Board of County Commissioners: Land Use Meeting - 07.21.26

Welcome to the works. We're going behind the scenes with Hillsborough County's Temporary Traffic Control to find out how they plan, manage, and monitor our roadways and traffic, all while keeping the county running smooth. TTC is critical to the safety of the roadway in Hillsborough County. We're making sure that that work zone is set effectively so that it provides the safe traveling path for the persons that are driving through that work zone. July 21st, 2026, Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners Land Use Meeting. Everyone please rise for the pledge and invocation. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for one nation, under God, indivisible. Heavenly Father, thank you for this beautiful day and for all the blessings you've bestowed upon us. Please guide and direct this board today so we will make decisions that are in the best interest of the residents of Hillsborough County. We ask this in your name. Amen. Before we get started, I want to read into the record from Commissioner Gwen Myers. Please ensure that the information about my absence is read into the official record. I will not be able to attend the reference meeting as I will be out of the office on vacation. Then also from Commissioner Cameron Cepeda, please be advised that I will be unable to attend today's BOCC land use meeting as I am not feeling well. Please read the reason for my absence into the record. Thank you. Okay. With two commissioners absent, Joanne, you want to review the board's continuance policy for the applicants? Yes. Under the board's procedures, in the event that there are only five board members present at the land use meeting, applicants will have the opportunity to continue their item to a future land use meeting. So you'll need to make that election applicants at the time that you come up to the podium for your presentation. All right. Thank you. Mr. Grady, I want to review the changes of the agenda. Good morning, Commissioners. Brian Grady, Hillsborough County Development Services. In addition to the published withdrawals, continuance, and remands on page three of the agenda, I have the following changes of the agenda on page four, item B2, rezoning PD 26-0217, revisions to condition one to provide consistency in terminology with the same, the terms of the site plan. Second change is on page 11 of the item, item E1, PRS 26-0173, additional party records have been added to the backup. Next change is on page 12, the agenda item E3, PRS 26-0868, additional party records have been added to the backup. Next change is on page 14, item F1, rezoning PD 26-0338, the revised report to correct discriminator's errors to the acreage and maximum unit counts for the existing zoning districts in the table shown on the first page of the report, and also corrections on roadway names for condition 15, dealing with required transportation improvements. The final, and then on page 16, item G1A, rezoning PD 25-1386, revised planning commission report cover page and future land use map to correct discriminator's error to include folio 79525-0250 on those, on the map in their cover page. We also have an additional change of the agenda. We received a communication last night from the applicant for agenda item E5, PRS 26-0926, requesting to withdraw this application. So, again, agenda E5, PRS 26-0926, request to withdraw that application. All right, motion to approve. Move approval. Second. Motion to Commissioner Wollstall, second Commissioner Cohen, approve the change of the agenda. Please record your vote. Motion carried 5-0. Now can we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Motion to Commissioner Wollstall, second Commissioner Cohen, please record your vote on the consent agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Okay, anyone here for a B item, the application's been approved. If you're planning on testifying today, would you please stand and raise your right hand so the clerk can swear you in? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Grady, on the vacating public hearing portion, I'm going to introduce the first item. Commissioner, the first item is an item C1, vacate, petition 26-001. Real estate services will present this item. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with facilities management and real estate services. Item C1 today is vacate ID V26-0001. This is a petition by Alexandra and Justin Smith to vacate a platted public drainage easement located at 18335 Serene Lake Loop in Lutz and consisting of approximately 404.5 square feet. The subject drainage easement was dedicated through the plat of Lake Pearl as recorded in plat book 146, page 147, and is generally located west of U.S. Highway 41 and east of North Dale Mabry Highway. The petitioner submitted this request to allow for construction of a patio and fence on their property. Although county policy PWD-0001.0 2016 generally restricts the vacating of drainage easements, Public Works does not object to the vacate request because there is no county drainage infrastructure in the vacate area and the privately maintained drainage pipe is located in the parcel to the east. All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. Thank you for your consideration and I can answer any questions. I thank you. This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to speak to the item? Seeing none, can we have a motion? No of approval. Second. Motion to Commissioner Cohen, second to Commissioner Wollstall. Please call your vote on C1. Motion carried with 5-0. C2. The next item is in item C2, vacate petition 26-0011. For the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Real Estate Services. Item C2 today is vacate ID V26-0011. This is a petition by Allah, Abuqarah, and Nisreen Almagatha to vacate a portion of unimproved platted public right-of-way consisting of approximately 1,050 square feet. The subject right-of-way was dedicated through the plat of Plan of Mango as recorded in Deedbook K, page 500, and is generally located south of East Martin Luther King Boulevard and west of County Road 579 in Seffner, Mango. The petitioner submitted this request to allow for establishment of a motor vehicle dealership with gates surrounding the property that can close during non-business hours. Reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. Thank you for your consideration, and I can answer any questions. At this public hearing, anyone would like to speak to C2? Move approval. Second. I have a motion for approval, Commissioner Cohen. Second, Commissioner Wollstall. Please record your vote. Motion carried with 5-0. Okay, Mr. Grady, on the E items. Commissioner, the next item is in item E1 is PRS application 26-0173. This is a request for modern modification to a 9.86-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Interstate 75 and the Gibson and Drive interchange in the Riverview-Gibsonton area. Commissioner's request is to modify setbacks associated with permitted hotel use in the property. The applicant is modifying a requirement for additional 2-to-1 setback for structure height over 20 feet to change that to a 1-to-1 setback for structure height over 20 feet. They are also increasing the minimum setback for any buildings from 30 to 40 feet and also requesting modification to parking standards to modify the number of spaces per guest room. Staff has reviewed this and recommending approval, and we're available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant here? Morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Mark Bentley, 400 North Ashley Drive, Tampa, 33602. I represent the applicant. As staff indicated, we're seeking some minor adjustments to setbacks. It's about a 10-acre tract of the northeast quadrant of Gibsonton Drive, and I-75 is approved for a hotel, storage, and a marina. We're seeking these minor adjustments to the setbacks, and in conjunction with that, the county asked us to, because of the access road, it's called Alifaya Preserve, is the only access to our property. At present time, it's a private road, and it's soon to be dedicated by the adjacent developer, but the road is substandard in respect to many items, including curbing, crosswalks, and things like that. So the county requested that my client assume those obligations, which we agreed to, and those are conditions of the approval today, if it's approved. So if you have any questions, certainly I'll try to answer them. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? I believe one person is on virtual. That's in opposition of Mr. Scaglione. Is he still on the line? Go ahead, sir. I need my paper. Mr. Scaglione, go ahead with your comment. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. We'd like to just state that we've worked everything out with the roads with the county, and the only thing that we'd like to see if we could add to the conditions is that the three roads, Alifaya Preserve Avenue, Fern Hill Drive, and the north-south access be actually dedicated within six months because we've had some delays in this occurring with the county, and we'd like that condition added to the applicant's requirements. Can you state your name for the record, please? On 309 South New Jersey, Tampa, Florida is my home address. Please state your name. Please state your name. I'm sorry. I'm having a little difficulty hearing the— Please state your name, sir. Ronald E. Scaglione. All right. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? All right, Mr. Bentley, you have an opportunity to respond? Sure, and this might be something the staff might want to talk about, but in any event, once there's a dedication, there's a trigger for my client to make these enhancements that I mentioned early on. And I don't know if that's going to work with the timing that the county has in mind, but I'll turn it over to Adam. Commissioner, to that requested condition, we are in agreement with the concept. We would like the road to be dedicated. We're prepared to accept it. We've worked with the applicant to identify the improvements that are necessary to the road once the county accepted it, and those are conditions of zoning. I will note that the road dedication is an off-site condition that would be subject of Mr. Scaglione's PD, so it is the intent that we accept and have the road dedicated. We're happy to hear that Mr. Scaglione is interested in making that dedication. I'll just note that if a condition is put on this zoning for that dedication to occur, it's not something that this zoning or this owner could control because it would be an off-site condition. Understood. All right, thank you. Commissioner Wollstuhl? I just, I, developers voluntarily accepting burdens that they create is not only encouraged but happily received, so I'll move for approval. We've got a motion to approve. Commissioner Wollstuhl, seconded Commissioner Miller. I don't see anyone else in the queue. Please record your vote on E1. Motion carried 5-0. Thank you. Have a good day. All right, next item. Commissioner, the next item is in the item E2, is PRS application 26.0798. This is a parcel, a .64-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Lithia Pinecrest in Lithia Center Lane. The request is to modify front yard setbacks and building height for the building in parcel one. It was discovered, suspended into construction that was constructed in non-compliance required setbacks, so they were seeking to conform the setbacks and the zonings to the actual location of the building. Staff is recommending approval when in real for any questions. Thank you. The applicant here. Morning, sir. Good morning, commissioners. Craig Taraski, 360 Central Avenue, Suite 500, St. Petersburg, representing the applicant. As staff mentioned, this is just to clean up some non-conformities that were identified during a recent transaction. Sale of the property. This is a portion of a previously approved PD. We're just asking to increase the allowable building height by a foot and to reduce the front setback to Lithia Pinecrest Road to what's existing today. All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments. Anyone here in support? Anyone in opposition? Can we have a motion? Move. Second. Motion, Commissioner Miller. Second, Commissioner Wostel. Please record your vote. For current, 530. The next item is general item E3, PRS application 26-0868. This is a minor modification of the PD located on the west side of Nixon Road, north of Nixon Road and Lynn Road intersection on the west side of the street. The request is to modify screening requirements. Presently, the conditions provide would allow for a PVC or wood fence screening. This is to add in the ability to have an additional precast concrete panel as an option for required screening. Staff is recommending approval when we're available for any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Dr. Campo, Campo Engineering. Obviously, this is pretty clear what we're looking for. We just want to add this type of fence material, which would be like a faux concrete. It wasn't in the original PD, so pretty much simple as that. Any questions, we're here available. Thank you, sir. Sure. Anyone here in support? Anyone in opposition? Committee on motion? So moved. Motion, Commissioner Wostel. Second, Commissioner Miller. Please record your vote on E3. Motion, Calvary, 5-2-0-E4. Commissioner, next item is in item E4, Pierce, application 26-0880. This is a request for a modification of PD located on the west side of Kinnon Street, just south of the Bilbo County or Pasco County border. The request is to modify rear yard setbacks to 10 feet for 14 lots, which are located internal to the project, as noted on the site plan. Staff is recommending approval. We're vote for any questions. Thank you. I'm looking here. Good morning, Commissioners. Wilson Molloy, 325 South Boulevard. I would only add to this that we haven't done anything wrong yet. This is prescriptive in nature. We're trying to get in front of these rear setbacks. That's all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Move approval. Second. Motion to approve. Commissioner Cohen. Second, Commissioner Wostel. Please record your vote on E4. Motion carried. 5-0. E5. Next, Commissioner's E5 was, as noted to them, to change the agenda was withdrawn, so we'll go to E6. E6 is PRS application 26-0950. This is a request to modify a parcel on the west side of Bellshell Road, a 0.24-acre parcel within the larger PD. The request is to reduce front yard setbacks from 15 to 12 feet. During the construction of the building on the property, we've discovered that the parcel is being, the building is being constructed 12 feet and said that require 15 feet. Staff has no issues or concerns with the three-foot encroachment and is recommending approval when we're able for any questions. Thank you. I thank you. Is the applicant here? Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Scott Pressman, 200, 2nd Avenue South, number 451, St. Petersburg. This would be just for a small three-foot area for just a very small partial part of the plan. I do have an email from the abutting owner in support. Staff indicates that they see no discernible difference or impacts. And as I checked online, there is no one that has filed any letter or communication in opposition. So being that this is a very small area and is not discernible to the public, we would ask the commissioners review and approval. Thank you. I thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Move approval. Second. Motion to approve. Commissioner Cohen. Second Commissioner Willstall. Please record your vote on E6. Motion carried 5-2-0. Okay. Go to F items. This is the next item, the general item F1 rezoning PD 26-0338. This is a request to rezone 11.4 three-acre parcel located on the east side of Williams Road. The request is to rezone to a planned development to allow for 49 single-family homes with access to Williams Road and emergency access to the south to a local residential, local road. Staff is recommending approval and planning commission found the request consistent in here also recommended approval. We'll avail for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. The applicant here. Good morning. Kami Corot with the law firm of Hill, Ward, and Henderson. I don't have anything additional to add right now. If there are any further comments or questions, I'm happy to answer them. All right. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Any commission? Thank you for the record. Melissa Leinhard, planning commission staff. The subject property is located within the residential 6 future land use category. The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Brandon community plan. The site is partially vacant with one single-family residential home, with the majority of the surrounding uses being residential in nature and largely single-family. The proposed request for 49 single-family detached homes would be compatible with the area's existing development pattern. Future land use section policy 3.1.2 encourages gradual transitions of intensities and densities between different land uses. The land uses directly adjacent to the site are residential in nature, consistent with the proposed use of the site. The proposed 4.31 dwelling units per gross acre and a future land use category allowing consideration up to 6 dwelling units per gross acre provides a gradual transition in density from the high-density townhomes to the west and the lower-density single-family detached units to the east. The suburban character district of the Brandon community plan is a primarily residential area with a wide range of residential building types, such as single-family, detached and attached, and townhouses. The majority of this district is single-family detached, which aligns with the proposed request for 49 single-family detached lots. Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by Development Services. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Zony Haring-Baster reviewed the request and found it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code and recommended approval. Okay, Microcyon, F1. Motion carried, 5-0. F2. The next item is item F2 rezoning PD 26-0426. This is a request to rezone a 22.8-acre parcel located on the north side of Gunn Highway, just east of the Veterans Expressway. the request is rezoned to allow for 346 unit multifamily parcel buffering screening and and compliance setbacks are provided adjacent to the single family of the east including the two to one setback they are requesting a flex of the of the adjacent res 12 plan category res 20 plan category as part of this staff is recommending approval planning mission funding consistent in hearing officer also recommended approval we'll be able for any questions thank you thank you the applicant here good morning Elise Basil Stearnsweaver Miller 401 East Jackson Street we're available to answer questions if you have our entire development team and all of our consultants are here all right thank you thank you any proponent testimony morning sir good morning I'm Jeffrey Berger 2913 West San Nicolas Street Tampa Florida and I am the immediate past president of the Tampa JCC season Federation the nonprofit entity that owns the property which is the subject of this rezoning application both I and my organization strongly support this rezoning application we hope you will approve it we made the very difficult decision to close our campus after 35 years of operation we learned that the highest and best use for this property today is multifamily residential many companies wanted the opportunity to redevelop the property for that purpose we chose Flournoy in large part because of how thoughtful deliberate and considerate they were with their planning and design for the property unlike some developers we spoke with Flournoy's team designed a site plan that carefully balanced the development with the impact that would result from that development relative to both the community and the environment Flournoy intentionally reduced both the unit density and the building height in the areas of the property closest to the homes to our east they place the recreational facilities the areas that could generate the most noise closest to gun highway and away from the neighboring residential areas they preserve the lakes and some of the green space in the north that provide wildlife habitat these are all deliberate and considerate decisions that Flournoy made to balance the inherent tension between development and impact as a result Flournoy's project will impact the adjoining property owners less than our use of the property did and certainly less than if we utilize the property to the full capacity to which we are currently entitled today our pool and our tennis courts are located near the residences to our east and we learned during development meetings during neighborhood meetings that that has been an irritant to them but when Flournoy relocates the recreation of facilities away from the eastern property line the issues we created for our neighbors will go away moreover the change in use of the property from a community center preschool day camp and assisted living facility to a residential project will reduce traffic this is already quantified in the agency review summary that you have but it bears repeating a residential project with 346 units will generate less traffic impact than we did with our various uses commissioners many of you are already familiar with our nonprofit organization so I spent and won't spend much time talking about it but I want to make three quick observations first if you approve Flournoy's rezoning request and they close their purchase the sale proceeds we receive will be used for purposes consistent with our mission which as you know won't just benefit the Jewish community will benefit the broader community as well second although not specifically related to the rezoning I want to mention that despite our sale the Cone campus our organization is continuing to offer programs for Jewish and non-Jewish people in the north part of the county we have recently leased space in the Dale Mabry and Fletcher Avenue area and are already offering programs there especially for our amazing Parkinson's initiative we hope to be able to expand that initiative because of the significant difference it is making in the lives of so many people in our community and finally to state the obvious today this land is exempt from property taxes because it is owned by a nonprofit but once the property is rezoned and Flournoy acquires it this property will become taxable again which we all know will be of significant benefit to the county especially if the new property tax constitutional amendment is adopted in November for these reasons and more that I don't have time to talk about I urge you to approve Flournoy's rezoning petition thank you very much thank you mr. burgh anyone here in opposition planning commission the subject property is located within the residential for future land use category the site is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the residential for future land use category the site is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within limits of the greater Carrollwood Northdale community plan within the general area of the subject property there is a mix of single-family and multi-family uses with light commercial heavy commercial and public quasi-public uses oriented along gun highway there's a large pocket of commercial uses to the west of the site and the veterans expressway with the land uses to the east of the veterans where the subject property is located being predominantly residential in nature accordingly the proposed multi-family development is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3 the applicant is provided information addressing all portions of the flex provision as outlined under future land use section policy 2.2.4 the applicant provided an analysis for the adequacy and capacity of public facilities and found there were no deficiencies in the water wastewater stormwater parks and solid waste facilities additionally the second criterion is addressed via the applicant site design by providing enhanced buffering along the eastern boundary abutting the existing single family uses and by providing a gradual increase in height starting with one story garages near the eastern boundary and increasing to four stories as the buildings are placed more centrally into the western portions of the site lastly the applicant provided information on the future land use section effort centers and connections policies 2.4 1 and 2.5 1 which prioritize prioritize centers and connections for redevelopment and promote diversification of housing types to allow for households of varying ages demographics and income levels the utilization of the flex provision on a site that is located within a centers and connections area to allow for a broader range of housing types furthers the goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan based upon those considerations planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services thank you hearing master the zoning hearing master reviewed the request and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the land development code and the recommendation was for approval all right thank you move approval motion to approve commissioner cohen's and commissioner wilstle please call your vote on f2 motion carried five to zero three commissioner's next item agenda item f3 is major modification 26-0551 uh this is a request to modify a portion of the plan development located at southwest corner sinclair hills road and livingston avenue uh this modification is dealing with a 0.86 parcel located along the front of uh of uh sinclair hills as you can see by this the pd also incorporates parcels three parcels the south of the property with front of john livingston the app is requesting the modify allowed uses on this parcel to provide for 6 000 square feet of uh seeing use commercial neighborhood uses with restrictions those restrictions including no gas sales and no drive-throughs of any type uh the applicant as part of this is is located the buildings uh located towards uh the corner of the intersection and as per has provided enhanced buffering and screening to mitigate for impacts uh based on those considerations staff is recommending approval the planning which found it consistent in here also also recommended approval and we're available for any questions thank you all right thank you uh the applicant here thank you mr chairman commissioners todd pressman 200 2nd avenue south number 451 in st petersburg this is major mod 260551 glad to report to you that we have all approvals planning commissions consistent development services meets locational criteria no agency objections and the zoning hearing master as well supports this request generation the issue is that we sought to split the original pd some of the owners had a falling out of some sort i'm the agent representative for the part of the application before today now importantly commissioners this came before you prior which were done which was denied so what we did was we went back and looked at the exact minutes and concerns of the commission and quite frankly my wife accused me a lot of not listening but in this case we listened very carefully we went through exactly what the concerns were and if she's listening she'd be very proud of me because we listened and responded to the commissioners concerns very closely so we're in the loose area 0.90 acres as indicated here property appraiser shows it at sinclair hills and livingston avenue these are the two parcels before you today the issue is to remove the dry cleaners allow 6 000 square feet of restricted commercial neighborhood low uses that's the lowest commercial category professional services health practitioner uses we've enhanced the buffers and prohibited some uses that would be a difficulty now the site propose you could propose today have restrictions and eliminations from the denied application that you denied some time ago we removed the two food trucks which was 1200 square feet clean the property up cg and cn uses all are now cn uses in professional office three buffer and screen variations we've reduced that to two because variations were a concern and removal variation against the residential so we looked at the transcript very closely primarily commissioners wallstone commissioner cone had the direction was that placing the commercial business on top of the homeowner was not a good direction uh you both directed in that regard and as well the food trucks being removed we addressed and removed all those and changed all those so much so and i'm sorry as well the zhm recognized the same thing replaced the commercial business on top of the owners and concerns of those impacts so with that we brought it back to the staff who approved it to come back sooner than the one year so they agreed with the changes that were significant and different so this is the current oh six approval which included the 3 500 square foot dry cleaners so you have just the portion at the top the other part is not included it's still part of the existing pd but it's not here today the only opposition that we've had has come from the pd owners that's not included today so again today's pd is across sinclair the other pd stays the same no changes and i want to place emphasis again that the only opposition we have are from the pd owners who are a part of the pd in that green area so looking at the site the site is on the left there's a gas station mobile gas station across the street this is the site now you can see it has been cleaned up food trucks are gone in fact the zhm has in the record those have all been cleaned up and removed and here's some better pictures of the cleanup for you so on the prior pd we had the food trucks we had heavy commercial and a lot of variations to reduce buffers so what we've done is remove that variation against the residential move the food trucks and change the uses the cn and again adjacent residential much better no variation that was a critical component and modify we even increased and enhanced the uh buffer uh near the corner the activity whatever there would be in the cn would be focused away both on both roadways not to the rear it's important to note that the existing pd which still part of this is primarily retention in terms of the uses abutting and adjacent each other as you can see the pd notes retention and parking so we don't see any impacts in regard to the pd of the same owners of the pd so we have two letters in opposition of the pd owners and as our understanding they also own the gasoline station across the street that's what or i should say it appears that they operate the gas station across the street to the best of our understanding plenty notes um we are providing a buffer from adjacent providing a buffer to adjacent residential uses as i've shown you development services notes the enhanced buffering and screening um is recognized nearby against the residential parcels uh future land use has the r20 r6 and r12 zoning as i've laid out to you as a gas station across the street traffic kind of livingston is 13 993 vehicles per day and we do have a cap on the amount of activity uh which is 64 gross am peak and 64 gross pm under loose community plan and notes uh they have a desire to retain existing and encourage new commercial uses geared to serving daily needs which is really what cn commercial uses provide and a scale and design that complements the character which this would be small in nature and improved design aesthetics to make the physical development of the community more attractive again we've removed all of those unattractive and difficult uses that were causing a problem planning commission notes it will complement um the surrounding neighborhoods are compatible with the existing development pattern is consistent with the goals objectives and policies development services notes to buffering and screening intended to mitigate potential impacts on nearby residential properties and as less than standard commercial zoning districts uh square footage does not exceed the maximum permitted so we are below square footage the majority of the proposed uses are permitted elsewhere in the pd are limited to ensure compatibility i will tell you that the zhm uh had a good finding also recognize the enhanced planting are substantive in that quote uh given the overall landscape plan that is supported and that the zhm noted design is con and conditioned by the staff it is compatible with the surrounding land use area it presents a plan that is reasonable quote reasonable and compatible and more marketable over the current approval which was for dry cleaners and recognizes the removal of the intensive objectionable uses so that mr chairman we appreciate your attention and consideration all right thank you thank you thank you anyone here uh in support the application anyone in opposition please come forward good morning my name is nashat safan my address 15118 livingston avenue is right next to their property first of all i do not own no gas station i don't know what he's talking about i bless i never had a fallout with the new owners because they just bought it three years ago and i've been owning my property since 2013 and what he say there's a lake park a lot or something that's my house that's where i live and all i need is privacy since the new owner came in he broke all the law he built some sheds for food trucks and he had the smoke shop instead of dry cleaner and they the the the smoke shop is like less than a half a foot away from my house half a foot and this is farming land and they want to turn it to something else it's a middle neighborhood there's houses all over the area and they say that the buffer zone is so it's between a foot but they don't want different piece like a three foot one area five foot the other area ten foot the other area i don't understand this and really really all i need is a prophecy and if they if you prove this plan it's going to make us go crazy we're already going crazy because the smoke shop opened two o'clock in the morning and this we bought this property a while back for the future for our kids to have a few houses for them to live the rest of their life but the way they're doing it these guys you seem is this none of this is going to happen and the old owners i never had no problem with them these guys just went crazy when they came in and the pd he's talking about believe it or not i just found out about it then in this court hearing that i have pd there all i know have i have my house that's it i don't know about pd i'm not going to build nothing there thank you all right thank you sir anyone else in opposition all right mr pressman you have an opportunity for rebuttal oh thanks uh yes mr chairman and board members just to clarify the record as we look through public records it appeared that the gentleman who spoke um had an interest in operating the gasoline station that that was an understanding that we believe we saw through the public record um as the gentleman again indicating as commissioners were aware uh there were uh difficult use in the site obviously they've been removed uh they're not a part of the pd they're not a part of the approved uses the smoke shop he's referring to is like a one of the tobacco type stores uh it's a closed retail uh store uh that has been operating and would be far less generating than uh the dry cleaners that was permissible but i'm probably a lot less quieter uh so again we have all approvals from staff through zhm uh and uh we've of course send out numerous notices and big yellow signs we're glad and i think we've done a great job to have just the one uh opponent uh raising some objections so with that we appreciate your attention and consideration thank you all right thank you uh planning commission thank you the subject property is located within the residential six future land use category the site is in the urban service area and the subject property is not located within the limits of a community plan the um the area is classified as vacant commercial on the western parcel and light commercial on the eastern there are single family uses to the north south and west of the subject property to the east or multi-family developments to the north at the northwest corner of sinclair hills road and livingston is a gas station the proposed um request meets the intent of future land use section policies 3.1.1 and 4.4.1 which requires the restriction of incompatible land uses and that new development be integrated into the surrounding neighborhood in this case the request includes increased landscape buffers between the modification area and the southern parcels that are part of the plan development a 20-foot enhanced type b buffer with trees planted every 15 feet on center is proposed a significant amount of retention is proposed at the westernmost side of the area providing a buffer from the adjacent residential uses the site plan shows an efficient system of internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation with the main access on sinclair hills road and livingston avenue as well as crone cross access as shown the request is also consistent with future land use section objective 4.7 and the associated policies relating to commercial locational criteria at least 75 percent of the subject site falls within a thousand feet of the intersection of roadways that have a functional classification of either a collector or an arterial roadway based upon those considerations planning commission staff finds the proposed request consistent with the unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services thank you tony hearing master discerning hearing master reviewed the major modification request and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and recommended approval all right thank you commissioner wilstle i just thought i'd address since my old quotes were brought up um and somebody online was just telling me how i approve everything but um i i do believe that all of my concerns were addressed the the original ask was literally sitting that that business on the existing homes i had an issue with that there it's future land use category of six which seems to be exactly what they're asking for and they have offered a significant buffer and reduction of what was originally asked for a couple of years ago for so for those reasons i'm going to be supporting the item commissioner cohen i just want to add um the the objection that i raised mainly at the first hearing where we denied this originally had to do with the food trucks and that those have been removed which i i think you know greatly reduces some of the conflict points that obviously existed on this property i also just want to note that there is a gas station across the street so there is already a fairly heavy commercial use right in the vicinity so i'll move for approval okay got a motion approved commissioner cohenstein commissioner wilstle uh adam i do have two questions though i know that the food trucks were removed but are they prohibited moving forward so commissioner they are not part of their request but they are not a specifically prohibited use i would suggest that that could be added so we could include that if we wanted to okay and then secondly um i know the reference that there's vegetative screening is there any additional offering that could be offered so the the applicant has offered an enhanced um enhanced screening with uh trees planned on close closer to centers the one area where they're asking a waiver uh from that uh screening requirement is where the existing building is on the site today it is it is too close to the property line to um plant uh trees and i will note that um the residential use that's there today has been noted is actually a legal non-conforming use since it's approved through a planned development for for other uses so say that the applicant has made effort to provide enhanced landscaping where were available and the two um variations referenced were areas where it was not really possible to add enhanced screening yep okay um commissioner cohen yes well let's add to the motion uh a specific restriction on food trucks on the property okay okay we got a motion uh in a second uh please record your vote motion carried five to zero thank you uh next item commission the next item is agenda item uh f4 rezoning pd 26-0555 this is request to rezone a 53.66 acre parcel located on the north side of causeway boulevard uh south of the uh selman vet across town expressway uh east of 301 and west of falkenburg road the request is to rezone the parcel to a pd allow for a church which would be in parcel parcel b and then 325 multifamily units and parcel a uh staff is recommending approval uh planning commission found it consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval and we'll be able for any questions all right the applicant here good morning elise basil sternsweaver miller on behalf of the applicant 401 east jackson street we're available to answer any questions that you have but otherwise we don't have anything to add to staff with staff's report okay great thank you uh any proponent testimony please come forward my name is jones all day i'm the executive pastor of the crossing church and the first thing i want to say is uh thank you for what often is a thankless job y'all do a great job my mom was a county commissioner at one point so i know the i know the job i've been a public servant for over 30 years and uh so i appreciate what y'all are doing and i also want to say thanks for hearing our case and you know this uh this sale of this property and this rezoning and the sale of the property is going to enable us to be able to to pay for a parking lot that we're building currently for the last 20 years we've been serving this community our our people have been parking in a field behind the church and traipsing through the woods to get to the church and that's not very conducive to you know ladies with high heels and so it's going to help us and be able to improve what we're doing and to and to further the mission that god has called us to do in this community and serving y'all so i just want to say thank you for it for considering it and if everything goes well thanks for passing it very much appreciate the kind work sir have a good day anyone else here in support anyone in opposition planning commission thank you the subject property is located within the urban mixed use 20 and residential nine future land use categories the site is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the limits of the brandon community plan high density residential development is predominant in the area with some existing smaller single-family residences to the south the commercial and industrial uses are nearby are oriented along highway 301 considered collectively this mix of surrounding land uses establishes a development pattern that supports the proposed use especially as it is within the area intended for higher intensity and density mixed use development accordingly the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3 policy 421 requires that projects proposed in all mixed use plan categories be required to develop with a minimum of two land uses within a single building or within a single project in a separate building or in separate buildings in accordance with specific criteria based on the proposed uses of the plan development of multi-family and church uses the proposal meets the required mix of use requirement is consistent with this policy direction the subject site is located within the light industrial brandon community character district which under goal six of the community plan calls for primarily business parks light industrial and government uses but those uses are not a requirement of this character district given the existing residential uses within the area and the proximity to the urban center and urban general character districts to the east and south of the site the proposed residential and church uses serve as a great as a transition between character districts and are consistent with the vision of the community plan based upon those considerations planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services thank you hearing master this earning hearing master reviewed the request and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and recommended approval all right motion second motion commissioner cohen sign commissioner welstel please record your vote on f4 motion carried five to zero okay g items commissioners the next uh we're on to the related items section of the agenda the next uh items are g1a g1b and g1c uh g1a is a request to rezone uh uh a 634.66 acre parcel uh to a plan development uh the vast large majority of the parcels already permitted a planned development for over a thousand units in the area east of the tico right away and west of the county road 579 this request would add additional acreage as to the west of the tico easement uh to accommodate uh residential uses uh staff is uh recommending approval uh planning which found a consistent in the hearing also also recommended approval when available for any questions regarding g1a applicant here good morning isabel albert with half 1000 north ashley drive um this is going to actually um it's going to be a quick presentation as you've heard this is an existing plan development in the urban service area in the monoma community plan and adds a future language of residential floor and what we are requesting is to um this is the existing pd plan but what we're doing is we're adding acreage approximately 106 acres to the site and we are converting the approved um community residential support and school site to residential the hillsborough county public school uh has reviewed this and had no objections for the conversion of this site to be residential and this will allow many different types of residential development as part of this application we're also asking for a right-of-way vacation and all agencies reviewed that and they had no objections to that as well and by doing so we will realign the road uh to align with the roundabout to the north of us that's actually currently built furthermore as you know through these uh development there's transportation improvement that's required uh throughout the site but more specifically this one we are proposing to develop a roundabout and that will be done through the mufasa which is the mobility fee alternative satisfactory agreement it's more fun to say mufasa and that will also be in combination with uh west lake row that's going to be developed with the uh collaboration with the development to the south of us reviewing agencies and hearing officer has recommended approval i'm here with my team if you have any questions and that concludes my presentation all right thank you thank you any proponent testimony anyone in opposition planning commission the subject property is located within the residential for future land use category the site is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the limits of the south shore area wide systems plan the surrounding land use pattern includes a mix of vacant land single family residential hoa property and agricultural uses agricultural uses are also present surrounding the subject property given the existing and entitled development pattern in the surrounding area the proposed development is consistent with growth objectives of the future land use section objective outlined under objective 1.1 and meets the compatibility standards of policy 3.1.3 the proposal demonstrates sensitivity to the surrounding land uses and maintains the established character of the area the residential 4 land use category allows for a maximum of 4 dwelling units per gross acre with 634 acres the subject site can be considered for a maximum of up to 2 536 dwelling units and the proposed development is proposing 2000 dwelling units therefore the proposed plan development is consistent with the uses allowed under the existing residential for future land use category and the request is consistent with future land use section goal 2 and it's modifying objective 2.2 based upon those considerations planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services thank you hearing master the zoning hearing master reviewed the request and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and recommended approval okay we'll hold off vote until after uh g1c uh it's great you need to introduce uh g1b uh yes g1b is vacate petition 26-0006 uh real estate services will present this item good morning commissioners victoria rosenbecker with real estate services item g1b today is vacate id v26-0006 this is a petition by larry bush lewis emerson bodle and iip fl1 llc to vacate a portion of unimproved platted public right-of-way consisting of 0.91 acres the subject right-of-way was dedicated through the plat of davis and dowdell addition to town of my mama as recorded in plat book 1 page 136 and is generally located east of south us highway 301 and west of south county road 579 in my mama the petitioner submitted this request to allow for construction of a residential development and a realigned connection to bishop road from the north upon request the petitioners have granted a utility easement over the vacate area to tico all other reviewing departments agencies and utility providers have raised no objections to this request thank you and i'm happy to answer any questions so any hearing master this is a vacating commissioner so there's no report i'm sorry my bad um okay do you need to introduce g1c commissioner g1c is a an accompanying item with this rezoning uh this is a mobility fee alternative satisfaction agreement the purpose of the agreement is for the uh applicant to construct the capacity enhancing off-site improvement this would be at the intersection of west lake and bishop road this will be a um a called a peanut roundabout and the idea here is to enhance the capacity of this intersection um beyond the operational requirements for the for the plan development uh the agreement is with one of the property owners within the plan development so that property owners land would be able to take credit for the cost of the improvement against mobility fees and would also be uh withheld from getting any certificates of occupancy until that uh improvement was completed i'm available for any questions all right there's a public anyone it's not a public hearing but anyone want to speak to this item if not can we have a motion for g1a g1b and g1c so moved motion commissioner cohen i'll second second commissioner miller uh please record your vote motion carried five to zero next time commission next item is related items g2a and g2b uh agenda item g2a is rezoning pd 26-0560 it's a request rezone a 45.89 acre parcel on the west side of livingston avenue uh adjacent to i-275 the request is again for pd to provide for 80 86 uh unit single family subdivision uh density would be approximately 1.9 units breaker uh in a res 4 plan category the staff did find this request approvable uh subject conditions uh the hearing office uh planning was found consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval with an additional condition that basically requires uh this the the retention ponds is consistent as conception is shown in this conception plan be located in this general location subject to final engineering uh and we're available for any questions thank you all right japan here good morning cammy corporate with a law firm of hillward and henderson we do have a brief presentation some of it is a little bit duplicate a duplicative and this is the location of the site south of 75 uh west of lifting livingston avenue pd is for a request for a total of 86 single family homes the applicant is marriage homes they are one of the fifth largest home builders by volume in the united states they are an industry leader in energy efficient construction they've been a great community partner and again leading the way with the energy efficiency which helps with affordability in today's market this is the product type that we showed to the residents when we met them there was a lot of concern about what the product type would look like and this being a quality development so we did provide these renderings this is meritage's move up product and we started with a request for a standard request in residential for future land use category of minimum lot size of 40 units the acre which allowed us to have 130 units total and that is actually the request that was found consistent by the planning commission and development services but after meeting with the neighbors and hearing their concerns about the character of this particular neighborhood and understanding the community that meritage wanted to place here for their move up buyers we agreed to increase the lot sizes to a minimum of 60 feet and then go down to 86 units which we thought was uh responsive to their concerns and then also you can see the conceptual layout which the zoning hearing master did actually incorporated into the request for the certified site plan and you'll see that the site and the natural wetland buffers provide a lot of buffering and screening to neighbor adjacent neighbors and there's really only one dwelling unit that is directly adjacent to a lot and then where we are adjacent to lots we've added a uh five foot vertical screening and buffering which is not required by the code and it's more uh more than what the code requires and we are providing the 15 foot scenic roadway corridor along livingston avenue and with that i'd like to ask our planner to come up and make a brief presentation on compatibility good morning kayla wetkowski with clearview land design 3010 west azile street tampa florida as you can see the subject property lies within residential for future land use which would allow for up to 183 units this area slowly transitions from res 1 and res 2 to the north of the interstate to res 4 directly south of the interstate with a gradual increase to higher density residential closer to bears this request is for the development of up to 86 units which would result in a density of 1.87 units per acre which is less than half of what the comprehensive plan would allow for future land use objective 2.3 and policy 2.3.1 of the comprehensive plan encourage development within the urban service area to utilize the allowable density of the land use category in order to maximize utilization of infrastructure however future land use objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 also emphasize the importance of compatibility with surrounding development this request we believe balances both of these objectives by respecting the existing development pattern while also thoughtfully utilizing the land the subject property is also located within the lutes community plan area which includes areas both within and outside of the urban service area the distinction between these two areas is important because each has developed with a different character and development pattern the portion of lutes within the urban service area is predominantly developed with a suburban style with communities such as chaval stonebriar and heritage harbor while the area outside of the urban service area is primarily developed as semi-rural large lot development the interstate serves as a dividing line between the rural and urban service area and this site is directly to the south of that line within the urban service area with a semi-rural density of fewer than two units per acre and the inclusion of thoughtful buffering and screening we believe that this request provides an appropriate transition between the more suburban development pattern within the urban service area and the large lot residential character north of i-275 with respect to compatibility this graphic shows the density of other residential developments within one mile of the subject site there is a wide variety of residential development within the general vicinity to include apartments student housing villas a mobile home park and a condominium association immediately adjacent to the site are larger lot residential developments that are similar density to our proposal this development serves as a rational transition between the development to the north and the south and i would like to point out the comprehensive plan defines compatibility as being sensitive and maintaining the character of existing development and this proposal does just that this map illustrates the site's relationship to surrounding public facilities and community infrastructure as shown this property is centrally located within an established urbanized area and is well served by existing public services and facilities from a school capacity standpoint the site is located within proximity to several schools and the school district has confirmed that there's adequate capacity at the zone schools to accommodate the proposed development this map also demonstrates the availability of emergency services with two fire stations located within approximately two mile radius and in addition the site is located within close proximity to a public library and other civics resources that serve the surrounding community utility service is also available through the city of tampa which further supports the site's suitability for the proposed development in conclusion this request aligns with the goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan is consistent with the land development code with no request for waivers or variations is compatible with the existing development in the area is being supported by staff and we also have a recommendation of approval from the zhm so for the these reasons we would respectfully request a recommendation of approval thank you cammy corbett again we do have our transportation engineer and our stormwater engineer should you have any questions relating to that um i do think you're going to hear a lot of concerns about compatibility because the lots are not the same as the lots that are directly adjacent that are half acre or more again noting this has this property has been residential for future land use category since the inception of the lutes community plan and has been targeted as part of the urban service area and what we are providing is a semi-rural density by going down to the 86 units the acre and we respectfully request your approval this morning thank you any proponent testimony anyone here in support uh opponent testimony please come forward you have a total of 10 minutes and i believe we do have one virtually yes absolutely yes good morning all right well i guess you're going first you know you have a total of 10 minutes all right thank you uh alan vernick 2110 curry road lutes florida we will rely entirely on the record established before the zoning hearing master including the recommendation itself the applicant's testimony the adapted comprehensive plan and lutes community plan the question before the board is not whether homes can be built on this property the question is whether the recommendation correctly applies the comprehensive plan and the lutes community plan we will show that the recommendation misapplies lutes community plan treats compliance as compatibility and fails to demonstrate that the development pattern is compatible with the surrounding community the recommendation places significant weight on the fact that this property is designated r4 and located within the urban service area it goes further and creates what it calls a distinct r4 urban service area subset within the lutes community plan however that subset does not appear anywhere in the community plan it is a construct of the recommendation not a policy of the plan itself more importantly the comprehensive plan states that development must be compatible with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood our the r4 designation determines what may be considered it does not determine what is compatible the recommendation also concludes that the proposed density is similar to adjacent communities and therefore semi-rural in character however those comparisons rely on gross density calculations while ignoring the actual development pattern the surrounding area includes curry cove fitchwald country and livingston acres with lot sizes generally ranging from one half acre to more than two acres the proposed the proposal introduces six thousand square foot lots moreover the recommendation repeatedly relies on the fact that suburban development already exists elsewhere within portions of loot the existing of a use and the compatibility of a use are not the same thing the comprehensive plans neighborhood protection policies emphasize preserving existing neighborhoods and ensuring compatibility with surrounding development yet the recommendation never demonstrates how this proposal maintains the character scale and development patterns of the surrounding area finally i would like to address the issue of property rights property rights and plan compliance are not competing principles the recommendation treats this proposal as though it is the only way the property can be developed it is not a denial of this request would not remove development rights it would require those rights to be exercised in a manner that complies with the adopted plan i will now turn it over to valerie ribicki to address the transportation and infrastructure findings contained in the recommendation thank you thank you sir good morning good morning commissioners my name is valerie ribicki i live at 16103 darnell road in lutes i'd like to address the transportation and infrastructure findings in the recommendation although it concludes that the project traffic can be accommodated livingston avenue remains a substandard two-lane rural collector road operating at level of service f both north and south of the project area in other words it's a failed road according to the transportation department's analysis this project would increase daily trips from 621 to 959 trips per day while the applicant's traffic engineer testified that capacity remains available he also acknowledged that there is not much capacity remaining as i testified before the zoning hearing master that concern becomes even more significant when this project is viewed in the context of other pending development proposals along livingston avenue project number prs 26-0632 is located approximately two-tenths of a mile from this site and project number rz-pd 26-0281 is located approximately four tenths of a mile away residents already experienced significant congestion additional development along the same road raises concerns about cumulative impacts on an already failed road the recommendation also relies on future improvements to livingston avenue however county transportation staff testified that while livingston avenue is identified for future widening the project is not currently included in the capital improvement program and no construction timeline was provided the traffic impacts are immediate while the road improvements remain uncertain residents also expressed concerns regarding the close proximity of the project's proposed turn lane near both the northern entrance of victara circle and the i-275 overpass while the applicant's engineer testified that the design complies with county standards those concerns remain unresolved for nearby residents who use livingston avenue every day and already have difficulty turning left onto livingston avenue the recommendation also cites the curry road emergency access as evidence of compatibility yet the land development code does not require that access be routed through an existing neighborhood the proposed connection through curry cove is a result of the applicant's chosen site design not a compatibility standard a more compatible site design could provide the required emergency access while preserving curry road as a contained residential street and protecting the neighborhood from the potential for future cut through traffic transportation compliance does not establish compatibility the recommendation concludes that the project is compatible because the road can accommodate the traffic barely as their traffic engineer stated but the comprehensive plan and the lutes community plan require more than meeting minimum transportation standards the project must still satisfy the compatibility requirements of those plans thank you thank you good morning my name is maria elena d'amico and i reside at 16105 darnell road in lutes you have heard today regarding the community plan the urban plan the lutes community plan the comprehensive plan compatibility and transportation rather than repeat this i'd like to close by returning to the purpose of the lutes community plan itself community plans are not adopted simply to describe a community they are adopted to guide its future future they provide a consistent framework so that each rezoning is evaluated not only on what can be built but what can be built in a particular place that principle matters because individual applications come and go but the planning vision remains the same the lutes community plan recognizes eats loot east lutes as a semi-rural community it discusses compatibility transitions clustering building two lot relationships and preserving the character that makes this area distinct these are not isolated policies but together they establish the vision of how east lutes should continue to evolve this property is at the entrance to east east lutes like the entrance to any community it should reflect the character beyond it not establish a different a different one and definitely try not to squeeze one last thing in before it continues further up the road today's decision is not about whether this property should be developed growth is inevitable and responsible development is important as a real estate broker and property manager i understand this better than most the question before you is whether this proposal continues the planning vision your adopted policies established for east lutes the community plan answers that question with one simple principle the intent of this community plan is to recognize and protect those planned communities from incompatible land uses but not to continue development in lutes in a suburban manner that statement isn't directed at one applicant it is the standard intended to guide every application that comes before the board after considering the record before you you conclude that this proposal does not provide the compatible transition envisioned by your adopted plans today's decision need not be viewed as a decision against development instead it can provide the opportunity for a proposal that better fits the character of east lutes while representing the planning principles this board has already adopted growth compatibility are not mutually exclusive the right proposal can accomplish both thank you for your time and consideration thank you ma'am this time applicant has opportunity for rebuttal i'd like michael yates to come up and briefly address traffic uh good morning michael yates with palm traffic and i have been sworn uh can we bring up the overhead um i just want to go through a couple of the traffic comments that uh were raised uh we did look at the capacity of the roadway based on the data we collected out there when we did our traffic study and as you can see there is just we do fall within level of service d uh based on the counts and the addition of the project trips uh we also did intersection analysis at the project driveway and showed it operates at acceptable level of service there is reference to uh livingston b wide into a four lane uh divided facility in the long range plan uh which has a half width of 55 feet of right away so we are preserving that 55 feet uh and then i'll go through here uh there is a right-of-way dedication of 20 feet and are and then a right-of-way preservation of an additional 10 feet to get us the 55 feet uh we are also widening the road to provide a northbound left turn lane uh with that widening we are also doing uh paved shoulders out there along the project frontage and adding a five foot sidewalk uh so this is part of the design exception that has been found approvable uh these will be significant improvements to the roadway in the vicinity of the project that would allow the driveway to function at and within the county standards i'll turn it back over to cam thank you and then commissioners again this is a quasi-judicial proceeding this is not strictly a policy decision so the burden is essentially on the applicant to demonstrate that we've met our burden that we comply with the land development code and the comprehensive plan and all of the substantial competent evidence with respect to compatibility which is a subject that does require um expert testimony it tells you that this project is consistent both with the compa the comprehensive plan and the lutes community plan again we recognize that there are portions of the lutes community plan that are rural but this property is decidedly within the urban service boundary which is supposed to be for suburban development yet we're providing a semi-rural development pattern here of less than two units of the acre we tried to be thoughtful to the concerns of the residents with respect to the emergency access on curry road that's up to the discretion of the board that is something we provide because that is something that staff looks to us to provide we've had that in other instances it's not something that's driven uh by the developer or needed for this development so if that's something that this board wishes to remove we're we're fine with that but again i know this is a difficult decision and people um you know are very passionate about it but ultimately when you look at the facts and the record um all of the expert testimony uh provides that this is consistent with the loose community plan and is compatible with a comprehensive plan and we respectfully request your approval and we're here to answer any questions you might have that may have been raised that we didn't answer all right thank you planning commission thank you the subject property is located within the residential for future land use category the site is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the limits of the lutes community plan the subject property currently consists of vacant land with some agricultural uses the surrounding areas are largely characterized by single-family residential development with some additional agricultural uses north of interstate 275 in the rural area and public quasi-public uses to the south and east of the site within the urban service area considered collectively this mix of surrounding land uses establishes a development pattern that supports the proposed single-family residential use especially as it is located within the urban service area adjacent to existing single-family residential uses the semi-rural single-family residential community character strategy of the lutes community plan seeks to maintain lutes as a low-density semi-rural single-family community offering a variety of housing styles lot sizes configurations and setbacks while ensuring a quality of life and sustainability the subject site is allowed consideration of a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre however the applicant has proposed a density well below the maximum at 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre with clustering and preservation of existing wetlands on site which is consistent with the community plan vision additionally table 2.2 of the future land use section outlines that developing at one dwelling unit per gross acre is a rural development pattern and developing at two dwelling units per gross acre is a semi-rural development pattern at 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre the applicant is proposing a development that is between rural and semi-rural based upon those considerations planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services thank you zoning hearing master zoning hearing master reviewed the plan development rezoning and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the land development code and recommended approval subject to the conditions prepared by development services and subject to additional condition regarding the stormwater pond locations which were which was made record in the decision of the zhm okay i will defer a vote till after g1b does staff need to introduce the prs real quickly a g2b is purist application 26-0 632 uh this is a request for a myer modification to the pd uh located to south of g2a the purpose of this is the area highlight in the peak that strip uh parcel is being incorporated into the uh the pd associated the g2a application uh therefore through this uh prs modification that's that site planning conditions are being modified to show that area being removed uh from the parcel in the event uh g2a is approved uh we're available for any questions thank you all right thank you applicant cammy corbett again for the record the only thing i want to note about this this is the prs that was referenced by the folks that spoke in opposition to development as being one of the applications that potentially would set precedent for additional development this is one in the same these two developments are together so it's a total of 86 units the other application that was referred to is further down south and is completely set of different facts and circumstances so i just want to clarify that all right thanks uh any proponent testimony any opponent testimony okay we'll go on to board discussion uh commissioner postal um first i'll overlook the fact that we probably um if this went negative we'd probably lose in court which has happened in a myriad of other places i just want to point out to the community just as they saw earlier today we often vote things down and um now they obviously have a catalog of when we do vote it down and they'll use our quotes um for future applications about why we voted them down but um i was just surprised to see the opposition just because this this does have a future land use category of residential four and they're asking for less than residential two per acre um which is um the mathematical lot size for the transition between rule to semi-rule so i just um i the livingston avenue question is it is there any way that you know i know that we've done in other cases i don't even know if it makes sense in this one because the road seems to be so long um on the mobility fees how much of that is being applied to improvement of livingston avenue um right next to this do we have that answer commissioner i don't believe we have an answer of how the mobility fees would how much would be programmed to this improvement um if it was the board's pleasure that that could be some direction to provide that uh to direct these fees towards that improvement presuming that it fits within our um threshold time to spend it well i mean uh commissioner hagan has done a skillful job of um applying this community's community plan which brings me to my next point which is that i i do believe that this does comply with their community plan just as the planning commission has articulated um and because it's it's less than half of what was even planned on that i think that we would have a hard time arguing that it that it wasn't i would be supportive of us figuring out a way to apply the mobility fees to improvements directly adjacent to this specifically to livingston avenue avenue if if it was the pleasure of the board i would also be willing to support the removal of the emergency access that was on the south end of the property there if that was also the pleasure of the board but i i believe this is just another one of those scenarios to where it's a very light ask for what could be a much heavier ask which i which they might be able to get approval for um if they had post for that as well so um those are my comments i i do believe that it complies with the community plan let alone the comp plan and land development code so um again in this this capacity as quasi-judicial we are not legislating we are held to local laws which of course we can be sued and do lose in the 13th judicial court um often for land decisions thank you i thank you i don't see no one's on the queue so i'll be a couple of comments um commissioner will still make several excellent points that i i i do agree with um the applicant has made significant concessions and thoughtful conditions uh were added at the same time i really struggle with what i believe is the incompatibility between the minimum lot sizes of 6 000 square feet and the substantially larger lost lot sizes found in the residential single family developments in the south and southeast so i really struggle with that so um i'm not going to support the item today however i would suggest if if the board is inclined to to move forward that we include what commissioner wilstel suggested as far as removing the um curry road connection which again that was staff driven it wasn't the applicant and also that we apply mobility fees fees near the development and that's something that i know commissioner wilstel has brought up in in previous um land use requests so um i don't know with the pleasure of the board but if you're going to move forward i would ask that you include those two things so so what's the pleasure of the board and it requires four votes one way or the other to dispose of the item i want to point that out motion to approve with the conditions by commissioner uh hagan please all right the wall i'll second it we'll remove the curry road connection and apply mobility fees um near the development on livingston adam is that yes sir any additional language on that no okay okay okay so there's a motion by commissioner um bull second commissioner miller don't see anyone else in the queue uh please record your vote motion carried photo one commissioner hagan voted no next time commissioners the next item is uh agenda item i1 under staff items this is a monthly status report on live local act development projects i would note uh per the uh per the uh table located in the report we had one additional uh parcel added to uh the list uh it's a small parcel and the and uh and only can accommodate nine units under the under the uh provisions of the local act so we're available for any questions regarding the report all right any questions comments not can we have a motion to accept so moved motion to accept the report commissioner wilstel have a second second commissioner cohen please record your vote i1 motion carried five to zero last item commissioner's last item is gen item i2 and this is the status report on agriculture enclave projects uh as you revised uh at your june regular meeting uh the legislature recent in the last legislative session adopted an agricultural enclave uh law that provides for for a designation of of projects that comply with the criteria outlined in the statute as an agriculture enclave uh and if it's so designated and approved as such allows for development consistent with uh surrounding the surrounding development pattern uh procedurally uh this law went into effect on july 1st uh per the report we did receive uh two applications uh on that on july 1st uh for the statute staff will have 30 days to review that and make a finding whether or not uh we believe it complies of the standards to be considered an agriculture enclave and it's in that process right now and that's the status of those two applications and and subsequent to that it will be before the board at a public hearing we're available for any questions thank you so is that is that likely the august land use hearing correct okay um i don't see any questions or comments so we have a motion to accept so moved motion commissioner wilstel second commissioner cohen please record your vote on i2 motion carried five to zero okay with that we're adjourned