Planning Commission: Public Hearing - 11.09.26

because they are a threat to public health. There are many mosquito-borne illnesses that they can pass on to humans and other animals. Therefore, we want to mitigate their populations. And we're only spraying whenever we have justification, and that could come from our surveillance data or from our inspectors who go out and are looking at different larval production sites every single day. We don't have a spray schedule because everything we do is based on data that we collect. So it's based on the number of mosquitoes that we find in our traps every day. It's based on what the inspectors are finding out in the field. If they're finding a lot of breeding, they'll obviously treat then, but we don't have a set schedule because everything is based on data that we find. We don't do any individual spray requests. You can always submit a request for a spray, a request for a property inspection, or report any standing water that you have around your house. And we'll come send out an inspector. They'll come look at that area, see if it's breeding, and then based on the data that they find, we'll see if that area is eligible for treatment, but we don't do treatment based on special events. We're spraying right at sunset because dawn and dusk are the most active times for mosquitoes. So in order for our treatments to be the most effective, we obviously want to treat when the mosquitoes are most active, and we're going to be able to mitigate the population best at those times. We'll be right back to 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. Good evening and welcome to the November 9th, 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 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 then 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 time for rebuttal or response. Planning Commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second and a discussion of 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. 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 a comprehensive plan. Roll call, please. Bowden. Present. Cardenas. Here. Jemison. Here. Kugler. Here. Linkus. Here. Seben. Sink. Here. Orton. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Lauck. Here. You have a quorum, sir. Thank you. We go to item A. We go to item A. I would like to note that item C, D, and E have been requested for continuance. And given that we have such a large congregation here this evening from the public, I would like to maybe move these up in order, if that's okay, and vote on them for their continuance. So if we have any members of the community that are here, they won't have to wait for those votes. Tracy, can we go a little out of order on this and go to item C? Okay. And this is the first continuance request for the applicant, so it is a matter of right under the procedures manual, but in order to preserve their notice, you all need to have a motion continuing it to the December planning commission meeting. Okay. So with that, do we have a motion for item C, continuance? Commissioner Linkus. I hope I'm following this correctly, but I'll make a motion to continue TACPA 2611A to the next meeting. Is that what it is? To the next meeting. Is there a second? Second. All in. We have a motion for continuance to the December meeting with a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Continuance passes. Okay. On to item D, which is up for continuance, TACPA 2611B comprehensive plan amendment. The applicant has requested a continuance to the December planning commission. Do we have a motion? Commissioner Bowden. I make a motion that we continue TACPA 2611B comprehensive plan map amendment 4100 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. We have a motion for continuance. Do we have a second? Second. Commissioner Kugler. We have a motion for continuance. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Continuance passes. Moving on to item E, TACPA 2611C comprehensive plan amendment. The applicant has requested continuance to the December planning commission. Do we have a motion? Commissioner Linkus. I'll make a motion to continue TACPA 2611B to the next meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second for TACPA 2611C continuance. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? The motion passes for continuance to the December meeting. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you for rolling with it while we went off schedule. So let's jump back up to the top to action items. The first item is TACPA 26-09 comprehensive plan amendment 4408 West Richardson Avenue. And our presenter is Ms. Megan McCarthy. Good evening, commissioners. Megan McCarthy, planning commission staff. This is the hearing for TACPA 26-09 located 4408 West Richardson Avenue. This amendment is privately initiated, small scale, and is approximately .53 acres. The request is to go from a public semi-public future land use designation to residential 10. The subject site is located within the South Tampa Planning District, the Port Tampa City neighborhood, as well as the coastal high hazard area. This is an aerial of the subject site with the subject site shown outlined in yellow. The surrounding area is characterized by a mixture of public quasi-public uses and single-family detached uses with limited townhomes to the northwest. To the east of South Manhattan Avenue is McDill Air Force Base, which includes uses associated with the base. The subject site borders the city of Tampa developed the city of Tampa owned public quasi-public lands to the south east and west, which remain undeveloped. Additional public quasi-public lands exist further to the north along South Manhattan Avenue as a part of a historic landfill. To the west of South Wall Street are single-family detached homes. Starting with our subject site photos, this is looking south at the subject site from West Richardson Avenue. This is looking east along West Richardson Avenue with the subject site to the left out of frame, to the right out of frame. This is looking west along West Richardson Avenue with the subject site to the left out of frame. This is looking at the single-family detached homes to the northwest of the subject site. The subject site is behind the camera. And this is looking north along South Manhattan Avenue with McDill Air Force Base property just beyond the fence. This is the adopted future land use map. The subject site is shown outlined in black and designated under the adopted public semi-public future land use category. The PSP category lies directly to the west of the subject site and east of South Manhattan Avenue, which includes McDill Air Force Base. To the north of the subject site is the R-10 future land use category reflecting the existing single-family residential neighborhood to the northwest. Adjacent to the subject site to the south and east are CMU 35 designated lands as a result of adopted 1998's plan amendment PA 9819 initiated by the city of Tampa. This site is also located with fully within the coastal high hazard area shown by the teal line on our map. This is the proposed future land use map showing the site under the proposed residential 10 future land use designation. Under the adopted flu of public semi-public, there are no defined maximums for residential or non-residential development. Development potential is determined by compatibility with the surrounding area. Under the proposed R-10 designation, the site may be considered for five residential development units and just over 8,000 square feet of commercial uses subject to locational criteria. The proposed R-10 designation would introduce a low-density residential development pattern and public quasi-public uses would no longer be required on the site. Under the R-10 designation, any non-residential uses would be subject to locational criteria. Additionally, the application was sent to our partner agencies and there were no objections to the request. The City of Tampa Planning Department notes that any development should carefully consider the area's vulnerability to coastal hazards and consider mitigations implications of potential impacts. Staff reviewed all policies of the Comprehensive Plan and found a number of policies related to the amendment, including policy related to the coastal high hazard area and the existing development pattern. The proposed amendment is recommended to be found consistent with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including neighborhood protection as assimilation of the subject site to the R-10 designation would match the character of the existing neighborhood to the northwest currently designated R-10. Additionally, the amendment was found consistent with policies encouraging adequate housing supply and infill development, as the proposed R-10 designation has the potential to allow up to five dwelling units on a currently vacant parcel. Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed 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. Great job. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Jennifer Malone with Gardner Brewer-Hudson here on behalf of the applicant. Um, I did present, did submit a PowerPoint. Okay. Um, staff is always a hard act to follow, so this will not be too long. Um, but this is Comprehensive Plan Amendment TACPA 2609. Um, this is the subject parcel and I included this, um, exhibit just to kind of explain of most of the land is actually under city of Tampa ownership as well as the south and the north and the west and it borders at McDill Avenue, McDill Air Force Base. Um, so what I believe happened here, um, our research indicated that this was never under any public ownership. Um, but we went to the old maps and this is the 2015 Tampa land use map, but it was adopted in 1929 because that was the horizon year was 2015. And the subject site is outlined in purple and that whole street was designated PSP. There are two lots on that street that are not in public ownership. And, um, I think that that's what happened and it just kind of went through that way and was adopted that way. And then, um, my clients came to buy it and they found out it had PSP future land use on it. And we have to amend the comprehensive plan. Um, if it's not lined up with the, with the use. Um, and so right from the comprehensive plan itself, this is the justification that the affected property shall be the subject of a plan amendment to determine the appropriate regulatory land use designation for said parcel, which is exactly why we're here today. This request to residential 10. Um, I think Meg did a great job of showing there's a lot of residential 10 already in the area. There's a mixture of housing types. Um, and from the staff report itself, um, just highlighting that this does support the plans, broader housing goals by ensuring an adequate supply of housing as well as encouraging new infill development on underutilized land. I'd also just like to state for the record, um, the potential dwelling units is, is at five. That is not the intent of this request. Um, when they get to that point. Um, but I know that, that, um, that is the potential under the future land use, but that is in no way the intent. Um, and with that, we would just, um, ask for your, um, approval or your recommendation of approval on this. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. In the public comments section, it was just you, Ms. Malone for item 2A. Do we have, assuming that you're good with the presentation, uh, do we have anyone from the public or online, uh, in the comments section? No, we do not have any online. Okay. Uh, turn it over to the planning commissioners for any questions or comments. Not seeing a lot of excitement to quote my predecessor. Then we will close the public hearing and look for a motion. Commissioner Sink. I move to find TACPA 2609 comprehensive plan amendment consistent with Tampa comprehensive plan. Do we have a second? Second. Commissioner Cardenas. We have a, uh, motion for consistency and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Passes. All right. Uh, action item number 2B, TACP 26-10 comprehensive plan amendment 302 East Waters Avenue. And our presenter is Ms. Quinn Steele. Uh, good evening, Danny Collins, uh, with the planning commission staff. Quinn could not be here today. She's on a much, uh, needed vacation. Um, so I'm, I'm going to introduce, um, our new planner on our team. Uh, this is Jaden Keech. He will be, uh, uh, handling this presentation and I'll be available if there's, uh, for assistance. So. Hello, everyone. I just want to preface this by saying my voice is a little raspy, so I'll be happy to repeat anything at the end if I need to. Good evening. This is Jaden Keech from planning commission staff, and this is the hearing for TACPA 26-10. This request is a privately initiated small scale request of approximately 0.44 acres. The request is to go from residential 10 and community mixed use 35 to community mixed use 35. This is the general location map. The subject property is located in the University Planning District and the Sulphur Springs neighborhood. This area shows the subject site out loud in yellow at the northeast corner of East Waters Avenue and North Branch Avenue. The site is located between North Florida Avenue to the west, which is a transit emphasis corridor, and I-275 to the east. The surrounding area includes a mix of commercial and residential development, with commercial activity generally located along East Waters Avenue and North Florida Avenue. Immediately north and east of the site are single-family detached homes, which are separated by East Rampart Street to the north and an alley to the east. To the east and west along East Waters Avenue are commercial uses, with a strip commercial plaza to the south. There is also an existing transit stop directly in front of the property. Further out of the frame to the southeast is the old Sulphur Springs dog track. Getting into our site photos, here's a photo looking north at the subject site along East Waters Avenue. Looking west along East Waters Avenue, the subject site is on the left, and on the right across Waters Avenue is the commercial plaza. This photo shows the existing hard transit stop along the site's frontage. Looking southwest at the intersection of East Rampart Street and North Branch Avenue. This is a commercial property to the west of the subject site. It uses its R-10 portion of the site for accessory parking. This photo is looking north along East Waters Avenue. The subject site is on the left. This photo shows the alleyway along the eastern boundary of the site. This one is looking east along East Rampart Street. This photo shows the single-family home adjacent to the east of the site. This is the map that shows the adopted future land use at CMU 35 along East Waters Avenue. This allows medium density and intensity residential and commercial uses at 35 units per acre or 2.0 FAR. This surrounds the site to the east and west along the northern portion of the site. The adopted future land use is R-10, which allows low-density residential development at 10 units per acre, and a limited neighborhood serving commercial uses at 0.35 FAR, which are subject to locational criteria as well. To the south of Waters is UMU 60. To the west along North Florida Avenue is CC35. There's another pocket of CC35 to the east as well, which is also adjacent to ISU 75. This map shows the proposed unified CMU 35 designation across the entire site. Under the adopted R-10 and CMU 35 designations, the site can be considered for nine dwelling units an acre or just over 22,000 square feet of non-residential uses. FAR can only be used for residential development within the CMU 35 portion of the site but not on the R-10 portion of the site. Under the proposed unified CMU 35 designation, the site can be considered for 14 dwelling units or just over 37,000 square feet of residential or non-residential uses. The proposed amendment would introduce the potential for commercial, general, and multifamily uses on the portion of the site that is currently designated R-10. The potential residential density and or non-residential intensity would also increase. We sent this out for agency review and did not receive any objections. While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request, including compatibility with the surrounding single-family neighborhood. Any future development would be subject to buffering and screening requirements in the land development code, which, in addition to the existing alley, would provide further separation between the future development on the subject site and the single-family homes. That said, the proposed amendment is consistent with several objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan, including the promotion of infill development on a vacant site and the compact city form strategy. It also promotes density of supportive transit and a mix of uses as the site is directly adjacent to a Hart transit stop along East Waters Avenue and just east of Florida Avenue, which is a transit emphasis corridor. The request also supports policies to ensuring an adequate supply of housing. This amendment would provide additional opportunities for residential development in an area that is served by transit and near-employment opportunities. That said, Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed MAP amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. And with that, I'm available for questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening, commissioners and members. Yeah. I just want... Sorry to interrupt. If you would, state your name for the clerk. Oh, yes. My name is Ahmed Abulanan. And I'm the owner of the property, and I'm just looking to do some future development, maybe put some residential dwellings on the property. So I'm just hoping we can be on board with the city of Tampa and do what's best for our community. Okay. That'll be all. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to comment? I didn't see anybody signed up or on HTV. Okay. Turning it over to the commissioners for questions or comments. One red light. Commissioner Sink. If... Why wasn't this done as a residential 20 or 20? Like, the applicant requests this specifically? They've requested the CMU 35. Okay. On the whole property. Okay. I didn't know if it was a recommendation of staff to go over that way. Okay. Oh, no. Yes. Staff is fine. It recommends that that be found consistent. Awesome. The request. Commissioner Kugler. Thank you. Are there any plans to also do the mixed use part commercial as well as the housing? So we haven't figured out what site plans we're going to do exactly. But we want to first start by the recommendation was to change the rear portion to match the front portion, CMU 35. And then we would go with site planning and see what's best for the property. But I'm not entirely sure whether it's going to be a commercial development or just a residential to what we will have to see through site planning. Okay, very good. Seeing no other red lights, we will move to close the hearing and look for any comments before motion. Okay, no comments, so we are open for a motion. Commissioner Sink. I move to find TA, CPA 2610, conference, oh yeah, yeah. Conference plan amendment for 302 East Waters Avenue, consistent with conference plan. We have a motion for consistency and a second from Commissioner Kugler. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Say nay. Okay, passes. And with that, we will adjourn the City of Tampa public hearing. I'll stop doing that in the next couple of minutes. Okay. All right, let's read into the Hillsborough County plan amendment meeting. Welcome to the November 9th, 2026 public hearing of the Planning Commission on Hillsborough County comprehensive plan amendments. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate 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 presentation, 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 time for rebuttal or response. Planning commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second in discussion, a vote will be taken. To all participants, please note that tonight's hearing concerns propose changes to the comprehensive plan. Presentation should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the commission. Zoning conditions are not relevant to 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. Roll call, please. Bowden. Present. Cardenas. Present. Jemison. Here. Kugler. Linkus. Here. Sieben. Sink. Here. Orton. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Lauck. Here. You have a quorum, sir. Thank you. All right. Jumping into our action items. Item 2A, HCCPA 26-18, Conference of Plan Map Amendment, Causeway Boulevard, Sub Area A. Our presenter is Ms. Lillian Lennon. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Lillian Lennon, Planning Commission staff. And I'm here to present HCCPA 26-18, which is located at Causeway Boulevard, Sub Area A. There was a page that was passed out. It was the second page of the report. There is a minor typo at the first of the table. And it originally said that there was a change in the residential density and commercial intensity. It has been corrected to show that it's no change in residential density. It would only be a change in commercial intensity. All right. This request comes from the Florida State University Future Land Use Map Study that was conducted in 2024. As a part of this Future Land Use Section update, Planning Commission staff had engaged with students in an FSU capstone class to study four different areas of the unincorporated Hillsborough County where there has been historical and recent development pressure, as well as areas that were identified as needing to be researched based upon development trends. Those areas included subsets of the university area, the Port of Tampa, Brandon Crossings, and Causeway Boulevard. These amendments will deal directly with the Causeway Boulevard area. This effort is a part of that study and recommendations on the next steps. And due to the size and varying recommendations of the Causeway Boulevard study area, staff decided to break down the study area into three separate requests. This map here shows all three publicly initiated amendments along Causeway Boulevard. 2618, which is this amendment, is outlined in purple. 2619 is outlined in light green. And 2620 is outlined in dark green. This is the first of the three total plan amendments being publicly initiated for this area. The request for this portion of the study area is to go from the currently adopted future land use category of Residential 6 to Neighborhood Mixed Use 6. And this map amendment is large in scale at approximately 60.52 acres. This is the general location map. It is part of the April 2026 cycle of amendments. It is within the urban service area and within the limits of the Palm River Progress Community Plan. Additionally, a portion of the site area is located within the coastal high hazard area. Here is an aerial of the 2618 amendment site. The site is outlined in pink. The site is south of Causeway Boulevard and is bound by South 54th Street to the west and extends to South 76th Street to the east. Existing land uses in the site area include residential, vacant, and quasi-public and institutional uses. The uses to the north of the site along Causeway are comprised of mainly industrial and commercial uses. And to the south is mainly single-family residential uses. Due to the site's size and the fact that it encompasses a larger area along Causeway Boulevard, Planning Commission staff took photos of the surrounding area, not necessarily all of the site, to help provide a better look at the existing community context. This first photo is looking south from Causeway Boulevard near 76th Street, and the subject site is located further south of this site. This is also looking south from Causeway Boulevard, and the subject site is behind the parcel in the photo. This is looking south from Causeway Boulevard and 54th Street. The subject site is again behind the parcel in the photo. This is looking down 31st Avenue from Maydale Drive, and the subject site is to the right of the road. This is looking north into a portion of the subject site from 31st Avenue. And this is also looking north into another portion of the subject site from 31st Avenue. Currently, the future land use designation is Residential 6. This category allows for a maximum of 6 drilling units per gross acre, and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. The Residential 6 designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multipurpose projects, and mixed-use development. The site is bordered by Office Commercial 20 to the north and the east, directly along Causeway Boulevard. There is light industrial along the far western edge of the site, and to the south of the site is more residential 6. It is proposed to amend the future land use category to neighborhood mixed-use 6. This category allows for a maximum of 6 dwelling units per gross acre, and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25 for neighborhood commercial uses. And office, research, corporate parks, multipurpose, and mixed-use projects may achieve an FAR of up to 0.35. This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, multipurpose, and clustered residential and or mixed-use projects. Under existing conditions with the Residential 6 designation, the site can be considered for a maximum of 363 dwelling units, or 659,062 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed future land use designation of neighborhood mixed-use 6, the site can be considered for a maximum of 363 units, or approximately 922,687 square feet. The proposed amendment would allow for an increase in the allowable range of uses, and the maximum allowable intensity of specific uses, with no increase in density. This amendment received no formal objections, however, there were some comments of note. Fire Rescue commented that the proposed amendment could impact traffic density and increase call volumes and response times, specifically for stations 1 and 33. Community and Infrastructure Planning commented that based on the initial traffic study they conducted, the proposed amendment would increase daily trips by 1,365, and there would not be adequate capacity on some roads in the future scenario. The Office of Emergency Management states that the amendment does not align with goals 1 and 2 of the local mitigation strategy. And the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority commented that Causeway Boulevard is considered a future transit corridor in the transit development plan. Development Services commented that Causeway Boulevard is a scenic corridor and requires additional buffering and tree plantings. And lastly, Hillsborough County Public Schools conducted analysis and found that there is adequate capacity of the elementary and middle school levels. However, the Blake High School is projected to be over capacity. While formulating our recommendation, Planning Commission staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. And while the request is related to several general policies, staff found five main areas of consistency. Future Land Use Section Objective 3.1 and Policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding area and that there is gradual transitions of intensities and densities between different land uses. This proposed map amendment is consistent with this policy direction based upon the existing development pattern of the area, which includes commercial and industrial uses to the north of the site and the west of the site, multifamily and high density residential to the east of the site, and lower density single family uses to the south of the site. The request would increase the maximum allowable potential for commercial development. The maximum allowable residential density would remain the same. The proposed change will not allow for the consideration of industrial uses. This proposed amendment is strategically proposed between the existing higher intensity Office Commercial 20 and lower intensity Residential 6, providing for a more gradual transition of uses and density intensity within the area. Future Land Use Section Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.2 require that all development and mixed use categories must be integrated and interconnected to each other and must demonstrate those qualities through the rezoning process. Policy 4.2.6 requires quality employment opportunities such as office and industrial development to be provided in mixed use categories. And Policy 4.2.7 encourages commercial structures to consist of more than one story and be vertically mixed. A plan amendment to the neighborhood mixed use six feature land use category would provide an opportunity for infill and redevelopment along a major corridor and would promote of mixed uses, which is consistent with this policy direction. Future Land Use Section Objective 7.1 and Policy 7.1.2 and 7.1.11 intend to promote businesses that provide diverse employment opportunities and that promote appropriate jobs and housing balance, where people can live near their workplace and ensure that there are enough jobs in the area to support the local population. Given the location of the site, just south of a commercial corridor and close proximity to residential neighborhoods, a plan amendment to the NMU-6 category for this area supports this policy direction. While not all types of non-residential uses are job generators, many commercial uses have some form of employment opportunity and this can increase the area's economic development potential. The site is located within the limits of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan. And goal two of this community plan seeks a well connected and efficiently built environment where land use, mobility, utility networks and infrastructure are coordinated to accommodate current and future needs. Strategy one under this goal focuses on future development and redevelopment being consistent with the adopted concept map. And this map shows Causeway Boulevard as a mixed use corridor, which is supported by a future land use map amendment to neighborhood mixed use six, which is a mixed use feature land use category. Strategy 12 supports new and infill development and redevelopment compatible with existing community patterns. And strategy 13 supports well-designed and compatible densities and intensities at appropriate locations. This category would provide an area for ideal infill development and redevelopment that is connected and cohesive with the existing mixed use corridor and will allow for additional opportunities for more connectivity between the existing residential neighborhood and the more intense commercial and industrial uses along Causeway Boulevard. And lastly, Coastal Management Policy 3.2.6 states that no plan amendment within the coastal high hazard area that increases density will be approved that would exceed a 28-hour evacuation level of service for a category 5 storm unless the increase in density is mitigated pursuant to the accepted techniques. This current plan amendment does not increase the maximum density of the existing site area and therefore is consistent with this policy direction. Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan. This concludes my presentation for HCCPA 2618 and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you very much, given we were publicly initiated. I think we moved to public comments and we had Jennifer Boutwell who had signed up virtually. HTV, do we have a Jennifer Boutwell on the line? No speakers are logged on. Okay, thank you. And in person we had a Joseph Westbrook sign up for a comment. Sir, if you could step up to the mic and state your name for the record and jump on in. Thank you for being here tonight. I appreciate you guys' time. I'm not sure if this is where I need to be right now on this one or not because I'm fairly new at this again. But I'm here to speak about the Causeway Boulevard and 78th Street, that development that's going on there. The future land use, is this where I should be speaking now or sound like you said CPA 2618, mine's 2620. Yeah, I think if you're looking for item C, so you're two agenda items away. Okay, so it's not my turn then. Not quite yet. We're almost there. All right, well that's what I thought. Awesome. Do we have any other, any member of the public who would like to speak on 26-18? Okay, not seeing anything, we will move to the Planning Commission for any questions or comments on this item. Okay. Seeing no red lights, we will close and we will close the public hearing and go to any additional comment or questions prior to motion. None? Okay, do we have opportunity for motion? Commissioner Sink. I make motion to find HC CPA 2618 comprehensive plan amendment, Causeway Boulevard sub area A consistent with the comprehensive plan. Seconded motion. Okay, we have a motion for consistency with a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion passes. Okay. Let's jump into HC CPA 26-19 comp plan amendment, Causeway Boulevard sub area B and our presenter is Melissa Linehart. Good evening commissioners. Again, Melissa Linehart, Planning Commission staff. I'm here to present HC CPA 26-19, which is Causeway Boulevard sub area B. This request is publicly initiated. This is one of three items that you will see back to back tonight in the same general area. This site is small in scale. It's approximately 21 acres in size. As Ms. Linehan previously mentioned in the presentation for the last item. The impetus behind this request is the Florida State University future land use map study that was conducted back in 2024 and finalized at the end of that year. The request for this portion of the study area is to go from the currently adopted future land use designation of residential nine to community mixed use 12. So this request was part of the April cycle of plan amendments from this year. The site is located in the urban service area and it is also within the limits of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan. Here's an aerial photograph of the subject site, which is outlined in pink. The site is located on the north side of Causeway Boulevard between 78th Street and 66th Street. Again, back in the Palm River area. Along this portion of Causeway, the uses are generally characterized as commercial in nature with various auto sales, auto repair businesses, interspersed with some vacant properties. There's also offices and open storage uses in this corridor. To the east of 86th Street beyond the subject site is the Coca-Cola plant. And to the north of this area, you can see is mostly single family residential lots. The following sides are going to show some pictures of the subject property as well as its surroundings. Like Miss Lanahan, there's it's very impossible to take a picture of every single portion of every single portion of the subject property. So really just showing you a cross section here. So this first photo is looking east at South 78th Street and the Causeway Boulevard intersection. So the subject property is behind the camera in this photo. Excuse me. This slide shows the, I'm sorry, South on 78th Street at Causeway Boulevard intersection. Again, the subject property is behind the camera. This shows a mid block view of the north side of Causeway Boulevard, which is part of the subject property. This slide really does demonstrate the heavier commercial uses that you do see that dominate the area. This one particularly is auto sales and repair. This is looking west on Causeway Boulevard near 66th Street, which is the western boundary of this request. And the subject property is on the right side of the screen. And this photo is looking south of 66th Street at Causeway Boulevard. And the subject property is behind the camera. This slide shows the adopted future land use categories in the area with the subject property being designated as residential nine. That category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multipurpose projects, and mixed use development. The maximum density that can be considered as up to nine dwelling units per gross acre. And the maximum intensity that can be considered as a 0.5 floor area ratio or 175,000 square feet, whichever is less intense. In addition, non-residential development in this category that exceeds 0.35 FAR must be for office or residential support uses. There's a portion between the subject property areas that I wanted to point out. I'll use my mouse here. It's this dark brown color between the two subject property area. This is designated as residential 20, which is why it's not included as part of this study area. So this property, the property that's residential 20, there's also more residential 20 east of 78th Street. You can see kind of going toward the eastern end of this map. Further north of the area is residential nine. And as I mentioned previously, it's characterized by single family residential development. On the south side of Causeway Boulevard, we see the office commercial 20 future land use category, which is one of our more intensive categories in unincorporated county. And those are mainly the properties that are facing on Causeway Boulevard itself. And then the properties transition to residential six and residential nine further south of Causeway Boulevard, recognizing a more suburban and residential development form. The request this evening is to change the subject property from its current residential nine to community mixed use 12 to better reflect the current, the current uses of the area that tend to be more intensive in this Causeway Boulevard corridor. The CMU 12 future land use category would allow for consideration of up to 12 dwelling units per gross acre or a 0.5 floor area ratio. This category also allows for the following uses. We have agricultural, residential, commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, light industrial, and or mixed use projects. As far as the impacts are concerned, currently under the residential nine designation, the site could be considered for up to 191 dwelling units or approximately 464,000 square feet of non-residential uses. With the newly proposed Community Mixed Use 12 future land use category, the site could be developed with up to 255 dwelling units, and the non-residential square footage would not change. The proposed change would allow for an increase in development potential by allowing for a higher residential density, an increase in the range of commercial uses, and would introduce the potential of light industrial uses in this area. This amendment was transmitted for agency comment as part of the April cycle of plan amendments. While no objections were received, there were some comments of note. I'll go through those quickly. From very similar to Ms. Linehan's comments from fire rescue at Hillsborough County, there would be an impact on traffic density, call volumes, and response times in relation to Stations 1 and 33. Hillsborough County's Community and Infrastructure Planning noted that the daily trips would increase by 7,703 trips per day, and there would not be adequate capacity on some roadways in the scenario of 2050. The Office of Emergency Management noted that the proposed future land use category and request does not align with goals 2 and 3 of the local mitigation strategy. And Hart noted that Causeway Boulevard is considered a future transit corridor in their transit development plan. Hillsborough County Development Services noted that Causeway Boulevard is a scenic corridor, so that may affect future rezonings or site development with additional buffering and tree plantings required. And then they also noted that this site is within 500 feet of a potable water well, so that may restrict uses in the future when rezonings do come in based on land development code language. And then lastly, Hillsborough County Public Schools noted that there's adequate capacity at the elementary and middle schools, but that at Blake High School they're projected to be over capacity. While formatting our recommendation, Planning Commission staff, of course, reviews all related policies in our plan regarding the proposed request. Though the request is related to several general policies, and the ones I've noted here are the general language about future land use categories, and then private property rights, staff found six main areas of consistency. The proposed amendment is consistent with policy direction to guide growth and development into the urban service area. The proposed amendment is also consistent with policy direction in the plan that's related to centers and connections. Those support medium and high-density residential as well as mixed-use development along centers and connections. We call them C&Cs in the plan. Per Objective 2.4 of that section, the purpose of centers and connections is to focus the county's redevelopment and infill efforts by promoting residential and commercial choices, encouraging economic growth, and improving present conditions of infrastructure as well as leveraging reinvestment in those areas. As far as this one is concerned, this amendment, 78th Street, is the eastern boundary. That is considered a connection, and so the subject property's eastern boundary is within that buffer. The proposed amendment is consistent with policy direction as it relates to mixed-use development within unincorporated Hillsborough County. Future Land Use Section Policy 4.2.1 outlines that development in mixed-use categories, including community mixed-use 12 on sites that are 10 acres or greater, must provide for at least two uses on their site. A plan amendment to CMU 12 would provide an opportunity for infill and redevelopment along a major corridor and would also promote a mix of uses, which is consistent with that policy direction. The request is also consistent with policy direction as it relates to neighborhood and community development, as well as compatibility, based upon the existing development pattern of the area, which again includes commercial and industrial uses along both sides of Causeway Boulevard, within residential neighborhoods further north and further south away from the major roadway. In addition, there's been an increasing trend of plan amendment applications requesting higher densities and intensities along this corridor within the last eight or so years. This amendment would encourage a concentration of more intensive uses and a potential increase in density along a state-principle arterial roadway, which is consistent with this policy direction related to compatibility. The proposed amendment is also consistent with our economic development policy language, which promotes employment opportunities in all areas, including in mixed-use future land use categories, as well as in planned employment areas within one mile of Interstate 75, which is to the east of the site. The general area of the subject property bridges two more intensive areas. To the west, we have the industrialized area near the port. And then again to the east, we have the highly trafficked area near Interstate 75 and the Selman Expressway interchange. So a plan amendment to CMU 12 in this area supports that policy direction by broadening the range of uses that may be considered for the site to include intensive commercial as well as light industrial uses. While not all types of non-residential uses are job generators, many commercial and light industrial businesses have some form of employment opportunity, which would allow for a broader range of uses and would increase the economic development potential of the area, while also increasing the potential of residential units with up to 12 units per acre. Lastly, the request is consistent with the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan, which focuses on future development and redevelopment being consistent with the adopted concept map. In the concept map, the Causeway Boulevard area is shown as a mixed-use corridor. This is supported by the future land use map amendment to CMU 12, which is a mixed-use future land use category. Also, lastly, strategy 13 of the community plan does outline three community nodes, one of which is Causeway Boulevard and 78th Street. This community node is located at the eastern edge of the subject site, and the plan amendment that is proposed would support that community plan vision. That brings us to staff finding, which you're probably not going to be surprised about since this is staff's item. Staff is finding, this is recommending that this be proposed, I'm sorry, found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan. That concludes my presentation and I'm here for questions. Okay, thank you very much. As you mentioned, publicly initiated items, so we won't be jumping into an applicant's presentation. We did not have anyone from the public signed up to comment. Is there anyone in the room who would like to comment on this one before we move to Planning Commission? Okay, so let's kick it over to our commissioners for any comments, questions. All right, we're going to fast track this one to a closing of the public hearing and moving to a motion. Commissioner Sink. I'm firing a motion for HCCPA 2619 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Causeway Boulevard, Sub Area B, to be found consistent with Comprehensive Plan. We have a motion for consistency. Do we have a second? Yes, second. Seconded by Commissioner Kugler. As stated before, we have a motion for consistency. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It passes unanimously. Okay, moving on to action. Item C, HCCPA 26-20 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Causeway Boulevard, Sub Area C. Presenters Jillian Massey. Good evening. Jillian Massey with Planning Commission staff. I'm here to present HCCPA 26-20, which is the third item on Causeway Boulevard we're calling Sub Area C. The request is publicly initiated by the Planning Commission staff, and it's large in scale at approximately 101 acres. As previously mentioned, the rationale behind this request is the Florida State University Future Land Use Map Study that was conducted in 2024. This is the third of three total plan amendments being publicly initiated for this area. The request is to amend the map from the currently adopted future land use category of Residential 9 to Residential 20. The request is originally part of the April 2026 cycle of plan amendments. The site's located in the urban service area and within the limits of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan. This is an aerial photo of the site where the site is outlined in pink. The site's located along portions of the north and south sides of Causeway Boulevard between 78th Street and US Highway 301 in the Palm River area. Along this portion of Causeway, the uses are generally characterized as commercial and light industrial in nature with various auto repair businesses, some vacant properties, office and storage uses. There are single family residential homes further north and south of this area off of Causeway Boulevard. And the Coca-Cola shipping and receiving area, which is designated as urban mixed-use 20 on the map, directly abuts a portion of the northern project boundary. The next few slides will show photographs of the general area proposed for land use change. They go west from east along Causeway Boulevard to give you an idea of the character of the development in this area. This photo and the next photo show the westernmost end of the amendment area, where a portion falls on the east side of 78th Street. As we go further down east on Causeway Boulevard, these photos show the north and south sides at 90th Street, or their single family residential, multifamily development and light commercial development. And this photo shows the Coca-Cola shipping and receiving area mentioned earlier, and as we head towards US Highway 301. And this photo is facing east on Causeway Boulevard towards US Highway 301. This slide shows the adopted future land use categories in the area, with the proposal area being designated as residential 9 on the map. Residential 9 allows for consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multipurpose projects, as well as mixed-use development. The maximum density that can be considered is 9 dwelling units per gross acre. And the maximum intensity that may be considered is 0.50 floor area ratio or 175,000 square feet, whichever is less intense. In addition, non-residential development that exceeds 0.35 floor area ratio must be for office or residential support uses. There is a portion in between the two subject property areas that's designated as residential 20 in the dark brown color here. Both on the north and the south sides, the dark brown is residential 20. And further north in this area, there's residential 9, and it's characterized by single family residential development. To the south of Causeway, we see the office commercial 20 future land use category for those parcels mainly fronting on Causeway Boulevard. But the transition to residential 9, which is the lighter orange color, as we go further south. There's also community mixed use 12 and urban mixed use 20, which are these pink and purple colors, as we go towards the eastern end of the boundary, which is closer to US Highway 301. The request is to change the subject property from residential 9 to residential 20. Residential 20 allows for the same uses as residential 9, but increases the development potential to up to 20 units per gross acre or non-residential development at up to 0.75 floor area ratio. The proposed change is to better reflect the intensity and density that are currently in the area and that tend to be more intensive in the Causeway Boulevard corridor. Currently, under the residential 9 designation, the subject area may be considered for up to 916 dwelling units or approximately 2.2 million square feet of non-residential uses. And under the proposed residential 20 future land use designation, the subject area could be considered for up to 2,037 dwelling units or approximately 3.3 million square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed change would allow for an increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density and greater commercial intensity. This amendment was transmitted for agency comment as a part of the April cycle of amendments. While no objections were received, there were some comments of note as shown on these next two slides and they are also available in your backup. Similar to the last two amendments, we received comments from fire rescue stating that there would be an impact on traffic density, call volumes and response times. County community and infrastructure planning department did a traffic analysis and stated that this amendment would increase daily trips by about 5,400 and that there would not be adequate capacity on some roadways in a future scenario. The office of emergency management stated that the proposal did not align with goals 1 and 2 of their local mitigation strategy. And the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority stated that Causeway Boulevard is considered a future transit corridor in the transit development plan. Development services in the county stated that Causeway Boulevard is a scenic corridor and would require additional buffering and tree plantings at the time of development. And Hillsborough County Public Schools stated that the elementary, middle and high schools would have adequate capacity. While formulating our recommendation, Planning Commission staff reviews all related policies to the request. And though the request is related to a general policies about private property rights, staff found some other areas of consistency. The proposed amendment is consistent with policy direction related to the urban service area where objective 1.1 directs that 80% of new population growth goes into the urban service area. And this proposed amendment would allow for additional growth within this urban service area consistent with that policy direction. The proposed amendment is also consistent with policy direction related to centers and connections. 78th Street is considered a connection and is the subject site's most western boundary. Objective 2.4 outlines that the purpose of centers and connections is to focus the county's redevelopment and infill efforts by promoting residential and commercial choices, encouraging economic growth, improving present conditions of infrastructure and leveraging reinvestment in these areas. 78th Street is a connection and a portion of the subject site is within the 1 8th mile buffer. And with a potential increase in the residential density and commercial intensity with the proposed residential future land use designation, residential 20, the plan amendment is supported by this policy direction. These policies also seek to establish a sense of place through diverse housing types, mixed use development and supports focused growth and a mixed use development pattern. The request is consistent with policy direction relating to neighborhood and community development as well as compatibility. Objective 3.1 and the associated policies require that new development be compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment to residential 20 is consistent with this policy direction based upon the existing development pattern of the area, which includes commercial and light industrial uses along both sides of Causeway Boulevard with residential neighborhoods further north and south away from the major roadway. In addition, In addition, there has been an increasing trend of plan amendments in this section of sub area C specifically to residential 20 within the last few years. The proposal also meets the intent of objective 4.4, which requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Again, in this case, the land use pattern is comprised of commercial and residential uses with the most intense uses being along the north and south sides of Causeway Boulevard. And the request to residential 20 would allow this existing area directly north of Causeway Boulevard to develop with the same types of non-residential uses as the currently designated category of residential 9. However, it would increase the intensity, which would be consistent with policy direction for the development along this major corridor. The request is consistent with policy direction related to the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan. Um, goal two seeks to, um, seeks a well-connected and efficient built environment, efficiently built environment. Excuse me. Strategy one focuses on the future development and redevelopment being consistent with the adopted concept map. Um, this area on, of Causeway Boulevard is shown as a mixed use corridor on the concept map, which an amendment to residential 20 would support that seeing as that category allows for both residential and non-residential uses. Strategy, uh, strategy 12 supports new and infill development and strategy 13 supports well-designed compatible densities and intensities at appropriate locations. And based on, uh, those considerations and planning commission staff review and analysis of the request, um, planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. Um, that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Okay. Thank you. Great work. And that's the last of our Causeway Boulevards, which are publicly initiated. So we will skip the applicant present by the applicant presentation and move to public comments. I think we had a Mr. Joseph Westbrook signed up for this particular one. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. I'm back. Um, I really wish I would have stood up for, um, HCA, um, 26, 19 there, because that's also a concern. And that's part of the reason I came this evening is I know that land is going to be developed at some point. I just saw it. It's, it's sickening. I can stand in my driveway and I can see that particular property. Um, I ask any one of you to come down to my house tomorrow, drive down my street for a half a mile. You'll stop eight times because there's so many potholes in the street. That's not what we're here for, but the infrastructure in our neighborhood is horrible. We flood. And this is also pertaining to the same HCA 26, 20, uh, the same issues we have there because does anybody know what's beside this property? The neighborhood, Clifford sample Causeway Boulevard, Darlington Causeway Boulevard, that area on Clifford sample has a pump that stays there during the summer. What's that pump for pumping out the flood waters. This property has already been developed with the first set of apartment complexes on there. They went two stories flooding the neighborhood drive to the front entrance. It's five layers high. That's 40 inches right off the bat. It's literally four or five feet high. They built this entire land up. So what's going to happen now when they do this, this, this whole area, it's going to push more water into them. My buddy lives there. My buddy's parents live there. We've grown up in this area. I born and raised in Claremont, moved the way to the Carolinas for eight years, came back, reside in Palm river. My house for 28 years. Again, I can see that project. Um, 26, 19 from my home. And that's, what's concerning to me along with everything else. We don't have the infrastructure. We just don't. I want to make it noted that the flooding is a huge issue. I asked you guys really look into that because that's the biggest problem we have. I mean, the storms, which everyone did. I get it, but we didn't before. How do I know that? Because I reside there because I've lived there for, I got 50 years in, in that neighborhood. I could tell you that neighborhood better than anybody. I grew up in that home. We never flooded. We do now because development, you know, development, development, development. What do you hear from every resident out here? We're crowded. We can't stand it. We can't take it. But yet here we are making it easier. We're paving the pathway for developers to come in and put 20 houses, 20 houses per acre. Let them put nine. I guess that's what we already have. It's a difference of a two story complex versus four. What does that mean? That means more parking lot, more cars. I'll buy you dinner. If you want to travel down Causeway Boulevard to meet me there in 30 minutes from five o'clock to five 30, I'll buy you dinner from this exact location, 78th street to us 301 on Causeway Boulevard. You won't make it. There's two red lights. You will not make it. The fire department's concerned. You know why I've seen them trying to fight to get down Causeway Boulevard because there's that much traffic. Coca-Cola didn't do us no justice, but you know, Hey, it's a big piece of land. We understand. I understand that. I live there. I live in a neighborhood. I'm literally being pushed out of my neighborhood because of development. Drive down the road. Look, take a look. Are we done? Is that my clock? Yes, sir. Man, she got 15 minutes. All right. Well, you know, let me make it clear. Drive down the street. See how poor the infrastructure is in the neighborhood. First on the 66 on HCA 26 19. And then again, they already got two story apartment complex. You guys, if you approve this, you're paving the way for the developers to get 20 houses per acre. And I, I would appreciate the help. Thank you. Mr. Westbrook. Do we have any other comments from the public? Okay. We typically will have a, um, applicant rebuttal or, um, feedback on public comment. Would staff like to come up and comment on any of the issues Mr. Westbrook brought up? Sure. Um, I think that, uh, some of his concerns are outlined in some of the agency comments. Um, I think that also these are things that would be addressed at the time of the rezoning and site development. Um, at this point, uh, this area was studied and, um, you know, looking at the trends and, um, what's been changing in the last decade. Um, and you know, it seems as though there's been an increase in density and intensity along Causeway Boulevard further east you get towards 301. Um, so I would say that the concerns are addressed in many of the agency comments and they would be, you know, something to consider at the time of site development and the rezoning process. Okay. Thank you very much. Turning it over to the commissioners. Any comments or questions? Sure. Commissioner Kugler. Thank you. Um, yeah, I, I realize when we do get, um, when we eliminate lands that are buffer lands, that, that always raises the risk of, um, flooding and things like that. Um, Mr. Westbrook brought up the, uh, flooding that he's been seeing recently or, uh, in the last few years. And I do know on, on your report, um, the mitigation or emergency services said that this could be a problem. They're getting people out of there. Getting people out of there. I, I assume what they meant for those concerns that they voiced emergency services that was getting, getting people out and during evacuation needs. And that, that, that looked like a fairly serious, uh, concern, but how, how did you balance that with the, um, the, um, the policies that are being served versus emergency, emergency services? That seems to me a pretty big, um, queen or, or, or king in the, in the, in the, in the scheme of things. Mm-hmm. Understood. Um, yeah, I think like you said, it's, it's, it's, it's a balance of policies when you're analyzing, analyzing a request such as this. Um, you know, it seems that, you know, the major things that we were considering was compatibility with the existing type of development pattern. Um, the trends of, uh, increased development that we're seeing in this area. Um, the progress village, uh, community plan that was recently adopted kind of, um, strategizes and desires to see mix of uses in this area. Um, and so, yeah, I think all of the concerns are duly noted and, um, it's a balance. I think that, uh, again, those, those comments were informational. They weren't, um, objections. Um, so that those are things that we considered. Ms. Renita. Um, I, I would just simply add that I, I think this is, you know, and, and we, you all were discussing earlier today, the, the sort of balance between looking at opportunities for infill and redevelopment within the urban service area. Um, versus going outward, um, uh, into the rural area. And this is an example of us trying to identify areas that have, um, existing infrastructure and may be underutilized. Um, and, uh, so given the fact that there's a lot of low intensity, non-residential development, and we've seen this trend towards higher density residential. We wanted to, to, to set the plan up to take advantage of that. Certainly the, the concerns, as, uh, Ms. Massey said about flooding, um, and, uh, stormwater and traffic are very real and will have to be addressed, um, by any individual applicant. We're not taking it further than changing the comp plan. We're not going through a rezoning or anything with any of this, that will be up to individual property owners to do. And we don't know what the timing of when that would be. Um, and they will then have to address, um, ensuring that any, any stormwater is retained on their property. Um, the, the, uh, traffic and safety issues are addressed. Um, when we looked at the areas to have the FSU group do a study on one of the things we looked at was where heart either had service or was planning to have service to try to align from that transportation standpoint, those opportunities with the redevelopment and infill. And so just wanted to provide that context. Thanks. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Bowden. Uh, I have a question. Um, I used to think that if this was a privately initiated, um, plan, what would some of the, what would it be with the possibilities? If it were privately initiated, right? Um, it would be reviewed under the same lens. Um, I think that, you know, seeing as there is a trend, there has historically been a trend of requests, um, particularly, particularly to the residential 20 within this section. Um, I, I, um, not sure that I quite understand the question. Not, um, no, basically the reason I was asking that, would it be in something other than the residential 20? Oh, well, this was recommended, um, out of the study that we've done. Okay. Um, so, um, but you know, we did take a look at the recommendations and kind of see, you know, whether or not it was something that, you know, we agreed with is from the comprehensive plan perspective. I mean, you know, they were students that were kind of, um, taking a look at it from a much broader lens. Um, but when they came up with the recommendations, we looked at it and, you know, for this particular section agreed that because, you know, there does seem to be opportunity for infill and redevelopment and that there's been a trend to, um, increase density here. You know, we agreed that that was an appropriate, um, category to change too. Right. No, I, I actually, I, I know the area and I agree with you. I think that it needs, it needed a refreshing. Mm-hmm. And I think that with that refresh, you know, and it would, uh, spur some type of redevelopment and it would probably, it would possibly fix the, uh, residents issue of the, for the flooding that once they refresh the area, they will get the, the infrastructure will also be upgraded to eliminate some of that. So I, I, I, you know, uh, I like the idea overall because that area has been, uh, neglected for years and I think this will help it. Thank you, Commissioner Bowden. Commissioner Sink, you had your light on good. Oh, sorry. You're right on my right side, Commissioner Jimmison. I keep missing you. No worries. So just confirming that, uh, Ms. Rodina's, uh, comments that this is public initiated and there's no pending development at this time. It's just potential. Potential. Potential. Okay. And I just wanted to add that Ms. Leinhard, um, reminded me that I believe part of this area was proposed as urban mixed use 20, which would have been quite a bit more intense than the residential 20. Um, it would allow for the same density that we are proposing, but, uh, a much, uh, wider range of more intense uses, more industrial related uses. So I think that, you know, looking back, um, we reviewed the proposed UMU 20 and I think there was some res 20 that was proposed. It was proposed and kind of agreed that res 20 was the more appropriate category here. Thank you. Seeing as also there's some, um, closer to 301. So as we kind of get away from that intersection. Commissioner Orton, you have your light on me. Commissioner Orton, you have your light on me. I know this was publicly initiated and the students at FSU or something, uh, did a study, but were there any community meetings or were stakeholders involved in any of this, the property owners? Um, from what I remember about the study, there were, there were, um, a number of charrettes, I believe. Um, I have to go back and look at the study to see the community engagement portion. Um, do you remember the details about the study? Reminder, Melissa Leinhardt planning commission staff. Um, I was just looking and trying to refresh my memory as well. That's a very good question. There were, there were, um, stakeholder conversations. Um, and then we did have a few charrettes as Ms. Massey just noted. Um, there are some comments in actually the, the portion of the study that strictly deals with this area, all three portions of causeway that is in your backup and you can actually see some quotes of some of the stakeholders in, um, this probably doesn't help our, um, one of the ones I saw. This probably doesn't help the argument, but it says change three could allow for the introduction of industrial uses, which does not sound like the best idea given the amount of residential south of causeway. So that was one of the quotes that we use to parlay the conversation and say, well, maybe the urban mixed juice 20 would be too intensive, even though it is toward the east, you know, towards throw one towards I 75 and the Selman. However, just given the trend to residential 20, um, and the, the range of uses, as Ms. Massey said to you, um, you 20 that we thought the residential portion would be, um, more in line, which with the recent plan amendment requests. And we kind of strike that balance with providing more population and, um, a little bit more far, but in a little bit more, um, of dwelling units, but wouldn't go so far as to allow light industrial. How long ago was that community meeting? Um, this is back in 2024. So the study was finalized in December of 2024. And I think that could speak to our capacity and workload that this has taken us this long to kind of get to a place where we have a cycle that was maybe on the lighter side. And I'm not sure eight plan amendments was light, but we wanted to make sure we advanced the study. So it didn't just sit on a shelf. So we wanted to start with the causeway Boulevard, break it down into three sections. And then hopefully at some point we'll be back with the other areas. Thank you, Commissioner Orton. You stole my thunder. I had similar questions. Um, just to follow on with that, just for the record, can we confirm that we had the required, um, community meetings and not stakeholder conversations where we posted, we had the meetings, uh, in advance with the community. So there's not a requirement for comprehensive plan amendments to have a community meeting, but there is a requirement to have, um, signs posted and mailed notice, which we've done actually a D two additional times. Yes, we did a courtesy notice for the property owners within all three sub areas twice, um, at a staff level. And then, um, we did the public hearing notices for this to the, the property owners, the subject property owners for all three sub areas, which was over 850 ish people. And then we did that within 500 feet as well, which is required for our procedures manual. Um, so the, the, the last mail outs, cause we actually just finished with the, we didn't miss Sharon Snyder. She helped us very much with this mail out. I'll put that on the record. Um, but she just completed that one for the board of County commissioner. So we, we have, we have definitely notified the subject property as well as the property owners within 500 feet. We have received phone calls. Um, most of the calls that I have taken or returned have been more questions of, does this involve my property? Um, and then it, so it was mostly seemed to gain traction when we sent it out to the non subject property to the, the port, the, the property owners within 500 feet. Um, but again, I, I personally didn't hear of any, um, it was not negative feedback. It was more just like, how does this affect me? Where is this exactly? What can happen here? So just more of a conversation. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Any other questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Linkus. I guess I just, I just want to, um, commend the staff for this project. This was FSU and you worked with our USF team. I just think that you all do such a great job working with students. And, um, I do think, um, I really appreciate the, the, um, citizen who came out to speak. And I, I am sympathetic to commissioner Bowden's idea that there are some investment in this area can support some of the flood issues. But I just want to commend, I think this is kind of doing all the best of what I think this group can do. Uh, working with the students, um, enlarging kind of the scope of kind of who gets involved in these decisions and finding ways to do redevelopment in an area that is, is already kind of, it's in the urban service area. It's right adjacent to our downtown core and, and, um, and a really appropriate area to look at carefully. So I just want to commend this project. Thank you, commissioner Linkus. I will say along the lines of stormwater, I'm not in the business of making decisions or suggestions on anecdotal data. It's just not my thing, but I will say we've had a constant stream and I'm just full of puns tonight of, uh, public sentiment and comment. I think on almost anytime someone speaks about water, it's always about the development that's happened recently around them or adjacent to them or maybe a mile away where the water is worse than prior to development. So I think it might be, um, helpful at some point to have the stormwater folks come in and maybe give this body an education and walk through what they do pre and post analysis. I can say just from my own workplace alone, just north of the, uh, camp airport along, uh, Benjamin circle drive and slide would, when the developments there went up maybe five, six years ago, we see substantial flooding now. So I think there's a lot of merit to what we hear from the public, um, and on that potential sentiment. And I think it would be worthwhile to hear on down downstream on what our decisions, not doing this on purpose, I promise, but it would be, it would be nice to hear downstream. But some of those things are commission link, it's your light. Um, thank you, chair. I, you remind me of a comment that I was thinking of as we heard these comments. Um, it does seem that we're, you know, we're, that the idea is that we're going to have all this stuff addressed. And when we get into the zoning, um, but given the agency review process, I'm just curious, is there a role for these agencies in looking at stormwater at this level? Because I do think that could, and it sounds like there's not, but maybe that is something that we could look at a little bit. Yeah, that's, that's not traditionally how it's been handled because often that requires engineering of the site. And, um, and of course more, they need more specific information than the plan amendment can provide. Um, but I do think we can absolutely talk to the, the county stormwater staff about a presentation about how they do, do their reviews, what the, um, what the standards are. Um, because the standard is supposed, as I understand it is supposed to be that they're supposed to do no harm. The, the, the site is supposed to retain the same amount of water that it does today in the pre-development state. Um, so if that's not occurring, maybe they can shed some light on why or, or how the standards might need to be approved, improved. That sounds like a good idea. Thank you. Okay. Good conversation. Anything else from commissioners? Okay. I'll close the public hearing. And before we go to vote, I'll encourage Mr. Westbrook, this is not your final bite at the apple. This will appear in another body before us. And I want to thank you for coming out and encourage you to, to follow up in the next body. Sir, we're sorry. I'm closed the public hearing. Um, sorry, sir. So with that, uh, the public hearing is closed and we will open the floor to motions. Commissioner Sink. I move to find HC, CPA 2620, comprehensive plan amendment, Causeway Boulevard, sub area C, consistent with the comprehensive plan. We have a motion for consistency. Do we have a second? Yes. Second. And we have a second from commissioner Kugler. Maybe we'll go to a roll call on this vote. Bowden. Yes. Cardenas. Jemisin. Yes. Kugler. Yes. Linkus. Yes. Seben. Oh, sorry. Sink. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, moving forward to HC, CPA 26 dash 23, comprehensive plan amendment. Our presenter is Ms. Mariela Overdorf. Good evening, commissioners. Mariela Overdorf planning commission staff. I'm here to present on the public hearing for HC, CPA 26 dash 23, located at one, two, seven, one, one East us highway 92. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and is approximately 2.8 acres. The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential one to rural light industrial. This is a new future land use category in response to the board of county commission direction given last year, the new rural light industrial category allows for the consideration of uses that are more intensive than neighborhood serving commercial, but not as intensive as the full range of light industrial or heavy industrial uses. This is the general location map. This amendment was also part of the July cycle. The subject site is in the rural area and was, is within the Seffner mango community plan. It is located east of castle road and south of East us highway 92. Here is an aerial view of the site outlined here in pink. The subject property is currently used for industrial purposes. The surrounding area primarily consists of single family, mobile homes, agricultural, light commercial uses and vacant land. Residential uses such as single family borders the east around here and is also located southwest of the subject property down in this area. Mobile homes are located across East us highway 92 to the north and across castle road to the west. This is a mobile home park where my mouse is and vacant land sits directly south of the property as seen here. Like commercial uses are also located across East us highway 92 to the northwest of the property in this location. This photo is looking at the subject site from castle wood road. This photo is looking at the properties west and south of the site. The site is to the left. This photo is looking at East us highway 92 north of the subject site. The subject site would be to the right over this way. The subject site is designated as residential one on the adopted future land use map. The residential one future land use category has an allowable maximum residential density of one dwelling unit per gross acre, allowing for the consideration of two units and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. The typical uses in the residential category can include neighborhood commercial office or multipurpose projects. Other future land use categories shown on this map is suburban mixed use six. That's easy to see. It's the pink. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to rural light industrial. The newly created rural light industrial future land use category includes a 0.25 floor area ratio maximum and allows no residential development, but for limited accessory residential such as an onsite security guard. This category allows for consideration of limited light industrial uses, which is defined as uses that are compatible with rural residential development patterns and that do not produce significant noise, dust, odor, smoke, or vibration as specified in the Hillsborough County Land Development Code. Examples include small scale manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly of refined products, as well as warehousing or wholesale operations. Existing conditions under residential one, the site could consider up to two dwelling units or 30,492 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed rural light industrial designation, the site could consider up to 30,492 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment will eliminate any potential residential density and would not change the maximum potential non-residential intensity. However, the amendment would increase the allowable range of non-residential uses due to the consideration of the commercial zoning, district uses, and limited industrial uses as described on the previous slide. There were no formal objections received. However, the following agency review comments have been provided. The Hillsborough County Office of Emergency Management commented that the proposed amendment does not align with goal two, improved built environment outlined in the Hillsborough County Local Mitigation Strategy, which notes to provide guidance on activities to improve levels of service through risk assessments. The risk referenced is the FEMA flood zone AE. Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Services commented that this amendment would reduce the allowable residential density from two dwelling units to zero allowable residential dwellings, eliminating any potential for residential development on this site. They support efforts to maintain or increase residential development units, and that the proposed amendment would decrease the potential housing supply within Hillsborough County. While formulating our recommendation, plan and commission staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. Staff reviewed property rights and the Sefner-Mango Community Plan to evaluate compatibility. This goal referenced here states that development should be directed to the U.S. 92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard corridors. Though this request is related to several general policies, staff found four main areas of consistency. Flu Objective 1.2 identifies rural area as intended for long-term agricultural uses, large lot rural residential uses, and undeveloped natural areas. Flu Policy 1.2.1 generally limits density in the rural area to one dwelling unit per five gross acres, with exceptions for higher residential density development patterns. The proposed Rural Light Industrial designation would eliminate residential development potential currently available under Residential 1 and would not introduce any additional residential density into the rural area. Instead, this will provide a non-residential option specifically intended for rural areas where use is more intensive than neighborhood-serving commercial, but less intensive than traditional industrial uses may be appropriate. Flu Objective 3.1 and Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding community and provide appropriate transitions between different land uses. This is through site planning, buffering, screening, and consideration of factors such as access, parking, landscaping, lighting, noise, and odor. While the site is within the rural area, the surrounding development pattern includes agricultural and residential uses as well as light commercial uses. The Rural Light Industrial category will also require a site-plan controlled zoning district, such as a PD, which will allow compatibility and site design to be evaluated at the time of the development. Flu Objective 5.1 and Policy 5.1.8 recognize agriculture as an important economic resource and historical component to the community and support existing agricultural uses. Flu Policy 5.2.4 also allows agricultural-related commercial uses that are more intensive than neighborhood-serving commercial within rural land use categories, provided applicable comprehensive plan policies are met. This category allows agricultural and agricultural-related uses, along with commercial-intensive and limited light industrial uses. The proposed amendment, therefore, does not preclude continued agricultural use on the site while providing additional non-residential opportunities appropriate for the surrounding area. Flu Objective 6.1 supports development patterns that balance growth with environmental stewardship and long-term resilience. While Flu Policy 6.1.1 requires land development to preserve and protect the attributes and functions of the natural environment. Most of the site is in FEMA flood zone AE. The proposed amendment does not authorize development or eliminate the requirement to address these environmental conditions through subsequent development review. Planning Commission staff recommends the proposed MAP amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan. This concludes the presentation of HCCPA 26-23, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have a presentation from the applicant? Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Ann Pollack, 200 Central St. Petersburg, and I represent the applicant AquaTech Dewatering and Pumping LLC. With me here tonight is Teresa Herring, who represents AquaTech, in case we have any questions. So, Mariela did a great presentation, and I just wanted to give a little more background on why we're here. So, the site is where that little orange star is on US 92. It's about 2.8 acres on the corner of 92 and Castlewood Road. It's about a little less than half a mile from McIntosh and about 0.8 miles east of the urban service area boundary. It's in the Sefner-Mango area, and as you can see, it's also in the I-4 corridor urban expansion study area. I think I got that right. Currently, Res 1 and Zoning CG, we're requesting to go to Rural and Industrial, and we will have to have a corresponding PD that is actually under review currently. So, why Rural and Industrial? So, this category was approved, I think, in the spring by the Board of County Commissioners direction, looking to keep the same commercial intensity that's possible as the Res 1, but allow consideration of CI uses in the rural area instead of just CG, which might ordinarily be allowed. No residential allowed. And what I thought was important was the Planning Commission staff noting that this, the purpose of this category was to fill a demonstrated need that was previously unaddressed in the comprehensive plan. And really, what I'm trying to do is explain why this is really one of those properties that it was designed for and why it really is compatible here in this area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, yes, it has Res 1 category, but why? Because it doesn't match the zoning history of the site or the area. In 1972, it was zoned Highway Commercial, and you can see the map there. It was used for outdoor storage of trailers and equipment and sales of trailers. And in the early 90s, this was changed to CG through zoning conformance. And it's surrounded in generally by CG and CI zoning. In 2000, the prior owner came in and developed it for warehouse contractor's office with open storage. And it's been used that way for 26 years. Given the prominence of the outdoor storage on the site, we think that the prior owner may have believed that outdoor storage was allowed because there were trailers parked there. But it turns out outdoor storage is not allowed. It's not allowed in CG. And even though lots of other properties in the area also have outdoor storage, we needed to figure out a way around this. And really, essentially, going back to 1972, there's been outdoor storage at this property. So, again, here on the bottom, you can see that it's the one in purple. It's zoned CG, and it's surrounded by CG and CI. Open storage is not allowed in CG. And CI is not allowed in Res 1. So, that brings us to figuring out how to make this work for this property that this development's been there for 26 years. We looked at the SMU 6 to the Northeast. And that does allow CI, but Planning Commission staff said, no, we can't do that because that also brings in suburban densities. And there's really no other future land use category available. Thankfully, though, the RLI category was just created and really does fill an important need here because there is no other category that would really work in the urban area. And the benefit of it here is that it's really not creating a major impact and it's not actually really introducing commercial intensities to the area because they've been there for at least about 50 years. And, of course, the PD requirement that the category has thus requires you to balance the property development with the surrounding community. Mariela generally went through what's around here, but, you know, to the north, we have light commercial and mobile homes. To the south, vacant land, and there's a cell tower property there. To the east, immediately east of us, the property is used for a home. It's zone CG. It's used for a house, but it's also used to store big semis and other sort of trucks, so open storage. And it used to be an airport strip, so kind of showing the priority of commercial and these kinds of uses going back a long ways. Further past that is a hotel, and then you get to a gas station, then you're at McIntosh, and then you've got some commercial uses there that go up to I-4. And then on the west, you have mobile homes, RV park, and then a whole lot of TECO utility land. And then right to the west of that, you have the urban service area. And the Planning Commission stated that while the future land uses are relatively uniform, which is the development typically found in the rural area, the existing uses across US Highway 92 to the north of the site and to the east have light commercial uses and commercial general zoning and also CI. And the uses present in the surrounding context include a range of development intensities that differ from the rural residential pattern typically found within the rural area. That's really showing how important this is to this particular piece of property. As she went through, we do feel we are consistent with many of the comprehensive plan categories. It will have to be approved through a PD that is currently under review to make sure that the impacts are mitigated. And generally, the RLI will allow this property to continue to optimize the economic benefits of this location that it's had for more than 20 years. The development is compatible with the character of the area. And while the density and intensity are based on gross acreage because it's going along with another PD, it will approve the existing development, which is 11,520 square feet. Excuse me. The Sefner-Mango Community Plan promotes commercial development along US 92. And this commercial development really has existed for decades. So it's the right place for this to be. I mentioned that the property to the east was once an airport. And this amendment does discourage strip or the community plan discourages strip development. And that would not be an option here because we're looking at commercial intensive uses really. Again, supporting a business that's been here for 25 years. And the site design is really designed to have as little impact on the surrounding area as possible, but that would be figured out all through the PD. So we have no objections. From an environmental perspective, it does meet the RLI and the comp plan locational requirements for a development like this and a comprehensive plan amendment. No wetlands, surface waters, or significant wildlife habitats on the property. There is the flood zone, but the property is existing and the building's not changing. And any change would have to meet all flood regulations. It uses septic and well. And of course, any future development would have to meet county environmental standards. There's really only a very minimal net increase in trips from what's already allowed. And while the CIP traffic analysis said there was adequate capacity for the adjacent segments, they thought there was not enough capacity in some of the further segments that they analyzed, but those would really only add maybe three or four up to maybe 16 trips on those other segments. So not really making a big difference, particularly for segments that are already, unfortunately, pretty much in the negative. Emergency management had concerns relating to flood zones and hazardous materials because you're allowing commercial intensive uses. But those again would be addressed through review of the PD. So in general, you know, we think it meets the need envisioned by the BOCC. I hope you see how I've shown that here tonight. It's consistent with the RLI category, with the neighborhood protection policies, and the mango seffner community plan compatible with the character of development in the area. And again, there's the PD in review. But in general, you know, it will allow this business to remain in place and continue operating in and not have to leave and go somewhere else. And we think that the PD will help cement that ensuring additional buffering or whatever might be required to ensure that it meets the needs of the county and the community. So with that, I'm here for any questions. Thank you. Moving on to public comment. We have one person sign up. Is there a Teresa Herring? Oh, she represents the applicant. Perfect. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. With no public comments and no need for applicant rebuttal, we'll move to Planning Commission questions, comments. Slow to the mics. Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and look for motions. Commissioner Sink. I move to find HC CPA 2623 comprehensive plan amendment 12711 East Highway, US Highway 92 consistent with the comprehensive plan. We have a motion for consistency. Commissioner Kugler. Second. And we have a second by Commissioner Kugler. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes. Okay. With that, we will move to adjournment at 721 Eastern Standard Time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.