Zoning Amendment (Consent) – SR 52 Groves MPUD Master Planned Unit Development – State Road 52 Groves, Inc. - A Rezoning Request from R-3 Medium Density Residential, C-2 General Commercial, C-3 Commercial/Light Manufacturing, and I-1 Light Industrial Zoning Districts to an MPUD to allow for a maximum of 204 Single-family Attached Dwelling Units and Associated Infrastructure on Approximately 68.49 Acres

28:00Item P sixty five, Madam Clerk.

28:02Item P sixty five was published in the Tampa Bay Times on June twenty-first, twenty twenty three.

28:07P65 is PVD 237591 zoning amendment in the name of six State Route 52 Groves, MPUD, Master Plan Unit Development. State Route 52 Groves Inc., it's a rezoning request from R3 Medium Density Residential, C2 General Commercial, C3, Commercial Light Manufacturing, and I1 Light Industrial Zoning Districts to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development to allow for a maximum of 204 single-family attached dwelling units. And associated infrastructure on approximately 68.49 acres comes here with a recommendation of approval with conditions from

28:37the Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission. To answer Commissioner Starkey's question from earlier on when the comp plan was heard, the applicant is requesting some request not to interconnect on the entire western portion because there's capital. One wetlands and most of the eastern portion also has wetlands. Whatever does not have a wetland coverage is cons consist is is cons is all platted lots with residential homes that are already existing on the property.

29:07They do they are per proposing interconnects to the north.

29:12And that that's the one

29:13I asked.

29:13Yes.

29:16ask a quick question on it uh to Commissioner Weightman's question applying to the the local act.

29:22Um so this is the we're not this one is actually going MPUD four residential, two hundred and four units.

29:29Okay.

29:29So it's not going commercial.

29:30Okay. You're

29:31doing it to yourself.

29:33Okay. Somebody's doing it to yourself. All

29:35right.

29:35So we'll leave it on consent. Is there anyone in the in the audience to oppose this item?

29:40I have no one signed up um in person or on WebEx.

29:43Okay.

29:46Item P 66 was published in the Tampa Bay Times on May 24, 2023.

29:52P sixty six is PDD twenty three seven six eight four zoning amendment in the name of Sarah Gurley Trust, Max L and Sarah C. Gurley, co-trustees, for a change in zoning from an AR agricultural residential district to a C2 General Commercial District. Comes to you with a recommendation of approval. The applicant applicant has voluntarily agreed to record a deed restriction that reserves the uses for commercial use. uses on the property and comes through with a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission.

30:22Okay. Anyone here to speak in opposition to P sixty six? Anyone on Webix? I have

30:27no one signed up and no one on WebEx.

30:29Thank you. Item P sixty seven.

30:32Item P sixty seven was published in Tampe Times on July nineteenth, twenty twenty-three.

30:37P67 is PDD 230391. It's comprehensive plan amendment C CPA 2107, Project Arthur Ecological Border Boundary Modification, Future Land Use Change. It's for this is for the transmittal of this item. So you're transmitting the item to the Department of Commerce and other reviewing agencies. So you're transmitting the comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map two. fifteen, sheet twelve from PD Plan Development to C O N conservation lands on approximately one thousand five

31:07hundred and seventeen point eight nine acres of real property located south of State Route 52, north of State Route 54, east of the Sunday Parkway, and west of a CS CSX Rail Corridor in Land O' Lakes and a map amendment to the future land use map two-9, amending sub-area map two-943, Project Arthur, and To crop and a map amendment to the conservation map 3-4 amending the North Pasco to Crossbar Ecological Corridor and the North Pasco to Connerton Ecological Corridor, providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal

31:38consistency, provide providing for a repealer, severability, and an effective date. The local planning agency found this item consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners. And again, today. We're just asking you to accept public comment and allow us to transmit it to Department of Commerce and other reviewing agencies.

31:56Is there anyone here to speak against this item T67?

32:00I have

32:01a

32:01target.

32:04I think the correction is P sixty eight. I have no one signed up for this item and no one on WebX.

32:09Okay, leave it on consent?

32:11Um Commissioner O

32:13I need to pull P the one before this for a question.

32:20P sixty six. So so we leave P sixty seven on. You wanna pull sixty five for a question?

32:25Or sixty six.

32:26Which one?

32:29No. P sixty six. Girls. if the commercial if you that's the one you want,

32:37you see? I ripped it out. So yeah. P sixty six.

32:42Right. So you want to just pull it off consent and we'll deal with it later? Yeah. Okay. Then pull sixty-six. Item P sixty eight.

32:52One moment and get back. Item P sixty eight was published in the Tampe Times on July 19, 2023.

33:00P68 is also a transmittal to the Department of Commerce and other reviewing agency. It's PDD 230497, comprehensive plan amendments, CPA 2207, Heinz, Cruce, and Douglas KD52, providing for transmittal the proposed text amendment to the future land use element appendix A map, amendment to the future land use map 2-9, amending sub-area map 2-9-22, gateway hub sub-area. Area and sub-area map 2-92A gateway hub subcategories. There is a correction that was sent

33:30to the clerk's office today that is as a result of some comments that were made by the LPA on 8323, and those were submitted into record as well, and comes to you with a recommendation that you accept public comment and authorize transmittal to the Department of Commerce and other reviewing agencies, the local Planning Agency found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the board on August 3rd, 23.

33:54Anyone here in opposition to speak uh to item P sixty eight?

33:59I have no one signed up in person and no one on WIDEX.

34:02Okay. So with the exception of P sixty six, may have a motion to approve the consent agenda. So move.

34:07Second.

34:08All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. P sixty-six.

34:16Uh me okay. I was wondering on sixty seven, but