up there. No, we're going to take that off. Thank you. So one, we, as indicated, the site is accessing U.S. 92. We have had a pre-application meeting with DOT, and they are in agreement with the access. In fact, what we have done with that is access. We have aligned it with the driveway on the south side of U.S. 92. This graphic illustrates, and actually this is also in the staff report, illustrates the traffic compared to what we're proposing in green versus the existing zoning that's there today, and is shown both in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, it'd be a net decrease in the traffic. That concludes my presentation. Unless you have any questions. No questions. Thank you. I just want to make one more point. As you start to look at, we're going to go back just a moment, something that you may not ask now, but may come up during your review. If you notice, it looks like there's a line. I wish I had a pointer. You mean that awkward sort of swath? Yes. That is an unimproved Hillsborough County right-of-way. It was noted on a survey and found in old minutes, so that is excluded from the PD. We did speak with Adam Bryant and Mike Williams regarding access, and they have indicated that since we're accessing an FDOT right-of-way, to get across Hillsborough County, we would just do a normal right-of-way permit. Just wanted to let you know that in case it came up in your review. That concludes our presentation. All right. Thank you. Thank you. At this point in time, it's Development Services staff. Good evening. Tanya Chapela, Development Services. This is a measure modification 26-11-39 for a 1392 acre property located along the north side of East U.S. Highway 92 in the East Lake Orient Park area. The property is currently approved for up to 86,000 square feet and a range of uses, including contractor's offices with accessory open storage, warehousing, commercial vehicle, and heavy equipment sales and services, limited general office, open storage, and general light industrial uses. The applicant requests to increase the maximum floor area to 186, 9, 56 square feet, increase the maximum building height from 45 to 50 feet, and limit the permitted uses to warehouse uses with or without distribution. The proposed floor area area represents a floor area ratio of approximately 0.31 within the 0.5 if they are allowed by the CMU-12 future land use designation. The property is located along the corridor, a corridor with commercial and light industrial zoning and uses. U.S. Highway 92 is south of the site with light industrial commercial and a club or large uses across the highway, a department of transportation properties located to the north, to the east are vacant land and a contractor's office, to the west are club or large uses as well as single family residential and mobile homes. While the request increases the maximum floor area, it narrows the range of permitted uses. The proposed site layout places the loading area farther from residences along the western boundary and orients warehouse activity towards the contractor's office property. The conditions also provide a 100-foot building setback along the west boundary and a 60-foot setback along the east boundary. Buffering and screening will be provided as required by the conditions with enhanced type C screening where the site is adjacent to agriculturally zoned property. Staff finds the proposed warehouse use compatible with the surrounding development pattern and recommends approval subject to the proposed conditions. Okay, you handed me a revised report. Yes. Did you just summarize what's different? Yes, page number one is about the introduction. I erased the MM from the IPD2. Then there is a typo here instead of and should be saying or. Then under the existing approval and proposed modifications, I have to add the FAR. So that was page one. Page four, four, I had to correct the future land use FAR and then the typical uses that were wrong. Pretty much, it was a problem of sending the wrong version. So I had to correct that. Page five is about the zoning and FAR. I added the impact fees on page number nine. Page 10, I added the type C screening to be provided adjacent to agricultural zone properties. Then on page 11, condition number three, it was also a mistake. I wrote rear when I meant side. So that's for the minimum side yard setback to the east. And then condition 20, there is also typo. That's one of the transportation conditions. It said, shall include a note indicated, same on each side construction construction plans of middle. And it should say, shall include a note indicating. And then the numbers. I needed to change numbers. I believe it's after starting on condition number 17. Yes. All right. Thank you for going through that. Appreciate it. All right. Planning commission staff. Alexis Maris planning commission staff. The subject site is in the community mix use 12 future land use category. The site is located in the urban service area and within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park community plan. Future land use section objective 2.2 and policy 2.2.1 established the range and intensities of uses permitted within each category. The CMU 12 designation allows consideration of light industrial and multipurpose uses and permits non-residential development at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.50. Based on 12.69 acres of uplands, the site could be considered for up to approximately 276,888 square feet of non-residential development. The proposed 186,956 square feet represent a FAR of approximately 0.30, which is below the maximum intensity of the future land use category. The proposed warehouse is consistent with the non-residential development pattern in this area and the range of uses permitted with under the CMU 12 designation and meets the intent of the objective and policies related to compatibility. Future land use section objective 4.1 and policies 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 require compliance with applicable Hillsborough County land development code standards, while future land use section objective 3.2 and policy 3.2.4 require consistency with adoptive community plans. The Eastlake community Eastlake Orient Park community plan emphasizes the preservation and protection of an existing industrial uses and employment. The proposed major modification would continue to support a light industrial warehouse use while allowing additional floor area on an existing industrial oriented site. Based upon the considerations, planning commission staff find the proposed major modification consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Conference Plan, separate to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department. Ken, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience would speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Staff, anything further? No, sir. Okay. Any applicant opportunity for rebuttal? No, thank you. Thank you for your time. Okay. No need for rebuttal. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, you're ready for the next item. Our next application is item D4, Major Mod 26-1141. The applicant is requesting major modification to PD04-0054. I've reviewed this for Development Services and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation. The applicant, please. Good evening. My name is Colin Rice, the law firm of Boulder-Lundy 1000 West Cass. Here on behalf of the property owner and applicant, Craig Bozarski with the ownership group joins us this evening. So I have a few slides for you. Pretty brief. So we were here last year to modify the PD initially approved in 2004. We're back tonight because we are mixing up the composition of, it's approved for CG uses, the ones that we're looking for a little bit higher trip generation. So we're reflecting those figures for you. Okay. Most notably a convenience store with gas and filling stations. So it's Orient U. We're here off of 301 just south of Riverview. And zooming in, we're in the Suburban Mix U 6, which extends north, west, and south. And across 301 is residential 6. The current aerial of the site, again, off of Sims Road and 301, largely undeveloped, bounded, and red. But now the site plan, so just for your own understanding of the layout, parcel A is not subject to tonight's proposal. We're only talking about parcel B, which is these two differently shaded areas. So we have mini warehouse and then the CG uses and the darker shaded gray. And so the darker shade is where we're talking about this evening. And just again to sum up, it's to allow for this additional range of CG uses. We have staff support across the board. They've been wonderful to work with and we're grateful for their time and attention to this. We have a design exception of transportation that has been found approvable. So with that, I'll conclude. Happy to answer any questions and appreciate your time this evening. No questions at this time. Thank you. Okay. I'll submit these to the record. All right. Development Services staff. Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Staff reviewed a major modification request to PD04-0054 as most recently modified by Major Mod 25-0243 to revise previously approved trip cap maximums. The PD consists of parcels A and B. Parcel A is approved for limited CG zoning district uses, while parcel B is approved for limited BPO and CG zoning district uses with the trip cap. This modification relates only to parcel B. No changes to uses, intensity or development standards are proposed. The PD is located at the southwest corner of US Highway 301 and Sims Road and is within the SMU 6 future land use category. Staff reviewed the application and we received no objections from reviewing agencies and recommended approvals subject to proposed conditions. Okay. We'll have the applicant pay attention to this question because you may be able to answer as well. Michelle, on the very first page of the staff report, there's a, there's a table about existing approvals and proposed modifications and it has all to do with traffic count numbers, right? So it says in existing approvals, it's got 4,083 gross average daily trip maximums. You see that? And then in cumulative developments within parcel B, it says 4,864 gross average daily trips. And then it's got the corresponding AM and peak hour trip numbers. I get that. You're going from 4,083 to 4,864. What I don't get is what's net new development within parcel B. What is that? For that I would need to have transportation staff advise on that. All right. Transportation, if you're following my question, it's on the first page of the staff report. Yes. So there's the gross trips that the project would generate for what I believe is the overall site and what we're looking at. It says parcel B. Excuse me, excuse me, parcel B. But what we're pointing out is the net new trips based on the applicant's analysis in which they would have studied. No. It's saying criminally right now it's approved for 4,000 trips. They're going to 4,800. That's 800 new trips. So what's this 2,239 new average daily trips? I don't get it. Yeah. There is a proposed trip cap, which is based on the applicant's submitted site access analysis. So that would account for pass by trips and internal trip capture. So we do sometimes breakout gross versus net when we're evaluating these changes. Okay. So you're saying the net new, that's total external traffic. Correct. That would have made it a lot easier to understand. Okay. So you're factoring in some sort of internal capture. Yes. The applicant study would factor that in. So you think there's half of the overall traffic is internally captured? Well, no. Let me look at the conditions of approval here. Okay. How about this? We'll move along to hear from planning commission staff, those in support opposition, and we'll come back to any further comments. I appreciate that. Let's talk about it. All right, planning commission staff. Alexis Morris, planning commission staff. The subject site is located in the suburban mixed use six, a future my use category. The site is in the urban service area within the limits of the review community plan, as well as the South Hillsborough County plan. The suburban mixed use six future use category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research, corporate park uses, light industrial, multipurpose, and cluster residential and or mixed use. Office uses are not subject to the locational criteria. The proposed major modification does not change the approved density or intensity. The site within the within the suburban mixed use six future land use category can consider up to 113,887 square feet or a 0.35 FAR or floor area ratio for mixed use development. Therefore, the request remains within the parameters established by the SMU six future land use designation and is consistent with the future land use objective of 2.2. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives and policies, planning commission staff find the proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated, unincorporated, unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, separate to the proposed conditions by the development, development services department. Okay. Thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience? I wish to speak in support of the application. See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? See no one responding. All right. Staff, anything further? Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions to help provide some clarity to these trip numbers? So the the overall proposed gross and the the net are attempting for staff to reflect the change in the modification and showing an overall drawdown from the site. And looking at staffs comments in the report, it speaks to the overall proposed net cap. And when the project builds out there, they'll be required to provide additional analysis to show each parcel as it is constructed, how much trips are generated in evaluating the site access to ensure that it meets any warranted site access improvements, such as turn lanes. If turn lanes are sufficiently long enough to accommodate queueing of traffic. If zoning cap, staff can speak exactly to why that's on the first page of the report. But that it's also embedded in zoning condition number one. Right. The applicant had proposed these caps as controls so that they're not exceeding both a gross and a net cap. Again, the uses that will go in that are constructed that time may have different characteristics. For example, if it's a more intensive commercial use or or otherwise. So we build in these trip caps in order to. Okay. All right. But in terms of implementation. Yes. If if somehow you're asking them during some site plan review process, this development gets built in phases. Yes. And approve. Where are you terms of build out and corresponding trips. You get an analysis from the applicant. Correct. And then what are you measuring against? Are you measuring against the 4864 number or are you measuring against 1835 number one's cumulative gross and one's net new? Right. And the condition of approval has both gross and net. I know. But what only matters is the number of cars passing out onto the highway. Correct. You call it whatever you want. So what number governs? Well, there are standards that address throat depth, which would look at overall vehicles entering the site. And we'd have to have the appropriate throat depth for the access. If there's if it's a matter of turn lanes at the site at that specific access point, we would have to evaluate the number of vehicles turning in. And what matters more is the AM and the peak AM and the PM peak hour. True. But it's the same comment. It's one's gross, one's net. Right. All right. Thank you. All right. The applicant has an opportunity to rebuttal. You heard my question. I don't know if you have any additional comment on my question. So Colin Rice again for the applicant. It may be easier to just refer directly to the condition of approval, which I've got here. And the thing to keep in mind is we've got a maximum allowance of, let's say, certain CG uses, certain warehouse uses. And if you were to build the maximum square footage at the lowest possible trip generation, you're probably fine. The other side of the spectrum, you're probably not fine. Fine. So we're acknowledging that what goes into the ground will work with staff. And we've just developed some trip caps to make sure that it's not blowing the lid here. All right. So question for you, which trip cap applies? Are you telling your client you got approval for 4,000 cap trips? Or you tell your client you got approval for 1,835 cap trips? So I'll answer it by saying we'll work with traffic mobility consultants, with staff, and make sure that we're all in agreement there. I don't want to lean too hard on their expertise. Again, we're relying on the professional engineering report for the traffic. Okay. Is that professional here tonight? He's not here tonight. Okay. All right. Anything else you want to add? Give me one moment. Okay. We'll conclude. We appreciate your time this evening. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. With that, that concludes this application. I'm signing up for the next case. Our next application is PD 26-1146. The applicant is requesting to rezone property zoned PD and RSC 4MH to Plain Development. Jared Fuller with Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. Applicant, please. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Cynthia Speidel, and I'm a certified ASCP planner with Barbas Kramer at 2002 West Cleveland Street, Suite 203 in Tampa, and I have been sworn. Tonight, we're here to discuss rezoning for this PD, which is located right off of 301. It's 16.68 acres, approximately. It's south of an abutting 301 on Williams Road. This is just sort of an aerial view. This is a more detailed view. It's south of an abutting US 301. It's west of Williams Road. It's north of Ripley Road. It is within the urban service area and within the THONA to SASA community plan. So, we were here a few months ago for a portion of this PD and we are back to because we've accumulated more parcels and we're merging them together. So, the first one is PD 260070. That was the one that we represented a few months ago. 6.8 acres for an 80,000 square foot warehouse and that correlates to the number one on the graphic. And then the second one is just north of that. That is the PD 020215, which was recently modified by major modification 250811. That's 8.2 acres and that was approved for up to 98,600 square feet of warehouse industrial. And then we've added what we call the RSC4 Suns Acres parcels in the bottom left-hand corner. That's number three. That's 1.7 acres. We have opted not to do the flex over that at the recommendation of planning commission staff because it's going to be just shown as stormwater plans buffering open space on the PD plan. So, here's just another view of it and you can see, I don't know if you go back to this one, you can see the buildings were all kind of constrained by the unique configurations of the parcels, but here you can really see that by consolidating the parcels, we really have a better project, right? The truck courts can be internal facing on the two northern buildings. We've got stormwater ponds to the east and west on the southern building. Access is better coordinated on this site plan. And again, we're in the Thona Tissassa overlay. We're in the urban service area. US Highway 301 is a designated truck route. The area is in distress. We've had, when we had our neighborhood meetings, we spoke to the neighbors to great extent about some of their concerns of the area. And notably, it's in an opportunity zone. And if any of you have paid attention to the 21st Road to Century Housing Act that was recently approved bilateral approval by the federal government, these opportunity zones, the tax exemptions were made permanent. So, we're seeing a lot of interest in these opportunity zones simply because that tax exemption is now made permanent in the tax code. This is an area in transition. This is sort of a compilation of the surrounding areas, PDs that have been approved or are under review. And you can see the area is really sort of transitioning into this warehousing industrial area due to its proximity to US Highway 301. It is consistent with the comp plan. We have a consistency determination from the Planning Commission. It's LIP. Again, we had this in the lower left-hand corner. We considered having that flex, but we removed that from the applications because we're leaving it as stormwater ponds. And you can see it down the bottom left-hand corner. The stormwater ponds are shown there. We do have three variation requests, but they are all to make the project better. The first one is for a 15 to 10-foot type B buffer area. And that's sort of a technicality because the abutting folio is a CN and it's a truck salvage, truck storage, truck repair. So, technically, one could argue the buffer should be zero, but we agreed to a 10-foot type B buffer with staff. We're allowing staff was concerned about the residential houses to the south on the south side of Ripley. So, we are beefing that four-foot wall up to six feet along Ripley, but that technically requires a variation. And then number three is a carryover from what was already recommended and approved by the board for the area adjacent to the gas station. And that's up in the upper right-hand corner, number three. So, our compatibility mitigation measures are enhanced screening. We have the, again, along the western boundary to folio 6-1-1-5-2-0-0-0-0. We have the eight-foot wall versus six-foot wall. We have trees that are going to be planted 15 feet high at planting, instead of code minimum 10. Along Williams, we're going to have trees planted every 20 feet versus 40 feet per the code. We meet all the minimum setback requirements everywhere. The building heights, and I replaced the building heights on the PD plan so you can see which ones are 35. So, the one to the south, which was one of the areas that staff was concerned about, given the proximity to surrounding residential, that one's 35 and the one is 40 to the north. That is more internal to the site. We worked with staff to, we talked a lot about loading and unloading of trucks and idling of trucks, and staff is justifiably concerned about, you know, the noise that trucks make 24-7. So, what we did was, is we didn't want to limit access to the site, because we didn't want truck drivers that are coming in in the middle of the night to just park their, park the truck on Williams Road, which, you know, I don't know if you've heard other projects, but the truck parking can be an issue on a, in a variety of, in a variety of capacity in other communities. So, we didn't want to limit access to the site, because we want them off the road, safe and sound. But we agreed, no idling, no, you know, beeping, no loading and unloading. And so, we have our, we crafted, we work with staff to craft a condition that memorializes that via time restrictions and designated areas. So, we have a consistency finding from planning commission staff. We have a consistency finding from development services staff. We have no objections from any internal departments. And with that, we have our team here to answer any questions. Michael Yates on transportation and Michael Sanders for civil and our client as well. So, if you have any questions, we're happy to answer them. No questions. Thank you. Development services staff. Ma'am, can you sign in? Good evening, Jared Follin with development services. I have a revised staff report I just want to hand out. It just has addition of the traffic's traffic report and just a minor change to condition number four. Okay. Oh yeah. So, this is PD 261146. This is a request to rezone 16.68 acres from plan development 2-0215, plan development 26-0070, and RST4 to a new plan development to allow 22, 228,500 square feet of warehousing, distribution, light manufacturing, and accessory open storage at an intensity of 0.35 floor area ratio. This PD is similar to what was proposed and approved with plan development 26-00770, but now with an expanded area and revised site plan. The subject site is located at the corner of Williams Road and Whipley Road, just south of US Highway 301, and the Thona Te Sasa plan area. The surrounding area consists of single-family uses primarily to the east, west, and south, while commercial uses are located to the northwest, including a convenience store and a truck repair shop slash storage commercial property adjacent to the west. The development site plan proposes three building envelopes of various sizes and heights. Loading and unloading and open storage areas are called out and will be limited to those areas. To mitigate the potential impacts to the nearby residential properties, the applicant has proposed a number of restrictions to the development. This includes larger minimum setbacks, additional enhanced screening, and locating open storage areas to be internal to the site. Additionally, the applicant has proposed and worked with us to limit semi-tractors and slash semi-tractor trailers from idling, loading, and unloading, and accessing the site between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. To ensure enforcement, signs will be posted throughout the site, and vehicular gates will limit access to building B during the restricted hours. It should be noted that this is not an hours of operation restriction, and other types of vehicles may operate during the restricted hours. The applicant did go over the variations in the enhanced screening. One correction I wanted to make along Ripley Road, I think it was stated it was going to be a wall. It is proposed to be a fence, six-foot fence, not a wall. But other than that, we're very happy with the variation. We were in the enhancements, and with the restrictions on the time for semi-tractors and trailers, we are finding this supportable. I'm happy to answer any questions. Yeah, you mentioned how was the operation. Could you point me to the condition that talks about? It should be condition four, I believe, and it only applies to semi-tractors, semi-trailers. Is there hours of operation condition or no? No, it's not hours of operation per se. It's hours of truck activity restriction, yeah. Okay. Yes. Thanks for that clarification. All right, thank you. All right, thank you. All right, planning commission staff. Alexis Maris, planning commission staff. The subject site is within the residential four and light industrial plan future land use categories, and it's also within the limits of the urban service area, and to notice as a community plan. Future land use section objective 3.1 states that all new developments should recognize the existing community and be designed in a way that is compatible with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. All the uses directly adjacent and surrounding the site are residential in nature, but for the vacant parcels directly north and west of the site. The proposed uses of warehousing, distribution, light manufacturing, and outdoor storage will introduce a level of intensity that is not consistent with the surrounding residential character of the area. However, the applicant did provide multiple mitigation measures and strategies such as enhanced buffering and screening near residential, gated access to buildings B, unloading and loading zone, and truck hours to restrict the idling and loading and unloading of semi tractor and trailer vehicles. The applicant has agreed to restrict these activities of from 10 pm to 6 am on the site. As such, the proposed light industrial uses would be much more compatible with the adjacent land uses and maintain the character of the surrounding area with its current configuration and conditions. Environmental and sustainability section objective 3.3 and policy 3.3.1 seek to conserve soils, discourage erosion, and maintain water quality through considerations of conditions and natural soil characteristics. There has been a condition of approval to allow for tree planting and reduce buffering to address natural resources objection. Therefore, Planning Commission staff is supportable of this requested buffer reduction. The enhanced buffers on the east and reduction of the west accompanied by the other conditions of approval on truck hours provide additional, provide gradual transitions between uses and is consistent with future lane, future lane use objective, I'm sorry, future lane use section policy 3.1.2. Goal 4 of the Tonota Assassin Community Plan states that states that to us are states to provide for commercial use of commercial use to provide additional buffering and screening as well as a proposal of large semi-tractors and trailer vehicles to idle and load unload on the site other than the restricted hours of 10 pm to 6 am adequately meet the intent of protection of community identity given the predominantly residential neighborhood, I'm sorry, residential character of the neighborhood. The proposed use may provide for job opportunities and commerce and still provide the necessary protection of the community identity and mitigation of the proposed use adjacent to the existing residential development. Based upon the above considerations and following goals of justice and policies, Planning Commission staff find the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the proposed conditions by the development services department. Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Yes sir, please come forward. We, um, he's about to say his name but he's authorized us to enter this letter of support on his behalf and to the record. May I state your name and address for the record? My name is Brian Clay. I live at 9322 Ripley Road, Florida, Florida. Okay. And, uh, my support is, um, stated in the letter. Okay. There's a letter of support? Yes. From you? Yes. Got it. All right. Anything else, sir? That's it? All right. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? No one responding? I just needed to make one change. Um, I saw that we just incorrectly listed the type of BOCC meeting. The date is correct, December 8th. Um, on the first page though, we have it classified as a CPA hearing and that is incorrect. It's just a regular land use meeting. Okay. Okay. Any applicant as an opportunity for rebuttal? Thank you. I just wanted to thank Jared for correcting the Ripley Road, uh, wall to fence. And, um, in the planning commission report, I noticed that they referenced the location as a Fort King Highway. So I was hoping we could correct that for the record to U.S. Highway 301 for the Board of County Commissioner hearing. And with that, I have a thing else to add. Thank you. Um, that's fine. But those of us lived here long enough, I think it's either Fort King Highway or U.S. 301. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that the change that she asked for. It says that the, uh, prop on the planning commission staff report, it says Fort King Highway, which is, they do have a segment in Thona to Sasa, but it's not that U.S. 301 segment to my knowledge. So I was just hoping we could check that and fix it for the next one for the Board of County Commissioner hearing. And you're asking the planning commission to look at that issue. Yes. Okay. Just to look at it and fix it if it needs to be fixed. Because there is a Fort King Highway in Thona to Sasa, but that's not that segment of 301 to my knowledge. Thank you. Okay. With that, that concludes this application. And Ms. Heinrich, we're ready for the last item on tonight's agenda. Our last item is item D6, PD 26-1221. The applicant is requesting your rezone property from ASC1 to Plain Development. Sam Ball with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. The applicant please. Good evening. Bryce Pinson with Half Associates, 1000 North Ashley Drive, Tampa, Florida. I also have with me Billy Malloy and Michael Yates if you have any questions later in the presentation. Okay. The subject property is about 10 acres located along U.S. Highway 41 within the Lutes Community Plan. It's designated NMU 4, Residential 1 and Residential 2 on the future land use map. And it's currently zoned ASC1. The request is to permit up to 40,000 square feet of CG uses, which is less than the 0.25 FAR permitted by these future land use designations. The development will also be limited by the trip generation within the transportation analysis included with this application. The request excludes the development of gas stations, public or private schools, and auto repair. And no development is proposed on the east of U.S. Highway 41 and it will be used as open space as depicted on the zoning site plan. Variations requested were to allow for the required cross-axis to go through the buffers on the north and south of the property. The cross-axis were required by code. We're not waiving the buffer requirements there. The buffers will continue on each side of the access points. There is a commercial location criteria requested, waiver requested, due to more than 75% of the property being more than 1,000 feet from a qualifying intersection. However, the property fronts U.S. 41, which is a six-lane arterial roadway and is bordered by the CSX Railroad corridor as well. The development along the corridor is predominantly zoned for commercial uses, making the proposed development compatible with the existing land use pattern. There's also a 100-foot TECO easement that bisects the property and a large wetland area located on the western portion of the site that limits the developable area and naturally orients the proposed commercial development towards the U.S. 41 frontage. The development provides approximately 190 feet separation from the residential properties to the west and approximately 75 feet from those to the south. Here you can see this is a street view facing west towards the property. The adjacent single-family residences that staff references adjacent to our site is located beyond these wetlands and vegetation you can see here. So you can see that the houses are actually not even visible from the street point of view. And then this is facing towards the south where the property fronts the existing mobile home park development with CG zoning. There's existing trees here as well as as well as a proposed landscape buffer, stormwater pond, and minimum 75 foot setback from the property line. So in summary the request is compatible due to its frontage on U.S. 41 adjacent properties along the quarter being commercially zoned, requested lower intensity than one is permitted by the comprehensive plan, and proposing appropriate buffering and screening to adjacent properties. The site will also comply with the loot's rural area design requirements and no waivers are being requested. Staff found the request compatible with the surrounding area and recommended approval. So that's all I have unless you have any questions. No questions. If you could just put that second to last slide up. I went through it pretty quick. That one right there. So you take it. Give me 30 seconds. Okay. Thank you. No problem. All right. Development Services staff. Good evening. Sam Ball, Hillsborough County Development Services. The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 10.15 acres from A to C1 to PD to allow for the development of up to 40,000 square feet of commercial general uses excluding gas stations and auto repair. The site is developed currently for single-family use and is subject to the Luce Rural Development Standards. This property is located within an area of North US Highway 41 that's developed for semi-rural mixed-use development. The nearest residential properties to the east are separated approximately 615 feet, which includes 114 feet of DOT right-of-way, 100 feet of CSX right-of-way, and 400-foot section of the proposed PD that will remain undeveloped. The single-family properties to the west are separated from the proposed building envelope by 190 feet. Development to the north and along the west side of US, Highway 41 includes two ASC-1 zoned properties that are developed for commercial purposes. Beyond these two properties to the north, the properties on the west side of US 41 are zoned and developed for CG uses for approximately 0.45 miles. Directly to the south, the four closest properties are zoned CG and are either developed for commercial use or have undeveloped commercial tracks on them. As proposed, the 40,000 square feet of CG development would result in an FAR of 0.105. Buildings would be limited 35 feet in height. The minimum setbacks would be 190 feet from the west, 20 feet from the north and east property lines, and 75 feet from the south property line. Buffering screening would be per LDC with the exception that the applicant requested a variation to weigh the requirement to provide buffering and screening along the portion of the PD that's on the east side of the highway and which is not included in the building envelope. Based on the surrounding zoning and development pattern and proposed uses and development standards for this PD zoning district staff finds the request approvable. That concludes my presentation if you have any questions. Based on your evaluation of the site, do you believe the site's isolated? Isolated? The portion where they want to request the waivers, that is definitely isolated from the development. I mean where they want to put the commercial uses on the west side of 41. Do you think that track is isolated from the surrounding properties? I think to the west, you have quite a bit of wetlands that would separate the commercial uses from the building envelope. Then you have stormwater ponds and then where the non-conforming mobile home park to the south, there's quite a bit of separation between those uses. And that track actually has three parcels that are designated for commercial that haven't been developed. So as far as isolated, the impacts to the west are fairly well integrated. Right. Right. That's the isolation meaning it's not contiguous to single-family residential. Correct. Right. Because the single-family to the west is separated by a large part of the wetlands and the stormwater pond and the 190-foot setback. All right, thank you. Planning Commission staff. Alexis, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is within the limits of the residential one, residential two, and neighborhood mixed use for three future use categories. The site is within the limits of the rural area and the Lutz Community Plan. Based upon the site's upland acreage, it can be considered up to 76,447 square feet of non-residential development. Although the proposed 40,000 square feet is below the maximum potential intensity, the maximum flora area ratio does not establish an entitlement of development. The proposed resigning must also demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies addressing compatibility, commercial location, transitions and intensity, environmental resources, and the character of the surrounding area. Given the multiple future use designations on the property and its location within the rural area, the proposed commercial development must demonstrate compatibility with the intent of each designation and the surrounding development pattern. Future land use section objective 1.2 promotes the preservation of the rural area's agricultural uses, large lot residential development, and natural areas. Additionally, future land use section objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 require new development to demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding uses. Although the applicant identifies existing commercial development along US Highway 41, the presence of commercial uses along the corridor does not by itself establish compatibility with the adjacent residential properties. The proposed PD would allow for a broad range of CG uses, including fast food restaurants with drive-through facilities, which could generate additional traffic, noise, lighting, and operational activity. While gas stations and motor vehicle repair uses would be excluded, the remaining range of permanent uses raise concerns regarding compatibility with the surrounding residential character. The proposed mitigation measures do not fully address the potential impacts associated with the range of uses permitted by the PD. The CXX railroad corridor and associated open space are located across US Highway 41 on a separate parcel and do not provide direct separation between the proposed development and adjacent residential properties. Physical buffers may reduce certain impacts, but do not adequately address concerns regarding hours of operation, lighting, noise, vehicle circulation, drive-through activity, and overall development intensity. Therefore, the proposal does not establish an inadequate transition between the proposed commercial uses and the surrounding residential development. The subject site also does not meet commercial locational criteria established by future lane section objective 4.7 and its associated policies. The closest qualifying intersection is US Highway 41 and Whitaker Road and approximately 75 percent of the site of the subject sites is located beyond the applicable CLC distance. The applicant has requested a waiver based on the site's frontage along US Highway 41, the existing commercial development along the corridor, and physical and environmental constraints including wetlands, the TECO transmission easement, and a proposed stormwater retention plan. However, future lane section policy 4.7.9 clarifies that satisfying or waiving the CLC does not guarantee approval of commercial development as compatibility, transportation, public services, environmental impacts, and other comprehensive plan policies must also be considered. Given the site's proximity to residential uses, the range of commercial uses proposed, and a lack of adequate transition and intensity, Planning Commission staff does not support the requested CLC waiver. Future lane section policy 4.7.4 further requires transitions in the intensity of non-residential uses to be established in a manner compatible with the surrounding character. The proposed PD does not address this requirement as the permitted commercial uses could introduce activity and operational impacts inconsistent with adjacent residential development. The proposed buffering and existing site constraints do not mitigate these concerns. The loose community plan establishes that commercial development should reflect the role of character and natural environment by the community. It directs new commercial zoning towards three established activity nodes along US Highway 41, the historic downtown area extending to New Burger Road, the Crystal Lake Road to Sunset Lane corridor, and the Crenshaw Lake Road area. The subject property is not located within any of these designated activity nodes. Although commercial uses exist elsewhere along US Highway 41, the community plan does not identify the entire corridor as appropriate for a new commercial zoning. The proposed rezoning would extend commercial, uh, I'm sorry, the proposed rezoning would extend commercial zoning beyond the identified activity nodes and would not support the community plan's established strategy for commercial development. Based upon these considerations, Planning Commission staff find the proposed plan development inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Conference of Plan. The proposed commercial development does not adequately demonstrate compatibility with adjacent residential uses, fails to meet the commercial locational criteria, does not establish the appropriate transition in development intensity, and is inconsistent with the commercial development strategy of the Lutz community plan. Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? There's no one responding. Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application? Mr. Chair, we have one virtual speaker in opposition. Okay. Go ahead. The person that's online, you can go ahead. Thank you for your time and allowing me the opportunity to speak here. My name is Spencer Dix. I am a resident of 17317 Lynette Drive, Lutz, Florida, 33549. I've lived in this neighborhood for 14 years now, and my primary concern with the proposed development is flooding in our neighborhood during rainfall. The streets on and around Duke Road and Lynette Drive regularly flood during heavy rainfall already as is. The county tried to remediate this a couple years ago by digging us deeper culverts, but the problem still persists. The lot on Duke Road, where they proposed to demolish the small home, regularly becomes a swamp every time there is moderate to heavy rainfall, and that area often remains flooded for days on end as the water very slowly dissipates. I'm quite concerned that this development will drastically worsen the flooding we are already prone to here by paving over what is effectively wetland as often as not, and by removing one more outlet for our local water to dissipate. The homes in this neighborhood were built during the 70s, but several new developments were built around us during the 90s at a higher elevation. So we already receive a great deal of their rainwater runoff, and I fear that any new construction over the effective wetland by Duke Road will very likely lead to quality of life problems for our residents, as well as financial distress as they try to deal with the worsened flooding. Those are my comments, but thank you very much for your time. Very good. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the audience or online that wishes to speak in opposition? Is there anyone else responding? Staff, anything further? No, sir. Just to the question about site development process, if this site gets approved, is there a process that they have to go through next in terms of looking at stormwater issues? Yeah, this is the first, I guess you would say, phase in which you're entitling the property and examining the uses. If it's approved, it would need to go through a review with a site-engineered plan, and one of those reviewing agencies is stormwater, which would require that it comply with all the stormwater technical manuals. The PD would not give them any relief from any of those standards, and it's not one of the variations you can ask for in the PD. Okay. Thank you. At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Lutz, good evening, William Molloy, 325 South Boulevard. If I could, I'd like to address the gentleman that spoke here in person and point out his concern was with Duke Road, which is on the eastern side of 41. We are not developing on that side of the road. That wetland, that open space, untouched. All of the development that we're contemplating stays on the western side. I would also point out that the Planning Commission does not like this project at all. In defense of some of their assertions, we have a full 190 feet from our property line to the edge of the wetlands. That's almost a code squawk box in terms of buffer. You know what I mean for a drive-through? I do. So if we started a drive-through restaurant at the edge of the wetlands setback, we've already met separation there. We could almost put two of them in, left to right. That's not to say we would, but I just want to address that that buffer exists. It really shouldn't be ignored. It protects that single-family to the west. Regarding commercial locational criteria, this is a state highway. And in our pre-sub with FDOT, they allowed us to drop the median cut to mid-project so that people can make left turns across the state highway into our commercial project. That's how appropriate commercial is here at this location. The mobile home park just south of us is mobile homes, but it carries a CG designation. And again, we completely understand and respect the single-family to the west, but it's a neighborhood away in our eyes. We think that we've very thoughtfully, very carefully planned this thing out. Appreciate your support on it. Thank you. Very good. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Malloy. I'll get you to sign in. I got a question for you. Um, sir, hold on. Um, can you turn his office staff? Wait, I just closed this case. I didn't think about this anyway. All right, all right, hold on. Sir, wait a minute. So it's not about the case that we just talked about. All right. Um, so officially we close the case on PD 26-1-221. I'll give you a little latitude, sir. Please come up here to the microphone. And you have a question? Two letters from a guy out of Milwaukee. Sir, what, sir, all the cases that were going to be heard tonight have already been heard. I know. That's why I'm asking you. So when is this going to be heard? Because I got two letters saying it's going to be tonight at 6 o'clock. All right, I'll ask you to meet with Michelle Heinrich or the lady standing next to her. And they'll help you with those questions. All right. With that, that concludes tonight's zoning hearing. Master hearing. We are adjourned.