Welcome to the works. In today's episode, we're taken to the skies with Hillsborough County Mosquito Control to find out how they combat the spread of disease in 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. People to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved for dogs. We're going to head up to that dog hall right now. We'll go out, we'll assess the situation. I'm looking at these dogs, they're like garbage. I mean, that's just not, did you see those bags of food there? She was very upset about losing all of her cats. She called me up a few times in tears. I need my photos, I need to be able to paint this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see. Feel companions await. One place stands as their beacon of hope. The Pet Resource Center of Hillsborough County, where you can adopt your very own superhero. Adopt a dog, find your sidekick, and unlock the power of unconditional love. Suit up, show up, and adopt today. For more information, visit hcfl.gov slash pets. For a meeting of your Planning Commission, the official local planning agency for the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plan City, and unincorporated Hillsborough County. The Planning Commission provides innovative leadership and long-range vision that contributes to the creation of a thriving, prosperous community that offers opportunity, fairness, and choice in how we live, move, learn, work, and play. For more information about the Planning Commission, please call 813-272-5940. Follow us on social media or visit our website at planhillsborough.org. Welcome, everyone, to the May 11, 2026 public hearing of the Planning Commission on City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan Amendments. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning Commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate that they would like to speak. Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking. State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits. If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org. For those of you who are not familiar with our process, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit. The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit. Following presentations, members of the public may address the Planning Commission when recognized by the chairman. Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person. The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal or response. Planning Commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second in discussion, a vote will be taken. To all participants, please note that tonight's hearing concerns propose changes to the comprehensive plan. Presentation should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the commission. Zoning conditions are not relevant to plan amendments and may not be considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's purview in making a recommendation is limited to consistency or inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. And with that, I'd like to ask the clerk's representative to please call roll. Good evening, Commissioners. Felden? Here. Cardenas? Kona? Here. Jimison? Here. Kugler? Here. Lankus? Lauk? Here. Sieben? Sink? Here. Berry? Here. Orton? Here. Joseph? Here. You have a quorum, sir. Thank you. All right. Our first item of business is 2A TACPA 26-01 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 1605 North Waters Court. And the presenter is Quinn Steele. Good evening, Quinn Steele Planning Commission staff. This item is TACPA 26-01, which is a map amendment for 1605 North Waters Court. The request before you is privately initiated in small scale, covering approximately 3.39 acres. And the request is to change the future land use designation from Community Mixed Use 35 to Urban Mixed Use 60. Here's a general location map. The subject site is located within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Central Park Urban Village, the Historic Ybor Neighborhood, the Ybor City Local Historic District, and the Central Park CRA. This map shows an aerial of the subject site outlined in yellow. I did want to mention that there has been a lot of recent development in the surrounding area, so this aerial may not fully reflect current conditions. The site fronts East 7th Avenue, which is a major commercial corridor in Ybor City, and it's located about 230 feet east of North Nebraska Avenue, which is a designated transit emphasis corridor. Nebraska Avenue also marks the boundary for the CBD periphery west of Nebraska and south of East 3rd Avenue. allows density and intensity bonuses of up to 100% above the maximum permitted under the underlying future land use designation, and the red dashed line shown here represents the boundary for the Ybor City Local Historic District to the north and east. The surrounding area is mixed use with multifamily, commercial, and institutional uses immediately south of Booker T. Washington Elementary in the Robert W. Saunders Library. To the west is a church and a drive-thru restaurant with the GTE building further west in the Encore Development just south of that. The Law Union Apartments, which are a part of the Gas Works development, are also located to the southeast with the Channel District located further beyond the frame. This is a photo looking directly at the subject site along South Henderson Avenue. Looking east on East Scott Street, east of the subject site, these are the Law Union Apartments, and the subject site is out of frame behind the camera. This is looking south of the site along East Estelle Street towards the elementary school, and the subject site is out of frame to the left. Looking west along East Henderson Avenue, west of the subject site, and the subject site is behind the camera out of frame. And then looking west across North Nebraska Avenue towards downtown, the subject site is out of frame to the rear about 230 feet. This map shows the adopted future land use as CMU35, allowing medium-density residential and commercial uses at 35 units per acre, or 2.0 FAR, which surrounds the site on all sides. To the east along 7th Avenue is UMU60. To the southeast are additional UMU60 and RMU100 parcels associated with the Gas Works development. To the west of Nebraska Avenue includes UMU60 and RMU100 parcels. Further south is Recreation Open Space, which is Tampa Park Plaza, and further north is R20. This map shows the proposed future land use as urban mixed-use 60, which would allow high-density and intensity mixed-use development up to 60 units per acre, or 3.25 FAR. This amendment would increase the maximum density from 118 to 203 dwelling units in the allowable intensity from just over 295,000 square feet to just over 497,000 square feet of residential or non-residential uses. This amendment would introduce the potential for commercial-intensive uses and increase the allowable density and intensity on the site. We sent this amendment out for agency review and did not receive any objections, although the school board noted that Washington Elementary and Blake High School are projected to exceed capacity. In considering this amendment, staff reviewed compatibility with the Ybor City Local Historic District. Any future development would be subject to design standards in review by the Barrio Latino Commission. This process ensures that new development is compatible with the historic character in the surrounding area. Planning Commission staff finds the request supports a compact city form by directing growth to the Central Park Urban Village, which is an area intended to accommodate higher-density mixed-use development. This site is also within ACRA and is currently underutilized, so redevelopment would support reinvestment in a more efficient use of land and infrastructure. In addition, the site is located in close proximity to transit, multimodal infrastructure, including the Transit Emphasis Corridor along Nebraska, the Tico Streetcar, Hart Bus Service, and Tampa Union Station, which supports higher density and intensity development in this location. The request also supports policies related to ensuring an adequate supply of housing. This amendment would provide additional opportunities for residential development in an area identified for growth, helping to accommodate the city's projected growth population. Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed MAP amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, and I am available for any questions. Thank you. Is there an applicant presentation? Good evening. Megan Smith with Garda-Beru-Hudson here on behalf of the applicant Tampa Park Apartments. I want to thank Planning Commission staff for covering everything. They did a fantastic job and I feel like it was a very thorough review. So I just kind of wanted to touch a couple things and be quick and efficient with our time. I'm going to just say. So as she said, you know, CBD periphery is immediately to the west following Nebraska for our site. We're in the Central Tampa Planning District and the Ybor Local Historic District. The site really is the nucleus to some very prominent and dynamic neighborhoods within the city of Tampa. We've got Seminole Heights, Ybor, Channel District, and downtown Tampa that we know are all growing. Those are all within a five-minute commute from our location. And so we really feel like this would help incentivize an area that is currently being underutilized. Our request is to go from CMU 35 to UMU 60, so that is the adopted to proposed MAP. And then I know Quinn touched on this, but I want to kind of hit it once more that with that CBD periphery, about a third of the surrounding properties can actually double their FAR. So what we're up against on both sides is, you know, 7.0, 6.0 FARs to the west and south. And then the UMU 60 kind of carrying on that gas works development as well as the Ybor Historic District within the UMU 60 portion of the properties. Transportation-wise, which supports the land use policies, we've got Heart Route 9 that connects from downtown Tampa up to the university, as well as the streetcar is located just a 15-minute walk through Ybor, and then that can bring you into downtown Tampa as well. So we feel like this is really connected with the surrounding areas and helps support that intensification. And with that, I will conclude my presentation, and I'm available for any questions. All right, thank you very much. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions. Not seeing it. Commissioner Lauk, no? All right. Then I'm going to go on ahead and close the public comment on this one, opening up two motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Lauk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we find CPA 2601 consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan, and forward this recommendation to Tampa City Council. Second. All right. A motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lauk. Second to that by Commissioner Kona. Are there any questions, comments, or discussions from the commissioners before we take our vote on this one? Seeing any, then would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Next up, we have Agenda Item 2B, TACPA 26-02, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. 1701 East 2nd Avenue, and the presenter is Megan McCarthy. Good evening, Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is the hearing for TACPA 2602, located at 1701 East 2nd Avenue. This is a privately initiated, small-scale amendment, and the subject site encompasses approximately 0.39 acres. The request is to go from light industrial future land use designation to urban mixed use 60. The subject site is located within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Historic Ybor Neighborhood, the Ybor City Local Historic District, as well as the Coastal High Hazard Area. This is an aerial of the subject site with the subject site outlined in yellow. The surrounding area includes industrial uses directly to the east and south, as well as further east along Adamo Drive. To the north and west are scattered commercial uses, as well as residential further north of East 2nd Avenue. While the subject site is not within the Ybor City Urban Village or the Port Activity Center, those boundaries are just to the north and south of the site, respectively. Starting with our subject site photos, this is looking directly at the subject site from North 17th Street. This is looking at industrial uses on the east side of the subject site with the subject site behind the camera. This is looking at commercial uses on the west side of the subject site. Here we are looking south of the subject site at the Salmon Expressway overpass. Next, we're looking west along Adamo Drive with the subject site in the frame. And lastly, looking east along Adamo Drive. This is, here we've referenced a historic map taken from TACPA 0626 before it was approved to change the area outlined in pink from heavy industrial to the urban mixed-use 60 that you'll see on the next slide. This gives some perspective on the transition from industrial to mixed-use designations over the last 20 years as a result of multiple plan amendments in the surrounding area, including 0626, as well as 0703, and more recently, plan amendment 2228, which approved multiple parcels to UMU-60, including the one directly north of our current subject site. This is the adopted future land use map with the subject site outlined directly to the east and to the southeast are light and heavy industrial. Mixed-use categories including UMU-60, CMU-35, GMU-24, and CC-35 comprise the rest of the surrounding area to the north, south, east, and west. The teal line delineates the coastal high hazard area, the portion of the subject site located within the CHHA is just over 72%. This is the proposed future land use map showing the site under the proposed UMU-60 designation. Under the adopted flue of light industrial, the site is not eligible for residential development. Currently, the site could be considered for 25,482 square feet of industrial uses. Under the proposed UMU-60 designation, the site may be considered for 23 residential development units or 55,211 square feet of residential or non-residential uses. The amendment would introduce the potential for residential uses and increase allowable residential and non-residential square footage and remove the consideration of industrial uses. This application was sent to our partner agencies and there were no objections to the request. The City of Tampa Planning Department found the request comparable and compatible with the surrounding area and noted the potential conflict between land development code requirements and industrial development on this site. Staff considered industrial preservation policies as the site is currently under the light industrial flue designation and the industrial general zoning category, as well as policies related to the coastal high hazard area. Being that all of the subject site is considered within the CHHA since the percentage within is over 50%. As noted in the staff report and by the City of Tampa staff, due to minimum requirements for development within the IG zoning category, the parcel is unlikely to allow for the development of a true employment generating industrial use. Due to this factor, as well as documented trends towards mixed use, staff on the subject site may be favorable for the requested increase in density and removal for the consideration of industrial uses on the site. The proposed amendment is recommended to be found consistent with the policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan, including policy related to compatibility with the surrounding development pattern. Promotion of densities supported of mixed use and transit and encouraging adequate housing supply and infill development. As the surrounding area is noted to be in transition to a more mixed use development pattern west of North 21st Street. Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Conspiracy Plan. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Is there an applicant presentation? Good evening, Commissioners. Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive with the law firm of Gardner Brewer Hudson. I'll make this pretty brief. I think this request is pretty straightforward. I was before you in 2024 with a very large comprehensive plan amendment request and we had a split into two halves. We had a portion north of Atomo. We also had what's been classified as Ybor Harbor. In the north of Atomo portion, this piece was left out and at the time our client, the applicant, was in negotiations to acquire this little strip but did not yet own it. So given the fact that they did not have ownership of that piece of land, we did not include that in the original application. So what we're requesting from you all this evening is a recommendation of approval for that UMU 60 that's currently located north of this strip to be extended to the south. This is a very small site. As staff mentioned, it's not overly suitable for industrial uses just given the size of it. Specifically industrial uses, you have a larger footprint, need more open space area. And this is currently, like I said, it's 0.4 acres and it's currently serving as a parking lot. As Meg mentioned, this area is trending towards mixed use, both residential and commercial. You all are very aware of that with Gas Works and Ybor Harbor and some of the future PDAs that are currently in the queue right now to be heard at City Council. And then from a planning perspective, this is located along a transit emphasis corridor. Atomo Drive is one of those. And it is located near the Ybor City urban village. So as Meg mentioned, Staff Bound is consistent and that's all I have, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one either. So questions, comments, thoughts to the commissioners in this one? Not seeing much action. I'll go on ahead and close the public comment on this one. And then open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Kona. Yeah. Motion to find TACPA 2602 consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second. All right. Motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Kona. Second to that motion by Commissioner Kugler. Any questions, comments or statements from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any, then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Aye. So the cheese stands alone. Commissioner Joseph against all the other planning commissioners in favor of. And the motion carries two, three, six, seven to one. All right. Thank you very much. And that is our last item, agenda item for this city of Tampa public hearing. So I will go on ahead and adjourn this city of Tampa public hearing at 628 and read us into our Hillsborough County public hearing, if everybody will bear with me for just a moment. So welcome everyone to the May 11th, 2026 public hearing of the planning commission on Hillsborough County comprehensive plan amendments. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate that they would like to speak. Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking. State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits. If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org. For those of you who are not familiar with our process, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give their presentation with a 15 minute time limit. The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15 minute time limit. Following presentations, members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chairman. Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person. The applicant will be afforded a three minute period for rebuttal or response. Planning commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second and discussion of what will be taken. To all participants, please note that tonight's hearing concerns proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. Presentation should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the commission. Zoning conditions are not relevant to plan amendments and may not be considered by the planning commission. The planning commission's purview and making a recommendation is limited to consistency or inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. And with that, I'd like to ask the clerk's representative to please call the roll again. I'll roll again. Bowden. Here. Cardenas. Kona. Here. Jemison. Here. Coogler. Here. Linkus. Lauk. Here. Steven. Sink. Here. Barry. Here. Orton. Here. Joseph. Here. HCCPA 26-07 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Northwest of Hillsborough Avenue and George Road. And the presenter is Alexis Myers. Good evening, commissioners. Alexis Myers, planning commission staff. I'm here to present HCCPA 2607 located northwest of Hillsborough Avenue and George Road. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 6.7 acres. The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential 6 and office commercial 20 to light industrial planned. This is the general location map. It is in the urban service area within the limits of the town and country community plan. It is located north of Hillsborough Avenue and west of George Road. Here is the area of the site. The site is outlined in pink. Vacant land is currently on the subject site. The property is in the evacuation zone A, FEMA flood zone AE, and coastal high hazard area. Public, quasi-public, institutional, and single-family uses are to the north and west. Light commercial uses are located south, west, and east across George Road. Light industrial uses are also to the east across George Road and west along Hillsborough Avenue. Here are some pictures of the site. This is looking at the subject site from George Road. This is looking at the subject site from George Road as well. Single-family uses are located north and west of the subject site. And then if you can see in the distance, it's single-family right here. This is looking west towards West Clifton Street from George Road. The subject site is located on the left. And this is looking east from George Road to the light commercial use. The subject site is behind the photographer. And this is looking west of the subject site from George Road to the light commercial use. Currently, the future land use designation is residential 6 and office commercial 20. The res 6 category allows 6 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multipurpose projects, and mixed use development. The OC20 category allows 20 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75. This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, community commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Other future land use categories shown in this map include urban mixed use 20 and community mixed use 12 to the east and residential 20 further southwest. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to light industrial plan. The LIP category allows for a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75. Residential is not allowed in this category except limited accessory residential, for example, on-site security guards. This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, light industrial uses such as processing, manufacturing, recycling, and storage of materials as the predominant uses, including support offices, warehousing, and retail uses. Next are the impacts. As far as existing conditions, currently under res 6 and OC20, the site could consider up to 28 dwelling units. or 51,945 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed LIP designation, the site could consider 155,835 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment will eliminate any potential residential density, allow greater commercial intensity, and introduce light commercial, I'm sorry, light industrial uses. The following policies were considered by Planning Commission staff and evaluation of the amendment. While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. Though the request is related to some general policies, staff found four main areas of inconsistency. Or, I'm sorry, three main areas of inconsistency. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment does not adequately demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding development pattern as envisioned by future land use section objective 3.1 in policy 3.1.3, given the proximity and prevalence of the single-family uses. The proposed amendment would disrupt the intended progression of land use intensities and fail to provide a gradual and compatible transition envisioned by future land use section policy 3.1.2. This established pattern creates a logical progression of land use intensity from residential to commercial to mixed use and ultimately to industrial uses. The subject site, located on the west side of George Road, falls outside of the area where higher intensity designations are currently concentrated. The introduction of light industrial uses at this location will result in a development that is inconsistent with the surrounding area and contrary to the policy framework intended to preserve and protect established residential communities, as noted in future land use section objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1. While the request would introduce light industrial uses, the applicant would be required to do a PD site plan rezoning, which could contain mitigative strategies to address the existing residential to the west. Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. And this concludes my presentation for 2607. Thank you. Thank you. Is there an applicant presentation? Good evening, commissioners. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gina Grimes. I'm with the law firm of Bradley Air and Bolton Cummings, 1001 Water Street. I'm here this evening representing Cadence Partners, which is the applicant on this comp plan amendment from residential 6 and OC20 to LIP. You heard staff give their presentation. They've recommended inconsistency mainly based on the fact that they don't believe that it is compatible with the adjacent area. We believe that the reason they came to this conclusion is that they only evaluated the immediately adjacent area and didn't look at the larger area in context with this site. When you evaluate the larger area, what you're going to see is the residential 6 comp plan categories no longer appropriate in this location. And furthermore, our site is not suitable for residential development. When you look at the expanded area, you also see that the location is consistent with the uses in the surrounding area. As you saw, there were industrial uses, close proximity. There's also the airport in close proximity and a lot of commercial uses along Hillsborough Avenue. You're also going to see that the location is consistent with the specific intent of the LIP policy and some other comp plan policies that we will address. And then lastly, we believe that the potential impact in the staff report was somewhat overstated in that they looked at the maximum development potential of the LIP as opposed to what we're actually proposing with the required PD. When you look at the subject site, you already know the location of it. It's about six and a half acres. One third of it has already got a comp plan category of OC 20. So two acres of it is already OC 20. As you heard from staff, it is vacant. Why is it vacant? That's a good question. The residential six category and the RC C nine zoning on this portion of the site only allows residential. The property owner has marketed it for residential for about five or six years now. And if you can't get residential or multifamily residential on a site in this market, you're never going to get it. And the site has remained vacant. And we've been told by and the owners been told by real estate professionals that the site itself is not appropriate for residential. And the reason for that is the location and the configuration of the site. If you look at it, it's 330 feet wide by almost 900 feet long. A long rectangular lot like that makes it very difficult to get any development flexibility. Um, the professionals, the real estate professionals have said that the site is too small for multifamily residential development. Um, it can't support a surface parking lot and the onsite retention, um, forcing you to go to structured parking. When you go to structured parking, as everybody knows, it substantially increases the price and the construction costs. Making rents, um, too high for this location, especially we're told because of the proximity to the residential, or I'm sorry, to the industrial on the, um, on the other side of, of George road and in the surrounding area. So here is a comp plan, um, map that was in the staff report. And this shows the existing uses in the adjacent area. And this is the staff evaluated this and you'll see the, the subject site. The subject site is not immediately abutting residential, um, to the north. You see that blue area is actually a full one acre, um, parcel owned by Hillsborough County. That's intended to be used for drainage. You, along the Western boundary of the site, you see some blue underneath that black line. Um, that also is another drainage area. So we don't directly abut the residential, although it is close by, um, to the, to the east of the site, you see, um, what's called light industrial. I don't think that industrial is all that light because, um, what it contains is a paver company and a lot of outdoor storage and semi trucks that take those pavers, uh, to various locations on that site. You also have, um, a used car lot, uh, to the east, to the west, to the east of that is, um, an industrial mini warehouse facility, uh, south along, um, uh, of the site along Hillsborough Avenue. You have, uh, uh, a convenience store. You have some industrial already. What's there is a small manufacturing facility. Then you have several used car lots. You have a new car lot. Um, you have some auto repair there. You can see a very small portion of, of gray right there next to the residential area. And again, all this goes to the point that there is the, there are these more intensive industrial and heavy commercial light and commercial uses immediately adjacent to the residential area. But when you go even further, um, and zoom out even further, what you see, and this map is an actual future land use map. These, this is, um, from the comp plan. You can see the subject site with the blue arrow. It's in the bottom left-hand corner. Um, you can see it. It's, uh, the, the, the parcel, um, outlined there with the, with the arrow. Um, you can see there's, uh, substantial amounts of industrial future land use categories in close proximity. You also see more UMU 20 and the CMU 12, all of which are adjacent to this residential area. And then when you go south of Hillsborough Avenue, you see something similar. You see more industrial, more UMU and CMU directly abutting these residential areas. And so the question is, is how did this area get to the point where there is, um, so many industrial and, um, heavy commercial uses in such close proximity to the residential? Well, the answer is pretty clear. It's Tampa International Airport. Um, one of our community's, um, most important and, and valuable assets. And, uh, this site is actually, uh, 1700 linear feet from the airport. And I think it was unusual in this instance that the staff report did not address the, um, uh, the proximity of the site to the airport. Cause it's really an important issue when it comes to whether residential is appropriate on this site. TIA is going to cause daily impacts, uh, 24 hours a day, probably on residential uses, things like noise, vibration, and even safety. And that's why in your comp plan, you have policies that address the airport and protecting the airport from incompatible, um, uses in the area. You also have a requirement, um, and both of these sections are cited, uh, the comp plan sections are cited. They also have a requirement that, um, a noise exposure study is supposed to be evaluated so that you all can reassess the appropriate location of compatible and incompatible land uses to support the airport. And that's the existence of the airport in this close proximity is probably one of the, um, biggest reasons why we don't believe that residential is no, is no longer appropriate in this area. Another reason is the coastal high hazard area. Um, you have, uh, the coastal high hazard area covers all of that residential area and it covers some, some portions of the site. And you also have the site in evacuation zone A. Um, you also have policies in your comp plan that, um, address in coastal management that address, um, uh, development in the coastal high hazard area and providing incentives to move development out of those high risk areas. You even have hot plan policies that discourage residential in the coastal high hazard area. You have two provisions that I've cited here that flexes using the flex provision to increase density is not permitted. And coastal high hazard and you also have, um, density bonuses that are prohibited in the coastal high hazard. So we know you've heard why we believe that the residential is no longer appropriate for this site, but why is the, um, site appropriate for light industrial? Well, there's three reasons. The first reason that is there's already a mix of industrial uses in the surrounding area. I've walked you through there's many warehouses, um, heavy commercial, the paver company, auto sales, north and south of, of, uh, Hillsborough Avenue. You also have a mix of industrial light and heavy commercial, um, flu categories in the surrounding area. And that's the second reason we believe that the light industrial was appropriate. You have, um, substantial amounts of the LI just a thousand feet from the site. You have OC 20, UMU 20, CMU 12. All of these in it are, um, mixed interspersed, um, in very close proximity to this site. And the third reason, um, that we believe that the site is appropriate for LIP is because of the, um, stated intent in the comp plan for the LIP category. It's in supposed to be in areas located outside of concentrated industrial, but where the need for a site plan would benefit and to provide and ensure, uh, land use, uh, compatibility. So, I know that you said in your introductory remarks, Mr. Chairman, that you can't consider the PD, but this is different because in LIP, the PD is required by the comp plan. So, I know you may not know the specifics of it, but I think they're important because this is what shows how you can have light industrial on the site and still be compatible with the adjacent residential area. So, um, we have a companion, um, PD that's traveling with this comp plan amendment. It's going to be heard by the ZHM in June. Um, we have substantial, uh, setbacks in that PD. We have over 100 feet on all three sides and on the west side, we have a 50 foot setback. Within those setbacks are buffer areas, buffer areas required by the land development code. In those buffer areas, we have a buffer wall on three sides of the site. Um, we also have, um, landscaping trees and shrubbery and, um, we have a retention pond that also forms somewhat of a buffer in, in that area. Um, don't forget too, there's other compatibility considerations that we'd like you to consider. And one of those is that the LDC requirement for performance standards for manufacturing. So there's standards to ensure that manufacturing operates and doesn't have impacts necessarily on adjacent uses dealing with lighting, sound, vibration, and airborne discharges. Another interesting point about this comp plan amendment and our companion PD is it turns out that our traffic analysis shows and that we submitted a traffic analysis with this comp plan amendment. It shows that the proposed flu actually generates fewer, 1600 fewer daily trips than the adopted comp plan policies or adopted comp plan categories. So, um, we think that's an important issue as far as compatibility concerns, because it's going to have, what we're proposing is going to have fewer impacts on the adjacent residential than what the existing flu category has. Uh, a couple more points dealing with compatibility is that we are proposing, um, lesser amount of square footage than what the current flu categories allow together. The OC 20 and the res six allow a total of 115,000 square feet of commercial. We are proposing only 106,000 square feet of light industrial. So that's a 0.365 about half of what the comp plan category allows. And lastly, we'd like you to consider the fact that the uses are very limited. This isn't just any light industrial use. It's only warehouse, wholesale, or manufacturing. Just those three. And then temporary storage of, of the bulk list. As you've heard, it's in a, um, town and country community plan area. However, there's not, there's nothing in that plan that's applicable to this. And, um, lastly, you heard no, uh, reviewing agencies have any objections. Um, again, the res six is not appropriate at this location. Our site just can't accommodate residential. Um, the comp plan amendment to LIP is consistent with existing commercial uses and existing and industrial uses. And it's consistent with, um, existing commercial and industrial flu categories. So we think our PD complements all that and provides the compatibility that the staff is, you know, rightfully looking for. And so with that, we would ask that you recommend that this, um, plan amendment be found consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. All right. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one. So I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions on this one. Commissioner Locke, I see you moving. Uh, I think I heard it in the applicant's presentation. What would be the linear footage to the nearest residential property line? Not dwelling, but the actual property line from the light, if it were to go to light industrial. I guess it doesn't matter if it goes. On. What's the, what's the. Yeah. Um, on the west, uh, I want to show you on the west side of the site where you have the R1. It's, it's, there's a building. There's a 30 foot buffer. There's a, there's a 20 foot drainage parcel. And then there's the property line to the residential, um, on the, on the west of that, to the west of that, which is farther away from the existing industrial that you see to the south. Pardon? Well, 50. Okay. From the property line, there's 20 feet. Correct. The property line, another property line, yeah. Right. Coastal high hazard, user error looking through and thumbing through the report. What percentage of the properties in the CHHA, if any? A lot of it. I would say it's a pretty good, it's a, yeah. Okay, so question for staff, given the majority of this is, is in there. If we were saying no to light industrial, we have a residential use on a portion of the property today. If you could wave your magic wand, what would be the appropriate use for this property? If it's not res six, it's not light industrial, res six would be kind of a tough pill given the CHHA. What would staff recommend if you could wave a magic wand? Um, that is a good question. Um, well, I know that the, um, uh, that's a good question. Um, probably something lesser, a lesser intense than the light industrial plant. Um, I think it would be better if it was on the eastern side of George Road, um, with, along with those other more intensive uses, uh, but for the subject site, um, something less intensive. Um, yeah, and I, I would just add to that, that the, the residential six category does allow for them to, it does not require them to build it for residential uses. They could, um, build office or commercial uses under the residential six. Those are allowed to be considered. So, um, unfortunately we don't have a land use category that does not have residential allowance that is not light industrial. So, um, that makes it hard to, I mean, the, all of the land use categories allow residential and office and commercial. So, I mean, I'll say the applicant did say something interesting where this so closely ties to the PD when it's a light industrial case. Where if you look at like what's allowed under light industrial, which is like warehouse, distribution centers, contractor yards, cabinet makers, auto repair, HVAC, printing, light manufacturing, assembly. I mean, I think the devil's in the details in terms of what could potentially go there and with the concurrent PD and I know we can't consider that. So, I mean, I don't have a point there other than I'm not sure what the right long-term use for this is given the adjacent residential that's to it. Um, just some thoughts. Good thoughts. Commissioner Bowden. Well, my, my primary concern is it, it, it does the back of the property actually abuts to, uh, residential. So, you know, when you consider, I mean, it is close to the airport. Yes. So there's a, a, a certain amount of noise that you're going to get, but, uh, but it's not in the airport's flight path. So I'm just thinking about industrial and, and the potential for the noise. I will also just throw in a disclaimer here that if we're going to go against staff, we're going to need some policies. So definitely be thinking about those, but let the conversation continue. Commissioner Lau? I think the biggest thing that I'm chewing on here in terms of consistency or inconsistency is, and be willing to bet my bottom dollar, that if we were coming here, uh, with the expansion of the whole property going to Res 6, that this probably would be recommended as inconsistent. Which is the root of my question in terms of like coming back to staff saying what's the optimal long-term use for this property if it's not Res 6. If there's some sort of development that's going to come in, planned development with a bunch of residential, there's no way it's getting recommended for approval being in the coastal high hazard. I will say for my part in my review meeting, I brought up a lot of these points. Um, for me, we're not allowed to consider the zoning, but I always raise the point that the land use category, light industrial, light industrial plan means that there's a PD process that's going to go on some point in time. I don't know what's going to come of that PD process, but I do know that's another bite at the apple, not only for this agency staff, which is a part of the zoning process to make sure that things like setbacks and buffers and screening get done, but also for other departments. So for me, whenever I see the LIP come up, I'm almost an automatic, yeah, let it go through because again, at some future point, irrespective of all the, oh, these are all the things that can happen that staff is forced to bring forward, you know, that second bite at the apple there is an important check on whatever development is going to happen there. So the applicant also brings up a lot of great points. Commissioner Lau brings up a lot of great points. It's strange that tonight we're putting residential stuff in the coastal high hazard all of a sudden instead of trying to take it out. But I guess since it isn't close to McDill, it doesn't matter. But again, and this all goes back to the points that I've spoken about for quite a while now on, and I've set it down, Tracy and Melissa, but I'm going to be picking it back up. So I hope everybody's ready because it's coming. But this idea that, you know, staff giving these recommendations that aren't kind of very broad and narrowly focusing on certain things puts staff in an awkward position. You know what I mean? You know, Ms. Myers, you've done a great job. It's a great presentation, a great application. But again, the way this agency is set up with its systems puts staff in weird positions. And, you know, I don't think it's the best thing. But, you know, I'll just leave that alone and bring it up at some future point in time. But, yeah, I would be willing to support the LIP going in there. I'm not going to pass the gavel and make a motion. But even in my briefing, my sense was this needed to go there, you know. So that's my two cents on this. Commissioner Kugler. Yes, one point about it sitting on the market for so long as a residential in these times in Tampa is a good point. I don't know what language to use to bring it. As you mentioned, we have to come up with codes, objectives in order to go against staff recommendation. I don't know how to say that. But it does seem that it is an appropriate use next to the airport for sure. And there's a tremendous amount of industrial land, very close, almost as close as the housing. So I don't know what language to use for that. But maybe somebody who has a lot more experience with the code would help. The applicant looks like she may have some suggestions. And usually Ms. Zornita comes up with some suggestions for us if they're needed. I don't want to jump the gun. But I did cite some comp plan policies that deal with protecting the airport and the coastal high hazard area. Okay. Commissioner Kona has them. Right there. I would just mention as it relates to the airport policies, the airport policies are really geared towards the airport flight path and the protection of that which this is outside of. So I just would caution about using those because this is not within the airport zone. And I mean, we would absolutely not be supporting. We do not put residential in the airport flight path. So I just I want to be clear about that. Okay. Thanks. Even though it's not in the flight path, it still is affected by the noise and the vibration. All right. Are there any other? I can't see your mic there, Commissioner Jemison. No, you're hiding out back there, huh? Are there any other comments or thoughts or questions from the commissioners on this one? It's not an easy one, I know. I'm not seeing any. Commissioner Orton. I was, I have a question. Um, the base flood elevation for this property is 14 feet. So do they need to build 14 plus one of free board? And if so, are they going to be flooding into the single family homes on the west side? I don't know the answer to that question if they have to be built that high because I was trying to find part of the code for Hillsborough County. And all I could find was that all properties located within the special flood hazard area shall have full compliance with the requirements of the Hillsborough Construction Code. And then it lists ASCE 24. And that is a list of codes that say these different areas have to build one foot above base flood elevation. So if that's the case, do they need to build at 15 feet? And if that's so, are they going to be flooding into the neighbors? It looks like she was nodding her head, so I'll let her opine on that. For the record, Gina Grimes, when you're building in areas like that and you have that flood elevation requirement, there's different standards for commercial and residential. There are ways in which with commercial uses or industrial uses that you can flood proof buildings to a higher height. It essentially achieves that higher height. Where residential, they're much more stringent because of the threat to life. And so they make you elevate to those higher standards. So in this case, no fill. You can't put the fill in certain areas that have those flood zone requirements. And all the retention is going to be held on site. There are two very large retention ponds that are going to be on site. So it should have no impact to the adjacent residential. Not to mention there's a one acre retention pond to the north of the site, as well as a drainage easement on the rear of the site already. Thank you, Ms. Grimes. Mr. Seaman. Just to note, I think in this area, if I remember correctly, base flood elevation is like 11 feet. So they probably won't have to build up much more than four, sorry. I have the flood map from FEMA up right now and it says 14 feet. Okay. Regardless of what it is, I think you have to build a foot over base flood elevation, whatever that may be. And then any civil engineer worth their degree in civil engineering would make sure a site balances so that it wouldn't be flooding into the neighborhood to the rear. Commissioner Lau. While we've jumped down Alice's rabbit hole, I'll just chime in. Similar development on Sly and Benjamin on the other side of the veterans in this area. There were four or five big warehouses that were developed and when we have heavy rains, Sly floods. Now between Benjamin and Anderson Road at that point. So I'm going to support this, but I would just call out on the PD and the civil engineering needs to be on point with that residential. I'm going to support consistency, I should say, but the civil engineering review and plan on this needs to be on point with those residential properties to the west for those down the line who get the second bite of the apple. All right. Are there any other thoughts, comments, questions, discussion items on this one? I go once going twice and I'm going to close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Crona. Motion to find HCCPA 2607 consistent with the comprehensive plan based on flu policy 2.23 and CM policy 3.1.14. I'll second that. All right. A motion of consistency finding citing policy 2.23 and CM policy 3.1.14 and a second to that by Commissioner Kugler. Are there any questions, comments, or discussions from the commissioners before we go ahead and take our vote? They would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. Who's at Bowden? All right. So that's seven to one. Aye. Bowden? No. And the motion carries. All right. Next up, we have item 2B, HCCPA 26-10, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Southeast of Kingsway Road, and Tonotto-Sassa Road, and the presenter is Lillianne Linehan. Good evening, Commissioners. Lillianne Linehan, Planning Commission staff, here to present HCCPA 26-10, located southeast of Kingsway Road and Tonotto-Sassa Road. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 24.22 acres. The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from Agricultural Rule 1-5 and Residential 1 to Residential 2. This is the general location map. It is in the rural area within the limits of the Tonotto-Sassa Community Plan. It is located along Lake Tonotto-Sassa and is south of Tonotto-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 is surrounded by agricultural and single-family land uses. This is looking south from Tonotto-Sassa Road into the subject site. This is looking north from Tonotto-Sassa Road into the subject site and Lake Tonotto-Sassa is behind the tree line. This is looking south from Tonotto-Sassa Road into the adjacent eastern parcel and the subject site is to the right of this parcel. This is also looking north from Tonotto-Sassa into the adjacent eastern parcel. The subject site is to the left of this parcel in this photo. This is looking west down Tonotto-Sassa Road from the subject site. The site is behind the photographer. And this is looking east down Tonotto-Sassa Road from the subject site and the site is behind the photographer. Currently, the future land use designation is Agricultural Rule 1-5 and Residential 1. The Agricultural Rule 1-5 category allows for one dwelling unit per five gross acres and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. This designation allows for the consideration of farms, ranches, feedlots, residential, neighborhood, commercial, offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses, and mining related activities. The Residential 1 category allows for one dwelling unit per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. And this designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood, commercial offices, and multi-purpose projects. The site is currently surrounded by the Agricultural Rule 1-5 and Residential 1 future land use designations. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to Residential 2. The Residential 2 category allows for two dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood, commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects. Currently, under the Agricultural Rule 1-5 and Residential 1 designations, the site could consider up to 16 dwelling units or 263,755 square feet of non-residential uses. And under the proposed future land use designation of Residential 2, the site could consider up to 48 dwelling units or 263,755 square feet of non-residential uses. 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 list of full comments is provided within the report packet for review. And while formulating our recommendation, Planning Commission staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. And though the request is related to several general policies, staff found three main areas of inconsistency. The proposed request is inconsistent with FLU's objective 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 agriculture uses, large lot rural residential uses, and undeveloped natural areas. And that within the rural area, densities shown on the future land use map will be no higher than one dwelling unit to five gross acres, unless located within an area identified with a higher density land use category on the future land use map. As a suburban enclave, planned village, planned development pursuant to the planned environmental community category, or rural community, which carry higher densities. The site currently carries a split future land use designation of agricultural rule one to five and residential one, which are both densities found within and are 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 the second closest is 1.04 miles northwest of the site, with the future land use designation of residential six. The existing future land use between these two suburban enclaves in the subject site is residential one and agricultural rule one to five. While some of the surrounding areas contain higher designations of residential one, and this 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 similar suburban enclave, planned village, or planned environmental community with a higher future land use designation of residential two is inconsistent with rural area objectives and policies. FLU's objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, 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 of mostly low density single family residential and agricultural uses. The surrounding areas to the east, west, and south of the site are generally large lot rural residential developments that contain future land use designations of agricultural rule one to five or residential one. And the proposed request to change the future land use residential two for suburban style development would not complement the existing development pattern within the area. It would not serve as a transitional area between more suburban development pattern and more rural development patterns. 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 residential one. There are no future land use categories along Lake Tonota Sasa that have a density of greater than one dwelling unit per acre. A future land use designation of residential two along the southern edge of Lake Tonota Sasa would result in a land use pattern that is not comparable and compatible to the current land use pattern fronting the lake outside of the urban service area, which is inconsistent with FLU's policy 4.4.7. Lastly, the site is within the limits of the Tonota Sasa Community Plan. Goal three of the community plan seeks to provide improved yet affordable infrastructure and a balance of residential, commercial, and other land uses while maintaining the rural area or rural nature of the Tonota Sasa area. Goal five of the community plan seeks to protect water, wildlife, air, soil, and trees through effective planning, consistent enforcement of existing regulations and incentives. Additionally, the community plan lists specific strategies that the community will use to achieve its goals. Most notably, the plan requires minimal lot sizes of one acre for residential development within the residential one, agricultural state, and agricultural rural future land use categories, and it is explicitly stated within the strategies to protect the area's rural character. The future land use change to residential two would allow for suburban style development within the rural area. It would not protect the existing community character that the Tonota Sasa Community Plan intends to maintain within the rural area. Goals three and five seek to balance private property rights with the protection of the environment and rural character, and given that the site is located along Lake Tonota Sasa and within an agricultural heavy area of the community, the residential two category would be too intense and would not further the goals of the community plan. Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found inconsistent 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. Does the applicant have a presentation? Thank you. Good evening. Isabel Albert with Half 1000 North Ashley Drive. I have the presentation here that you could see. So generally, staff did explain where the site was and the acreage and everything, and it has a split land use designation. So when we reviewed this, when we first filed for this application, we actually requested for the AR portion for Res 1. And so that's the goal is to have one unit to the acre. And I understand that you all don't look at the zoning, but we have to kind of look at what makes sense and what works. And so at the same time with the new stormwater ponds regulation that increased by over 22%, it's like what can we really fit there and what works there? This is currently what the zoning is. The zoning is approved for 14 lots. You'll see where the residential one is that one unit to the acre and then the Res 5. So it's approved for 14 lots. When we laid out the site and having to take into consideration that minimum one acre lot size, we went from having permitted 14 units to now we're 13 units that could fit there. And so that just didn't make sense. And so I remember I was talking with Mr. Arnita. I said, well, we can either go like this and continue with Res 1, but then at the plan development portion of it, I'm going to ask for half acre lots in order to get that one to one unit. Or just be clean and just do the Res 2 to get out of this minimum requirement of the minimum one acre lot. That's the only reason why we're doing this is because we want to have smaller lots. And if it was in any other plans, community plans, that would be permitted. And also part of the zoning, we also had to look at these improvements that what are we going to be hooked for? And one of them in discussion with the county engineer was to have improved the road from our site all the way to where the Res 6 is currently doing. And so you have to consider all of that and say Res 1 still is not helping us. And so therefore we're going to request Res 2. So this brings us to the stormwater pond. This is our plan that's under review with the county where along the frontage there, there's not proposed anything prior to having two units that were proposed there. We're not proposing any development on along the lake. And then we have our stormwater ponds where they're supposed to be located with the residents in the back. But that still allows, that development is 1 to 1. And if we didn't do that, we would be at 13 units. We also looked at the comprehensive plan policies. Policies 3.1 says new development should recognize the existing community. As you heard, this is a mix of uses in this existing community. We have agriculture. We have 1 to 5. We have along the lake, 1 to 1. We have more intensive here. And then we have right there a wedding venue that people can, as a commercial use. And so the introduction of the half acre lot, but you're still 1 to 1, is not disturbing that community. They have to be, you know, in harmony with each other. The residential to residential is not going to disturb the harmony of having similar uses next to each other. Look up objective 3.1, 3.2, 3.24, that talks about the community plan. And we, and this is, is in a community plan. It's a community plan. And it brings us the goal number three and number five, which also staff has pointed out. But it includes the encouragement for our culture, but it protects the property owner's rights and value and establish the open space and green space and the low density. And that's what that, you know, one acre minimum is to ensure that there's still a low density in the rural service area. But when you come and really develop it, if we did a minimum one acre lots, we would be well below what the density would be permitted. But by doing what we're requesting, we are still maintaining that one to one unit. And environmental protection, we're not touching the frontage portion of the lake. It's like about two acres. We're not touching that. Other policies, 4.4, which is the neighborhood protection, this is maintained. The neighborhood is still going to be maintained as what it is. There's no, there's, there's no disturbance of what this, what could possibly happen if this is developed. And then these are, you know, again, like creation of like uses, creation of complimentary uses. And all of that, you know, it meets all of those as well as the 4.4.7 about the lakefront frontage that we are not touching. So these are the policies that I've listed for you tonight where we found that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan by stating those same policies. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. We had one individual sign up in the public comment on this one. And I will call Robert Alvis. Come on down. You have three minutes, sir. Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Robert Alvis. I live at 11907 Thonotisassa Road, which makes me the most affected person in Hillsborough County by this. I am right next door. Some of the staff's photographs had a picture of a car in a driveway. That's my driveway. This is ridiculous. This is an agricultural area. What they're asking for is to grade a subdivision in the place the subdivision does should not exist. There are none there. There are none on that side of the road. The closest place is up on Kingsway and it's one to five. That's all it should be there. But unfortunately, they've got a one to one ratio for some of it. 16 acres. I urge you to defeat this. It does not fit our area. Getting rid of agricultural designation does not apply anywhere. As they stated, we're surrounded by farms, a cattle ranch. There are privately one to one houses. They're privately built. No subdivisions, no extreme concentration like they're talking about. So, once again, I urge you to say no. We have gone through this before a couple of years back when they tried something similar. This is basically just a variation on a theme. And it was defeated. I won't go into why. It's public record. Go look it up. You guys have the ability. I will stop there and thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. All right. Three minute response to the applicant. Commissioners, good evening. William Molloy, 325 South Boulevard. I'll be very quick and direct in what we're doing here. If we could cluster this, we'd be asking for R1 across the entire site. I know how important and protected the rural service area is. I know the emotions that can ride on it. I'm not going to talk about zoning, but when there is a zoning, this is going to come in at one-to-one. The only reason for the R2, again, is to allow us to cluster, give us a little bit of flexibility with our lot sizes so we don't end up platting roads in people's front yards, which is what could eventually happen here. I do want to point out, too, Isabelle mentioned the accelerated stormwater program we have. What we're doing at the north end of that property is going to be exceptional for that lake because according to these new rules we have, we can't let any outfall that's not treated or has any suspended meticulous leave our property. So those two giant swimming pools will be a boon for the lake, and there's a reason we put them there. That's the way the water is going south to north. So given those and the fact that we do have to construct a road right to the front door of a pocket of R6, I think are some points for consideration that this is not necessarily a suburban enclave. It's just a more custom rural development. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Over to the commissioners now for questions, discussions. Ms. Krugler. Yes. I was very impressed with Ms. Lanahan's presentation. It was very clear, very detailed, and I was very impressed. I was a bit confused when I believe the name is Isabelle had presented the one-to-one. I didn't understand what she was describing as we're cutting it to half an acre and yet it's still one-to-one. It seemed to me that it was two-to-one rather than one-to-one, but maybe you could clear that up for me. Of course. With the new rules, the stormwater ponds, more land is being used for that. We're now being restricted in the area to develop. By doing so, we actually quite engineered it out just to get an idea. The new rule just came in in January, so it's still very new to some of us. I asked my engineers to just plot out quickly what would be required and what do I end up with. And I ended up with less units than what I'm currently approved for. But it still brings you, like if you look, it still would be very similar to the one-to-one. So in other words, the houses remain the same number on a tighter footprint? Correct. Is what you're saying? It's the half acre lot. You need a minimum half acre because you're in the rural service area for Weld and Septic. So it's the half acre lot, but just in this plan it says minimum one acre lot. Because they want to maintain that low density. I understand now. Thank you. All right. Are there any other questions? Before you jump in, I'll throw in there if anyone's going to go against staff. Remember, we're going to need some policies, so keep that in mind. Go ahead. Just to be very clear about the one-to-one, 24 acres, 24 units. That's exactly what we mean. All right. Any other thoughts, questions, comments? Commissioner Sink? I just struggle with this one a bit because in the area, if you look directly to the west, there's a road right on the Kings Way that has almost the same depth. And there's seven, maybe eight units. And for this area, it just seems like going to even 14 seems double. I don't know. It just does not seem consistent with the area. Points. Any other thoughts, questions, comments? Commissioner Bowden? Yeah. As I think through this, you know, being separated into the comp plan with the zoning piece, you know, and I can only take one or the other into consideration. But you can only take one, yeah. I can only take one. So, you know, so the zoning piece was kind of, to me, irrelevant because it was more of a smoking beverage type, you know, to me. So, you know, I just wanted to make that comment. You know, I would look at something a little more compelling as to why it was other than to give me information that I really can't use to make a decision. All good thoughts, Ms. Ornita. Well, I would just emphasize that the Thinona-Sassa community plan does speak to wanting the minimum lot size of one acre in the residential one and the agricultural rural. So, yes, we did talk with the applicant about making the site all one land use category because it is awkward when they have a split like that in the residential one. And that would be, I think, consistent with the Thinona-Sassa community plan. But, you know, the Thinona-Sassa community plan is very clear about wanting that one acre development pattern. Right. Are there any other questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners? I'm not seeing a lot of excitement around the guys here. So, going once, going twice. I'm going to close the public comment and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Kona? Yeah. Motion to find HCCPA 2610 inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. All right. Commissioner Jemison. Second. Oh, I got it over here. Commissioner Kona with a motion of inconsistency finding, Commissioner Jemison seconds that motion. Are there any questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote? They would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. That was our last item of business for tonight. So, at 7.26 p.m., this public hearing is adjourned. Good night, everyone. Thank you.