Planning Commission: Public Hearing - 07.13.26

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, I'm like garbage. I mean, that's just like, 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. 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. We went to the July 13th, 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 and 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 response. Planning commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second in 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 in making a recommendation is limited to consistency or inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. With that, I'd like to ask the clerk's representative to please call roll. Bowden? Here. Here. Cardenas? Here. Jemison? Here. Coogler? Here. Lancos? Here. Lauk? Here. Sieben? Sink? Here. Orton? Here. Rodriguez? Here. Chair Joseph? Here. You have a quorum. Thank you. Before we jump into it, I just wanted to announce that Item 2E, HCCPA 26-15, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 1908 Front Street has been continued. So we will not be hearing that item tonight. All right. Onto our first item of business is 2A, HCCPA 26-02, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 7607 through 7709 Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road, Urban Service Area Expansion, and the presenter is Willow Mickey. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Willow Mickey with Planning Commission staff. I'm here to present HCCPA 2603, located at 7607 to 7709 Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road. This request is a privately initiated large-scale map amendment. It is made up of three parcels that total approximately 81.9 acres. The applicant is requesting to expand the urban service area. This amendment is associated with HCCPA 2603, which is a request to change the future land use category from Residential 1 to Residential 2 and Residential 4. This plan amendment is part of the April 2026 cycle, located in the rural area and is within the limits of the Tonota Sasa Community Plan. And as I mentioned, it is associated with HCCPA 2603. There's also a very small portion within the coastal high hazard area, located on the southeastern portion of one of the parcels. Here's an aerial photo, and the site is outlined in pink. It is located north of I-4, east of Williams Road, and south of Joe Ebert Road. Within the vicinity of the site, there are single family uses surrounding the site on all sides. To the east, there is a middle school, and to the south are agricultural uses. North of the site is a cemetery, and further east is a clinical treatment center. Here, we are looking at some site photos. This is looking north down Williams Road, with the site on the right. Here, we're looking south down Williams Road, the site is on the left. This photo is looking at land across the site, with the site on the right. Here, we're looking onto the site from Williams Road, and the same with this picture as well. This amendment would bring 81.9 acres into the urban service area, requiring at a minimum connection to public sewer and water. While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. Though the request is related to several general policies, staff found four main areas of inconsistency. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. Policy 1.1.10 outlines criteria to be met before an expansion into the USA can occur. The request meets certain criteria, including that the site is contiguous to the established USA and contains developable land. However, it does not fully satisfy all the policy requirements. Criterion 3 requires consideration of the adopted community plan. Although a higher density feature land use category is located immediately north of the site, concerns remain regarding consistency with this criterion because the, to notice as a community plan, explicitly states that expansions of the urban service area are not desired within the community. Criterion 4 requires an analysis of the availability of infrastructure and public services to support the proposed expansion. While there were no formal objections from commenting agencies regarding this request, concerns were raised regarding the proposed increase in density in the site's location in a flood zone. Objective 3.1 focuses on compatibility. The proposed amendment is not compatible with the surrounding area because it would introduce higher residential densities into a predominantly rural area, would conflict with the to notice as a community plans vision to preserve rural character and limit urban service area expansions and raise concerns regarding infrastructure capacibility and public safety. The request is also inconsistent with objective 3.2 and its associated policies on community planning. The to notice as a community plans desires to remain rural in nature and does not support urban service area expansions. Objective 4.4 outlines policies regarding neighborhood and community development. The surrounding land use pattern is predominantly comprised of agricultural land, vacant parcels and single family residential uses and reflects a largely rural development pattern. As the community desires to remain rural, this request is inconsistent with feature land use section objective 4.1 and policy 4.4.1. With that 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 for questions. Thank you, does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening commissioners and staff, my name is Todd Pressman, 202nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg. I have presented this with both the USA and the category, so I'm going to skip around to present the USA to you. And there we go, so as indicated, this is the Thinona Sasse area, 81.9 acres, this is an outline of the parcels, current future land use map and I think it's important to emphasize that we are abutting R4, both on the south and to the east. Today's issue is expansion of the USA and you can see that we are abutting the USA, both on the west and the north. There are three parcels proposed, there is a fourth parcel that's involved with the zoning element that's not under your preview today. This is another view of the USA, as you can see again, we are abutting the USA pretty substantially, which is one of the reasons we want to move this forward and of course, quite a few of the criteria that you review. I will say that we are working towards a clustering, which is a planning commission or comp plan desiring direction. There will be a companion PD rezoning and a critical component is that there is a substantial landfill in the area that has been ignored and will also be part of a cleanup by the applicant and brought to a new standard for public use. So just giving you an idea of the parameters of what's proposed, the remediated open spaces is the large landfill area that will be taken care of by the applicant at tremendous cost to bring that into a level of open spaces and recreation, either for the whole public or for the development. In that regard, I do want to be clear that that cleanup happens under the FDEP and the EPC oversight. The county doesn't spend a dollar, but the remediation of the old dump site has been sitting there abandoned close to 20 years. The long-term development brings the site under active remediation and continues long-term environmental oversight. The old dump site becomes usable land, open space instead of sitting in its current compromised position. Now, one very critical and probably the most important point to present to you is that there has been a movement officially by the county for the urban service area expansion, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners to move forward with a study of the expansion of the USA, which was presented to the commissioners. Ms. Zornita was one of the presenters, along with Mr. Gormley, which the commissioners approved in regard to the urban expansion, what's referred to as the I-4 corridor. It was brought up by Commissioner Meyer through the future land use section update for the urban service area boundary. And they brought forward a lot of information about what the future looks like, more people, more jobs, population growth by jurisdiction. At the BOCC meeting, this very large area in purple was approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and the planning commission staff have been moving forward with public meetings and evaluations. And we are included in that urban expansion area specifically. This is the approximate location. And then, as you can see, in the red is the very large area that the commissioners move forward to review as an urban expansion. And we are just a very, very small part of that, again, abutting the USA as well. So we believe that we're moving in a direction that very clearly was supported by the Board of County Commissioners to move forward for their view and consideration of this area. We asked Patricia Ortiz, who is a private planner, to review the criteria. And quite frankly, Mr. Chairman and board members, there's a tremendous set of criteria. I couldn't even begin to go through all of them. That's part of the file. But I do want to look at a few elements that are critical, including particularly appropriate for inclusion in the USA because of identified opportunity zones and employment centers. And the surrounding roadway network provides easy access to Interstate 4, Interstate 75, U.S. Highway 31, other collectors. And Ms. Ortiz indicates that we're located within seven miles of four federally designated opportunity zones within five plus miles of redevelopment area project, which is a critical criteria looking at placement for the expansion of the USA. Opportunity zones are economic distressed places with the community where new investment is eligible. So you can see the subject site here and you can see the number of competing competitive sites and opportunity zones map, which is a critical element for that review. Looking at some of the criteria that were adjacent or contiguous to the established USA, which we are, contains the available land addressing population employment projections. It is located to address population employment projections as evidenced. That it will extend the existing development pattern, allow much needed housing to support projected population growth, which is exactly the reason why the Board of County Commissioners move forward that review and study. that will not adversely impact environmental, natural, historical, and archaeological resources. In fact, in our opinion, it will, in fact, improve those elements. I'll come back to the category of the next issue. It's also important to recognize that you have an entire chapter on housing. And we've all heard the cry for more housing in the county. And objective 1.1, which is a major objective, is support a range of housing options to fully meet the needs of current and future residents, which this project or this expansion will allow for. 1.1.8, encourage a variety of housing types, including single family, multi-family, missing middle, to diversify the housing stock and provide Hillsborough County residents with more housing options across a range of income levels. Those are critical objectives and policies that this expansion will call for. That was clearly one of the reasons why the Commissioners wanted to look at this area for that expansion. Finally, when you look at staff comments, staff comments note would allow an increase in the volume of potential by allowing the consideration of higher residential density, which falls to the entire housing chapter in terms of the objective and policy I just showed you. It is important, and Willow did refer to this, that there were no formal objections. They did raise some concerns. We have full confidence during the zoning process those details will be worked out and established and addressed and mitigated when necessary. And noting that the request was, we originally came to the Planning Commission with a higher standard, higher level, than trying to work with the staff and the Planning Commission. We did reduce what had been originally proposed. I think that's important to state. So with that, Mr. Chairman, if I may, and Mr. Porter, if he may make a few comments. Thank you. With that, we are concluding presentation. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. We did not have anyone sign up for the public comment on this one. So I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions of this item. What was the commissioner saying? So just to make sure I'm really, really clear and staff might be able to help me with this. So that the Nona Sassa community plan directly says that they do not want to be included in the urban service area, is that correct? Correct. Got it. As far as expansions. To be included in the expansions? Expansion, yes. Correct. Awesome. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Are there any other questions? I see you moving Commissioner Lout. We've expanded the urban service area and further out boundaries than this and I think it was mostly kind of around Waimama. Is there a plan for that area and does it say something along the same lines in terms of wanting to maintain a rural character? The Waimama community plan. The Waimama community plan did not have anything that said it did not want the urban service area expansion, but the Balm community plan did and that was directed by the board for us to change the RP2 and expand the urban service area there. We certainly, I mean that conflict was a main piece of our recommendation and is something that quite frankly we're going to have to work through in this urban expansion area study. But this is ahead of the results of that. Good. Commissioner Sink? Let me get Commissioner Kugler first. He was on and I'll come back to you. I read in the file that the transition to the adjacent residential area was recommended by staff to be other than CMU 60. What specifically was the recommendation other than the CMU 60 and was there any reaction to that? There was something in this that I had read, made a note that said staff had considered recommending other than CMU 60. I'm not familiar with CMU 60. Yeah, that might be the city plan amendment where we recommended, that's later tonight, we recommended a transition on that one. Sorry, I may have the wrong file, sorry. Staff did recommend a down density on this one. The applicant said that staff made a recommendation, the applicant followed staff's recommendation and then staff still came back and slapped him and said no. The original request was for residential four and residential nine. There was communication from staff that the urban service area expansion not being wanted by the Tonota Sassa Community Plan would still be a part of our recommendation and findings. So that was still part of our analysis. So that was definitely communicated to the applicant. Okay. And one more question from me, that Tonota Sassa Community Plan is over 20 years old, you said, right? I'm not sure the date of. I think you said that in your presentation, it's 20 years old or something like that. I thought I had heard that, I could be wrong. I don't believe so, but the most recent, however long ago it would be, is what I'm reviewing. When was the last time it was updated, do you know? I'm checking for it. I'm just wondering because we seem to keep reaching way back for stuff. She's looking. 2004. Right. 22 years ago. I'm sorry. My mistake. But while that is a dated document, it is what is adopted in the comprehensive plan. Yeah, but it doesn't preclude. It says people 22 years ago didn't desire it. It doesn't preclude the development. Okay. So that's my point. It's 22 years ago and it's not definitively saying the urban service boundary shall not be expanded in this area. It's saying people 22 years ago with the information they had before the iPhone was invented said, we don't think we want to be a part of future expansions of the urban service area. And it could be different now. It could be the same. I don't know. But I'm just making that point. Commissioner Sink. That's a really good point and that's kind of where I was going to on it too. When we do the USA or the review of expanding the USA, at that point the residents of that area will be able to chime in and say, here's our opinion, this is what we want. And to preemptively do that before, you know, we're so close to having that and to get their feedback and input on it. That seems like it'd be irresponsible to ignore what the current one is. And then it might change for them if the results of that survey come out that's saying that the residents of the area do. Commissioner Lau. Mr. Chair, you stole my thunder on the age of that community plan that was going to be the exact question I was going to lead with. Because it befuddles me that the community plan says that, yet we have no community pushback in the room. We've approved and had staff recommendation for consistency on items further out within the USA. And reading the staff report, it looks like the two key reasons staff is recommending inconsistency is, one, removing from Res 1 to Res 2 on the accompanying docket tonight. And then, two, the Thona Staff's community plan calls for the rural. This site is along the I-4 corridor, which is one of the areas that's open for expansion or conversation. It abuts the existing USA, and there's no community pushback. I'm wondering why, frankly, we have the recommendation for inconsistency when we've approved so many of these. Mr. Chairman, make up. Let Ms. Ornita respond first, and then I'll let you. She always goes first. Well, I don't know about that, but I just want to respond to that specific question. Some of those other amendments, for example, the one you heard a couple of months ago in the Lithia area, there is not a community plan for. So, one of the criteria that we have to look at in the future land use element is that criteria that says the proposed boundary would be an extension of the existing development pattern or has a functional relationship to the development pattern of the surrounding area of the proposed site, while ensuring the review of the adopted community plan guidance has occurred and addresses any conflicts. This was a conflict that we didn't see could be addressed, and so that is why we said it does not comply with criteria three. And might I add, there's another criterion that I was mentioning with the availability of capacity and infrastructure, and we did receive concerns from agencies on the capacity of roadways and also services. So, that's also another factor that we took into consideration. There's seven different criteria, and so there was multiple that did not apply. All right. Mr. Pressman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will let you know that I noticed 86 people, not once but twice. We've had no feedback or any communication of opposition. We also noticed for the zoning. So, there's been three notices of that amount, plus four big white signs that have been right on the street front. So, I would suggest to you that we have reached out for tremendous community response. Secondly, as indicated in the reports, the level of service on Williams Road is a B, B as in boy. So, we don't foresee any level of service issues in that regard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Bowden. Mr. Pressman. Mr. Pressman, yeah. Question. Yes, sir. You mentioned Opportunity Zones. What is the date of those areas being designated Opportunity Zones? Is it the latest information or what is the date of that information? The planner provided that, so I assume, well, they're certainly current at the moment. And the best answer I can use is they're current. And I can certainly go back and look at the report real quick and see if she indicates that. But those are current and active and Opportunity Zones and Enterprise Zones that are present, if that answers your question. It does to a point. It doesn't match my list here, but okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other? Commissioner Coogler. And Mr. Pressman as well. Is there any funded infrastructure for this development, or would the taxpayers be liable for the expansion of the USA? No, that would be borne by the developer. I can also tell you that the county already has a couple projects planned for bicycles and for pedestrian access points. That's already been in the works and already done. But all the expansion for this particular site would be borne on by the developer. The hookups, the water. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions, comments, thoughts on this one? I will say, for my part, it seems kind of strange to me. Again, I understand what Commissioner Sink was saying about possibly waiting to see, but you don't want to do a disservice to an individual who just happens to be ahead of the Planning Commission. I mean, we set aside the area. I've been beat over the head with it that, you know, that development's going there. The I-4 expansion area, and this is like right in there, so it seems to make a lot of sense to me. I mean, I'm not saying staff did wrong. Obviously, we have the power to do what we do as a board, and staff's going to do what it does at staff level. But this one seems kind of to make some sort of sense to me, so that's just my two cents on it. Commissioner Linkus. Chair Joseph, I really do understand the staff position on this, because I think their charge is to really respect what the letter of the law says, and certainly with the community plan indicating, as it did, to limit the urban expansion area. However, I think that is kind of the unique role that we have here to balance and to offer another perspective that maybe responds to the more current conditions, or current information, and to kind of arrive in those gray areas. And so, you know, I absolutely think that what staff recommended makes sense from their task here. But I see this as a rapidly changing, rapidly growing area that's under review for major changes. And then I also think the landfill and the opportunity to kind of address that is important here. And we're not talking about a big jump either. So this is not a radical change. So I'm inclined to agree with you, and I think this can make a lot of sense here. All right. Any more comments, thoughts from the commissioners on this one? On this one, I will say at this point, everybody remember, if we're going to go against staff with our recommendation, we're going to need, I see Ms. Zornita scrolling. We're going to need some policies and some objectives, something to add to it when we make our motion. So everybody keep that in mind, get those to hand. I'm sure Ms. Zornita will be able to help us also with that. Are there any other thoughts or comments from the commissioners? I'm not seeing a lot of excitement going once, going twice. And I will close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Lauk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move we find HCCPA 26-02 consistent with the Hillsborough Competitor Plan, citing policies 1.1.5, 1.3.4, 2.2.1, and 2.3.1, and for the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. All right. Would you mind repeating the policy numbers? I think I missed one. 1.1.5, 1.3.4, if I can read my own writing correctly, 2.2.1, 2.3.1. Thank you. All right, we got a motion of consistency fined by Commissioner Lauk. Is there a second anywhere out there? I'll second. All right, Commissioner Cardenas, we got a second to that. Motion of consistency fined by Commissioner Lauk. Signing policies 1.1.5, 1.3.4, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, that was seconded by Commissioner Cardenas. Are there any questions, comments, or clarifications needed from the commissioners before we take our vote? Commissioner Sink? Yeah, I guess the only thing that gives me heartburn about this is going against the community plan. But I guess in that same realm, and staff can help me understand this too, what is considered old? And then how often and how are we charged with updating these community plans? Like if we're saying they're no longer valid because they're 20 years old, then do we have a process for which to make sure that they don't become too old, that we determine that they're not valuable, I guess is my question. So the Board of County Commissioners gives us direction on which community plans they want us to update and in what order. So for example, we're updating the Riverview community plan right now because there was a project that spurred that update. This one is being looked at as part of the urban expansion area. So it kind of depends on the pressure and the dynamics, and then the Board gives us direction to do that. The best practice would be for them to be updated on a 10-year basis because they are mid-range planning documents within the longer-range planning framework. And so, but it's adopted, and so that's, from staff standpoint, we have to look at all of the parts of the comp plan that are adopted. Correct, so I understand. I mean, so staff does their job, which is to hear the facts. It either meets or doesn't understand that. So it is kind of a self-inflicted wound that we're not updating all these plans every 10 years. So that's what leads us to these hairier situations is because they're not updated, and then we had the question what their validity is at that point. Okay, I just wanted to get clarification. I appreciate it. Good question, good question. Commissioner Mountain. Yeah, I have a conflict on four different items. One is the infrastructure there, and according to the different departments, fire infrastructure, and also the community plan. And finally, the list of quote-unquote opportunity zones, and I have a current list of opportunity zones which doesn't include that. So, you know, I've got kind of a disconnect in regards to saying, yeah, let's move forward on this. All right. All right, we still have that motion to the floor. Consistency finding by Commissioner Lauka, second to that by Commissioner Cardenas. Before we take our vote, going once, going twice, are there any thoughts, comments? Not seeing any, I'm going to give it to the clerk for a roll call on this one. Bowden? No. Cardenas? Yes. Kugler? No. Lankos? Yes. Lauk? Yes. Steven? I'm sorry, Sink? Yes. Joseph? Yes. Motion carried, seven to two. Members Bowden and Kugler voted no. All righty. All right. Next up is the other part to this one. Item 2B, HCCPA 26-03 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 7607-7709 Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road. And the presenter is again Willow Mickey. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Willow Mickey with Planning Commission staff. I am here to present HCCPA 2603 located at 7607-7709 Williams Road and Bessie Dix Road. This request is a privately initiated large scale map amendment made up of three parcels totaling approximately 81.9 acres. The request is to change the land use designation of these parcels from Residential 1 to Residential 2 and Residential 4. This plan amendment is part of the April 2026 cycle located in the rural area and is within the limits of the Tonota-Sassa Community Plan. It is also associated with HCCPA 2602, which is requesting to bring the same parcels into the urban service area. There's also a very small portion within the CHHA in the southeastern portion of one of the parcels. Here is an aerial photo of the site. It is located north of I-4, east of Williams Road and south of Joe Ebert Road. Within the vicinity of the site there are single family uses. To the east there is a middle school and to the south are agricultural uses. North of the site is a cemetery and further east is a clinical treatment center. Here are some site photos, these are the same ones you saw earlier. Here we're looking south, looking at land across the site with the site on the right, looking onto the site from Williams Road. The site is in the residential one lane use category. This allows for the consideration of agricultural, farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood, commercial, offices, and multipurpose projects. The surrounding lane use categories include Res 1 to the east, south, and west, with Res 4 to the north. Public quasi-public is located to the northwest, and additional Res 4 lies further southeast. There's also Res 2 located northeast of the site if you travel from the site approximately one mile north and a half a mile east. The request is to change the site to Residential 2 and Residential 4. Both categories allow for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects. This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested land use change. Currently, under Res 1, the site can be considered for up to 81 dwelling units and 891,891 square feet of non-residential. The change to Residential 2 and Residential 4 would allow for the consideration of 189 dwelling units and 891,891 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment will result in a potential increase in development potential by allowing consideration of higher residential density and potentially greater intensity. The potential increase intensity is attributable to the higher square footage cap associated with the proposed land use designations. The proposal has been reviewed by the commenting agencies, which you can find in your packet under the agency review section. There were no objections, however, the Community and Infrastructure Planning Department commented that based on the traffic analysis they conducted, there is not an adequate capacity to accommodate the additional trips generated by the proposed feature land use categories in the future scenario for most of the segments. The Office of Emergency Management commented that the proposed amendment does not align overall with the goals and objectives outlined in the Hillsborough County Local Mitigation Strategy. Specifically, goal area three on the improved natural environment. While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. Though the request is related to several general policies, staff found five main areas of inconsistency. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following objective and policies of the comprehensive plan. Objective 1.1 relates to the urban service area. These policies are applicable to the request because the site is being analyzed in conjunction with the USA expansion request. Although the proposed urban service area expansion is necessary to support the requested category change to Res 2 and Res 4. Future land use section policy 1.1.2 states that all new residential or mixed use feature land use categories within the USA shall have a density of four dwellings per gross acre or greater. Unless environmental features or existing development patterns do not support those densities. As the residue category permits a maximum density of less than four dwellings per gross acre, the request would not align with the intent of this policy. Accordingly, the need for a USA expansion to accommodate either the proposed Res 2 or Res 4 designation does not by itself demonstrate that such an expansion is appropriate or compatible with the surrounding context. Policy 1.1.10 establishes the criteria for evaluating both publicly and privately initiated urban service area boundary amendments. Because the proposed USA expansion is found to be inconsistent with these criteria, the requested future land use amendment to support the expansion is also not supported. It is important to note that the original request proposed Res 4 and Res 9. After conversations between planning commission staff and the applicant, the request was revised to a less dense category. Staff acknowledged the reduction in density and note that the revised request is more appropriate with the surrounding area than the original proposal. However, concerns remain given the USA expansion is not supported by the Tenota-Saza Community Plan and therefore the land use change cannot be supported either. The proposal is also inconsistent with the objective 3.2 and its associated policies related to community plans. Goal 3, the plan focuses on the community's rural character, open space and agriculture. The proposed request which would increase the density to a semi-rural and suburban land use category is not consistent with this community plan objective. While the community supports a diversity of housing and jobs, it is emphasized that these uses are intended to be implemented in a manner that protects the community identity and fits the surrounding area. Additionally, the Tenota-Saza plan does not support urban service area expansions. And with that, 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. That concludes my presentation. I'm here for questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and board members. For the record, Todd Pressman again, 200 Second Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg. I think we begin with this current future land use map which shows R4, a large area R4 abutting the site and R4, as you can see, further to the southeast. Today's issue is seeking to change R1 to R4, which is abutting R4. On the south side is R1 to R2. That will be a clustered area. And I only mention clustered because it is a comprehensive plan directive where there's a desire to cluster homes and units of residential and leave a lot of open space. So, of course, we're always looking to take direction from the comp plan and zoning, which I'm going to talk about zoning, but we always look towards those directives as good planning elements. And it has been discussed a little bit, we came in under our original application at a much higher categories and in the desire always to work with the staffs on all applications. We did lower it, although that still did not satisfy staff in their consideration, not a complaint. I just want to make you aware that we had downranged the density from original application. So, again, we're abutting the USA, of course, and you've seen these. I want to show this not as a site plan, but I want to show when you look at the middle that remediated open spaces, that's a very large area that will not be developed for residential. Then, of course, you see the wetlands and the ponds. So, a very large area of this will not be developed. And that's why we moved to the clustering, so we leave a lot of open space that hopefully can be turned into some recreation. We like to do ball fields. We like to do docks and walks and exercise tracks, depending upon how remediated it can be. I'm not going to repeat all this. And again, of course, we're abutting the urban area. So, regarding category changes, again, there's a tremendous amount of criteria, and I couldn't possibly in 15 minutes even go through them all and review them all. But I think there's some that really stand out, particularly 2.1.3, that the central location with easy access to I-4, I-75, and 301 is ideal for suburban density and intensity. The land use reclassification is appropriate considering it aligns with public health concerns and supports a focused development pattern which encourages economic growth. And I should have introduced this as the private planner that we asked to look at the criteria and respond to them. She's an AICP planner and does a really good job with these things. Policy 3.1.3, that the density increase as proposed are appropriate considering the history of the land and the character of the community and in harmony with the planning reports to prepare for continued population expansion within the inner corporate county. The intent is to provide homes for existing and expanding population as appropriate considering growth management strategy in proximity to existing and planned employment centers. I think that's a particularly strong element, and the direction is the location elements, transportation elements. The land use amendment extension the USA has proposed will allow for development a similar intensity and density as that which exists. in the area. The planner also notes that the proposed land use amendment is unique because it includes lands that have been used as a landfill. A lower intensity land use R2 is proposed for the folio numbers, the southern half, which contain the areas of the landfill. This will increase open space and respect the historic character of this notice as a community while ensuring public safety. And again, you have the housing chapter and quite a few elements in the housing chapter. I do want to indicate to you that Mr. Michael Yates, who's a transportation planner, did review this. And he responded that he considered a positive transportation report in that under the LOS reported by the county, Williams Road from Sly Avenue, Joe Ebert, is a current LOS, as I mentioned before, B as in boy. And that under the 2017 Hillsborough Vision Zero Action Plan, there is an improvement project, Project 69676329, that will implement safety improvements along school routes, particularly Jennings Middle School and along Williams Road, which will be passing the site on its western boundary. So I do want to make note of that as well. And then as I indicate, I will say again that, excuse me, we noticed 86 persons in the radius of 500 feet twice. Big notice signs, four of them, which are right on the main road, Williams. And we'll be sending out zoning notices as well. So with that, we appreciate your attention and consideration. Thank you. Thank you. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one. So I will turn it over to the commissioners for discussions, thoughts, questions. Not seeing much excitement. I will go once, go twice. Then I will close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Lauk. Okay. I move we find HCCPA 26-03 consistent with Hillsborough Conferencing Plan, citing policies 2.1.3, 3.1, and 3.1.3. And forward to the Board of County Commissioners for further consideration. All right. Is there a second anywhere out there? Commissioner Jemisin, sorry. I second. All right. We had a motion consistency finding by Commissioner Lauk, citing policy 2.1.3, 3.1, and 3.1.3. And a second to that consistency finding by Commissioner Jemisin. In questions, thoughts, comments from the commissioners before we take our vote? Seeing any, then I'll turn it over to the clerk for a roll call. Bowden? No. Cardenas? Yes. Jemisin? Yes. Kugler? No. Linkos? Yes. Lauk? Yes. Sieben? Sink? Yes. Chair Joseph? Yes. Motion carried, 7-2. Commissioner Bowden and Commissioner Kugler voted no. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Boarding. All right. Next up, we have Item 2C, HCCPA 26-13, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 2909 Dura Road. And the presenter is Tyreek Royal. Thank you. Good afternoon. Tyreek Royal, Planning Commissioner Staff. Today I'll be presenting HCCPA 2613 at 2909 Dura Road. This request is privately initiated, small-scale map amendment with approximately 1.2 acres. The request is to change the land use designation from Residential 1 to Residential 2. The location of the site is in the eastern portion of Hillsborough County, within the rural area, and not within the limits of a community plan. Here you can see an aerial photo of the site, which is outlined in pink. Also, the blue line is the Plant City boundary. The site is located west of Dura Road, adjacent to Segan Foamy Homes, with the church to the east of the subject site. We've got some photos here. This is facing west on Dura Road, with the subject site in view. This is facing north on Dura Road. The subject site is located to the left. And this is facing east towards the church on Dura Road. The subject site is to the right. And this is facing south on Dura Road, with the subject site to the right. Sorry. As said, the subject site is in Residential 1, future lane use category, which allows for the consideration of agricultural, farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, multipurpose projects, with commercial uses being subject to locational criteria. The applicant is requesting a change of future lane use category from Residential 1 to Residential 2. The Res 2 category allows for agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial offices uses, and multipurpose projects, but also are pursuant to locational criteria. The change from Residential 1 to Residential 2 will allow for an increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density. The density of one dwelling unit per gross acre will increase to two dwelling units per gross acre. The commercial intensity will remain the same at a .25 FAR, or maximum of approximately 12,000 square feet. While formulating a recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. The proposed amendment is consistent with comprehensive plan's rural area policies, specifically Food Policy Objective 1.2 and Policy 1.2.1, which recognize that suburban outclaves within the rural area may accommodate high residential densities. The subject property is located adjacent to Plant City's municipal boundary and existing residential two designated properties, reflecting an established suburban development pattern rather than a traditional rural setting. Consistent with Flu Policy 2.3.2, the proposed density is based on gross acreage, with actual development potential to be determined through a future site-specific review. The amendment is also consistent with Flu Objective 3.1 and Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. It represents compatible increase in residential density that extends existing rural residential two development pattern, provides an appropriate transition between the rural area and more intensive development within Plant City. Finally, the proposal is consistent with Flu Objective 4.1 and Policies 4.1.2 and 4.1.1, because any future land rezoning and development on the property must comply with the comprehensive plan, land development code, and all applicable county, state, and federal regulations, ensuring orderly and compatible development. With that, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed math amendment consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. I'm here for any questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation on this one? Yep. All right. Thank you. My name is Lindy Long, and I'm the property owner at 2909 Der Road. I don't want to use a lot of your time, so I'll just go through this quickly. As you saw, this is a subject property. I've submitted an application to change it to residential two. I have owned this property for 11 years, and ultimately I'm just looking to split it into two parcels. As you can see, the city is all around me. I was thinking we might be annexed into this city, but it looks unlikely since the church that's to the right of the property is not interested. As you can see, there's only two parcels separating to the east, four parcels to the west, and six parcels to the north from the city. The landscape around this property is changing a lot. You know, 11 years ago it was more rural, but as you can see, there's a new plan development, just a stone's throw away. A large apartment complex. We're just a couple blocks from the main dragon plant city, James L. Redmond Parkway. The star indicates how close we are to this new development at 804 Charlie Griffin Road. Another reason why it's not out of character is because if you look at the properties that are just south of my property, it's a higher density. So typically you have a house on like a quarter of an acre. We just have one home on an acre. And I just made a list of some of those properties that are just south of us that are zoned RSC for. So it's truly just not out of character for the area. The other thing that's kind of unique about this is the position of the current structure. It's at the far south end of the property. So literally you could split it in half and not have to interfere with the current structure. I do provide affordable housing for people that live in that home right now. It's a three bedroom. I charge $15.95 a month. I'd hate for that to go away. I'd like to just split the land and have an opportunity to do something with the other part of the land. Since literally there's nothing happening on the other end of the property. There's just nothing there. It's clear. There's no property. No, nothing. Before I came to the point of coming to the planning commission, I had done a rezoning pre submittal review. The only issue that they had was that it needed to have at least a half an acre for a well in a septic tank. So this land being 1.12 acres, if that were done, we'd still be able to comply with their concerns. That's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. And kudos to you. Citizen landowner making a presentation like that. All right. We did not have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one. So I will turn it over to the planning commissioners for questions, comments, thoughts, discussions on this one. I'm not seeing. Oh, Commissioner Saint. I just want to confirm nobody wrote in. No neighbors had any comments? Public comments are available. But at this time of writing the staff report in this hearing, I have not received any emails or correspondence with any. Thank you. All right. Are there any other questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners on this one? I'm not seeing any. Going once, going twice. I will close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions. Commissioner Cougar. I move that HC CPA 26-13 be found consistent with the comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough County. All right. Commissioner Jemisin. Second. All right. We got a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Coogler. Second to that by Commissioner Jemisin. Any thoughts, comments, or questions before we take our votes? I would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. All right. Item 2D, HCCPA 26-14, comprehensive plan map amendment 15640, Carleton Lake Road. And the presenter is again Tyreek Royal. Thank you, commissioners. Good evening again. Tyreek Royal, planning commission staff. Today I'll be presenting HCCPA 2614 and 15640, Carleton Lake Road. This request is privately initiated, small scale map amendment with approximately 9.57 acres. The request exchange of land use to exit nation from agricultural rural 1 to 5 to agricultural state 1 to 2.5. The location of the site is in the southeastern portion of Hillsborough County. It's within the rural area, located within the limits of the bottom and south shore area wide systems community plans. Here's the arrow photo of the site outlined in pink. The urban service area is represented by the blue line. It's approximately one half mile away. Aston Farms is located to the east of the site. On the photo views, this is facing east on Carleton Lake Road with the subject site in view. Here's a shot facing north on Carleton Lake Road with the subject site to the right. And this is looking south on Carleton Lake Road, the subject site to the left. And finally facing west on Carleton Lake Road with the subject site behind the camera. The subject site is an agricultural rural 1 to 5 future land use category, which allows for the consideration for farms, ranches, feed lots, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, industrial uses, related agriculture uses, and mining related activities. You can see residential floors within urban service area boundary. The applicants requesting the change of future land use category from AR 1 to 5 to AE 1 to 2.5. Agricultural state 1 to 2.5 allows for consideration for farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, and multipurpose projects. The change from AR 1 to 5 to AE 1 to 2.5 will allow for an increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density. The density of one dwelling unit per five acres would increase to one dwelling unit for every two and a half acres. The commercial intensity will remain the same at a .25 FAR, or approximately 104,000 square feet. Again, while formally a recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the comprehensive plans, rural area policies, and compatibility policies. Fluid objective 1.2 and policy 1.2.1 establish residential densities greater than one dwelling unit per five acres, or appropriate only when recognized within suburban enclaves, planned villages, planned environmental communities, rural communities. The subject property is surrounded by agricultural rural, one to five designated lands. It's not located in any of these recognized growth areas. Staff also determined that the property is not eligible for the limited rural area density exception under Fluid Policy 1.2.6, because the parcels were created through a 1996 lot split according to development services, rather than existing as lawful parcels prior to July 26, 1989. Consistent with policy 2.3.2, maximum densities is based on the site's gross acreage. Additionally, Fluid objective 3.1 and policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 require that increase in densities be compatible with the surrounding development, and provide appropriate transitions between lane use intensities. Staff finds that the proposed agricultural state one to five point five designation would introduce an isolated increase in residential density that is not supported by surrounding agricultural rural one to five development pattern. It would not serve as a transitional planning function. The proposed amendment is also inconsistent with comprehensive plans implementation framework adopted by the Baum community plan, Fluid objective 4.1 and its associated policies, establish that development and future land use decisions should be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the comp plan and the county land development code. Because of the request of future land use amendment is not consistent with the rural area and compatibility policies of the comp plan, it does not support a framework of orderly growth and is avenged by these implemented policies. Goal 1 of the Baum community plan emphasizes preserving the community's rural area and maintaining residential densities of one dual unit per five acres or less. The proposed agricultural state one to two point five designation would allow for greater residential density than contemplated by the community plan, and would not further its vision of preserving the rural development pattern. With that, planning commission staff recommends that the proposed amendment be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. And I'm here for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening. Isabelle Albert with Hav 1000 North Ashley Drive. I'm here representing the property owner, the Louders who are here tonight. And they did most of the work themselves up to now until they got the staff report and they asked for some help. So basically, what we have really are two properties. These two properties, one of them is five acres in red, which the Louders own. And then there's the blue property, which is not owned by them, but it's shortly smaller than five acres. And what they've done and how they ended up here was, as you heard in 1996, this is something that you see throughout the rural area. Parcels will get split off, but by deeds. So they write the deed to split off a parcel, they either give it to a child or whatever. But this is something that you see sometimes in a rural service area. And then here we come, 30 years later, the Louders just last year, at the end of last year, filed for a parcel certification. And when they filed for their parcel certification, again, they're the ones in green, five acres, ready for it. And then they were told by zoning staff that they actually cannot really do that because by doing so, the property upfront is now becoming legal non-conforming. And suggested to talk to planning commission staff and zoning staff. And so clients have met at the end of around December last year. They did meet with Jillian Massey, who has helped a lot and have looked at this in all angles. They've tried to look at the legal non-conforming use criteria, but they met everything except the date, you know, the 1989 date. They met with development services staff and they looked at it. And then in January, they regrouped and they said, I'm sorry, but the only way for you to go forward is to get a comprehensive plan amendment for this. And they did warn the, you know, they did give the heads up to the clients, but you, you know, you're requesting one unit to the acre, which we usually don't support that in the rural area. Um, however, this is the only way to fix this specific problem. And this is just, um, for this site specifically, then started looking at it. As I said earlier, these properties are not the, this is not the only one property that's slightly less than five acres. I mean, property upfront is 4.3 acres, which is what we're trying to fix that problem. But surrounding that, um, property, there are other properties and this is in the bomb area. But then looking at the, uh, future land use and they were talking about compatibility. This is not a compatibility concern. These properties are established. They've been there for a very long time. They're not going to split it off. All they want to do is when they file for the parcel certifications, they want to build their house there. Purchase the property, um, in order to build their one house there. Also looking at these different policies, comprehensive plan and zoning. Obviously this, when this gets approved, we would then apply for the zoning to, to match basically what the comprehensive plan is. But then you also look at the bomb community plan. Um, the bomb community plan does say that they highly discourage suburban development, but this is a rural development. If you look at the definition, it says rural development residential is like one units, uh, minimum one unit to the acre. But interestingly, it kind of recognizes that there's other parcels out there that may not fit per their land use. And they're giving an example of one to 10. If you're, you have a 10 acre parcel, but you are located in a one to 20, then you should be as a property owner have a right to, to get your future land use to one to 10. In this case, they just want to have that, you know, one unit to, for the 2.5 so that they can get developed for their property. All reviewing agencies were, uh, had no objections. And basically at the end of the day, they just want to find the best solution so they can move forward. They've been in this process for about a year and a half. Um, they asked, uh, for me to help them, uh, you know, a couple of weeks ago. And I think that this is, this was a good solution, the best solution. And it, it also, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. If you look at the, uh, resolution that staff, uh, is in their backup. I mean, you can apply all of that except for that first two portions of the rural area where they say that the minimum lot size has to be, uh, five acres. But besides that, all the other policies in that resolution does apply, uh, to support consistency finding, uh, with the comprehensive plan. That's basically what we're dealing with and what we're faced with. And we're asking obviously for this board to, you know, help these property owners out. I'm here for you. Any questions? 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, thoughts on this one. Commissioner Linkus, go to her first. I guess, um, I just, I'm curious why this wouldn't be like a zoning variance kind of issue. Um, well, feel free to chime in and help me if I'm not right. But I think it's because of the time in which it was subdivided since it was after when they used 1989, the adoption of the comp plan and the new zoning code as the legal nonconforming date. So if it predates that, you, you are considered legally nonconforming. Um, but because the lot was created after that, they should have created the lot in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the zoning district. Um, and, uh, unfortunately it appears like they subdivided it and didn't go through any county, any county like development services or anything, uh, at that time. And so it didn't get caught until they, they wanted to do something with development services. And then they said, Oh, you should have come through this process originally. Um, so yeah, it is kind of a catch 22 for them. I mean, they got caught for the parcel certification. If they had that, you know, they would have gone through. They're five acres. They're fine. You know, they meet. But because of that, unfortunately, they're trying to remedy the issue. And this is, yeah, like she says, it was done after 1989. That's it. I had the same question, Commissioner Linkus. And since I'm allowed the levity to say it, it annoys me to no end when the county dumps their stuff on us like this. Like that deed was recorded through their peeps, their departments. I get the timing of all that. And ultimately at the end of all this, they're the final decision maker, the board of county commissioners. I don't understand how development services neatly just goes, Oh, go ask the planning commission about this. Like I, I, I get the procedure. I hear that, but it, and this is just a personal thing. You can, everybody can dump on me. It's just me speaking. No one else. But that's, I find that very annoying when they do stuff like that. Commissioner Sink. Great, great segue to me saying I think this is the reason why we're here. To find these kind of things and say, okay, how do we remedy them for our constituents? Like how does this work so we can make sure that we're helping the people who need it? Because this happened in Tampa Heights too when we were doing our overlay and we had to figure out how to get legal non-conforming to work. And they sneak through all over the place, so this isn't just even limited to rural areas, this happens in the urban areas too. So I think this is actually our call of like why we're here to make sure we can write these things when they happen. Because it's super annoying when they create these situations and we get to clean it up. Commissioner Coogler. Just to clear out my understanding, they own the 9.3 acres or they own just the five? They own just the five. It's already been split in those two parcels. Yeah, they own the five. They're good. Yeah. The other buildings belong to somebody else then. It belongs to somebody else but it stops them from developing. Gotcha. Thank you. All right. I got a quick question for staff. Were there any comments from surrounding property owners or people in the area? As of the time of the staff report being written and today I have not received any comments of objection. Okay. Other questions, comments, thoughts? And I'll just throw a segue in here before we go to our next comment that if we are going to go against staff, everybody remember we are going to need some policies to do that with. So let's be thinking of those. Or Ms. Ornita, if you can have any at the ready to help whoever makes that motion out. But we'll continue on with the questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners. If there are any more. Commissioner Linkus? Yeah, I guess I would be looking for language that would support sort of these odd situations. I'm not sure offhand where to look for that. And I don't know if there would be something like that. Ms. Ornita looks like she might have something. Well, I think the broad rural area objective 1.2 and then the BOM community plan, the one bullet that does, I mean it kind of conflicts with part of the rest of the community plan that says they want to keep one to five. But if you cited the bullet about if desired property owners who existing parcels do not meet the minimum land use designation lot size to change their land use to match their lot size. That bullet, I mean, speaks to this kind of situation. What's that bullet under? It's under the BOM community plan. It's under goal one of the BOM community plan. If you look at, I mean, just looking at the resolution that's in the backup, it's like it would be everything except maybe the beginning. But I mean, you've got objectives 2.2, policy 2.2.1. You have policy 2.3.2. And then we have objective 3.1, policy 3.1.2, policy 3.1.3. The relationship with the land development code, that's been stated at 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2. And then the livable community element BOM goals and strategy goal number one, which would be the third bullet. But overall, yes. All right. If that helps. There's some ideas out there. All right, are there any other questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners? Can I ask a question, if we do allow this, are we setting an irreversible precedent here? Are we going to get a bevy of more requests for 1 to 2.5s out there? What position does that place this board in? Well, I don't think it's nothing. Every case is taken on its own merits. Okay. I don't know the facts set around some of those other properties that Miss Albert identified, whether or not they've been in existence since prior to 1989. They may all be legal nonconforming. I have no idea. Okay. Without doing the research on them. But I do think in recognizing one, if there were others with a similar facts set, it might lead to the similar conclusion. Okay. All right. All right. Are there any other questions, thoughts from the commissioners? I'm not seeing any. Then I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Be out there. Commissioner Linkus. I should have grabbed a pen because I had some trouble keeping up with the discussion here. But I'm going to make a motion to find Hillsborough County HCCPA 2614 consistent with the comprehensive plan based on 1.2. And then I'm not sure how to quite call it, but the BOM plan, the specified bullet. Okay. We'll say goal one, bullet number three. Thank you very much. Sure. Second. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Linkus, citing policy 1.2 and goal one, bullet three of the BOM community plan. Second to that motion by Commissioner Louk. Are there any questions, thoughts, or comments before we take our vote? I'm going to turn it over to the clerk for a roll call on this one. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Yes. Jameson? Yes. Coogler? Yes. Linkos? Yes. Louk? Yes. Chair Joseph? No. Motion carried. Eight to one. Chair Joseph voted no. All right. Eight to one. You got it. It's not done yet. You still got to go to the Board of County Commissioners for the final decision. We're just a recommending body. All right. Next up, we have Item 2F, HCCPA 26-16, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 12401 North 22nd Street. And the presenter is Alexis Myers. Good evening, Commissioners. Alexis Myers planning the commission staff. I'm here to present HCCPA 26-16, located at 12401 North 22nd Street. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 13.83 acres. The applicant is requesting a change of future land use category from Residential 20 to Residential 35. This is the general location map. It is in the urban service area, within the limits of the University Area Community Plan. It's located east of North 22nd Street and south of University Club Drive. Here is the area of the site. The site is outlined in pink and a blue dotted line indicates the Tampa jurisdictional boundary. The subject property is the villas at Unison Senior Living Facility. The site is in the Centers and Connections, FEMA Flood Zone X, and has wetlands on the property. The Seacoast at Upton 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 Viridian Apartments and College Town at USF Off Campus Housing are to the north. The Parkat or Vito Apartments are to the west. And more multi-family uses are located east and south. The James A. Haley Veterans Hospital is to the northeast. And additional public quasi-public institutional uses are located to the south and southwest. University of South Florida is to the east across Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. Single-family uses are to the east and further north. And lastly, the University Mall and the Sunray Cinema Movie Theater is directly south. Here's some photos of the site. This is looking at the subject site from North 22nd Street. This is also looking at the site from North 22nd Street. This is looking south from North 22nd Street to University Mall. The subject site is to the left. And this is looking east from North 22nd Street to the multi-family uses. The subject site is out of frame. And this is looking north from North 22nd Street. The subject site is to the right. Currently, the future land use designation is Residential 20. The Res 20 designation allows 20 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area 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 future land use categories shown in this map include 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 future land use category to Residential 35, which allows 35 dwelling units per gross acre or a floor area ratio of 1.0. The Res 35 designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed-use developments. Non-residential uses, not part of a vertically integrated building, shall meet established locational criteria. Next are the impacts. As far as existing conditions, currently under Res 20, the site could consider up to 276 dwelling units or 451,826 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed Res 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 and evaluation of the amendment. While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. Staff found four main areas of consistency. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. The request is consistent with the intent of future land use section objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3, as it would allow for additional residential density in a manner that is integrated with surrounding uses while maintaining compatibility and protecting community character. It meets intent of policy 3.1.2, as the Res 35 designation allows for appropriate extension of the county's future land use framework and would allow for additional residential opportunities in an area planned and student for urban growth, while maintaining consistency with the surrounding land use pattern. The request is also 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 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. This amendment supports the plan's vision of promoting more efficient land use patterns, expanding housing opportunities, and encouraging redevelopment of underutilized properties. And with that, planning commission styles recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening. Kami Cora with the law firm of Hillward & Henderson. I do not have a separate presentation. I think Alexis did a fine job of presenting this to you. This is an existing senior living facility, and with the change in density from the R20 to R35, it'll allow us to revitalize these buildings and also use them for multi-generational tenants, whether they be students or families or seniors. With the current density, we're capped at the senior living, and so this will facilitate the redevelopment of this property. And we'd respectfully request your finding of consistency, and I'm here to answer your questions. 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, thoughts on this. I'm not seeing a lot of action. Then I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this item, and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this one. Commissioner Kugler. I move that we find HC CPA 26-16 consistent with the comprehensive plan. All right. Is there a second out there anywhere? I move that motion. All right. Motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Kugler. Second to that by Commissioner Bowden. Are there any thoughts, questions, comments before we take our vote? I'm seeing a lot of excitement. That would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Next up. That's it. We are done with items for our Hillsborough County public hearing. So at 723, I will adjourn the Hillsborough County public hearing and read us into our City of Tampa public hearing if everybody will bear with me for just a moment. Welcome everybody to the July 13, 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 plan com dot 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 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 in making a recommendation is limited to consistency or inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. And with that, I'd like to ask the clerk to please go ahead and call roll again. Bowden? Here. Cardenas? Here. Jameson? Here. Coogler? I'd like to let the record show Coogler's here. He just stepped out to use the restroom for a minute. Yes, sir. Linkos? Lauk? Here. Sieben? Here. Sink? Here. Orton? Here. Rodriguez? Here. Thank you. All right. First item of business is, first and only item of business, 2A TACPA 26-03 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 4002 North Dale Mabry Highway and Associated Parcels. And the presenter is Emily Phelan. Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. This is TACPA 2603 at 4002 North Dale Mabry Highway and Associated Parcels. This is publicly initiated and I would like to clarify that the City of Tampa is not initiating the amendment. The site is publicly owned by the Board of Trustees of Hillsborough College. And we received a letter from the City of Tampa Legal Department for the amendment to run out of cycle. And it is being publicly initiated as that. And this is a regular scale. It's approximately 121.73 acres. And the request is to go from public semi-public to urban mixed use 60 and regional mixed use 100. The subject site is within the West Shore Planning District, the West Shore Business Center, the Drew Park neighborhood, and the Drew Park Community Redevelopment Area. This is an aerial of the subject site. The site is bound by North Dale Mabry to the east, West Tampa Bay Boulevard to the south, North Lois Avenue to the west, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the north. The site currently has the Dale Mabry campus of Hillsborough College, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Hillsborough Tax Collector's Office, as well as other government facilities. To the south of the site is Tampa International Airport and parking for Raymond James. To the east along North Dale Mabry is primarily commercial uses, including Raymond James Stadium. And to the northeast is Al Lopez Park. To the north is Steiberner Field in the corner between, to the southwest corner of West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Dale Mabry Highway. There are also a mix of commercial uses and industrial uses along MLK Boulevard. So the west is a single family detached neighborhood with some multi-family to the southwest of the subject site. This is looking north on Dale Mabry Highway. The subject site is on the left. This is looking south on North Lois Avenue at the subject site. This is the tax collector's office. This is looking east on West Lois Avenue at the subject site. This is FDLE. This is looking south on West Tampa Bay Boulevard at the parking for Raymond James and the subject site is in the rear. This is looking east from North Lois Avenue towards West Kentucky Avenue at some of the single family detached uses and the subject site is to the rear. This is looking east on West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard at the commercial uses and the subject site would be on the right. This is looking south on North Dale Mabry Highway. You can see Steiberner Field and the subject site is in the rear of the site, like way down there. This is the adopted future land use map. The subject site is outlined in black and is recognized under the public semi-public future land use designation. This designation is to the north, east, south, and west of the site. The residential 20 designation is a single family detached neighborhood to the west. To the north is the light industrial and community commercial 35 designation. The light industrial is in the gray and the community commercial is in the red. And the ROS designation is Al Lopez Park. And the RMU 100 designation is to the south of the subject site along Jim Walter Boulevard and West Columbus and Boy Scout, which includes the International Plaza and Bay Street. This is the proposed future land use map. The subject site, again, is outlined in black. It's primarily represented with the magenta color, which is the regional mixed use 100 designation. And there is a sliver that is a lighter color, which is the urban mixed use 60, which is adjacent to the residential 20 designation. The UMU 60 is approximately 6.18 acres, and it is about 150 feet deep into the subject site. Under the existing public semi-public designation, the maximum residential density and non-residential intensity are not defined. Instead, the maximum development potential is determined by the compatibility of the proposed project with the context of the surrounding area. Under the proposed UMU 60 and RMU 100 designations, the site can be considered for a maximum of 11,924 dwelling units or approximately 18.4 million square feet. The amendment would define residential and non-residential maximums and promote a mixture of uses. It would also remove the requirement for public semi-public uses to be on the site. While formulating our recommendation, Planning Commission staff reviewed policies related to compatibility, scale, and massing, and neighborhood protection. Planning Commission staff finds the proposed amendment consistent with promoting mixed use development by providing an opportunity to support the current and future transit investments along these corridors. And additional opportunities to support residential and employment growth in the West Shore Business Center. Compatibility and neighborhood character is aimed at protecting existing residential areas while ensuring new development is compatible with the neighborhood. And additionally, new housing is encouraged by the comprehensive plan to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to meet the needs of Tampa's growing population. As such, the request promotes higher density mixed use infill development near transit employment centers in commercial services. And these are the policies that the staff found consistent. And with that, staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. That concludes my presentation, if you have any questions. All right, does the applicant have a presentation? Yes. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, my name is Jim Schimberg with the Shuben Law Group, and my colleague Lillian Johnson is also here with me. This project is a large public-private project that you may have heard about a little bit in the press. We've been working cooperatively with the state, with the community college, with the city and the county, and trying to get this to potentially a finish line. And we initially took the position that the existing public, semi-public category would allow us to rebuild the college, to build the proposed ballpark, as well as the mixed use development. The city staff and the city attorney's office felt strongly that we needed to process a land use comp plan amendment here. So, that's why they helped kind of get this going a little bit out of the cycle, and we appreciate that. And your staff's been great to work with. During the process, there was a question from staff about the residential property along Lois, and they encouraged us to do a step down in that area. We originally were looking at a different category, but they wanted us to extend all the way to Woodlawn, which then created an issue with the west shore oversight. The west shore overlay district, and then we came up with this compromise just to show that we wanted to be sensitive to the residential and the 6.18 acres we think is significant. Again, we think staff did a great job. I'm happy to walk through a presentation, but I'm also here to answer any questions if you have any. We would appreciate your consideration on this as we continue to work through the process here. 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 planning commissioners for questions, comments, discussion items on this one. One last point. We did mail out notices to approximately 75 people posted for large signs, and we received a couple of calls. No one really had any concern, and obviously you don't see anyone here today. All right. All right. Are there any questions, comments, thoughts on the commissioners? Commissioner Kugler, I see you moving. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Joseph. One question I had was about the step down area, I believe it's that 6.13 acres. What was the request that you step it down to and- Well, there wasn't, that's a good question, sir. There wasn't, they didn't actually give, they didn't say we want you to go to a different category. They just said we would like some consideration of a lower category, adjacent to the residential. We took out the portion that was across the street from the college's residential project, as well as the part on the corner. And then we extended it for the rest of that length. Like I said, we originally were looking at a different category, but then when we looked at the compatibility with the West Shore Overlay District, it didn't. Because we have a CI zoning district, and so there's a lot of complications. And again, we wanted to show that there is an effort there. And again, we're talking about 150 feet adjacent to Lois, so we hope that that will show some good faith there. And again, there's a lot of, this project is going to be developed over a number of years. But yeah, that was the thought process was, they worked with us and they encouraged us to do that. The original application was just for the RMU 100 for the entire 121 acres. Thank you, so it really wasn't a step down of height to- It's not height, because really the height- More buffering? No, the height in the area is really going to be determined by the FAA and the Aviation Authority. So it's really more just intensity. Okay. It's a lower FAR. Okay, so that 6.18 or whatever it is, roughly, is a buffer area with- Correct. Not height buffer, but other kind of buffer. With an intensity, yes sir. Intensity, thank you. All right, Commissioner Orton. I just wanted on the record that the maximum residential units was 11,924, which generates 2,361 elementary school students, 1,038 middle school students, and 1,610 high school students. So that would require a brand new elementary school or two. All right. Are there any other thoughts, questions, comments from the commissioners? I'm not seeing any at this time. Going once, going twice. I'm going to close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions. Commissioner Lau. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move we find TA-CPA 26-03 Congressive Plan Amendment consistent and forward to the City of Tampa City Council for further consideration. Commissioner Kugler. Commissioner Kugler. I second that. All right. We have a motion of consistency fined by Commissioner Lau, a second by Commissioner Kugler. Are there any questions, comments, thoughts before we take our vote? I'm not seeing any. Then I'm going to kick it over to you for a roll call on this one. I'm not touching this one. Bowden. Yes. Cardenas. Yes. Jamison. Yes. Kugler. Yes. Lauk. Yes. Linkos. Yes. Steven. Yes. Chair Joseph. Yes. Motion carried nine to zero. All righty. Thank you all very much. Have a great evening. Thank you. All right. All right. That was our last item of business. So at 7 38 PM, this City of Tampa public hearing is adjourned. Good night, everyone.