE'RE LOOKING FOR WHATEVER CONSIDERATION WE CAN GET TO TRY TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS -- >>JOHN CRISLIP: ARE YOU SAYING YOU BELIEVE THIS IS CONNECTED WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF IT, WHICH IS -- >> I WAS HOPING, YES. >>JOHN CRISLIP: CURRENTLY ZONED M AND FRONTS ON ST. PAUL STREET. >> NO THE ONE THAT FRONTS ON 54TH. >>JOHN CRISLIP: I SEE NO CONNECTION TO 54TH. 54TH IS WELL EAST OF THIS PROPERTY. I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN WITH 54. >> WELL, 54TH RUNS MORE OR LESS PARALLEL TO THE RAILROAD. OKAY, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IF HE DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY, I GUESS WE HAVE TO -- >>JOHN CRISLIP: ONLY BY WAY OF 36TH. >> 36TH IS THE ONLY. BUT THEN HE WOULD COME OUT. AND I DON'T GUESS WE CAN PUT THOSE CONDITIONS ON, EITHER. IF HE COMES OUT 36TH AND TURNS ON 54TH TO ACCESS CAUSE WAY BOULEVARD BEING A TRUCK ROUTE AS OPPOSED GOING UP ALL THE WAY THROUGH 36TH THROUGH MORE RESIDENCES. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THEN YOU'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER RESIDENCES EAST OF 54TH STREET. >> YES, IF WE IMPACT THE LEAST NUMBER OF RESIDENCES -- >>JOHN CRISLIP: I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S -- >> I DON'T THINK WE CAN FORCE THEM TO GO DOWN 54TH BUT WE CAN SUGGEST IT. >>JOHN CRISLIP: YOU CAN CERTAINLY SUGGEST IT. >> WE DON'T WANT TO GO AROUND BECAUSE OF THE CONCRETE AND THE DUST. AND WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE TYPE OF MANUFACTURING. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HEARD THE FULL ISSUE. BUT THOSE ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE DID WANT TO BRING. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, SIR. >>MARTIN SMITH: DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PETITION? OKAY. ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS. >> THANK YOU MR. HEARING OFFICER. IN TERMS OF THE COMMENTS FROM MR. WIBER ABOUT THE CONCRETE DUST, WE CURRENTLY HOLD AN AIR PERMIT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WHICH ADDRESSES THE DUST ON THE SITE. SO WE BELIEVE WE'LL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL AIR REGULATIONS -- WE WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REGULATIONS. AS FAR AS THE TRANSPORTATION THAT WAS DISCUSSED, WE INTEND THAT OUR PRIMARY ROUTE WILL BE NORTH AND SOUTH TO CAUSE WAY OR ST. PAUL'S. WE DON'T INTEND TO HAVE TRAFFIC GO EAST OF 54TH ALONG 36TH AVENUE. IN FACT THERE ARE SPEED BUMPS AND A SCHOOL DOWN FURTHER. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THAT WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE SENSE. >> YES, SO OUR INTENT IS THAT OUR PRIMARY TRAFFIC WOULD BE GOING NORTH. AS FAR AS THE HOURS OF OPERATION, THERE IS A NOISE ORDINANCE WHICH WE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH. AND I BELIEVE THAT HAS RESTRICTED DECIBELS LEVELS AFTER 7 P.M. UNTIL 7 A.M. SO WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. WE WOULD HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY COMPLIANT. AS FAR AS RESIDENCES, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF SURVEYED THAT ISSUE. WE FIND NO RESIDENCES TO OUR NORTH. ABOUT 2,000 FEET TO CAUSE WAY BOULEVARD THERE'S NO RESIDENCES TO OUR WEST 1600 FEET TO US 41. TO THE EAST THERE'S ABOUT 800 FEET UNTIL YOU HIT RESIDENCES WHICH ARE ON 54TH STREET. AND THEN TO THE SOUTH THERE ARE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON 36TH. AND -- BUT APPROXIMATELY TWO-THIRDS OF OUR PROPERTY OR THAT WHICH IS NOW MANUFACTURING IS ALREADY AS A MANUFACTURING OPERATION ACROSS THE STREET FROM US. ANYWAY, IN TERMS OF TRYING TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACT IN OUR SITE PLAN THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW, WE HAVE A SIX-FOOT LANDSCAPED HEDGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON OUR SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE TO TRY TO HELP CREATE SOME VISUAL BUFFER. AND I BELIEVE THOSE ARE ALL THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED. SO IN SUMMARY WE WOULD JUST ASK YOUR CONCURRENCE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS BE CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, IN CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE AND GIVE A FAVORABLE REVIEW -- FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THIS HEARING IS CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 7 REZONING APPLICATION 06-0296. THE APPLICANT IS AMY JENNINGS. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTION 1 TO BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITH RESTRICTIONS. TOMORROW WITH THE COUNTY STAFF TO PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> THANK YOU MR. BRADY. BRIAN SIX. SOUTH ASH LIE STREET SUITE 1900 REPRESENTING THE AM CANNOT. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARSON'S AVENUE. THIS IS A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. IT'S WITHIN THE 900 FOOT INTERSECTION CRITERIA FOR THE ACTIVITY CENTER. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED ASC 1 AND RSC 6 WHICH I'LL GET TO IN ONE SECOND. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY IS R 4 RES- 4. CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY IS AN AGRICULTURALLY STAND WHICH IS A LESSEE OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT THE CURRENT OWNERS. IF I MAY I'M GOING TO STEP OVER AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS. IF I CAN HAVE IT TURNED ON. THERE WE GO. THE FIRST DEPICTION -- WE WERE TURNED ON. ON AGAIN, OFF AGAIN. OKAY. THE FIRST DEPICTION SHOWS AND IT'S NOT REAL EASY TO SEE BUT THIS OUTLINE HERE IS THE PROPERTY. THE FRONT PORTION OF IT HERE WHICH FRONTS ON PARSONS AND WHEELER IS THE ONLY PORTION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO REZONE IN THIS APPLICATION. LET ME BRING UP THE SECOND GRAPHIC IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER. THIS SHOWS THE AREA OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE REZONED AGAIN PARSONS AND WHEELER. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY R 4 RESIDENTIAL 4 ALLOWS FOR SUBURBAN SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OFFICE, MULTI PURPOSE MIXED USE PROJECTS. THIS PROVIDES PROTECTION FOR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS IN THAT IT LIMITS NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO A.25 FAR OR 175,000 SQUARE FEET WHICHEVER IS LESS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS 1.05 ACRES WHICH TRANSLATES INTO A MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENTAL AREA OF 11 H 434.5 SQUARE FEET THIS IS CONSISTENT AS NOTED BY A STAFF IN A STAFF REPORT WITH A PD THAT'S LOCATED NORTH OF WHEELER ROAD WHICH IS LIMITED TO 9,000 SQUARE FEET WITH SIMILAR TYPES OF RESTRICTIONS AS RECOGNIZED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OFFICE USES HAVE ONLY MODERATE IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO PRIMARY DAYTIME OPERATIONS LOW TO MODERATE TRIP GENERATION RATES AND THE ABSENCE OF SIGNIFICANT NOISE. THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS SUCH AS A PD FOR OFFICE USES UP TO 9,000 SQUARE FEET TO THE NORTH OF WHEELER ROAD, A CHURCH AND ANTENNA TO A SOUTH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO THE EAST AND VACANT LAND TO EAST AND WEST AND ADJACENT NURSERY ALSO WE PROPOSE THAT THE PROJECT OR THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF BP RESTRICTED POSES NO GREATER THREAT THAN THE CURRENT USE WHICH IS THAT OF AN AGRICULTURAL STAND. THE PROPOSED USE -- THE APPLICANTS IS PROPOSING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH BPO RESTRICTED ZONING DESIGNATION WE'RE IN CONCURRENCE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITIONS. AND JUST BRIEFLY I WILL GO AHEAD AND ENTER THEM IN THE RECORD, AS WELL WHICH IS THAT ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE A PITCHED ROOF WITH A MINIMUM OF 4 TO 12 SLOPE ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING SHOULD BE ARK ARCHITECTURALLY FINISHED. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS SHOULD BE DEFINED WITH ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS. AS NOTED BY STAFF THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL STYLE OFFICE BUILDING WHICH WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE ESTABLISHED PARSONS ACTIVITY CENTER. THANK YOU. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, SIR. >> TOM PLANNING AND GROWTH PLANNING STAFF. THE APPLICANTS HAS DETAILED THE REQUEST QUITE WELL AND ALSO HAS COVERED MANY OF THE POINTS THAT WERE IN THE STAFF REPORT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REITERATE THAT AS NOTED THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN A SUBURBAN SCALE ACTIVITY CENTER THAT SURROUNDS THE INTERSECTION OF WHEELER ROAD AN PARSONS AVENUE AND THEREFORE MEETS BASIC CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION OF OFFICE USES ALSO WITH THE CONDITION THAT'S BEEN ATTACHED TO THIS AND IN REZONING IS TO AGAIN A BPO RESTRICTED DISTRICT. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ON THE AGENDA IS SAYS THE REZONING HERE IS TO CN. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. BUT OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FEW MONTHS IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT THE REQUEST WAS AMENDED TO BPO RESTRICTED. WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL WOULD BE IN MANY WAYS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PERMITTED ON THE PARCEL DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH ACROSS THE STREET. THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT. THAT PARCEL SUCH AS THIS IS RESTRICTED TO 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITH A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENT. THIS SITE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND THE F.A.R. OF BPO WOULD PERMIT APPROXIMATELY 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE. AND THEN ALSO THE CONDITION THAT IS RECOMMEND ED WOULD REQUIRE RESIDENTIAL STYLE ARCHITECTURE. STAFF FINDS THAT THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU PLANNING COMMISSION. >> THANK YOU. THIS SITE HAS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL 4 IT'S LOCATED IN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IN THE RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ARE TO BE LOCATED BASED ON LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THIS SITE DOES MEET THAT CRITERIA FOR THE INTERSECTION OF PARSE SONS AVENUE AND WHEELER ROAD AND AS SUCH CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE USES THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IS NOT THE ONLY CONSIDERATION WE ALSO LOOK AT COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THIS CASE LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT AT THIS INTERSECTION, THE MOST INTENSIVE USES ARE A NURSERY AND AN OFFICE USE AND AS SUCH BASED ON THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA WE FELT THAT THE BPO WITH THE RESTRICTION TO PROVIDE FOR A RESIDENTIAL STYLE STRUCTURE WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND COMPARABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OCCURRING AT THIS INTERSECTION. BASED ON THIS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PLANS TO PROPOSE REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THANK YOU. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION? DOES ANYONE WISH TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION? ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? THEN THIS HEARING IS CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT APPLICATION IS AGENDA ITEM 806-1 335 THE REQUEST IS FROM AS ONE TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH RESTRICTION. THIS CNR DISTRICT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS ROBERT BARNS WITH ROBERT L BARNS JUNIOR PL 2905 BAY SHORE BOULEVARD SUITE 200 TAMPA FLORIDA 33629 HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT MEL KNEES JACKSON WHO IS HERE WITH ME TONIGHT ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND DEXTER AND ASSOCIATE CANEV MAC. AS NOTED, THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF THE EIGHT ACRES THAT ARE OWNED. THE APPLICANTS OWNED EIGHT ACRES THAT ABUT BOTH MACINTOSH ROAD AS WELL AS THONTOSASSA ROAD HOWEVER THE REQUEST IS SIMPLY TO REZONE TWO OF THOSE EIGHT ACRES FROM THE CURRENT ZONING OF AS 1 TO A ZONING OF CN COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH RESTRICTIONS. THE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS PARTICULAR REZONING REQUEST. THERE ARE NO AGENCIES, NO REVIEWING AGENCIES HAVE OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST. THE STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EMERGING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA AND WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO LIMIT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO PERSONAL SERVICE USES ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED SALON AND DAY SPA. THE APPLICANT HAS FURTHER AGREED TO RESTRICT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET. THE -- THE OBJECTIONS THAT I HAVE SEEN, ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS -- TWO OF THE OBJECTIONS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC. AS I JUST MENTIONED, NONE OF THE REVIEWING AGENCIES OBJECTED. THAT WOULD INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IN THEIR REVIEW REVIEWED THIS UNDER A QUOTE UNQUOTE WORST CASE SCENARIO. AND SO IN SO DOING THEY ASSUMED A BUILDING OF ALMOST 17,500 SQUARE FEET. AND AS A RESULT OF THEIR REVIEW MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE USE IS COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LEVELS OF TRANSPORTATION. THE STAFF DETERMINED THAT MACINTOSH AND THONOTOSASSA ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE. THE PROPERTY THAT IS IN QUESTION HERE IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION OF MACINTOSH ROAD AND THONOTOSASSA ROAD. IT'S IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT AND THE INTERSECTION ITSELF IS ALSO OPERATING AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE. THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT MADE NOTE OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THAT THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE LIGHT OR MODERATE. AND IN SHORT, THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT LENDS ITSELF WELL TO A -- THE REZONING REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE OFFERED. THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET ON THONOTOSASSA ROAD IS A CIRCLE K. COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING. THIS IS THE TYPE OF ZONING THAT IS APPROPRIATE WITHIN A LAND USE WITHIN THE CONTEXT AND THE TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. SO AT THIS POINT I WOULD SIMPLY REQUEST THAT YOU GIVE A FAVORABLE RULING. AND I WOULD RESERVE ANY ADDITIONAL TIME FOR REBUTTAL. AS I MENTIONED THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ARE HERE AND AVAILABLE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING ISABELLE AUDET PLANNING GROWTH MANAGEMENT. AS THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE REQUESTED, THIS FOR A REZONE FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESTRICTIVE. AND THIS PROPOSED REZONING IS TO ALLOW A TWO ACRE OF THE TOTAL EIGHT ACRE FOR A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SALON AND DAY SPA. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO LIMIT THEIR USE TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND ASSOCIATED WITH THE SALON AND DAY SPA. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EMERGENT PATTERN OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>MARTIN SMITH: THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >>MARTIN SMITH: PLANNING COMMISSION? >> THANK YOU. THIS SITE HAS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL 1 IT'S LOCATED IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA AND IT ALSO FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SENON A COMMUNITY PLAN. AS WITH ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ARE TO BE LOCATED BASED ON THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IN THIS INSTANCE THE INSTANCE OF THONOTOSASSA AND MACINTOSH ROAD DOES QUALIFY UNDER THAT CRITERIA AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO BE CONSIDERED WITHIN 600 AND 60 FEET OF THAT INTERSECTION. THERE ARE POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLING FOR THE MOST INTENSIVE USES TO BE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION. AND THEN TRANSITIONING THE USES AS YOU MOVE AWAY FROM THAT GIVEN THE CORNER PARCEL ON THIS QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION -- DIRECTLY AT THE CORNER IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION. WE FELT THAT THIS PROPERTY NEEDED TO BE TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM WHAT MAY ULTIMATELY ONE DAY BE DEVELOPED ON THAT CORNER PARCEL. AND AS SUCH, THE LIMITATION ON SQUARE FOOTAGE TO ALLOW FOR THE CORNER PARCEL TO HAVE ADEQUATE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO DEVELOP, AS WELL. AND TO THE LIMITATION ON THE RANGE OF USES WAS IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE THAT TRANSITION AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE GREATER COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA WHICH IS RURAL, RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE. WE DIDN'T FIND THAT THIS IS AN AREA WHERE ADDITIONAL CONVENIENCE STORES OR FAST FOOD PLACES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BUT SOMETHING ON THIS SCALE THAT TYPICALLY WOULD HAVE LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION AND LIMITED ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING RESIDENTS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. BASED ON THIS THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THANK YOU. >>MARTIN SMITH: THANK YOU. >>JOHN CRISLIP: NOW, DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION? DOES ANYONE WISH TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION? YES, MA'AM? >>WOMAN SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING MR. CRISLIP. MY NAME IS NANCY. MY ADDRESS IS 10075 NORTH MACINTOSH. REGARDING PUBLIC ATTENDANCE OF OUR PEOPLE AT THIS AND OTHER REZONING MEETINGS FOR 100 -- 10335 MASH INTOSH ROAD THE COUNTY GENERATED ADJACENT PROPERTIES LETTER. THE NUMBER WAS 24 LETTERS. TWO COURTESY, TWO CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, ONE TO A CHURCH, ONE TO THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER, TWO ARE TWO THE COMMERCIAL CORNER AND FOUR TO PROPERTIES WITH NON-OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENCES OR STRICTLY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY. FOUR ARE TO OWNERS OF TEN ACRES OR MORE. THIS BREAKDOWN IS SIGNIFICANT WHEN COUNTY HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL ATTEND THESE MEETINGS. THIS IS A RURAL AREA. WITH MORE ACRES THAN PEOPLE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE RESIDENTS ARE NOT INTERESTED JUST THAT WE DON'T MAKE A LARGE CROWD. THE APPLICANT REPEATEDLY REFER TO HER PURPOSE AS CREATING A NEARBY PIECE OF HEAVEN FOR HER NEIGHBORS IN THONOTOSASSA. THE NEIGHBORS ALREADY HAVE SPENT YEARS DOING THAT, SIR. THANK YOU. WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED. APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING APPLICATION WILL DISRUPT AND CHANGE THE FUTURE OF THIS PRE-EXISTING AND EMERGING RURAL COMMUNITY. WHETHER THE PROPERTY SUCCEEDS AS A SPA OR BECOMES AN EVEN LESS ACCEPTABLE COMMERCIAL VENTURE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS DAMAGED. THE PRECEDENTS SET BY GRANTING THIS SPOT ZONING REQUEST WILL BE SITED BY FUTURE APPLICANTS WHO ALSO SEEK TO CHANGE OUR AREA. THERE ISN'T EVIDENT PATTERN OF -- THERE IS AN EVIDENT PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL GROWTH IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. NEW HOMES ARE BEING BUILT OFTEN ON MORE THAN THE ONE ACRE THAT IS REQUIRED. I AM AWARE OF APPROXIMATELY 20 NICE LARGE HOMES BUILT IN THE LAST TEN YEARS WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS AND THERE HAVE RECENTLY BEEN 25 SPACIOUS RESIDENTIAL LOTS SOLD JUST NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION. THERE IS NO EMERGING PATTERN OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT UNLESS THIS APPLICATION AND FUTURE INAPPROPRIATE PROJECTS ARE APPROVED. IN FACT, THERE HAS BEEN NO NEW COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THIS AREA SINCE 1974 WHEN THE CONVENIENCE STORE WAS BUILT. THE STAFF SUMMARY REPORT OF 3/3/06 REFER TOSS THIS REQUEST AS BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE EMERGING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. A SINGLE 32-YEAR-OLD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH OFFERS GASOLINE AND CONVENIENCE ITEMS TO THE AREA IS NOT AN EMERGING PATTERN. THERE IS SIGNIFICANTLY -- SIGNIFICANT LEGAL PRESSURE FOR CONTINUING OF THE ZONING STATUS QUO UNLESS THE APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT STATUS QUO IS NO LONGER REASONABLE. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS NOT REASON TO APPROVE CHANGES. THE CURRENT ZONING WAS ENACTED APPROPRIATELY. AND NEEDS TO BE SUPPORTED. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF THE AREA'S RURAL CHARACTER. AND WE DON'T NEED ANY PREMATURE, SCATTERED, OR STRIPPED DEVELOPMENT. THE COMMUNITY PLAN REFERS TO THE MAIN STREET DOWNTOWN AREA AS THE CENTER OF COMMUNITY LIFE AND A COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. THERE IS PROPERTY AVAILABLE AND IS DESIGNATED AREA FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL VENTURES. THE APPLICANTS CONCEPT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE MAIN STREET'S STATED PURPOSE. IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY WITHIN THE DOVER ZIP CODE EVEN IF THE APPLICANT GAVE ON HER APPLICATION IT AS A THONOTOSASSA ADDRESS. IT IS NOT, SIR. A SPA LOCATED IN DOWNTON THONOTOSASSA FITS WELL WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE THONOTOSASSA PLAN AND PROTECTS THE RURAL CHARACTER OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL OBJECTIVES OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. I HAVE TWO OR THREE ADDITIONAL CONCERNS. IN THE APPLICANTS MEMO TO PGM DATED 1/26/06 SHE AGAIN STATES THAT SHE IS A RESIDENT OF THONOTOSASSA. ACCORDING TO ALL OF THE INFORMATION I HAVE, INCLUDING HER MAILING ADDRESS ON THE APPLICATION ITSELF, SHE CURRENTLY LIVES IN PASS COW COUNTY. THE APPLICANT WRITES THAT THE PROPOSED SALON SPA IS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THONOTOSASSA AND THAT SHE IS NOT TRYING TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE ARE CONCERNED THAT A NON-RESIDENT MAKING NO ATTEMPT TO CONSULT WITH THE RESIDENTS WILL ALLEGE THAT THEIR ACTIONS ARE OTHER THAN SELF-SERVING. THERE APPEAR TO BE NO CONDITIONS STIPULATING EXTRA BUFFERING, HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, TYPE OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN, MINIMAL STANDARDS, APPROVED -- IF APPROVED IN THIS CN ZONING WILL CREATE INTRUSIONS TO THE RURAL LIFESTYLE AND NEIGHBORHOOD. THE STAFF FINDING STATES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO LIMB THE USE OF THE 10,000 SQUARE FEET TO UNNAMED PERSONAL SERVICE USES. BUT THERE IS NOTHING INCLUDED THAT WOULD LIMIT OR DEFINE THOSE USES. IN ADDITION, APPLICANT NOW STATES THAT SHE PLANS TO SERVE FOOD, BRUNCHERY ITEMS TO HER CUSTOMERS. IT WOULD BE USEFUL IF THE CONDITIONS, RESTRICTED WERE INCLUDED FOR THESE ADDITIONAL SERVICES. ANOTHER LITTLE THING THAT'S COME UP FROM TONIGHT, THEY ARE SAYING THAT THE APPLICANT OWNS EIGHT ACRES. THE APPLICATION IS SIGNED BY THE PREVIOUS -- WHAT WE CONSIDER THE OWNER MR. WHITEHEAD. SHE SIGNS AS THE APPLICANT. BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION AS MR. WHITEHEAD THAT'S PROBABLY FLUID IF THIS ZONING WERE TO BE GRANTED THEN THEY WOULD BE THE OWNERS IN MY SUSPICION. WHAT OF THE REMAINING ACREAGE IF THIS TWO ACRES IS ZONED COMMERCIAL? IN OUR RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL AREA. I'M SUBMITTING MATERIAL THAT SHOWS HOW MANY OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS THAT WERE NOTIFIED ACTUALLY HAVE SIGNED A PETITION THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN IT, INCLUDING A MAP SHOWING THE ONE LONE COMMERCIAL SPOT. AND FOR AS FAR AS YOU CAN SEE IN ALL DIRECTIONS, IT'S THE AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. SO WE JUST THINK IT FITS BETTER IN DOWNTOWN THONOTOSASSA. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT, MA'AM. THANK YOU. DOES SOMEBODY ELSE WISH TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION? >> GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS DAVID HARRINGTON AND I LIVE ON 9548 MACINTOSH ROAD. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO READ SOMETHING THAT I AM OPPOSED OF IT. A LOT OF NEIGHBORS ARE. I OPPOSE THE REZONING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. ONCE I HAD A DREAM ALSO THAT I WOULD MOVE MY FAMILY TO THE COUNTRY AND RAISE THEM. THIS WAS 36 YEARS AGO. WHY DOES SOMEONE NEED TO THIS AREA AND TRY TO PUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTED BY -- OR WANTED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS? IF THEY NEED THIS, THEN PUT IT IN DOWNTOWN THONOTOSASSA. WHERE A COMMERCIAL IS DEEMED. WHAT WOULD I -- FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, APPLICANT IS -- HMMM . . . FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT IS FROM THE NEW SUBDIVISION OF STONE LAKE AND ARE TRYING TO REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM THE OVERPOPULATED CITY LIFE. THEN WHY ARE THEY TRYING TO COMMERCIALIZE THE OPERATION IN THE COUNTRY? IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE NOT RUNNING FROM THE OVERPOPULATED CITY, YET LOOKING TO COMMERCIALIZE THIS QUIET AREA. THIS OPERATION IS NOT SUPPORTED, NOT WANTED AND NOT NEEDED. THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE TWO OTHER LETTERS. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: MY NAME IS CAM OVERTINE AND I'M PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION. AS CIVIC ASSOCIATION THAT IS A NON- PROFIT CHARTERED WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA SINCE 1979. AS PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING THE TAILOR ROAD CIVIC ASSOCIATION I WAS A KEY PARTICIPANT IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN. AND I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN. THE INTENDED COMMERCE CENTER IS IN THE MAIN STREET AREA OF THONOTOSASSA. WHILE MAINTAINING THE RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ATMOSPHERE IN THE REMAINING AREAS. SO APPROVE THIS SPOT ZONING WOULD BE CONTRARY TO OUR COMMUNITY PLAN, SET A POOR PRECEDENT FOR THE AREA AND UNDERMINE THE CITIZENS THAT FOR THREE LONG YEARS WORKED HARD IN DEVELOPING THE PLAN. TO APPROVE THIS ZONING WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE UNWANTED, UNNEEDED COMMERCIAL THAT WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE TO THOSE RESIDENTS THAT NOW MAKE THEIR HOMES IN THIS AGRICULTURAL COUNTRY LIFESTYLE COMMUNITY. THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS WOULD ALSO GENERATE A CONSTANT FLOW OF TRAFFIC FROM CLIENTS, TO EMPLOYEES, AND TRAFFIC REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS SAID IT IS NOW A SEVERE PROBLEM. GO OUT AND LOOK AT IT. YOU DON'T NEED ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. JUST GO AND LOOK. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE -- AND I'M GOING TO ADD THIS, TOO. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS MASSAGE PARLOR WOULD NOT ENCOURAGE OTHER UNSAVORY ACTIVITIES. IT'S BEEN KNOWN TO HAPPEN. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND PLEASE DENY THIS REZONING. WE DON'T NEED IT. THANK YOU. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE REASON SOME OF THE RESIDENTS ARE NOT HERE WAS TWO PREVIOUS CANCELLATIONS I SEE TWO FAMILIES THAT WERE MADE TO THE LAST TWO THAT WERE CANCELLED WITH NO NOTICE AND I DON'T SEE THEM HERE TONIGHT. IT KIND OF SHOCKS ME THAT ZONING DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING WHEN STAFF IS SAYING THEY DON'T SEE WHY -- >>JOHN CRISLIP: YOU NEED TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> I'M SORRY; ROGER AMAN MY ADDRESS IS 10411 MACINTOSH ROAD THONOTOSASSA FLORIDA I LIVE IN THE AREA WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL. AND I JUST DON'T SEE IT. I'M WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION MYSELF. IT'S A RURAL AREA. IT'S BEEN A RURAL AREA I'M FIFTH GENERATION FROM THIS AREA. THERE WAS ONE OTHER SHOP THERE BEFORE THE SHOP AND GO CAME IN BEFORE THEY CLOSED. THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN THE ONE TRAFFIC. THERE'S BEEN NO IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS ROAD IN MY LIFETIME EXCEPT FOR REPAVING. AND I WAS SAYING TO MY SON THIS MORNING TRYING TO GET OUT OF OUR HOUSE ON THE WAY TO TAKE HIM TO SCHOOL AS I WAS WONDERING WHERE ALL OF THE TRAFFIC WAS COMING FROM BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN IT JUST IN THE PAST YEAR AND THE PAST FEW MONTHS EVEN INCREASE TREMENDOUSLY. WE DON'T LIVE INTO DEED RESTRICTED COMMUNITY. THE ONLY PROTECTION WE HAVE IS ZONING. AND AS I'VE HEARD TIME AND TIME AGAIN TONIGHT PEOPLE ARE SAYING THE ZONING NEXT TO IT IS COMMERCIAL THE ZONING NEXT TO IT IS MANUFACTURING SO WHAT'S THE HARM? WHAT'S THE HARM? WHERE DOES IT STOP? WE NEED TO STOP THE SPREAD SOMEWHERE. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND IT HAS BEEN. THERE IS NO VALID REASON TO CHANGE THIS ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE. WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER PARSONS AVENUE. WE DON'T WANT OUR HOMES TURNED INTO LAW OFFICES, DOCTORS OFFICES. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. I HAVE ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY JUST UP THONOTOSASSA ROAD. I HAVE THE EAGLES NEST. IT'S AN ACTIVE EAGLES NEST. THIS IS A VERY RURAL AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT STAY THAT WAY. AND AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A VALID REASON WHY THIS WOULD CHANGE, NOT JUST BECAUSE STAFF SAYS IT'S OKAY. THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR US. SMALL BUSINESSES FAIL. THAT'S A GIVEN POINT. I MEAN, MOST OF THEM DO FAIL. WHAT COMES NEXT ONCE THIS FAILS? WE JUST SAW THIS IN VANRICO WITH CHANGING. YOU MENTIONED THIS EARLIER. YOU INCLUDE IS ZONING IT'S ALL INCLUDED. WHATEVER IS APPROVED IS APPROVED WE CAN'T LIMIT IT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO SAY NO TO THIS. IT'S A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS RESIDENTIAL I BELIEVE. WE WANT TO STAY RESIDENTIAL. AND JUST THERE AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE, THERE IS NO VALID REASON TO CHANGE OUR ZONING WHICH IS ALL WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR LIFESTYLE. THANK YOU. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? >>WOMAN SPEAKER: YES. >>JOHN CRISLIP: I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS SALLY GREEN. >>BRIAN GRADY: MA'AM, PULL THE MICROPHONE BY YOU. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: MY NAME IS SALLY LEE AND A MY ADDRESS IS 1991 THONOTOSASSA ROAD WE HAVE POSTED THIS REZONING REQUEST FOR THESE AND MANY OTHER REASONS. MY FAMILY HAS LIVED IN THONOTOSASSA FOR 11 YEARS. WE RECENTLY PURCHASED 20 ACRES ON 10251 MACINTOSH ROAD. WE FELL IN LOVE WITH THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY BECAUSE IT HAS MANY VARIETIES OF GRAPES, CITRUS, FRUIT TREES. AS MEMBERS OF THE TAMPA BAY COUNCIL AND MARSH GARDENS WE APPRECIATE ITS UNIQUE QUALITIES AND INTENT TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND PLANTINGS AND VARIETIES. SOME OF WHICH ARE THE LAST OF THE TYPES IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THE APPLICANTS PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY WILL HARM THE WATER QUALITY, AS THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WILL BE AT A HIGHER ELEVATION THAN OUR PROPERTY. WHEN WE HAVE MORE HURRICANES. (BEEP). >>WOMAN SPEAKER: ANY OVERFLOW OR EVEN DRAIN FIELD FLOW WILL GO DIRECTLY ONTO OUR PROPERTY. THEIR BUSINESS IS DESCRIBED AS OFFERING MANY SERVICES THAT USE HARMFUL CHEMICALS WHICH COULD HARM OUR CROPS AND PEOPLE WHO EAT THESE FRUITS. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR GOVERNMENT MONITORING OF WASTE WATER QUALITY FROM COMMERCIAL SITES AS NEIGHBORS WE WOULD HAVE TO TRUST THAT A KNOWN OCCUPANTS. AND THEIR EMPLOYEES TO BE AS CAREFUL WITH CHEMICALS AND CONTAMINANTS AS WE ARE. PLEASE DENY THIS REZONING. THANK YOU. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, MA'AM. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY? THE REGULAR TIME HAS EXPIRED. ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE? ALL RIGHT. TRYING TO KEEP IT BRIEF. >> OKAY RONALD BEARD BARBARA DRIVE 6251. I WAS TALKING WITH JIMMY. BASICALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENRICHING THE SOIL WHICH MEANS A LOT OF DIESEL EQUIPMENT WHICH MEANS THIS WILL PROBABLY NOT BE TOO GOOD FOR THE SPA BUSINESS BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING PINE APPLES INTO THE PROPERTY WHICH MEANS PUTTING ACID INTO THE SOIL WHICH MEANS HEAVY EQUIPMENT. >>JOHN CRISLIP: WAIT A MINUTE PINE APPLES. >> WELL, ANYWAYS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THE EQUIPMENT MAKES A LOT OF NOISE. AND BASICALLY FOR A SPA TYPE DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO A LOT OF DIESEL MACHINERY, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S REALLY -- >>BRIAN GRADY: COULD YOU STAND A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE? >> I'M SORRY; WHAT I'M SAYING IS DIESEL EQUIPMENT NEXT TO A SPA, I DON'T THINK IT'S THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD. WITH US -- WITH AGRICULTURE, THE HARMS -- LIKE DIESEL, FOR INSTANCE, I MEAN, THEY MAKE A LOT OF NOISE. AND HAVING TO PROCESS AS IN PUTTING THE ACID INTO THE SOIL AND ALL OF THAT. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ARE YOU DOING -- CONDUCTING THAT SORT OF OPERATION NOW? >> ACTUALLY I STARTED ON ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY BUT I HAVEN'T STARTED ON THAT ONE YET, NO. >>JOHN CRISLIP: IT SOUNDS LIKE THE RESIDENTS MIGHT OBJECT MORE TO YOU THAN THIS SPA. >> WELL, I'M JUST SAYING BASICALLY THE TRACTORS AND ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF, I DON'T THINK THAT SPA PEOPLE ARE REALLY GOING TO LIKE THE FARM LIFE OVERLY MUCH IS THE ONLY THING THAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT. IS THEY MAY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TRACTORS AND ALL OF THAT. >>JOHN CRISLIP: WELL, YOU'VE PUT THEM ON NOTICE. (LAUGHTER). >>JOHN CRISLIP: IN CASE THEY DO GET THIS. THANK YOU, SIR. >> I APPRECIATE IT. >> MAY I SAY ONE THING? PEOPLE THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THIS, PLEASE STAND UP. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY COMMENTS? >>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER. >>JOHN CRISLIP: WE'LL GIVE THE PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE. >> THANK YOU. WE HEARD SEVERAL THINGS. WE HEARD THAT THERE'S A PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL GROWTH IN THIS AREA. AS THE COUNTY IS WELL AWARE, WHEN YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH IN AN AREA, YOU NEED TO HAVE SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THAT AREA. OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO PUT AN EXTREME BURDEN ON THE ROADWAYS LEADING TO OTHER AREAS. SO THE GROWTH GOES HAND IN HAND. AN AREA THAT ONCE WAS RURAL EVENTUALLY YOU HAVE GROWTH THAT'S RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AS THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH REACHES A CERTAIN LEVEL AT SOME POINT IN TIME YOU HAVE TO OFFER THE ANCILLARY SERVICES SUCH AS GROCERY STORES OR SPAS OR BEAUTY SALONS OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH IN A PARTICULAR AREA. IN RESPONSE TO MISS ENGELHARDT'S CONCERN AS EXACTLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS OR WHERE THEY LIVE OR WHAT THEY ARE DOING. THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE TONIGHT. MR. AND MRS. JACKSON ARE CURRENTLY BUILDING A HOME IN STONE LAKE RANCH. STONE LAKE RANCH IS LESS THAN A MILE AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY. IT IS PROPERTY THAT THEY ALREADY OWN. THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM THE PRIOR OWNER. THEY'VE ALREADY CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY BELONGS TO THEM. THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT WHO THE APPLICANT IS I DON'T THINK. AND THEY PLAN TO MAKE STONE LAKE RANCH THEIR HOME FOR A VERY, VERY, VERY LONG TIME. SO THEY ARE GOING TO BE PART OF THE RESIDENTS AND PART OF THE QUOTE UNQUOTE PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MISS ENGELHARDT REFERRED TO THAT WILL NEED TO HAVE THE TYPE OF SUPPORT SERVICES THAT THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE. MS. ENGELHARDT ALSO RAISED THE CONCERN ABOUT THE REMAINING SIX ACRES. AS THE HEARING OFFICER I BELIEVE IS WELL AWARE, THOSE SIX ACRES ARE NOT PART OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION. I DON'T SUGGEST THAT BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THOSE SIX ACRES. BUT I WANTED TO RESPOND TO THAT COMMENT HAD A THAT THOSE SIX ACRES ARE NOT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THE ONLY DISCUSSIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH MY CLIENT CONCERNS THOSE SIX ACRES INVOLVED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO I WILL OFFER THAT FOR THE RECORD. >>JOHN CRISLIP: MR. HARRINGTON AS WELL AS A COUPLE THAT HAVE WRITTEN SUGGESTED THAT THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED OR WANTED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. >> THEY THEN SUGGEST THAT BECAUSE OF THE -- BECAUSE OF THE BUSINESS, THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY. WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS AREN'T GOING TO SUPPORT THE BUSINESS, THEN THERE IS GOING TO BE NO IMPACT ON TRAFFIC. AND SO IF THERE IS AN IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, IT'S BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS WANT AND DESIRE THE SERVICES THAT ARE BEING OFFERED BY THE BUSINESS. ULTIMATELY THE MARKET WILL TELL WHETHER THIS BUSINESS IS SUCCESSFUL OR NOT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION REFERENCED A MASSAGE PARLOR. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. IT HAS NOT BEEN REQUESTED. THAT'S NOT THE USE. THE USE IS A BEAUTY SALON AND A DAY SPA. SO I THINK TO SUGGEST THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME SORT OF MASSAGE PARLOR AND THAT MIGHT LEAD TO OTHER BAD THINGS IS SIMPLY A MEANS OF PERHAPS SHOCKING THE HEARING OFFICER AND GETTING YOUR ATTENTION. >>JOHN CRISLIP: MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN IN MORE DETAIL WHAT A DAY SPA IS. >> ACTUALLY IF IT WOULD PLEASE THE HEARING OFFICER, I WOULD LIKE MY CLIENT TO ANSWER THAT ONE. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. ACTUALLY A DAY SPA. >>BRIAN GRADY: YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> MELANIE SHACK SON 20912 BROAD RIVER DRIVE LAND OH LAKES FLORIDA. THE DAY SPA CONSISTS OF MANICURISTS, PEDICURISTS, HAIR TECHNICIANS AND ESTHETICIANS THAT'S ABOUT IT. >>JOHN CRISLIP: IT'S WHAT YOU MIGHT TERM ANCILLARY SERVICE TOSS A BEAUTY SALON. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: EXACTLY. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. AMEN THAT REMIND THE HEARING OFFICER THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS OURS AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY STAFF, RECOGNIZED BY THE PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT GROUP. AND CLEARLY THE R COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION PERMITS THE TYPE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. IT IS A VERY LOW LEVEL, LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL AREA OR COMMERCIAL USE. AND FOR THESE REASONS AND MORE WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, SIR. THIS HEARING IS CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: MR. HEARING OFFICER BEFORE WE GET TO THE NEXT AGENDA, I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY THE APPLICANT AND I WOULD ASK THEM TO COME TO THE DIAS AND CONFIRM THIS ON THE RECORD. I'M INFORMED BY THEM FOR AGENDA ITEM 15 THIS IS 119 THEY WISH TO WITHDRAW THIS APPLICATION. I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO STATE THAT ON THE RECORD. >> GOOD EVENING BRUCE AT GENESIS GROUP I HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH MY CLIENT. AND WE ARE REQUESTING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION 06-119. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE AUDIENCE HEAR THAT? THAT PETITION RZ 06-011 9 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. SO THERE WILL BE NO HEARING ON THAT. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA THEN IS AGENDA ITEM 9 IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 06-045 THE APPLICANT IS -- IT'S A REZONE FOR IT'S MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. TERESA PROVIDES STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICATION. >> GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS DON ALVAREZ AND I'M THE REPRESENTATIVE THE IT'S TO REZONE 1.62 ACRE PARCEL PROPERTY LOCATED AT US 41 AND ISABELLE AVENUE TO CIR. THAT'S ALL. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MA'AM. WOULD YOU SIGN IN, PLEASE? >>WOMAN SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING TERESA MONTALVO PLANNING GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CI ZONING WITH A RESTRICTION. STAFF -- THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF US 41 AND ISABELLE AVENUE. STAFF FOUND THAT THE CI ZONING PERMITS A WIDE VARIETY OF INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES SUCH AS VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT REPAIR, STORAGE YARDS AND VEHICLE RECYCLING. THE APPLICANTS INTENT OF THIS REZONING WAS TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY FOR A CONTRACTORS OFFICE WITH OPEN STORAGE. WE FELT THAT GIVEN THAT THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE WEST AND THE SOUTH, AS WELL AS OFFICE USES TO THE NORTH THAT PERHAPS THE SCOPE OF ALL CI USES WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, THERE IS A VARIETY OF NON- RESIDENTIAL USES LOCATED ALONG 41 AND WE FELT THAT LIMITING THE PROPERTY'S USE TO JUST THE CONTRACTORS OFFICE WITH OPEN STORAGE WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MIX OF USES IN THE AREA. WE FIND IT APPROVABLE WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT DOES -- IS LIMITED TO A CONTRACT'S OFFICE AS OPEN STORAGE. I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: THANK YOU THE SITE OF THIS REZONING IS LOCATED IN THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 LAND USE CATEGORY IT FALLS WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF URBAN SERVICE AREA OF THE REQUEST OF THE CI RESTRICTED ZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH RELIABLE USES. 21 CATEGORY THERE'S COMPARABLE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ALONG THE HIGHWAY 41 CORRIDOR. HOWEVER AS DESCRIBED BY MISS MONTALVO THE FULL RANGE OF USES IN THE CI ZONING DISTRICT SEEMED TO BE A BIT INTENSE COMPARED TO THE USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA PARTICULARLY THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE PROPERTY. AS SUCH THE RESTRICTION REGARDING -- TO LIMIT THAT RANGE OF USES SEEMED APPROPRIATE. BASED ON THIS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PLANS TO PROPOSE REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THANK YOU. >>JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION? DOES ANYONE WISH TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? THIS HEARING IS CLOSED. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 11 MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 05-0608 THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO MIX USE PROJECT TO INCREASE RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS WITH CURRENT DECREASE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS JEFFREY JENKINS WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE AM CANNOT. >>JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING JUDY NAMES 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD I'LL START. THIS IS A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE REZONING OF A PORTION OF SUMMER FIELD -- >>JOHN CRISLIP: BE A LITTLE LOUDER. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: THIS IS A REQUEST TO MODIFY A PORTION OF SUMMER FIELD, WHICH WAS KNOWN AS THE COMMERCIAL CORE PARCELS 1, 2 AND 12 AT THE ENTRANCE OF 301 AND FAIR WAY MEADOWS DRIVE IT CONSISTS OF 48.3 ACRES AND THE CURRENT OF PROOF USES ON THE PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD OVER THE YEARS WOULD BE 67,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AND 260,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE. TECH USES. THE OFFICE TECH USES ACTUALLY ARE DEFINED TERM IN THE ZONING AND WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGE TO IT TONIGHT THAT WOULD BE THE OLD IP AND C 3 A USES AS DETERMINED COMPATIBLE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. UNDER THE RCP CATEGORY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS IS IN THE RESEARCH CORPORATE MARK DESIGNATION A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL IS PERMITTED IF IT'S DESIGNED AS A TND. WE ARE PROPOSING THE SAME AMOUNT OF OFFICE TECHNICAL USES. BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF 59,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AND THE ADDITION OF 126 TOWN HOMES. WITH THIS WE ARE ALSO PROVIDING ONSITE 15% PUBLIC CIVIC OPEN SPACE AND OR VERTICALLY INTEGRATED BUILDINGS. THAT IS THE CONCEPT AND AS I GO FORWARD AND GO OVER THE RENDERING CONDITIONS WITH YOU I'LL SHOW YOU HOW WE ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION REQUEST. AND JUST TO GO OVER WITH YOU THE SURROUNDING AREA, HERE IS THE ORIGINAL MAP OF SUMMER FIELD. AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS PARCELS 1, 2 AND 12. PARCELS 1 AND 2 WERE DESIGNATED FOR OFFICE TECH. PARCEL 12 WAS DESIGNATED FOR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. AS PART OF OUR APPLICATION, WE HAVE DESIGNATED THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FOR OFFICE TECH USES WITH 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AND 1 OUTPARCEL FOR COMMERCIAL. ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY WE HAVE ANOTHER OUTPARCEL FOR COMMERCIAL. IT'S 90,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE. FOCUSED AROUND THE CIVIC OPEN SPACE HERE WITH THE GAZEBO PEDESTRIAN TRAIL AND CONNECTIONS TO THE RETAIL AREAS. AS PART OF OUR APPLICATION I DID LOOK AT SURROUNDING AREAS. AGAIN OUR SITE TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY, WE HAVE MANY WAREHOUSES ON THIS PARCEL. THERE'S FOUR SINGLE FAMILY ABUTTING US ON DIXON DRIVE. IMMEDIATELY TO OUR EAST, THIS PARCEL IS DESIGNATED TOWN HOMES YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING TOWN HOMES WITHIN SUMMER FIELD THE SINGLE FAMILY SOUTH OF US WITHIN THE SUMMER FIELD ZONING WOULD BE COMMERCIAL CORE. I DID BRING WITH US TONIGHT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SOUTHERN PARCEL, WE'RE LOOKING AT MORE OF INDIVIDUAL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM TYPE USES, DOCTORS, MEDICAL OFFICES, DENTISTS REAL ESTATE AGENTS MAYBE ON ATTORNEY OR TWO THEY ARE MORE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING ISSUES WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND IN THE OLD IP DISTRICT. AND HERE IS A RENDERING OVERALL OF THE SITE PLAN. I THINK THIS IS COMPARABLE WITH THE BOARDS IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU'RE COMING IN OFF OF 301. THERE'S THE OFFICE COMPONENT. THE LARGER OFFICES ON THE NORTHERN HALF. AND UP THERE YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 180,000 SQUARE FEET. WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR A 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY WHERE THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY ARE. WITHIN THAT 25 FOOT BUFFER THERE WILL BE TREES 20 FOOT ON CENTER THEN WE'LL HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNED INTO THE T AND D STANDARDS. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT T AND D, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS THAT THERE'S A COMPACT FORM. IT'S WALKABLE AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. THERE'S SOME VERTICAL INTEGRATION OF USES AND THERE'S PUBLIC AMENITIES THAT ARE INTERSPERSED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT. WE'VE MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE SPECIFIC SUBAREAS FOR THE OFFICE AND THE NON- RESIDENTIAL USES. WE'RE PROVIDED FOR UP TO 76,000 VERTICALLY INTEGRATED USES IN THE NORTHERN TIER. AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED ON A GRID PATTERN. I GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN. THE OFFICES IN THE NORTHERN PORTION 180,000 SQUARE FEET DEVELOPED IN A GRID PATTERN UNLESS THERE'S ONE MAJOR BUILDING OF OVER 100,000 SQUARE FEET. IF THAT WERE THE CASE IT WOULD BE AWFULLY HARD TO SUSTAIN THE GRID PATTERN. ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY WE'RE ALSO PROVIDING FOR THE GRID PATTERN AND THE 1.5 CONNECTIVITY. AND WITH ALSO THE CONNECTIVITY RATIO TO BE MET WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS. THE SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT BUILDINGS ARE CLOSE TO THE STREET, PARKING IS IN THE REAR OR ON THE STREET, THEY PROVIDE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND THERE'S LINKAGES. AND DO HAVE A -- THE -- JUST THE RENDERING OF THE BUILDINGS. WE'RE PROVIDED FOR EITHER GARAGES IN THE REAR ALLEYS OR IF THERE ARE GARAGES IN THE FRONT THAT THEY WOULD BE SET BACK 20 FEET WHEREAS THE BUILDING ITSELF IS A SETBACK AT 10 FEET AND SHOWING YOU SOME OF THE OPEN SPACES AND THE PEDESTRIAN INTERCONNECTIVITY AND OTHER DESIGNS. WE ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION 4.8 THAT PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT OF ANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL FAIR WAY MEADOWS DRIVE MUST BE EXTENDED FROM ITS CURRENT TERM HERE TO 301. SO BASICALLY THAT'S GOING TO PROVIDE THAT WE WILL BUILD ALL THE MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THIS PROJECT BEFORE WE CAN COMPLETE ANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. THE STAFF WAS CONCERNED THAT WE WOULDN'T BUILD THE OFFICE AND WE SPEND ALL OF THIS MONEY TO BUILD THE MAJOR ROAD AND PROVIDE FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THE OFFICE. WE'RE WORKING WITH MCCULLOUGH AND SCOTT THEY ARE THE ONES THAT BUILT THE EXECUTIVE SUITES AND BLOOMINGDALE ON THE SOUTHERN PARCEL THE NORTHERN IS UNDER CONTRACT I CAN PUT IT INTO THE RECORD BUT I PREFER NOT TO IT HAS BUSINESS TERMS IN THERE THAT I DON'T THINK ARE NECESSARY TO BE PUT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. WE WILL HAVE A MASTER ASSOCIATION THAT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COMMON AMENITIES AND THE LANDSCAPING ON SITE. CONTRARY TO THE EARLIER PROPOSAL THAT WAS HEARD BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THERE WAS A PLAN AMENDMENT FILED ON THIS PROPERTY TO TURN THE WHOLE THING INTO TOWN HOMES AND THAT WAS DENIED OR NOT RECOMMENDED TO GO FORWARD. THIS PROJECT WILL NOT REDUCE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AREA. THE CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS ARE 260,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE TECHNICAL USES. WE'VE KEPT THOSE ONSITE. HOWEVER WHAT WE'VE DONE WE THINK IS IMPROVE THE SITE PLAN. WE'VE CREATED A MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT WE'VE PROVIDED FOR A MIXTURE OF USES IN THE INTERCONNECTIVITY THE OPEN SPACE AND WE THINK THAT WILL BRING A HIGHER QUALITY OF USE TO THE AREA. WE DID LOOK AT THE TBRPC REPORT THAT WENT TO THE TPRPC IN DECEMBER. THEY SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT -- EXCUSE ME. THIS HAS -- THIS CHANGE DOES NOT DIMINISH THE IMMEDIATE CAPACITY FOR SUITABLE LAND FOR CORPORATE RELOCATION AND EXPANSION THAT WAS PART OF THE TPRC ALTHOUGH IT SAYS DRAFT THAT'S BECAUSE I GOT IT OFF THE INTERNET. THEY ALWAYS FOUND AND THIS IS IMPORTANT THAT THE SCHOOLS WERE ADEQUATE FOR THE AREA THAT MR. JOHN BOWERS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD SCHOOLS ARE ADEQUATE. IN ADDITION AS REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO MITIGATE PROJECT SCHOOL IMPACTS THE MASTER DEVELOPER HAS DEDICATED TWO SITES. THIS REPORT WAS FILED IN DECEMBER. AND I DO DISPUTE THE SCHOOL BOARDS REPORT TONIGHT THAT THERE'S INADEQUATE CAPACITY AS EISENHOWER MIDDLE SCHOOL RECENTLY A REZONING WAS APPROVED FOR SOUTH BOARD IN SEPTEMBER WHERE AT THAT POINT IN TIME STEVE GAVE ME ONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE DRAFT ON IT. I'LL PUT IT IN THE RECORD. AT THAT POINT IN TIME THERE WAS ADEQUATE CAPACITY AT EISENHOWER. THIS IS BASED ON THE DECISION THAT MIDDLE SCHOOL SS WILL SUPPLY ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IN THE AREA IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY'S REPORTS TO BE IN THE DT FARMS AREA. LORRAINE CAN ADDRESS THAT. THEY ARE SAYING THEY MIGHT BE RELOCATED. HOWEVER, IT IS FUNDED AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SCHOOLS CONDITIONS. >>JOHN CRISLIP: YOU USED A TERM I MAY HAVE MISS INTERPRETED. YOU SAID THE SCHOOL SITES HAVE BEEN DEDICATED. DID YOU MEAN DESIGNATED. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: IN SOUTH FORKS TWO SCHOOL SITES WERE DESIGNATED TO BE DEDICATED TO HILLSBOROUGH SCHOOL BOARD. >>JOHN CRISLIP: BY DEDICATED YOU MEAN GIVEN TO THE SCHOOL BOARD. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: SOUTH FORK IS A SEPARATE DEVELOPER AND THEY WILL HAVE TO GIVE THEM PORTION AND BUY A PORTION OF IT. >>JOHN CRISLIP: I WANT TO GET THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEDICATED AND DESIGNATED. >>WOMAN SPEAKER: THEY HAVE ACCORDING TO THE SCHOOL BOARD'S FIVE-YEAR PLAN THEY HAVE BEEN FUNDED. YES, THE SCHOOL HAS BEEN FUNDED. THERE IS ONE MINOR CHANGE TO THE STAFF REPORT IN CONDITION 4. IT STATES 46.86 --8 ACRES THAT'S ACTUALLY 48.3. I WOULD POINT OUT ACCORDING TO THE STAFF THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S THE EXCHANGE CREATES VIRTUAL WIPE-OUT OF TRAFFIC IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS DEVELOPED UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS. WITH THAT I ASK FOR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. THANK YOU. (CAPTIONER SWITCH.) >> THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS, HOWEVER, CONSISTENT WITH THE RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK DESIGNATION AS IT STANDS. AND THAT IS THE RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK LAND USE DESIGNATION DOES NOT PERMIT RESIDENTIAL EXCEPT UNDER THE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL OPTION AS A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT. AND WE DO FEEL THAT THE APPLICATION AS IT IS AND THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH THEY ARE APPROPRIATE TO THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT UNDER STAFF FINDING NUMBER 4 I DID RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE SCHOOL DIRECT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT CURRENT CAPACITY IS NOT ADEQUATE TO SERVE ADDITIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS THAT ARE PROJECTED AS A RESULT OF THE INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM MR. BOWERS THAT THE APPLICANT SPOKE TO WERE COMMENTS THAT MR. BOWERS MADE EARLIER PART OF 2005 BASED ON THE APPLICATION I BELIEVE IT WAS 400 RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WERE PROJECTED PRIOR TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK PROBABLY IN LIKE 2 MONTHS AGO, I HAD REQUESTED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ONCE AGAIN LOOK AT THE APPLICATION BECAUSE IT HAD GONE THROUGH SEVERAL CHANGES. IN FACT A REDUCTION FROM 400 RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO AN INCREASE OF 126. IT WAS THEN I RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM LORRAINE DUFFY SUAREZ THAT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENT TO BE GENERATED BY THE PROJECT DID NOT MEET CAPACITY. THEREFORE, TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY WITH POLICY .6 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL DIRECT THAT ADEQUATE SCHOOL CAPACITY EXISTS, IS PLANNED OR ADEQUATE MITIGATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR ANY PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE APPROVED. AND THAT HAS BEEN ADDED AS A CONDITION THAT YOU'LL SEE THAT'S ATTACHED. FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD IMPACT THE DEPARTMENT'S OBJECTIVE TO IMPROVE FUTURE EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES OF COUNTY RESIDENCES, ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENTS STATED THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF LAND OVER WHICH OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE COULD BE DEVELOPED AND MORE PERMIT READY AND OTHERWISE SUITABLE LAND SHALL PROVIDE SITES FOR CORPORATE RELOCATIONS EXPANSIONS RESULTING IN QUALITY JOB GROWTH. AND I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THE STAFF'S FINDING THAT THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN THE OFFICE USES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED. >> JOHN CRISPIN: THE CORPORATE OFFICE TYPE OF OFFICES YOU MEAN? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> JOHN CRISPIN: COULD BE SMALL OFFICES IN A COMMERCIAL AREA? >> YEAH. >> JOHN CRISPIN: OKAY. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> JOHN CRISPIN: THANK YOU. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEXT. >> THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISPIN: YOU WANT TO SPEAK NOW? OKAY. >> THE SITE OF THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION IS IN THE RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK LAND USE CATEGORY. IT FALLS WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA ALSO WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN. THE MAJOR MODIFICATION WOULD INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS BY 126 UNITS AND WOULD ALSO DECREASE THE PARTIAL ENTITLEMENTS AND THE OFFICE OR RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD BE MAINTAINED THE SAME. THE RCP LAND USE CATEGORY ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ONLY IF IT IS DEVELOPED UNDER A MIXED USE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN OPTION AND THE PLAN IS SPECIFIC ABOUT SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT OPTION. UNDER THAT NO SINGLE USE MAY BE MORE THAN 35% OF THE PROJECT. THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THIS WOULD BE EXACTLY 35%. THE CATEGORY ALSO REQUIRES THAT A MINIMUM OF 15% OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE UTILIZED AS CIVIL OR PUBLIC USES OR BE VERTICALLY INTEGRATED SUCH AS COMMERCIAL WITH OFFICES ABOVE IT OR OFFICES WITH RESIDENCES ABOVE IT. IN THIS CASE THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING REQUIRE THAT THERE BE A CERTAIN ACREAGE OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AS WELL AS A COMMITMENT THAT 76,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES IN THE NORTHERN PARCELS WILL BE VERTICALLY INTEGRATED IN A MIXED USE BUILDING ANY RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THAT POD WOULD BE VERTICALLY INTEGRATED WITHIN AN OFFICE BUILDING. THE SITE OF THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER IN BIG BEND ROAD AND U.S. 301 IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THERE'S A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFICE SOME RETAIL AND TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROVIDE A LOGICAL TRANSITION OF LAND USES IN THIS AREA. THE TRANSITION WOULD BE FURTHERED BY SITE DESIGN CONDITIONS SUCH AS SETBACKS, BUFFERING AND SCREENING. IN ADDITION, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RETAINS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR OFFICE USES THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SITE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE AS A EMPLOYMENT CENTER FOR THIS PORTION OF THE COUNTY AND THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF STAFF'S REVIEW IS THAT OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE BE MAINTAINED THAT WOULD BE A VIABLE EMPLOYMENT CENTER. IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RCP CATEGORY AND THE T&D OPTION A NUMBER OF SITE DESIGN MEASURES AND CONDITIONS WERE DEVELOPED. THESE INCLUDE THE GRID PATTERN OF ROADWAYS, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, HAVING THE BUILDINGS PULLED UP TO THE ROADWAY AND NOT HAVING THE PARKING IN FRONT OF THE OFFICE OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. HAVING CONNECTIVITY RATIOS AND ENCOURAGING THE USE OF ALLEYS AND GARAGES IN THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION. THE RESULTING DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ONE OF A MIX OF LAND USES DESIGNED IN A WALKABLE MANNER THAT CREATES A SENSE OF PLACE IN THIS COMMUNITY. OVERALL THE PROPOSED MAJOR PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE T&D DEVELOPMENT OPTION UNDER THE RCP AND WOULD ALLOW FOR 126 TOWNHOMES WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING AN IMPORTANT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS PORTION OF THE COUNTY BASED ON THIS, THE PLAN STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PREPARED BY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM MISS DUFFY SUAREZ REPRESENTING THE SCHOOL BOARD. >> I'M THE MANAGER FOR BROTHER MANAGEMENT FOR THE DISTRICT 901 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD. I'VE SPOKEN TO MISS JAMES BRIEFLY ON THIS TOPIC AND ESSENTIALLY THE AMOUNT OF GROWTH WE'RE HAVING IN SOUTH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WE HAVE SEVERAL MIDDLE SCHOOLS AT OR OVER CAPACITY OR PROJECTED TO BE. WE HAVE MONEY TO BUILD ONE SCHOOL. YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD WHEN YOU SAID DEDICATED. WE ARE LOOKING TO PUT THAT SCHOOL IN A LOCATION THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO US AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDED TO US. THAT SCHOOL LOCATION WOULD NOT RELIEVE, HOWEVER, I TOLD HER I WOULD MEET WITH HER ON THIS SUBJECT FOLLOWING THIS MEETING AND SEE IF THERE'S SOME INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE TO HER. BUT AT THIS POINT OUR RECORDS ARE NOT INDICATING RELIEF FOR EISENHOWER AT THIS POINT IN TIME. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION? DOES ANYONE WISH TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION? YES, SIR? >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS RON PRUE. I RESIDE AT 13101 PRESWICK DRIVE IN SUMMERFIELD CROSSINGS. I AM TREASURER OF THE SOUTHSHORE ROUND TABLE. I'M ON THE SOUTHSHORE ALLIANCE. CONGLOMERATION OF CHAMBER MEMBERS WITHIN THE SOUTHSHORE AREA. I'M IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT OF THE GREATER RIVERVIEW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF THE APOLLO BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND I'M ALSO INVOLVED WITH OTHER BOARDS AT VARIOUS LEVELS. I ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS REQUEST FOR REZONING. THIS IS RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK IS PART OF SEVERAL PROPERTIES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED IN SOUTHSHORE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE RESEARCH, CORPORATE PARK FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING QUALITY HIGH LEVEL EMPLOYMENT. AND THE SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY AND RIVERVIEW AS WELL AS THE OTHER COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE SOUTHSHORE BOUNDARY. THIS OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN DETERIORATED. AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE GET -- RIVERVIEW IN PARTICULAR HAVE BEEN VERY CONSIDERATE IN TERMS OF THE LEVEL OF RESIDENTIAL THAT'S BEEN ALLOWED IN OUR COMMUNITY. IN OUR COMMUNITY PLAN WE MADE PLEAS AND ASKED THAT WE MAINTAIN THE PROPERTIES ON THE ZONINGS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF QUALITY EMPLOYMENT. AND WE BELIEVE THAT ANY DETERIORATION OF THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT'S ZONED OR ALLOWED FOR THE RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK ZONING WILL DECREASE THE ATTRACTIVENESS TO A CORPORATE CLIENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ATTRACT. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TRAFFIC COMING IN ON THE EASTBOUND LANE AND LEAVING ON THE WESTBOUND LABOR ON BIG BEND ROAD WHICH IS BALANCE THAT IS GREATLY NEEDED WE HAVE MORE THAN 6,000 HOMES IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T NEED MORE. WHAT WE NEED IS EMPLOYMENT. SO THAT WE DO NOT BECOME A BEDROOM COMMUNITY TO THE SURROUNDING AREAS. SO WE ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SIR. SOMEONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? >> THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JANET KOVACH. I RESIDE AT 8214 REYNOLDS ROAD IN RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA. LIKE RON I'VE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. BEEN PART OF THE SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY BASE PLAN. PART OF THE RIVERVIEW LAND WATER LINKAGE AS WELL AS SERVED ON THE RIVERVIEW CIVIC ASSOCIATION AS VICE PRESIDENT AND SERVED ON THE CHAMBER, I OBJECT TO THE MAJOR MODIFICATION. I DO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. ALTHOUGH I'M HERE TONIGHT AS A COMMUNITY ACTIVIST WHO IS NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS. IT IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION. AND WHEN THE DRI CAME FORWARD, THE REASON THEY SET THESE DRIS UP -- AND I HAVE SERVED ON THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL FOR TWO YEARS, SO I UNDERSTAND -- THEY SET IT UP IN THIS WAY SO THERE WILL BE HIGH PAYING JOBS, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DOWN THERE. WE HAVE A LOT OF MIXED USE ALREADY EXISTING AND COMING IN ON 41, ON 301, ON 674 AND 672. SO WHAT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE GETTING IS A LOT MORE OF THE SAME. AND YOU CANNOT COMPARE JOBS AT A RETAIL OFFICE PLACE TO THE JOBS OF A RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK. THIS IS THE LAST -- IN SOUTHSHORE AREA THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE WHERE RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK. THIS HAS COME BEFORE THE ZONING HEARING MASTER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOCC TWICE. IT HAS BEEN DENIED AT THE BOCC TWICE. AND ADDING RESIDENTIAL WE HAVE CONCURRENCY I PROBLEMS NOT ONLY WITH THE SCHOOLS, NOT ONLY WITH THE WATER, BUT ALSO WITH TRANSPORTATION. I MEAN 301 HAS BEEN A LEVEL SERVICE S FOR A LONG TIME AND TO SOLVE IT, DEVELOPERS HAVE GOTTEN TOGETHER TO TRY TO SOLVE IT. MANY OF THOSE IMPACTS COMING FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY THERE AND RESIDENTS COMING THERE. SO I WOULD SAY PLEASE DENY THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION. IT'S NOT A MINOR MODIFICATION, IT'S A MAJOR MODIFICATION AND SUPPORT THE ABILITY TO HAVE HIGH PAYING JOBS IN THE SOUTHSHORE AREA. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> I LIVE DOWN HERE SOUTH OF THE PROJECT. I'VE BEEN DOWN HERE SEVERAL TIMES BUT THEY KEPT CONTINUING THIS MEETING FOR SOME REASON. THEY HAD A MEETING LAST AUGUST, THE COUNTY COMMISSION DENIED IT ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FROM PLANNING AND GROWTH SAID WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY LAND YOU HAVE FOR JOBS, THERE'S NO GETTING IT BACK. AND ADDING THESE MORE TOWNHOUSES AND EVERYTHING ON THIS IS NOT UP TO OUR PLAN. IN 1982, SUMMERFIELD CROSSINGS CAME IN THERE. SHOWED US THEIR GENERAL PLAN THEY WANTED TO DO. EVERYBODY WHO LIVED ON DIXON DRIVE LOOKED AT NICE CORPORATE PARK. NO TOWNHOUSES RIGHT UP ON THE FENCE LINES. NO RETENTION PONDS NEXT TO YOUR PROPERTY. 8-FOOT OR HIGHER. AND SINCE THEN THEY'VE MADE NUMEROUS CHANGES AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS AND JUST DID BASICALLY WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO. THEY CHANGED THE WETLAND. THEY'VE DRIVEN OFF THE WILDLIFE. I HAVE NEIGHBORS ON MY STREET THAT'S GOT AN 8-FOOT RETENTION WALL IN THE BACK OF THEIR PROPERTY. WHERE THEY BUILT THE LAND UP THAT HIGH. WE APPROVED THEM IN 1982 FOR WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO BUT SINCE THEN THEY'VE JUST MADE CHANGE AFTER CHANGE. THE TRAFFIC IS HORRENDOUS, IT'S A PARKING LOT OUT THERE IN THE MORNING. DIXON DRIVE HAS NO TURNING LANE. BUT THE NEW SUBDIVISION THEY'RE PUTTING IN ACROSS THE STREET. THEY HAVE A TURNING LANE. BUT CAN'T GET IN THAT TO TURN INTO DIXON DRIVE BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. THE ARROWS ARE POINTING THE WRONG WAY. SCHOOLS -- THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN ANY OF THOSE SCHOOLS, GO TO ANY OF THE THOSE HIGH SCHOOLS AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS. THOSE KIDS CAN'T EVEN EAT LUNCH. AND WE HAVE DEVELOPMENTS STILL IN THEY'RE MAIN STAGES, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN DOWN THE ROAD. DRAINAGE IS A PROBLEM. THEY BUILD THEIR LAND UP INSTEAD OF PUTTING RETENTION PONDS IN THE MIDDLE THEY PUT THEM ON THE EDGE OF THE LAND. I'VE BEEN DOWN TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION. MY DRAINAGE DITCHES ARE PRIVATE DITCHES, THEY'RE NOT COUNTY EASEMENTS. BUT I'M GETTING WATER FROM TRACE AND UNTIL RONDA STORMS MADE SUMMERFIELD OR KING ENGINEERING PUT A DAM ACROSS THEIR PROPERTY, I'D BE GETTING ALL OF SUMMERFIELD'S TOO. THEY'RE POP OFFS RUNS ONTO THE DITCH THAT RUNS INTO MY PROPERTY. I'VE LOST OVER AN ACRE OF MY PROPERTY IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS. I'VE GOT THREE THAT'S DROPPED FOUR FEET STRAIGHT DOWN BECAUSE OF THE WATER UNDERMINING THE BANKS, I HAVE A TREE FORM. I'VE BEEN OUT THERE OVER 20 YEARS. MY WAY OF LIFE IS BEING RUINED. AS FAR AS THE CONTINUATIONS ON THESE MEETINGS, CONTINUANCES ON THE JANUARY 12TH MEETING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, WE HAD PEOPLE ON THEIR WAY DOWN HERE AND I NOTICED A NEW SIGN POPPED UP NEXT TO THEIR OLD SIGN AND I HAPPENED TO SEE THE NEW CONTINUANCE SIGN ON TOP OF IT. I WAS ABLE TO CALL MOST OF THEM BACK, BUT THEY ALREADY HAVE A PROPOSED CHANGE FOR APRIL 11TH FOR THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY. AS IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT. IT'S ALREADY A DONE DEAL. THIS HAS BEEN IN THE MAKING SINCE LAST JANUARY. AND WE GET NO NOTICE CONTINUANCES, IF WE DON'T HAPPEN TO GLUE OUR EYES ON THAT LITTLE THREE FOOT SIGN THERE, ONE LITTLE SIGN ON THAT WHOLE PROPERTY, YOU NEVER SEE IT. TONIGHT PEOPLE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. AND THEY FORGOT. IT'S BEEN SO LONG AFTER DRAWING IT OUT OVER A YEAR OF CONTINUANCES, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE WEARING US DOWN. BUT I'M ASKING YOU AS THE HEARING OFFICER TO DENY THIS. KEEP IT AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR A CORPORATE PARK. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. AND WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE PEOPLE LIVING DOWN THERE IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FIRE DEPARTMENT PEOPLE THERE. THE AMBULANCES ARE JUST GOING NIGHT AND DAY DOWN THERE BY THE WRECKS. AND POLICE, THEY'RE FAR AND FEW BETWEEN NOW. IT'S BEEN KNOWN ALL AROUND THAT WE'VE HAD ENOUGH DEVELOPMENT DOWN THERE NOW. WE NEED JOBS DOWN THERE IS WHAT WE NEED KNOW. EVERYTHING ON THE WEST SIDE OF 301 IS IMPACT FREE. SHOW ME ONE BUSINESS DOWN THERE THAT HAS GENERATED A JOB OTHER THAN CONSTRUCTION IN THE LAST 10 YEARS. THERE IS NONE. I ASKED YOU TO DENY THIS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> I LIVE ON DIXON DRIVE AND MY PROPERTY BACKS UP TO SUMMER -- WELL THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. AND AGAIN, LIKE MR. MURDOCH SAID, WE WENT WITH THE CORPORATE THING AND WE REALIZED THAT WAS COMING. I'VE LIVED THERE 35 YEARS AND IT DEFINITELY WILL CHANGE MY WAY OF LIFE BUT I'VE ALREADY ACCEPTED THAT. BUT THE TOWNHOUSES, THE NOISE, WE HAVE NEIGHBORS UP THE STREET THAT ARE BACKED UP TO THE TOWNHOUSES THERE. THE NOISE IS BAD. ALL NIGHT LONG CARS GOING BACK AND FORTH. PEOPLE PARTYING AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND THE TRAFFIC IS TERRIBLE. I ALMOST GOT KILLED I WAS IN THE HOSPITAL FOR FOUR DAYS FROM WAITING TO TURN INTO OUR STREET AND GOT HIT HEAD ON BY SOMEBODY. SO TRAFFIC IS BAD AND IT'S GETTING WORSE AND LIKE YOU SAID, THEY PUT A TURNING LANE IN BUT IT'S NOT FOR OUR STREET, IT'S FOR THE SUBDIVISION ACROSS THE STREET. SO WE HAVE TO SIT OUT IN A LANE WHERE THERE'S NO PLACE TO GO AND PEOPLE DON'T KNOW TO GO ON YOUR RIGHT OR LEFT SIDE. SO SOME OF US PROBABLY WILL BE HURT. BUT ANYHOW, TRAFFIC IS TERRIBLE. THE SCHOOL SITUATION IS BAD FROM TALKING TO NEIGHBORS, I DON'T HAVE CHILDREN BUT TALKING TO CHILDREN AND STUFF. AND I'M SO GLAD TO SEE THESE OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE HERE TONIGHT THAT ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH DIXON DRIVE THAT ARE CONCERNED INDIVIDUALS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY AND THEY SEE A PATTERN GROWING HERE THAT'S NOT REALLY CONDUCIVE TO A GOOD AREA. SO I DO HOPE YOU TURN DOWN THIS -- DENY THIS PROPOSAL. AND THE SPEAKER WHEN SHE WAS MAKING HER PRESENTATION IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO HEAR AND TRY TO READ AND SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE PLAN THAT WE WERE FAMILIAR WITH. SO THEREFORE, WE WERE KIND OF REALLY CONCERNED AND WANTING TO SEE IT. SO I THINK IN THE FUTURE IT WOULD BE NICE IF SHE COULD SPEAK UP SO WE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON. BUT ANYHOW, I DO HOPE YOU TURN THIS DOWN AND JUST LOOK TO THE ROAD SITUATION, THE SCHOOL SITUATION AND THE WATER SITUATION BECAUSE I ALREADY AM BEING IMPACTED BY WATER COMING SINCE THEY FILLED IN A WETLAND OUT THERE BACK IN 80 SOMETHING AND NOW THEY PUT THOSE TOWNHOUSES, PUT THOSE BIG BERMS UP AND THE WATER COMES DOWN ACROSS MY PROPERTY AND ACROSS TWO OTHER NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SO WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ONE MORE? >> GOOD EVENING, SIR. MY NAME IS JIM JOHNSON. I LIVE AT 11125 HAPPY ACRES LANE IN RIVERVIEW. AND HAVE LIVED THERE FOR SINCE 1970. AND BEEN INVOLVED IN THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY WITH THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR 15 YEARS. AT THE TIME ONE SUMMER WHEN U.S. HOMES CAME IN AND KIND OF SHARED THEIR PLANS AND THEIR VISION FOR SUMMERFIELD AND WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE IN THE -- THERE WAS A LOT OF GOOD PLUSSES IN THAT PLAN. AND THEY REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ON HIGHWAY 3001 THAT HAVE COME IN SINCE SUMMERFIELD STARTED. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT ABSOLUTELY -- I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN SUPPORT EVEN A CORPORATE PARK THERE. I WOULD HOPE THAT BY THE TIME THE PLANS AND WHATEVER IS DONE WITH THIS PROJECT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE WITH 301 AND BIG BEND ROAD. YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO THERE AT FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND SIT ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WATCH TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE. 126 TOWNHOMES MAY NOT SOUND LIKE A LOT. BUT TIMES THAT WITH THE AVERAGE OF WHAT WOULD BE IN ONE OF THE TOWNHOMES AND THEN THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND THEN -- IT MAY BE A WASH IF THE TOWNHOMES AND THE OFFICES WHICH REALLY WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE KIND OF JOBS THAT WE REALLY NEED SO TRAFFIC MAY BE A WASH BUT IT'S STILL NOT THE ANSWER. THE ANSWER IS POSSIBLY IF WE'RE GOING TO GET A GOOD CORPORATE PARK THERE, WE CAN FIX SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH DRAINAGE AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH OTHER AREAS ON SOUTHSHORE. BUT, AGAIN, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD JUST REALLY COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A POSITIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF JUST MOVING IN MORE PEOPLE. I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND NOW HOW WE'VE GOT TO THE POINT THAT WE HAVE. BUT, IF YOU GET AND OPPORTUNITY TO DRIVE 301 DURING SOME OF THE RUSH HOURS, YOU'LL BE THERE FOR A WHILE. SO FOR A LOT OF REASONS, BASED ON THE FACT OF WHAT WAS PROMISED IN THE BEGINNING JUST REALLY HOPE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT IN THE -- TO TURN THIS DOWN. >> THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. OOPS, GOT A LITTLE TIME LEFT. GO AHEAD. >> 108 JANIE STREET AND I'VE BEEN A COMMUNITY PLANNING ACTIVIST IN THE SOUTHSHORE AREA, WORKED ON A FEW PLANS INCLUDING THE SOUTHSHORE AREA WIDE ASSISTANCE PLAN. AND ONE CONSISTENT THEME IN ALL THE PLANS -- IN FACT MR. POOL AND I WERE BOTH AWARDED THE CITIZEN PLANNING ADVOCATE AWARD THIS YEAR FROM THE SOUTH COAST CHAPTER OF AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION. AND ONE CONSISTENT THING WE'VE HAD IN ALL OUR PLANS IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTY IS WE DO NOT WANT TO BE TO BECOME A BUNCH OF BEDROOM COMMUNITIES POURING OUT COMMUTERS ON TO -- CLOGGING OUR ROADS EVERY DAY TRAVELING ELSE ELSEWHERE FOR JOBS AND SERVICES. WE NEED JOBS AND SERVICES HERE AND NOT JUST MIXED USE AND HOUSING WE NEED MIXED USE IN THE JOBS AND SERVICES AS WELL AND THIS CORPORATE PORK PARK WOULD PROVIDE A BROADER RANGE OF JOBS AND SERVICES THAT'S ESSENTIAL. JUST BECAUSE THE HOUSING MARKET HAPPENS TO BE RED HOT TODAY IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR CONVERTING ALL OUR COMMERCIAL SPACE TO MORE RESIDENTIAL. WE DON'T NEED THE RESIDENTIAL. WE NEED THIS KIND OF QUALITY COMMERCIAL SPACE. THANK YOU. PLEASE DENY IT. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'LL GIVE YOU JUST A MOMENT. REGULAR TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> OKAY. WADE CLARK FROM 1426 DEIRDRE DRIVE IN RUSKIN. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT IN GENERAL THE IDEA OF CONVERTING COMMERCIAL SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL AND INCREASING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHSHORE IS CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT ACROSS THE BOARD I WOULD EVER SUPPORT. SO I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THIS FOR THAT VERY REASON ALONE. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. ANY STAFF COMMENTS AT THIS POINT? OKAY. THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >> I PUT THE SITE PLAN BACK ON THE ELMO. BUT, IF YOU LOOK AT IT THE PROPERTIES ON DIXON ROAD SAYING THEY'LL BE IMPACTED WILL NOT BE IMPACTED AT ALL. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE USE ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL. THE NORTHERN PARCEL REMAINS OFFICE TECH. HOWEVER, WE HAVE INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT IS OF SMALL RETAIL THERE SO THERE WILL BE VERTICAL INTEGRATION OF THE USES IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE A PHARMACY OR A SUBSHOP OR SOMETHING ELSE WITHIN THAT OFFICE TECHNICAL USE, YOU COULD HAVE IT. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN YOU THINK BACK TO SUMMERFIELD, A LOT HAS BEEN MADE TONIGHT THAT WE'RE LOSING OUR RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK, THEY NEVER HAD IT. THE SUMMERFIELD ZONING, THE DRIS THAT WAS APPROVED SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT DESIGNATED AS OFFICE TECHNICAL IN THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO IP USES AND THE C3A USES FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. GO BACK AND THINK WHAT IP IS. INSTITUTIONAL PROFESSIONAL. THAT WAS THE SMALL ZONING CATEGORY WE HAD BACK THEN IN THE 70S FOR BANKS AND OFFICES, DOCTORS OFFICE, REAL ESTATE. IT WAS NOT A RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK. THE RCP DESIGNATION WAS ACTUALLY PLACED ON THIS PROPERTY AFTER THE DRI WAS APPROVED. IT RECOGNIZED THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT IT DIDN'T CHANGE THE APPROVED USES. THE APPROVED USES TODAY ARE IP AND C3A. WHAT WE'VE DONE, WE THINK IS ENCOURAGE MORE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE TO FINALLY COME TO BRING THOSE OFFICE USES. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR YEARS. IT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. MY CLIENTS BY CREATING THIS T&D TYPE COMMUNITY HAVE CREATED A HIGHER QUALITY ENVIRONMENT AND THEY HAVE OFFICE USERS THAT ARE FINALLY WILLING TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY. YOU COULDN'T HAVE IT BEFORE WITHOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE WITHOUT FAIRWAY MEADOWS DRIVE BEING COMPLETED AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING TO MAKE THIS DEVELOPMENT BETTER UNDER THE T&D CRITERIA, NOW WE HAVE OFFICE USERS COMING TO THE PROPERTY. I DISAGREE THAT WE'RE NOT BRINGING IN HIGH PAYING JOBS AND THAT WE'RE NOT PROVIDING JOBS AND SERVICES. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFERS SERVING USES DOES. IT PROVIDES CAPTURE INTERNAL TO THE SUBDIVISION FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO THEIR DOCTOR, GO TO THEIR DENTIST, GO TO THE LAWYER'S OFFICE. WE ALSO IN THE NORTHERN PORTION PROVIDED FOR THE REMAINING 180,000 AND A LARGE UP TO 100,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING OR VERTICALLY INTEGRATED USES THAT WILL BE MORE WHAT PEOPLE ARE CONSIDERING THE RESEARCH CORPORATE PARK SO THEY'RE GOING TO STILL GET IT. WE DID PLACE THE RETENTION BOUNDARY ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY. EXCUSE ME, RETENTION POND ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THE DRAINAGE CONCERNS AS STATED BY THE STAFF, THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS WILL NOT BE CHANGED BY THIS APPLICATION. WE HAVE MET CONCURRENCY, SUMMERFIELD PARTICIPATED IN THE 301 WIDENING. HELPED PAY FOR THAT WIDENING AND IN THE FUTURE IT WILL BE A FOUR LANE ROAD BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA. BASED ON THAT, I THINK I'VE MADE MY POINTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS NOW. YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE POTENTIAL FOR CORPORATE OFFICE SPACE IS UNCHANGED. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. IT HAS NOT CHANGED. >> AND THE OTHER OFFICE SPACE WOULD BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA IS WHAT'S BEING REDUCED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. I CAN GO TO THE SITE PLAN REAL QUICK. >> OKAY. THE ORIGINAL DRI IS OFFICE TECH AND IF YOU DREW A LINE RIGHT DOWN HERE, THIS WAS OFFICE TECH, THIS WAS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. SO THIS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WAS DESIGNATED FOR UP TO 67,000 FEET OF RETAIL HERE WITH THE OFFICE TECH USES. THAT WE HAVEN'T CHANGED THOSE OFFICE TECH USES OTHER THAN TO MOVE THE RESIDENTIAL INTO THAT AREA. BUT BY GOING WITH THE T&D THAT'S NORMALLY A MORE INTENSIVE TYPE USE BECAUSE IT'S GOING UP VERTICALLY INTEGRATED THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ALLOWED FOR HERE. SO WE HAVE SPREAD THE SAME AMOUNT OF OFFICE USES ON A SLIGHTLY LESS LAND. OKAY. IS THAT IT? ALL RIGHT. THIS HEARING IS CLOSED. >> JOHN CRISLIP: WE'LL TAKE ABOUT A 10-MINUTE RECESS AT THIS TIME. >> JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE OUR NEXT CASE NOW. >> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 12. RZ 05-0645 RU SWW, INC. FROM AGRICULTURE RURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, I WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT >> JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. HEARING OFFICER. MY NAME IS RICHARD DAVIS. I'M HERE THIS EVENING ON HE BEHALF OF SWW, INC., THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND I WILL FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD READ THE NAMES OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. LES ALDERMAN, JOHN ALDERMAN. PATRICIA MURELL, STEVE ALDERMAN AND BRAD CREVATT. THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST COMPRISES 15.62 ACRES AND 25 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. WE HAVE DOCUMENTARY MATERIAL THAT MR. MAX IS ENTERING INTO THE RECORD. IT IS A REPORT THAT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY EACH OF OUR EXPERTS THAT IS COLLATED IN ONE DOCUMENT AS WELL AS THE LENGTHY REPORT PREPARED BY MR. TED LINK ON LINK AND ASSOCIATES ON TRANSPORTATION. LET ME DESCRIBE FOR THE RECORD OUR EXPERTS THIS EVENING. ETHEL HAMMER WILL SPEAK AS TO LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES. RICHARD CALLAHAN WILL SPEAK AS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS. AND THEN WE HAVE TREVOR HOWARD AND TED LINKS HERE TO RESPOND TO ANY REQUESTS CONCERNING DRAINAGE AND TRANSPORTATION. ALSO INCLUDED IN MATERIALS INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD ARE EACH OF THE RESUMES OF EACH OF OUR EXPERTS THIS EVENING SO YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE RESUMES AS YOU REFLECT ON THE OTHER MATERIALS. AS A BRIEF INTRODUCTION AS I MENTIONED THIS IS A 15.62-ACRE TRACT. THE REQUEST IS FOR 25 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MISS ETHEL HAMMER WILL WALK THROUGH SITE LANGUAGE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES. AND WE'LL MOVE FROM MISS HAMMER INTO MR. CALLAHAN'S TESTIMONY AND I WILL SUMMARIZE. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CRISLIP. MY NAME IS ETHEL HAMMER. MY ADDRESS IS 5444 BAY CENTER DRIVE SWEET 1223 3609. AS MR. DAVIDSON INDICATED THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING FROM AGRICULTURE RURAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY INTO A 25 LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN END OF 7TH STREET SOUTHWEST IN THE RUSKIN AREA OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THE PROPERTY IS BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY MILLS BAYOU AND ON THE SOUTH BY THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. IT ENJOYS OVER 1300 LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE ON THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. WETLANDS 3.4 ACRES. HISTORICALLY, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN FILLED AS CAN BE SEEN BY 1966 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE HAVE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD FOR YOUR REVIEW. THERE ARE THREE HOME SITES TO THE WEST WHICH GAIN ACCESS THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS ACCESS. THE SURROUNDING AREA IS CHARACTERIZED BY MOBILE HOMES, RV PARKS AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY AND IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY'S URBAN SERVICE AREA. OF COURSE BEING IN THE RES 4 CATEGORY PERMITS A MAXIMUM OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AR AND THIS SEEKS A REZONING AS WE MENTIONED TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE PREDOMINANT ZONING PATTERN IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA CONSISTS OF OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTIONAL. 6 UNITS TO THE ACRE OR RSC6 AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 4. THIS REZONING REQUEST WAS ORIGINALLY FILED IN FEBRUARY 2005. WE'VE BEEN IN THE PROCESS OVER A YEAR. THE ORIGINAL REQUEST INCLUDED A LARGER PARTIAL THAN WHAT IS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING AND ORIGINALLY WE WERE PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 67 LOTS. THE ALDERMAN'S TOTAL PROPERTY IN THIS AREA IS UNUSUAL IN THAT IT IS SPLIT ALMOST HALF BY THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, RURAL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY. THEREFORE, HALF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE URBAN AREA, HALF IS IN THE RURAL. THIS CREATED A DIFFICULT PLANNING ISSUE IN THAT HALF OF THE PROPERTY WAS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER WHILE THE WESTERN HALF WAS NOT PERMITTED TO BE SERVED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES. TO FURTHER COMPLICATE A THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT, EPC DID NOT REALLY WANT TO SEE SEPTIC TANKS ON THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. THERE WERE ALSO POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT NEW SEPTIC SYSTEMS IN THE COASTAL HIGH HARD AREAS. THEREFORE, IN JULY OF LAST YEAR WE REDUCED THE PETITION TO ONLY INCLUDE THAT PORTION WHICH WAS THE EASTERN HALF OF THE SITE THAT WAS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY. THE REVISED REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED AND IT INCLUDED THE 15.26 AS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. BASED ON MEETINGS AND DISCUSSION WITH COUNTY STAFF AND COMMUNITY AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT'S BEEN REDUCED FROM THE ORIGINAL 67 TO 47 TO 30 AND NOW FINALLY TO THE PROPOSED 25 LOTS THAT'S BEFORE YOU. THIS IS EQUATING TO A DENSITY OF TWO UNITS TO THE ACRE. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY HALF, OBVIOUSLY OF WHAT THE COMP PLAN COULD CONSIDER FOR 48 LOTS, WE'RE ASKING FOR 25. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE ONE SINGLE ACCESS POINT AT THE SOUTH END OF 7TH STREET SOUTHWEST WHICH WILL EXTEND ONTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE SAME ALIGNMENT AS THE EXISTING SHELL ROAD THAT CURRENTLY CUTS THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND ENDS IN A CUL-DE-SAC JUST BEYOND THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THE LOTS ALONG THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER FRANK SIDE FROM A QUARTER ACRE TO ALMOST ONE ACRE. THE LOTS ADJACENT TO MILLS BAYOU AND DEVELOPMENT RANGE FROM 6500 SQUARE FEET TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET. THESE SIZES ARE NOT OF ANY ADDITIONAL WETLAND ACREAGE THAT MIGHT BE PLATTED WITH THE LOTS. WE'VE WORKED DILIGENTLY FOR SEVERAL MONTHS WITH JOHN SCHRECENGOST AS WELL AS WITH DANNY ALBERTI OF THE EPC TO DEVELOP SITE PLAN THAT IS SENSITIVE TO ALL THE NATURAL FEATURES ON THE PROPERTY. IN AN UNPRECEDENTED MOVE AT JOHN SCHRECENGOST'S REQUEST, WE HAVE REQUESTED THE TREE SURVEY ON OUR LAND. IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING TREES ON THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE EVEN GONE TO THE EXTENT OF DESIGNATING BUILDING INVOLVES ON EACH LOT ON THE SITE PLAN. THE BUILDING PADS FOR THE HOMES ALONG THE RIVER AND BAYOU WILL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL LINE IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE DISTURBANCE OF THE WETLAND VEGETATION ALONG AND INTERIOR TO THE WATER'S EDGE. EACH BUILDING PAD WAS ALSO LOCATED WITH RESPECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL TREES ON EACH LOT. THE ZONING CONDITION IS INCLUDED THAT REGARDS THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING TREES AND MITIGATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY TREES WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER AND MILLS BAYOU. A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IS PROPOSED FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THE REST DEBTS. WE MET WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS WHOSE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED TO THE WEST AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RESPECTIVELY. AT THEIR REQUEST AND AS A RESULT OF OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE INCREASED THE SIZE OF THE LOTS ADJACENT TO OR NEAR THEIR SUBJECT PROPERTY. THOSE PROPERTIES ENJOY AN EASEMENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THEIR LOTS AND OF COURSE THE SITE PLAN RECOGNIZES THIS. WE CONDUCTED ANALYSIS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND THIS NEXT GRAPHIC SUMMARIZES OUR FINDINGS. AS YOU CAN SEE NOT ONLY ARE THERE SEVERAL PROPERTIES WHICH ARE ZONED RC3, RC4 AND RC6 AND 9 WHICH ALL HAVE LOTS SIMILAR IN SIZE OR LESS THAN THE PROPOSED REQUEST, THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN MOBILE HOMES OR RV PARKS WHICH ARE APPROVAL FOR SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER LOTS THAN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. WE SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ALONG THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. RIVER BEND TO THE EAST ALONG THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER IS APPROVED FOR 900 LOTS WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5500 SQUARE FEET. MAYBE THE RELIEF ESCALATES TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS APPROVED FOR 1186 UNITS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4760 SQUARE FEET. HIGHWAY MOBILE IS SOUTHWEST OF THIS SITE AND IS APPROVED FOR 400 UNITS WITH A DENSITIVITY OF OVER 6 UNITS TO THE ACRE. WE ANALYZE THE PROJECT RELATIVELY TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE HAVE SUBMITTED THAT 23458 TO YOU IN THE RECORD IN YOUR BACKUP. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE MR. DICK CALLAHAN WHO WILL TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT. >> THANK YOU. 3910 U.S. HIGHWAY 301 NORTH. TAMPA, 33619. BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES WAS PUT UNDER CONTRACT TO DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE 15.6 ACRE TRACT. OUR PRIMARY TASK WERE TO DELINEATE THE WETLANDS AND RECEIVE AGENCY APPROVAL OF THAT DELINEATION TO DO A WILDLIFE SURVEYS PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES TO WORK WITH THE PLANNING GROUP AND TRY TO HELP THEM IN ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS ABOUT NATURAL RESOURCES ON THIS PROPERTY. SINCE IT IS ON A LITTLE MANATEE RIVER WHICH IS AFFORDED SPECIAL PROTECTION BY THE COUNTY AND IT IS AN OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATER. THE TRACT IS PRIMARILY COMPRISED IN THE UPLANDS OF TWO DIFFERENT HABITATS. THERE IS A SAND PINE SCRUB ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S A MUSIC OAK CABBAGE POND HAMMOCK ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. MISS HAMMER MENTIONED THERE'S 3.4 ACRES OF WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT. THESE ARE PRIMARILY RIVERINE OR ESTUARINE ASSOCIATED WITH MILLS BAYOU. AND THERE'S A PRETTY EXTENSIVE MANGROVE ON THE FRONTAGE PROPERTY OF THE RIVER. THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH IS THE RESULT OF DREDGING. IT'S THE FILL WAS PLACED THERE, IT LOOKS TO BE HISTORY OF ABOUT 1959 THERE'S A CANAL SYSTEM THAT'S JUST NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS IT WAS EXCAVATED AND IT APPEARS THE SPOIL FROM THAT CABAL SYSTEM WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY ON THE RIVER BOTTOM THAT CREATED THAT WESTERN PORTION OF THE TRACT. AND IT'S NOT SURPRISED THAT PORTION IS THE LOWEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND IT RANGES I THINK FROM ABOUT 16 FEET OF ELEVATION AT THE EASTERN END TO AROUND FOUR FEET AT THE WESTERN END. THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY REDUCED THE PROPERTY ON THE PLANNING PROCESS. WE SPENT AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF TIME WITH COUNTY STAFF IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TRYING TO FIND THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THIS PROPERTY AND AGAIN RECOGNIZING ITS SENSITIVITY. WITHOUT QUESTION THERE'S GOING TO BE A MAINTENANCE OF 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS. NO ACTIVITY ALLOWED IN THAT AREA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME REALLY LOW IMPACT TRAILS POSSIBLY TO GET DONE TO THE RIVER FRONTAGE. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO AGREED TO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACROSS THAT 50-FOOT BUFFER ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY THE. MILLS BAYOU AND THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. THAT WILL PROBABLY BE GIVEN IN FAVOR OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ART WELL 4.01.06A.6. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ALL THE TREES WITHIN THE 100-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE WETLAND DELINEATION LINE SPECIFICALLY BETWEEN THE 50-FOOT AND 100-FOOT AREA THAT ARE OVER OR EQUAL TO 5-INCH DBH WILL BE PROTECTED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. MISS HAMMER HAS ALREADY INDICATED THAT WE HAVE, AGAIN, WORKED WITH JOHN SCHRECENGOST TO TRY TO WORK AROUND NOT ONLY THE SIGNIFICANT TREES BUT THE CLUMPS OF TREES. SO, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU SEE THERE ARE A LOT OF ODD-SHAPED LOTS AND BUILDING ENVELOPES THAT IS TO WORK AROUND THE TREES. IF WE DO HAVE TO ENCOUNTER SOME TREES WHICH WE ESTIMATE WOULD BE LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT OF THE CANOPY OR EXISTING TREES ON THE SITE WE WILL MITIGATE FOR THOSE ON A 1 TO 1 BASIS WITHIN THE 100-FOOT BUFFER AND THAT MITIGATION WILL BE COMPRISED OF TREES OF AT LEAST 4-INCH DBH OF THE SAME SPECIES ASSUMING THEY'RE AVAILABLE. IF THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO DO A 2 TO ONE MITIGATION OF TREES THAT ARE NO LESS THAN 2-INCH DBH AND THAT IS BEING SPECIFIED I THINK AS A CONDITION IN THE APPROVAL. THEY'RE GOING TO BE EXTENT WITH AND RESPECTFUL OF THE STORM SURGE AND CONTINUING PROPERTY NEEDS THAT MAY OCCUR ON THIS PROPERTY BUT ALSO ABOUT SECONDARY IMPACTS ON THE TREES THAT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION. STATE-OF-THE-ART CONSTRUCTION WILL BE USED AND AGAIN WITH COUNTY STAFF YOU SPECIFIED VERY I THINK UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES, UNIQUE WAYS TO DO CONSTRUCTION TO PRESERVE THE TREES AND THE CANOPIES OF THOSE TREES. STORMWATER RUNOFF WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE HERE, AGAIN CONSIDERING THE PROTECTION OF THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER WILL BE CONTAINED UNTIL TO THE SITE MORE THAN LIKELY DRAINAGE WILL BE DIRECTED TOWARDS TO THE SMALL ROAD THAT'S GOING TO ACCESS THE LOTS. TREATMENT WILL OCCUR ALONG THAT ROADWAY WITH SOME KIND OF A SWALE SYSTEM. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BASIS OF REVIEW FOR THE SOUTHWEST WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND RESOURCE PERMIT AND OF COURSE WILL BE SCRUTINIZED I'M SURE BY EPC AND THE COUNTY. PROJECT AS PROPOSED SHOULD NOT OR WILL NOT HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE WATER QUALITY AT THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. IT'S A VERY LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE GRAPHICS THAT THERE'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT SETBACK FROM THE RIVER AND IMPORTANTLY, THE NATIVE VEGETATION IS GOING TO BE MAINTAINED IN THAT AREA. WE WILL GET ADDITIONAL STORMWATER TREATMENT THERE. BUT FROM THE POTENTIAL OF DEVELOPMENT ANYWHERE ADJACENT TO AREAS OF CONCERN ABOUT MILLS BAYOU OR LITTLE MANATEE, ALL THE EMPHASIS IS TO DIRECT STORMWATER TO THE CENTRAL PART OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE SOILS WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY PROBLEM. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. >> THAT IS OUR PRESENTATION. I EACH OF OUR EXPERTS INCLUDING MR. HOWARD AND MR. LANGUAGE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. I DID WANT TO NOTE IN THE MATERIAL YOU HAVE RECEIVED THERE IS A PAGE THAT HAS INDICATED PROPOSED CHANGES TO RECOMMENDED ZONING CONDITIONS. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF TYPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES THAT HAD TO BE MADE THAT ARE NOTED IN RED. THERE IS IDENTIFIED AS CONDITION NUMBER ONE 5 A REVISION TO THE EPC CONDITIONS DEALING WITH THE DOCK SCENARIO THAT HAS BEEN CLEARED BY THE EPC. AND FINALLY THERE IS A REFERENCE IN 11.1 TO ACTUALLY IN AN EFFORT TO PRESERVE NATIVE VEGETATION TO HAVE SIDEWALKS ONLY ALONG ONE SIDE OF THE INTERNAL ROADWAY THAT HAS NOT BEEN CLEARED BY STAFF YET. WE PROPOSE IT AS A VEHICLE FOR PRESERVING ADDITIONAL VEGETATION, MR. CRISLIP AT THIS POINT AS YOU REVIEW STAFF RECOMMENDATION HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE AGREE WITH PROPOSED CHANGES IF POSSIBLE. WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AND WE STAND READY WITH EACH EXPERTS TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND CERTAINLY TO OFFER REBUTTAL. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: WE'LL HEAR FROM THE STAFF NEXT. >> FOR THE RECORD, BRIAN GREGORY PLANNING GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. AS STATED THE REZONE FROM AGRICULTURE RURAL TO PERMISSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF 25 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. MIN LOT SIZES ARE 8,500 SQUARE FEET LOTS MINIMUM LOT WITHIN 75 FEET. MINIMUM LOT SIZE REMAINING LOTS 14 THROUGH 25 OF 6800 SQUARE FOOT WITH MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF THE LOTS ALONG THE RIVER IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF THE RC4 ZONING DISTRICT. AS DISCUSSED BY THE APPLICANT. CERTAIN NATIVE TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PRESERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBJECT REGULAR APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SPECIFIC LOT LAYOUT WITH QUALIFYING TREES. WORKED WITH NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF ON DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE SITE CONSTRUCTION AND PREMITIGATION TECHNIQUES, THAT RESEARCH STAFF SECTION STAFF HAS OFFERED NO OBJECTIONS AND MITIGATION TECHNIQUES, THE SITE IS IN THE HIGH HAZARD AREA AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MITIGATION. DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY FEWER LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RES 4 WHICH PERMITS MAXIMUM DENSITY OF FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. THIS IS WILL BE REQUIRED TO USE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER, THIS SITE IS IN THE AREA THREE OF ADOPTED COMMUNITY PLAN BUT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AS THE APPLICATION WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN. HOWEVER, THE REQUEST DOES APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN AREA 3 WHICH IS THE AREA THAT'S WITHIN THAT PLAN. STAFF FINDS REQUEST COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE DO HAVE STAFF FROM NATURAL RESOURCES AND, C TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY ARISE REGARDING WETLANDS AND TREE PRESERVATION ISSUES. AND REGARDING THE CHANGES OF THE CONDITIONS, STAFF HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THOSE OTHER THAN THE CONDITION REGARDING THE SIDEWALKS. I DON'T BELIEVE TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS THEIR CONDITION AND THEY'RE PREPARED AT THIS POINT TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE REGARDING THE REQUIRED SIDEWALKS, BUT THE OTHER CHANGES REGARDING THE CHANGE TO CONDITION 15 REGARDING DOCKS IS OKAY WITH EPC STUFF AND THE OTHER 2 WERE JUST A TYPO REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE. >> JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION. >> THANK YOU. THIS SITE HAS A FUTURE LAND USE OF RES 4. FALLS WITHIN THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARIES. AT THE REQUEST IS 425 UNITS AND I'VE INADVERTENTLY READ AT 4 CERTAIN UNITS FROM A PREVIOUS REQUEST OF THEIR IN OUR STAFF REPORT SO I ASK THAT THAT CHANGE BE ARE REFLECTED IN OUR STAFF REPORT. THE 25 UNITS WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 8,500 SQUARE FEET ALONG THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER AND LOTS INTERNAL 6,800 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OCCURRING IN THE AREA OF RUSKIN. AREAS ZONED FOR OC6 AND 4 AND THE IMMEDIATE AREAS INSIGHT AND THIS WOULD PROVIDE FOR A COMPARABLE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT ZONING PATTERNS. THE SITE ALSO ACTS FOR A DENSITY OF APPROXIMATELY 2 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPERTY IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND GENERALLY POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENCOURAGE DENSITIES OF THREE UNITS PER ACRE OR GREATER IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. HOWEVER, IT DOES ALLOW FOR DENSITIES OF LESS THAN THAT TO BE CONSIDERED WHERE THERE'S A COMPATIBILITY ISSUE OR WHERE THERE MAY BE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. AND BOTH OF THOSE EXIST IN THIS CASE. THE SITES AT THE EDGE OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND SUCH A LOWER DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE AS PROVIDING THAT TRANSITION OF LAND USE. ADDITIONALLY THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES GIVEN THE PROPERTY'S RELATED TO THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER AND A LOWER DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THAT. AS JUST MENTIONED THE SITES ON THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER THEIR POLICIES AND CONSERVATION AND ELEMENT SPECIFICALLY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER, THOSE ARE REFERENCED IN OUR REPORT AND ALL OF THOSE SHOULD BE COMPLIED WITH IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A WATER BODY AND PROVISION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ABOUT PROVIDING COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ALONG A WATER BODY. AND IN THIS CASE THE PROPOSED LOTS ALONG THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM OF A 75-FOOT LOT WIDTH WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO THAT WHICH IS OCCURRING ALONG THE STRETCH OF THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. FINALLY THE SITE IS WITHIN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA AND EVACUATION ROUTES MUST BE AVAILABLE TO SERVE THIS DEVELOPMENT. WHILE THIS WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN DENSITY OVER WHAT IS EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, THE NUMBER OF UNITS REQUESTED IS WELL WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 4 LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS ANTICIPATED THAT A DENSITY OF FOUR UNITS PER ACRE MAY OCCUR IN THIS AREA OF THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. OVERALL, GIVEN THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT AND WOULD NOT BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA. BASED ON THIS THE STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE APPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PREPARED BY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION? I'M JANET KOVACH AND I RESIDE IN RIVERVIEW. VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROJECT AND VERY FAMILIAR WITH WORKING IN SOUTHSHORE AGAIN. FOR THE RECORD I'VE BEEN PART OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE TRANSPORTATION FOR SOUTHSHORE. WHEN THIS PROJECT FIRST CAME OUT, I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HIGH DENSITY AND IN RIVERVIEW WE STARTED OUT ON OUR RIVER WITH DENSITIES OF RC8 AND 6. AND NOW WE'RE AT RFC4 IN OUR COMP PLAN. HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR ETHEL HAMMER. I'VE WORKED WITH HER ON MANY PROJECTS AND I'VE NEVER FOUND ANY PROJECT SHE WORKED ON NOT TO BE A QUALITY PROJECT. I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR ACTUALLY TO SAVE MY PLACE CARD TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSION. BUT I HAVE TO SAY THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE I RESPECT THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT IN OPPOSITION AS WELL. 1866IDOLS010407 MARY ELLEN SMITH, WADE CLARK, BOB MENTHORN. BUT I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY SO THOSE INDIVIDUALS IS AT SOME POINT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS HAVE A PLAY AND THEY COULD ACTUALLY BUILD UP TO RFC4. SOME OF THE REASONS I WAS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT AGAIN THE DENSITIES CONCERNED ME, BEING ON THE RIVER CONCERNED ME, I AM AN ENVIRONMENTALIST BUT THEY WENT FROM 67 TO 25 UNITS. THEY GOT RID OF 42 UNITS. THEY HAVE A COMMUNITY PARK, THEY HAVE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. I'M GOING TO RESERVE JUDGMENT. I DO WANT TO HEAR WHAT MY FELLOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE TO SAY ON THE PROJECT, BUT I AM HERE IN SUPPORT OF WHAT I ORIGINALLY SAW AS A HIGH DENSITY PROJECT THAT HAS GONE THROUGH ITERATION AFTER ITERATION AND REALLY TRYING PLEASE WHAT I WOULD BELIEVE IS A COMMUNITY OUTCRY FOR LESS DENSITY. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. SOMEONE ELSE WISH TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION? >> I'M RANDY SMITH. I RESIDE AT 3006 WEST FROTEE AVENUE IN TAMPA. COMING HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REZONING. I'M A PROPERTY OWNER THAT HAS WATERFRONT PROPERTY ON THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER IN RUSKIN. AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE THIS PROJECT COME TO THE FOREFRONT HERE. I'M LEARNING A LOT OF THE DETAILS TONIGHT. AND I HAVEN'T KNOWN PREVIOUSLY AND I AM VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE TEAM THAT THEY'VE ASSEMBLED TO PUT THIS PROJECT TOGETHER AND ALSO FROM THE FACT THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED SO MUCH INPUT ON -- FROM THE NEIGHBOR AND ALSO THE -- TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ON THE LITTLE MANATEE. I THINK THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO ENHANCE THE AREA, TO COMPLEMENT THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING IN RUSKIN AND IN THAT AREA. I THINK THE LARGE ESTATE SIZED LOTS ARE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE A VERY GOOD ENHANCEMENT TO THE AREA. AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS PROJECT GOING FORWARD. I KNOW THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE PROJECT AND I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A REAL CONCERN FOR THE LITTLE MANATEE, A LOVE FOR THE AREA AND FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT RUSKIN PROVIDES AND IS SUCH AN ATTRACTION TO POPULATION AND THE PEOPLE MOVING INTO THE AREA. I JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK THIS FINAL PRODUCT WILL BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE RUSKIN AREA AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, SIR. SOMEONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT? >> I'M JOHN WOLF. AND I OWN THE FOUR ACRES THAT'S ADJACENT TO THIS PARCEL, AND I AM 100% IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT. I'VE LIVED DOWN IN COUNTY FOR YEARS. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF GROWTH AND THE NICE THING ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS THE FACT THAT IT'S BEING CONSISTENT WHERE IT'S NOT EVEN MAXIMIZING THE DENSITY THAT WOULD BE USED ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE. I ALSO KNOW THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEHIND THE PROJECT. I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THEM. AND BACK IN 1983, ON ANOTHER SITE IN TAMPA, I LITERALLY WATCHED THEM MOVE BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO SAVE TREES, BACK THEN THAT WAS NOT A COMMON PRACTICE SO THEY HAVE BEEN GOOD STEWARDS OF THE LAND, AND I THINK THEY WOULD BE GO FOR THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> DOES YOUR FOUR ACRES AT THE END OF THE ROAD WEST OF THIS? >> TO THE NORTH. >> JOHN CRISLIP: OH, NORTH, I SEE. ALL RIGHT, SIR, THANK YOU. >> SIR, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? >> THE PROPERTY THAT I OWN IS AT 2311 7TH STREET SOUTHWEST. YOUR ADDRESS PHYSICAL ADDRESS IS 930 ALLEGRA LANE, APOLLO BEACH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> JOHN CRISLIP: SOMEBODY ELSE? YES? >> I'M AMY KURDEN AND I GREW UP IN RUSKIN. AND MY FAMILY HAS BEEN IN THE AREA OVER 60 YEARS AND MY HUSBAND AND I OWN THE HALF ACRE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. AND WE THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE AND I THINK IT WILL GIVE A NICE SPATIAL YARD FOR KIDS TO PLAY IN. I'M REALLY PLEASED TO SEE THAT THE LOT SIZES ARE GOING TO BE LARGER THAN WHAT I HAVE BEEN SEEING IN RUSKIN AND I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE KIDS HAVE A YARD TO PLAY IN SO I THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD APPROVE THIS PLAN. >> JOHN CRISLIP: WHICH DIRECTION FROM THE PROPERTY DO YOU -- >> NORTH. >> JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YES, SIR? DID YOU WANT TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT? >> MY NAME IS DAVID SMITH AND I LIVE AT 3105 FAIR OAKS IN TAMPA AND I OWN PROPERTY DOWN RIVER FROM CURTIS' PROPERTY. I JUST WANT TO SAY I KNOW THE FAMILY AND I'VE SPENT TIME IN RUSKIN WITH DAN CURTIS AND THEY REALLY HAVE SENSITIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY AND I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB. IT REALLY SHOWS THE EFFORT THAT THEY PUT INTO THE WAY THEY DESIGNED IT. AND I THINK IT WILL BE A GREAT PROJECT AND I'M ANXIOUS FOR IT TO GO FORWARD. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN SUPPORT, WE'LL TAKE TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION. >> GOOD EVENING ZONING HEARING MASTER. I LIVE AT 1 -- IS THIS MICROPHONE NOT WORKING? I LIVE AT -- >> YOU STILL NEED TO USE IT, YOU NEED TO SPEAK IT UP. >> IT WAS COMING THROUGH THE MICROPHONE. >> WE HAVE LOTS OF CITIZEN OPPOSITION HERE TONIGHT. I'D LIKE TO ASK THEM ALL TO STAND AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. WE HAVE OVER -- ABOUT 320 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION IN THIS CASE FILE. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU AN AREA VIEW ON THE MONITOR OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. HERE'S TAMPA BAY AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE. THIS RIVER IS A DYNAMIC TIDAL RIVER WHOSE NATURAL OXBOWS, BAYOUS, ISLANDS AND SPITS CHANGE OVER TIME AND ARE FREQUENTLY FLOODED. IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLY NEGLIGENT FOR THE COUNTY TO INCREASE DENSITY HERE PLACING MORE FAMILIES IN SUCH A DANGEROUS POSITION. THE PARCEL IS A NARROW SPIT 240 TO 340 FEET WIDE. AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PRISTINE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER AND ITS WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. THIS IS A BREATHTAKINGLY BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF OUR RIVER. MANGROVES AND MARSH GRASSES LINE THE SHORE WITH CABBAGE PALM TRANSITIONING TO SAND PINE SCRUB ON THE UPLAND. THATS A RARE FLORIDIAN ECOSYSTEM. THE SITE ALSO IMPOSED AS WELL AS A LARGE POPULATION OF OTHER PLANTS. A FLOWERING PLANT WHICH IS LISTED AS THREATENED AND GROWS ONLY IN FLORIDA. THE RARE SOIL IS TYPICAL OF THAT WHICH ENDANGERS THE GOLDEN ASTER. THE SITE SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY SURVEYED BY AN UNAFFILIATED BIOLOGIST. THIS IS HOME TO 20 TORTOISES AND OTHER WILDLIFE. WE SHOULD NOT TRADE THEM FOR THEIR HABITAT FOR MORE SUBURBAN HOUSING. THE ISLAND OF THE SPIT FROM THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER TO 41 ARE PROTECTED BY THE STATE IN THE COCKROACH BAY PRESERVE. THE OTHER GREEN AREAS ON SPITS AROUND THE THREE BAYOUS, HERE HERE AND AROUND HERE ARE PROTECTED BY THE COUNTY. THE ORANGE AND BROWN SPITS IN THE RIVER ARE STILL PRIVATELY OWNED. ISLANDS AND SPITS ARE PART OF THE NATURAL FURNITURE OF THIS RIVER AND THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THIS RIVER'S PRISTINE CHARACTER. WHILE MOST ARE PRESERVED, A FEW ARE STILL VULNERABLE TO THIS TYPE OF DESTRUCTION. IF WE ALLOW THIS DEVELOPER TO RUIN THIS SPIT, IT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR ALLOWING THE OTHER LITTLE BITS OF UPLAND WITHIN THE RIVER TO BE URBANIZED. I'M SUBMITTING A LIST OF COMP PLAN POLICIES AND LDC REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD BE VIOLATED BY THIS REZONING. COUNTY RULES STRICTLY PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF ALL 5-INCH TREES AND NATIVE VEGETATION WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THEY NEED TO DESTROY SOME TREES IN ORDER TO ENJOY REASONABLE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. BUT THEIR CURRENT ZONING GIVES THEM REASONABLE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. THIS ZONING CHANGE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR REASONABLE USE AND THIS ZONING CHANGE WOULD VIOLATE COUNTY LAW. COUNTY STAFF SUGGESTS ALLOWING THEM TO DESTROY TREES AS LONG AS THEY PLANT ONE NEW TREE FOR EACH ONE THEY KILL. THIS IS NOT LAW. IT DOES NOT SATISFY THE LAW AND IT WOULD SET A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT. FURTHERMORE, A 1 TO 1 TREE PLANTING IS NOT SUFFICIENT MITIGATION FOR DESTROYING HEALTHY ESTABLISHED OLD TREES. THE NEWLY PLANTED TREES WILL BE SMALLER AND THEY'RE MUCH LESS LIKELY TO SURVIVE. BESIDES THE TREES, COUNTY RULES PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF ALL NATIVE VEGETATION AND UNDER STORY WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. THIS PROPOSAL VIOLATES THOSE RULES WITH NO MITIGATION. FINALLY UNDER SITE PLAN IF I COULD HAVE THAT UNDER THE SCREEN, THE SITE PLAN UNNECESSARILY THREATENED THE MILLS BAYOU SHORELINE BY PARCELLING IT OUT. A RIVER FRONT HOME SITE GETS A LITTLE PIECE OF THE MILES BAYOU SHORELINE. EACH WOULD INEVITABLY RELANDSCAPE AND BUILD ON HIS OWN LITTLE PIECE OF THAT PRISTINE SHORELINE. THIS IS A BAD PLAN. PLEASE RECOMMEND DENIAL. >> JOHN CRISLIP: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. YOU SAY IT VIOLATES THE 100-FOOT SETBACK. I THOUGHT THEY WERE RESERVING THAT AREA FROM DEVELOPMENT. >> THE LDC REQUIRES PROTECTING ALL TREES FIVE INCHES DIAMETER AND THEY HAVE A PLAN THAT DESTROYS SOME TREES AND OFFERS TO PLANT AND MITIGATION ONE-TO-ONE TREE BUT, IF THEY DESTROY A 24-INCH TREE, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO REPLANT WITH A FIVE INCH TREE IF THEY CAN FIND IT OR A FOUR INCH TREE OR MAYBE TWO INCH TREES. >> JOHN CRISLIP: BUT THOSE TREES ARE NOT WITHIN THE 100-FOOT SET BACK. >> YES, THEY ARE. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THAT'S NOT WHAT I UNDERSTAND WAS SAID. >> THEY ARE NOT PROTECTING ALL A THE TREES AN THE LDC SAYS THEY SHOULD PRESERVE ALL THE TREES. >> JOHN CRISLIP: WHAT THE PRESENTATION WAS THAT ANY TREES THAT WERE DESTROYED WOULD BE REPLACED BUT WITHIN THAT 100-FOOT SETBACK. TREES THAT WERE DESTROYED OUTSIDE THE SETBACK. >> IF THEY TAKE. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. >> MR. CRISLIP, IT'S ALL WITHIN THE 100-FOOT SET BACK. ANY TREE IMPACT AND MITIGATION FOR THAT IS ALL OCCURRING WITHIN THE 100 FEET. >> JOHN CRISLIP: MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD IT THEN. >> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN THERE'S TREES WHERE THEIR HOUSES ARE THAT ARE DESIGNATED. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT THOSE WOULD BE REPLACED WITHIN THE ONE HUNDRED FOOT SET BACK. MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD. >> THEY WOULD BE, BUT THOSE TREES ARE IMPACTING ALSO WITHIN THE 100-FOOT SETBACK. >> JOHN CRISLIP: YOU'RE SAYING TREES WOULD BE REMOVED WITHIN THE 100-FOOT SETBACK AND THEN REPLACED. >> WITHIN THE 100-FOOT SETBACK, CORRECT? YES. >> JOHN CRISLIP: I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT. YES. >> I'M SUBMITTING LETTERS AS WELL. >> JOHN CRISLIP: MM-HMM. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING. >> I'M JOSEPH LANCASTER, I RESIDE AT THE DEAD-END OF THE SHELL ROAD WHICH I MAINTAIN GOING TO MY PROPERTY. NOW, I DROVE DOWN THERE. IF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PASSED, IT MEANS I MUST TRAVEL THROUGH A GATED COMMUNITY WITH A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION CONTROLLED ROADWAY. I WANT WRITTEN ASSURANCE THAT I WILL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO THIS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, EVER. MY OBJECTIONS TO THIS HERE DEVELOPMENT ARE THE ELEVATION IS ALL DOWNHILL. WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 8 TO 10 FEET OF ELEVATION COMING FROM THE EASTERN PART TOWARD THE WESTERN PART AND ONCE THEY'RE DEVELOPMENT WILL END, THE PAVEMENT WILL END AND THERE WILL BE A SHELL ROAD MAINTAINED TO MY PROPERTY OF APPROXIMATELY QUARTER OF A MILE OR LESS. THAT WILL BE A SHELL ROAD WHICH I'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN IN THE FUTURE. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THIS WATER IS ALL GOING TO FLUSH DOWN THIS ROADWAY AND WASH OUT MY SHELL ROAD. >> JOHN CRISLIP: YOU MAINTAIN IT NOW? >> ARE YOU PRESENTLY MAINTAINING THE SHELL ROAD? >> I'M PRESENTLY TAKING CARE OF THE SHELL ROAD FOR HALF A MILE THROUGH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN THE RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND EVERYTHING. SO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS WATER WASHING DOWN THE ROAD WHICH IS GOING TO WASH INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BAYOU AND POLLUTE THE RIVER. THIS IS GOING TO COST FERTILIZERS AND ANIMALS ARE GOING TO GO OUT AND DO THEIR JOB, SO FORTH, IT'S ALL GOING TO WASH MY WAY. THE OTHER THING THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS THE TREES. THE SAND PINE SCRUB THAT IS THE UPLANDS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, IS MOST OF THEM ARE LEANING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS FROM THE WIND BLOWING THEM OVER AND THE SANDY AREA THERE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ROOT SYSTEMS VERY WELL. MOST OF THESE TREES WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BUY A HOME AND HAVE A LEANING TREE THAT MIGHT FALL ON THEIR HOME SOMEWHERE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BIG SAND PINE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH LITTLE 4-INCH, 5-INCH TREES. POSSIBLY 2-INCH TREES, THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM OF A SANDY AREA AND A PROBLEM FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THESE SHIFTING SANDS ON THESE HOMES ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND HAUNT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IN THE FUTURE. THE OTHER PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT IS THE 50-FOOT WETBACK SETBACK. THIS IS ALSO GOING TO DISAPPEAR ONCE THE HOMEOWNERS MOVE IN. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED. REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS ACROSS THE RIVER FROM MY HOME NOW THERE'S AN RV PARK AND WHEN I BUILT MY HOME, 10 YEARS AGO, BUILDING INSPECTOR CAME OUT, LOOKED ACROSS THE RIVER AT THE RV PARK AND HE COULDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW A PERMANENT TRAILER PARK COULD TAKE PLACE WHERE IT WAS PERMITTED TO BE AN RV PARK, THESE PEOPLE GO OVER THERE, THEY ADD ON WHEN THEY WANT, HOW THEY WANT AND THE COUNTY DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. THE COUNTY IS NOT OUT THERE TO SUPERVISE. SO THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE 50 FOOT WET BACK SET BACK VEGETATION. THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO OUT THERE AND PULL IT UP ONE ROOT AT A TIME. THEY'RE GOING TO DRIVE ONE NAIL IN THE TREE AND PRETTY SOON WE'VE GOT AN AREA THAT'S GOING TO BE WASHING OUT AND CAUSING US A PROBLEM AND I'VE GOT MY HOME BUILT DOWN AT THE END OF THE ROAD. SO I'VE GOT TO SEE THAT THIS DON'T HAPPEN. THE OTHER THING THAT THIS LITTLE SPIT OF LAND DOES IS A REFUGE FOR THE EAGLES, OXBOWS, HAWKS, RACCOONS, BOBCAT, GOPHER TORTOISES, RECENTLY I OBSERVED A PAIR OF ROSE BILLS ON THE SHORELINE. SO IT'S ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND. AND I'VE OBSERVED MANY TIMES EAGLES SITTING IN THESE TREES ALONG THIS SPIT OF LAND SEEKING REFUGE. I URGE YOU TO DENY THIS HERE PETITION. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, SIR. >> I'M DAVID. I RESIDE AT 2426 7TH STREET SOUTHWEST IN RUSKIN. MY WIFE PEARL AND I WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. WE'RE HAPPY WITH THE PRESENT ZONING AND ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING. IT WILL BE BUILT RIGHT ON TOP OF US, WE ENJOY OUR PRESENT NEIGHBORS, TURTLES AND HERRINGS WHO GIVE BIRTH TO THE YOUNG IN TREES AND WE WELCOME HUMAN NEIGHBORS ALSO BUT JUST A MORE LIMITED DESTINY FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. WITH A GIGANTIC RIVER BEND DEVELOPMENT A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHERS IS BEING OVERWHELMED. WE DO APPRECIATE EARLY MEETINGS WITH THAT THEM AND OTHERS BUT THERE'S BEEN NO RESPONSE TO RECENT QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FILED PROPOSAL THAT WOULD BE COMING. WE DO NOT WANT A GATED COMMUNITY. WE DO NOT WANT A PAVED ROAD. WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE OUR PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE AT THE EXTENSION OF THE RIVER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AT THE EXPENSE. THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF GOD'S CREATION THAT IS WELL WORTH PRESERVING AT ITS PRESENT ZONING. DO NOT DESTROY ONE LAST PIECE OF PARADISE BY PAVING IT OVER WITH A PARKING LOTES. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JUDY HASH AND I LIVE AT 2105 8TH STREET SOUTHWEST. 24 YEARS AGO MY HUSBAND AND I CHOSE TO RELOCATE TO RUSKIN BECAUSE OF THE BEAUTY OF THE AREA. IMAGINE OUR DELIGHT WHEN WE FOUND A SINGLE STORY HOME SET WELL BACK FROM THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER WITH OVER AN ACRE OF LAND LOOKING OVER MILES BAYOU AS DOES OUR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE ARE NO GATES AND NO WALLS. WE ARE YEAR ROUND MULTI GENERATIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENCE WHO ENJOY A FANTASTIC VIEW WITH QUIET DEAD-END TWO WAY UNREGULATED STREET. OUR VIEWS OF WATER, BEGAN GROVE AND TREE TOPS, NOT 3 STORY 40-FOOT HOMES AS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER ACCORDING TO THEIR SITE PLAN. IMAGINE OUR OUTRAGE WHEN FOR OVER A YEAR THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO GAIN APPROVAL TO PUT A T, TD ON THIS TINY SPIT OF LAND. WITHOUT REZONING THEY COULD BUILD THREE HOMES, ONE PER 5 ACRES. I CONTEND THAT THAT IS ENOUGH FOR THIS HIGH HAZARD COASTAL AREA ENVIRONMENTALLY OUTSTANDING BORDER WATERWAY. THE ONLY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT THAT HAS COME OUR WAY IN THE LAST 24 YEARS HAS BEEN THE A DECISION OF A SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM WHICH COUNTY INSTALLED SEPTIC TANKS AND LIFT STATIONS TO CARRY OUT THE WASTE WATER. IF APPROVED WOULD THIS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT THE WATER QUALITY GIVEN THEIR LOCATION ON THE SITE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RIVER WITH 25 MORE OF THESE? CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS AND I HEARD TONIGHT 900 NEW HOME RIVER BEND DEVELOPMENT BORDERS FIRST STREET SOUTHWEST, THOSE RESIDENTS WILL USE THE SAME ROADS TO EXIT TO U.S. 41 SOUTH. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN THE CHANGE IN THE LOCAL TRAFFIC PATTERN SINCE THE ADDITION OF SPEED BUMPS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ARE. I DON'T THINK ANY OF THAT WAS COUNTED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY. ACCIDENTS INVOLVING SCHOOL BUSSES HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED ON 7TH STREET SOUTHWEST, WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CHILDREN'S SAFETY. WE HAVE NO SIDEWALKS, RESIDENCE WALK AND BIKE ON THE EXISTING SUBSTANDARD TWO LANE ROAD. ADDING ROADS WITH STORMWATER RUNOFF PROBLEMS. WE'RE APPREHENSIVE AS TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THE RAIN FALLS COME. WE HAVE NEVER HAD PROBLEMS WITH FRESH WATER STORMWATER FLOODING. WE HAVE HAD TIDAL FLOODS BUT NEVER STORMWATER. I URGE YOU TO DENY THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE OF ALL THE PREVIOUSLY STATED REASONS AND BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSISTENT AND IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> MY NAME IS GLEN WRIGHT. CITY CENTER. I AGREE WITH THE SPEAKERS BEFORE ME AND I'D LIKE TO ADD SOME OPPOSITION HERE AS IT PERTAINS TO ECONOMIC AND PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT INSURANCE PREMIUMS HAVE GONE UP THROUGHOUT THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA AND THE STATE. WHY? INCREASED STORM ACTIVITY, INCREASED DEVELOPMENT. DECISIONS LIKE THIS TO INCREASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, INCREASE EVERYONE'S PROPERTY INSURANCE. IF YOU CONTINUE TO INCREASE THE DENSITY HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DRIVE UP PROPERTY INSURANCE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. IT'S NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DO SO. PUBLIC SAFETY, LET ME TALK ABOUT ANOTHER IMPORTANT -- THIS IS THE STORM SURGE FLOODING MAP. YOU WILL OBSERVE FROM THIS MAP THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS IN THE STORM SURGE AREA FOR CATEGORY 1 STORM. OUR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PEOPLE HAVE TOLD US THAT WHEN THE BIG ONES COMES THROUGH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING TO THE REST OF ROUTE 41 IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED. IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE BILOXI DO RIGHT NOW. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE INCREASED PROPERTY DESTRUCTION. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE INCREASED DEATHS BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T GET OUT OF THIS AREA. DEVELOPERS IS ASKING FOR 25 UNITS HERE AS OPPOSED TO 3 THAT ARE PERMITTED RIGHT NOW. THERE'S A GOOD POSSIBILITY SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE WHEN THE BIG ONE COMES THROUGH TAMPA BAY. PREVIOUS SPEAKER TALKED ABOUT DOWNED TREES AND SANDY CONDITIONS OF THE SOIL. YOU GET ONE DOWNED TREE ON A SINGLE ROAD THAT GOES INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND YOU COULD CALL IT THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT DIES IN A RAPIDLY DEVELOPING CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE. IT'S TIME FOR THE ZONING DECISION OF THIS COUNTY TO CHANGE. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING CAN BE DONE DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE DONE. I'M ASKING FOR THE ZONING OFFICER TO REFUSE THIS REZONING REQUEST BECAUSE THIS IS NOT GOOD PUBLIC POLICY. >> JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW THE TIME I BELIEVE HAS EXPIRED SO TRY TO BE BRIEF. >> I WILL. SIR, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS GUS. I LIVE AT 3031 SOUTHWEST MANATEE AVENUE RUSKIN. I'M PROPERTY MANAGER OF THE HABITAT PROGRAM TO EDUCATE, PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE SHORELINE HABITAT OF THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER. TIDAL SHORELINE AND TO EDUCATE HOMEOWNERS TO THE VALUE OF THAT SHORELINE. THE PICTURE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER ABOVE 75. THE NEXT PHOTO IS SHORELINE BEEN DESTROYED BY HOMEOWNERS AND I DON'T MEAN TO CRITICIZE ANY HOMEOWNERS BUT THESE PICTURES ARE IN THE CASE FILE. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE WHERE WE HARD THE SHORELINE ALONG THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER JUST EAST OF THE PROJECT OF THE NEXT PHOTO IS THE PROJECT ITSELF AND WE SEE THE NATURAL SHORELINE AND THE NEXT PHOTO IS EAGLE'S NEST WHICH IS JUST WEST OF THE PROJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER TOWARDS THE 41 BRIDGE. I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I HEARD A LOT ABOUT CONDITIONS OF PROTECTION OF THE SHORELINE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO ADD ALL THOSE CONDITIONS INTO THE SURVEY MAPS, THE SURVEY MAPS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THAT SHOW THESE PROTECTIONS, OKAY. THOSE CONDITIONS. THAT'S WILDLIFE. YOU DON'T HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN SO THE HOMEOWNER CAN SEE THAT'S IN THAT COUNTY SURVEY MAP WHICH IS VERY SIMPLE TO DO. YOU JUST SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WANT IN THE SURVEY MAP. THEY'RE GOING TO THINK WELL WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT TO. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE PROTECT THE VEGETATION OF THE SHORELINE, THE TIDAL OF THE SHORELINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING, I RESIDE AT 7201 AL FIRE RIDGE ROAD RIVERVIEW. AS CHAIR WOMAN, I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE 2,000 MEMBERS OF THE TAMPA BAY SIERRA CLUB. THE SIERRA CLUB IN FLORIDA STATE OFFICE AS WELL AS THE TAMPA BAY GROUP WROTE OFFICIAL LETTERS ASKING FOR DENIAL OF THIS REZONING. THE NATIONAL HUMANE SOCIETY WROTE A LETTER REPRESENTING THEIR 8.5 MILLION MEMBERS OPPOSING THIS REZONING BECAUSE IT WOULD EXTERMINATE OR UPROOT A RELATIVELY VIEWER POPULATION OF TORTOISES AND DESTROY THEIR RARE AND VANISHING HABITAT. GOPHER TORTOISES ARE A SPECIES OF SUCH SPECIAL CONCERN. AND AT ONE TIME THEY WERE VERY PLENTIFUL THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHEAST UNITED STATES. HOWEVER, DUE TO PRESSURES FROM DEVELOPMENT THESE ANIMALS ARE DECLINING IN NUMBERS. THEY ARE A SPECIES WITH HUNDREDS OF OTHER CREATURES DEPENDENT ON THEM FOR SURVIVAL. THE COMP PLAN POLICY DIRECTS US TO PROTECT THEM AND THEIR HABITAT. RECLASSIFICATION FROM RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DOOMS THESE GO FORE TORTOISES, THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER IS TEEMING WITH LIFE BECAUSE THIS RIVER HAS NOT YET BEEN URBANIZED BY DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS THIS AND THE WATER QUALITY SO FAR REMAINS RELATIVELY UNPOLLUTED BY WATER RUNOFF. THERE'S PROJECT ON THIS SITE WOULD SUBTRACT TOO MUCH FROM THE PRISTINE CHARACTER OF THE RIVER AND INTOLERABLY IMPACT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES INCLUDING THE WILDLIFE AND THIS WATERSHED IN VIOLATION OF OUR CODES AND POLICIES. POLICY 42.2 STATES THE LITTLE MANATEE RIVER SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AS PROVIDING IMPORTANT WILDLIFE HABITAT AND MACED MANAGED AS A CORRIDOR FOR WILDLIFE PASSAGE. ADDITION 42.4 STATES THE COUNTY SHALL RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND RIVER CORE CORES THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT SIGNIFICANT AND ESSENTIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT. THIS PROJECT IS CONTRARY TO THAT POLICY AND OTHER STATE AND COUNTY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS BY WHICH WE ARE CHARGED WITH PROTECTING THIS OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATER AND THIS AQUATIC PRESERVE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO MORE. PLEASE TRY TO BE BRIEF BECAUSE WE'RE WAY OVER THE ALLOTTED TIME. >> I'M GOING TO BE VERY BRIEF. I'M WADE CLARK, AND I'VE ENTERED A LETTER INTO THE FILE AND HE JUST WANT TO SAY I WAS OPPOSED TO THIS. THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY AT THIS POINT AND RESERVE TIME IF NEED BE IN THE FUTURE, THANKS. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I'M ADRIENNE LEAPER. I LIVE AT 711 SUN WELLS ROAD. I REPRESENT QUITE A FEW PEOPLE IN SUN CITY. BOTH OUR CLUB THERE. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS HIGH DENSITY BUILDING THAT'S GOING ON EVERYWHERE THAT'S AFFECTING ALL OF US. THE ROADS ARE SO OVERCROWDED AND IT'S DANGEROUS. YOU TALK ABOUT TAKING TREES AND MOVING THEM, MITIGATION JUST DOESN'T WORK. IT HASN'T WORKED. AND CERTAINLY WON'T WORK HERE. YOU WANT TO PUT THESE A HIGH COASTAL HAZARDS AREA? A FLOOD PLAIN? THINK ABOUT KATRINA, THINK ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION, THIS IS A FLOOD ZONE, PLEASE PROTECT THIS PRISTINE LAND THAT IS PROTECTING ITSELF WITH ITS UNDER GROWTH. DON'T TRY TO DISTURB IT. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS RITA WEEKS. I RESIDE AT 500 FINE NORTH SWANNEE AVENUE IN TAMPA. BUT MY FAMILY HAS TREES IN RUSKIN, I HAVE MANY GENERATIONS IN RUSKIN AND FAMILY MEMBERS AND PLAN TO LIVE THERE AGAIN SOME DAY. I HOPE THE RIVER IS STILL THERE TO ENJOY. I HOPE THAT YOU DO NIGH THIS PROPOSED REZONING. IF IT WAS SUCH A GOOD IDEA AND -- -- WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE REZONING. I THINK WE SHOULD STICK WITH THE ZONING WE HAVE. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GOPHER TORTOISES ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE WILDLIFE IN THE AREA AND I DO HOPE THAT YOU DENY THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER OPPOSITION I'LL ASK THE STAFF IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS. >> NOT UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ISSUES RAISED. WE DO HAVE STAFF WITH NATURAL RESOURCES AND EPC IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS. >> JOHN CRISLIP: I SUSPECT THE REBUTTAL WILL TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. SO LET'S GO ON TO HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT AGAIN. >> MR. CRISLIP. WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS WHO WILL MAKE PRESENTATIONS DURING OUR REBUTTAL AND THEN I WILL CLOSE. THE FIRST WILL BE MISS ETHEL HAMMER. >> MR. CRISLIP, I WANTED TO ADDRESS JUST A COUPLE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. MR. MAXE IS GOING TO PUT THE AERIAL BACK UP. WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE RIVER FRONT AND IN AREA. IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREA BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY UP TO ACTUALLY THE EXTEND OF WHAT YOU CAN SEE ON THIS AERIAL, EVERYTHING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE RIVER IS DEVELOPED. MOST THE AREA TO THE EAST OF THIS AND TO THE NORTH ON MILLS BAYOU IS NOT PRISTINE UNDEVELOPED AREA. IT IS IN FACT ALL DEVELOPED AS SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING IS MINIMAL. IT'S 25 LOTS AND THIS SITE PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED IN A VERY SENSITIVE MANNER. JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, THE 100-FOOT SET BACK WE'RE PROPOSING ONLY THOSE TREES THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN A VERY SMALL FOOTPRINT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR REMOVAL AND MITIGATION. WE ESTIMATE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 5 TO 10% OF ALL THE TREES IN 100-FOOT SET BACK AND MR. DAVIS IS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENT ON THE SITE PLAN, IF YOU PUT THE SITE PLAN UP AGAIN THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS THE -- YEAH. THOSE AREAS THAT ARE BASICALLY PART PA OF THE LOTS WILL BE WITHIN THE 100-FOOT SETBACK. AND SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO TAKE OUT ANY OF THOSE TREES. THAT WILL REMAIN AS NATURAL HABITAT. SOME OF THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE WITHIN THE 5 FOOT CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY REMOVAL OF THE VEGETATION NORTH OF THE ROAD. AGAIN, THE DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY HALF OF WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALLOWS. AND I WOULD URGE YOUR SUPPORT. AND I BELIEVE MR. CALLAHAN IS NEXT. OH, I'M SORRY, MR. HOWARD A. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING MR. CRISLIP. MY NAME IS TREVOR HOWARD. I RESIDE AT 31111TH STREET NORTH IN SAINT PETERSBURG. A COUPLE OF ISSUES WERE RAISED ABOUT A COUPLE OF STORMWATER DOWN THE PROPOSED ROADWAY THAT'S GOING TO I GUESS CONCERN WAS IT WAS CREATING WATER THAT WOULD IMPACT ON PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF US. BUT I THINK THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE IT IS ENERGY DISSIPATED IN THE SWALES AND THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODS OF GRADING WHERE WE CAN MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS OF THE -- WATER RUNNING DOWN THROUGH SWALES AND CAUSING ADVERSE IMPACT TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE OTHER POINT TO NOTE IS THAT IF I'M GOING TO BE THE ROADWAY AND THE PARTS OF THE PROPERTY THAT ARE DIRECTLY FACING THE ROADWAY WHERE THE STORMWATER WILL BE CONVEYED TO THE SWALE THAT WILL. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THESE SWALES, WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED? >> ON THE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. >> JOHN CRISLIP: AND THEN THE DIRECTION OF THE FLOW IS WESTWARD ON THE ROAD? >> YES. >> JOHN CRISLIP: AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS AT THE END OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SWALES END? >> WE'D HAVE TO CREATE SOME SORT OF BERM THERE OR SOMETHING WHICH WOULD NOT CAUSE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. BUT THE PURPOSE IS TO DISSIPATE THE ENERGY OF THE WATER SUFFICIENTLY ALONG THE PATH OF THE SWALE SO THAT FOR THE TIME IT GETS TO THE PROPERTY, IT'S NOT FLOWING AT A HUGE RATE AND IT WILL BE CONTROLLED THROUGH A SWALE, A BERM OR SOME SORT OF -- >> JOHN CRISLIP: YOU MEAN THE SLOPE IS PRETTY WELL LEVELED OUT AT THAT POINT? >> THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT WILL BE TO PROBABLY LEVEL OUT THE POINT BUT GENERALLY NOT TO CREATE A -- YOU KNOW, TONS OF WATER RUNNING DOWN THAT SWALE AND THAT WILL BE DASH AS I SAID, ENERGY DISSIPATED AND GRADING THE SWALE AT A INTERVALS TO MINIMIZE THAT IMPACT. ALL RIGHT. SEE IF I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE WATER IS GOING TO END UP. WHERE WILL THE WATER END UP. YOU'LL SAY IT WILL DISSIPATE IN WHAT DIRECTION. THE ENERGY OF THE WATER WILL BE DISSIPATED. BUT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT -- BECAUSE THIS IS IN AN AREA, WE DON'T TO ATTENUATE THAT WATER, THAT WATER CAN BE LET OUT THROUGH THE MANATEE RIVER AT A SLOWER RATE. IT'S NOT -- WE DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY ATTENUATE IT. ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS SLOW IT DOWN. GOING TO THE RIVER IS IT GOING TO FLOW TO THE LOTS OR WILL THERE BE SWALES. >> THERE WILL BE SWALES ON THE PROPERTY THAT WILL CARRY IT DOWN TO THE RIVER. >> BETWEEN EACH LOT? THAT'S THE WAY YOU PLANNED IT. >> YES. I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND HERE YOU KNOW WHAT -- WHERE IT'S GOING. >> THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A HUGE INCREASE IN THE AREA THE ROADWAY AND HOUSES AND DRIVEWAYS IS PERFECT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SCALE IN COMPARISON TO THE ENTIRE SITE. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF RUN OFFER CREATED FROM IT. FROM IMPERVIOUS AREAS. >> JOHN CRISLIP: SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS LAND IS HIGH ENOUGH SO IT WILL PERCOLATE WELL? >> THERE ARE DIFFERENT METHODS WHERE -- FIRSTLY, THERE'S NO ATTENUATION REQUIRED. ANY REQUIREMENTS WATER QUALITY BE TREATED AND THAT'S IS -- AN NOT A LOT OF WATER. AND THAT CAN BE -- THERE'S A PART THAT NEEDS TO BE TREATED IN THAT A REGARD IS THE ROADWAY AND DRIVEWAY AREA AND IT'S ONLY THAT PART THAT WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SWALES SYSTEM. BECAUSE IT IS A TIDAL BODY, WE CAN DISCHARGE DIRECTLY INTO THE RIVER WITHOUT HAVING TO ATTENUATE THE WATER. >> JOHN CRISLIP: JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONCERN EXPRESSED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THE END OF THE ROADWAY THERE. >> ALSO, THE LOT SPACING -- THE LOTS FACING THE MANATEE RIVER, THE RUNOFF FROM THOSE WILL BE NOT DIRECTLY TO THE SWALES. MINIMIZE THE IMPACT WITH THE WATER ON THE SWALES. THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE FLOOD INSURANCE AND HOW YOU CAN IMPACT. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN YOU KNOW AS FAR AS INTEGRITY OF THE MATERIAL AND ALL THAT, IT WILL BE WITHIN APPLICABLE GUIDELINES TO STAND UP TO THE HURRICANE. ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AREA. ALSO AS MR. WRIGHT POINTED OUT, WE ARE NOT TO THE WEST OF 41, WE'RE TO THE EAST OF 41. SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT REALLY APPLIES TO OUR PROPERTY. >> JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. >> THAT'S ALL, THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. >> MR. CRISLIP, DICK CALLAHAN. A COUPLE COMMENTS IN RESPONSE. AGAIN, WE'RE HIGHLY SENSITIZED SEEING A VERY SPECIAL AREA. AND AGAIN, WE EMPHASIZE HOW MUCH WE WORKED WITH THE COUNTY STAFF TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. IT IS A 15-ACRE SITE THOUGH AND THAT'S SIGNIFICANT IN SEVERAL FACTORS. ONE IS THAT THERE IS A GOPHER TORTOISE POPULATION ON THE SITE. EVERYBODY IS CORRECT. ALL THE DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT HAS BASICALLY ISOLATED THIS POPULATION. THE HABITAT IS THERE ON 8 ACRES, IF YOU TALK TO ANY RESEARCH BIOLOGISTS, THEY'LL TELL YOU THAT A POPULATION ON LESS THAN 25 ACRES IS FRANKLY DOOMED. THE FACT THEY'RE THERE, WE RECOGNIZE IT AND THE APPLICANT, THE OWNER IS MORE THAN WILLING TO MOVE AS MANY IF NOT ALL THE TORTOISES IF THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE KILLING THE TORTOISES BUT THE SIZE OF THIS SITE RESTRICTS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE TORTOISES. LET ME CLARIFY THE TREES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITHIN THE 100-FOOT BUFFER. WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN ALL THE REGISTRATION WITHIN THAT 100-FOOT BUFFER IF THE TREES ARE FIVE INCH OR GREATER DBH. ALL TREES WITHIN THE 50-FOOT BUFFER ARE GOING TO BE MAINTAINED ON BOTH SIDES. THE MILLS BAYOU AND THE RIVERSIDE. THE MITIGATION THAT WILL OCCUR IS ONLY FOR THE TREES WITHIN THAT BUILDING FOOTPRINT, NOT THE ENVELOPE. SO WE THINK WE CAN KEEP IT DOWN AS MUCH AS 5%. JOHN SCHRECENGOST AND OTHERS ARE HELPING US. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO MITIGATE FOR THOSE. IT'S ONLY THOSE WITHIN THE 100-FOOT SETBACK. WITH THE PROTECTED PLANS, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, DR. SHIRLEY DENTON CAN WHO IS A WELL KNOWN ECOLOGIST DID THE SURVEY. THERE ARE NO PROTECTED PLANTS ON THE PROPERTY. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF STORIES ABOUT GOLDEN ASTER. BUT AS FAR AS ENDANGERED AND PROTECTED PLANTS THEY'RE NOT ON THE SITE AND THE SAME THING GOES WITH THAT. WITH AN A 8-ACRE SITE TO MAINTAIN A POPULATION IS FUTILE. WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE NATIVE HABITAT AND WE'VE STATED THAT. THE SHORELINE -- EXCUSE ME. >> JOHN CRISLIP: I HAVE A QUESTION. IT WAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS -- ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS SPIT AS IT WAS DESCRIBED IT WAS LAND WAS -- I MEAN THE SOIL WAS TAKEN OUT THERE AND PUT ON THE SPIT. AND THAT RAISED THE ELEVATION. SO I'M WONDERING HOW MUCH OF THIS HABITAT AND FOLIAGE AND TREES HAS OCCURRED SINCE THE FILL TOOK PLACE. >> WELL THE 8 ACRES USE 8 ACRES I'M USING EVERYTHING THAT HAS GROWN THERE HAS BEEN RETREATED. IT'S PROBABLY AT LEAST 30 IF NOT 40% OF THAT COVER ON THE LOWER AREA WHICH IS THE WESTERN END IS TIMBER WHICH IS AN EXOTIC SPECIES. >> JOHN CRISLIP: BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE PROJECT. >> IT IS. BUT EVERYBODY THAT IS TALKING ABOUT WILDLIFE WHETHER WILDLIFE ON THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. THAT IS THE NATURAL -- AND IT IS. AGAIN, MY POINT IS I WANT SOMETHING -- I APOLOGIZE. THE SHORELINE AND WE ARE VERY TUNED INTO THE SHORELINE PROTECTION AND IN THE PHOTOS THAT WERE SHOWN, I APPRECIATE THOSE AND RESPECT THOSE. AND THE GOAL WILL IN THIS PROJECT IS THAT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. IF YOU'RE SITTING BACK 50 FEET OFF THE WETLAND DELINEATION WHICH IS NOT THE EDGE OF WHERE YOU'RE SEEING VEGETATION, AT 100 FEET WITH ALL THE TREES, THERE WILL BE BUILDINGS THAT ARE 5 INCHES YOU WILL NOT KNOW IF YOU'RE IN THE RIVER YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE MUCH CHANGE ALONG THAT SHORELINE. >> JOHN CRISLIP: NOT TAKING ANYMORE TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT. >> I'D LIKE TO REBUT. >> JOHN CRISLIP: WE CAN'T HAVE REBUTTAL TO REBUTTAL. THE RULES ARE SET UP SO THAT THE PETITIONER HAS THE LAST WORD. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE CONCLUDED OUR EXPERT TESTIMONY. I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE WITH 30 MORE SECONDS TO COVER TWO IMPORTANT POINTS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. THE FIRST POINT IS EARLIER YOU HEARD REFERENCES THAT THE SECTION 4.01.06 SUBPARAGRAPH 6 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION DEALING WITH THE REMOVAL OF TREES ALONG THE RIVERINE SYSTEM. I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT AND MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THIS INSTANCE IS A CONCERTED EFFORT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM WHICH WILL PERMIT THE REASONABLE USE OF THIS PROPERTY. BUT TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT IS SENSITIVE TO THE ECOLOGY OF THE AREA AND SENSITIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AESTHETIC OF THE AREA AND THAT'S WHAT THE CONDITION THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY STAFF ACCOMPLISHES. THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER HAS GONE INTO THIS PROJECT AND REDUCED DENSITY, IDENTIFIED BUILDING ENVELOPES, AND WITHIN THOSE ENVELOPES IT PROVIDED A TREE SURVEY AND WITHIN THAT CONCEPT OF THE ENTIRE TREE POPULATION HAS DEVELOPED A CONDITION WHICH WILL ENSURE THAT WITHIN THAT 100-FOOT SETBACK, WITHIN THAT 100-FOOT AREA WE'RE PROTECTING THE TREES. IF TREES ARE REMOVED, THEY'LL BE REPLACED. WITHIN 50 FEET THERE WILL BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL EASEMENT GRANTED TO EPC WHICH WILL ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF THAT AREA. I THINK THAT IS A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT POINT. AND MY FINAL CLOSING COMMENT LOOKS AT THIS FROM A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE AND THAT IS, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN THROUGH SIGNIFICANT REVIEWS BY STAFF. AND YES, IT HAS TAKEN AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. BUT THAT PERIOD OF TIME HAS RESULTED IN A PROPOSAL THAT HAS REDUCED THE DENSITY AND A PROPOSAL THAT INCORPORATES CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT HAVE LED TO CONCLUSIONS THAT THIS PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT LAND USES THAT HAVE LED TO CONCLUSIONS THAT THIS PROJECT IS SENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HAVE LED TO CONCLUSIONS THAT THIS PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADOPTED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION, OUR EXPERTS HAVE TESTIFIED TO THOSE FACTS TONIGHT MR. CRISLIP AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. HEARING IS CLOSED. >> THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS 13, REZONING APPLICATION. THE REQUEST IS REZONE FROM RFP9 RESIDENTIAL USES STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. I WOULD ASK THAT THE PEOPLE LEAVING PLEASE KEEP YOUR CONVERSATIONS DOWN. >> JOHN CRISLIP: WOULD YOU PLEASE MOVE OUT QUICKLY. >> I WANT TO REZONE MY PROPERTY TO HALF AN ACRE. RSC9 AND CURRENTLY CONTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DUPLEX AND SINGLE LOT. I CONTACTED MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. AND THERE ARE ALSO OTHERS DUPLEXES IN THE AREA. ON FEBRUARY 3RD THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER APPROVED OUR REQUEST TO REZONE TO A TWO ACRES WE NEED THIS REQUEST APPROVED AND WILL RECOGNIZE AND FOLLOW ANY SUGGESTIONS OR CONDITIONS THAT WE MUST MEET. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE STAFF. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M PLANNING GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND AS STATED THE REQUEST IS TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND DUPLEX ON A SINGLE LOT. IN THE MEDIA AREA THERE A ATTACHED AND DETACHED HOUSING. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE APPROVABLE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. >> PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS PLAN OF FUTURE RESIDENTIAL 12 IS LOCATED IN THE TAMPA SERVICE AREA URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE REQUEST FOR THREE DWELLING UNITS ON THIS APPROXIMATELY HALF ACRE PROPERTY WOULD RESULT IN A DENSITY OF APPROXIMATELY 5.8 TO ACRE THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL 12 LAND USE CATEGORY. IT WOULD ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN SERVICE AREA STRATEGY WHICH ENCOURAGES INCREASED DENSITY WITHIN THAT AREA WHERE IT'S ALREADY SERVED WITH INFRASTRUCTURE. THE SURROUNDING AREA INCLUDES SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS TWO FAMILY UNITS, DUPLEXES. THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT WOULD ESSENTIALLY RECOGNIZE THE EXISTING ON THE SITE AND WHICH APPEARS TO BE DESIGNED AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH TWO UNITS IN THE BACK THAT ARE LIKE A GARAGE APARTMENT TYPE OF SITUATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN APPEARANCE OF INTENSE MASSING OR DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY. BASED ON THIS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION? DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? MORE COMMENTS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. WE'LL CLOSE THE HEARING THEN. THANK YOU. >> THE FINAL ITEM TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS 14, REZONING APPLICATION OF 06 -- 0116. THE REQUEST IS REZONED FROM CSC4 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO SPECIALTY RETAIL AND OFFICE USES. >> JOHN CRISLIP: GOOD EVENING MR. CRISLIP, I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF SO WE CAN MAYBE ALL GET SOME DINNER. THIS IS CLAYTON BRICKLEMYER. EAST COUNTY BOULEVARD. THIS IS AN APPROXIMATELY 6-ACRE PIECE AT THE CORNER OF 579 OLD HILLSBOROUGH HIGHWAY, WE'RE PROPOSING TO REZONE FROM RSC4 TO A PD OF YOU CAN SEE THE SITE PLAN. THE PD IS -- WILL BE AN OFFICE PARCEL AND A SPECIALTY RETAIL PARCEL. WE'VE AGREED TO A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS AFTER HAVING LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH STAFF AND WITH THE NEIGHBORS. AND WHAT I HAVE TO SUBMIT TO THE RECORD IS -- ARE SOME PROPOSE PROPOSED CHANGES TO STAFF CONDITIONS THAT I'LL TURN IN WHEN I'M DONE. WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF ON THESE AND I THINK WE ARE IN AGREEMENT ON EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR ONE THING THAT BETTY IS GOING TO SHARE AFTER I'M DONE AND WE'LL AGREE TO. AND THEN THE ONE THING THAT WE HAVE NOT COMPLETELY AGREED UPON IS WE ARE BEING ASKED TO PUT A CONDITION ON THE HOURS OF OPERATION ON THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL. OUR POSITION IS -- >> JOHN CRISLIP: WHAT NUMBER IS THAT? >> WHAT NUMBER IS THE CONDITION? >> JOHN CRISLIP: YES. IT'S 1.2 PARCEL B, IT IS CURRENTLY WHAT YOU HAVE IS THE LAST BULLET POINT. >> JOHN CRISLIP: I SEE IT. >> IF YOU LOOK IN THE CONDITIONS, THE VERY FIRST BULLET POINT, WE'VE DONE SORT OF A STANDARD ELIMINATED THE OBJECTIONABLE USES TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR POSITION WOULD BE SENSE HE WE HAVE OBJECTED OR ELIMINATED THOSE OBJECTIONABLE USES, THAT WE DON'T FEEL IT NECESSARY TO FURTHER LIMIT ANY POTENTIAL USERS THAT WOULD BE IN A SPECIALTY RETAIL VEIN THAT WE'RE SEEKING. FOR EXAMPLE IF WE HAD AN OUTFITTER THAT WANTED TO COME IN AND SELL FISHING RODS AT 5:00 A.M. ON TUESDAY, WE FEEL IT'S UNNECESSARY TO LIMIT SOMEONE THAT WAY AND WE JUST -- IT SHOWS ON MY PROPOSED CHANGES STRUCK THROUGH. SO THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT I THINK WE HAVE ANY CONTENTION ON. BUT I'LL BETTY TO TALK ABOUT IT AND WE ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS PETITION. THANKS. >> JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. BETTY ROBINSON PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF. THE REQUEST TO REZONE A 5.73-ACRE PARCEL FROM RSC4 TO PD AND THE PU IS TO ALLOW 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF ZONING USES AS CONDITIONED AND MAXIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPECIALTY RETAIL USES AS CONDITIONED. THERE ARE NO REVIEWING AGENCY OBJECTIONS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF NOTED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFICE USES ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL HAVE BEEN GRANTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HAS FOUND THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT, COMPATIBLE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL 4. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST APPROVABLE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND AS THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE PENSIONED WE'RE IN AGREEMENT TO CHANGES HE PASSED OUT WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS. >> JOHN CRISLIP: I DON'T THINK I GOT A COPY. >> WE'LL GET YOU A COPY. THAT EXPLAINS WHY YOU WERE ASKING WHAT NUMBER. UNDER WITHIN 1.1, THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT THE PHRASE SAYS IS HOURS BUSINESS IS OPENED TO THE PUBLIC. STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT PROPOSAL. HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT DELIVERY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION ALSO. AND WE PROVIDE THAT TO YOU IN CHANGES. >> JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. >> WE'RE ALSO CHANGING THE 50-FOOT BUILDING MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 35 FEET. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. >> JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. >> I'M SORRY, THAT'S UNDER 1.2. AND THEN, AS CLAY MENTIONED UNDER 1.2, OUR POINT OF DELIBERATION HAS BEEN WITH THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD USES. WE AGREE THAT MOST OF THE USES THAT WOULD NORMALLY REQUIRE THE LATER HOURS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE APPROVED USES. THAT'S WHY WE FEEL THAT IT DOESN'T HURT TO HAVE THESE RESTRICTIONS ON THERE SINCE IT IS TIME AND THERE'S NOT A GREAT AMOUNT OF DENSITY IN THE AREA IT JUST SEEMS PREMATURE TO ALLOW THE 24 HOUR USAGE AT THIS TIME. ALSO WITH THE BUILDINGS HAVING PITCHED ROOF THAT PROPOSED CONDITION WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF AND THE REMAINING PROPOSE THE CONDITIONS I DID NOT GET TO SPEAK WITH THE STORMWATER FOLKS IN OUR TGM DEPARTMENT BUT I HAVE TALKED TO ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES REPRESENTED THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE CHANGES AND THEY'RE ALL IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED CONDITION CHANGES. INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION. >> JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. SO ALL THE OTHERS ARE OKAY. RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> JOHN CRISLIP: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION. >> THANK YOU. THIS SITE HAS A RESIDENTIAL 4 LOCATED THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA OF THE SERVICE AREA. REQUEST IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPECIALTY RETAIL AND 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICES. WOULD MEET THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR 5,000 SQUARE FEET AT THIS INTERSECTION. THE INTERSECTION OF OLD HILL AND 579 WOULD BE LIMITED TO MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE UNDER THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET. AS FAR AS THE OFFICE PORTION ON THE NORTH WAS CONSIDERED UNDER AN EXCEPTION FOR OFFICE USE FOR A TRANSITION FROM COMMERCIAL USES. THE INTERSECTION IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION OFFICE WHICH IS A PUBLIC USE BUT ESSENTIALLY FUNCTIONING LIKE AN OFFICE USE. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF HIGH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION AND AS SUCH THE LIMITATION ON THE USES TO LIMIT THEM TO MORE SPECIALTY RETAIL AND THE COMMERCIAL END AND OFFICE USES WAS SOMETHING THAT STAFF FELT WAS APPROPRIATE. ADDITIONALLY, PROVIDING A TRANSITION TO THE NORTH BY TAPERING DOWN THE USES TO THE OFFICE USES PROVIDING A RESIDENTIAL STYLE STRUCTURE ON THE OFFICE PORTIONS OF THE -- AS WELL AS BUFFERING AND SCREENING WERE ALSO IMPORTANT TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AS THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SITE. ADDITIONALLY WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF REGARDING THE HOURS OF OPERATION LIMITATIONS. SIMPLY THIS IS NOT AN AREA OR AN INTERSECTION WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND A 24 HOUR OPERATIONS WERE OF CONCERN TO US. BASED ON THE CONDITIONS PREPARED BY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF FIND THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION? >> COMMUNITY ALLIANCE. I WANTED TO POINT OUT -- MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION TONIGHT. THE FIRST ONE IS THE PUBLIC NOTICE SIGN. REALLY WAS NOT PLACED PER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT. IT WAS PLACED ON OLD HILL RATHER THAN ON 579. SO ANYBODY THAT WAS -- DIDN'T GO EAST WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN THE SIGN. BUT IT'S JUST A SIDE NOTE HERE. ALSO THE PDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A UNIFIED SITE PLAN. I THOUGHT THE PURPOSE OF A PD IS THAT YOU HAVE A UNIFIED SITE PLAN AND THE PHASES ARE SUPPOSED TO SHOW THE TIMING OF THOSE PHASES. SO I ENCLOSED A COPY OF THAT PORTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN WHAT I'M GOING TO BE SUBMITTING TO THAT IF YOU NEED IT -- LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE IT. AND THAT'S NOT HAPPENING WITH THIS ONE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY'VE BEEN GRANTED THE EXCEPTION BEFORE OR THE PD WAS PUT TOGETHER TO THE EXCEPTION. TO USE THE HOUSE AS A BUSINESS OFFICE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THEIR REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS CORNER. ONE OF THE LOTS IDB I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED. BUT THAT'S ONE OF THOSE FLUKES WHERE ZONING TOOK PLACE, I WOULD IMAGINE BUT IT WAS A HOUSE ORIGINALLY AND IT'S BEEN GONE AND BURNED DOWN FOR MANY YEARS NOW. IT'S AN EMPTY LOT. THE POINTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION BRINGS OUT IN THEIR REPORT TALKS ABOUT YOU SUBSTANTIAL BUILDING SETBACKS, ENHANCED BUFFERING, AND THE HOURS WHICH IS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. AND THE RETENTION POND. NOW THE APPLICANT I SPOKE TO THEM THIS AFTERNOON AND THEY WERE NICE ENOUGH TO PUT A CONDITION IN HERE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE -- THE RETENTION AREA WOULD BE SLOPED. BUT I JUST HAVE TO ADD IN HERE THAT NONE OF THESE -- AS YOU READ THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT, NONE OF THESE SEEM TO GET TRANSLATED OVER TO CONDITIONS IN -- WHICH THEY WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO. AND IT'S A FRUSTRATING PROBLEM FOR US CITIZENS AND LAYPEOPLE OUT HERE THAT WHEN WE SEE THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN PROVIDED THESE ISSUES ARE MET, THEY'RE NEVER EVER REALLY MET BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVER GET TRANSLATED TO THE CONDITIONS. SO I'D ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT THAT AND A MAKE SOME DETERMINATION ON WHAT YOU FEEL IS BEST. BUT -- ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS IS THEY TALK ABOUT THE BUFFERING ALONG 579 AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING CALLING FOR THAT. RIGHT NOW IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOMESTEAD. I HATE TO SEE IT GO. BUT ONCE THEY START HAVING BUSINESS THERE, HE THERE WILL BE CARS AND IT WILL LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT I SUPPOSE. SO THERE'S AMBIVALENCE, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT IT. >> JOHN CRISLIP: DIDN'T SOUND LIKE YOU WERE. >> BUT I UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION. BUT I REALLY DO THINK THAT IT'S NOT -- I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT PREMATURE FOR THE AREA. IT'S NOT A -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING ON ANY OF THE OTHER THREE CORNERS. SO -- >> JOHN CRISLIP: WELL OF COURSE THE PLANT NURSERY IS A COMMERCIAL TYPE OF OPERATION. >> THERE'S A PLANT NURSERY FURTHER UP THE STREET, THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S NO PLANT NURSERY UP THERE. YOU TALKING ABOUT THE COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE? >> JOHN CRISLIP: NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE NORTHWEST CORNER. >> THERE'S NO PLANT NURSERY THERE. >> JOHN CRISLIP: MY AERIAL PHOTO SHOWS SOMETHING FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL THERE. >> THE NORTHWEST CORNER. >> JOHN CRISLIP: YEP. >> THERE USED TO BE AN ORANGE GROVE THERE. IT'S AN EMPTY LOT AND IT BELONGS TO THE CHURCH. >> JOHN CRISLIP: AM I LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING? WAIT A MINUTE. THERE'S TWO OF THESE THAT ALMOST LOOK ALIKE. I'M SORRY. I'M LOOKING AT DIFFERENT AERIAL PHOTO. I'LL FIND THIS ONE. YEAH. >> ALTHOUGH MY HUSBAND WOULD PROBABLY SAY THE SAME THING. >> JOHN CRISLIP: MY AERIAL PHOTOS AREN'T IN THE RIGHT PLACE BECAUSE I JUST GOT THEM TODAY. THE ONES I CAN READ THAT IS. NO, THAT'S AN ORANGE GROVE, YOU'RE RIGHT. >> IT BELONGS TO A CHURCH. ALL THAT PROPERTY BELONGS TO A CHURCH AND RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST EMPTY. ANYWAY, SO I WOULD TAKE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE BUFFERING ON THE SCREEN BECAUSE PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE RESIDENTS WHO ARE GOING TO LIVE BEHIND WHERE THE PARKING IS GOING TO BE, AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THAT 579 IS A FAILING ROADWAY. THIS INTERSECTION IS A FAILING INTERSECTION. THE COUNTY HAS PUT IT ON THEIR NEEDS AND WANTS LISTS FOR TRAFFIC LIGHT. IT'S A VERY DANGEROUS CORNER BUT OF COURSE IT'S UNFUNDED AND HIGHWAY 92 -- SO WE HAVE ALL ROADS LEADING INTO OUR AREA THAT ARE FAILING BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE IS AT WHAT POINT DO THE LANDSCAPING AND ANYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE BUSINESS OFFICE TRIGGER? I MEAN, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY THERE AND THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH OUR AREA, I'VE BEEN HERE OTHER NIGHTS SAYING THE SAME THING. BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY THERE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GET A CO AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO TRIGGER THE DOUBLE-CHECK THAT THOSE THINGS ARE IN PLACE. SO HOW WILL THAT GO ABOUT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE RETAIL PORTION IS APPARENTLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. THERES NO INTENTION RIGHT NOW TO DEVELOP IT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I THINK I'M RIGHT. I'M ALWAYS RIGHT. MY HUSBAND WILL TELL YOU THAT. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THEY'D HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO CONVERT THE RESIDENCE INTO AN OFFICE AND THAT WILL TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT. >> THEY ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THAT PERMITTING PROCESS. IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT TYPICALLY IN THESE THINGS THAT THERE'S VIOLATIONS IT'S A CODE ENFORCEMENT THING BASED ON FOLKS TURNING THEM IN BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT COUNTY IS GOING OUT THERE MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING'S UP TO CODE IF THE PERSON DOES IT ON THEIR OWN, COME IN AND SUBMIT THE PERMITS THE WAY THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, I THINK HER CONCERN IS ABOUT -- THIS IS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD ACTOR THAT CHOOSES NOT TO GET THE PERMITS HE KNOWS HE NEEDS TO GET. AND SHE'S RAISED THIS ISSUE AND I'VE HAD CONVERSATION WITH MY SUPERVISORS ABOUT THAT, ABOUT LOOKING TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT. AND POTENTIALLY THROUGH CONDITIONS THAT DIRECT THAT BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT CONCERN AND THAT IS A PROBLEM FOR CERTAIN BUSINESSES OUT THERE THAT JUST CHOOSE NOT TO COME IN FOR PERMITTING. AGAIN IF SOMEBODY CITES THEM, THIS IS A DISCONNECT THERE. >> LET ME CLARIFY ONE THING, I KNOW EVERYBODY'S TIRED AND SO AM I. TO USE THAT HOUSE, THEY WILL NOW -- IF THE REZONING IS APPROVED, TO USE THAT HOUSE AS A BUSINESS OFFICE, THEY WILL HAVE TO GET A PERMIT. >> THEY'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH SITE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S BEING USED AS A HOUSE RIGHT NOW. THE OFFICE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE A BUFFERING AND SCREENING AGAINST THE ARE RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S PARTNER REQUIREMENTS AND THOSE ARE GOING TO TRIGGER RETENTION REQUIREMENTS AND SO ALL THOSE THINGS -- SO YES. THEY HAVE TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO GET A PERMIT. BUT YOU'RE CORRECT THAT IF YOU KNOW IF SOMEBODY JUST I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN FOR BUSINESS NO ONE COMPLAINS, PER THE REQUIREMENTS THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL THOSE AND GET CONSTRUCTION PERMITS TO CONVERT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. >> OKAY. THERE BY THE NEED FOR PERHAPS LOOKING AT THE SCREENING ELEMENT A LITTLE BIT HARDER AND MAKING SURE THEY COMPLY WITH WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAYS MAKES IT CONSISTENT. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, IT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULDN'T BE CONSISTENT. SO I HOPE YOU'LL TAKE ALL THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. >> JOHN CRISLIP: LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED -- YOU QUESTIONED WHETHER THIS WAS A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE CODE. AND IT DOES SEEM TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO PARCELS. DIFFERENT FROM THE EXISTING PARCEL LINES THAT ARE IN THERE, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT PURPOSES THAT WAS WHEN YOU LOOK AT SITE PLAN. BUT OF COURSE IT'S UNIFIED BY THE INTERIOR DRIVEWAY CONNECTING TO IT. >> THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER DRIVEWAY COMING ON THE SIDE STREET. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THERE WILL BE ACCESS TO BOTH. >> I THINK IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND MAYBE MELISSA, YOU COULD BE TOTALLY WRONG. BUT I THINK THAT IN ORDER TO GET -- TO BE ABLE TO USE THE HOUSE, FOR THE BPO, THEY HAVE TO DO SOME SORT OF LARGER PLAN IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE EXCEPTION TO THE CRITERIA. I -- I HOPE I'M -- I MEAN, I DON'T REALLY LIKE THAT PROCESS, I THINK IT'S PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. AND HEY, I'M JUST A HOUSEWIFE, WHAT DO I KNOW? IT JUST SEEMS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG, BUT, IF STAFF SAYS THEY CAN DO IT, THEY CAN DO IT. BUT IT DOESN'T MEET THE INTENT OF A PD, I DON'T BELIEVE. >> JOHN CRISLIP: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE -- >> YEAH, IT'S NOT REALLY A UNIFIED. >> JOHN CRISLIP: I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN CONTROL THAT. >> I DO BELIEVE THE INTENT OF IT WAS THAT OUR ORIGINAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT WERE REGARDING AN OFFICE IN THE HOUSE AND THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT WAS TO BRING IT IN AS A LARGER PLAN DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE AS A STAND ALONE OFFICE IN THAT HOUSE, IT WOULDN'T HAVE MET THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, IT WOULD IS HAVE BEEN PREMATURE GIVEN THAT THE CORNER WAS NOT DEVELOPED. SO THAT'S WHY THEY -- I BELIEVE OUR -- >> JOHN CRISLIP: HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE SPA? THE CORNER ISN'T DEVELOPED ON THAT ONE. >> THE SPA IS AN ISOLATED SPOT IN BETWEEN TWO -- I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT PROPERTY. >> JOHN CRISLIP: WELL THE CORNER IS STILL NOT -- IT'S NOT ON THE CORNER. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> CERTAINLY THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT INSTANCE IS THAT THE PROPERTY THAT THE SPA WAS GOING TO BE LOCATED ON WAS WITHIN THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OF -- AND THIS OFFICE IS BEYOND. >> JOHN CRISLIP: SO THIS WAS AN EXCEPTION THAT YOU MADE -- YOU MADE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE DISTANCE. >> CORRECT. >> JOHN CRISLIP: I SEE. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO GET THAT STRAIGHT. I'M LEARNING ALL THE TIME. >> AREN'T WE ALL? IT'S EVER EVOLVING, I MUST SAY. ANYWAY, I GUESS I'M FINISHED BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULD LOOK AT BEFORE MAKING YOUR DECISION. ON RECOMMENDATION OR DENIAL. YOUR INTENT IS VERY GOOD. BUT THE ISSUE IS IT MAY NOT -- THEY MAY NOT BE THERE FOR EVER. SO -- WHICH IS LIKELY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE THERE FOR EVER. WHO IS? BUT I MEAN YOU KNOW THINGS CHANGE HANDS ALL THE TIME AND THEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE IS GOING TO -- WHILE ONE HAS GOOD INTENTIONS, WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY WHILE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. SO I HOPE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT I'M JUST NOT A CROTCHETY OLD LADY. >> JOHN CRISLIP: THANK YOU. I GUESS NOBODY ELSE WISHED TO -- YOU ARE WISHING TO TESTIFY -- ALL RIGHT. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >> REAL QUICKLY BEFORE THE APPLICANT COMES UP, I DID WANT TO ADDRESS HER CONCERN ABOUT SOME IS OF THE THINGS IN OUR STAFF REPORT NOT BEING IN THE CONDITIONS. WE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH MISS ROBINSON ON THE CONDITIONS AND I THINK THROUGH THE COMBINATION OF THE SITE PLAN AND THE CONDITIONS, MOST OF WHAT IS IN OUR STAFF REPORT IS COVERED BECAUSE THE LOCATION OF THE BUD INVOLVE ON THE PROPERTY BUILDING ENVELOPE ESSENTIALLY THE LARGER SETBACK, THE LOCATION OF THE PARKING LOT NOT BEING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THERE IS A CONDITION IN THERE THAT SAYS IN THIS -- FOR PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT THAT THE BUILDING SHALL BE LOCATED GENERALLY AS THEY ARE ON THE SITE PLAN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MODIFICATIONS TO AVOID IMPACTS ON MATURE TREES. SO I THINK BETWEEN THE CONDITIONS ADDRESSING THE HOURS OF OPERATIONS, THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE, AS WELL AS THE LIMITATIONS ON USES, THE SITE PLAN AND THEN THE TYPICAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT BUFFERING AND SCREENING THAT MUCH OF WHAT IS IN OUR STAFF REPORT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. SO THE ONE AREA THAT I THINK ONE OR TWO AREAS THAT CERTAINLY THERE WERE ENHANCED BUFFERING AND SCREENING AS SUGGESTION CERTAINLY THAT YOU CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOVE THE CODE AS WELL AS ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ALONG THE ROADWAYS IS THERE WAS SOMETHING BEYOND THE CODE THAT YOU THOUGHT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, THAT'S CERTAINLY IN YOUR PURVIEW. >> JOHN CRISLIP: LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION. MAYBE I HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT. BUT THE CHANGE IN THE PROPOSED PARCEL LINE TO INCLUDE PROPERTY THAT'S BEHIND THE COMMERCIAL WITH AN A OFFICE, WAS THAT NECESSARY TO GET THE PROPER SQUARE FOOTAGE OR WHAT? WHY WAS THAT ADDED TO THAT NORTHERN PARCEL? >> I'M NOT SURE I'M CLEAR ON WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. >> JOHN CRISLIP: WELL IF YOU LOOK ON THAT PARCEL THAT'S JUST EAST OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL, IT SAYS, "PROPOSED PARCEL LINE" AND IT SHOWS IT GOING DIAGONALLY UP TO THE SOUTHERN PARCEL AND THEN INCLUDING ALL OF THE NORTHERN PARCEL AND THEN THE MOST OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF BOTH PARCELS. >> I DON'T THINK THAT RELATED TO ANYTHING. >> JOHN CRISLIP: INCORPORATING THAT WHAT WAS PART OF THE SOUTHERN PARCEL. >> I THINK THE QUESTION WOULD BE BEST FOR THE APPLICANT. >> YEAH, I MEAN, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IT'S JUST A DEVELOPED PARCEL FOR THE OFFICE PORTION OF IT. >> A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE LOT AREA WAS REQUIRED FOR THE SIZE OF THE OFFICE. WHAT THE REASON WAS. >> I WILL POINT OUT THIS IS CLAY BRICKLEMYER AGAIN, THAT PORTION IS ALL BUFFER. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN. JUST TALK ABOUT THE PLANNING -- I MEAN, WE'RE ALL LOOKING AROUND AT EACH OTHER, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY COMES UP WITH ANY REASON THAT LINE WAS DRAWN THAT WAY OTHER THAN -- YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL THAT YOU REFERENCED EARLIER THERE ARE A LOT OF TREES THERE AND WE'RE GOING TO BE PRESERVING. >> JOHN CRISLIP: I DIDN'T KNOW WHY IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE NORTHERN PARCEL. >> NOT SURE. AM I IN MY REBUTTAL TIME? >> JOHN CRISLIP: GO AHEAD. >> CLAY BRICKLEMYER: SPECIFICALLY WITH CONDITIONS, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION BETTY BROUGHT UP DELIVERY HOURS IN THE OFFICE ON 1.1 AND WE'RE FINE WITH THAT. THAT WAS -- >> JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. >> WE ARE STILL NOT AGREEING ON THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL WHICH IS THE 1.2 CONDITION. >> JOHN CRISLIP: YEAH. OKAY. >> AND I WILL SAY AS PART OF THE 579 ROAD FRONTAGE BOUT FICTION IF YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE CONDITIONS WE ARE GOING TO BE DEDICATING SOME RIGHT OF WAY, SO THIS SITE PLAN IS GOING TO CHANGE SOME IS WHAT AND AT THAT POINT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT ROAD FRONTAGE SO WE'LL HAVE NEW BOUT FICTION ISSUES. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, THAT'S IT. >> JOHN CRISLIP: OKAY. YOU HAVE ROOM FOR THE DEDICATION WITH THE RETENTION AREA THERE. WELL THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM. I'LL JUST CLOSE THE HEARING. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. 1