Welcome to a meeting of your planning commission, the official local planning agency for the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plan City, and unincorporated Hillsboro 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.

Happy New Year, everybody, and welcome to the January 12th, 2026 public hearing of the Planning Commission on Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

We thank you for attending this meeting.

Your comments and participation are encouraged.

For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room and turn off any devices that may be a distraction.

To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak.

Planning commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate that they would like to speak.

Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk.

There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments.

When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak.

Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking.

State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits.

If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at Plancom.org.

For those of you who are not familiar with our process, the meeting will be conducted as follows.

The agenda item will be introduced.

Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit.

The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit.

Following presentations, members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chairman.

Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person.

The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal response.

Planning commissioners will then ask questions.

Public comment will be closed.

Then upon a motion, a second and discussion, a vote will be taken.

Zoning conditions are not relevant to plan amendments and may not be considered by the planning commission.

That opening, I'll ask the clerk to please go ahead and call roll.

You have a quorum, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

All right.

So now we will start with our first action item 2A, ATCPA 25-01, comprehensive plan map amendment.

2002 West Highway 60.

And the presenter is Tyreek Royal.

Good evening, everyone, Tyreek Royal Planning Commission staff.

Today I'll be presenting HCCPA 2501 at 2002 West Highway 60.

This request is privately initiated, small scale map amendment with approximately 9.5 acres.

The request is to change the future land use designation from residential one to suburban mixed use six as directed by the Board of County Commissioners on August 14th, 2025.

The original privately initiated requests sought a future land use designation of Office Commercial 20.

The location of the site is in the eastern portion of Undercraper Hillsboro County.

This is within the rural area, a woodhood protection area, and not located within the limits of a community plan.

This is an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink.

It's located north of State Road 60, south of Mud Lake Road.

Surrounding uses include agricultural uses to the west and south, single family uses to the north, and light commercial uses to the east.

The road service area is located to the south uh west, and you can see it in blue.

This is a photo facing north towards the subject site.

And here's a photo facing south with the subject site being behind the camera.

And here's the east view of the property with the site being located to the left.

And finally, there's a west view of the property, and the site is being located to the right.

The site is in a residential one future land use category, allows for consideration for agricultural farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial, office, and multi-purpose projects.

Commercial uses are subject to locational criteria.

The site is approximately 1.7 miles from the urban service area, and the public quase public area is Midard Park to the southwest.

The parcel designated as Office Commercial 20 has had that future land use designation since at least 1999 and is conducting business as Evergates uh farming and equipment.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use category from Res 1 to SMU 6.

The SMU 6 allows for agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, light industrial, multi-purpose, and closet residential and or mixed use.

Office uses are not subject to locational criteria.

Onto the impacts, the change from residential one to uh SU6 would allow for an increase in development by allowing significantly higher residential density and greater commercial intensity.

The density of one dwelling unit per gross acre would increase to six dwelling units an acre, and the commercial intensity would increase from a 0.25 FR or approximately 103,000 square feet to a 0.5 FR or approximately 2006,000 square feet.

The following policies were considered by Planning Commission staff and evaluation of this amendment.

And planning commission staff has reviewed the proposed application and found it be inconsistent based on the goals, objectives, and policies of the unaccropriate Hillsborough County plan, including objective 1.2 relating to the development pattern expecting the rural area.

The rural area is intended intended to provide for long-term agricultural uses, large lot residential development, and undevelopment natural area areas.

The change to SMU 6 represents a significant shifts shift in intensity and character that's not consistent with the established rural development pattern.

The proposal does not meet intent of the flu objective 4.4 or flu policy 4.4.1, which require that new development be compatible with surrounding neighborhood in terms of scale, intensity, and character.

The surrounding land use pattern within this portion of the rural area is predominantly residential and agricultural in nature.

Flu objective 2.2 explains how the allowable range of resident um uses would be permitted in its respective future land use category.

The proposed amendment would significantly increase both residential density and non-residential development potential in the location that's currently planned for rural residential and agricultural uses, and therefore is inconsistent with the intent of objective 2.2.

With that, planning commission staff recommend that the proposed map amendment HCCPA 2501 be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the owner of Corporate Hillsburg County Comprehensive Plan.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have a presentation?

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Board Members.

My name is Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

Uh thank you, Tyreek, for that uh report.

This is HCCP 825-01.

Um, Mr.

Chairman and Board members, this is kind of interesting because we've already been to the Board of County Commissioners for this site very recently, and their remand, which is why we're here tonight, asked us to reduce the category proposed to SMU 6, uh, which of course we are happy to do.

So this has been to you back to the Board of County Commissioners seeking a lesser category, uh, and that is before you before this evening.

So a little bit unusual how this came to you.

Um, as indicated, Tyreek has shown you that the site is out in the plant city area.

This is as shown in your staff report, future land use map.

Now, interestingly enough, the business and the applicant and property owner runs a family trucking business.

They are in the agriculture support business.

So they are running Navarro produce from Texas to Florida.

They bring products back and forth primarily here.

They make weekly runs bringing agricultural products back to the county with multiple trucks.

So this is their family business.

Again, you can see from their trucks that they're in the agriculture support business.

They primarily bring the products back to Plants City Farm and Flea Market, which is actually one of the largest in this part of the state, if not the whole state.

They claim the largest in Florida on their billboard.

So when you look at the site and what's actually there in terms of uses, there is a Happy Pets pet uh boarding site next door.

There's a tremendous forest buffer to the north.

Further to the east is a church compound.

And next door, interestingly enough, which I'll go through some points with you, is a large intensive agriculture use, primarily farm and farming equipment.

So this is the daycare next door.

This is the um I refer to as a church religious institution.

Next lot a parcel to the east, which appears to be pretty busy.

And this is the site as the property appraiser has it.

So what's interesting, Mr.

Chairman and board members, is that the use next door is proposed to be really the same use we're proposing here, which is the parking and uh a site for vehicle parking.

That's the use that's proposed.

So when you look at the site next door and you can see that there's truck spark, it becomes kind of a disparity that on one side of the fence they can do what we want to do here, but we can't do it here because of the existing zoning uh situation.

So these are some of the vehicles and equipment next door.

We want to do that on the other side of the fence.

A lot of bureaucracy, a lot of mixture of issues and categories don't allow it.

We'd like to do the same thing.

Now, traffic counts, state Raw 60 at that point is very busy, 21,500 vehicles per day.

It is part of the uh state arterial principal artery artery uh in the county, and is also on the truck route under the Hillsborough County Commissioner's truck route plan.

So the roadway that they access on is a very intensive roadway.

Zoning plan.

I don't want to show them no zoning plans, Mr.

Chairman.

Now, I think one area that you've not heard from your staff is that there's an entire chapter of your comp plan for agriculture, which is a directive to support agriculture as a really high priority.

General considerations objective 5.1, recognition the importance of agriculture as an industry and valuable economic resource.

Hillsburg County shall promote economic viability of agriculture activities by recognizing and providing for its unique characteristics in land use planning and land development regulation.

5.2.5 of your comp plan.

Agriculture and agriculture support uses are the preferred uses in the rural area.

Now your staff did a fine report and they looked at it very closely, but you did not see these categories or these policies that tell you specifically that what we are proposing today is the preferred use in the rural areas.

5.2.4.

Agriculture-related commercial uses, more intensive or heavy than negative than neighborhood serving commercial, may be considered in the rural land use categories.

5.1.0.

Eight, support existing agricultural uses as an historical component of the community and their economic importance to the county.

5.1.1.

Encourage agriculture uses with and around such centers, referring to agricultural market centers, which they are deeply involved with on a weekly basis.

5.1.6 agriculture, agriculture-related uses shall be permitted again in non-rural land use categories as well throughout the whole county.

So while your staff looks at, with all due respect, the typical elements that do in terms of compatibility, there's an entire chapter that tells you that this is a priority.

This is a use that's important, not just to Hillsborough County, but economically and historically.

And I will tell you that we've been through three major hearings, must have done three or four public notices.

I don't recall a single person coming forward in opposition or having concerns about the issue.

So with that, Mr.

Chairman Board members, we appreciate your consideration and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

All right.

We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one.

So I will turn it over to our planning commissioners for questions, comments, thoughts, and discussion on this item.

Commissioner Kona?

We heard that this came to us before.

Can we go in into that a little bit?

Yeah.

So it went to the Board of County Commissioners originally as a office commercial use.

They sent it back because they thought the OC20 was too intensive of a use in the rural area.

We debriefed this with the Board of County Commissioners, and although they did send it back as SMU6, it's only because it's a less intense use.

They still commented that it's an intense use for the rural area during our workshop.

Mr.

Pressman, yeah.

With the greatest respect to Tyreek, they specify the county commissioners specifically remanded it back into this system and into the cycle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is that correct?

The county commissioners sent it back to us as wanting a SMU 60 on it.

Yes, um, they sent it back as opposed to Office Commercial 20 because it was a lesser intense uh future land use category.

Right, but they could have just denied it outright.

That's correct.

Okay.

Is that good?

All right.

Commissioner Kugler.

Yes, following up on Commissioner Kona's comments.

Um I saw that uh um agricultural code 5.25 was referenced.

I I didn't understand from the original plan that this was uh supposed to be promoting agriculture, but maybe I I misread the idea of the of the project.

And I don't know why that 5.25 agriculture was brought in because the change of land use looks like it's aiming toward uh housing and um office space.

Yeah, I think it's important to note that during these uh comprehensive plan amendments that we're looking at the specific category and not the actual use.

Um so we have to look at the entirety of what's allowable in the SMU six.

I think uh the applicant was trying to specify that agriculture uses or what the intent is, um which is already allowed in the residential one, the current future language category.

That's correct.

Mr.

Ornita?

Yeah, I I would just add that uh land uh uh uses that are agriculturally related and more intensive, typically the residential one land use category um allows uh up to a commercial general zoning district.

But if, for example, somebody uh wants to do like a tractor repair shop, that is clearly an agriculturally related use, and it's more intensive than what's typically allowed in CG.

That policy specifically allows that that can occur in our rural land use categories because that's the appropriate location to for it to be located.

So if the CI use as uh was only related to agricultural uses, like a tractor repair store would be, um, then it would be eligible to be considered another land use category they have today, um, just like a um tomato processing plant would be in Ruskin or something like that.

Um so um I think that perhaps, and maybe Mr.

Pressman can expand on this, some of the issue may be how the the use is classified in its zoning, that it needs the CI zoning to be a bit more broad than just solely agriculturally related.

You're you're absolutely correct.

And it in the direction of the zone, they must all say which you state in reports and such is that the Capan re zoning is a PD because it didn't fit specifically into that R1 category.

So we are forced to there was a idiosyncrasy in the code um about and I I actually looked at doing just a land use amendment to one of the rural categories, but it just didn't fit on this site.

We had to go for the PD and go for the direction that you just explained.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

So yes, typically we would allow an agriculturally related commercial intensive use to they wouldn't have to do a plan amendment.

They'd be allowed to just do a zoning.

But I think because there's some nuances to their use that might need a little bit broader than that, that that's why they ended up in this process.

Commissioner Lau.

Mr.

Pressman hit exactly on my question.

If you look at AR one through five, there are multiple opportunities for agricultural equipment storage, trucks tried uh trucks directly tied to farming, land management, or ag services, open storage associated with ag operations.

So I'm wondering why the applicant chose uh and remand the designation that is versus like one of the AR designations.

Well, let me clarify again, we didn't ask for the remand.

The board of county commissioners made a motion for the remand.

Um so I want to be very clear on that.

I I can't make remands, I don't make motions.

Uh the what you guys and the board of county commissioners do.

Um the best way I can answer without getting into zoning too deeply is that there's more than one use here, which supports the agriculture activity.

So once you get into more than one use, you can't do Euclidean zoning.

You have to do PD.

So we have a residence, and we have a small home office.

He asked the question so I'm trying to response.

Yeah.

In the residence.

Yeah, that's right.

And if you look at agriculture, I'm going by memory here.

If you look at agrals agricultural support uses, that was one direction we couldn't go, we could go, but because of the other ancillary accessory uses or virtual smaller uses, again, we had to go for the PD.

Okay.

The request makes sense.

Thanks.

All right.

Any other questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners?

Commissioner Lauk.

I'm not sure.

Did you get your answer?

How did we rule on this last time?

I'm I'm curious regarding that fact.

When it came to us, how did we believe it was found inconsistent for the OC20 as well?

Office commercial 20.

Yeah.

All right.

Were there any other questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners?

Not seeing any.

I'll just remind everyone if you are going to make a motion against staff.

Definitely want to have some policies.

Mr.

Pressman gave a good bunch of them.

Anyone wanted to use those?

Just saying.

Um I will see if anybody wants to say anything else or ask any questions, going once, going twice, not seeing any.

I'll close the public comment on this item.

Open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item.

Commissioner Kona.

Because it seems we've gotten some direction from the county commissioners.

I'm gonna make a motion that we find HC CPA 2501 uh consistent with a comprehensive plan based on objectives 5.1 and then policies 5.2.5, 5.2.4, 5.1.8.

All right.

We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Kona.

Is there a second to that motion out there?

Citing objective 5.1, policy 5.2.5, policy 5.2.4, and policy 5.1.8.

Do I have a second anywhere out there?

Commissioner.

All right.

Commissioner Lincoln, we got a second to that motion, a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Kona.

Second to that, a second to that by Commissioner Lincoln, citing objective 5.1, policy 5.2.5, 5.2.4, and 5.1.8.

Are there any questions, clarifications needed from the commissioners?

Again, we're voting for a consistency finding here.

So would all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

All right, we're gonna kick it over to a roll call.

Bowden.

Nay.

Kona?

Aye.

Kugler.

Nay.

Lincas.

Aye.

Lauk.

Aye.

Sieben?

Aye.

Joseph?

Aye.

Motion carries six to two.

All right.

Thank you very much, sir.

Next up we have item two C, because again, item 2B is being continued.

So item 2C, HCCPA 25-30, comprehensive plan map amendment, south side of 11th Avenue, Southeast, and East of 27th Street, Southeast.

And the presenter is David Hay.

Mike.

Good evening, Commissioners.

David Hay, Planning Commission staff.

The next item for your review is HC CPA 25-30.

It's located on the south side of 11th Avenue Southeast, and it's uh east of 27th Street Southeast down in Ruskin.

Uh the request, it's privately initiated, is small scale.

It's approximately 4.7 acres.

Currently, the subject site uh has a future land use designation of suburban mixed use six, and the applicant is seeking to go to the office commercial 20 uh future land use category.

Uh here we have a general location map.

It is located in the southern part of unincorporated Hillsborough County down in Ruskin.

It is within the urban service area.

It does fall within the boundaries of the Ruskin Community Plan and also within the boundaries of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

Here we have the aerial of the site.

The subject site is outlined in yellow.

This is 11th Avenue Southeast.

You've got East College Avenue to the north.

This is the interchange with I-75, which you can see down here running north-south basically.

This is 27th Street Southeast.

This is the main roadway that gains access into 11th.

This is a dead end road.

This is the Moffitt South Shore campus that was just been completed.

This surrounding area, there's a mixture of residential uses, larger lot, and then mobile homes on the south side.

There is a non-residential auto use located to the north.

That from our records seems to be non-conforming because it's AS1.

Then you've got additional residential further to the west.

Here we've got some pictures of the subject site.

Here we're looking southeast into the subject site from 11th Avenue Southeast.

Now we're looking southwest toward the adjacent residential uses, that's the mobile homes.

The subject site is located out of frame on the left, so it's just over here.

Here we're looking northwest from 11th Avenue Southeast toward uh the AS1 zoned property.

The subject site is located behind, kind of on the left.

Here now we're looking west down 11th Avenue Southeast toward that 27th Street is in the distance.

This is the subject site on the left.

Now we're looking northeast from 11th Avenue Southeast.

The subject site is located out of frame over here on the right.

And now we're looking southeast again from 11th Avenue Southeast.

The subject site is located in the distance down here on the left.

Here we have the adopted future land use map.

You could see the subject site and all the properties around it are designated that SMU 6.

That allows residential and commercial, even some light industrial is permitted through PDs in the SMU 6.

This right of way is unimproved, this north-south right of way, so the only access is from 11th Avenue Southeast and 27th.

To the east around the intersection, this darker kind of pink is that community mixed use 12 future land use category.

South of 14th Avenue Southeast, it goes down to the residential four.

The blue line here is the urban service area, so all this property south of this line is within the rural area, and then we do have some residential one tucked down here in the corner.

So here's the proposed future land use map.

You can see the subject site changes to that office commercial 20 future land use category.

The closest office commercial 20.

There is some on the other side of this interchange off the map, kind of up here, closer to Sun City.

Again, this road does not go through, even though it's shown there.

Now we have the overall impacts under the existing SMU 6.

The subject site can be considered for up to a maximum of 28 residential units, or maximum non-residential development up to approximately 102,000 square feet.

Under the proposed Office Commercial 20, that development potential increases.

The maximum residential potential goes up to 94 dwelling units, and the potential non-residential increases to 153, approximately 153,000 square feet.5 to a.75 under the Office Commercial 20.

Light industrial uses, which can be considered under any proposed planned development at the zoning stage under the existing SMU 6 would no longer be allowed to be considered under the Office Commercial 20 future land use category.

We did get some agency comments.

Did note that based on the traffic analysis, there will not be adequate capacity on four of the five analyzed impacted roadway segments to accommodate the additional trips generated by the proposed flu in the future scenario.

That's included within your agency comments section of the report.

And the school board did comment that there seems at this time to be adequate capacity at the existing designated schools within the area.

While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request.

Though the request is related to several general policy, staff found two main areas of inconsistency.

First, staff finds that introduction of Office Commercial 20, future land use category at this location at the end of a local dead-end residential road, poses potential compatibility issues and is inconsistent with several policies related to neighborhood character and overall compatibility.

The existing SMU 6 category is designated as suburban land use category in the adopted comp plan and surrounds the site on all those four sides.

The Office Commercial 20 is an urban designated category.

The nearest urban designated land use category is that community mixed use 12, which is approximately a thousand feet to the southeast of the subject site, and also located near the intersection of Interstate 75 and College Avenue.

Additionally, though the Office Commercial 20 category removes consideration for light industrial uses, the remaining parcels along this portion of 11th Avenue Southeast will retain consideration for light industrial uses through the remaining adopted SMU 6.

So the staff's finding is that the removal of the potential light industrial uses would have minimal impact on the overall development pattern along this portion of 11th Avenue Southeast, because all other parcels would be allowed that consideration.

What staff found more significant is that the proposed Office Commercial 20 allows consideration of multifamily developments with up to 20 dwelling units per acre.

A potential multifamily project at the end of this local roadway would significantly impact the area, such as increasing traffic on the existing larger lot single family detached residential pattern along this portion of 11th Avenue.

Moreover, the overall building massing could pose negative effects as most existing structures on that portion of that roadway are single story.

For the record, there is a related uh rezoning with the applicant seeking a CI zoning district, which under the current SMU 6 designation could be considered on site but would require a planned development to demonstrate mitigation measures that reduce impacts on surrounding residential uses.

The requested Office Commercial 20 removes that requirement for a planned development.

Since CI uses are currently permitted to be considered through a plan development, and the overall existing density under the SMU 6 category aligns with the established development pattern along this portion of 11th Avenue.

Planning Commission staff on the request of Office Commercial 20, which increases overall density and non-residential square footage again at the low end of a local dead-end roadway.

But it also removes the requirement to demonstrate mitigation measures by requiring a planned development at the rezoning stage could potentially create negative impacts on those residential uses located west of the subject site.

In regards to the community plan, the Ruskin Community Plan supports economic development that reflects the community's character.

Staff found the potential for a multi-story, multi-family development at an urban level of density would not be in character with the existing larger lot suburban development along this portion of 11th Avenue Southeast.

Based on the adopted policy direction, Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed request be found inconsistent with the adopted unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have a presentation?

I believe so.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Board Members.

My name is Todd Pressman, 2002nd Avenue South, number 451, St.

Petersburg.

This is HC CPA 2025-30.

And as Mr.

Hay has indicated, this is a companion rezoning to commercial intensive.

So we are located in the south area of the county.

Request is SMU 6 to OC20 for approximately 4.7 acres.

You see that we located somewhat between Sun City Center Boulevard and I-75.

This is as the property appraiser has it.

And you see a little closer, we are at the end of 11th Avenue Southeast.

So on one side, as Mr.

Hay indicated is an unimproved roadway which connects to nowhere because it's a long stretch of unimproved wetlands to the east, dense forest station to the south.

Hay indicated, is an unimproved roadway which uh connects to nowhere because it's a long stretch of unimproved wetlands to the east, dense forest station to the south, and I'll show you some of the other uses that are going on in the immediate area.

Floyd Department of Environmental Protection shows the wetlands.

National Wetlands shows the wetlands at the site.

And the reason I I showed you a few slides of that is because I think one very important integral part of this request is that this is a very isolated property at the end of 11th Avenue South.

And we've had tremendous support from the media community, which I'll show you in a little bit.

So when you look down 11th Avenue, uh you see it's a dead end.

No other owners there that are operating except across the street.

That's an intensive category.

The entire area is SMU 6 and CMU 12.

So this is an area that is designated for very intense and operations that support SMU 6 and OC20.

This is a large area of intensive future land use category.

So the existing SMU 6 recognizes corporate parks, light industrial multi-purpose, which quite frankly is more than what we're seeking under the zoning.

I won't say anything more on that.

So we may be asking for a higher category, but I think it's critical and would ask you to consider that the existing area is designated as very intense.

Now the Planning Commission recommendation, and Mr.

Hay did re did did indicate some of this, that they analyzed all parcels located east of 24th Avenue, Southeast, south of College Avenue, west of 75.

And though there have been recent developments along Parcels front and College Avenue, those include Moffat South Shore campus and the extra space storage facility.

So these very intense uses, and he showed you those on an aerial, are moving in this area, following up on the SMU 6 and the intensity of not just this parcel, but the entire vicinity.

These are the two locations that Mr.

Hay referred you to.

Ruskin Community Plan under goal two refers to economic development to provide opportunities for business growth and jobs in the Ruskin community strategy.

Ensure there are appropriate land areas zone for office and light industrial development.

This would be an intensive site under OC20.

We believe that it meets this goal in the Ruskin Community Plan.

Now when you look at the uses in the area, directly across the street is Dixie Wrecking and Bowman's Wrecking, which are very intensive, which are very intensive auto vehicle storage, recycling, all types of intensive vehicle modifications.

You can see here, including a record service.

But I think what's critical, the second critical point, the first critical point is the intensity of the vicinity by future land use, also by the uses.

But third critical point is that we have substantial support from virtually any of the impacted or nearby or abutting neighbors.

And that is submitted to you by petition that were done door by door by the applicant, which really show you that when your report or your staff report indicates compatibility and cohesion or concerns about abutting owners, you have on record that they're supportive for the use.

So that, Mr.

Chairman, board members, we appreciate your attention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We only had one individual sign up in the public comment for this one, and that's Johnny Soap.

Yeah, three minutes, sir.

Um just just fortunate to have this overwhelming support of the community and what we're seeking there to exist.

Been there seven years.

Maybe it wasn't supposed to be, but we've been there seven years with zero complaints.

I got with him the day after I found out to because I don't know nothing about all this stuff up here.

So I got a hold of Todd here to help me through the situation the day after we found out.

And it's we didn't realize it until we stopped getting mail.

We called the post office and all, and that's that's what started it.

And then when uh code came out, they're like, oh no, man, this this don't fit.

And we addressed it.

Zero complaints for seven years.

And he showed you briefly right there, but we have we have a lot.

We we actually went past that.

We have them on 11th going on down and on the corner of 27th, the budding church.

Uh everyone's pulling for us so that we can continue to exist there as a cohesive.

And if I don't know if y'all have been down there to Ruskin, other than seeing what you see here.

This is different anyway, you know.

So but uh we're pushing through so I can stay in business, keep keep the guys I got going, and uh like it where I've grew up and everything else for years, you know, Riverview Ruskin area.

So I don't know what else to say than we're asking for your help and to consider what Tada showed you about you you have to look and go ask.

We if if you read the uh petition, I had no problem getting them all signed, other than catching some people at home.

And we have them going past 27th and on down, so we got a lot of support, and we got to step after y'all.

We just we're looking for your help and support today.

All right, I guess that's it.

Can you just say your name for the record, please?

Johnny Soap.

All right, thank you, sir.

Did you want to make some comments in response, Mr.

Pressman?

It is your desure.

I'll just say very quickly that um we've had the uh zoning hearing master hearing.

I don't know if there's one here tonight, but we've had no one's come forward in opposition.

I'm not aware of any letters or emails that I recall coming in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

In in opposition.

All right.

Thank you.

Now over to our planning commissioners for questions, comments, discussions of this one.

And I'll just remind everyone if this ends up in an opposition to what staff has found, the inconsistent finding.

We are going to need some policies, objectives, some kind of something to attach to it there.

So everybody be keeping that in mind as we go through our conversations here.

Ms.

Ornita.

Um I just feel compelled to reiterate that um the land use category that they have today, the SMU 6 allows the use they want to do.

So there they don't have to change their land use category to do this use.

Um I guess the I what the land use category change does is it does open up the possibility for 20 units per acre.

And um I I understand what the the applicant wants to do today, but we have to look at all the uses that can be considered under the land use category, and that's why since the lit the land use they have today allows what they want to do, we thought that was the appropriate land use category for them to have yeah Commissioner Kugler.

Yeah, thank you for that point.

That was great.

Um it sounds to me like uh it was perhaps from Mr.

Soap's um comments that it was an issue uh with uh code enforcement of some sort uh that he he risked uh having to shut down, and it sounds like um perhaps that was premature or something happened there that shouldn't have happened as far as code enforcement, and that that that was what spurred the idea of of going for another designation.

Was it a non-conforming use issue in this case?

Well, I mean that may be a question for the applicant, but I think the the question is uh what type of zoning remedy they choose to pursue.

Um, and maybe Mr.

Pressman would would choose because the SMU 6 category, they do because of the size of their property, they are required to do a PD zoning.

The office commercial 20 category does not require a PD.

Um, but you know, it's trading off 20 units per acre potentially for that.

But Mr.

Pressman may want to answer that.

That was my question for you that I was gonna have Mr.

Pressman.

Why not just do a PD?

Well, we had to make a decision on what to do.

And when you have multiple uses, that requires you can't do it Euclidean.

Um the uses that he had fit into CI, and then the the use that he was proposing and wanted to have do fit into the CI and bypassed the PD.

And the PDs are very expensive to do.

It would have to be done from scratch.

And we had a lot of discussions about it, how we wanted to do it, and we just made the decision really to go this way.

All right.

Not seeing a lot of excitement, Commissioner Lalk.

A policy in place that prevents urban land uses extending beyond College Avenue in this area of Ruskin?

Or is that is generally speaking, is that College Avenue a bright line?

David Hay, planning Commissioner Staff, I'm sorry, what was the question again?

I'll read it the way I wrote it.

Just always lose myself here.

So what is the clear long-term policy boundary that prevents urban land use from extending beyond College Avenue in the area of Ruskin and why is this parcel um on the wrong side of that line despite being in the urban service area?

I don't think there's any um I don't think there's any policy restricting that urban development can't expand into Ruskin or you know further in.

There is no like drawn line anywhere.

But I I think when staff looked at it, the physical constraints of being at the end of a road and that the you know it it may, you know, staff might have looked at differently if that north-south road existed, and that but on the on the east side, but it's it it isn't there.

So when we were out there, we looked at the potential impact for a and I know this applicant is not pursuing a multifamily, but we have to look at all the potentials on there.

Staff had to look at is this appropriate to put it to start basically an expansion at the end of a dead-end road instead of a more maybe a logical transition of college, maybe the parcels south of College Avenue, like directly with a vehicular access from college, so it's not intruding into a like an established neighborhood.

I'm surprised we keep referring to it as a dead end road when an existing right-of-way exists.

So if we were to change the land use designation from a from a long-term standpoint and some planned development were to happen, that right-of-way would be utilized and the developer would likely have to add some sort of access using that public right-of-way that exists today.

Well, so to say it's a dead end, I don't know is necessarily accurate.

It's there, it's designated for public use, and it can be expanded if the county would deem it so in whatever zoning or whatever process takes place.

So I don't know if it's necessarily accurate to say it's on a dead end road.

Well, in our view, there's no there's no uh documented plan anywhere within the county to improve that road.

There's also a question of whether it is actually wide enough to meet current standards for roadways under today's standards.

So there may be right away or the road itself, sorry to interrupt you, David.

The right-of-way is not wide enough.

The physical right-of-way may not be wide enough to do that.

To fit the standard uh county road.

So there if if the county found money and designated that as a long-term improvement, there may have to be property acquisition to get it to the appropriate size.

There's a lot of maze.

Do we know for sure what that right-of-way exists?

Because I don't want it in the staff report and staff telling us we're on a dead-end road when we have a public right away that exists today, and if it did go to some sort of site plan and it went through a development process through the to the multitude of layers of the county with permits and the developer pays for some of those upgrades, it's a road that exists today from a right-of-way standpoint.

So do we know how wide that row is or do we not?

Um I would have to look.

I don't have, but when we when we measured it on our computer, it was about 30 feet.

Okay.

I agree with you from an access standpoint and staff's finding, but when I hear that there's a public right away that exists today and it's not a dead end as uh portrayed in the staff report, then it gives me some pause and makes me reconsider my initial thoughts on this.

I uh just to we always look at the physical actual roadways that are improved, and then we also look at any uh documented plans by the county for improvements.

If it doesn't fall within one of those, staff usually interpret it as it's an unimproved right-of-way, so there's no access, current access to it.

And when we describe it as a dead end road, it's it it's in staff's view currently it's is a dead end road.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Sure.

All right.

Yes, Commissioner Siever.

Um, Mr.

Pressman, just for everyone's um information, could you do me a favor and explain why a PD is expensive or too expensive or too cumbersome?

Well saying we had a lot of discussion about it, but taking vacant land from scratch, not even a survey.

Um there's just a tremendous cost for surveys, environmental, civil engineers.

Um for a lot of people it just gets cost prohibitive.

So it it was not an easy decision to make, but that's what we decided to do.

Are environmental reports and civil engineering required in order to apply for a PD?

Oh yeah.

Um the PDs are going through month after month of review.

The standards are very high.

Um they just require a tremendous amount of uh planning and details.

What would you say in your opinion?

You've been doing this for a long time.

It was the question.

What would you say in your opinion?

You've been doing this for a long time is the cost, you know, for to a client, just for my own curiosity purposes for it.

Could be anywhere from 30 to 50,000 dollars, could be more.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

No, I think his lights just on.

Commissioner Kugel, you don't have a question, do you?

Yeah.

No.

Comments from the commissioners going once, going twice.

Commissioner Lincoln.

I guess I'm just gonna uh note um some of the agency comments and in particular the the the limited capacity that's present there now.

Um it will be a concern for my decision.

All right.

There are any other comments from the commissioners.

Going once, Commissioner Bowden?

The thing that I uh heard and also read in the report that that you know, I know City got different the petitions on, but then and also know the area.

They are a number of non-conforming businesses in those areas.

So you know that kind of sways me to you know not want to overturn the staff's uh findings.

All right.

Are there any other thoughts or statements, Commissioner Laup?

I'll just say this.

I usually don't tip my hand these days, but I'm gonna vote with staff on this, but I'll just say from a move forward standpoint.

The the in the previous report to this, we noted a future road expansion on state state highway 60.

Uh, we didn't talk specifically about that right-of-way that existed, and we're obviously charged with long-term vision here.

And so when we look at roads that are adjacent and around it, I think it's appropriate to like designate what they could be if we go through a development, a full development process, and we would blow this property out and not hang maybe staff recommendations on a dead-end space that necessarily may not be a dead-end space.

I think it's important to look at the holistic plan long term and not just today, and make our decisions on what is there today.

I agree that the access isn't right today.

I agree that the uh it is on a current dead-end road, but there is a public right of way that exists today that could be widened in service and it's in the service urban service area.

So I think we may have just kind of missed the mark on that one.

And I think it's important to think long-term around what that property is gonna look like potentially 5, 10, 20 years, not just what exists today.

Good points.

A way to be brave and tip your hand, Commissioner Lowe.

It's a new you this year.

All right.

There are any other comments, questions, thoughts, statements from the commissioners.

Going once.

Going twice, then I am going to close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item.

Commissioner Lincoln.

Um I'll make a motion to find HC CPA 2530 inconsistent with the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Second motion.

All right.

Which one of you I heard to flip a coin over there, Commissioner Bowden?

All right.

A second to that motion by Commissioner Bowden.

Any questions, comments, or statements from the commissioners before we take our vote.

And I would vote roll caller, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

Then we'll just kick it on over to the clerk for a roll call vote on this one.

Bowden?

Yes.

Hardinas?

Kona?

No.

Kugler?

Yes.

Lincas?

Yes.

Lauk?

Yes.

Seben?

Yes.

Joseph?

Yes.

Motion carries seven to one.

Commissioner Kona voted no.

All right.

Yes, Commissioner Sieben.

Um I don't know if this is within our purview, but you know, I like to do things that aren't within our purview necessarily.

Um, I I I find that you know the city and the county do tend to prefer PDs, I think in certain circumstances, and I think there is some pressure, you know, to um pursue that path.

I think Mr.

Pressman's point is well made that it's you know potentially burdensome for a lot of people uh in trying to do what they can with their land and create a highest and best use.

Um I wonder if there's anything that can be researched that could provide us with some alternative standards potentially or some you know flexibility in terms of what needs to be required to pursue a PD, if this is the path that we're gonna continue to want to take.

Um I just think that that's maybe something we could put some thought into, and maybe that's a recommendation to the city or the county um to do some research on that.

But I don't know if you guys have thought about that previously.

Yeah, so um it's interesting you say that.

Um back in 2008 when we um updated the plan then, there was a lot of discussion about the number of times that the plan called for a PD to occur, particularly in these mixed use categories.

And um so we wrote in some language that allowed for and called for the county to establish standard zoning districts that aligned with them with the mixed use land use categories.

That was in 2008.

Um when we updated the plan this last time in what was that 20 we finished it in 24.

They had not done that, so we took that language out.

Um, but uh we we had the idea that the PD part of this would sunset back in 2008 because we recognize that PDs are more time and money and all of those things.

Um yes, we would be happy to have a conversation with the county about if there is a a different approach as it relates to these categories.

Um it is in the land development code that is the size threshold for that is two acres.

Um we have a different threshold in the plan for when it is required that they actually do a mix of uses on the site that's much higher.

So that could be a possibility to increase the size threshold so smaller developments like this property would not be required to do a PD.

I mean, there are a lot of different ideas that come to mind.

So at any rate, yes, we'd be happy to explore that.

I'd also like to make that recommendation um that we maybe consider that for the city as well.

So my understanding is that the city is part of their land development code rewrite, is very actively looking at that.

Um we have not seen any of the the drafts of that code, but I think that was one of their goals of that rewrite was to reduce the amount the reliance on the PD process.

Is there anyone here from the city who can speak to that?

Not tonight because there aren't any city items.

Okay, we could um talk to them about that as well.

Okay, thank you.

All righty.

One else now?

Okay.

Then we will thank everybody for their information.

Um, you still have one more stop at the final decision makers, so make sure you show up to the board of county commissioners at point in time.

This isn't the final, so you still got more to go.

So all right.

Next up, we have item two D, HCCPA 25-31.

Comprehensive plan map amendment 12780, Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard and 2922 Shady Acres Road, and the presenter is Tyreek Royal.

Good evening, everyone's our Royal Planning Commission staff, and today I'll be presenting HC CPA 2531, uh 12780, Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard and 2922 Shady Acres Road.

This request is privately initiated, small scale map amendment with approximately 4.4 uh five acres.

Uh the course is to change the land use designation from residential one to light industrial.

The location of the site is in the eastern portion of the unincorporate Hillsburg County.

It's uh within the rural area and within the limits of the South and Romango community plan.

This is the aerial photo of the site outlined in pink, is located north of Dart uh Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard.

The surrounding area exhibits a mix of land uses nearby development, including single family, mobile home parks, as well as a corridor along MLK that contains several long established industrial, commercial, and utility related uses.

A railroad track runs parallel to MLK to the east of the subject site.

It's a U-Haul rental facility, vehicle storage area, and RV storage with uh repair options, operations.

Further east is Tampa Bay Fisheries, uh directly west of the site is a public communications tower.

These are photo views looking towards the subject site.

Um, Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard is behind the camera.

This is looking towards MLK.

Um the subject site is behind the camera.

You can see the CSX railroad track in the view.

And this is looking towards shady acres and MLK.

The subject site is to the left.

The site is in the res one future land use category, allows for the consideration of agricultural farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, multi-purpose projects.

Commercial uses are subject to locational criteria.

The area designated as light industrial further east along MLK is Tampa Bay Fisheries.

You can see that here.

Um has been in operation for nearly 30 years.

The applicant is requesting change of future land use category from res one to LI.

The LI allows for consideration for agricultural, light industrial uses, such as processing, manufacturing, recycling, and storage of materials.

That's the predominant use, including support offices, rare housing, and retail uses.

Here's the impacts.25 FR or approximately 48,000 square feet to a 0.75 FR or approximately 145,000 square feet.

We sent this out for agency review, and uh we received comments from the Hillsborough County Community Infrastructure to Planning Department, which combinated that based on traffic analysis, there is not adequate capacity to accommodate the additional trips except for the segment uh on MOK from Valrico Road to Macintosh Road.

The Hillsborough County of Office of Emergency Management accommodated that the proposed amendment does not align with the goals and objectives outlined in the Hillsborough County local mitigation strategy.

Common submission uh concerns for public drinking water risks of contamination from residential to light industrial land uses.

The following policies were considered by planning commission staff in evaluation of this amendment.

And planning commission staff has reviewed the proposed application and found it to be inconsistent based on the goals, objectives, and policies of the Hillsboro County comprehensive plan, including objective 1.2 related to development pattern expected in the rural area, rural areas intended to accommodate long-term agricultural uses, large lot residential development, and the preservation of undeveloped natural areas.

While specific non-rural future land use categories may exist in the rural area, the proposed amendment to light industrials significantly increase the maximum intensive commercial and industrial development potential beyond what's typically contemplated in areas that are more rural in nature.

Although light industrial uses exists further east and a communication tower are located to the west, the predominant land use pattern surrounding the subject site consists of single family residential and agricultural uses.

The resonate requested LI designation would not complement or appropriately integrate with the existing rural uh character.

Flu policy 4.8.1 requires high-intensity non-residential development, um, be access located external to emerging and established residential neighborhoods and access by oratorial or collector roadways.

While the subject's property has frontage along MOK, which is an arterial road raid, the site is not external to residential neighborhood.

And with that, Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment HCCPA 2531 be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the owner of Corporate Hillsburg County Complet.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have a presentation?

Bear with me one second, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Good evening, Ms.

Chairman and Board Members.

Todd Pressman, 2002nd Avenue South, number 451 St.

Petersburg.

This is HCCP 25-3.1 with a companion 25 1281.

We're located in the general Sefner Dover area as you can see here on MLK Junior Boulevard, a little closer.

We are located east of L Week Road and west of Macintosh Road on 574.

And this is as the property appraiser has it along MLK Boulevard.

Site is actually composed of two parcels, both under the same ownership.

The issues are Res 1 to LI.

Again, there's a zoning companion from AS1 to CI.

The site is approximately 4.45 acres.

When you look at the zoning map of the area, you see that it is intensive.

The site is designated in white, a site.

You have a CI type zoning use on one side, and you have a CG zoning, CN zoning, PDC, which is a commercial zoning, older designation, and two manufacturing categories.

The actual existing uses is a radio tower complex abutting.

And then there are a number of truck uses, which I'll show you by photos, that extend uh to the uh east.

And planning commission recognizes this in the report tell you report to you, they tell you that uh it is a site that care that is a corridor along Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard that does contain several long-established industrial, commercial, and utility-related uses, and that a railroad line parallels the boulevard.

When you look at the future land use mapping, you have LIP on one side and LI to the other side, not abutting, of course, but on either side of the uh site before you.

And this is substantiation of the PDC for the commercial use on one of those zoning uh categories I showed you, which allows a wide range of uh commercial uses.

Now, importantly, abutting on the west was a special use approval, 070326, which uh is and referred to as a radio tower farm is sometimes what it was referred to.

But the planning commission notes in regard to that use of getting a gun budding on the west, is that uh is a site for public communication towers, which are typically located adjacent to or within higher intensity commercial or industrial areas due to their infrastructure requirements.

So approval abutting west is a very intensive use already.

And at that time, the planning commission development services and ZHM all approved that use.

And now we're looking at abutting east.

So you can see we have a very intensive trucking use to the east.

This is right across that small shady hills road.

And then existing on CG, the next Eastwood eastward would be this site, again, another trucking use, and existing on CG eastward again is this trucking and uh U-Hall retail use.

So again on the zoning map, you see that intensity.

On the other side of the street is the CXX railroad track, a railroad corridor, which runs along the roadway.

You can see it here.

And the planning commission notes again a railroad runs along, a railroad track runs along MLK Junior Boulevard, reflecting the area's role as a transportation and service corridor.

So it is a very intensive corridor on traffic counts.

It's between 14,000 and 11,000 a day.

It is part of the truck route plan for Hillsburg County.

And I think it's important.

This slide is not titled well.

Let me explain what this slide is saying.

When we came in for rezoning for the site, planning commission made a recommendation.

I think it's very important, the findings of the planning commission on the rezoning at that time, which is that development relates to the Brahmin, it relates to the predominant character of the surroundings.

It's a reasonable compatible fit, so already surrounded by a mix of higher intensity uses.

Goal three of the community plan directs commercial development towards US 92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard Corridors, and they found it compatible.

They're referring to Cefner Mango Community Plan goal three, specifically that commercial development should be directed to Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, which is exactly what we're on, which is a very intensive roadway, and as your staff indicates, is a very intensive corridor along with the railroad track.

Goal three, commercial development should be directed to it and encourage revitalization, development of older existing commercial areas and uses, which I think is this area.

We also have developed uh significant support for the request uh with these petitions, as you can see here signed by the property owners, which relates to all of the virtually all of the abutting owners and a few more of the site.

And again, on the other site is the radio tower uh farm, uh which is the intensive use.

So the site is surrounded either by supporters or intensive zoning, intensive zoning or intensive use.

So that, Mr.

Chairman and board members, we appreciate your attention.

As for your support, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions, and a reminder on this one also that if we're going to overturn staff's inconsistence or vote in opposition to staff's inconsistent, we're definitely going to need some policies, objectives, goals, possibly from community plans.

Yes, Commissioner Lauk.

Question for staff.

Regardless of this application, do we feel like the adopted future land use of res one is appropriate for this area today?

And I don't just mean this parcel, but I mean this corridor.

So there is a commercial corridor along MOK.

Um, I think it's important to note that the specific use uh of commercial is allowed in the res one.

Um I think a change to light industrial is too intense of a future land use category, especially with the current esta uh development pattern that we see in this area, specifically in the rural area.

Ms.

Ornita.

The only other thing that I would add, because I think that's a a really good point that Tyreek makes that the residential categories do allow non-residential uses like offices and commercial along a corridor like this.

Um but is that this area is a part of the urban expansion area that we're studying.

Um so it it is probably an area that over time will transition in some way.

We just haven't completed the study to determine how thank you.

All right.

Are there any other questions or comments on this one?

Yeah, Commissioner Kugler.

Uh yes, it's just just a thought, and this is far probably farther into the future, but um a lot of our cop plan does look far into the future.

And the thought is that at some point uh Tampa's expanding, plant cities expanding and they're expanding toward each other.

At what point does Tampa swallow up Plant City or vice versa if we don't think ahead and and start to create other corridors that uh provide uh a separation of of space?

Um so you know, maybe you don't notice it in one moment, but at a certain point you lose enough of this, and then you see that you've you've lost the identity of the different communities.

And that's that's I think part of why why our comp plan exists is to keep those um those stabilities in place to some extent and manage growth.

Good thoughts.

Commissioner Lincoln.

Yeah, I would just say those are that's an excellent point, and I think it builds on um what Ms.

Ornita said, because I think that this area is likely to change and and a careful look in the future.

That a comprehensive study and a comprehensive approach is probably what is called for in this area.

All right.

Questions or comments, thoughts on this one on the planning commissioners?

Commissioner Lauk, I see you moving.

I guess the last I didn't make a point last time I asked the question.

The point I would make on this is the the market is telling us exactly what this area should be because it is what it is today.

With you when you see the uses up and down this heavily traveled corridor with the railroad tracks, res one is certainly not the appropriate long-term uh land use category for this.

We can argue whether it should be an industrial or a commercial overlay, but where we sit today is is not the appropriate place.

And I think we really do need to take a long-term look at this area, and I'm glad it's it's part of the plan.

Mr.

Pressman, I see you moving over there.

You had some thoughts.

Um just to respond, if I can go back to the PowerPoint.

So just to I'm looking for the one here.

Uh I do want to remind you that there is LI to the East and there's the LI to the West.

And I think in regard to some of the comments that were made, I think the community plan policy as indicated in the rural or rural area, but I think it's very important to note the Sephner community plan notes two corridors that commercial and more intensive should be directed to.

And I think I just say the response to some of the comments, some of the good comments I heard from the board.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

No problem.

Mr.

Pressman, it's funny in my briefing, that map that you put up there is exactly the point I made to Mrs.

Ornita.

I was like, there's industrial here, is industrial there, there's a little bit of industrial there, so it kind of looks like it should, and then we had the same discussion about where it directs that sort of stuff right to MLK.

So I made almost the exact same points you're making here in my briefing.

And I also found staff's decision a little bit strange, but staff will be staff.

So I would say great minds think a lot.

Yeah.

All right.

Are there any more questions, comments, thoughts, ideas, opinions from the commissioners?

Again, remember if we're making a motion in opposition to staff or different from staffs, we're gonna need some policies, objectives, something to go with it.

So keep that in mind.

And going once, going twice on the commentary.

I will close the public comment then and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item.

Commissioner Kona.

Um which one are we on?

I'm sorry.

We are on E.

D, yeah.

On D.

Okay, sorry, I put my check down too soon.

Um I'll make a motion to find HC CPA 2531 consistent with the comprehensive plan based on the uh Sepner Mango Community Plan goal number three.

Second.

Are we okay with just one goal, Tracy?

Or do we usually want to have at least a couple two?

One of the if you have others, you would be encouraged to use all of those that apply.

All right, one's good.

That's a good one because it directs it to MLK there for the community plan.

The smallest scale.

So all right.

So we have a motion to consistency finding by Commissioner Connus signing goal three of the Sephinder Community Plan.

All right.

Is there a second out there anywhere?

Commissioner Lau, I'll second again.

All right, we have a second to that.

Oh, did you second already?

Sorry.

All right, so we have motion to consistency finding by Commissioner Kona, a second to that by Commissioner Lauk citing goal three of the Sephner Community Plan, and I'm just gonna send it right on over to the clerk for a roll call on this one.

Fowden.

Yes.

Hardinas?

Yes.

Kona?

Yes.

Kugler?

Yes.

Lencas.

Uh no.

Lauk?

Yes.

Sieben?

Yes.

Joseph?

Yes.

Motion carries seven to one.

Commissioner Link has voted no.

All righty.

Thank you very much for the information and the time.

And we will move on to our next agenda item, which is 2EHCCPA 25-33, comprehensive plan map amendment, College Avenue and 18th Street Southeast.

And the presenter is Willow Mickey.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Willow Mickey with Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 25-33, located at College Avenue in 18th Street Southeast.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 19.53 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use category from suburban mixed use six to residential twelve.

Here's the general location map.

The site is in the urban service area and is within the limits of the Ruskin Community Plan and the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

Here is an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink.

It is located north of East College Avenue, west of 21st Street Southeast, and south of East Shell Point Road.

Within the vicinity of the site, there are single family residential uses to the west, north, and east, and mobile home park uses to the west.

East of the site, there is vacant land that is owned by TICO, and further east of that, there is a parcel with heavy commercial uses that operates as an auto repair shop to the south of the site across East College East College Avenue.

There is vacant land, agricultural land, light commercial, and heavy commercial parcels.

Here we have some site photos.

This photo is looking at the site from 18th Street Southeast in East College Avenue intersection.

The site is on the right.

This is looking at the law office directly across from the site on 18th Street Southeast.

This is looking down Third Avenue Southeast site is on the right.

And this photo is looking onto the residential that is adjacent to the site.

And the site is to the right.

Surrounding land use categories include SMU 6 on all sides of the subject site, with residential six to the northwest and residential four located further south on the site south side of seven 11th Avenue Southeast.

There is public quasi public located north of the site on the north side of East Shell Point Road.

While not shown on this particular map, there is residential 12 located approximately one mile west of the site along East College Avenue and commercial mixed use 12 located further east near the I-75 corridor.

This slide um the request is to change the site to residential 12, which allows for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use development.

This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested land use change.

Currently under SMU 6, the site can be considered for up to 117 dwelling units and 425,363 square feet of non-residential.

The change to residential 12 would allow for the consideration of 234 dwelling units and 425,363 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment would allow for an increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density.

This proposal has been reviewed by the commenting agencies, which you can find in your packet under the agency review section.

There were no objections, however, the Hillsborough County Fire Rescue Department commented that this amendment may have a significant impact on Hillsborough County fire rescue response times due to the number of potential dwellings and increase in traffic patterns.

The community and infrastructure planning department commented that based on the traffic analysis, there will be adequate capacity to accommodate the additional trips generated by the proposed flu on all impacted roadway segments, except for a few segments that are located east of the site along State Road 674.

While formatting our recommendations, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request.

Though the request is related to several general policies, staff found nine main areas of consistency.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objective and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Flu's objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.5 relate to the urban service area.

Objective 2.2 and policy 2.2.1 pertain to the future land use categories that establish permitted land uses.

The proposed uses for the site align with the Res 12 category and is consistent with these policies.

Objective 2.3 and policy 2.3.9 outline the utilization of density and intensity requirements to encourage growth in efficient and predictable predictable patterns throughout Hillsborough County.

The proposed amendment from SME 6 to Res 12 would allow for a residential density that is compatible with nearby development and appropriate for the surrounding land use context.

The proposal is also consistent with Objective 3.1 and its associated associated policies related to compatibility.

The proposed Res 12 designation is compatible with surrounding land uses in the evolving character of the College Avenue Corridor from largely low density residential and agriculture uses to a more integrated mix of residential, commercial, and community mixed use development.

Objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 emphasize the importance of enhancing and preserving the existing neighborhoods and communities.

The uses that are permitted within the Res 12 category are complementary with and are generally similar to the uses that exist currently surrounding the site.

This land use is expected to effectively integrate with the surrounding area and provide appropriate transitions of use, ensuring that the development will be cohesive with the region and support the development pattern along the corridor.

Objective 6.3 encourages clustering to ensure that development will occur in a manner that protects existing natural resources and retains the character of and the ability to maintain the areas surrounding those natural resources.

The proposed Res 12 category would support this approach by allowing the development to be concentrated on the upland portions of the of the site and therefore protecting the natural resources on the property.

Policy 1.2.3, the mobility section prioritizes projects that enhance multimodal access to parks, recreation, healthcare, healthy food, better job schools, and other community elements.

This policy is supported by the proposed request as development site location along a major transportation corridor, would provide access to a wide range of amenities and services.

The proposal is also supported by the housing section, which promotes a variety of housing options, in fill development within the USA, and housing that is well served by transportation infrastructure and services.

The Ruskin Community Plan has the intent of uses in the North Sorry, thus the proposal supports the plant plan by aligning with the intent of uses in the Northeast Ruskin Character District by allowing CLESO development, which preserves the on-site wetlands while still achieving the desired residential density, and by aligning with the desired uses along College Avenue.

With that, planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

That concludes my presentation.

I'm here for any questions.

Alright, does the applicant have a presentation?

I was like, yeah.

What do you say for me?

Okay.

Is that like correct?

Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive.

Um, here with the plan amendment request.

I'll skip some of these locational details out of respect for everyone's time.

Um, I did just want to note that because this is the area was a little bit zoomed in, but this site is just a mile and a half from I-75, so really close to an amendment that you all saw earlier this evening.

It's just under 20 acres.

Um, again, there's a wide range of uses there.

There's single family residential, there's commercial, um, and then some mobile home parks as well.

Um, this title bar incorrectly references Res 9, but this request is to REST 12.

Um, the table is correct.

So we're essentially requesting an increase in the amount of density.

Um, in all transparency, we started out with CMU 12 as a request for the site.

After some discussion with staff, I think there was maybe a concern about an increase in FAR with the CMU 12.

So we ended up switching to Res 12 so that that FAR ceiling stays at point five, which is what's allowed today.

Um, in terms of permitted uses, um, essentially the same categories for the most part that are allowed today.

So the main difference there is just an increase in the density.

Um, we had a host of just justification points in our project narrative, but I've only highlighted a couple um this evening for you all that we feel are significant.

Um, the first, and this was mentioned in staff's report as well, but we have a pretty significant wetland footprint on this site.

Um, the assemblage is outlined there in yellow, and you can see the wetland footprint in green.

Um, and we feel that strategic development respects those natural resources.

And so, with an increase in density, as mentioned in staff's report, we could cluster that density on the upland area and do our best to minimize any impacts to the wetlands.

Uh the next point is in regards to housing, and again, this was touched on a little bit earlier in one of the presentations before.

Um, but College Avenue has seen um an explosion of growth kind of in recent years, and so there's been some new employment centers that have popped up there and come online, and as a result of that, people need a place to live that work there.

Um the Moffitt facility was already mentioned earlier this evening, but that's a 75,000 square foot ambulatory cancer center that provides a host of services there on site, and there's also some large-scale distribution logistics fulfillment centers in the area.

Um, there's an Amazon fulfillment center, it's 1.3 million square feet, just under two miles northeast of the site.

Um, so this area is employing um a lot of the residents of Hillsborough County.

And I think this is a great aerial to show.

It's a little bit more zoomed out.

Um in this picture that there's a decent footprint of single-family homes and some single family residential neighborhoods, but as you can see just from a quick glance, I think this area is is missing kind of that piece in the middle of multifamily density.

Um again, I mean, not everybody can is in that same demographic and purchasing a home, and so I think that it's important um for us to have some of those higher density residential categories in the area so that we can provide um apartments and rental housing there as well.

So um I know that staff went through a really glowing consistency report with um a lot of different policies and objectives.

Um these were pulled from the staff report and um did want to conclude with as Willow mentioned that staff found this application consistent.

So I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have, but that's concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

All right, we didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one, so I will turn it over to the planning commissioners for questions, comments, discussions, thoughts on this one.

Everybody seems pretty satisfied, all right.

Go on once going twice.

Someone wanna close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners.

Commissioner Lau.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Move we find CPA 25-33 plan and board to the board of commitments.

Second.

All right, we got a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lauk is second to that by Commissioner Kugler.

Any questions, comments from the commissioners before we take our vote?

That would all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

Motion carries unanimously.

All right.

That was an easy one.

All right.

Next up we have item number two F, HCCPA 25-34.

Comprehensive plan map amendment 8400 West Waters Avenue, and the presenter is again Willow Mickey.

Good evening, Willow Mickey with Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 2534, located at 840 West Waters Avenue.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 41.92 acres.

The applicant is requesting the change the future land use category from residential 9 to residential 16.

Here is the general location map.

The site is in the urban service area and within the limits of the town and country community plan.

Here is an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink.

It is located north of Westwaters Avenue, west of Pinehurst Drive, and east of Sheldon Road.

The surrounding area is primarily single family residential with multifamily residential uses immediately to the east.

The upper Tampa Bay watershed lies to the west and northwest with additional mobile home park uses on the west side.

Light commercial uses are located to the south and southeast of the site along both sides of Westwaters Avenue, as well as to the west around the intersection of Sheldon Road and West Waters Avenue.

Here we have some photos of the site.

This is looking at the entrance from Westwaters Avenue.

This photo is looking onto the site further down from the entrance, still from Westwaters Avenue.

And then this is looking at the second entrance on the site further down.

This is a photo looking at the Tampa Family Health Center that is approximately 600 feet to the left of the site.

And here we're looking at retail across the street from the site, approximately 350 feet from the site.

The site is in the Res 9 future land use category.

This category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use development.

Surrounding land use categories include the Res 9 category, located at the east and west of the subject site, with Res 12 further to the west.

To the east beyond the Res 9 are office commercial 20 and residential 20 categories.

Residential 6 surrounds the site to the north, northeast, and northwest, while residential 4 and residential 2 are located south of the site.

The request is to change the site to residential 16, which allows for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use development.

This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested land use change.

Currently, under Res 9, the site can be considered for up to 377 dwelling units and 913 and 17 square feet of non-residential.

The change to residential 16 would allow for the consideration of 670 dwelling units and 913 and 17 square feet of non-residential.

The proposed amendment would allow for an increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density.

This proposal has been reviewed by the commenting agencies, which you can find in your packet under the agency review section.

There were no objections, however, the Hillsborough County Fire Rescue Department commented that this amendment would have a significant impact on response times as the area currently has a high call volume.

The community and infrastructure planning department commented that based on the traffic analysis, there will not be adequate capacity on most of the analyzed roadway segments.

And the Office in Emergency Management commented that the amendment raises concerns regarding the placement of hundreds of additional residents in an area with highly highly vulnerable to storm surge, which would increase evacuation to ban, traffic congestion, and place further strain on shelter capacity.

While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request, though the request is related to several general policies staffed on eight main areas of consistency.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.3, relate to the urban service area, and encourage medium and high density residential and mixed use development within the USA to be located along designated centers and connections, which the site is partially within.

Objective 2.2 and policy 2.2.1 pertain to the future land use categories that establish permitted land uses.

The proposed uses for the site align with the REST 12 category and is consistent with these policies.

Objective 2.4 and 2.5, along with their associated policies, outline the center and connections section.

The proposal meets these by encouraging higher residential density within these areas and providing diverse housing types.

The proposal is also consistent with FLUS Objective 3.1 and its associated policies related to camp compatibility.

The proposed Res 6 future land use category is compatible with the current development pattern that is seen within the vicinity of the site and would formally recognize the residential use that currently exists on the site.

Objective 4.3.5 and 4.3.12 relate to the coastal high hazard area, specifically that mobile home parks are not permitted in the CHHA.

The request is consistent with these policies as all portions of the site that were originally located within the CHHA have been removed from the CPA request.

Objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 emphasize the importance of enhancing and preserving the existing neighborhoods and communities.

The uses that are permitted with the within the RES 16 category would complement and appropriately integrate with the established residential character of the adjacent land uses.

And lastly, objectives 1.1 and 1.2 in the associated policies in the housing section.

Support a range of housing options to affordably meet the needs of current and future residents.

Specifically, manufactured and mobile homes shall be acknowledged as shall be acknowledged as a viable means to provide affordable housing.

Goal three of the town and country community plan focus on focuses on strengthening code enforcement efforts.

A high level of code enforcement is desired within the town and country area, making this request to bring the current development up to code standards.

Consistent with this goal.

With that, planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the owner incorporated Hillsburg County Comprehensive Plan.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have a presentation?

There we go.

Yep.

I got it.

Thank you.

Commissioners, good evening.

Jake Kramer with Barbara Scramer.

I want to start the application because I think there's the members in the public here that are here for this application.

The purpose of this application is to make sure that the people who live on this property can remain on the property.

It's an unusual application.

I've never seen a fact pattern quite like this.

This property is David will hopefully give us the short version of the history in a minute.

This property has over the years been permitted in different ways.

Currently it's permitted as an ALF.

The concern or the problem arose when the ALF on the property closed.

With ALFs, we count the persons on the property.

But we still have, but now we have units.

So now we're being when the ALF closed, now the property is being measured by units under the current land development code.

So our only goal here is to make sure the property is brought into the modern standards of the comp plan and the land development code.

We have filed a PD that's in process.

We've just recently gotten our DRC or initial round of comments back from staff.

So we're working that through with them.

And just big picture again, we're asking for RES 16.

We feel like even if you you took all of the grandfathering issues and keeping the people that live there now, keeping them in place.

We still think it's a reasonable request because as you can see, there's OC20 and R20, just a stone stones throw away from this property.

So with that, I'll let David give you the short version of the tortured history of this property and a little bit of planning context.

Thank you.

Good morning, David Smith, the director of development and zoning for Stern Tweaver Miller.

Jake emphasized short version, so I'll try to make it short.

This property has been uh under development since 1970.

Uh 1975 was a mobile home park.

1984, older units were replaced with larger units and structures to support the community.

Portion was started to be converted to an ALF when those ALF really started to come into vogue in that period of time.

1987, single mobile homes were converted to quad and triplex Unix.

Um the count increased to 338 with several units designated as multifamily ALF units.

And had the R3MH and mobile home RB park designation.

1990 zoning conformance, uh, many of you familiar with it was came in uh to be updated.

This site got a uh zoning conformance designation, allowing it to have 19 and 101 placed persons or a mix of uses, including mobile homes under the R3MH standards.

Um that is where really the issues started to come up.

2006, an ALF building uh special purpose built, stick built of 56 beds uh were was added to the property.

2013 was rezoned again, county property became available uh immediately adjacent.

There was no other really reasonable purchaser for it.

It was added to the site.

At that time, they recognized the ALF use.

They also recognize the individual grandfathering of kitchens and individual units.

That is actually the key issue under the uh comprehensive plan.

You can have five place persons equals one dwelling unit under the land development code back in the 80s.

The whole issue of, or actually 90s, the whole issue of if you have a kitchen, you were dwelling unit.

But in ALFs, they started allowing kitchens.

So they grandfathered the ALF units that basically had a bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchen.

And that also contributed to the situation we have today.

2020 ALF closes, COVID outbreak outbreak, very expensive proposition.

Insurance today is very expensive for ALFs.

Reintroduction is now expected.

And we filed this comp plan amendment to rezone and do a plan amendment to bring the property into compliance.

Graphically, here's the aerial history.

You can basically see over time what I described.

Probably from 1987 on, not a whole lot changed on the site other than the stick built ALF building being put in place.

There's an existing PD that I discussed.

And really the whole issue comes down to under today's standards with the individual kitchens and individual units.

Under the comprehensive plan today, without the ALF, we would only be allowed the 300 plus that staff mentioned.

The plan amendment, as noted, is only for the portion of the site outside the coastal high hazard area.

So there's about three more acres of REST 9 in the overall development, but that's not the subject of review.

So what we're trying to do is put a plan category on it that allows the 669 existing dwelling units to be recognized, allow uh the residents to remain there under a compliant development without risk of having to be move based upon code enforcement actions that would be placed.

This is really the only solution to this situation.

Consistency with comprehensive plan, um, like before, we'd cited only a few.

Uh staff has come up with many uh policies.

We're in the urban service area.

We have central water and sewer.

There's heart route bus route in front of us.

Matter of fact, there's a bus stop already existing with shelter.

Uh portion of the property in CHA was removed to be consistent with that policy.

Uh centers and connections, this is already a quarter designated where higher density residential uses are proposed.

I think I can't emphasize many more times is that nothing's really changing on this site.

It's a developed mobile home park that has multifamily rental units in a mobile, a modular home setting, and individual mobile home spaces.

And so the entire intent and purpose of this is to recognize what it is.

The zoning is trying to trying to recognize what is there and the configuration it's in to allow the residents to uh remain.

With that, I'll turn it back over to uh Jake for the community meeting we held.

Thank you, Jake Kramer again.

I just I'm putting in the record uh a summary of our community open house.

This just occurred last week and we finished it today, so we didn't have time to upload it, but we will do that tomorrow.

Um I did want to let you all know we we did get a lot of calls about this because people were understandably scared when they got this letter that these things were going on.

We had a community meeting, uh we had multiple Spanish language translators there.

Um we also had um uh our whole team there to answer questions, had really good turnout, really good feedback.

Um we got some feedback on improvements that the owner can make to the property.

Um by and large, most the people uh once they understood were doing this so that we don't have to make changes, and we got very positive feedback.

Um with that uh I'll I'll close.

Staff again is supporting this, and and um frankly, probably the most robust staff report that that I've seen in a long time.

Um staff worked really hard on this one.

It's a very long report.

So with that, we're here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we had two individuals only sign up in the public comment for this item, so I will see if they are on the line.

They signed up virtually.

I'm looking for a Pamela Conrad or a Mark Conrad.

Yes, good evening.

Yes, please go ahead.

You have three minutes.

Um I resigned in the River Ox Estate.

It is east, west.

And you actually have it listed as the second entrance.

It is not an entrance to that Rockey Creek village.

There are two entrance, two roads that lead into there.

The agreement was that one of them would be used for trucks, and the other one would stay closed because we have three streets.

We've been here since 1960.

Adding that much traffic to our area is going to be a lot.

We barely get out of our neighborhood now.

As it is, we can't go left.

We have to make a right, go to the light, make a U-turn, try not to get killed.

So it the fear is the amount of traffic you're going to add.

Can the owners sell this property and build apartment complexes?

Would that not be something they could do at a later time?

So our concern is for the resources that are going to be strapped and for the transportation and the ropes that are already not the best.

So I have no problem with them staying there.

That's their home.

I'm that doesn't bother me.

It's how is it going?

How is it going to affect our neighborhood and our ability to get in and out?

All right.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

It my husband said something about his concern was for the resources for the fire department and you know, all of the other resources that we that we need.

All right.

Was that well, I guess that's it.

All right, thank you.

All right.

That's all we had sign up in the public comment for this one.

So I'll turn it back over to you, Mr.

Kramer.

Three minute response.

Thank you.

David Smith for the record.

Um a couple things.

One, again, going back to my original theme.

669 dwelling units are there today.

629 69 units are proposed in the after.

So essentially the traffic patterns that are experienced for the last, well, won't say 50 years, but for at least last 30 years, are expected to be the same patterns.

Also, um, when the agencies reviewed this, they reviewed it as a totally new development.

So when they say there's no capacity on the road, well, these cars are already on the road.

The fire department and the sheriff's department, um, I reached out to them in the last five years.

There have been like 22 um calls to this in five years.

And the sheriff's department had 17, of which eight were referred to the fire rescue, so they're double counted.

So I think when you look at this, uh the concerns of the community relative to additional impacts.

Um, really, nothing is proposed to change with this proposal from what they see today.

The numbers on the map, you know, the letter designation, the colors that show up on the land use plan, um, that's all that's going to be out there.

Also, the access point that staff pointed out is a second access.

Correct.

There's only a we're not doing the zoning, but that road only leads to the emergency fire and service access.

That is not the resident access.

The only access we have is on Waters Avenue, and that's the main entrance.

So there will not be additional traffic in that neighborhood.

I'll be I'm fully Jake.

Thank you.

Jake Kramer again.

And and this is again really for the benefit of the public who aren't land use nerds like us who do this every day.

Um the reason we filed that PD was so that anyone in the public can look at the same document we're looking at, same document that your staff and county staff looks at, and they can see in the plan exactly what we're keeping, and it's everything that's there today, and that's all in in written conditions.

We've committed to your staff and to county staff that we will not take this uh this application to a hearing unless it's together with that PD.

Um so again, our team is here if if you all have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Over to the commissioners for questions, comments.

Commissioner Kugler.

Yes, please.

Um, Mr.

Kramer and Mr.

Uh Smith also mentioned uh that the coastal high hazard area was removed from the request.

Uh and you didn't mention a lot of sandbags.

What did you actually do to remove the coastal high hazard from the request?

It's a semantics issue.

Um 44-acre piece of property or 45-acre piece of property, the coastal high hazard areas about 2.4 acres.

So our request for a comp plan amendment is for Res 16 only on a portion of the site that is outside the coastal high hazard area.

There's a portion of the site still in the coastal high hazard area, and it's capped at the density that can have now.

By the way, we're not proposing any residential units when the zoning is heard in that portion of the site.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Were there any other questions, comments, thoughts on this one from the planning commissioners?

I'm not seeing a lot of excitement here.

So I will go on ahead, going once, going twice, close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the planning commissioners on this item.

Commissioner Kona.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, I'm very familiar with this uh area.

Um having I live probably a couple miles away from it.

So uh I appreciate the staff's um work in this.

I think this is a uh a good solution to uh a very complex um challenge.

So I'm gonna move that we approve HCCPA 2534 and find it consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And I second all right, we got a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Kona and second to that motion by Commissioner Kugler.

Questions, comments, statements from the commissioners before we take our vote.

Then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

That motion carries unanimously.

All right.

On to our next item of business 2G HCCPA 25-35, comprehensive plan map amendment 6210 County Road 579 Urban Service Area Expansion.

And the presenter is Alexis Myers.

Yes, good evening, Commissioners.

Lexus Myers Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 2535 located at 6210, County Road 579 for the urban service area expansion.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 34 acres.

Um the applicant is requesting to expand the urban service area.

This amendment is associated with HCCPA 2536, um, which is a request to change the future land use category from residential four to suburban mixed use six.

This is the general location map.

As I mentioned, this amendment is associated with HCCPA 2536.

It is in the rural area and within the limits of the Tonoda Sassa Community Plan.

It is located north of East Light Avenue and west of County Road 579.

Here is the area of the site.

The site is online in pink, and the blue line indicates the urban service area boundary.

The subject property is the Lazy Days RVs of Tampa.

The site has wetlands and is in the evacuation zone E and FEMA flood zone X.

There is a RV uses and agriculture to the west.

Um single family uses are to the north and west.

Um the Hillsborough Heights landfills directly east across County Road 579.

Industrial uses are to the north, and lastly, there are commercial uses to the north and south, um, just within the urban service area.

Here's some photos.

This is looking onto the subject site from County Road 579.

And this is also looking onto the property from uh County Road 579.

This is looking west of the subject site from County Road 579, and then this is looking east from the subject site.

And then this is uh directly east, which is the Hillsburg Heights uh landfill.

Next are the impacts.

This amendment would bring 34 acres into the urban service area, requiring at a minimum connection to public water and sewer.

Um the following policies were considered by planning commission staff in valuation of the amendment while formulating our recommendation.

PC staff reviews all related policies uh regarding the proposed requests.

Though the request is uh related to several general policies, staff found six main areas of consistency.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan.

The county's comprehensive plan requires that proposed amendments to the urban service area demonstrate that certain criteria are met before an expansion into the USA can occur.

And the request met the criteria outlined in future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.9.

The subject site is immediately adjacent and contiguous to the urban service area, which is directly south of the property.

Um the lazy days RVs of Tampa Supercenter includes property located to the south, identify as folio number 62934 dot 000, a portion of which lies within the urban service area.

Additionally, the request is consistent with objective 1.3 and policy 1.3.2 as a part uh as the property is located within the area identified by the Hillsborough County comp um Hillsborough County Planning 2050 projections, um, the kernel density analysis as having the potential to accommodate higher density development, uh further supporting the appropriateness of the requested changes.

Objective 3.1 directs that new development recognizes the existing community and be designed in a manner that is compatible to the established character of the surrounding neighborhood, as further defined in uh policy 3.1.3.

As noted, the subject site is directly contiguous to the established urban service area and is surrounded by a combination of mixed uses, commercial, public quasi public, and residential development.

Similar land use intensities, including suburban mixed use six and community uh community mixed use 12 future language designations are located immediately to the south across Light Avenue, reflecting an established uh pattern of urban scale development that a proposed boundary expansion would logically extend.

The proposal is also consistent with the following objectives and policies.

Objective 6.1 of the comprehensive plan, which encourages um growth that is sustainable and resilient while protecting environmental environmentally uh sensitive resources.

Lastly, the proposed urban service area expansion alliance with the Tonotus ASA community plans goals of preserving and enhancing Tonosa's uh unique character and sense of place, supporting a diversity of housing types and living arrangements, and accommodating commercial and employment uses that are compatible with the surrounding area.

And with this planning uh planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsburg County Comprehensive Plan.

And this concludes my presentation for ACCPA 2535.

Thank you.

All right.

Does the applicant have a presentation?

Okay, Commissioners Goodyean and Jake Kramer again.

Uh Mr.

Chair, with uh your permission, I'm I'm just gonna give uh for both the applications.

I'm gonna run through my presentation now.

I think you need that to get all of the context of the USA and the future land use map amendment.

All right.

Yeah, for if we could do it in 15 minutes.

I'll keep it in time.

So our our whole whole team is is here today.

Um this is a uh a logical expansion of the current uh USA.

We're within the the study area that your your team is already looking at today.

And I think what you'll see when I show you the history is that this property probably should have been included in in the USA from from day one.

But we're on 579, obviously, uh just north of the interstate.

And when you look at the location map, you can see, and and I know that you all are familiar with this because you've had uh several applications uh over probably over the last year dealing with this 579 corridor.

And I know you've struggled with some of those applications, and and I hope I hope you don't struggle with this one, uh, because we're we're right across the street from the county landfill.

Uh we're um we're right in the middle of this uh commercializing and really this industrializing corridor.

I did want to let you know we ex we purposely excluded uh a pretty large portion of this parcel from this request, and the reason was uh that land in purple is going to be uh open space, uh wetlands and environmental lands, and uh the buffer to the the uh single family homes to the west as well.

So yeah, we didn't want anyone to be worried that they might potentially have industrial all the way up to their doorstep one day.

So with that, you can see here the the current versus the proposed expansion.

And as you all know, the the USA was adopted in 1993.

Well, that's relevant because it this this PD came along very shortly thereafter, and then there's some other interesting elements we'll get to.

Um but but this PD came along, part of the property was in the USA boundary.

Um so you can see today we've got part of the properties in the USA, part of the property is not, and we have multiple different land use categories we're dealing with.

So here you can see the very odd shape of of this PD boundary that was approved in 1998, so just after the USA was uh came into existence.

And that PD uh requires this property to be connected to water and wastewater.

Um so that's why I say it it everyone sort of recognized back then that this property was appropriate for providing utilities to, and it's a little bit of a mystery to me why it wasn't included from day one.

Uh ultimately the property was developed.

This particular part of the lazy days property um is the is the RV resort portion, and so it is connected to utilities today.

You can see that here.

Again, it's within that urban expansion boundary that you all are taking a look at now.

And it's within the Thanotus Asset Community Plan, which importantly recognizes 579 south of Pruitt as this commercial corridor, it's this industrializing corridor as you all well know.

Um and and then I didn't know this, but doing our research we found that back in 1995, again, uh thinking about when the USA came into existence, um, this body back then sort of recognized this back then seemed to be an evolving corridor.

So here's where you can see the really the intensity of of this area that might not be apparent when you just look at an aerial photo.

But you can see you've got Gatorford, the very large lazy days PD already.

We got the county's waste facility, Amazon, Cast Creed, and then up to the source, uh up to the north, excuse me, we have Florida Bio Biosolids and uh Mako Soils Recycling, which is a pretty intense uh uh composting operation.

So the USA portion of this again uh is really what I think is kind of a technical correction because everybody recognized in the 90s that this property should uh be brought into the uh or should be required to uh use county utilities.

So we've paired that, and again, I want to just get ahead of my ourselves a little bit so you can understand what ultimately what we're trying to accomplish and get to the big picture is that we're requesting SMU 6.

And and we're requesting SMU 6 because you can see uh just uh as you go just to the south.

We've got CMU 12 on the current property.

Excuse me, this is a little bit better view.

You've got CMU 12 covering a portion of the lazy days PD now, and then if you just go just a bit to the west, there's SMU 6 already there again.

The SMU 6 is already within the current PD.

And we think that SMU 6 is a better transition.

It seems like a little bit of an odd transition to me uh to go from CMU 12 all the way down to R4.

So from a compatibility standpoint, again, we were looking at is this appropriate when you consider all of the intensity in this area.

And just again to to beat this dead horse.

It's an area in transition, it has been for a number of decades, and you all have seen the applications come to you uh very recently that ultimately have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners.

So they uh we think they've set some policy direction uh agreeing with this industrializing corridor.

And then I just want to give you a couple of photographs to see the what's out there.

So this is Amazon and Castrete.

This is also on 579.

And this is on a truck route, of course.

So you know, we'll keep this short again.

We're we're asking for small expansion of the urban service area along with a category that's already within this is this existing PD.

Um we have filed a PD on this property uh so that everybody know again, everybody knows what they're gonna get when we go to the board of county commissioners.

Um so that has been filed, and we're working with county staff on that.

So uh with that uh our team is here again if you have any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

We did not have anyone sign up in the public comment for this item.

So I will turn it over to the commissioners for comments, questions, discussions.

I don't see any takers.

Commissioner Lau.

It's for the no ma'am, it's for the county the board of board now, not for not for the audience.

Okay, is this for 30?

No, ma'am 36.

No, it's just for the first one.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Commissioner Lauk.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, urban service area.

I just can't resist saying something pithy about the urban service area.

I think it's become like the wet floor sign that you see when you come into a store, everybody sees it, but everybody just tends to ignore ignore it.

So that's the only comment I'm gonna make about the urban service area request.

Not helpful, but just couldn't resist.

More and more of them.

Just couldn't resist, could you?

It's a new year and everything.

All right, are there any other questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners?

All right, going once, going twice, and I'm gonna close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this one.

Commissioner Lau.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I move we uh move HC HC CPA 25-35 comprehensive plan amendment um and forward it to the governing body for approval.

All right.

All right, we got a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lauk, a second to that by Commissioner Kugler.

Any questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote.

We'll all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

That motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Next up we have item 2H, HCCPA 25-36, comprehensive plan, map amendment 6210, County Road 579, and the presenter is again Alexis Myers.

Yes, good evening, Commissioners.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

Here to present HCCPA 2536 located at 6210, County Road 579.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 34 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential four to suburban mix use six.

This is the general location map.

This amendment is associated with HCCPA 2535 to expand the urban service area.

It is in the rural area and within the limits of the Tonoda Sassa community plan.

It is located north of East Lie Avenue and west of County Road 579.

Here is the area of the site.

The site is outlined in pink, and the blue line indicates the existing urban service area boundary.

Here are some photos.

This is looking onto the subject site from County Road 579.

This is also looking onto the property from County Road 579.

This is looking west of County Road 579, and then this is looking east.

The Hillsboro Heights landfill is directly east across Sly Avenue.

I'm sorry, uh across uh County Road 579.

Um currently the future land use designation is residential four.

The residential four category allows four dwelling units, poor gross acre, and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects.

Other future land use categories shown in this map include suburban mixed use six and community mixed use 12 to the south, public quasi public to the east, and residential one to the west.

Um the applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to suburban mix use six.

The suburban mixed use six category allows six dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, light industrial, multipurpose, and cluster residential andor mixed use.

Office uses are not subject to locational criteria.

Next are the impacts as far as existing conditions.

Currently under REST 4, the site could consider 136 dwelling units or 370 281,000 square feet of non-residential uses.

Um under the proposed future land use designation of uh SDMU 6, the site could consider 204 dwelling units or maximum intensity of 740,563 square feet of non-residential uses.

During the rezoning process, commercial locational criteria may affect the allowable square footage for potential non-development, or I'm sorry, non-residential development.

The proposed amendment will result in the increase in development potential by allowing higher residential and greater commercial intensity.

While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews our related policies regarding this proposed request.

Though the request is related to several general policies, staff found six main areas of consistency.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan.

The subject site meets the intent of Objective 3.1, Objective 4.4, and its associated policies regarding regarding compatibility and neighborhood commercial neighborhood protection.

The subject site is directly contiguous to the established urban service area and surrounded by a combination of mixed use, commercial, published quasi public, and residential development.

The site meets policy 3.1.2 and policy 4.7.4 as a transition to the SMU6 designation on the subject site in conjunction with the expansion of the urban service area.

We provide an appropriate transition intensity and density while remaining compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Oh, I apologize.

Additionally, the proposed amendment is consistent with uh future land use section objective 4.2, which stresses that the development that all development with uh within mixed use categories should be interconnected and integrated to ensure cohesive um urban growth.

As noted, the SMU6 designation is directly south to the subject site across Sly Avenue in combination with the adjacent mixed community mixed use 12 future land use category.

The proposed amendment is also consistent with objective 1.1 and objective 1.3 of the one water section of the comprehensive plan as they facilitate development in an area served by existing infrastructure while ensuring that sensitive environmental features and water resources are protected in accordance with um adopted policies and regulatory standards.

Lastly, the pro the proposal is in lines with the Tonoda Sassa community plan, uh goals of preserving and enhancing Tonoda Sassa's unique character and sense of place, supporting a diverse of housing types and living arrangements, and accommodating commercial and employment uses that are compatible with the surrounding area.

And with this, planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated counts uh and unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, and this concludes my presentation for HCCPA 2536.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kramer.

Thank you, Jake Kramer.

I'll just rest on the previous presentation and staff's excellent report.

I'm not used to having so many consistency findings in one night, so I'll I'll leave it at that.

We're here for any questions.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

We did have two individuals sign up for the public comment on this one.

So I will start with Cynthia Godwin Wilson.

Good evening, Commissioner and Board.

My name is Cynthia Godwin Wilson.

I live at 11413, Buster Bean Drive.

I've been listening to the developer and the applicant with their proposals.

I heard plenty of information about the industrial use and the improvement of Lazy Days RV Resort.

They were uh speaking of the west boundary where the environmental impact is at, where they did not want to bring industrial use all the way up to the existing residences front door.

I did not hear one word where they did not want to bring that intense improvement to the Buster Bean Drive area, and that's where I live.

My visual is Lazy Days RV Resort.

Excuse me, I'm nervous.

Um we have we live in a mobile home, our trailers hits high, so I am already able to see over the existing fence into the park so I can see everything that's going on.

There's noise and um d anyway.

My main concern is that Buster Bean Drive was not mentioned in any of the development for visual or for the industrial use coming up to their front door.

My second concern is is that uh any additional traffic to County Road 579 is going to be a very big problem because we already have a very hard time turning left trying to go northbound, and it's not so bad going uh southbound because it's an easy right-hand turn, but because of the existing store across the street from Buster Bean Drive, the new addition to Amazon, Cash Creek, and all of the other development that you have mentioned, it is an incredible impact to vehicles already.

We are just a small group of residentials who still live there.

We live there our entire lives.

We've I feel personally that I've already paid my dues.

We've paid our taxes since 1972 when we first moved on to the property, and we're still paying our taxes there today.

So, with respect, I would like for you to take a very good look at the the proposal for lazy days is good.

I like that, but if we're talking about SMU use and a possible warehouse or multi-use warehouses, that draws me into plenty of environmental concerns, even more noise.

So please consider when you move forward with this plan.

You consider those of us who are left who we feel are being commercially um impacted or squeezed out of our community when we have lived there for decades.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right.

I apologize for the outburst, but when the gentleman said uh plan 35 and 36.

I got you.

I thought I was going to miss my turn to speak.

That's why I spoke out of turn, and I apologize for that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

All right.

Next up we have Barb Allen.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Barb Allen.

Um just to pin you back off what Cynthia said.

Most of us have lived out in this area our whole our whole lives.

Um, Lazy Days has honestly been a pretty decent neighbor for us.

Our biggest concern right now is are we zone rezoning this property simply for more travel trailers and RV interests?

Or are we looking at rezoning with the potential of selling that property in the future and then having to uh deal with that additional traffic that she mentions?

As you know, Mango Road is currently just a two-lane highway.

We do battle many, many um sem ice off of I-4 coming in for the truck stops and the gas refill at Flying J and TA America.

So our biggest concern is that.

So thank you for your time, and we hope that you would consider um what you're voting for when you vote for this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Kramer.

Sure.

Jake Kramer again.

Um I just I did want to address uh a couple of the comments.

So Buster Bean is is the roadway that's adjacent to our north.

Um we have talked to the county.

Uh again, we just filed our PD, and we know we're not gonna be able to get access to that road, so I just wanted to let the citizens know that.

Um, I also wanted to let everyone know we will be having a community meeting for this project.

The reason we haven't yet is because I like to get the first round of county comments back on my PD so I don't show up at a community meeting and then inevitably get 35, 40, 50 county comments, and it is that many sometimes, and then have to make all those changes, and the citizens come back and say, you know, what you this isn't what you showed me.

So we are expecting, we're getting those comments now.

We're expecting we'll be able to have that community meeting in the next 60 days.

It sounds like I wrote these uh these these folks' names down.

We'll make sure they they get notice of that as well.

So thank you.

That's all I have.

All right, thank you, sir.

Over to our board members now for questions, comments, discussion of this one.

I'm not seeing a lot of excitement from anyone here, so I will let it go once, twice, three times, all right.

I will close the public comment on this one.

Open up two motions from the commissioners on this one.

Commissioner Lincoln.

Uh uh make a motion to find HC CPA 2536 comprehensive plan map amendment consistent with the Hillsborough Comprehensive Plan.

I second a motion.

All right, we have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lincoln, so second to that by Commissioner Bowden.

Any questions or comments, statements from the commissioners before we take our vote?

Not seeing any, then would all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

That motion carries unanimously.

All righty.

Our last agenda item for the night to IHCCPA 25-38 comprehensive plan map amendment 1017 East 92 Highway.

And the presenter is Lillianne Lennihan.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff here to present HCCPA 2538 located at 11017 East 92 Highway.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 4.36 acres, and the applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential 9 to suburban mix use six.

This is the general location map.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the Sephner Mango community plan.

It is located south of East U.S.

Highway 92, east of Williams Road, and west of East Mobley Villa Drive.

Here is an aerial of the site.

The site is outlined in pink.

The site currently has a mobile home park.

There are light commercial uses to the north, east, and west of the site with some heavy commercial to the west of the site.

Single family uses are located to the east, west, and south of the site, and there are public quasi-public institutional uses to the north and one educational use to the east of the site.

This is looking at the subject site from U.S.

Highway 92.

This is also looking directly at the subject site from U.S.

Highway 92.

This is looking east along U.S.

Highway 92 from the subject site.

This is looking directly north across U.S.

Highway 9292 from the subject site.

And this is looking to the property directly east of the subject site.

Currently, the future land use designation is residential nine.

The residential nine category allows nine dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use development.

Other future land use categories near the subject site include suburban mix use six to the north, residential nine, and community mixed use twelve to the east and the west, and urban mixed use 20 to the west.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to suburban mixed use six.

The suburban mix use six category allows for six dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, light industrial and multipurpose and clustered residential and/or mixed use.

Currently, under the residential nine future land use, the site could be considered for a maximum of 39 dwelling units or 94,960 square feet of non residential uses.

And under the proposed future land use designation of suburban mixed use six, the site could be considered for a maximum of 26 dwelling units or 94,960 square feet of non residential uses.

During the rezoning processes, commercial locational criteria may affect the allowable square footage for potential non-residential development.

The proposed amendment would decrease residential density, would not increase the potential of commercial intensity.

However, it will increase the allowable ranges of uses to include light industrial uses.

While formulating our recommendation, Planning Commission staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request.

While the request is related to several general policies, staff found four main areas of consistency.

The proposed request is consistent with Flu's Objective 3.1 and policies 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, which call for compatibility and gradual transitions of density intensity.

The proposed comprehensive plan amendment to serve ever mix use 6 is consistent with this policy direction based upon the existing development pattern of the area, which includes light industrial commercial uses to the northeast-west of the site with some heavy commercial to the west and single family family uses oriented to the east, west, and south of the site.

It is important to note that industrial uses are currently permitted on the northern portion of the subject site's folios that are currently designated as suburban mix use 6 on the future land use map.

Additionally, industrial uses may also be considered in the surrounding future land use categories along the U.S.

Highway 92 corridor, such as community mixed use 12 and the urban mixed use 20.

Future land use objective 7.1 intends to promote businesses that provide diverse employment opportunities that promote an appropriate jobs and housing balance where people can live near their workplace and that are there are enough jobs in the area to support the local population.

Given the location of the site along a designated commercial corridor and close proximity to residential neighborhoods, the amendment meets the intent intent of Objective 7.1.

The proposal is also consistent with goals two and three of the Sephner Mango Community Plan.

Goal two of the Cefner Mango Community Plan seeks to enhance community character and ensure quality residential and non-residential development.

Some of the strategies include discouraging commercial encroachment into residential areas between U.S.

92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard and south of Martin Luther King Boulevard and prohibiting flex provisions within the set within and into the Sephner Mango community plan area.

Goal three of the community plan encourages commercial development to be directed to the U.S.

92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard Boulevard corridors.

The SMU 6 category would not be encroaching into the specified residential area as the SMU 6 future land use category allows for the potential of residential development.

Additionally, the applicant is only amending a portion of the two parcels and will be leaving the existing residential nine future land use along Old Hillsboro Avenue, where residential future land use categories are in uses are currently oriented.

The Sofner Mango community plan prohibits flexes of existing future land uses and currently the existing land use pattern within the area and on multiple parcels along the U.S.

Highway 92 have split future land use destinations.

The applicant has worked with staff to request a comprehensive plan amendment to extend the SMU 6 land use instead of using utilizing flex provisions to remain consistent with the existing community plan.

Finally, the parcels are situated along the U.S.

Highway 92 corridor where commercial development is encouraged to be directed to.

The proposed map amendment would expand the suburban mixed use six future land use by approximately 500 feet into the existing site.

And the proposed amendment will allow for more opportunity and utilization of the site along one of the specified corridors in the Softner Mango community plan.

The request is also consistent with one water policy 1.3.12, which states that no additional areas shall be designated with industrial land use plan categories within the surface water protection areas.

Even though the suburban mixed use six category allows for the consideration of light industrial uses, it is currently considered a mixed-use future land use category under the comprehensive plan rather than an industrial future land use category.

Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have a presentation?

This one.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Board Members Todd Pressman, 2002nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

That was a very good report, very expensive detailed report.

Thank you.

So this is HCCPA 2538 seeking Res 9 to SMU 6 on 4.36 acres in the Softner Mango area in the USA.

A little closer you can see we're uh just off of Highway 92.

Uh you can see the future land use categories.

The area is pretty intense, CMU 12s, CMU 6, and again a CMU 12.

Current site uh is an older and moving along to other uses, uh mobile home park.

Looking a little closer to future land use categories as staff indicated to you on the south part of U.S.

On the south part of U.S.

Highway 92 is SMU 6 at this site, and again you have the CMU-12 on another site.

A little closer look.

So looking at a 500-foot extension of the SMU 6, Planning Commission notes, it is important that the industrial uses are currently permitted on another portion of the subject site that are currently designated as SMU 6 on the future land use map.

And is indicated CFD Romango community plan goal.

Commercial development should be directed to uh US 92 and MLK boulevards, and encourage revitalization redevelopment of older existing commercial areas.

Uh budding west is a very intensive uh use, both vehicles and commercial vehicles and commercial equipment.

Another view west and a budding east appears to be a pretty intensive site.

Um I did note uh a budget rental car, and it looked like other budget rental vehicles, but as you can see in the back, there's storage and use of very intensive vehicles, uh budding east.

And then you can see that same activity both to the east and west on the aerial is very evident to see.

So we have both uh intensive uh future land use categories and uses in the media area and a budding, and as the staff indicated across Hillsburg Avenue, State Route 52, State Route 92 is also uh commercial use.

Planning Commission notes uh that it is consistent with policy direction based upon development pattern in the area, which is like commercial use to the north, east and west of the site with some heavy commercial to the west.

Uh the uh roadway the site is located on is part of the Hillsborough County truck route plan and is also state principle arterial roadway, so again, very intensive.

And at this particular site, it carries approximately 15,000 vehicles per day.

So with that, Mr.

Chairman and board members, we appreciate your attention, and it's apparent there is no one here in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

As Mr.

Pressman stated, no one signed up to speak on this one, so I will turn it over to our board members for questions, comments, thoughts, discussion on this.

Mr.

Kugler.

Um yes, I I was I was interested to see how uh Ms.

Lanahan was going to handle the one water.

Thank you.

That helped explain it.

Uh that there'd be um, even though it can be industrial, it's it's going to be mixed use.

So that that that was seems like it's safeguarding.

All right.

Any other thoughts, comments, questions from the commissioners on this one?

Going once, going twice.

Everyone looking like they want to go home, so I will close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners.

Commissioner Kona.

Yeah, motion find HC CPA 2538 uh consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second.

All right.

Motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Kona is second to that motion by Commissioner Kugler.

Any questions, comments, discussions from the commissioners before we take our vote?

Not seeing any, then would all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

That motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Thank you very much for the information.

Have a good night, Mr.

Pressman.

And at 8 01 p.m., this meeting is adjourned.

Good night, everyone.