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 to the August 10, 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 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 or response. Planning Commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed, and 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. Presentations should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the commission. The 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 please ask the clerk's representative to call a roll. Good evening, Commissioners. Bowden? Present. Cardenas? Jamison? Present. Kugler? Present. Linkus? Lauck? Present. Sieben? Sink? Here. Orton? Here. Rodriguez? Here. Joseph? Here. Thank you. You have quorum. All right. Thank you very much. We had two items that were continued. The first item is 2D, TACPA 26-07, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. It's continued to the next cycle, correct? I'll open that one. Okay. No? Steph, correct me. Take your time. Emily Phelan, Planning Commission. Staff, that item is not continued to the next cycle. It is continued to that public hearing, and then that will transfer their city council date. They'll have to continue that as well. They just requested November specifically. Okay. All right. So that one's continued to November. This one, 2B, is also going to be continued, TACPA 26-05, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 3541 North Boulevard. And this one is going to be continued, requesting to be continued to next month, and we're going to have to take a vote on that if we're going to. Yeah. The continuance is a matter of right, but the request to go to next month, since that's next, not our next scheduled Tampa hearing, does need your approval. Okay. Is there comments from the commissioners or a motion out there? Commissioner Lauk? I wonder why we would move it outside the city of Tampa cycle? Well, in this case, we actually don't have any amendments scheduled for next month from Plant City or Temple Terrace, because the Plant City ones are being heard tonight. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Or can I get a motion to continue this one to next month? Commissioner C? I'll make a motion to move, what is it, 3541 North Boulevard to next month. All right. Motion to continue it. Second. And I'll second. All right. Motion to continue it to next month by Commissioner Sink. A second to that motion by Commissioner Kugler. Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners before we take our vote? Would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. And item 2B is continued, so we will not be hearing 2B or 2D tonight. Now, to what we will be hearing tonight, we'll start off with action item 2A, TACPA 26-04. Comprehensive plan map amendment, 2410 North Boulevard. And the presenter is Megan McCarthy. Good evening, Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is the hearing for TACPA 26-04, located at 2410 North Boulevard. This amendment is privately initiated, small-scale, and is approximately 0.17 acres. The request is to go from a residential 10 future land use designation to residential 20. The subject site is located within the Central Tampa Planning District, as well as the Ridgewood Park neighborhood. This is an aerial of the subject site, showing the site outlined in yellow. The surrounding area is a mixture of uses, including detached single-family to the south and west. Directly to the north, across West Amelia Avenue, is developing multifamily with commercial uses further to the north along West Columbus Drive. And to the east, across North Boulevard, is a mixture of single-family attached and single-family detached, as well as the Tampa Heights Urban Village. Starting with our site photos, this is looking directly at the subject site from North Boulevard. This is looking north along North Boulevard, with the subject site behind the camera. This is looking south along North Boulevard, with the subject site to the right-hand side. This is looking down the alleyway on the west side of the subject site. And this is looking at single-family uses directly to the west of the subject site, with the subject site behind the camera. And this is looking east along West Amelia Avenue, at developing multifamily directly to the north of the subject site. The subject site is to the right-hand side. This is the adopted future land use map. The subject site is shown outlined in black under the designated residential 10 future land use category. The subject site is located directly south of the R35 future land use designation through adopted TACPA 22-11 with R35 to the east as well. South and west of the site is the R10 designation and further to the south is the R20 designation due to multiple other previously approved plan amendments, most recently TACPA 2508. To the north along Columbus Drive is the CMU 35 designation. This is the proposed future land use map showing the subject site under the proposed residential 20 future land use. Under the adopted flue of residential 10, the site may be considered for one dwelling unit. The site could be considered for 2,500, just over 2,500 square feet of commercial uses subject to locational criteria. Under the proposed R20 designation, the site may be considered for three residential development units and 3,702 square feet of commercial uses, also subject to locational criteria. The proposed R20 designation would result in the increase of residential density and commercial intensity and would allow for multifamily uses. Any non-residential uses would be subject to locational criteria, which is expanded under the R20 designation. Additionally, the application was sent to our partner agencies and there were no objections to this request. Staff reviewed all policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan and found a number of policies related to the amendment, including policy related to neighborhood preservation and protection and the existing development pattern. The proposed amendment is recommended to be found consistent with the policies and objectives of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, including maintaining neighborhood character and compatibility, as the proposed R20 designation may provide transition between the lower density R10 to the west and the R35 designation to the east. Additionally, the amendment was found consistent with policies encouraging adequate housing supply and infill development, as the proposed R20 designation would allow up to three residential development units. Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed MAP amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. And this concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening. My name is Angela Rauber with Hillward Henderson, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 33602. And that's the suite 3700. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and property owner for this. I do want to keep it brief. I think the presentation that just went before me took all the good things that I have to say about this property and its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. But to reiterate, we are asking for an amendment from R10 up to R20, which, to remind you, is just one step up the scale as far as density and intensity under Tampa's Comprehensive Plan. The existing conditions on this corner, there is a single-family home. It is oriented primarily towards the North Boulevard frontage with an alley in the rear. It is slightly oriented towards that corner as well because it is on the corner of Amelia and North Boulevard. The existing land use in this area, as you are aware, is a mix of single-family attached and single-family detached with the Ridgewood Park neighborhood primarily consisting of single-family detached and future land use categories that are in the R10. Along North Boulevard, that has been changing over the years, and there are a mix of R35, R20, R10, and CMU to the north, closer to Columbus Drive at this point in time. We are asking for R20 on this corner, and that's consistent with other recent amendments along North Boulevard to the west. It is a slight increase from the existing future land use of R10, but it is not as high as what's across the street. This gives that transition. It gives a balance between the higher-intensity uses that are across North Boulevard and across Amelia to the lower-intensity and lower-density uses that are in R10 in Ridgewood Park. Again, there have been no objections from any of the reviewing agencies or departments. You've heard staff's recommendation that this is consistent, and it is consistent, not inconsistent. I said that a little weird. And one of the things that we also wanted to highlight are the transportation infrastructure and transit options that are close by. This is also very, very close in proximity to employment opportunities. It's a walkable neighborhood. We believe all of those things weigh in favor of finding consistency. If you have any questions, we're here to answer. Thank you. There was no one signed up in the public comment for this one, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions of this item. Commissioner Sink. This is in Ridgewood Park, but it's actually the delineation between Tampa Heights and Ridgewood, and this community in general is very proactive and supporting of higher densities. I do have a question for staff, though. Ridgewood's very vocal, and usually if there's an objection to something, somebody in that neighborhood would object. Do you get any letters or anything from anybody? There was three objection letters. One was from the Ridgewood Park Civic Association. I do have copies of those, but they're also on our stakeholders' comments in the OneDrive for this, but I can, if you would like to see the... I'm just curious on what basis they were... I can speak a little bit of the general tune of some of the objections. Mostly at the intersection of West Amelia, I believe some of the neighbors have concerns about some traffic collisions that have occurred at the intersection of West Amelia and North Boulevard. In addition to that, just overall traffic concerns, some of which they addressed the City of Tampa's comments on a traffic analysis might be needed at the time of rezoning. I think that that was the main tune of their comments. Got it. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Any other questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners on this one? I'm not seeing a lot of excitement, so I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners. Commissioner Sink. I make a motion to find TACPA 2604 consistent with the comprehensive plan. All right. Commissioner Kugler got a second by Commissioner Kugler. Motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Sink. A second to that motion by Commissioner Kugler. Are there any questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any, that would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Next up, we have item 2C, TACPA 26-06, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 1860 East Fowler Avenue. And the presenter is Danny Collins. Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Danny Collins. I'm with Planning Commission staff. Today I'll be presenting TACPA 2606. This is a map amendment for the site located at 1860 East Fowler Avenue. This is a privately initiated application for a property located within unincorporated Hillsborough County. The amendment will be considered by City Council together with an annexation application to bring the property into the City of Tampa. The amendment is small scale in size. It's approximately .63 acres. And the request is to amend the site's future land use designation from Hillsborough County's Office Commercial 20 to the City of Tampa's Community Commercial 35 designation. Here is a general location of the subject site. It is shown here on our map. If this amendment is approved, it would be part of the university planning district. Currently, it's within the Hillsborough County University Area Community Plan, and it is within the university area neighborhood. Here is a narrow map of the subject site and the surrounding properties. The subject site is kind of outlined in this yellow color here. Walgreens Pharmacy presently occupies the site. One interesting thing to point out is that the jurisdictional boundary between the two jurisdictions runs directly through the building on the subject site. So this blue line here kind of represents that boundary. So you can see the northern half of the building is within Hillsborough County, and the southern half is within the City of Tampa. The surrounding area is predominantly commercial and character. The subject site is within an existing, well-established shopping center. There is a grocery store to the north as well as a bank to the east. There is a Denny's over here to the west, and over here to the east we have a restaurant on the south side of Fowler. We have a mix of commercial uses, mostly restaurants and some light commercial general uses. I do want to point out as well that the site is just to the west of the University Square Mall redevelopment area, which is shown here on our map. That is over a 100-acre redevelopment project for mixed use, which is kind of providing anchor for the Fowler Avenue USF area. This is looking east at the subject site. This is the existing Walgreens located on the property. This is standing on the subject site looking south across Fowler Avenue. This is looking west along Fowler Avenue. The subject site is on our right. This is looking east along Fowler Avenue. The subject site is on our left. This is standing on the subject site looking across North 19th Street to the east. This is a restaurant that I pointed out earlier to the east of the subject site. This is looking at some of the commercial uses to the north of the subject site within the shopping center. Here is our adopted future land use map. As you can see, the subject site here is currently designated Hillsborough County Office Commercial 20. That designation is to the north and west of the subject site, north of the jurisdictional boundary. To the east of the subject site, we have the Innovation Quarter Mixed Use 35 category within Hillsborough County. This area is the University Square Mall redevelopment project area. And then to the south of the subject site within the city of Tampa, this red color is all Community Commercial 35, and that is what the applicant is requesting. Here is the proposed future land use map showing the subject site under the Community Commercial 35 designation. I do want to note that the CC35 designation has the same level of intensity and density as allowed under the Hillsborough County ICMU 35 designation, which is to the east of the subject site. That's important to note. It's the same level of intensity and density. And also, yeah, it would abut the CC35, which is south along Fowler Avenue as well. So, currently, under the OC20 designation, the subject site could be considered for 12 units or just over 20,582 square feet of non-residential uses. As proposed under the CC35, the subject site can be considered for 22 dwelling units or approximately 54,886 square feet of residential or non-residential uses. The request would increase residential and non-residential development potential. Also, broadening the types of non-residential uses that can be considered on the subject site. The CC35 would allow the consideration of the CG and CI zoning district within the city of Tampa. So, while formulating our recommendation, Planning Commission staff also reviewed relevant policies regarding the proposed request and found the following policies on your screen as relevant to the request. Planning Commission staff found this request consistent with a number of policies within the comprehensive plan. First, staff found it consistent with policies that promote densities that support walking and transit use. This site is located along Fowler Avenue, which is a transit emphasis corridor. This is a corridor identified in the plan suitable for redevelopment and intensification. Staff also found it consistent with policies that seek to ensure housing is available to meet Tampa's housing needs. The request would nearly double the potential number of units that can be considered on the subject site. And finally, the request is consistent with policies that promote compatible infill development. The proposed CC35 designation is predominantly found along this portion of East Fowler Avenue. Additionally, the CC35 designation, as mentioned, would provide for the same development pattern anticipated under the ICMU35 designation, which is to the east of the subject site in Hillsborough County. With that, Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed MAP amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa comprehensive plan. And that concludes my presentation, available for any questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Thank you. Jennifer Malone with Gardner Brewer-Hudson. I'm here to present on comprehensive plan MAP amendment, TACPA 2606. Danny did a great job with this presentation, so I won't make it too long. But I did just want to point out, this is the location of the plan amendment parcel. The blue dotted line is the jurisdictional boundary. The red lines are the parcel lines. So, as you can see, there's two parcels that this Walgreens kind of traverses. And the request before you is to take that northern piece, where we're annexing it into the city under a separate application, and also giving it a city future land use designation. These look the same, yes, because OC20 and CC35 have the same color as red. And so, the adopted and proposed maps do look similar. The blue dotted line will be amended under the proposed when that annexation is complete. OC20 and CC35 have similar levels of intensity. CC35 is a little higher because it allows up to a 2.0 with bonus provisions, but the range of uses are very similar. A little bit of history, in 1953, there was an annexation bill from the state legislature, which really rapidly increased Tampa's population and land area. The new city boundary was drawn just north of Fowler Avenue, as we can see here on this map. And then, if we look in the quote-unquote old book from the 80s, we can see that the Hillsborough County and the city of Tampa jurisdictional line was drawn just north of Fowler Avenue. That yellow circle is the subject site sits somewhere in between that yellow circle, between those two streets. And so, we're just requesting a future land use designation, along with an annexation for property just north of that jurisdictional boundary. But I wanted to show this because I think it was important to show that there's a history here, and the jurisdictional boundary was drawn this way a long time ago. Danny did a great job. Again, the staff report highlights that this is consistent with the plan, the comprehensive plan, and the vision for East Fowler Avenue. And that the Fowler vision plan even notes that the density and intensity of the OC20 along this corridor may be too low to support the vision of that community. And so, again, I would just remind you all that staff found this consistent, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right. We had two individuals sign up for the public comment on this one. First, in person, is Adrian Rodriguez. Is Adrian Rodriguez here? No. One, one's going twice. All right. And online, we had Brad Carnes. If Brad Carnes is on the line, virtually. Hey, good evening, everybody. Barely. Yeah, I'm Brad Carnes with Paradise Ventures. I'm on the development side. Hang on a sec. Let me see if HTV can turn the volume up or something. You can barely hear it. You got it? Go ahead. Can you guys hear me okay now? Yeah, it's a little better. Yeah, my name is Brad Carnes. I'm with Paradise Ventures at 140 Carolina Parkway, the same thing in Perth, Florida, 33716. I'm with the development team, and I just was listening in case there was any questions that popped up that I can help them to. Oh, okay. All right. And that was all we had signed up in the public comments, so I will turn it over now to commissioners for questions, comments, discussions on this one. I'm not seeing a lot of excitement. Then I will go ahead and close the public comment and open it up to motions. Commissioner Coogler. Yes, I move that TACPA 26-06 be found consistent and moved on. All right. Commissioner Sink? I second. All right. A motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Coogler. A second to that motion by Commissioner Sink. Are there any comments, questions, thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any, then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. On to our last item of business for this public hearing. 2E-TACPA 26-08. Comprehensive plan map amendment, 4707 East Henry Avenue. And the presenter is Megan McCarthy. Good evening again, Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is the hearing for TACPA 2608, located at 4707 East Henry Avenue. This amendment is privately initiated, small scale, and is approximately 0.71 acres. The request is to go from a residential 10, future land use designation, to residential 35. The subject site is located within the university planning area, as well as the northeast community neighborhood. This is an aerial of the subject site, with the site shown outlined in yellow. The surrounding area is predominantly detached single-family, with scattered public-quasi-public uses to the north, south, and west. Directly to the south is developing multifamily, and to the east is a mixture of commercial and industrial along North 50th Street. Further to the south, commercial uses exist along East Hillsborough Avenue. Starting with our subject site photos, this is looking south at the site from North 48th Street. This is looking north along North 48th Street, with the subject site behind the camera. This is looking at the single-family home to the east of the subject site. This is looking at the single-family home to the north of the subject site. This is looking at developing multifamily directly to the south of the subject site, standing on the site. And this is looking west, down unimproved East Henry Avenue, with the subject site to the left-hand side. This is the adopted future land use map. The subject site is shown outlined in black under the designated Residential 10 Future Land Use Category. The subject site is located directly north and east of the R35 flu designation through adopted TACPA 2102. Further to the south and west of the site is the R10 designation. Additionally, to the south and east along 50th Street and East Hillsborough Avenue exists the Community Commercial 35 designation. To the north is the jurisdictional boundary between the city of Tampa and an unincorporated Hillsborough County. Beyond this exists the unincorporated county Residential 6 flu designation. This is the proposed future land use map, showing the subject site under the proposed Residential 35 designation. Under the adopted flu of Residential 10, the site could be considered for seven dwelling units. The site could also be considered for 10,836 square feet of commercial uses, subject to locational criteria. Under the proposed R35 designation, the site may be considered for 24 residential development units and 18,576 square feet of commercial uses, also subject to locational criteria. The proposed R35 designation would result in the increase of residential density and commercial intensity and would allow for multifamily uses. Any non-residential uses would be subject to locational criteria, which is expanded under the R35 designation. The application was sent to our partner agencies, and while there are no objections to the request, the City of Tampa Planning Department notes the potential need for infrastructure improvements to surrounding access roads. Staff reviewed all policies of the comprehensive plan and found a number of policies related to the amendment, including policy related to neighborhood preservation and the existing development pattern. The proposed amendment is recommended to be found consistent with the policies and objectives of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, including multifamily development policies, as the site would be eligible for multifamily development under the R35 designation, and additionally is directly to the north of existing R35, currently developing multifamily. Additionally, the amendment was found consistent with policies including adequate housing supply and infill development, as the proposed R35 designation has the potential to increase density on a currently vacant parcel. Excuse me. Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed MAP amendment be found consistent with the goals and objectives of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, and this concludes my presentation. I'm involved for any questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening. Corey Williams with WLMS Properties, representing WLMS Holdings at 4707 East Henry. I probably won't go through the entire presentation, as Ms. McCarthy covered the majority of it. But as mentioned, we are requesting to go from an R10 designation to an R35 for a potential 12-unit senior housing development. Again, as mentioned, there are other designations just south of this property that are under the R35 zoning, and so we are looking to be consistent with that zoning. Let's see if I can go through this here. Yeah, so again, as was mentioned, we're just potentially looking to move to the zoning designation to support our potential 12-unit development. And, again, this will be consistent with the existing zoning just south of us that has a current development for a 50-unit apartment development. 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, discussions on this one. Not seeing any. Then I'll go ahead and close the public comment and open it up for motions from the planning commissioners. Commissioner Sink. I move to find TACPA 2608 consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Kugler. Second. All right. Back-to-back all night long. We've got a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Sink. A second to that one by Commissioner Kugler. Are there any questions, comments, or thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any. Then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Good business. That is the end of our agenda for our City of Tampa public hearing. So with that, I will adjourn the City of Tampa public hearing at 6.12 p.m., and I will go on ahead and read us into our City of Plant City public hearing. Welcome to the August 10, 2026 public hearing of the Planning Commission on City of Plant City 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 vote will be taken. To all participants, please note that tonight's hearing concerns proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. Presentations should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the commission. Zoning conditions are not relevant to planning 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 call two, four, five. Are we still good with five? Or I look up and the side's empty over there. Should we take a two-minute break here? Can I speak for them, Tracy, and say they're here? Or just take a two-minute recess? And they should be up. Can we do a two-minute recess here? We'll find out what happened to my commissioners. HTV, come right back. Kugler did all his work tonight, man. He left his mic off. All right. Welcome back, everybody. Okay. With that, I would like to ask the clerk to now call roll to make sure we're all here and have a quorum. Good evening, commissioners. Bowden? Present. Cardenas? Jemisin? Present. Kugler? Present. Linkus? Lau? Here. Steven? Here. Sink? Here. Horton? Here. Rodriguez? Here. Joseph? Here. Thank you. You have a quorum. All right. Our, oh, actually, before we get to our business items, we had another item, action item 2B, PCCPA 26-03, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, south of the Noda-Sassa Road, west of North Woodrow Wilson Street, continued to next month. Actually, they would like to continue to December 14th. Oh, okay. December 14th, then, is when they want to continue to. And this is another by right one that we just have to. Yes, I believe it's their first request for a continuance. Okay. So we just have to vote on a date. Oh, it's the second continuance. Okay. They're correcting all the things. It's the second time they've requested a continuance, so it's not by right. Okay. All right. Are there any questions on this one? We're going to need a motion and action from this board to approve or deny the continuance to December 14th. Are there questions? Not seeing any. Any question? No? All right. I'll open it up for motions, then. Commissioner Jemison? Oh, I'm on the wrong page. Sorry. Motion to move PCCPA 26-03 to December 14th. Okay. I second the motion. All right. We have a motion to move it by Commissioner Jemison, a second by Commissioner Bowden. Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners before we take our vote on this? Not seeing any of them would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. So we will not be hearing item 2B, PCCPA 2603 tonight. And instead, we will go to our first and only action item now that's left, item 2A, PCCPA 25-07, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, south of Knights Griffin Road, east of Alexander Street. And the presenter is Krista Kelly. Thank you. Good evening, Krista Kelly, Planning Commission staff. I am presenting PCCPA 2507 for a site located south of Knights Griffin Road, east of Alexander Street. This is a privately initiated small-scale amendment, approximately 46.5 acres in size. The site was annexed into Plant City as part of a referendum earlier this year, and it was approved and annexed. Currently, the site is designated Hillsborough County Residential 1, and the applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation to Plant City, commercial, and industrial. As you see on the general location map, the site is located in the northeast quadrant of Plant City. It is also within the boundary of the northeast Plant City area master plan. Specifically, the site is located on the south side of Knights Griffin Road, east of Alexander Street. The CSX Railroad runs along most of the site's western boundary, and to the south and southeast, the site abuts the McIntosh Preserve. This is an aerial of the site outlined in pink, and the blue line delineates the city limits. As you see, the subject site is within the city limits, and everything west of Alexander Street is in the unincorporated county. The site fronts on the south side of Knights Griffin Road and is developed with a small office building and a pole barn that is visible from the roadway. Currently, two businesses are operating along the frontage of the site, and the remaining land to the south is vacant. To the north and northeast, the lands are predominantly used for agricultural purposes, although it is important to note that approximately 400 acres of this land has been approved for the Stalwart Business Park, an industrial plan development with entitlements for up to 3.2 million square feet of non-residential uses. To the northeast and east of the site, the land features a mix of agricultural uses and rural home sites on large lots. And looking south and southeast, the site abuts, again, the McIntosh Preserve. To the west, the site is adjacent to the CSX Rail Line and Alexander Street. And west of Alexander Street, there is an established rural residential community with homes on large lots and some non-residential uses, including a church and a community center. Now we go to the site photos. This is looking at the intersection of Knights Griffin Road and Alexander Street. The subject site is behind the view to the left. This is looking from the intersection of Knights Griffin Road and Alexander Street southwards. Again, the subject site is on the left. This is looking south on Knights Griffin Road at the subject site. The CSX Rail Line is just behind the trees to the right. And this, again, is looking south from Knights Griffin Road at the second business, which is to the left of the one just shown on the previous slide. Directly across the street to the north, on Knights Griffin Road, this land includes properties that are part of the Stalwart Business Park. The subject site is directly behind the view. This is looking west on Knights Griffin Road towards the intersection. So you see Stalwart Business Park property on the right and then the subject property on the left. And this is looking east on Knights Griffin Road towards the entrance to the McIntosh Preserve. The subject property in this slide is behind the view on the right. This is the preferred land use scenario map, which accompanies the Northeast Master Plan and illustrates the development patterns and vision for the area. The subject site is outlined in a black dashed line. The Master Plan envisions the northern portion of the site as commercial, shown in red, and the remaining acreage to the south as industrial, shown in gray. Across the road from the subject site, the land shares similar designations with the frontage on the north side of Knights Griffin Road, designated commercial and lands to the north of that property as industrial. These industrial designated lands recognize the Stalwart Business Park I mentioned earlier. Additionally, the area and the lands generally along Alexander Street to the south are covered by blue cross-hatched lines. These lines represent the Master Plan's economic opportunity overlay. The overlay is intended to target areas such as this one for future economic development activities. Looking to the east of the subject site, the area is designated residential 12 on the north side of Knights Griffin Road and residential 9 on the south side. And to the south of the subject site, the McIntosh Preserve is designated recreation and open space. This is the adopted future land use map showing the site again outlined in a black hashed line and the plant city limits are delineated by the blue line. The city limits extend to the east side of Alexander Street, encompassing the subject site and rural lands just to the east of the subject site. This is the general area that was annexed by the city per a referendum earlier this year. Although these lands were annexed into the city, they still retain the Hillsborough County Residential 1 designation. Looking to the north of the site, the lands are designated industrial. Again, the industrial designation is recognizing the Stalwart Business Park. To the south and southeast of the site, also within the city limits, the lands are designated park, recreation, and open space, again recognizing the McIntosh Preserve. And lands outside the city limits on the west side of Alexander Street are designated Hillsborough County Residential 1. If the amendment were approved, the proposed future land use map would show the site designated as commercial on the northern portion of the site and industrial, again, on the southern portion of the site. Currently, the site is designated Hillsborough County Residential 1, which would allow a maximum of 46 dwelling units and consideration for up to approximately 506,000 square feet of non-residential uses. If the amendment were approved, up to 40 dwelling units and approximately 9,331,000 square feet of non-residential uses could be considered. Staff initially reviewed the comprehensive plan for general policy direction related to the city's growth management strategy and related policies that deal with growth and development guidelines. In forming the basis for staff's recommendation, the proposed amendment was reviewed for consistency with the comprehensive plan. Based on this review, staff found the proposed amendment consistent with the policies that promote the vision of the Northeast Master Plan. The proposed amendment would establish land uses on the site that match the land use pattern envisioned on the master plan and show the site designated commercial and industrial. The proposed amendment aligns with the master plan's growth and development guidelines, which call for orderly and integrated development patterns. Staff also found the proposed amendment aligns with the policies under the economic development section, which calls for increasing the supply of available light industrial research and office uses prior to prioritizing projects that are linked with the city's economic assets and providing lands that are attract that are attractive to targeted industries based on the site's location in the context of the surrounding area. The site would increase the supply of commercial and industrial designated lands in the area as it is targeted by the master plan for economic development. Further, the site has a convenient access to Alexander Street and the CSX rail line, both recognized as economic assets to the city. And lastly, staff found that the proposed amendment is supported by policies under the growth and development section and public facilities section of the plan. These sections support master plans in general and specifically the Northeast Master Plan, which provides guidance and direction that promotes orderly, cohesive development in coordination with the availability of public facilities. Further, the city's utilities department has indicated that there is capacity to serve the site with water and sewer. And the site is also, the site also has convenient access to two major roadways, Knights Griffin Road and Alexander Street, both of which are arterials and recognized as truck routes. Okay. Based on these findings, planning commission staff recommends that the proposed amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the plant city comprehensive plan. And that concludes my presentation. And I also want to point after the applicant speaks that plant city staff is available for questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Good afternoon. Jim Schimberg with Cuban Law Group, 1001 Water Street, Suite 610. Just a quick presentation for everyone here tonight. Just, Krista did a great job of going through the background on that application. When the client came to us and wanted to develop in the city of Plant City for this particular property, we realized the property was unincorporated Hillsborough County. And the only way to annex into the city was to include about 184 acres and do a referendum by, or annexation by referendum. So, it was a long process. Clients went out and met with the other neighbors in the area, and they had to actually take a vote. And the vote passed, and so the property was annexed into the city. As you heard, there's the northern portion, which is about 12.5 acres, would be commercial, and the remaining portion would be industrial for use that would take advantage of the rail, the access, as well as the industrial desire in that area. We've been working with the Plant City EDC on this, as well, and we'd appreciate your support of the consistency recommendation. We're here to answer any questions, and we appreciate your time tonight. 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, thoughts, discussions. Not seeing a lot of excitement. 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. Commissioner Jemisin. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to find PCCPA 26-03 consistent and comprehensive land map amendment. All right. Commissioner Kugler. Second. All right. Got a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Jemisin, a second to that by Commissioner Kugler. Any questions, comments, statements from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any. They would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Have a good night. And that was our last item of business. So at 6.32 p.m., this Plant City public hearing is adjourned. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Thank you.