for mosquitoes because they are a threat to public health. There are many mosquito-borne illnesses that they can pass on to humans and other animals. Therefore, we want to mitigate their populations and we're only spraying whenever we have justification and that could come from our surveillance data or from our inspectors who go out and are looking at different larval production sites every single day. We don't have a spray schedule because everything we do is based on data that we collect. So it's based on the number of mosquitoes that we find in our traps every day. It's based on what the inspectors are finding out in the field. If they're finding a lot of breeding, they'll obviously treat them, but we don't have a set schedule because everything is based on data that we find. We don't do any individual spray requests. You can always submit a request for spray, a request for a property inspection, or report any standing water that you have around your house and we'll come send out an inspector. They'll come look at that area, see if it's breeding, and then based on the data that they find, we'll see if that area is eligible for treatment, but we don't do treatment based on special events. We're spraying right at sunset because dawn and dusk are the most active times for mosquitoes, so in order for our treatments to be the most effective, we obviously want to treat when the mosquitoes are most active and we're going to be able to mitigate the population best at those times. Welcome to the works. In today's episode, we're taking to the skies with Hillsborough County Mosquito Control to find out how they combat the spread of disease and the rising mosquito population. So when it comes to mosquitoes, how exactly are we combating them in the sky? Nobody complains about larvae, they complain about mosquitoes, and specifically adult mosquitoes, female mosquitoes, the ones that bite you, right? But it's a lot easier to control adult mosquitoes by controlling the larvae. What we do is we use a larvicide product that attacks the larval in the swamps of the mangrove areas along the coast here. We stop their growth so they never grow up and become adult mosquitoes to call the meeting to order for the comprehensive plan amendment public hearing for Thursday, October the 8th, 2026. First, I'd like to read two memorandums from two commissioners. The first one is Commissioner Hagan. Please be advised that due to a scheduling conflict, I would not be able to attend the October 8th public hearing. If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to me or my office. The second one is from Commissioner Miller. Please be advised that due to previously planned travel, I will not be able to attend the October 8th comprehensive planning meeting. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly. Okay. Welcome to the Board of County Commissioners comprehensive plan amendment public hearing. The Board will consider the approval of an ordinance for an annual update to the capital improvements scheduled set forth in the capital improvement section of the plan. The Board would also consider the adoption of a small scale amendments to the comprehensive plan and two rezonings that would be considered concurrently with related plan amendments. The first one, FY 27 through 31, the CIS scheduled a project's consideration of the ordinance providing for an update to the schedule of capital improvements set forth in the capital improvement section. Planning Commission. Good evening. Good evening. Item A1 will be presented by Katrina Corcoran. Good evening. Good evening. I will be presenting the Hillsborough County fiscal year 27 through 31 capital improvement section or CIS schedule of projects update. Starting off with review and analysis, chapter 163 requires that the schedule of projects or the list of projects addressing level of service and adopted into the comprehensive plan be updated on an annual basis. This update would replace the existing CIS schedule in the comprehensive plan with the schedule that is available in your packets. The latest schedule reflects the adopted capital improvements program that was recently approved. The update is accomplished by ordinance which is permitted under chapter 163. This is a routine annual update where we come before you each year with this information. County staff identified projects that affect the level of service and again this constitutes the schedule of projects. There was also a recent chapter 163 update that requires the CIS to include basin management action plan or BMAP projects to be updated annually. BMAP is a framework for water quality restoration that includes a comprehensive set of solutions to achieve pollutant reductions as defined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. These BMAP projects were coordinated with county staff from the Environmental Services Division. Finally, the plans of other agencies are incorporated through this review. This slide shows the fiscal year 27 through 31 scheduled projects by program. You can see there are five program areas that consider level of service including parks, solid waste, stormwater, transportation, and water enterprise. You can also see that the largest program areas in terms of funding include transportation and water enterprise and for the capital improvements schedule there are 195 projects with over 4.45 billion dollars. This slide shows the CIS schedule of projects as shown on the previous slide broken down by LOS priority. As you can see here there is 1.9 billion or 43 percent toward future growth, 1.4 billion or 32 percent towards eliminating deficiency and 1.1 billion or 23 percent to maintaining LOS. Finally, there is 4.5 million or less than 1 percent toward eliminating deficiency and future growth. This slide shows an excerpt of policies from the full packet that you have of staff's consistency review. Looking at LOS priorities and CIS policy 1.1.8 as noted in the previous slide project funding should first be expended on projects that maintain LOS and correct efficiencies before being expended on projects that serve future growth. Staff reviewed this and found this consistent with the comprehensive plan. Up next we have infrastructure locations. So looking at FLU objective 1.1. This objective directs county infrastructure and facilities to the urban service area. Staff found 86 percent of the overall projects which constitute 45 percent of the funding are within the USA. I'd like to note with this that several large projects that are intended to serve both the USA and the rural population are technically located in the rural area. So that's why there's a large financial amount in that area. Finally we have coastal the coastal high hazard area or CHHA with CIS objective 1.5. This directs staff to look at limiting public expenditures for infrastructure and facilities in the CHHA. After review staff found that the projects within the CHHA were minimal and were either to serve existing development repair or replacement or to enhance public access to natural areas. With that the planning commission found the fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 31 CIS schedule of projects consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan and recommends adoption by ordinance. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have along with county staff. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone who wishes to speak? Is there none? I have a motion? I'll move approval and I just have a question. That's why I'm queued. Okay. Commissioner Watson. Is this just a standard 4-3 vote or is this 5-2? This is an ordinance, not a plan amendment pursuant to state statute. So it requires a vote of 4. Okay. Thank you. I'll second your motion. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Watson, second by Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote. Motion carried 5-0. Okay. At this time, I'm going to ask Assistant County Attorney Johanna to speak. Board's policy is that where there are five or fewer board members present, there will be an opportunity for applicants to choose the continuance to choose to continue their item to a future hearing date in order to have additional board members seated. I would ask that each applicant, as required in the procedures, each applicant will need to make that election before they begin their presentation on their application. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We'll have the swearing in now by the clerk's office. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. At this time, we'll hear HCCPA 2610, the Comprehensive Planning Map Amendment. Planning Commission. Yes. This item will be presented by me. Good evening, Commissioners. Lillian Lenihan with Planning Commission staff here to present HCCPA 2610, which is located southeast of Kingsway Road and Tonota-Sassa Road. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small on scale and approximately 24.22 acres. And the applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from agricultural rule one to five and residential one to residential two. This is the general location map. It is within the rural area and within the limits of the Tonota-Sassa Community Plan. It is located along Lake Tonota-Sassa and is south of Tonota-Sassa Road and east of North Kingsway Road. Here is an aerial of the site. The site is outlined in pink and the site is currently undeveloped and surrounded by agricultural and single-family uses. Currently, the future land use designation is agricultural rule one to five and residential one. The agricultural rule one to five category allows for one dwelling unit per five gross acres and a maximum floor error ratio of 0.25. And this designation specifically allows for the consideration of farms, ranches, feedlots, residential, neighborhood, commercial offices, and multi-purpose projects. And you'll see on the map here that the site is currently surrounded by the agricultural rule one to five and residential one feature land use designations. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to residential two. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to residential two. This category allows for two dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5. And this designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood, commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects. Under existing conditions with the agricultural rule one to five and residential one designations, the site could consider for up to 16 dwelling units or 263,755 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed future land use designation of residential two, the site could consider up to 48 dwelling units or 263,755 square feet of non-residential land uses. And the proposed amendment will increase the maximum potential residential density and will not change the maximum potential non-residential intensity. The proposed amendment received no formal objections and a full list of comments were was provided within the packet report packet for your review. And the planning commission found the proposed request is inconsistent with flu's objectives 1.2 and policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 which defines the rural area as a place intended to provide for long-term agricultural uses, large lot rural residential uses, and undeveloped natural areas. And that within the rural area densities shown on the future land use map shall be no higher than one dwelling unit per five gross acres unless located within an area identified as a suburban enclave, a planned village, a planned development pursuant to the planned environmental community category, or rural community which will carry higher densities. The site currently carries a split future land use designation of agricultural rural one to five and residential one which are both densities found within and intended for the rural area. The nearest suburban enclave within the rural area is located approximately 0.9 miles west of the site with the future land use designation of residential two and 1.04 miles northwest of the site with the future land use designation of residential six. The existing future land use is between these two suburban enclaves and the subject site is all residential one and agricultural one to five. And while some of the surrounding areas contain designations of residential one which is higher than the general required one to five density, the introduction of residential two within the rural area that does not contain and is not in close proximity to a suburban enclave, planned village, or planned environmental community with a higher future land use designation is inconsistent with the rural area objectives and policies. FLU's objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 require new developments to be compatible to surrounding neighborhoods and FLU's policy 4.4.7 calls for lands fronting a water body to have density and or intensity comparable and compatible with other development parcels and lots fronting the water body outside of the urban service area. The surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of low density single family residential and agricultural uses and the surrounding areas generally contain large lot rural residential developments with the future land use designation of agricultural rule one to five or residential one. Additionally, based on the current existing future land use categories around Lake Tonota Sasa, the eastern portion of the lake is adjacent to agricultural rule one to five and the western portion is surrounded by the residential one designation. There are no future land use categories along Lake Tonota Sasa that have a density greater than one dwelling unit per acre. A future land use designation of residential two along the southern edge of Lake Tonota Sasa will result in a land use pattern that is not comparable and compatible to the current land use pattern fronting the lake outside of the which is located outside of the urban service area making this inconsistent with FLU's policy 4.4.7 and lastly the site is within the limits of the Tonota Sasa community plan. Goal three of this plan seeks to provide improved yet affordable infrastructure and a balance of residential commercial and other land uses while maintaining the rural nature of the Tonota Sasa area. Goal five seeks to protect water wildlife air soil and trees through effective planning consistent enforcement of existing regulations and incentives and lastly the community plan lists specific strategies that the community will use to achieve these goals. Most notably the plan requires minimum lot sizes of one acre for residential development within the residential one agricultural state and agricultural rural future land use categories and it explicitly states within the strategies to protect the area's rural character. The future land use change of residential two would allow for a more intense and dense development pattern within the rural area. It would not protect the existing rural community character that the Tonota Sasa community plan intends to maintain. Goals three and five seek to balance private property rights with the protection of the environment and the rural character and given that the site is located along Lake Tonota Sasa and within an agricultural heavy area of the community the residential category two would be too intense it would not further the goals of the community plan. Madam Chair. Yes. I didn't want to interject and you just kept turning pages but should we be asking the applicants first if they wanted to exercise their continuance right? That's a lot of you're very articulate but that was that was a lot and I don't want you to waste your time. But that's next on the agenda to ask the applicant. Come on up applicant. Do you have to read it sir? Can we? Well I'm going by the agenda so she had to complete her statement and all and then the applicant comes up next. For the for the future applications on this agenda we can ask the applicant in advance of the presentation. Commissioner William Molloy 325 South Board I apologize my intention this evening was entirely to continue this to the December hearing so that's our request. Okay and I believe excuse me I think you can do that as of right correct? Yes. Oh okay. We do need a vote to do so though. Move to continue. It would be December 10th at 6pm. And you're doing A4 and A5? Cepeda. Okay please record your vote. Motion carried 5-0. Thank you. Thank you. Okay so now we're moving to A5 concurrent item RZMM 260800. That was continued as well. Okay then we'll move right on to A6 HCCPA 22615 the comprehensive plan map amendment planning commission staff. And uh you want to answer first? Yes excuse me. I would ask that the applicant if they're seeking to take the opportunity to continue to do so at this time. Yes please thank you. How you doing? My name is Rogelio Mireles. Continue. Okay do we have a motion please? Move to continue. Hold on no no no continue uh you want to you want to? I believe that they want to present. Yeah present. I'm sorry. Can I make an opening statement real quick if you don't mind? If your desire is to proceed sir then we'll uh go ahead and allow the planning commission to begin with their presentation and then you'll have your opportunity. Perfect thank you. Thank you. Okay planning commission staff. All right this is item A6 and this will again be presented by me Lillianne Linehan. Good evening commissioners Lillianne Linehan with planning commission staff here to present HCCPA 2615 located at 1908 front street. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 0.26 acres. The applicant is requesting a change to future land use designation for residential 4 to residential 12. This is the general location map. The site is located within the urban service area and within the limits of the Valrico community plan and is located north of main street west of front street and east of 4th street. Here is an area of the site. The site is outlined in pink. There are some single family residential uses to the north west and south of the site and directly west of the site is an existing commercial use that is a restaurant and there is also a county owned parked directly south of the site. Currently the future residential future land use residential future land use designation is residential 4. This category allows for a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor error ratio of 0.25. The residential 4 designation allows for the consideration of agricultural residential neighborhood commercial office uses and multi-purpose projects. By this map here you can see that the site is completely surrounded by the residential 4 designation on all sides and there are some residential 6 further to the south of the site. The applicant is proposing to amend future land use the designation to future land use category of residential 12. This designation allows for the same consideration of uses allowed under the residential 4 category. However the residential 12 category allows for a maximum of 12 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5. Under existing conditions with the residential 4 designation the site can be considered for a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre or one dwelling unit 2000 and 2831 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed future land use designation of residential 12 the site can be considered for a maximum of three dwelling units or 5662 square feet of non-residential. This amendment would allow for an increase in development potential by allowing higher density and greater commercial intensity. The proposed amendment received no formal objections and a full list of comments was provided. The planning commission found the proposed amendment consistent with the following objectives and policies. FLU's objective 2.1 policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 which calls for the utilization utilization of the future land use map as a regulatory tool governing the pattern of development in the unincorporated hillsborough county area and that it establishes permitted land uses and maximum densities and intensities. The planning commission recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation. I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you. The applicant you have 15 minutes. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Just want to make an opening statement. That's all. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Rogelio Mireles. I am the applicant of HC CPA 26-15 concerning 1908 Valrico. I respectfully request approval of the proposal of future land use amendment from residential 4 to residential 12. My intent is modest residential infield to up to three dwellings on this approximately quarter acre property. This is not a large apartment development or a high intensity project because of the small size of the property. The requested designation provides an opportunity for additional housing while keeping the overall project limited in scale. I understand that the approval of the residential 12 does not automatically approve a specific development plan. Any future project project will still be required to comply with applicable laws, uh, Hillsborough County zoning and development requirements. The planning commission consider the proposal including compatibility concerns and voted unanimously the 8 to 0 to find HCCPA 26-15 consistent with the comprehensive plan. I especially asked the board to approve, uh, HCCPA 26-15 and residential 12 future land use designation. Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone who wishes to speak? Senator. Commissioner wants to. I have issues with introducing such a new large zoning into the area, specifically because of the amount of times that I've seen over the past four years. The zoomed out map of them saying, well, look to the property to the west or to the east. Specifically, I see some very large lots to the east of this property. And I just wonder what happens when they come in and say, well, you know, in a sea of R2 or R4 that's there, we have one R12 and the planning commission uses that to start approving a much higher density in the area. So Adam, was this not able to be achieved for him? I mean, I have no problem with what he's trying to do with the three units, but could this not have been accomplished with a far less intensive, um, zoning? Commissioner, I believe that the, the issue is the, the number of units he's trying to get in the size of the parcel to yield three units. It would he res 12 could yield three units, a lower future land use category would, would yield less than that. Can we pull back up that map, the color coded map of the zonings that are around it? Yeah, I just, I just see a tough future there for that large, whatever that large lot is to the south east, which is zoned light industrial, it looks like right now. And then the ones two to the east, which is zoned are four, it looks like single family. Um, I just have reservations. We've seen it done in the past where we try to accomplish, um, allowing something like this, then it gets used as justification for a much more intense use in the future. I don't have a problem with him trying to get three units on the lot on quarter acre. That's very small, um, lots, but it's too, it's, um, unfortunate that it couldn't be accomplished through like some type of plan development, um, that, that could have allotted this. No other option at all, huh? So, so, um, there, there may be opportunities to look at potential bonuses, um, under a few current, future land use category. Um, if that was the board's desire, um, you know, for instance, affordable housing density bonus, something that, that could potentially achieve the desired number of units at a lower future land use category, um, sports. No, those are just, those are, that's, that's okay. Those are my comments. Um, I, I hate introducing these new much higher, um, intensity land uses into the map, just because we've seen them be used for presentations of, to justify a much larger one. Um, I want the applicant to be able to, to utilize the land, but I just have reservations about the higher land use. Thank you. I can also speak a little bit to the rezoning bonuses, because this is something we did work with the applicant on, um, any bonuses where they were trying to go to like maybe res six or res nine, and then utilize a bonus. They didn't qualify for some of the infill bonus, um, provisions because of where the site's located with the awkward intersection of front and main street. And so it wouldn't allow for more than two units on the site. And their end goal was to achieve three, which is how this plan amendment came about. That's just some background on the comprehensive plan and a little bit of the discussion. Okay. So they do need to come back to us for zoning now, correct? Correct. It is currently. So this is, this is only step one. I mean, I understand the, the reservation here, but the board will have another bite at this apple. And I think the, the concern is that all of a sudden we'll get a bunch of, of people relying on this to, to achieve bigger densities around it. How do we prevent that from happening? So, um, we can't prevent somebody from, from applying for it, but you know, if, you know, if the concern is the, um, potential scale of what this could bring in the future, uh, noting that this, the, the, the very small size of the, of the unit would be the, you know, if the board was inclined to, to approve this using the size of the parcel as a, as a, as a basis for the approval and the very, very small increase in density in the overall area as distinguished from say, a larger parcel that could yield a different type of development, um, making that as the, um, and a basis for the approval sets the table and expectations. And, and so a similar, um, type request in a larger area with a more significant potential impact could be distinguished from this case here today. And there's, there was no opposition to this? No, no sir. Okay. Okay. Is it something you wanted to say? I didn't think so. Okay. Oh ma'am. Do we have our, Commissioner, uh, Cameron Cepeda? Yes. Um, I agree with like Adam is saying, it's just, uh, the small size of the parcel and then also individually in the future, you know, everything will be voted on individually as it comes to the board. So, you know, I, for me, I can support this for those reasons. Yes. Is there no one else? We have a motion. Okay. Well, I'll take that as a motion from Cameron, uh, Commissioner Cameron Cepeda and I'll second it. Okay. We have a motion by a Commissioner Cameron Cepeda, second by Commissioner Coyne. Please record your vote. Motion failed four to one. Commissioner Wollstall voted no. Thank you. Amendment fails due to the number of votes. Five votes required. Can I, um, Five votes required. Can I speak to, uh, Mr. Wollstall please, sir? No. If you'd like to speak to staff. If you'd like to speak about future options, we can have somebody come and speak with you. So like you, sir, oh, you can speak to staff. Oh, okay. Someone to come and speak with you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Just take a seat to the side. Yes, ma'am. Is Michelle still in here? Let me get someone to assist them. Okay. Next we'll move to, um, item A7, HCCPA 2616 to comprehensive plan map amendment. Planning Commission. Item A7 will also be presented by me, Lillian Lenihan. Good evening. Good evening, Commissioners. Lillian Lenihan, Planning Commission staff, and I'm here to present HCCPA 2616, which is located at 12401 North 22nd Street. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 13.83 acres, and the applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential 20 to residential 35. This is the general location map. It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the university area community plan. It's located east of North 22nd Street and south of university club drive. This is an aerial of the site. The site is outlined in pink and the blue dotted line indicates the Tampa jurisdictional boundary. The subject property is the villas at unison senior living facility and is in a centers and connection fema flood zone x and has wetlands on the property. The sea coast at uptown oaks assisted living facility is located to the west and additional group homes are also to the northwest across north 22nd street and further southeast. The verdian apartments and college town at usf off-campus housing are to the north. The park at orvito apartments are to the west and more multi-family uses are further east and south. James A Haley Veterans Hospital is from northeast and additional public quasi-public and institutional uses are located to the south and southwest. The university of south florida is to the east across bruce b downs boulevard. Single family uses are to the east and further north and university mall and the sunray cinema movie theater are directly south of the site. Currently the future land use designation is residential 20. This designation allows for 20 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area error ratio of 0.75. The res 20 category allows for the consideration of agricultural residential neighborhood commercial office uses multi-purpose projects and mixed-use developments. Other feature land use categories shown in this map include the innovation corridor mixed-use 35 and office commercial 20 to the south and residential 6 to the east. The applicant is proposing to amend the feature land use category to residential 35 which allows 35 dwelling units per acre or floor area ratio of one. This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural residential neighborhood commercial office uses multi-purpose projects and mixed-use developments. Non-residential uses not a part of a vertically integrated building shall meet established locational criteria. Next are the impacts to the site. As far as existing conditions under the residential 20 the site could consider up to 276 dwelling units or 451 826 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed residential 35 designation the site could consider up to 484 dwelling units or 602 434 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment will result in the increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density and non-residential intensity. The following policies were considered by planning commission staff in the evaluation of the amendment and the proposed amendment was found uh sorry the next slide was found consistent with the four main areas four main areas. It's consistent with the following objectives and policies. It's consistent with future land use section objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 as would allow for additional residential density and a manner that can be integrated with surrounding uses while maintaining compatibility and protecting community character. It meets the intent of policy 3.1.2 as a residential 35 designation represents an appropriate extension of the county's future land use framework and would allow for additional residential opportunities in an area planned and suited for urban growth while maintaining consistency with the surrounding land use pattern. It's consistent with objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 as the uses in the area create an appropriate context for accommodating higher density residential development while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding existing community. Goal 2 of the university area community plan seeks to eliminate obsolete and incompatible land uses while encouraging redevelopment that contributes to the long-term revitalization of the community and the amendment supports the plan's vision of promoting more efficient land use patterns expanding housing opportunities and encouraging redevelopment of underutilized properties. Planning commission recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan this concludes my presentation i'm here if you have any questions thank you the applicant good evening you have 15 minutes good evening kami corbett with the law firm of gardner brewer hudson um we didn't talk about whether i wanted to continue to my knowledge there are no there is no opposition to this case and so i think that i would like to proceed but if when you call for public comment on the plan amendment if there are residents that are actually that come to speak or someone online that speaks i do i would want to use the continuance or if anybody else has a concern about what they just heard i would definitely want to exercise the continuance okay thank you you are required for the procedures to make the election at the time that you began your presentation that was a change that we put i can probably always elect to proceed and then ask the board's consideration of the continuance you can ask for the consideration but it would not be grantable as of right received as a right okay thank you okay this is a public hearing i don't see anyone to speak i don't see anyone in the queue i don't see anyone for um so then now we'll move to a8 am i correct concurrent item rz pd 260803 yes commissioners the next item is the current item agenda item a a rezoning pd 26-0803 this is a request to rezone the 22.2 acre parcel from plan development and spi uc2 to new plan development to allow for two two development options both providing for a 260 bed alf within parcel b and up to 483 multi-family units uh within parcel a uh with no age restrictions uh staff did find this request uh compatible with surrounding development pattern uh and founded approval based on approval of the concurrently related comprehensive plan amendment a planning mission also found it consistent with the plan and the hearing officer recommended approval approval we're available for any questions thank you okay an applicant yes camie corbett again gardner brewer hudson staff just did a great job of explaining this this is an existing uh senior housing complex in the university area and we'll put this graphic up because the parcel b on this graphic is actually owned and controlled by someone else which is just a pond in an alf and the reason for the plan amendment and the pd is our client purchased the parcels on the east side which is an existing senior facility which is in the same pd as the alf and the densities were blended on that pd so in order for us to remove the senior restriction from the apartments on our site we had to ask for the plan amendment to get the additional units to be allowed but their first goal is to remove the restriction to rent these to seniors and just use them as multi-family and they're what they really would like to do is just use the existing building we did ask for a second development option that looks like that and that's for a read of potential redevelopment of the site for apartments but the comment the goal right now is to get this property back it's a distressed property get it out of distress get the entitlements in place and move forward with the multi-family development and i'm here to answer your questions thank you an oral argument to the party of record we have any proponent testimony opponent testimony we don't have any rebuttal planning commission of staff yes uh the site is located within the residential 20 future land use designation the urban service area and within the boundaries of the university area community plan there's a pending and concurrent conference of plan amendment to change a portion of the future land use storage central 35 and all analysis was based on this pending approval it is consistent with future land use section objective 3.1 that requires new development to be designed with consideration of the existing community context it is currently developed with the villas at unison senior living facility and situated within an area that is characterized by a diverse mix of residential institutional commercial and senior living uses so planning commission found that based on the site's location surrounding land use pattern and the land within the urban service area that it was consistent with all flue's objectives policies on consistency and compatibility as it allow for an additional residential density in a manner that can be integrated with the surrounding uses while maintaining compatibility and protecting community character with the 13.8 acres and the residential 35 that portion of the subject site can consider 483 dwelling units and since the proposed request does not modify the approved entitlements that are associated with parcel b the existing development program remains within the range of uses and development intensities contemplated by the applicable future land use designations on each portion of the site and is consistent with those policies under objective 2.2 it's also consistent with goal 2 of the university area community plan as it facilitates residential and an area targeted for redevelopment and reinvestment located along north 22nd street and the pd plan supports this community plan's vision of promoting more efficient land use patterns expanding housing opportunities and encouraging redevelopment so based upon the above considerations uh planning commission found the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan subject to the conditions of approval proposed by the development services department thank you um the zona hearing master recommendation the zoning hearing master recommended approval of the rezoning subject to the approval of the concurrent be filed and presented comprehensive plan amendment to residential 35. thank you commissioner wants i'll just say that unlike the last item this one's already surrounded by much higher density of future land use so i will move for approval we have a motion by um commissioner wants the second by commissioner cohen please record your vote and that was for cpa 26 26 26 26 16 commissioner cohen thank you motion carried five to zero okay the next motion will be for rzpd 260803 move approval you have a motion by commissioner wants a second by commissioner cohen please record your vote motion carried five to zero okay thank you i think that's that's it we're adjourned thank you so much