Planning Commission Regular Meeting - 07.13.26

people to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved for dogs. We're going to head up to that dog call right now. So we'll go out, we'll assess the situation. I'm looking at these dogs, I'm like garbage. I mean, that's just like, did you see those bags of food there? She was very upset about losing all of her cats. She called me up a few times in tears. I need my photos. I need to be able to paint this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see. To the works. In today's episode, we're taken to the skies with Hillsborough County Mosquito Control to find out how they combat the spread of disease and the rising mosquito population. So when it comes to mosquitoes, how exactly are we combating them in the sky? Nobody complains about larvae. They complain about mosquitoes and specifically adult mosquitoes, female mosquitoes, the ones that bite you, right? But it's a lot easier to control adult mosquitoes by controlling the larvae. What we do is we use a larvae side product that attacks the larvae in the swaps of the mangrove areas along the coast here. We stop their growth so they never grow up and become adult mosquitoes. Of your planning commission, the official local planning agency for the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plant City, and unincorporated Hillsborough County. The planning commission provides innovative leadership and long-range vision that contributes to the creation of a thriving, prosperous community that offers opportunity, fairness, and choice in how we live, move, learn, work, and play. For more information about the planning commission, please call 813-272-5940. Follow us on social media or visit our website at planhillsborough.org. Welcome everybody to the July 13th, 2026 regular meeting of the Hillsborough County City County Planning Commission. 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 reception desk and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate that they would like to speak. Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking. State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits. If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org. For action items, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit. The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit. Following presentations, members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chair. Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person. The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal response. Planning commissioners will ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second and discussion of what will be taken. With that introduction, I'd like to ask Commissioner Coogler to lead us in the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. If you are able, please rise. Bless us as you gather to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for one nation in liberty and justice. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Coogler. With that, I'd like to ask the clerk to please go ahead and call the roll. Good afternoon, commissioners. Bowden? Here. Cardenas? Kona? Jemison? Jemison. Here. Coogler? Here. Linkus? Here. Laute? Here. Sink? Here. Orton? Here. Rodriguez? Here. Joseph? Here. Thank you. You have a quorum. Thank you. All right. We didn't have anyone sign up for the public input for items not scheduled on the agenda, so we will go right to our action items for this meeting. Item 3A, interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, citing and concurrency for the city of Tampa. And the presenter is Sofia Garantiva. All right. Good afternoon, planning commission. Sofia Garantiva, planning commission staff. And here to present on the update to the interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, citing and concurrency for the city of Tampa. I do want to note that the information being presented in this presentation and the next two items will be very similar and also just wanted to put that out there. All right, so the interlocal agreement outlines the requirements and procedures that are utilized in coordinating land use, inciting and development of public educational facilities between the city of Tampa, Hillsborough County School Board, and the planning commission. The existing agreement was last updated in 2016 and is being revised to be in line with updates to the state statutes and to improve the overall process. It is also important to note that the planning commission is a limited party in this agreement, and this will also be presented to the school board on July 28th. So in the next few slides, I'll go over the major changes to the agreement. I'll focus on those changes applicable to planning commission and planning commission staff roles. But I also included some notable general changes to the other party's responsibilities as well as general changes. So starting with the updates to the jurisdictional coordination requirements, this revises the time frame for which planning commission staff provides data related to population projection, growth, and development trends to Hillsborough County School District staff. Goes from once a year to quarterly. Also, the expansion of coordination requirements between the city and the school board for neighborhood meetings, public notifications, and school board meetings associated with the future school facility planning and site acquisition process. There are also revisions to the procedures for consistency findings with the comprehensive plan. This is the section that is most applicable to planning commission and planning commission staff. So this includes updated procedures for reviewing the annual education facilities plan. This is formally known as the five-year work plan, and this update primarily modernizes the name of the plan. The plan itself and the framework by incorporating some infrastructure considerations. But the planning commission maintains the existing comprehensive plan consistency review role. Also, this update clarifies responsibilities for issuing consistency determinations and coordinating with city staff during review of the proposed school sites. Again, planning commission staff are responsible for reviewing the proposed school sites for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan while city staff evaluate infrastructure and service considerations. Also included is the formal inclusion of school board comments in planning commission staff reports for comprehensive plan amendments. This just memorializes an existing process and also the changes outline the provision that the school board assumes the risk associated with acquiring a proposed school site. Which the planning commission has determined is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. So if we give that determination, it is the risk of the school board to take on that school site. All right, and then this agreement also updates the review and procedures requirements. The creation of a new applicability section identifying projects exempt from portions of the review process. This includes temporary relocatables, also known as portables, minor facility expansions and previously approved school sites. It also expands upon applicable infrastructure and city development review procedures, including transportation, utilities, drainage, multimodal access and right of way considerations for the site selection process. And that is mostly between the school district and the city. And then lastly the agreement includes revisions due to newer state statutes which includes establishment of a preliminary consistency review process between each agency to coordinate the location of new facilities. So this is a new responsibility but it allows staff to be involved earlier in the site selection process. And also there's some general reorganization and modernization of the interlocal agreement to align with current Florida statutes governing school consistency and siting. So planning commission staff recommends that the planning commission approve the attached resolution which authorizes the chair of the planning commission to execute the updated city of Tampa interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, siting and concurrency. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. All right, we're the applicant on this I presume or does the school board have something to say yet that you have a presentation? No, I think she covered everything. Thank you. We didn't have anyone sign up for the public comment on this one. So I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, thoughts, discussions. I did have a quick question. That language on staff issuing the consistency finding, I just wanted some clarification on does that mean it doesn't have to come before this board staff just find something consistent on its own and then it gets approved? No, it still has to come before the board. So are we finding consistency or is staff finding consistency? It goes before the jurisdictions board, right? Yes. So this board wouldn't rule on it, staff just finds it consistent and then it moves on. Correct, that's the process. So a lot of these processes within the interlocal agreement are strictly staff. The one thing that comes to the board for consistency finding is the five years facilities plan. But in terms of actual school sites, that is up to the staff. Okay, why then are we, why is this board, why do we have to even do this then? Shouldn't staff just decide and pass this on? I don't understand. If this board doesn't have to find consistency, which is the role of this board and staff's doing it, then why do we need to approve it? Shouldn't staff just approve it and go forward with it? Why is it even coming here now for this action? You see what I'm saying? If we're not ruling on it and then after this, what's the point of us approving it or not approving it now? Well, I think you all are approving the role that this agency has in the process. So is this basically us casting off our consistency finding authority to staff or is that kind of what's being asked for us here or what's? No, I mean, that part of the process has been in place for quite some time that staff makes a recommendation on consistency. And then the final determination on consistency with the comprehensive plan is made by the jurisdiction. For these, that's how it's been in the current interlocal agreement. But the planning commission is a signatory to the agreement because your staff is being asked to do things as well as you all do have a role in the five year plan process. Right, that's kind of what raises my question. If this board's agreeing to be a signatory and staff's making the decision without us having input into it, then why are we being asked to be a sign? Shouldn't staff then be the signatory to the agreement? Why are we, you know, just because we have oversight of the staff technically? I don't, you know, and that goes to the question that I asked previously. You know, who's the authority for consistency finding? It seems really muddled to me, you know, and I mean who's, and it's fine with me if staff does it. I'm not saying staff shouldn't, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is if staff does it, then let staff do it and let us, as a board, not have to be involved. Because, you know, if God forbid something goes wrong, it falls back on us and staff made the decision, like, without us being a part of that. You know what I mean? So I'm just trying to protect the board. I guess my most cheer is always to think of our board members here and making sure that things are clean. And if we are called to do something, then we're doing it, and if we're not, then we're not. Yeah, I cannot think of an interlocal agreement that I have had the authority to sign without the Planning Commission having reviewed. And I think in most of the instances, like we have interlocal agreements with the county for the county to do some of our HR processes. And the Planning Commission Board was the signatory on that. So, I don't know, Tracy, if you want to add anything. Well, the entity, the jurisdictional entity that, of course, employs staff and has responsibilities or the capacity to enter into an interlocal agreement is the agency itself, the Planning Commission. Staff are employees of the agency. They don't have authority. Staff's not an entity that has authority to enter into an interlocal agreement. Does that answer your question? Well, so they, but they do have the authority to find consistency. Or again, are we giving them, is this board giving the staff the authority to find consistency? That's the clarity I'm looking for here, or do they have it of themselves? Melissa, I haven't looked at that interlocal agreement in some time. But it's my understanding that staff does have the authority to make that decision in this instance. That is in the current interlocal agreement, yes. There are places, as Ms. Garantiva said, where it comes to the Planning Commission for the five-year plan. And then, but on individual school sites, because of the timeliness of the reviews, the decision was made years ago to have staff make that recommendation. Because then it ultimately ends up at the BOCC or the City Council for their final decision. And they're the final arbiters of consistency with the plan. And I think that the link here that's sort of troubling, my recollection is the staff makes a report to the board about what's happened. Right. A consistency finding. Yeah, not that the board's being asked to re-review it in any capacity. Which board are you referring to? Our board, the Planning Commission Board. If an individual school site comes in, it does not come in front of this body. That's what I'm trying to say. Yeah, staff makes a recommendation on it to the jurisdiction and to the school board, and they make the final decisions. And then my question is, where does that authority come from? Because when you read the state laws, staff's not empowered to make recommendations or consistency. Like you say, staff makes a report to this board, and this board is the body that's empowered to make a recommendation or consistency findings. I'm just looking for clarity on that. And again, it goes back to the point I was making before, who's on first? If this board's not empowered to do that, and staff is, then let's get that clear. But again, the way I read the state laws is this board is the recommending body, not staff. Staff makes a report to this board, and then we make our recommendation. Staff can recommend to this board that we make a recommendation to the next board of consistency finding or not. But that's not staff's authority, I thought, and I could be wrong, you know. Well, the staff's doing a making a finding based on the plan and their professional judgment. And this happens in other circumstances too, such as zoning reviews. Those zoning reviews are done at a staff level as opposed to at a board level. So it's not, I mean, it's consistent with other practices within the agency on different, depending on the nature of the matter. I mean, my recollection from the discussion 20 years ago or when they, when we first started having an interlocal agreement that outlined all of these things was that the timeframe to get a review back to the school district, because they're trying to make decisions rather quickly on real estate, did not afford the ability to get it to a planning commission meeting. But I haven't. Well, can you get it there now? I mean, that's, and that's my question, you know, I'm not, are we allowed to say bring it before us before it goes forward? Is that, you know, or again, if we're not, then why are we being asked to agree to all these things and be a signatory to all these agreements? I don't want a fastball thrown by us and then we find out that, you know, God forbid something happens and then people are asking us this board, well, why did you all do that? And we have to be sitting there going, well, we don't know staff did it. We don't know what happened, you know. If staff's going to do it, again, my point isn't to pull this out of staff's hands. If staff's going to do it, then stand up and take, you know, authority for it. Stand up and be the one. Don't do this kind of, okay, well, you know, we're staff, we're making the recommendation, and this board is kind of taking, you know, the heat for it. So that's all I'm saying. If you're going to throw the rock, then show your hand, you know what I mean? And I get that this was done 20 years ago, but to me again, like I said in the last meeting, I don't, you know, what was done 20 years ago doesn't make it the right thing, okay? Saying that something was done 20 years ago, saying that 10 departments or 100 departments in the county are doing it, or everybody's gone on Facebook and checked the like box, that doesn't make it the right thing to do, okay? So I'm trying to figure out what's the right thing to do, again, to protect this board and to make sure that ducks are in a proper line so that things are very clear and, you know, who's on first is understood, you know, going forward. So that's really all I'm asking here, you know? Yeah, I think in some cases we have 45 days to review a school site for consistent with the plan. And that, I mean, it takes us, we put the agenda together for the next month, you know, about 30 days ahead of time we're starting those agenda items. So it doesn't give, it just would depend on when the school district sent a site forward and like what the time frame was with your meeting, whether or not that would be enough time for us to complete it or not. Is there some other mechanism for this board, since we are, from what I'm understanding, we are the responsible board, is there some other mechanism for us to get input in or understand what's going on between staff's, you know, issuing of a consistency finding, which again I just find strange that staff's issuing consistency findings, and this thing, you know, leaving our purview, is there some other mechanism, maybe it's meetings, maybe it's, you know, you know, some other way, or is there, are we just out of luck? We just, it is what it is. Well, I mean, I think that the mechanism that's been used, again, historically, not saying that means that it's right, but has been the five-year plan, because every September you all are provided with what the school district is looking at in terms of school sites in the five-year plan, and that is what then they come in and get more specific about now it's, you know, we knew we needed one for Southern Hillsborough County or for this part of Tampa, now we've, then they come in with the specific site, and that's what staff reviews and makes a recommendation on. So the, but you all get to see that bigger picture at the five-year plan point to see, okay, yeah, we need another school in this part of Tampa or in this part of Plant City, because there's a lot of growth happening here that aligns with what the comprehensive plans are saying. Okay, I get that, but the devil is sort of in the details, because for instance, if we approve the five-year plan and then the schools come in in a pattern or sink, you know, in an order that a commissioner feels maybe there's a school that's brought forward in Tampa and maybe the Plant City commissioner feels that we need a school brought forward in Plant City, just to be able to have a voice to be able to speak that I think is an important thing on this board. So I'm wondering, again, how does this board get its voice into those sorts of things? And if we don't, if we just need to be quiet and back off, then? Well, if it's something like the timing of things, I think that would be apparent in the five-year plan. Okay. You know, today, I would say the comprehensive plan allows for schools in every land use category except for natural preservation and industrial. So it is very, I mean, in my tenure, it's very rare that there's a conflict with the comprehensive plan for a school site because the plan allows them in so many places and is supportive of them to occur. So the school, the individual school site is maybe less, it's rare, it's very controversial compared to the five-year plan about where schools are going over the longer term. I don't know that I'm explaining it very well. Commissioner Bowden. Yeah. What it sounds like to me that some place in history or something that some type of delegation of authority was passed on saying that because of expediency and that this is a pretty much sufficient groundwork that's going to be done to ensure that the schools are built in the right location that said, okay, instead of dragging this on, sending it to a public hearing, doing all these things, they said, let's pass on this, delegate this particular authority for these things. And whether it's documented or something, that's what it sounds like. It's saying, well, why bring it here at the same time and things like that? I don't know. It's new to me, but that's what it sounds like. Thank you. Commissioner Rowden. So the interlocal agreement requires us to submit this to the Planning Commission. This is a state agreement. So Hillsborough County is different than most counties. So when you say you need to submit it to the Planning Commission, local jurisdictions have their own Planning Commission. So the reason why it goes to the Planning Commission is consistency with the comprehensive plan. Because there is a public schools facilities element, there's an interlocal government element, things like that. The Planning Commission or staff reviews the ILA, reviews all of the different site plans that we submit to make sure it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. So when the state statute says it's submitted to the Planning Commission for consistency to ensure that it's provisions align with the adopted comprehensive plans. So that we also send it to the different city of Tampa, city of Temple Terrace. Other counties, remember this is a Florida statute, not a Hillsborough County statute. So when it refers to Planning Commission, each different municipality has their own Planning Commission and it goes to those Planning Commissions to make sure that they are consistent with the comp plan in those different jurisdictions. So I think that may be one of the reasons why it kind of sounds a little bit different. It also, and I just want to read this part, confirms that the agreement supports coordinated land use, school facilities, planning, and concurrency as required by state statute 101333 and 163.31777. All right. Yeah, my question wasn't about that. The document itself is fine. Again, my question enters to this who's on first. Like you just said, it goes to the Planning Commission or staff. Planning Commission Board and Planning Commission staff aren't the same thing when you read the state laws. They're two very separate entities. Staff and the Board are two different things. So that's my question. The way the process works, fine. That's fine with me. My question is, and even on the slide she had, staff issues a consistency finding. So my question is, where did staff get that authority? And if we gave it to them, then that's, again, that's a suitable answer for me to the question. You could just simply say, okay, well, a long time ago in a land land far away, the Board said, give staff the permission to just do this behind closed doors and just slide it through. That's fine with me. You know, you can say that and then I can think about that sort of, you know, set up. But I need to know that clearly. If that's what it is, then just say that's what it is. Well, I think that's what this interlocal agreement is saying is that staff has the authority to do those things where it says Planning Commission staff. And then when it says Planning Commission, it means it's coming to this body. So, yes, that is what is being laid out in this interlocal agreement. And then my question now to Tracy would be, are we okay doing that as a Board? Are we able to take our authority granted by the state and then pass it down to someone else, pass it down to staff, pass it down to a different group? Well, there's a lot of tiers to these sorts of things, not the least of which is that under state law, the school board has some exemptions and some authorities that are not in the same class as the zoning codes and the land use codes for the jurisdictions that we have. The answer to your question is yes, in those instances. Okay, all right, that was my only question. Are there any other thoughts, comments, questions? Commissioner Lauk, sorry, I didn't see your light. Thank you, Mr. Chair, you raise very interesting and I think valid points regarding this. I would have been inclined to just move along and recommend approval, but you give a moment of pause. Generally, I'm not a proponent of government entities skipping steps that are mandated for the private sector. I think what's good for the goose is probably good for the gander. So I would like to see data or something that outlines the necessity for the school board to skip a step in the development process. It's imposed upon every developer and private entity that comes before this board. Even the city of Tampa or the other jurisdictions will come in when there's a public, what's the word I'm looking for? When it's publicly initiated versus private. So I would wonder why we're carving out a skipping of a step. And because they want to go fast, it's not the right answer. Because every private entity and public entity wants to go fast. Yeah, if I may, so if the school district needed a comprehensive plan amendment, they would have to come before this body. Nothing about this interlocal agreement changes anything about how the school district would need to have a land use category that allows for a school. So if they found an industrial site somewhere, for example, and said we want to put a school here and that's not allowed under the comprehensive plan, they would have to come in for a future land use category change and come before this board. What the school siting process is more comparable to is to the review of a rezoning application. And those staff does make a recommendation to the jurisdiction as well. If it doesn't come before this body. Go ahead. Thank you for that, that provides excellent clarity. And just to clarify, I'm not against the school board, skipping a step. School board gets a lot of, like Tracy said, a lot of exemptions on a lot of things because they need to get things done in a certain way. So again, my issue is strictly this who's on first, between staff and this board. As chair of this board, I'm always thinking of protecting this board. So to me, I want things clear. And if we're sliding that power off the staff, then so be it, just as long as these board members realize what they're doing in making this vote. You know, again, if we do this by vote, so this board can be fine with it and we can give staff that authority and that's okay, but let's understand what we're doing when we're doing that. So that was my only point in raising that. So were there any other thoughts, comments or quick? Commissioner Kugler. Yes, Chair Joseph, you said perhaps this was changed in a galaxy far away and many years ago. And it sounds to me, my understanding from listening to the conversation is that this is where it starts tonight, this vote. So it's a bit of a surprise, but my thought is, have we considered the consequences? And I have not. I have not had the time to think of the consequences of what that would be. If we don't weigh in on it, can we, is there a facility to weigh in after the fact? We received the report that this was done. Oh, wait a minute. We see some problems. That's kind of what I was asking Ms. Zornita, and it doesn't seem like there's much of a way. So it just kind of is what it is, you know. That may color my vote, I'll say that. But, again, I mean, that's me as a person, but, yeah, I always feel a little uncomfortable when we're the signatory. Remember, that's what we're doing here. We're signing to this interlocal agreement, and then we're kind of saying, okay, well, staff just go do this, and you're infallible staff, so we'll just let it go. You know what I mean? That's a little murky for me, a little murky for me. We don't have to have complete authority over everything. We don't have to control everything, but not to even be able to see and say something, you know, even if it's just okay, or I don't have time, you know, it just feels a little weird to me. So did you want to respond to Commissioner Kugler's career? Well, I mean, I'm looking through the process steps, and, again, it just sort of depends on the timeline on which an item is submitted by the school board, whether it lines up well with when you have a meeting or not. But the only thing I would emphasize is that Planning Commission staff is not the final decision on whether a school site is appropriate or not. That goes to the school board, and then if it's Plant City, the Plant City City Commission, or the City of Tampa City Council. And as in all things, City Council is the final arbiter of whether something's consistent with the comprehensive plan. So it's not as if staff's decision is out there without any oversight, I guess. Commissioner Kugler. Perhaps a little bit of comfort would be to just know the history and find out if there ever was a case where a decision of this nature had to be made. Efficiency is very important, obviously. But has there ever been a case of a disaster, a disastrous decision toward the comp plan in cases of these kinds of decisions? And if that, if there's no history at all of that, then over the 100 years plus of the county, perhaps we're fine, I don't know. Well, I cannot speak to 100 years of the county, but so my understanding of the reason we have a school and our local agreement on planning for schools came from a disastrous site where they wanted to put a high school in Lutz in the rural area. And there was not the infrastructure to support that because it was rural and also the Lutz community and community, I don't know whether the community plan was in place or not, but the Lutz community was very upset about having a high school on these rural scale roadways and things of that nature. And so that was the genesis of the first iteration of an interlocal agreement on school siting. That first iteration was done before there was state law mandating that there be an interlocal agreement. And so then once state law came into effect, it had to be modified to comply with state statute and include things like school concurrency that came into effect like in the mid to late 2000s, I guess. So that's my understanding. So yes, there have been disastrous sites and that's what started us coordinating on these things so that there's more planning with the school district for where the school sites should go. But I can't say that in that history since we started having an interlocal agreement that there have not been ones that there's been disagreement on the part of the local government about the siting. I don't have that good a memory. All right. I have one more question too that I thought of. And you, Ms. Zornita, or maybe Commissioner Orton might be able to speak to it. But if this were to come to us, like if we were to say, okay, we want this to come to us, we want to be the one to make the recommendation, what does that delay do to the process? Does it impact the school board? Is it going to cost you guys a million dollars? I don't think it could do that, come to the Planning Commission. But we do have cases where the Planning Commission or staff has said that's not appropriate or more likely it's usually Hillsborough County that says, you know, that's not a good place to put it. There are no infrastructure. We don't have roads. I mean, that happened on Bishop Road. We wanted to put a school there and they said, no, you don't have the infrastructure to put it there. So it was canceled. We didn't put school there. So the reason why we do this review is, I mean, Planning Commission staff does review everything we have. And I forgot your question. What the negative impacts would be if it were to come to this board for this board to take the action, you know. For you to take the action or present as a recommendation board as you normally are. As we normally are. A recommendation board, it would have no effect on. Okay. We would take it into consideration, yes. Right. But it doesn't like delay the project and cost you millions in delays or anything like that. No, we would then take it to the municipality and listen to what they had to say. As you know, the school board doesn't have, they don't go through cities for building permits. We have our own building official. We get our own approval, our own inspection. The only reason, like Melissa said, is if we have to do a land use change or zoning. Because if the PD does not allow for a school site, we would have to do a modification to put it in that school site. So we do have to go to the cities for approval on a lot of these. Right. What about you, Ms. Ornita? Can you think of any huge, you know, drawbacks? Are we going to kill the process if we're the ones who bang the gavel and make the recommendation versus staff? If we receive the staff report and then we make the recommendation? Is there something? I don't think so. Again, the timeframe I'm seeing in here for the reviews is, and maybe Ms. Guarantiva can tell me if I'm correct, is 45 days. So again, so long as that, you know, lines up with when you have a meeting, I think that would be okay. Is there some big, and my next question is how does it affect this agency staff? Does it put you in a tough position? Does it make staff not want to work here? I mean, well, I'm just being honest here. Well, I hope it doesn't do that. I guess I like to, you know. Well, I hope it doesn't do that. But, I mean, we would just, we write a report now. Right. It would just be presented to you all rather than sent directly to the school district. Correct. It would just go through the normal agenda process for putting an item on this agenda instead of a memo via email to the school board. Now, if it doesn't do anything, again, why, it seems to me again, when I read the state law, this board is given the responsibility of making the recommendation. So again, I'm not passing the gavel and making any motions, but it just seems to me like we should be the ones doing it if it's not that big of a deal. And I get what they did years ago. There's a lot of things done in Hillsborough County years ago for all kinds of reasons I'm not going to bring up here. So, you know me, Ms. Ornita, I'm a person who likes to have my ducks in a row and follow what it's supposed to be. I'm not with all this backroom stuff and sleight of hand. Like, I like to keep things straight and in the queue. So, that's, you know, that's just my thought on it. If it doesn't change anything, then I think this board should be the one to do it. So, just a personal opinion. So, I may need to ask Sophia and Michelle to make sure I understand it correctly and am guiding you all properly about where to make the change if you want to do so. It looks like that would be in 3.9.1 where it says Planning Commission staff requesting a determination of consistency, and that would be changed to Planning Commission. There's also the site plan and development plan submittal, which doesn't specify that it comes to. Yeah, it shouldn't come to us. Yeah. That's not our purview. Okay. So, I think it's just, but I'd like them to verify if you don't want to. Yeah. Yeah. This might not even go anywhere. So, like I said, I'm not passing the gavel. I'm just going to make my vote. I'm just one of many. And, you know, we do it the old Democratic way here. So, Tracy. Mr. Chairman, with respect to something that Mrs. Ornita said, if, and I'd have, I need to go back and look at the interlocal agreement as well if the board wants to go in this direction. But if there's a time limit that can't be met because you don't have a scheduled meeting, you would need to then schedule a special meeting to vote on this particular item in those cases. Okay. It's likely that it would result in some extra meetings for that purpose. Duly noted. All right. Are there any other comments, thoughts, questions from the commissioners? I'm done, so that's all for me. Not seeing any, then I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this one. Is there anybody out there? We're going to need a motion from somebody. No one's excited. Commissioner Lauk. You might end up passing the gavel after this one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we recommend for consistency interlocal agreement for school facilities, citing the concurrency for the city of Tampa. All right. We have a motion of consistency fined by Commissioner Lauk. Any questions, comments, or sorry, is there a second out there? Commissioner Bowden. Second a motion. All right. We have a motion of consistency fined by Commissioner Lauk. Seconds of that by Commissioner Bowden. Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners before we take our vote? I'm going to kick it over to the clerk because I already know I'm going to vote a certain way. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Yes. Jamison? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Kugler? No. Motion carried eight to one. Chair Joseph voted no. All right. Next up we have item 3B, interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, signing and concurrency for the city of Plant City. Again, the interlocal agreement outlines the requirements and procedures that are utilized in coordinating land use siting and development of public educational facilities. Between Plant City, Hillsborough County School Board and the Planning Commission. Again, this existing agreement was last updated in 2016 and is being revised and it proposed several amendments. It's important to note again that the Planning Commission is a limited party in this agreement and this will also be presented to the school board on July 28th. And again, I will focus on the changes applicable to Planning Commission and Planning Commission staff roles. But also included some notable general changes to the other party's responsibilities. And starting with the updates to coordination and review requirements. Again, the agreement revises the time frames for which Planning Commission staff provides data related to population projections, growth and development trends to the school district staff. It expands city coordination requirements for development tracking, infrastructure review, development approvals, subdivision activity, and building permits. It also creates a new applicability section identifying projects exempt from the portions of the review process, and the expansions of coordination requirements between the city and the school board for neighborhood, and school board public notices associated with future school facilities planning and site acquisition. And then some revisions to the procedures for the comprehensive plan consistency finding process. That clarifies again, planning commission staff responsibility for consistency determinations for proposed school sites, and coordinating with plant city staff during the review. City staff will continue to provide separate infrastructure and service reviews, while comments on the consistency determination will be attached to final planning commission finding. Expanded and clarified review responsibilities for the annual school board facilities planning documents, including the procedures for reviewing the annual educational facilities plan. Again, formally the five year work plan. The update primarily modernizes again the name and the framework, but we maintain the existing comprehensive plan consistency review role. Again, the agreement also formalizes the inclusion of school board comments in planning commission staff reports for comprehensive plan amendments, which memorializes the existing practice. And it also establishes the provision that the school board assumes the risk associated with acquiring a property post school site, which the planning commission has determined is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. And then lastly, the agreement includes revisions due to the updates of the state statutes, including the establishment of a preliminary consistency finding review process for each agency to coordinate, the location of new facilities, and then also just administrative and statutory updates to align with the interlocal agreement, to align the interlocal agreement with current Florida school concurrency and school siting requirements. And again, this staff is generally supportive of these changes and recommends that the planning commission approve the attached resolution, which authorizes the chair of the planning commission to execute the updated plant city interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, siting and concurrency. That concludes my presentation and we're available for any questions. Thank you. All right. No one signed up for the public comment on this one. So I'll turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions. I'm not seeing much excitement going once, going twice. I'll close the public comment on this one and open up to motions from the commissioners. Commissioners. I'll make a motion to find the interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, siting and concert concurrency for the city of plant city consistent with the comprehensive plan. All right. Motion of approval. Second. All right. Second by commissioner Lauk. Motion of approval finding by commissioner Link is second to that by commissioner Lauk. And questions, comments, discussions before we take our votes. Seeing any, I'll turn it over to the clerk again for a roll call. Bowden. Yes. Cardenas. Yes. Jemison. Yes. Coogler. Yes. Linkus. Yes. Lauk. Yes. Yes. Joseph. No. Thank you. Motion carried eight to one. All righty. Next up on our agenda, we have item three C, interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, siting and concurrency for the city of Temple Terrace. And the presenter is again, Sofia Garantiva. And hello again. Again, Planning Commission staff Sofia Garantiva here to present on the update to the interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, siting and concurrency for the city of Temple Terrace. And as mentioned previously, the interlocal agreement outlines requirements, procedures that are utilized in coordinating land use siting and development of public educational facilities between the city of Temple Terrace, Hillsborough County School Board, and the Planning Commission. The last agreement again was updated in 2016, and now proposes several amendments. It's important to note that Planning Commission again is a limited party in this agreement, and this will also be presented to the school board on July 28th. And again, we'll try to focus on those changes that are applicable to Planning Commission staff and Planning Commission roles, but also included the notable changes and general changes that are outlined in the agreement. Again, starting with the jurisdictional coordination requirements. Again, updated the timeframes for providing population growth and development data. Again, this went from once a year to quarterly. This is the expansion also of coordination requirements between the city and the school board for neighborhood meetings, public notifications, and school board meetings associated with future school facility planning and site acquisition. The agreement also expanded on requirements for city reporting on development activity to support long range school planning. And then there are some revisions to the procedures for comprehensive plan consistency findings. Again, further clarified the review process for the annual educational facilities plan. Again, formally the five-year work plan. Updated the name and the framework. And also included infrastructure considerations. But again, Planning Commission maintains the existing comprehensive plan consistency review role. Also, there was clarification on Planning Commission staff responsibilities for consistency and discriminations in coordinating with city staff during the review of the proposed school sites. Planning Commission staff, again, are responsible for reviewing the proposed school sites for consistency, while staff evaluates the infrastructure and service needs. Also, this includes the formal inclusion of school board comments in Planning Commission staff reports for comprehensive plan amendments. Again, which memorializes the existing practice. And also establishes the provision of the school board assuming the risk associated with acquiring a proposed school site that has been determined not consistent with the comprehensive plan. And then in terms of the review and procedural requirements, again, the agreement included an applicability section identifying projects exempt from portions of the review process. Again, these are projects such as temporary relocatables, minor facility expansions, and previously approved school sites. And lastly, the agreement includes the revisions due to updates to the state statutes. This includes establishment of a preliminary consistency finding process between each agency coordinating to coordinate the location of new facilities. And also updating statutory references, modernizing the interlocal agreement to ensure consistency with school concurrency and school siting state requirements. Again, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, which authorizes the Chair of the Planning Commission to execute the updated City of Temple Terrace interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, siting, and concurrency. This concludes my presentation. Staff is available for any questions. All right. There was no one signed up in the public comment for this one either, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions. Not seeing any, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners. Commissioner Lau. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I move we find interlocal agreement for school facilities planning, siting, and concurrency for the city of Temple Terrace. All right, Commissioner Jemisin. Second. All right, we got a motion to approve by Commissioner Lau, a second to that motion by Commissioner Jemisin. Questions, comments, discussions before we take our vote? Commissioners, not seeing any. Will the clerk please do a roll call vote on that one? Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Yes. Jemisin? Yes. Cooler? Yes. Laug? Yes. Steven? Sink? Yes. Joseph? No. Thank you. Motion carried 8 to 1. Sheriff Joseph voted no. All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Guarantiva. Good job. Work. All right. Next up, we have item 3D, appointment of the County Affordable Housing Advisory Board. Appointment to the County Affordable Housing Advisory Board. And the presenter is Melissa Zornita. Good afternoon. Melissa Zornita, Executive Director. Um, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to appoint a member to the County's Affordable Housing Advisory Board. Um, that serving in that role has been Commissioner Bowden for the last three years. Um, the term is a three-year term and, um, it is required by state statute that there's somebody, um, from the local planning agency serving on that board. Um, Commissioner Bowden's term technically expired on April 5th. Um, and, um, so, um, the Affordable Housing, uh, staff made us aware of this in June that there, that it had already expired. Um, so, in, with this agenda item, we would be looking for you all to make an appointment to that board and recommending that you also have an alternate member. Most of the other, uh, board members on this board have an alternate, um, to attend in their place. Um, I did want to make you all aware that there is a BOCC policy that, um, they have a moratorium on confirming any appointments, which is what they do with something like this. You all make the appointment and then it goes to the BOCC to confirm the appointment, um, and making any new appointments to boards 90 days prior to an election. Um, so, um, we have been told that this may not, will probably not be acted upon by the board to confirm your selections until November. Um, just given the timing of when they have board meetings. Um, but we think it is, uh, the right approach to move forward with making the appointment. We'll send it to the board and then if that policy catches it, that's, that is what it is. But, um, at this time it's up to you all who you'd like to appoint. All right. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one either, obviously. Um, so it's up to us to discuss and figure out what we want to do. I have a quick question for Tracy. Are we going to have to do like a written vote on this one too? Or can we just speak who we, okay. Was there any, well, does anybody have any thoughts or questions or comments before I go start spewing stuff? Well, I put it out there to see if Commissioner Bowden, are you interested in continuing on in that position or? Yes, I'm interested. Okay. Was there anybody else who may be interested in the position? Because we kind of tend to vote for this position, so I don't want to shortchange anyone who may be interested competing for the position. I have a question. Yeah. Who's the current alternative? We don't have one. We're going to have to pick one after this. Got it. Yeah. Okay, cool. Thanks. All right. Anyone going once, going twice, any other interest? All right. Well, it looks like we don't have to take the vote, right Tracy? Since there's only one person who showed interest, he automatically gets it or should we vote anyway? I think for a vote of consensus or a vote would be appropriate to confirm that. Okay, well I will turn it over to the clerk then for a roll call vote on whether or not Commissioner Bowden will be agreed upon. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Yes. Jamison? Yes. Coogler? Yes. Linkus? Yes. Steven? Sink? Yes. Joseph? Yes. Thank you. Motion carried nine to zero. All righty. Now we will go over to, congratulations Commissioner Bowden and thank you for serving in that role for us for so long. So we will turn it over to the alternate. Do we have anyone interested in the alternate position for the county affordable housing board? Commissioner Sink? I can do it. All right, Commissioner Sink is interested in doing it. Anyone else who might be interested in alternate position. Again, just to be fair, all things are fair here. Not seeing much interest and I will turn it over to the clerk again for a roll call vote. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Yes. Jamison? Yes. Cooler? Yes. Linkus? Yes. Thank you. Motion carried nine to zero. All right, congratulations Commissioner Sink and thank the both of you for volunteering to do that for us. It's greatly appreciated. All right, we are done with our action items for our regular meeting, so we will go on to our briefings. And the first briefing is 4A PCCPA 25-07 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, south of Knights Griffin Road, east of Alexander Street. And the presenter is Krista Kelly. Thank you, Krista Kelly Planning Commission staff. Today I'm presenting to you PCCPA 2507. This site is located south of Knights Griffin Road, east of Alexander Street. This is a privately initiated future land use map amendment. It is a small scale amendment, approximately 46.5 acres in size. The site was annexed into Plant City as part of a referendum approved in January of this year. Although it was annexed, it still retains a Hillsborough County Residential One Future Land Use designation, and the applicant is requesting a change to Plant City Commercial and Industrial. This location map shows the amendment site in the northeast quadrant of Plant City, and it also is within the boundary of the city's northeast Plant City area master plan. The subject site is specifically located on the south side of Knights Griffin Road, east of Alexander Street, also known as State Road 39. The CSX rail line borders approximately 1,300 feet of the site's western boundary, and to the south and southeast of the site, it abuts the boundary of the Macintosh Preserve. This area shows the site outlined in pink, and the blue line delineates the city limits. As you see, the subject site is totally within the city limits, and everything west of Alexander Street is in the unincorporated Hillsborough County. The site includes a small office building and pole barn, and currently two businesses are operating on the site using the property for outdoor storage of vehicles, construction equipment, and business supplies. These businesses are visible along the property's furniture of Knights Griffin Road. The remaining land to the south is vacant. To the north and northeast, the land is predominantly used for agricultural purposes, and to the northeast and east of the site, the land reflects a mix of agricultural uses and rural residential home sites on large lots. Looking to the south and southeast, the site abuts the Macintosh Preserve. And lastly, to the west, the site is adjacent to the CSX Railroad and Alexander Street. And on the west side of Alexander Street, there is an established rural community with homes on large lots, and some non-residential uses including church and community centers. This is the preferred land use scenario, which accompanies and implements the northeast plant city area master plan. The subject site is outlined in blue. The future land uses envisioned for the site show the frontage portion of the subject site as commercial, and the remaining portion of the property as industrial. Lands to the north of the site are designated commercial and industrial, mirroring the uses on the south side. To the northeast and east of the site, the area is envisioned for residential 12 and residential 9. The residential 12 being on the north side of the street and residential 9 on the south. Macintosh Preserve is recognized and designated as parks, recreation, and open space to the southeast and south. The lands to the west and within the boundary of the northeast master plan shown as bright yellow are designated as residential six. These lands are portions of land, I'm sorry. As you know, there are blue hash lines that cover portions of the site along Alexander Street. This is representing the economic opportunities overlay adopted when the plan was updated in 2024. The overlay is intended to identify the future economic development areas. This is the adopted future land use map with the site outlined again in black hash lines and the plant city limits in blue. Within the city's limits, the site and area to the north, east and east, as noted earlier, were annexed in plant city limits by the approval of a referendum earlier this year. However, the area still retains the Hillsborough County residential one future land use designations. To the north, the land is designated industrial. The residential area recognizes approximately 400 acres of industrial PD referred to as the stalwart business park. This PD was approved and has entitlements for up to 3.2 million square feet of non-residential use. The wide area in the northwest corner represents or shows a submitted plan amendment, PCCPA 2505. This plan amendment seeks to change the site's designation to industrial for the purpose of incorporating these lands into the adjacent PD. To the south and southeast of the site, also within the city limits, the lands are designated parts, recreation, and open space, again recognizing the McIntosh Preserve. And lands outside the city limits to the west are designated Hillsborough County Residential One. Within the city limits, the areas to the north recognizing the stalwart business park, again show some areas designated residential one at this time. If the amendment is approved, this proposed future land use map shows the site designated commercial along the frontage portion of the site and industrial on the rear portion of the site. This slide shows the potential impacts from the proposed amendment. Currently, the site can be considered for up to 46 dwelling units, and up to 506,820 square feet of non-residential uses. If approved, up to 40 units may be considered, and 974,9308 square feet of non-residential uses would be permitted. The proposed amendment will introduce a potential for general commercial zoning districts, including C1 and C2, and light industrial zoning district M1, as part of the planned development. The proposed potential for residential use would be reduced. With this, I conclude my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Sink? I'm just looking for some clarification on one thing. On your slide that shows the economic opportunity overlay, I don't see a hash mark over the top of this one. So was that included in the overlay, or was it not included in the overlay? It was not included in the overlay. As you can see, it skirts around it to the north and south. Is that because it wasn't annexed at the time, or what was the logic on that? No, I'm not sure. Basically, they recognized it. It had a previous industrial and commercial use, and they just recognized it as a viable commercial and industrial site, not needing the economic development overlay during the update. Okay, thank you. All right, were there any other questions? Comments from the commissioners? Not seeing any. Well, thank you for your information. Look forward to this one coming back to us, and we will move on to our next agenda. Item 4B, TACPA 26-04 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 2410 North Boulevard. And the presenter is Megan McCarthy. Good afternoon, Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is the briefing for TACPA 2604, located at 2410 North Boulevard. This amendment was privately initiated, small scale, and is approximately 0.17 acres. The request is to go from a residential 10 future land use designation to residential 20. The subject site is located within the Central Tampa Planning District, as well as the Ridgewood Park neighborhood. This is an aerial of the subject site, with the subject site outlined here in yellow. The surrounding area is a mixture of uses, including detached single family to the south and west. Directly to the north is developing multi-family with commercial uses further to the north along West Columbus Drive. And to the east is a mix of single family attached and single family detached. This is the adopted future land use map. The subject site is shown outlined in black and is designated under the residential 10 flu category. The subject site is located directly south of the R35 flu designation as a result of adopted TACPA 2211 with R35 to the east as well. South and west of the site is the R10 designation, and further to the south is the R20 designation due to another previously approved plan amendment from last year, 2508. To the north along Columbus Drive is the CMU 35 designation. This is the proposed future land use map showing the subject site outlined in black under the proposed residential 20 future land use designation. This under the adopted flu of the residential 10, the site may be considered for one dwelling unit. The site could be considered for 2,591 square feet of commercial uses subject to locational criteria. Under the proposed R20 designation, the site may be considered for three residential development units and 3,702 square feet of commercial uses subject to locational criteria. The proposed R20 designation would result in the increase in residential density and commercial intensity and would allow for multi-family uses. Any non-residential uses would be subject to locational criteria which is expanded under the R20 designation. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners? Not seeing any, then we will thank you for the information and move right along to our next agenda item. 4C, TACPA 26-05 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 3541 North Boulevard. And the presenter is Quinn Steele. Good afternoon, Quinn Steele Planning Commission staff. This is TACPA 2605, which is a map amendment for 3541 North Boulevard. The request before you is privately initiated in small scale covering approximately 1.34 acres. And the request is to change the future land use designation from public semi-public to residential 3. Here's a general location map. The subject site is located within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Tampa Heights Urban Village, and the Tampa Heights neighborhood. Here is an aerial photo of the subject site, which is outlined in yellow, which is along North Boulevard. Historically, the property was owned by the City of Tampa and transferred to the Greater Showman's Association in 1971. The parcel is currently under private ownership. Properties east of the red dashed line are within the Tampa Heights Urban Village, while properties to the west are outside of the urban village and primarily developed with single family detached homes. Immediately north of the site is the Showman's Rest Cemetery, while Beth Israel Cemetery and Woodlawn Cemetery are located to the east and south. A church is located on the southern portion of the block here. Additionally, Calvin Taylor Park is located to the northeast and Plymouth Playground is to the south. This map shows the adopted future land use as public semi-public in blue. Showman's Rest Cemetery and Beth Israel Cemetery to the north and east, as well as the Radiant Church to the south are also designated public semi-public. Woodlawn Cemetery, as well as Calvin Taylor Park and Plymouth Playground are designated recreation open space in green. Properties west of North Boulevard are primarily designated residential 10. This map shows the proposed feature land use as residential three in yellow. R3 is one of the lowest residential density categories in the comprehensive plan at a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre. Under the existing public semi-public designation, there are no defined maximums for residential or non-residential development. It is determined by the surrounding area. Under the proposed R3 designation, the site could be considered for up to four units, and neighborhood office and commercial uses would not be permitted. The proposed amendment would introduce a low-density residential development pattern, and quasi-public uses would no longer be required on the site. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. All right, are there any questions, comments from the commissioners? I just have a thought. I just was wondering, that site is currently not being used, or is it, it's not a cemetery, is it? It's currently. It's just near the cemeteries? It was previously owned by the Showman's Cemetery, and the land transferred to a private owner. Okay. And they don't, are they going to have information on the history of the land when it comes to us, to make sure there's nothing weird going on under the ground out there? You may remember this came before you a few years ago in 2021 under TACPA 2113. They submitted a GPR study at that time. It is in the application materials that are on our website, and then the applicant can answer any further questions. Okay, very good. Commissioner Sink. Yeah, the question's very valid, and the neighborhood's very passionate about this. There's always been talk, and I don't know if it's true or not, of it being a potter's field, and that there's concerns that there are. In fact, it should be preserved as what it is, I guess, would be the feeling that I have heard in the neighborhood regarding that. Right. Commissioner Kugler. This way the memorial wall for the Ringling Brothers, or the circus, is as well. Correct. Right. Seems like everybody knows about this one. It's going to be an interesting one. Any other questions, comments from the commissioners? Not seeing any. We'll look forward to this one coming back. And we will move on to our next agenda item, 4D, TACPA 26-06, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 1860 East Fowler Avenue. And the presenter is Danny Collins. Good afternoon. Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. Today I'll be presenting TACPA 2606. So this is a map amendment located at 1860 East Fowler Avenue. The request is privately initiated. It's small scale in size. The subject size is approximately .63 acres. The subject size is currently located in unincorporated Hillsborough County. This is part of an annexation application that will be running concurrently with this plan amendment at council to incorporate this parcel into the city of Tampa. So currently it's recognized under the Hillsborough County Office Commercial 20 or the OC20 designation. And the request is to change the future land use to the Community Commercial 35 designation. If this request is approved and is incorporated into the city of Tampa, it would be included in the university planning district. Currently it's in the Hillsborough County University area community plan area. And it's within the Hillsborough County University area neighborhood. And it is shown here on our locational map. So here is an aerial map of the subject site and the surrounding properties. So you can see the subject site here. It's outlined in yellow. You can see this navy blue line that kind of runs along the southern border of the subject site. So that's the jurisdictional boundary between Hillsborough County and the city of Tampa. Hillsborough County is to the north and then the city of Tampa is to the south. Currently this site is intersected between that boundary. So this is currently a Walgreens pharmacy. And the northern portion of the building is within Hillsborough County and the southern portion is within the city of Tampa. The surrounding area as you can see is commercial in character. It is within a shopping plaza. This building here is a grocery store directly to the west. We have a bank. And then we have some restaurants to the east of the subject site as well as to the south and other commercial uses within the city of Tampa. Just to the east of the subject site is the western boundary of the University Square Mall redevelopment project which is over 100 acres. That is again just to the west of the, I'm sorry, to the east of the subject site. And then the subject site is just less than a mile west of the University of South Florida campus. So this is our adopted future land use map. The subject site is currently as mentioned designated as Hillsborough County office commercial 20. That designation is to the north and west of the subject site directly to the east within Hillsborough County. We have the innovation corridor mixed use 35 designation which is very similar to the city of Tampa's CMU 35, CC 35 designation with regard to the maximum level of intensity and the types of uses that can be considered in that. To the south along Fowler Avenue we have the community commercial 35 designation which is the predominant land use category found along Fowler Avenue. So here is the proposed future land use map. So this would recognize the site under the community commercial 35 designation. So that designation allows for medium density residential and medium intensity development. It allows for a range of uses from residential to a variety of commercial uses up to a 2.0 FAR or 35 dwellings per acre. So currently under the OC20 designation the subject site can be considered for 12 units or just over 20,500 square feet of non-residential development. As proposed under the community commercial 35 designation the site could be considered for up to 22 dwelling units or just under 55,000 square feet of residential or non-residential uses. The request would increase residential and non-residential development potential while also broadening the types of non-residential uses that can be considered on the subject site. With that, that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Any questions from the commissioners? I did have a quick question myself. So the site is in Hillsborough County but it's getting a Tampa land use. Right. As I mentioned earlier it's part of an annexation application that will run concurrently when it goes to Council in September. Okay. Are we looking, Ms. Ornita, is the agency trying to clear up that boundary with those properties being half in, half out like that? I mean. The Fowler vision plan called for there being a uniform land use pattern along that corridor. But the issue of annexation would really have to be initiated by the city if they wanted to annex other properties or just let it happen by voluntary annexation like this one. Okay. I mean I think the land use is good. I have no problem with that. It just seems like a, you know, Scrivener's error in the mapping that kind of should get cleaned up in some sort of way there. Yeah, it happens all along the corridor and I think there are some agreements between the city and the county about how things like permitting and things like that occur today. Okay. I'm not getting in between the city and the county so that's fine with me. That's good enough. Are there any other questions or comments from the commissioners? I'm not seeing any. Well, thank you for the information and we will look forward to that one coming back and move on to our next agenda item. 4D, 4E, sorry, TACPA 26-07 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 1302 West Swan Avenue and the presenter is Emily Phelan. Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. This is TACPA 2607 located at 1302 West Swan Avenue. This is privately initiated small scale. It's approximately 0.19 acres and the request is to go from residential 10 to neighborhood mixed use 16. The subject site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Hyde Park Urban Village, the Hyde Park Local Historic District, and the Hyde Park Preservation Neighborhood. This is an aerial of the subject site. It's outlined in pink and it's along West Swan Avenue which is primarily a mix of commercial, residential, and office uses. Further to the west is Hyde Park Village. There is a place a village is assimilated directly to the north of the subject site. To the south are single family residences as well as to the east here and offices are located on the north side of West Swan. This is the adopted future land use map. This subject site is outlined in black and represented with the residential 10 designation which does border the site to the west, south, and east of the site. And to the north is the residential 20 designation and then further to the west where Hyde Park Village is the community mixed use 35 designation. This is the proposed future land use map with the neighborhood mixed use 16 designation on the subject site in black. Under the existing residential 10 designation, the site can be considered for one dwelling unit and just over 2,800 square feet of non-residential uses if locational criteria is met. Under the proposed NMU 16 designation, the site can be considered for three dwelling units or just over 6,200 square feet of residential or non-residential uses. Non-residential uses would no longer need to meet locational criteria and FAR can be used for residential potential. Additionally, this amendment would introduce multi-family and some commercial general uses to the site. And that concludes my presentation if you have any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners on this one? Commissioner Bowden. I have one question I'm trying to find here. Across the street from that, I think it's a res 20? I have to open the presentation again, sorry. I think it's res 20 across the street from that. That's one. Located here. Yes, that's residential 20. Do you have an idea how long that's been res 20? No, I do not. I would have to look that up and I can come back with that information in August during the hearing. Okay. Another reason I'm asking because as I look at the different uses, it's a lot of res 20 around and then they're going res 16. So if it's relatively new, it could be a pattern, a trend that's actually coming into that community. So that's the reason I'm asking that question. Okay. I don't think we've had any recent plan amendments along this corridor, but I can certainly look that information up and come back at the hearing for that. Yeah, I was curious as to the NMU 16 too. It just seemed to pop up in there out of nowhere. I was wondering why it didn't go res 20. Does it have to do with the commercial locational criteria or are we too early on that still? Well, the locational criteria does come at the time of permitting and the rezoning part of it. From conversations that we had with the applicant, it seems like they wanted the NMU 16 to just get a slight bump in the FAR, which still would be higher than the res 20 designation. But, I mean, we can certainly circle with the applicant and have them answer that question in more in depth. I can only answer with what we know. All right. Thank you. Were there any other questions, thoughts or comments from the commissioners on this one? Not seeing any. We'll thank you for the information. Look forward to this one coming back. And we will move on to our next, our final briefing for FTA CPA 26-08 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 4707 East Henry Avenue. And the presenter is Megan McCarthy. Good afternoon again, Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is the briefing for TACPA 2608, located at 4707 East Henry Avenue. This is a privately initiated amendment in a small scale, and is approximately 0.71 acres. The request is to go from a residential 10 future land use designation to residential 35. The subject site is located within the university planning area, as well as the northeast community neighborhood. This is an aerial of the subject site, with the subject site shown outlined in yellow. The surrounding area is predominantly single family detached, with scattered public and quasi-public uses to the north, south, and west. Directly to the south is developing multi-family, and to the east is a mix of commercial and industrial along North 50th Street. Further to the south exist commercial uses along East Hillsborough Avenue as well. This is the adopted future land use map, showing the subject site under the adopted residential 10 future land use designation. The subject site is located directly north of the R35 designation, through adopted TACPA 2102. Further to the south and west of the site is the R10 designation. And additionally to the south and east along 50th Street and Hillsborough Avenue exists the community commercial 35 designation. To the north is the jurisdictional boundary between the city of Tampa and unincorporated Hillsborough County. Beyond this exists the unincorporated Hillsborough County residential 6 future land use designation. This is the proposed future land use map, with the subject site shown under the proposed residential 35 flue designation. Under the adopted flue of residential 10, the site could be considered for seven dwelling units. The site could also be considered for 10,836 square feet of commercial uses, subject to locational criteria. Under the proposed R35 designation, the site may be considered for 24 residential development units. And 18,576 square feet of commercial uses, also subject to locational criteria. The proposed R35 designation would result in an increase in residential density and commercial intensity and would allow for multifamily uses. Any non-residential uses would be subject to locational criteria, which is now expanded under the R35 designation. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions, thoughts, Commissioner Saint? I just got a quick question about the, is the street, does it, it's the weirdest looking thing. What happens there? Oops, I didn't mean to exit that. Yeah, I want to go back really quick. Just like go away. Yeah. Yeah, that's fair. Let me get this up. Okay, so North 48th Street shown here is the main access to the subject site. East Henry Avenue there, shown to the west, is unimproved. So it actually is not able to be driven through. So currently North 48th Street is the only access point to the subject site, if that answers your question. Kind of, so the- Oh, this portion here? Well, actually the northern street that's going east-west, which would be Henry. Is that, so is that city of Tampa land or? Correct, yep, East Henry Avenue is within the city of Tampa. Shown the border here, the jurisdictional boundary to the south is city of Tampa, and then north is unincorporated Hillsborough County. Got it, so the actual, that line jogs with the street essentially. Correct, there. Okay, got it, thank you. Yep. Commissioner Coogler. Hi, could you please go back to the first map? I think it showed the location within the city of Tampa overall. And I maybe read it wrong. That indicates a different area. If that is pointing there, I don't believe that's correct. It would be bumped over quite a bit to the east, yeah. Yeah, the area, oops, I keep exiting out my apologies. Yeah, I think I accidentally put the arrow pointing to the words rather than the, yeah, sorry. Probably over where these others start. Yes, so, yes, that's an error there. I did see it, right? Yes, yes, you did. I think that points at the words accidentally. Any other questions? Are there any other questions from the commissioners? Not seeing any. Well, thank you for the information. We will move on to our next agenda item. Item number five, our executive director's report. Status report contracts and other items. And the presenter is Melissa Zornita. Good afternoon again, Melissa Zornita, executive director. At your seats, you have a copy of my executive director's report, which highlights a number of activities that either myself or staff conducted in the last month. We've had a successful round two of the urban expansion area study in the I-4 corridor. And in the coming weeks, we'll have round three of the Little Manatee South area community meetings. So we continue to be out in the community on that project every month. Had a number of briefings with commissioners and other staff related to plan amendment hearings. One important note that I wanted to highlight was on June 10th, we had a meeting with the Department of Commerce and Florida Department of Transportation on the Tampa plan update amendments. And we made considerable progress in those discussions. We had provided previously two documents of information outlining our reasons for why we did not find these amendments to be more restrictive or burdensome. Based on existing statute, existing adopted plan policy, existing land development code. We had a great collaboration with the City of Tampa staff on that. And we found that the department, both departments agreed with us on all but two items. So there are two policies that they heard our justification and said they wanted some more time to think about. So those happen to be in the future land use section. And since that meeting, we have been awaiting their thinking some more about it and giving us some more information, whether they had additional questions. I think because of various vacations amongst themselves, we have not heard an update. We understand that the gentleman who's in charge of that will be back later this week and we're hoping to get an update on that progress. But we believe we've provided them with adequate information that these policies are not more restrictive or burdensome and are hopeful that they will agree with us. But the Tampa plan update kind of lies in limbo awaiting the conclusion of that informal process that they have us in. And there is no timeframe and statute of when they have to conclude those reviews. So we're at this time do not have certainty about when we will move that item forward to City Council for adoption or whether or not we need to take different action. We're hopeful we'll get that conclusion and know what direction we need to go later this month. Related, I wanted to follow up on an item that you all had asked for last year and we responded with a land use study of the Bay to Bay corridor from it was east of Dale Mabry Highway. And we have continued to work on looking at that with the City of Tampa and we would like to utilize that as a pilot example of the NMU categories in the city's plan being expanded beyond where they're allowed to be used now. That is something that is put forward in the plan update and so in order for us to use the neighborhood mixed use categories on Bay to Bay, we have to wait until the plan update is adopted. Um, but we, uh, and looking at it with the city, we think that provides the right range of uses, the right densities. Um, and so that is a bit on pause until we know what the timing of the update will be. Um, in the interim, we have started working on another corridor that you all asked us to looking at the 301 corridor, um, in unincorporated county just east of Temple Terrace. Um, and that is in addition to some of the, uh, proactive plan amendments that, um, we have currently underway in the unincorporated county along Causeway Boulevard. Uh, I think you saw a briefing on those last month. Um, those will be, uh, moving forward to hearings, uh, later in the fall. Um, another topic that we had a meeting with city of Temple Terrace on this month was the joint meeting that we have scheduled in August. That's on August 17th from four to five 30 at the lighthouse senior recreation center. And, um, uh, uh, really excited that we've gotten some great input on the Temple Terrace comprehensive plan update. Their, uh, visioning survey just concluded and they had, um, 1017 survey responses, which is really great for Temple Terrace. Um, and we, um, so the, at that joint meeting, there will be a discussion of those survey results as well as some, we hope, uh, discussion between you all and the staff. Um, and the city council on, uh, what you all would like to see in the updated comprehensive plan. The city of Temple Terrace staff did, uh, suggest that it would be beneficial to have a facilitator for that discussion. Um, uh, and so we would like to request, um, a small addendum to the current contract for the Temple Terrace visioning project. That contract is currently for $87,000 and, um, in order for them to, uh, that contractor has somebody in their team who can be the facilitator. Um, they would, uh, prepare a number of pre-meetings with staff, with the mayor, city manager, and our chair. They would prepare materials for the meeting and a meeting summary afterwards. And, um, it would be at a cost of $4,500 being added to the contract. Um, so I wanted to run that by you all since that is a contract that is over the $50,000 limit that I am able to administratively, um, handle. Uh, to see if you all were comfortable with that contract extension, uh, or addition. All right. We're going to have to take some sort of action on that. So were there any thoughts, questions on this additional $4,500 you say? Yeah. Mr. Lauk, I see you moving and clearing your throat. I was wondering if, given we're in the briefing section, would it be better if we did it under new business or old business? Uh, Tracy, no? I don't think it makes any difference as a practical matter. Yep. All right. Can I ask a question? How many, you said they're going to be meeting with several of us. How long are those meetings scheduled for? Half an hour, an hour? I don't have that information. Um, yeah. All right. I don't know. Commissioner Linkus? Um, I would be in support of this proposal. I know that they're very, um, small staff and don't have a lot of resources. And if they think this will be beneficial in this important process, I would be supportive of that. Other comments, thoughts on this one from the commissioners? All right. I will then close the public comment on it and open it up to a motion. We're going to need a motion to approve the additional $4,500. Commissioner Linkus? I'll make a motion to approve the additional $4,500 for, uh, facilitation for the meeting, the joint meeting. All right. Commissioner Lauk? Second. All right. We have a second to that motion by Commissioner Lauk. Are there any questions or clarifications needed by the commissioners? Before we take our vote, should I do a roll call on this one? Yeah, let's do a roll call on this one. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Yes. Jemison? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Linkus? Yes. Buck? Yes. Sieben? Sink? Yes. Joseph? Yes. Um, a couple of just other highlights, uh, our planning and design awards entries just closed last Friday. I'm happy to say we have, uh, 25 entries this year, which is on par with, uh, we're always in that sort of 20 to 30 range somewhere. Um, and just as a reminder, you should have a calendar, uh, scheduler on your calendars for October 29th at the JCC. So hopefully you can all join us that evening. Um, so that, that's progressing along quite nicely. We have some updates on some comprehensive plan amendments, the amendments for bird and sunken islands, um, in the unincorporated county, uh, were approved. Um, the, uh, rather controversial, uh, plan amendment to expand the urban service area and change the land use category in Lithia on Dorman road. Uh, the board of County commissioners voted to transmit that to the state for their review. Um, so we'll keep you posted when it comes back on what their action is. Um, in Tampa, the 46th street parcel assemblage is the property surrounding the Mosey site that was adopted, um, by Tampa city council. Um, and, uh, 2602 was a small parcel in Ybor on second avenue. And that was also approved by city council. Um, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. All right. Commissioner Saint. Yeah, just really quickly, just so I can better understand when the commission transmits to the state, what is, what's that process and what does it do? Sure. So that applies to any amendment that is over 50 acres in size or any amendment to the text of the comprehensive plan. And, um, so in this case, the state agencies will review that land use amendment because it was over 50 acres for if there are any impacts to state resources. That is typically their bar for whether or not they provide any comments. Um, so if there's a state roadway nearby or, um, some sort of state environmental resource, we might get comments, um, back from that. And then that those comments are taken into consideration by the board of county commissioners when they take their final action. Got it. So from a community input standpoint, does that mean if people are passionate about that when they show up to the hearing, they have to show up for ours, the first one, and then come back again? Yes. Okay. For a large-scale amendment, there are three hearings with the county, and that's the same for Plant City and for Temple Terrace in the city of Tampa. They have first and second reading. So if there's a large-scale amendment, there actually are four opportunities. Thank you. I appreciate it. Sure. Commissioner Lau. First things. Number one, thank you and the team staff for the, in advance, for the work in North County on Highway 301. Okay. It's been a hot minute since that was requested. So I'm looking forward to seeing what we have there. And the second, Little Manatee, the service urban area expansion. I'm seeing some things in the media. How has the engagement with the community gone to date? Can you give us a little bit more color on that, please? Sure. The, the community is very engaged. Um, they, uh, particularly the community just to the east on the other side of 75, between 75 and 301, is the community of Sundance. And they had, are an established rural neighborhood. And they, um, they were very engaged in the original writing of the Little Manatee South community plan. Um, 15 or so, maybe more than that years ago now. Um, and continue to be very engaged. So their major concerns are, um, how development on the west side of 75, and particularly the potential for an interchange, um, will have impacts on their neighborhood. Like cut through traffic, changes to flooding and drainage patterns, and, um, some of the environmental lands in that area. Um, so, uh, we're definitely getting a lot of input. We're also getting input from the landowners who are within that, uh, that area west of 75 over to 41 about what they would like to see. And, and trying to balance that. This next, uh, round of input, they will be presented with, uh, three different potential development scenarios for what the master planning could look like. And get to weigh in on that. And, uh, then there will be a final round where they get to see the consultant's recommendations. All right. Were there any other questions, comments, thoughts for our executive director on any of this? Not seeing any. Well, thank you for the information. Thank you. And we will move on to our next agenda item. Number six. Business. Other business. Chair's business. I have none. Old business. We have public comment time limits. We need to make a decision on. Um, hopefully everybody had a chance to look over the information in the packet. And everybody remembers our discussions about speakers, breaking up the time, how we kind of wanted to handle that. Obviously, Commissioner Kona isn't here to spearhead that conversation anymore, but it's still incumbent on us to make some sort of decision, whatever that may be. So, did anybody have any questions, comments, thoughts on what they would like to see done? Seeing a lot of excitement here. Oh, Commissioner Bowden. Well, uh, after receiving this data about, you know, the number of speakers that, that, that, uh, were actually beyond, you know, when we had 11 to 20 speakers, the number was so low. And then the, the occurrence was so, uh, limited. It doesn't look like it's really an issue when you, I mean, when you look at it, even though I know we've all been here, you know, late nights. But it's not like it's every, I mean, I forget how long the timeframe, well, five years. And you showed it actual occurrences, you know, does it warrant actually taking any action or changing anything? That's my thought. And then if we were to change something, then I guess it would be maybe we decide to maybe, if it's a huge number, one would be maybe, say, go two minutes per person. If the, if the count is like 25 and up, that would be my thought. All right. Commissioner Lau. Completely concur, Commissioner Bowden. In God we trust, everybody else needs to bring data. And I think the data is pretty revealing when we look at it. And we had 15 agenda items with 11 or more, or I guess 11 to 20 speakers since, what, 2021 moving forward. So to me, it's kind of a non-issue. I think we were all a little burned out when this topic first came up a little bit. Maybe survivor's guilt, or I don't know what the proper psychological term is. But I think the data is pretty clear. I would lean towards keeping the comments, public comments set as they are today. I think it's valuable to hear from the community, sometimes as long as it can be for us. I think it's a rarity when we're here past ten. All right, Commissioner Sink. Same sentiments. I'm always wondering if it would be worth having that conversation when we see there's like 20 people out there and saying, hey, as a group, understand. If we hear redundancies, like if you see three of your neighbors say the exact same thing, we understand it, right? So kind of leading them to the outcome of, hey, you don't need to spend your full time up here because we've heard it from the other five for you, right? So just as like a friendly reminder of like, we're all volunteers. We're all here to hear you, but there's not necessarily need for them to be redundant over and over and over on it. Just as a reminder to the public. All right. Commissioner Jemison. I would agree, but I'd also keep in mind that we're coming into a time throughout the area, whether it's in Planned City or South County or whatever. There's a lot of more anti-development sentiment coming, so that's something to consider as well. So I'm just saying it may, those numbers may rise. Yeah. All right. Any other thoughts or? Oh, sorry. Commissioner Cardenas. A couple of things. One, you know, a couple of some of these longer ones, what stood out to me is communication isn't getting through to people correctly, right? So like when we have that Brownfield designation and we had the woman come up with a box and it's beeping and stuff like that, you know, they're not realizing, they're not realizing that that's being monitored. There is stuff going on. And I think that in that same context, I don't think that the community really knows who we are and what our role is. I don't think they understand that we are, we're not representing them and we're considering them and we're part of that process. But I don't know if that's being properly communicated to them because oftentimes when they come before us, sometimes it's an opposition that's coming before us where if they understood that we are from their own communities and we're a representation of them, it would maybe be different. And then I think that if we communicated that better at that same time, we could also do a better job at limiting this and saying, hey, as a group, you guys have X period of time in something like this. I think it would be much more well received if we communicated better. All right. Commissioner Kugler. I think looking around our group, quite a few intelligent people here. And the repetition, my concern is we make the best decision possible. And being worn out and tired out is not the best place to make a decision. So I'm thinking that perhaps we can modify the terms so that we get the – we don't need to hear the same message 30 times. We get it. We understand what they are. And perhaps there is a way to help have people – I don't know if they – in some places they'll have you fill out a cue card ahead of time, but what's your main point, and that helps us then assess where we can draw the line on some of these. Because we – the repetition isn't needed. We understand the environmental pressures. We understand the fact that change is sometimes difficult to take and, you know, how do we balance change with neighborhood stability and things like that. So I don't know if there's a way to manage it, but I think it's important for us to stay alert and not get worn out by the – the really late nights where decision-making isn't as good for the public. That's all. Commissioner Bowden. Yeah. And I agree with that. And being a – working with a community plan some years ago, one of the things we did, we had hundreds of people that wanted to comment, but we asked them to put it in writing, maybe go on the website or something like that. It still became – people had an opportunity to be heard, and it also became public information. So I think that somehow giving back – I guess it's part of the communication piece. And also, I don't know what – building it in that it would be, you know, letting people know that it will be heard, it will be documented, but instead of taking three minutes, write a note or something. And it also – it will maybe save people having to drive from wherever to do it as well. Right. I have two thoughts that I'll throw in there at this point. My first is – kind of leans to what they're talking about there, Ms. Orneda. My question for you was, we kind of talked about maybe adding a checkbox to the sign-in sheet where people could check for or against or trying to figure out some way they could put that down in writing. I didn't know if that had advanced any or how that was coming along. It has not, and – but we are working on it. Okay. Yeah, I think that would go a long way to – if someone could just, you know, show their opposition. They might not want to actually speak, so that might cut down. My other thought of the two thoughts that I had was I definitely always want to hear from citizens. That's my predilection. You guys have known me. I've been chair for a while, and I just will let them go if they go. But there's also, for me, kind of an issue of the applicants, you know, and balancing. I guess as chair, I'm always trying to balance what's fair for everyone. So in that respect, I kind of think that it wouldn't hurt. And also, I like to be proactive. So I still kind of lean towards what Commissioner Kona had introduced, that we should set up some sort of trigger. Now at this point, you know, to also give credence to what Commissioner Jemison said, rather than going forward and having something pop up again, and then when we're disgruntled and tired, we try to make the decision then. You know, while we're rested in good spirits now, I think it might be good to set something up, whether it's, you know, after 20, after 15, after however many people to trigger some sort of change so that that's setting in place, you know, going forward, rather than having it creep up on us again. So my predilection would kind of be to figure something out. Again, we take a vote. This is a democratic process here. We all have our opinions. So, but I would still lean towards trying to set something up if we could, you know. Just me. Commissioner Bowden. Yeah. Kind of like you're talking about changing that form. Maybe in that form, for or against, and then actually maybe another little box, and I know a lot of boxes, do you really want to speak? And that way you can look at that sheet. You may have 50 people, but 10 only want to speak. So that may be something to consider as well. We have that box. We see that now, whether or not they want to speak. They all usually want to speak when they speak. So, yeah, there's a few who say they don't want to speak and they don't speak. And sometimes we even get ones who put that they don't want to speak, and by the time they get in here, things have gotten so exciting that they've changed their minds and they now want to speak, you know what I mean? So, but yeah, we currently do have a do you want to speak or do you just want to listen in box right now. So, any other thoughts, questions, or comments? Commissioner Linkus. I was just going to say, I think you do a fantastic job, Chair Joseph, about reminding folks if we've already heard the same points and managing the crowd pretty effectively. And I guess because I do think you do a great job of that, I'd be inclined to, and with this data, leave things as is personally. I think that it's an important part of the political process to let folks have a voice. All right. Well, it'll be this board's decision. So, do we need to take a vote on it? Should we take a vote on it? Is that the motion of some sort or what do we need here? If there's no motion. Then it does. Then I think it would just die, yes. Okay. All right. Well, I'll just put it out to see if anybody has any more comments or thoughts or questions on it. I'm not seeing, then I'll close the public comment on this and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. I'm not seeing action from any Commissioner Kugler. I don't know how to word this quite perfectly or even half perfectly. But I would make a motion that we move forward with an effort to manage meetings when we have vast amount of public input that can be very repeated. And that may be something that's in your hands. We've heard that one. Please line up behind that person if you're in favor of that. Just so we have a count. If you're in favor of the preserving of the natural land here, please line up behind that person. However you manage that, I don't know. But I do recommend that we move forward with something that will help in extreme situations. We do currently have that. I am able to, at any point in the meeting, say something like, OK, well, we've heard from five, ten people. Does everybody who's for it stand up? Everybody who's against it stand up? I've done that in the past, too. The only issue is that people will do that and then they'll still get excited and want to come up and speak. Because, you know, they're excited. They're here. It's their chance. They're 15 minutes of fame to speak. So they'll stand up and they'll say that their piece, their point, we can see who they are. But they'll still want to come up and say something anyway. So once they get excited, we kind of have to go by the three minutes per person at that point in time. But there are mechanisms in place for me to try and get them to just stand up and show and not speak. But we can't prevent them from it. Commissioner Cardenas? I mean, considering the different types of things that come before us and the way that things can be perceived, it makes sense that we have to come up with a standard that, OK, if we have ten people, it turns into two minutes. If we have 15 people, it turns into this. And if we have 20 people, it turns into this. And that way there's a standard format instead of, you know, we have a situation, it comes up and you make a decision on something. Well, then somebody else later on can say, well, he didn't like this, so he did it like this. You know what I mean? That's not fair to you. So we have to establish a standard so that this is just how it goes. And maybe it makes sense to have staff come up with a couple different options. And I think in one way or another, it should be something that just kind of formulates to a set amount of minutes. And depending how many people it is, it just breaks it down. And then, you know, if it's over 15 people, OK, well, you guys can allocate your minutes towards two people, five minutes each. Or, you know, three people, five minutes each. And then that way it's a little bit more of a standard, I think makes a lot more sense. Even then, oftentimes I think people, even with the three minutes, it doesn't feel like enough. A well-spoken person that's well-organized, three minutes may not feel enough. And if you have a good group of people and they've got a couple people that can really put something well together, you know, a good five-minute presentation or three of those or four of those would do 20 minutes instead of hearing so-so presentations from X number of people. Well, I've always been against that because then we've got to kind of keep track of things. And there's always questions of, you know, somebody will say they're giving up their time and then they'll come back afterwards and be like, oh, well, they didn't say it how I wanted it to be said and I still want my three minutes. I'm entitled to my three minutes. So we can't really have people sign contracts on the floor in here, you know. And there's a lot of wheeling and dealing that then staff has to do to be able to count, you know, this person had five minutes and 30 seconds and they decided to give, you know, their other 30 seconds to this or that person. So it gets a little wiggly when you get down to, you know, sharing your time and stuff like that. It's a lot cleaner to just be like, okay, everyone has two minutes, everyone has a minute, you know. Yeah. That's why we're kind of trying to look at it that way as opposed to sharing. So I guess there's not a way to set a standard. There's not a way to set, hey, this is just what it is. If it's more than, you know, you guys all have three minutes a person up to ten people. And then from that point forward, and it's just, it's not something that you say or that somebody says, it's just, this is what it is. Hey, you guys have 15 people, you guys all want to speak. Well, instead of doing that, you guys can split it up in this chunk or in this chunk. And it's just something that, it's part of the Planning Commission. It's part of the way. So, yes, there were examples, and it's been a few months since you all had that information in your agenda packet. So, there was an example from Orange County where they, if they have ten or fewer public comments, they do three minutes. If it goes from, if there's 11 to 15 people, which maybe based on your data might be 11 to 20 people, it goes down to two minutes. And then above that, down to 90 seconds. So, they have that spelled out in their bylaws or rules of procedure, whatever they call them. And then there were some examples of other communities that if a person represents five or more people, they got additional time. In one case, they were allowed up to 10 minutes if they were, had five or more people. But, I mean, the Chair is correct that I have shared watching the experience at City of Tampa where they allow other people to use their time, and then they have to keep track of are those people sitting in the audience. There's a lot of logistics associated with that that the City Council Attorney does. And so that is the downside to that is that you have to keep track of it and make sure the people are really in the room, that they didn't just get like a phantom person who, you know, to sign off on something. So, but yeah, those two approaches are found in other local governments. And if you all want to, just as a reminder about how the bylaws works, once you say you want us to do an amendment on this topic and give us some direction about it, we will write up, you know, what the wording, working with Tracy, we think should look like. That comes back to the next meeting where you can wordsmith it some more. And then it would be at the September meeting where you would take the final vote on a change to the bylaws. Right. I'll just, oh, Commissioner Jemison. So is it a possibility that for people that we do limit it that wouldn't speak if they could, we could, someone else, what's on the public record, that their name was in opposition, that we would just have a list of the names that didn't get to speak, say, list off their names, and then that they're in opposition to this, or a list of names that's in opposition. That way they're recognized publicly in this form. If we implement the checkbox on the signup sheet, yes, we could give you some sort of count of how many people or the tricky part is some people sign in in advance online, and then some people sign up in person when they show up at the meeting. So the online one, we, Daniel, who's sitting over there in the corner, sends it out to the chair and I, and certainly we could share it with the whole board in advance. But the in-person one, we would just have to kind of tally up. Right. Well, that's what I'm saying. If we limited it to ten, and there's 30 people, the other 20 people, they could provide a list of names, and these folks are in opposition, we could read off the names if they wanted to be publicly recognized. Well, we can't stop them from speaking. So even if we have 20 people, we could go through the first ten, but the next ten are still going to get to speak. We can't say to the next ten, you can't speak. That's not a thing. Right. Or if limited, or people that didn't want to speak, so. Right. Right. Oh, turn your mic on, yeah. Sorry. So we can't limit the amount of people, we can only limit time. Correct. Mr. Bowden? Kind of goes back to, we have to set a number, and they say at 15, then we say, we go to two minutes. Right. And staff could come back with recommendations on that, like Ms. Zornita said, put it before us, and then we could hash out, well, no, it needs to be 15 or it needs to be 12 and a half, or whatever we decide the numbers and the breaks and the times they're going to be. But they can put together something and have it back before us before we have to – because, again, it's a couple more steps before we make a final decision on it. Right. Yeah. That would be my thought, you know, just to create – have a number, and at that number, that's when we – and, well, normally it's announced to the crowd, to the group before we start – or at the time of the hearing, say, due to the number, everyone's going to have X amount of minutes. And also say, well, would you – you know, does anyone change their mind about actually speaking? Something like that. All right. All right. So we still have a motion from Commissioner Kugler advancing. Commissioner Kugler. Would this be a simple motion that we – get rid of my earlier effort. Okay. You're with Trump. You're with Trump, right. Trump myself. And have a motion that we – and ask staff to come up with a formula that they present to us at our next meeting that takes consideration of the general trends of the population, where the cutoffs can be, and come up with a tiered pattern of three minutes, two minutes, 90 seconds. And that we can then tweak at that point and move forward with an effort to contain the time factor for ourselves. All right. Sounds good. And thank you, Commissioner Cardenas, because you made the point that I've been trying to sneak around up here to not have it be on me the whole time. I think that's an important thing, for me at least. And thank you also, Commissioner Linkus, for your vote of confidence in the way I run things. Not everybody feels that way sometimes, though. So I need Commissioner Cardenas' protection for me sometimes. All right. So we have a motion to move this thing forward, have staff come back to us with some breakups of the time, to control the time per the amount of people. You're also going to look at getting that checked for or against on the form. Is there a second out there? Any? Commissioner Bowden? All right. Second. All right. We got a motion to move forward and a second by Commissioner Bowden. I'm going to go ahead and take a roll call vote on this one, too, just in case. Wait. Are there any questions, comments from the Commissioner? Clarifications? Not seeing any? I'll turn it over for the roll. Oh. All right. One more time, can we get a clarifier on what exactly it is that we're moving to? I know what we're moving from, but I'm a little foggy on what we're moving to. That's what staffs, we're directing staff to bring us back an outline of it. And in our next meeting, they're going to present at X number of people, it goes down to a minute 50. At X number of people, it goes down to a minute. And then we'll be able to make comments and tweak that, change that however we want to. And then after that, it'll come back to us in final format, and then we'll make the actual decision to change the bylaws. So we're directing staff right now to bring us those numbers and those. All right. Commissioner Cardenas. Is there a way to close out and say, if you're not registered by this time, that's it? That way, if we do have one, staff can organize that, talk to everybody, get that figured out, and say, hey, do you guys prefer to have one speaker or go down to time and set all that up so that then that's not changing if somebody tries to chime in later? We do now, but when people try to chime in, we kind of allow it if it's not a lot of them. It currently stands, I think, by noon. Do you have to have signed up for the comment or something like that? I think it goes till 5. Till 5 PM? Yeah. Daniel's nodding, yes. Okay. So, yeah. So it goes till 5 for the 5.30 public hearing. Right. But that's just the online submittal. People could show up at 5.15 or 5.25. But I think, Tracy, if we wanted to establish a deadline for even the people who walk in, we would be allowed to. Yes, you could. Mike, Mike. Yes, you could. The only problematic thing in thinking about it is oftentimes the hearings don't start right at 5.30. So if you say you've got to sign in by 6 o'clock, for example, the hearings may not start until 6.00. If we had a quorum issue or we're running along in the meeting and so the break comes later than expected, that's the only potential problem I can see with that. So does the cutoff have to be tied to the start time? Is that a requirement? No, but how else would you do it? Minutes before the meeting begins? Well, the scheduled beginning of the meeting. I mean, we expect the meeting to start at a certain time. If the meeting doesn't start at a certain time, it is what it is. And our meetings are consistently at 5.30, 5 o'clock. I guess my concern is if somebody gets caught in traffic because 5.30 is rush hour, shouldn't they be entitled to still say their piece? Commissioner Luck? I think this is the detail and the minutiae that staff should come back with. Okay. All right. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. He's correct. Like if somebody signed up during the day at 12 and then they showed up at 5.45, sure. But if they didn't sign up at all and then all of a sudden they're showing up. I mean, I think what that also said, in the same way that they are here to be heard, we're here to listen to them. And we're here also as volunteers and we're here to give our time and to serve them. But we've got to find a monkey in the middle that makes sense for everybody. And we've got to draw lines and somebody's got to do it. Sounds like it's us. The most practical solution may be to say the start time of that particular public hearing. The only difficult thing that I'd say with that is we don't know when that is and it doesn't provide staff the ability to organize and get organized for it. If we have to be here to do our time and they want to be able to speak, I mean, this is all community. You know, we're serving, they're here to be heard. I mean, if you end up starting at 7, well, it's at 7. Well, according to Tracy's logic, if we started at 7, they could sign up until 7. No, no, no. I'm saying if that particular item comes up at 7, we start at 5.30. Okay. That's when we start. Yeah, but I was thinking of item by item. You've got to sign up by the start of your particular item. Oh, okay. Yeah. I see. You know, that means somebody's got to keep track of that. And staff, or it would probably be staff, staff would go collect the people who have signed up from the podium at that point. And then it would be, that would be the circle of people who were going to be in, who have registered to speak. Honestly, I think it's been run that way without us really trying to. I mean, we collect. Yeah. I'll be in the middle of it. And then, you know, until once it starts, once we start an item and the item goes through, I don't think I've ever really gotten people who sign up after that. But up until those later items, someone shows up. It's like, if it's the last item and they show up and sign in, I get the sheet brought to me every now and then you see someone pop in behind us and hand me and Ms. Renita something. And that's what's happening basically. Yeah. Someone came late and so they, you know, signed up before the item started and we get it and I add them in. So we kind of have been doing that. I would just suggest that staff could, that's not an issue that like when I did the original research on how other communities handled this, I didn't delve into the timing of when they let, like how long they let people sign up. So we can do some research on that and come back with a recommendation on how to handle it. I do think there's some potential benefit in having it very clear for the public when they can sign up and what the deadline is. I think if it's a moving target, that makes it challenging for them. Yeah. I guess, is there something legally that we'd be doing wrong by setting that time? Because, again, to create, you can't create organization if you're not setting certain lines. And we've got to, we can't be scared to set a line, you know? I think Tracy might beg to differ. I don't know, I don't know that there's, that a reasonable deadline couldn't be set. I just think of times where, you know, if I were making a presentation, maybe I'm the presenter, but maybe I'm somebody who's visiting. If I were doing that and I knew I was sixth or seventh on the agenda, I wouldn't be here at 530. I'd come in later and allow for the meeting to have progressed. I might come in that early, but why would you just sit around if you knew that you weren't going to be up for those? So they might want to time it that way. And I think that could be fair in the context of, hey, you at least have to sign up online by 12 o'clock that day. If you come later, sure, but you, you know, there's got to be a way to work around that, you know, different types of things. Like if you just walk in last minute at 530 and you want to speak, well, everything's already started, everything's already organized. You know, people that care about this, they're paying attention. They're going to be here. We just have to make sure that we are telling them and we are providing that information on the website. They're getting that information and they're being told you have to sign up by 12 or you have to sign up online by this time. And it's suggested that you be here at 530. Fine, if you're here later, I don't know, staff can work out those details, but. Well, I still see Tracy's point. You can tell them they have to be here at 530, but if their presentation doesn't start until 730, then you're forcing someone to be here two hours before they, I mean, are you going to repay them for the time they could have been sitting in their office making money in their private sector business? And for that two hours, I mean, you know, so there is, there is that. I think Tracy does have a valid point that, you know, there are certain times when the meetings run long. Maybe we have a bunch of items and we got 10 urban service area expansion items, right? And you're the 10th one, and so you might not be here at 530 because you know that we're going to be talking for 20 hours. So, you know, you might time yourself to get here later. You could say sign up online, but we can't preclude necessarily people from walking into the county center and signing up to speak their mind in the county center. So, you know, I don't think there's a catch-all is all I'm saying. I think you, you know, you have to be careful. Well, I mean, I guess there's a difference if it's the applicant or an association to the applicant versus citizen. Well, everybody gets their chance, everybody gets their time. I'm not, we don't want to start differentiating and no, no, no, like everyone's equal here. We all get our time and we all get our say. That's germane to what we do here. So we don't treat the applicant, we try not to treat the applicant different from the way we treat the public comment. You know, everybody gets to do their speaking and voice their ideas and then we take all that in and then make our decision, so. I just don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to plan ahead, sign up ahead, be organized, you know, to a certain extent. You know, if we want to give a suggested time, I don't know. But I think staff can figure it out and I think we can just set some lines, communicate effectively. And I think it, I actually think it would be very good for the community if they did this more. Because they would get so much more out of it if they set up like one speaker that had a substantial amount of time to really communicate to us the real concerns. I think that would be, I think that would be to their benefit. All right, Commissioner Bowden. Yeah, well, as I was thinking through this, there are opportunities for people to sign up online. And then there should be an opportunity for someone to actually, if the deadline was 530. But you still had the vehicle, the capability to do a written comment so that it's still there to get, once again, to voice your opinion. And it can be there whether it's 7 o'clock PM or you do it at 530. So it doesn't necessarily mean you may, like you were saying, Tracy, is that I'm not going to come in. But you still have the opportunity to document the way that you feel. But there's a deadline, so it kind of puts a little bit on this onto the person to say that I want my comment known or heard. But I'm not going to sit there for two hours to wait and stand up and say it. So it's kind of like you can't have it both ways in a sense. You can't say I'm going to wait until I'll sign up when I get there at 7 and hope that you can get it in possibly. But the thing is that if you know you're going to wait until 7, then document it online earlier. And that way you're guaranteed that, hey, we would already have that documentation at that time. But I think everyone would have the opportunity to be heard. All right. Commissioner Wharton. I just want to throw in my two cents. I agreed with what was said at the very beginning that we already have a system in place that we should keep it that way even though I don't vote on this. Also, you need to remember the people that come in and say, I didn't receive a notice. My neighbor just told me today about it. I mean, that's something that you get a lot of when there's doing a land use change. All right. All right. Well, at this point, we're not making any final decisions, thankfully. So, Ms. Zornita, hopefully you've got enough to work with to come back to us with something. She's got more than enough at this point. I'll say it for you. No. I mean, you all may want to make changes to what we recommend, but that will get you something to react to. Yeah. Let's at least get the recommendation before us, and then we can have deeper conversations at that point. So, we have a motion to direct staff to come back to us with this document full of recommendations on how we want to move forward. We have a second to that by Commissioner Bowden, I believe it was. All right. So, Commissioner Kugler, Commissioner Bowden, and then I will, are there any questions, comments, thoughts? Any more from the commissioners? Not seeing any, I'll kick it over to the clerk for a roll call on this one. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Yes. Kevinson? Yes. Kugler? Yes. Linkus? Yes. Lauk? No. Sieben? I'm sorry, Sieben? Yes. Thank you. Sink? Yes. Joseph? Yes. Thank you. Motion carried eight to one. Commissioner Lauk voted no. All right. Okay. So where are we now? All right. Six C, new business. Oh boy. Okay, it's the attendance thing. Four year, 26 attendance. I think if we had a request at our last meeting, Commissioner Linkus asked for some information to be brought back on attendance at this board because we've been having some close calls with our quorum and we're probably going to be having some more now that Commissioner Cohn is gone. So she fortuitously saw that and made the recommendation that we should probably have a conversation about it and make sure that we all understand it's best if we can be here and if you can't to keep up communication with Ms. Ornita. I don't know if Ms. Ornita had any comments? I just wanted to mention that Commissioner Kona's vacancy will be vacant until probably January or February of next year. The Board Clerk, Board of County Commissioners Clerk indicated they will not advertise for his vacancy until after that moratorium is lifted in November. So we will be down a member for a while. All right. Did anybody have any thoughts or any comments or anything for discussion related to this item? Any further? Not seeing any excitement. Then I will close the public comment on this or close comment on this and move on to our next committee reports. Does anybody have any committee reports for us? Not seeing any. I have a committee report from the TPO Board. We had our TPO special or regular meeting, one of the two, back in June. Special? Was it a special meeting? Yeah. They all feel special to me, let me tell you. In the regular part of it, we received a crash mitigation and congestion management process report. We accepted that. We also received a local roadway resilience countermeasures report and we accepted that. Both of the reports were really interesting. The crash mitigation and congestion management process is a really technical report. But it was really interesting the way Dr. Wong and TPO staff looked at basically the roadways and congestions on the different types of roadway. And they were looking at a lot of interesting new ways of using the data to understand congestion on our roadways. I wanted to commend Dr. Wong and TPO staff. I thought it was, I didn't say this in the meeting because I knew it was a tip hearing and we were going to be there all night. But I thought it was a really innovative way they were looking at congestion management in the county. So I thought that was a really good presentation that they did on crash mitigation and congestion management processes. I'm looking forward to that being developed more at the TPO. As I said in our public hearing that night, we also did the transportation improvement program, the tip. It was approved with the removal of the 275 capacity improvement project. But it did go forward and the updated tip was approved. And those were the three major action items for the past TPO board meeting. Anybody have any questions, thoughts or comments, Commissioner Coogler? No comment about that, thank you. Okay. All right. Not seeing any, then I'll open it up for any more. Do you have a committee report? Yeah, just from the river board. Last meeting we nominated an advocate for the river, which is an annual thing we do. And my nominee did not make it, but they honored the Temple Terrace River Patrol. Oh, nice. Yeah, you don't always win them. You don't always win them, Commissioner Coogler. Take it from me. All right. Are there any other committee reports? All right. Questions or comments for Commissioner Coogler? Not seeing any? If you're on the committee, then that is the end of this regular meeting. Ooh, 527 PM. What time are we supposed to start our? So should we go 6? 6 PM. So 6 PM, we will come back for our first public hearing. And at 527 PM, this regular meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.