PDD-19-0614

Every appearance1 of 1 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 67% of 15 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Feb 7, 2019
   Planning CommissionP12Public hearingApproved

   Approved minutes

   Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 43:11
   ▶ 43:115m

   Erica Wayland

   43:11Item P twelve, P D D nineteen zero six one four, is a large-scale comprehensive plan text amendment in the name of C Pel nineteen oh eight legacy. The subject property is located on the north side of State Road 54, one mile west of the Sun Coast Parkway and three-quarters mile east of Gunn Highway. the Centric Property Zoned MPUD master plan unit development. Proposed is a text amendment to the Sub area policy flu seven point one point eighteen legacy. Here's the uh subject of property I The

   43:42existing future land use is P D Plan Development. Here's an aerial map. The subject property contains mixed credential uses and the applicant is proposing to clarify that the entitlements are subject to the exchanges trade-offs permitted by the MPUD that were initially estimated There were initially estimated development entitlements in the land use develop the land use data table. The applicant has also applied for a non-substantial modification to the legacy MPUD.

   44:11There's Res 3 to the north and south, PD to the east, and IH to the west. There's Residential to the south, Conservation Lands to the north, and the South Branch Ranch and PewDie to the east. Here is the proposed sub-area policy. You can see how it's stricken through where it says that such amendments shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policy to the comprehensive plan with the 9J5 for administrative code. That's stricken out because that's been repealed, so we struck it out of the sub-area policy. And further down below you can see that we made

   44:41it clear that the land uses that will be exchanged are pursuant to the adopted legacy MPD master plan development. The Legacy M PewD has been designed to implement development standards that achieve the goals of the P D designation as well as the ULI vision of the South Market area. Portions of the legacy will adhere to the T and D design standards. The sector property is located with the South Market Area Establishment and meets the goals and objectives. And uh we find th we want you

   45:11to find the proposed large scale comprehensive plan text amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners.

   GreyChair

   45:20Okay, thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   45:26Mr. Chairman Mobby Planning Commission members Clark Hobby Hobby and Hobby PA 109 North Brest Street Tampa Florida. I'll keep this fairly brief. I think most of you all are familiar with the story. When this was approved, there was a settlement agreement with the county. It had been a very contentious matter, and it was going to be at one point it was proposed for a single family. Development. The settlement agreement imposed a series of conditions both in the MPUD and the sub-area policies about the

   45:57mixed-use nature of the development. It was really something that David and Mr. Gallagher were keen on. And sometime later my client, the owner of the property, is State Road 54 Land Associates, which is an affiliate of Heinz Interest, which is one of the largest office developers in the world. And they've been very successful in creating the kind of mixed-use development that we all wanted. We've got 250 or 260,000 square feet of office and light industrial class A space that. It's about

   46:27to be issued the uh bill uh COs out there. So all we're doing here is I had a meeting with David, I guess it was about a year ago, and we started looking at these sub-area policies and realized, in my opinion, and I think David would concur, they're not consistent with what the intent of the settlement agreement from 2010, nor are they consistent with the MPUD and its limitations. limitations. There's still a host of limitations about the form of the development, the mixed use nature,

   46:57et cetera, et cetera. But suffice to say, we have already satisfied the biggest elements of the mixed use development and we already have the ability under the MPUD to trade off a bunch of the uses pursuant to the settlement agreement. It's just that for some reason there are these sub-area policies I can't honestly figure out why they were ever adopted in the first place. So nothing new is really happening. We're not proposing to come in right now with a bunch of new residential. We are under contract and hoping to have some specialty grocers

   47:27out front. Some projects we're working on. We'll see what happens. But uh that's all we're doing. This little cleanup job. So we appreciate your help.

   GreyChair

   47:37Okay, thank you. Anyone else?

   47:43Okay, I see no one David, I think.

   Girardi

   47:46Nothing there.

   GreyChair

   47:47Okay. Move for approval. Second. Motion is second. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.