PDE-24-7740

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. 82% of 38 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Sep 17, 2024
   Board of County CommissionersP70Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 4:04:42
   ▶ 4:04:421m1/2

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:04:42Got a motion and second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passed. Uh to be continued. Uh P seventy. And this is our first consent item.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   4:04:55Proof of publication in the Tampa Bay Times, uh July tenth of twenty twenty four, supplemented by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

   Denise

   4:05:05Item P70 is PDE 247740. It's a zoning amendment in the name of residences at Rolling Hills, MPUD, Master Plan Unit Development, Dan Nico Properties LLC. It's for a rezoning from MF1 Multiple Family Medium Density District to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development to allow a total of 132 multifamily units, 104 senior units. 3,600 square feet of medical office, and a minimum of 3,000 square feet of retail on approximately

   4:05:359.87 acres. Comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions from the Planning Commission and the Planning Development and Economic Growth Department. Specifically, there are conditions 46 and 47 that deal with the land use. And zoning exemptions or preemptions, sorry, in the LIVE LOCOL Act, and also the Ad Valorian tax exemp uh preemptions in the Live Local Act. I have a question on this.

   4:06:04All

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:06:04right.

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:06:05Go to the next item.

   ▶ 4:08:584m2/2

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:08:58Ms. Starkey.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:08:59Um just that in talking with staff on this one, they worked very hard on this site plan. And um I just wanna No. How we make this site plan either binding or very close to binding? And this is something that we have to be careful about 'cause we see We work hard to get a good design and then that isn't what gets built 'cause it wasn't binding. So How d how do we do that?

   4:09:27And maybe it's in the conditions of approval, but I d I don't think they are in my conversation with staff.

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:09:35Mr. Peters.

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:09:39Uh Niktarius Pito's playing development economic growth. Um this particular concept plan is being controlled by its dimensional standards.

   Chairman

   4:09:50Yeah.

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:09:50Uh so Uh typically there's a condition of approval that's built into the uh into this project. Uh our code places a 150-foot setback on industrial property when it's adjacent to residential development. Uh in this particular project we've worked to split the difference and establish seventy-five feet of that 150 foot setback on the residential property. That would mean that Uh parking has to occur between their building

   4:10:21uh that their their westernmost buildings and the westernmost property line, which pushes their buildings to the east. Which then forces them to have the buildings up along the street.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:10:32Well I'm I'm fine with that along the street. I mean Don't we want that?

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:10:37Yes. So this is very near to a uh uh a binding concept plan based on the dimensional criteria that are built into the conditions of approval. Uh if you want further Um uh

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:10:53See um that red dotted line, that's a pedestrian

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:10:56Yes. Those are the the pedestrian networks within the property.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:11:00Okay, and those are binding?

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:11:02Yes.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:11:03Okay, and um then we have access, potential future access to whatever comes south. And we have uh connection to the east. Over on the right hand side and a cross access on the southwestern corner there. That stays.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   4:11:23Yes.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:11:25Okay, then

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   4:11:25I'm okay. Mr. Chairman, so what would be the problem with adding a condition that says that the that the PDP slash P S P that's submitted shall be in substantial accord with a conceptual plan submitted with this rezoning.

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:11:38Right, that's what I was gonna say. If you wanted to add a condition to say that, we could add that. Okay. Absolutely.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:11:44Yeah.

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:11:45All right,

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:11:45pleasure of the board.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:11:47Uh make that motion with the conditional public comment

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:11:50to public comment. Does anyone here speak uh Against this item? Well it's off a control item.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   4:12:02And by which

   4:12:05we're not going to be able to

   Unidentified speaker

   4:12:08Oh, looky here. Good afternoon, Justina Gale, two hundred forward planning and design, two hundred Pine Winds Boulevard. We're okay with the condition.

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:12:18Okay. Move or pull with the binding condition?

   Unidentified speaker

   4:12:22Second.

   Ron OakleyChair

   4:12:22I got a motion second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passed. Five zero.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   4:12:28Thank you.